NEED WE WORRY?

[chewyman]

insane, that was just wow....gg

Good game?

I was asking the same thing.

For those of us that weren't first introduced to the internet by CC there are a few acronyms here that don't really work everywhere else:
'gg' on CC means 'good game' but elsewhere it means 'good God'; and
'gfy' on CC means 'go f*ck yourself' but elsewhere it means 'good for you'

Hope that helps.

[2dimes]

Naybore?

[beezer]

There are no definite first-hand texts, but historians (such as myself) have to weigh up the evidence for and against.

And as a historian, you are totally shoving aside the four gospels.

[got tonkaed]

traditionally most historical scholarship has been pressed to make efforts using etic sources rather than the emic sources of gospels. Though the gospels provide an account of Jesus, there are necesarily problematic issues which make etic sources desirable. However, as far as i can tell the etic sources are limited and in many cases contested to varying degrees.

[unriggable]

... The Jihad Mickey has been pulled / canceled.

When? Link?

Also, what if it was simply a spinning mistranslation?

[Guiscard]

There are no definite first-hand texts, but historians (such as myself) have to weigh up the evidence for and against.

And as a historian, you are totally shoving aside the four gospels.

I'm not. I didn't say I accepted that view. I was talking about non-gospel firs than texts because the original post referred to non-gospel first hand accounts. I, along with the majority of historians, take the gospels in the same light as we would take any theistic source - with a pinch of salt in terms of detail but as a good general indication - and I do genuinely believe Jesus existed as a man (as I've stated). The historiography of religious texts is an interesting area of study, and one I vaguely considered for my dissertation.

I'll quote myself:

That's by the by, really, as to me the weight of historical evidence does suggest some kind of healer named Jesus who was heralded by a section of the Jewish community as the messiah.

To be honest the whole 'atheists constantly attacking Christianity at every turn' thing is wearing a bit thin. Change the record. Some of us actually can look at things, weigh up the evidence and make reasoned opinions without resorting to what you see as our deep-rooted 'faith' (be it Christianity or Atheism). For fucks sake, get off the defensive.

[luns101]

traditionally most historical scholarship has been pressed to make efforts using eticsources rather than the emic sources of gospels.

Then that would show an obvious bias. Since Jesus first went to His own people, the Jews, to declare His message, doesn't it stand to reason that those familiar with Jewish customs and laws would be the ones to write their first-hand accounts of what they witnessed? Of course the gospels would be emic in nature.

As far as desiring an "etic" source. You could say that the gospel of Luke covers that category. However, I doubt skeptics will do that because they reject the Bible categorically.

...and once again we've turned this into another anti-God versus pro-God thread.

[got tonkaed]

Well although i dont entirely disagree with your post....i think my intent was just to show that from a historical (or perhaps on a larger scale, social science perspective) theres a bit of an issue when you use sources that have a vested interest. Fwiw im pretty close to Guiscards camp (as i should be for so far as i can tell in everything ive read hes just about always right lol) i dont think the bible and especially the gospels are not of some use in determing some type of historical understanding of Jesus. There was quite probably a healer/prophet in the figure of Jesus.

But back to refuting lol. Why i said what i said is fairly simple. If you asked me to write a history about a close friend who had recently decesaed, it would be quite possible that the account would be somewhat inflated or perhaps in situations inaccurate. Now if we look at it from the social context of the region in the years just after when Jesus would have been cruicified its not difficult to see why it might be important to have a messianic figure. Its not necesarily that emic sources are unreliable in determing the likelyhood that he lived, its rather to take the rather important assumptions about him after one establishes he lives where emic sources have a vested interest and therefore should be viewed with varying degrees of suspicion. This is why etic sources would be ideal. If people who were not affiliated with Jesus movements were frequently writing about him and his acts (a somewhat unlikely proposition, given the circumstances) it would do a lot more to hammer things down concretly. As far as i know really the only etic source is Josephus and there are issues with that source. Guis would probably be able to tell better about the potential tampering issue than i.

Ive rambled. Simply put, when theres a clear interest involved, as there is in the case of a figure as important as Jesus (from many different sides) emic sources shouldnt be viewed as an end all be all as verifiable evidence. Etic sources would just be nice that all. Also theres nothign wrong with something being emic...if there were no emic sources would have little to no understanding of a lot of different things. Its not that everything has to stand up to strictest of historical standards (we cant prove things to some level ultimatly, and in some cases it simply isnt that important nor is there always the available information) but since there is such a vested interest in this case, im simply saying etic sources would be more convincing.

[DangerBoy]

To be honest the whole 'atheists constantly attacking Christianity at every turn' thing is wearing a bit thin. Change the record. Some of us actually can look at things, weigh up the evidence and make reasoned opinions without resorting to what you see as our deep-rooted 'faith' (be it Christianity or Atheism). For fucks sake, get off the defensive.

Even though I don't post a lot, I do read a lot of your thoughts, Guiscard. I have no doubt that you wish to lead a moral life and you have high intellectual pursuits. Your ability to articulate positions is outstanding.

However, your anti-Christian bias seems revealed in almost every post when it comes to how you interpret data. When people call you on it, you seem to get ticked off. Perhaps you don't like the fact that this obvious bias exists within yourself. After all, a historian or is supposed to be objective (as much as possible).

I admit I have my own biases as a Christian. I try to be fair-minded whenever I study any subject, but I can't be totally objective.

I would invite you to read some of your previous posts again and see this from our (Christian) point of view. It is reasonable for us to stand up for ourselves and our positions. You may call it being defensive, but I call it standing up for ourselves.

[Stopper]

[sarcasm]I did what DangerBoy suggested, and yes, I see the bias. Lay off the Christians, Guiscard. What have they ever done to you?[/sarcasm]

EDIT: Tags added on.

[chewyman]

... The Jihad Mickey has been pulled / canceled.

When? Link?

Also, what if it was simply a spinning mistranslation?

Can't be bothered finding one but it's true. Just google it if you're desperate. And will people please stop blaming things on mistranslations please?!?!?!

[luns101]

Now if we look at it from the social context of the region in the years just after when Jesus would have been cruicified its not difficult to see why it might be important to have a messianic figure. Its not necesarily that emic sources are unreliable in determing the likelyhood that he lived, its rather to take the rather important assumptions about him after one establishes he lives where emic sources have a vested interest and therefore should be viewed with varying degrees of suspicion. This is why etic sources would be ideal.

If you read the gospel accounts you would see that they do reveal the vested interests of the disciples. Yes, they wanted a messiah figure. But their version of how they thought a messiah should act & behave was continually "shot down" by Jesus himself. There would be no violent overthrow of the Roman Empire. The salvation of men's souls and dealing with their sins is more important. I think it's cool how the Bible does not seek to hide these vested interests, but rather lays them out and lets the reader see them as well.

If people who were not affiliated with Jesus movements were frequently writing about him and his acts (a somewhat unlikely proposition, given the circumstances) it would do a lot more to hammer things down concretly.

Soon after the death & resurrection these people wrote about Christ as a historical figure.

Cornelius Tacitus
Lucian of Samosata
Flavius Josephus (you already mentioned this one)
Suetonius
Pliny the Younger
Tertullian
Thallus (via Julius Africanus)
Phlegon
Mara Bar-Serapion
Justin Martyr
...and excerpts from the Jewish Talmud

Ive rambled. I'm simply saying etic sources would be more convincing.

No you haven't. You made excellent points once again. The working world is going to be fortunate to have you after your schooling is complete. I hope you will read for yourself those "etic" sources I mentioned above. For now, you will just have to deal with putting forth your ideas in front of us RISK addicts...

[unriggable]

I'm not so sure about the ressurection since we found his body.

[luns101]

I'm not so sure about the ressurection since we found his body.

Good, now we can start concentrating on finding Jimmy Hoffa.

[unriggable]

I'm not so sure about the ressurection since we found his body.

Good, now we can start concentrating on finding Jimmy Hoffa.

Sweet.

[got tonkaed]

Admittedly ive become more lax in my early christian history studies lately, but a few flags had defintly gone off when i had read some of the sources that youd mentioned. I think ive read or read passages in other works (admittedly a bit less "pure" but i dont know if im ready to read all of the Annals yet) and a few names seemed familiar. The only real problematic issue i have with many of the sources that im familiar with, specifically Tacticus, Suetonis, Justin Martyr, Pliny the Younger, and Bar-Serapion, is that their references to Jesus typically seem to only be in the context of explaining the actions of group which has arisen to follow him. Now since i do admit its more likely that a historical jesus did exist, its not incredibly problematic, but the skeptic in me says...since there is little new that they pronounce that differs greatly from one another (considering a couple of them draw on one another, i think in the case with pliny and tactius being in correspondence along with the Martyr coming later (if i remember my dates right)) they dont necesarily verify anything in a new fashion that we dont already have. Since the etic sources still have reasonable doubt (in some cases) hanging over them, its difficult to tell to what degree they are beneficial in seperating a historical Jesus from the emic understanding of him (even if they dont particularly believe it).

I can imagine some reading this now going "Absurd! He simply refuses to believe the wealth of evidence that is out there" and to some extent you may be right. But some of the questions about the veracity of history of Jesus only make up part of the composite that led me to where i am today.

Also a tiny housecleaning note, that Stopper joked about in regards to Guiscard (who clearly i dont need to defend). Though one may question whether or not objectivity is truly preferable to subjectivity, it is at the crux of understanding science and history. I actually tend to think that reflecting an anti-bias stance is of paramount necesity if we are attempting to honestly approach objectivity. Certainly we dont have to do so, subjectivity seems to be par for the course and im not here to say that subjectivity is a bad thing. But at the same time, if one is looking to find some kind of objective truth, one certainly must view emic sources (in some issues, and not necesarily in others) with a degree of suspicion. Simply because in instances such as faith, much like any set of beliefs, one assertion often builds upon and leads to another. If I was to accept that the Gospel account of the life of Jesus Christ was the historical truth, i would be forced to accept a variety of other assertions as well, the main one being that he in fact is the Son of God. Since this is a fairly impossible thing to claim objectively its not unreasonable that in the pursuit of objectivity one regards the emic vehicle for understanding Jesus Christ in a slightly different regard.

Anyway again i have rambled (nice blog Tonka). As always i appreciate the compliment Luns, and i defintly appreiciate the way in which you help to provide me insight that i once had and add new insight that helps me understand some things that i didnt quite understand. As for being of any use to anyone...we can only hope no?

[luns101]

If I was to accept that the Gospel account of the life of Jesus Christ was the historical truth, i would be forced to accept a variety of other assertions as well, the main one being that he in fact is the Son of God.

...and that is the crux of the whole matter. It also opens up another whole can of worms, that we will be judged for violating His law. That's why so many skeptics can't make the switch to the faith of following Christ. I struggled with it myself.

It's funny, after my grandfather died, I was going through some of the correspondence that he had left behind with his own father and it seems my great-grandfather takes many of the same positions as you do.

[2dimes]

Farfur has been martyred.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle ... 257594.stm

[jay_a2j]

Farfur has been martyred.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle ... 257594.stm

I saw that....twisted.