jagella
Bachelor of the Arts
Posts: 86
|
Post by jagella on Oct 25, 2017 14:17:43 GMT
The error you are making here is that you are characterizing the emerging Christian cult as orthodox Jews. Such a characterization is wrong. The early Christians differed from mainstream Judaism in many ways in both beliefs and practices. It should then be no surprise that they might create a crucified Messiah. Any shame any of them might have felt over an image of a crucified Christ would have been more than erased with the story of the crucifixion. You're seeing it my way! The early Christians wanted to have us believe that you can't keep a good Messiah down.
You need to understand that it was not too uncommon for religious followers to tell apparently embarrassing stories about their gods. For example, the god Uranus was said to have been castrated by his so, Cronos. To be consistent, you'll need to accept this story as true because nobody would make up such a shameful tale! Of course, you won't accept it as true because we both know that apparent embarrassment does not really indicate authenticity. We really don't know if the early Christians were embarrassed by the crucifixion story. How could they be? Paul trumpeted it often enough.
I should reiterate that I'm not a mythicist. I think there's an even chance that there was a real Jesus who inspired the New Testament. Historicists divest him of his many miracles and other unlikely acts to arrive at what they call the "historical Jesus." Such a Jesus is quite possible, but he's so average that it seems unlikely that he would have unwittingly started a major world religion. I think that the sloppy logic and weak evidence offered by historicists for Jesus might actually fuel the mythicist theory. I suppose few people doubted the historicity of Jesus until scholars tried to prove it.
|
|
jonkon
Master of the Arts
Posts: 111
|
Post by jonkon on Oct 25, 2017 15:53:24 GMT
"Yes, but perhaps the greatest reason these discussions never reach a "satisfactory conclusion" is that there is no proof either way. In this discussion we must rely on documents to judge if Jesus was a real guy. Those documents might be truthful in that they portray a real man, or they might be lying about his existence. It's impossible to know which conclusion is correct. That's why we're arguing the issue. With the evidence available to us, it's all we can do."
Actually, this is precisely the issue addressed by Greenleaf. Were it not for the theological implications of the gospels, there would be no question about their authenticity and authority.
"Greenleaf's expertise appears to be out-of-date."
Greenleaf's work was post-Darwin and still relevant. As recorded in the gospels, Jesus treated Creation and the Flood as historical events, thus their historicity rests upon the authority of His testimony provided by the historical fact of Jesus's resurrection from the dead.
|
|
|
Post by fortigurn on Oct 25, 2017 16:15:02 GMT
Although I respect accomplishments like earning college degrees (I've earned two degrees in business), everybody has a brain. I think you insult people telling them that they're too stupid to understand the issue of the historicity of Jesus. From what I've seen the presumed professionals make plenty of dumb mistakes (more on this shortly.) I would like to show you a few quotations from Josephus so you can analyze them with your own brain, and let me know what they mean and what light they shed on the historicity of Jesus. Would you be prepared to do That? Thanks.
|
|
jagella
Bachelor of the Arts
Posts: 86
|
Post by jagella on Oct 25, 2017 16:50:42 GMT
Sure. That's what I'm here for. I hope I get the right answers on your test. I think I'm going to like this! ("The Lord hath delivered him into mine hands".)
|
|
|
Post by fortigurn on Oct 25, 2017 17:10:14 GMT
Sure. That's what I'm here for. I hope I get the right answers on your test. I think I'm going to like this! ("The Lord hath delivered him into mine hands".)________________________ §1 Ἱκανῶς μὲν ὑπολαμβάνω καὶ διὰ τῆς περὶ τὴν ἀρχαιολογίαν 4† συγγραφῆς, κράτιστε ἀνδρῶν Ἐπαφρόδιτε, τοῖς ἐντευξομένοις αὐτῇ 5† πεποιηκέναι φανερὸν περὶ τοῦ γένους ἡμῶν τῶν Ἰουδαίων, ὅτι καὶ 6 παλαιότατόν ἐστι καὶ τὴν πρώτην ὑπόστασιν ἔσχεν ἰδίαν, καὶ πῶς 7 τὴν χώραν ἣν νῦν ἔχομεν κατῴκησε * πεντακισχιλίων ἐτῶν ἀριθμὸν 8 ἱστορίαν περιέχουσαν ἐκ τῶν παρ ̓ ἡμῖν ἱερῶν βίβλων διὰ τῆς Ἑλληνικῆς 9 φωνῆς συνεγραψάμην. §2 ἐπεὶ δὲ συχνοὺς ὁρῶ ταῖς ὑπὸ δυσμενείας 10 ὑπό τινων εἰρημέναις προσέχοντας βλασφημίαις καὶ τοῖς περὶ 11 τὴν ἀρχαιολογίαν ὑπ ̓ ἐμοῦ γεγραμμένοις ἀπιστοῦντας τεκμήριόν τε 12† ποιουμένους τοῦ νεώτερον εἶναι τὸ γένος ἡμῶν τὸ μηδεμιᾶς παρὰ 13 τοῖς ἐπιφανέσι τῶν Ἑλληνικῶν ἱστοριογράφων μνήμης ἠξιῶσθαι, 14† §3 περὶ τούτων ἁπάντων ᾠήθην δεῖν γράψαι συντόμως τῶν μὲν λοιδορούντων 15 τὴν δυσμένειαν καὶ τὴν ἑκούσιον ἐλέγξαι ψευδολογίαν, 16 τῶν δὲ τὴν ἄγνοιαν ἐπανορθώσασθαι, διδάξαι δὲ πάντας, ὅσοι 17 §4 τἀληθὲς εἰδέναι βούλονται, περὶ τῆς ἡμετέρας ἀρχαιότητος. χρήσομαι 18 δὲ τῶν μὲν ὑπ ̓ ἐμοῦ λεγομένων μάρτυσι τοῖς ἀξιοπιστοτάτοις 19 εἶναι περὶ πάσης ἀρχαιολογίας ὑπὸ τῶν Ἑλλήνων κεκριμένοις, 20 τοὺς δὲ βλασφήμως περὶ ἡμῶν καὶ ψευδῶς γεγραφότας αὐτοὺς δι ̓ 21 ἑαυτῶν ἐλεγχομένους παρέξω. §5 πειράσομαι δὲ καὶ τὰς αἰτίας ἀποδοῦναι, 22 δι ̓ ἃς οὐ πολλοὶ τοῦ ἔθνους ἡμῶν ἐν ταῖς ἱστορίαις Ἕλληνες 23 ἐμνημονεύκασιν, ἔτι μέντοι καὶ τοὺς οὐ παραλιπόντας τὴν περὶ 1† ἡμῶν ἱστορίαν ποιήσω φανεροὺς τοῖς μὴ γιγνώσκουσιν ἢ προσποιουμένοις 2 ἀγνοεῖν. ________________________ 15 Καὶ ὅτε ἀπέθανεν Ἐνεμέσσαρος, ἐβασίλευσεν Σενναχηρεὶμ ὁ υἱὸς αὐτοῦ ἀντʼ αὐτοῦ, καὶ αἱ ὁδοὶ αὐτοῦ ἠκαταστάτησαν, καὶ οὐκέτι ἠδυνάσθην πορευθῆναι εἰς τὴν Μηδίαν. 16 καὶ ἐν ταῖς ἡμέραις Ἐνεμεσσάρου ἐλεημοσύνας πολλὰς ἐποίουν τοῖς ἀδελφοῖς μου· 17 τοὺς ἄρτους μου ἐδίδουν τοῖς πεινῶσιν καὶ τὰ ἱμάτια τοῖς γυμνοῖς, καὶ εἴ τινα ἐκ τοῦ γένους μου ἐθεώρουν τεθνηκότα καὶ ἐρριμμένον ὀπίσω τοῦ τείχους Νινευή, ἔθαπτον αὐτόν. 18 καὶ εἴ τινα ἀπέκτεινεν Σενναχηρεὶμ ὁ βασιλεύς, ὅτε ἦλθεν φεύγων ἐκ τῆς Ἰουδαίας, ἔθαψα αὐτοὺς κλέπτων· πολλοὺς γὰρ ἀπέκτεινεν ἐν τῷ θυμῷ αὐτοῦ· καὶ ἐζητήθη ὑπὸ τοῦ βασιλέως τὰ σώματα, καὶ οὐχ εὑρέθη. 19 πορευθεὶς δὲ εἷς τῶν ἐν Νινευὴ ὑπέδειξεν τῷ βασιλεῖ περὶ ἐμοῦ ὅτι θάπτω αὐτούς, καὶ ἐκρύβην· ἐπιγνοὺς δὲ ὅτι ζητοῦμαι ἀποθανεῖν, φοβηθεὶς ἀνεχώρησα. 20 καὶ διηρπάγη πάντα τὰ ὑπάρχοντά μου, καὶ οὐ κατελείφθη μοι οὐδὲν πλὴν Ἅννας τῆς γυναικός μου καὶ Τωβίου τοῦ υἱοῦ μου. 21 καὶ οὐ διῆλθον ἡμέραι πεντήκοντα ἕως οὗ ἀπέκτειναν αὐτὸν οἱ δύο υἱοὶ αὐτοῦ· καὶ ἔφυγον εἰς τὰ ὄρη Ἀραράτ, καὶ ἐβασίλευσεν Σαχερδονὸς ὁ υἱὸς αὐτοῦ ἀντʼ αὐτοῦ. καὶ ἔταξεν Ἀχιάχαρον τὸν Ἁναὴλ υἱὸν τοῦ ἀδελφοῦ μου ἐπὶ πᾶσαν τὴν ἐκλογιστίαν τῆς βασιλείας αὐτοῦ καὶ ἐπὶ πᾶσαν τὴν διοίκησιν. 22 καὶ ἠξίωσεν Ἀχιάχαρος περὶ ἐμοῦ, καὶ ἦλθον εἰς Νινευή. Ἀχιάχαρος δὲ ἦν ὁ οἰνοχόος καὶ ἐπὶ τοῦ δακτυλίου καὶ διοικητὴς καὶ ἐκλογιστής, καὶ κατέστησεν αὐτὸν ὁ Σαχερδονός ἐκ δευτέρας· ἦν δὲ ἐξάδελφός μου. ________________________ §197 Πέμπει δὲ Καῖσαρ Ἀλβῖνον εἰς τὴν Ἰουδαίαν ἔπαρχον 16 Φήστου τὴν τελευτὴν πυθόμενος. ὁ δὲ βασιλεὺς ἀφείλετο μὲν τὸν 17† Ἰώσηπον τὴν ἱερωσύνην, τῷ δὲ Ἀνάνου παιδὶ καὶ αὐτῷ Ἀνάνῳ 18† λεγομένῳ τὴν διαδοχὴν τῆς ἀρχῆς ἔδωκεν. §198 τοῦτον δέ φασι τὸν 19† πρεσβύτατον Ἄνανον εὐτυχέστατον γενέσθαι· πέντε γὰρ ἔσχε παῖδας 20† καὶ τούτους πάντας συνέβη ἀρχιερατεῦσαι τῷ θεῷ, αὐτὸς πρότερος 21 τῆς τιμῆς ἐπὶ πλεῖστον ἀπολαύσας, ὅπερ οὐδενὶ συνέβη τῶν 22† παρ ̓ ἡμῖν ἀρχιερέων. §199 ὁ δὲ νεώτερος Ἄνανος, ὃν τὴν ἀρχιερωσύνην 23† ἔφαμεν εἰληφέναι, θρασὺς ἦν τὸν τρόπον καὶ τολμητὴς διαφερόντως, 24 αἵρεσιν δὲ μετῄει τὴν Σαδδουκαίων, οἵπερ εἰσὶ περὶ τὰς 25 κρίσεις ὠμοὶ παρὰ πάντας τοὺς Ἰουδαίους, καθὼς ἤδη δεδηλώκαμεν.
|
|
jagella
Bachelor of the Arts
Posts: 86
|
Post by jagella on Oct 25, 2017 21:40:24 GMT
Is this supposed to be a trick question? The text you posted mentions "Jesus Christ," but Josephus only mentioned Jesus in Antiquities Book 18, the "Testimonium Flavianum" and in Book 20. The Testimonium Flavianum says: Book 20 says: The Testimonium Flavianum I think is an obvious interpolation because Josephus, a Jew who never converted to Christianity, would not refer to Jesus as "the Christ." It therefore is not good evidence for the historicity of Jesus. The passage from Book 20 appears to be more authentic. Josephus might have made a comment about James as "the brother of Jesus the so-called Christ." I don't know if we can be too sure this is historical evidence for Jesus, however. Josephus may have known of a James, but it doesn't follow that this James was really Jesus' brother. James may have been called Jesus' brother because he was a Christian and not because he was actually a blood relative of Jesus. Another problem with Josephus is that he was not a contemporary of Jesus. He had to rely on sources that may have been Christian or based on what the Christians said and believed about Jesus. If so, then he was merely repeating what Christians said they believed. Μην προσπαθήσετε να με εξαπατήσετε!
|
|
|
Post by fortigurn on Oct 26, 2017 0:41:51 GMT
Is this supposed to be a trick question? The text you posted mentions "Jesus Christ," None of the three texts I quoted mentioned "Jesus Christ". I did not quote the Testimonium Flavianum. I did not quote that comment either. It appears to me that you cannot actually read Greek, and you do not know what these passages say or where they are from.
|
|
|
Post by fortigurn on Oct 26, 2017 1:32:32 GMT
The error you are making here is that you are characterizing the emerging Christian cult as orthodox Jews. Such a characterization is wrong. The early Christians differed from mainstream Judaism in many ways in both beliefs and practices. It should then be no surprise that they might create a crucified Messiah. Any shame any of them might have felt over an image of a crucified Christ would have been more than erased with the story of the crucifixion. He isn't making any error. Although the emerging Christians were different from mainstream Jews in some ways, they were very like them in a lot of other ways. Specifically, we know for a fact that they believed crucifixion to be extremely shameful (note that you failed to provide any evidence that they did not believe it was shameful, or that any Jews of the time did not believe it was shameful). In the New Testament the crucifixion is not only depicted as shameful, Christians even refer to Jesus' crucifixion specifically as shameful, and they describe it as so shameful that it makes it difficult to preach. Additionally, the evidence from the New Testament is that the disciples of Jesus did not believe he was going to be crucified, and that his crucifixion not only came as a shock to them but as a crushing disappointment. This does not make any sense in the context of a crucifixion they actually made up. jamierobertson has also cited the social data, which is of considerable importance here. What you are doing is equivalent to suggesting that the Millerites made up the story about their leader William Miller having made a catastrophically wrong prediction about the return of Jesus, the failure of which almost destroyed their entire movement. You need to understand that he knows all about the "apparently embarrassing stories" about pagan gods, and he also knows why they aren't a relevant parallel. If you want to understand why they aren't a relevant parallel, I can explain it to you. He has not been arguing that apparent embarrassment actually indicates authenticity. I don't think you understand the criterion of embarrassment. We know for a fact they were. Hebrews refers specifically to the "shame" of the cross. Paul himself refers specifically to the crucifixion as "foolishness" and "an offence", and describes how the crucifixion made it hard to preach the gospel message to either Jews or Greeks. I'll also comment on a point you made to Tim. He was not making an appeal to the majority (which is not always a logical fallacy, by the way), and he was not saying it provides evidence for the historicity of Jesus. He was giving a legitimate citation of consensus. Consensus is important, not because the number of people who agree necessarily means that something is right, but because of how the consensus is reached. Do you understand how academic consensus is reached, and why it is standard practice (not "desperate"), to cite it in academic literature? Do you have a university level of education? No, using the New Testament texts as evidence for historicity does not demonstrate that you don't need to have a degree in anything in order to address this issue effectively. For a start, they read the texts in Greek. Specifically, they read critical texts (I can explain to you what critical texts are if you don't know). They cross-corroborate texts with other sources of information. They use tools which are taught as standard methods of professional historiography, tools with which you are not familiar. They do not simply read the New Testament texts and say "Well this says Jesus existed and did this stuff, so obviously he did". Tim was right, your description was a caricature. Professional historiography is not about using your imagination. It's about examining the facts.
|
|
jagella
Bachelor of the Arts
Posts: 86
|
Post by jagella on Oct 26, 2017 3:06:16 GMT
I used an online language converter. I thought I saw it in there. Anyway, it's really childish to trick me with Greek text. Is that your logic? If I cannot read Greek, then I cannot understand the history of Christianity? Yes, but I did. The Testimonium Flavianum is relevant to our discussion. You know--evidence for the historical Jesus? That's what we are discussing. You tricked me! I searched high and low, but I could not find the passage you posted. I'll get back to you tomorrow morning about the other response you posted, but for now I suggest you get the chip off of your shoulder. Arrogance ≠ intelligence.
|
|
|
Post by fortigurn on Oct 26, 2017 3:35:30 GMT
I used an online language converter. I thought I saw it in there. Anyway, it's really childish to trick me with Greek text. Is that your logic? If I cannot read Greek, then I cannot understand the history of Christianity? This was not a trick, it was at test. I asked you very plainly if you were prepared to analyze a few quotations from Josephus, and you said yes. You could have refused, but you said yes. There's no trick here; I asked you if you would like to do something and you said you would. Perhaps you didn't realize I would be presenting you with Greek? I am demonstrating to you the limitations of your knowledge and skills. In particular, knowledge and skills directly relevant to the investigation of Jesus' historicity. If you can't read Greek, and if you don't realize that punching Greek text into an online language translator and making guesses about what it means isn't a legitimate method of linguistic or historical inquiry, then I suggest you have a lot to learn about the subject you want to write about. It certainly is. But I didn't quote it. The point here is that you assumed I had quoted it. You thought I had quoted it when I hadn't, and the reason why you made that mistake is that you can't read Greek. You tried to bluff your way through this, even ending your post with a sentence in Greek which you clearly didn't write yourself. It would have been better if you had responded by saying "Ok sorry but I can't read Greek, so you'll need to provide me with an interlinear text or a reliable translation of those passages, because I don't know what they're saying or where they're from". I note you made an assumption about two of the texts, but you didn't comment on the middle one. Were you unable to find anything about that one at all? There was no trick. You couldn't even find the passages I quoted, with all the resources of the internet at your disposal, yet you want to write a book challenging the professional historical consensus on the historicity of Jesus? If you don't have the basic research skills necessary to find those three passages, you most certainly do not have the skills necessary for a professional level historiographical investigation. this is what you did. 1. Looked at several texts in a language you cannot read. 2. Realized you did not know what they meant, or where they were from. 3. Attempted to translate them using an online service. 4. Realized you still didn't know what they meant or where they were from. 5. Made some (incorrect), guesses about what they could mean. 6. Failed to identify the source of each passage, and failed to discern the meaning of any of them. This is not research, and it's not the right way to use your brain. This is what happens when people are way out of their depth and don't want to admit it. I believe others here will agree that you are projecting. There's no arrogance on my part. I just know more about this subject than you do.
|
|
|
Post by James Hannam on Oct 26, 2017 9:10:51 GMT
Hi Jagella,
I am sorry for the unfriendly welcome. If it is any comfort, Fortigurn is like this to everyone, even me and I supposedly moderate this place. I'm sure he's a pussycat in real life.
Anyway, that doesn't mean their advice is not sound. The Historical Jesus is a huge field. You are obviously entitled to your opinions, but to be taken seriously you do need to do some leg work. When I decided I wanted to write a book about medieval science I took Latin to an advanced level, did a history Masters, then a history of science PhD and even then getting the book published was achingly difficult. And it was merely a popular overview of the subject rather than original research.
On Fortigurn's Josephus, if you are serious about the subject, the thought of getting stuck into Greek should really turn you on. You need to be excited that you'll be able to read these ancient texts in the original and unmediated by a translator. Lots of Christian colleges do good and open NT Greek courses. Remember though, you are just there to learn. And you'll be itching to read the ante-Nicine fathers, Josephus and other primary sources in English (cheap and good editions of most of these are available from Penguin Classics or else Abebooks for the fathers). Also, read the standard works in the field: Crossan, Koestler, Johnson, Vermes, Meier, Sanders etc. These are getting old now but remain the books everyone else seems to argue off.
As for writing a book, that's a good idea. But before that, just write. I find writing is how I think. Unless I can set something down clearly on paper I know I don't understand it. So start a blog on what you have learned each day. People will be much more interested in that than they are in yet another grand theory on Christian origins.
Best wishes
James
|
|
jagella
Bachelor of the Arts
Posts: 86
|
Post by jagella on Oct 26, 2017 15:27:46 GMT
Let's just stick with English. Everybody's knowledge and skills are limited. Можешь прочитать это? Post whatever you did quote in English, and I'll analyze it. I already answered, in English, that I could not find an English translation for what you posted. If you have problems understanding my English, then why should any of us believe you can understand Greek? Anybody with basic computer skills can copy and paste text. I didn't say that. My book doesn't really attempt to falsify the historicity of Jesus. in fact, a major portion of my book is an analysis of the gospel accounts of Jesus assuming he's a real man. I do present a summary of the mythicist position as well as the historicist position. I'm hoping that people can understand both points of view and come to their own conclusions. Actually I found plenty about Josephus including the two passages I posted. Did you read what I posted? There's two kinds of people in the world: Those (like myself) who admit they don't know everything, and then there's those who won't admit it. Speaking of failing to provide evidence, you didn't cite any passages that support your position that the story of the crucifixion was embarrassing to the Christians who wrote about it. Even if it was embarrassing to them, they may have created the story anyway. So let's take a look at the New Testament. First, all four gospels give an account of the crucifixion. The relevant passages are Matthew 27:35-56; Mark 15:24-41; Luke 23:33-49; and John 19:18-30. I know of no place in the gospels where the crucifixion was said to be shameful. If you read these passages or the accounts of Jesus before Pilate (Matthew 27:15-26; Mark 15:6-15; Luke 23:13-25; John 18:39, 40; 19:1-16), Jesus is portrayed as an innocent man who was nobly facing his death. No shame there!
But what of Paul's epistles? Let's quote 1 Corinthians 1:22-25: Here Paul clearly tells us that while the crucifixion may have been a problem for some of the Jews and the Greeks, for him and other Christians the crucifixion represents the "power of God." So you are clearly wrong that the early Christians were ashamed of a crucified Christ.
Additionally, the evidence from the New Testament is that the disciples of Jesus did not believe he was going to be crucified, and that his crucifixion not only came as a shock to them but as a crushing disappointment. This does not make any sense in the context of a crucifixion they actually made up. I'm afraid you're wrong again. The gospel writers appear to be employing a literary technique known as "irony." Irony is an unexpected consequence in a story meant to have an emotional impact on the reader. The "crushing disappointment" of the crucifixion was more than offset by the resurrection. The "high" of the resurrection is made more pronounced by the "low" by the crucifixion. If the gospels are not fiction, then they provide some good examples for story telling nevertheless. Please explain how an example of religious people creating an embarrassing story of their god is not relevant to the Christians creating an embarrassing story of their god, Jesus.
Let's look at a passage, Hebrews 12:1-2:
This passage describes Jesus as disregarding the "shame" of the cross. It does not say that his followers were ashamed of it. It really doesn't even say that Jesus was ashamed of crucifixion--only that he saw it as a shame possibly in the eyes of others. in any case, this passage actually glorifies the crucifixion as something that Jesus nobly endured to be enthroned next to God himself! What's shameful about that?
Rather than go on and on about the consensus of all of those (mostly Christian) scholars, let's look at their logic and evidence.
I believe that New Testament scholars reach their views for various reasons. Many of them work for Christian institutions and would be in big trouble there if they questioned the historicity of Jesus. Even if they're not Christians, they may have built a reputation assuming he lived and would not wish to be proved wrong about that assumption.
Yes. I have two degrees one of which is a bachelor of science degree in business administration that I was awarded in 1996. I graduated with a 4.0 GPA. I also have a degree in accounting and a diploma in graphic design.
Yes--the "facts" as proclaimed from on high by fortigurn!
|
|
|
Post by fortigurn on Oct 26, 2017 16:22:24 GMT
Everybody's knowledge and skills are limited. And we need to understand those limits before undertaking a task which exceeds them. That's the point here. You lack the skills and knowledge to perform the task you intend to undertake, unless you want to do it very badly. Apparently you don't understand that posting it in English is a complete waste of time (and you don't even know enough to specify whose translation you want, from which source texts, and why). Professional historians of ancient history deal with original sources in their original languages. If you cannot do that then you cannot analyze the texts as well as they can. Again all you are showing is that you don't even know the correct research procedures for this subject. But I asked you why. You didn't explain why. The "why" is simple; you couldn't find an English translation because you don't know Greek and you didn't know how to figure out what they meant or where they were from. I haven't had any problems understanding your English. Yes, anyone with basic computer skills can copy and paste text. But the difference between you and I is that I know what those passages say and where they came from, because I can read them and you can't. Yet you've challenged the consensus right here on this forum, and claimed professional historians "seem oblivious to the fact that the writers of the New Testament are far from expert" (which is completely untrue), and that professional historians "make plenty of dumb mistakes". You make these claims without any evidence at all, and you claim the consensus meaningless. Of course I read what you posted. I even quoted it. Again you are avoiding the point; you did not find anything about the passages I actually quoted. You couldn't even identify them. I asked you why you didn't comment on the second passage. You didn't answer. Why not? It's because you don't even know what it is or where it's from. And you didn't want to admit you didn't know Greek, so you tried to bluff it and you were caught out. In contrast, I don't go around claiming I know Hebrew (I don't), and I'm up front about the limitations of my knowledge of Greek (there are people here with better Greek than mine). Yes I did. Perhaps you hadn't read that part before you wrote this. The fact that you read the gospels and you can't see them depicting the crucifixion as shameful shows how little you know about this subject. There are indications all through the gospels that crucifixion was considered shameful by the very people who wrote the gospels. However, since the gospel texts are "high context", and since you don't know about the socio-historical context in which they were written, you don't see all the indicators the writers are giving which show they believed the crucifixion was shameful. You think that if they don't say "it was shameful", they didn't think it was shameful. Again this shows you don't understand what you're reading. Here you're completely misunderstanding the whole point of the passage. The reason why Paul says this is because he has to give Christians a reason to overlook the shame of the crucifixion. He would not have to do this if crucifixion was not considered shameful by Christians. And again, no one is saying it was Christ they were ashamed of, but the act of crucifixion. And again you ignore the fact that Paul says explicitly that the shame of the crucifixion was a significant challenge to preaching; to the Jews it was an offence, to the Greeks it was foolishness. Galatians even says the crucifixion was a curse, and that Jesus was actually cursed by it (Galatians 3:13). This is unsubstantiated assertion. You're simply making a claim without evidence. Here is the actual evidence. 1. The gospels depict Jesus as crucified. Why was this form of death necessary, if as you say the Christians believed it was a noble death and not at all shameful? How can it be a "low" if it was actually a noble "high"? 2. The gospels depict Jesus' disciples as failing to believe he was going to be crucified, and being completely devastated when he was, because they believed he was going to restore the Jewish kingdom and overthrow the Romans. You don't address this at all. 3. The gospels depict Jesus' disciples as not only amazed but completely skeptical of his resurrection. None of this is necessary for a story which is simply contrasting the crucifixion with the resurrection. There is absolutely no need for these details in such a story. Your proposed explanation (apart from having no evidence), does not actually address all the evidence. First, the earliest Christians did not believe Jesus was God. The fact that you don't know this is further evidence that you do not know enough about this subject to write an informative book. Second, there is no evidence that the followers of Attis were ashamed of his castration. There are no texts indicating they were ashamed of it, and no apologetic texts defending it. In the case of the Christians, we find clear evidence that they were deeply troubled by the crucifixion, which they found shameful, and which they knew others found shameful, and which they found was a barrier to preaching because everyone else they met also found it shameful. The text was literally written by one of his followers who refers to the cross as a "shame". The writer is literally calling the cross shameful, and saying that Jesus despised that shame. The crucifixion is explicitly identified as shameful. The writer is saying it was shameful but that Jesus disregarded that shame. This shows he believed it was shameful, and so did his followers. Actually it says the exact opposite; it says he disregarded the shame of the crucifixion. That means he found it shameful but he chose to disregard that shame. There's absolutely no mention of it being "a shame possibly in the eyes of others". No one is saying his noble endurance of it was shameful. The point is that he is spoken of as having been highly rewarded for having nobly endured something that was shameful. But you never actually do that. Good research doesn't consist of "I believe", and "they may". The overwhelming majority of professional secular historians (not even religious), agree that Jesus actually existed. Claiming (again, without any evidence), that the religious historians and the non-religious historians all reached their conclusions as a result of personal bias is just desperate special pleading. Who are all the professional secular historians who have built a reputation by claiming Jesus existed? Perhaps the fact that you haven't ever undertaken a research degree is the reason why you don't know the basic principles of academic research. Your background certainly explains your lack of knowledge of the professional historical method.
|
|
|
Post by peteri on Oct 26, 2017 16:52:09 GMT
Let's just stick with English. The problem with that is that it seriously handicaps your ability to tell if someone is interpreting the text in a reasonable way in their arguments. It can help a little bit to look at different translations and commentaries on a text. A few weeks ago here, someone quoted someone else quoting St. John Chrysostom and seriously misrepresenting his meaning. I identified what I thought was the source and and made a brief summary of the context showing the meaning. Another person soon afterwards posted a link to a Latin version showing the words used. I think the originals of John Chrysostom's writings were generally in Greek, but the point stands that a knowledge of ancient languages can often show that a text cannot mean what someone wants it to mean. When you are making an argument, there is a very large temptation to interpret texts in such a way that they tend to support your argument. If you do not catch on to the fact that a certain author tends to give in to this temptation, you may find his argument persuasive and think he makes a good case when the evidence is actually strongly against him. Peter
|
|
jagella
Bachelor of the Arts
Posts: 86
|
Post by jagella on Oct 26, 2017 22:04:33 GMT
Hi James! Nice set of wheels you have there. Is that a Mercedes? That's not a problem for me. I enjoy a lively discussion. The worst thing to happen in a forum is to be ignored. We all need to judge the credibility of what we read anywhere. I laughed at a Christian apologist I saw on a YouTube video. He was complaining about the many mythicist sites on the internet. He said: "You can say anything you want on the internet!" As if he can't say what he wants to on the internet. Besides, he seemed oblivious to the fact that the writers of the New Testament could say anything they wanted to say. He didn't seem to realize that fact. It seems to be gaining in popularity as a subject of interest. Bart Ehrman is writing some very successful books on Jesus. Although he says he believes in a Jesus who "almost certainly existed," Bart maintains that much of the New Testament is, well, mythical. I do that everyday. That does sound like a difficult subject to get in to. Personally, I rarely seek books that are written by a particular author, although I have done more of that recently because I'm more familiar with some writers. What I usually check is the subject of the book and then the table of contents. I usually pay little heed to who wrote the book or the author's background. It's obvious that many publishers try to hook the reader by boasting about the writer. I try not to fall for that. While reading the original languages may be enlightening in some ways, I haven't failed to notice that those who claim to be able to read Greek or Hebrew contradict each other all the time. All language is ambiguous, and people have a habit of coloring what they read to reflect their own prejudices. Catholics and protestants do that all the time not to mention Jehovah's Witnesses and Mormons. I was thinking about creating a website to promote my book. YouTube might be helpful as well. You too, James!
|
|