Frontline "From Jesus to Christ: The First Christians"

Wonderist
atheist
Wonderist's picture
Posts: 2479
Joined: 2006-03-19
User is offlineOffline
Frontline "From Jesus to Christ: The First Christians"

Haven't watched it yet, but this looks interesting: "From Jesus to Christ: The First Christians"

Wonderist on Facebook — Support the idea of wonderism by 'liking' the Wonderism page — or join the open Wonderism group to take part in the discussion!

Gnu Atheism Facebook group — All gnu-friendly RRS members welcome (including Luminon!) — Try something gnu!


Rook_Hawkins
RRS CO-FOUNDER
Rook_Hawkins's picture
Posts: 1322
Joined: 2006-02-11
User is offlineOffline
Sounds like the title from

Sounds like the title from Paula Fredriksen's book.  If it is an adaptation, than it probably will not be that good.  If it isn't an adaptation of her book, then it will probably be even worse.  I absolutely can't stand watching shows on the Bible anymore.  They are always so wrought with fiction and false information, I feel like I'm watching Fox News everytime.

Atheist Books, purchases on Amazon support the Rational Response Squad server, which houses Celebrity Atheists. Books by Rook Hawkins (Thomas Verenna)


Answers in Gene...
High Level Donor
Answers in Gene Simmons's picture
Posts: 4214
Joined: 2008-11-11
User is offlineOffline
I watched the first

I watched the first hour of it at work the other day. It is typical Frontline material, kind of interesting but nothing to get excited over.

 

Basically, it carries the assumption that there was a real person called Jesus who had a ministry and runs from there. With that assumption, what do we know about the time and place and from that, what can we conclude about the actual guy is the general drift. I tend to think that the rest of it is going to be pretty similar.

NoMoreCrazyPeople wrote:
Never ever did I say enything about free, I said "free."

=


Wonderist
atheist
Wonderist's picture
Posts: 2479
Joined: 2006-03-19
User is offlineOffline
Here's one of the claims I

Here's one of the claims I found most unbelievable. It's at 13:00 of part 5:

Quote:

The plaque that was nailed to the cross is one of the few clear pieces of historical evidence that we have.... The plaque, which names him as Jesus the King of the Jews suggests that the charge on which he was executed was one of political insurrection, a threat to the Pax Romana...

He's referring of course to the INRI plaque. Is this for real? Has such a plaque actually been discovered? The quote is acredited to Prof Michael White of University of Texas, Austin. What's the status of this claim? Misquoted, or complete bullshit?

Wonderist on Facebook — Support the idea of wonderism by 'liking' the Wonderism page — or join the open Wonderism group to take part in the discussion!

Gnu Atheism Facebook group — All gnu-friendly RRS members welcome (including Luminon!) — Try something gnu!


Rook_Hawkins
RRS CO-FOUNDER
Rook_Hawkins's picture
Posts: 1322
Joined: 2006-02-11
User is offlineOffline
Of course there is no

Of course there is no plaque.  They're referring to the internal, Gospel evidence.  Of course, they make this assumption only after making other assumptions.  There is no evidence here, only speculation.  And the thought behind it isn't that critical. 

Atheist Books, purchases on Amazon support the Rational Response Squad server, which houses Celebrity Atheists. Books by Rook Hawkins (Thomas Verenna)


MattShizzle
Posts: 7966
Joined: 2006-03-31
User is offlineOffline
Is this guy a fucking idiot?

Is this guy a fucking idiot? Would he count that spiderman was able to shoot webs in the comic as proof he was really Spiderman and real? Do you think maybe the people that wrote the gospels might have known enough about Rome to write a fictional story based in the Empire?

Matt Shizzle has been banned from the Rational Response Squad website. This event shall provide an atmosphere more conducive to social growth. - Majority of the mod team


Wonderist
atheist
Wonderist's picture
Posts: 2479
Joined: 2006-03-19
User is offlineOffline
Rook_Hawkins wrote:Of course

Rook_Hawkins wrote:

Of course there is no plaque.  They're referring to the internal, Gospel evidence.  Of course, they make this assumption only after making other assumptions.  There is no evidence here, only speculation.  And the thought behind it isn't that critical. 

I was expecting some story about a forgery or something, but I guess you're right, it makes sense that he means the internal evidence of the Gospels. The way they edited the segment of video I quoted made it seem like they were talking about an artifact of some sort. Having watched the rest of the first half of the series, they do rely on the Gospels as actual descriptions of events, or at least to 'paint a picture of what it might have been like'.

Thankfully, they quickly move on to Paul and the early Christian movement, which is much more interesting.

Wonderist on Facebook — Support the idea of wonderism by 'liking' the Wonderism page — or join the open Wonderism group to take part in the discussion!

Gnu Atheism Facebook group — All gnu-friendly RRS members welcome (including Luminon!) — Try something gnu!


theidiot
TheistTroll
Posts: 152
Joined: 2008-08-03
User is offlineOffline
natural wrote:Here's one of

natural wrote:

Here's one of the claims I found most unbelievable. It's at 13:00 of part 5:

Quote:

The plaque that was nailed to the cross is one of the few clear pieces of historical evidence that we have.... The plaque, which names him as Jesus the King of the Jews suggests that the charge on which he was executed was one of political insurrection, a threat to the Pax Romana...

He's referring of course to the INRI plaque. Is this for real? Has such a plaque actually been discovered? The quote is accredited to Prof Michael White of University of Texas, Austin. What's the status of this claim? Misquoted, or complete bullshit?

 

No, the claim is accurate, you just understood it wrong. Prof. White is not speaking of evidence in support of the actual Crucifixion happening, or even as evidence for the existence of Jesus, his use of the plaque is for neither of these purpose. 

The question being explored is "was Jesus killed for political insurrection"? Even if we ignore the question of the historicity of Jesus, the answer would be yes, the Gospel writers saw it as such with the label on the plaque being "King of the Jews" a charge with political implications. The Professor's use of the plaque as evidence, can be rendered even for Jesus Myth proponents as: was the literary character of Jesus killed for being a political insurrectionist? Based on the evidence, on the reading and interpretation of INRI plaque the answer is yes.

For historians who do accept that Jesus was a historical person, who was crucified by Roman rule, who are pondering what possible reason would he have been executed, the Gospels writers conception of his plaque on the cross, reveals that the writers of the gospels saw it as such, and the INRI plaque conception in the gospels would serve as evidence in support of such a conclusion. 

"I'm really an idiot! I have my own head way the fuck up my ass! Watch me dig myself into a hole over and over again!" ~Rook Hawkins (just citing sources)


Answers in Gene...
High Level Donor
Answers in Gene Simmons's picture
Posts: 4214
Joined: 2008-11-11
User is offlineOffline
theidiot wrote:  

theidiot wrote:

 

natural wrote:
Here's one of the claims I found most unbelievable. It's at 13:00 of part 5:

 

Quote:
The plaque that was nailed to the cross is one of the few clear pieces of historical evidence that we have.... The plaque, which names him as Jesus the King of the Jews suggests that the charge on which he was executed was one of political insurrection, a threat to the Pax Romana...

 

He's referring of course to the INRI plaque. Is this for real? Has such a plaque actually been discovered? The quote is accredited to Prof Michael White of University of Texas, Austin. What's the status of this claim? Misquoted, or complete bullshit?

 

No, the claim is accurate, you just understood it wrong. Prof. White is not speaking of evidence in support of the actual Crucifixion happening, or even as evidence for the existence of Jesus, his use of the plaque is for neither of these purpose.

 

The question being explored is "was Jesus killed for political insurrection"? Even if we ignore the question of the historicity of Jesus, the answer would be yes, the Gospel writers saw it as such with the label on the plaque being "King of the Jews" a charge with political implications. The Professor's use of the plaque as evidence, can be rendered even for Jesus Myth proponents as: was the literary character of Jesus killed for being a political insurrectionist? Based on the evidence, on the reading and interpretation of INRI plaque the answer is yes.

 

For historians who do accept that Jesus was a historical person, who was crucified by Roman rule, who are pondering what possible reason would he have been executed, the Gospels writers conception of his plaque on the cross, reveals that the writers of the gospels saw it as such, and the INRI plaque conception in the gospels would serve as evidence in support of such a conclusion.

 

Christ on a pogo stick! What part of the words coming out of his mouth did you not understand? He made a claim of fact centered on the existence of the plaque.

 

Basically, that is about as reasonable as if I were to assert that my collection of vintage Bat Man comic books is proof that Thomas Wayne was murdered by Joe Chill on a contract from Lew Moxon.

NoMoreCrazyPeople wrote:
Never ever did I say enything about free, I said "free."

=


theidiot
TheistTroll
Posts: 152
Joined: 2008-08-03
User is offlineOffline
Answers in Gene Simmons

Answers in Gene Simmons wrote:
mouth did you not understand? He made a claim of fact centered on the existence of the plaque.

Uhm, where does he claim the plaque existed? He claims as historical evidence the inscription on the plaque, for Jesus being executed as an insurrectionist, but the inscription can be treated as historical evidence regardless of if the plaque existed or not.

Quote:
Basically, that is about as reasonable as if I were to assert that my collection of vintage Bat Man comic books is proof that Thomas Wayne was murdered by Joe Chill on a contract from Lew Moxon.

 

Well, there's your problem, history like science doesn't make proof claims. In fact just because something serves as evidence for a claim, that doesn't necessarily mean the claim is true. Thats probably something you should learn, because it'll probably keep you from making unlearned sounding claims. 

But I tell you what, so that you don't get too hung up, i'll give you a more kindergarten breakdown. Imagine you've been convicted of a crime, and are standing trial, both the prosecution and defense have evidence some for claims of guilt, and some for claims of innocence, but just because both sides have evidence doesn't mean that the truth is you are guilty and innocent. 

 

"I'm really an idiot! I have my own head way the fuck up my ass! Watch me dig myself into a hole over and over again!" ~Rook Hawkins (just citing sources)


GreNME
Posts: 19
Joined: 2007-12-01
User is offlineOffline
Answers in Gene Simmons

Answers in Gene Simmons wrote:

Basically, that is about as reasonable as if I were to assert that my collection of vintage Bat Man comic books is proof that Thomas Wayne was murdered by Joe Chill on a contract from Lew Moxon.

 

I don't care what Tim Burton presented, Jack Napier did NOT kill Thomas Wayne. Eye-wink

Listen, using the Batman or Santa Claus arguments are unnecessary. One could just as easily use examples like Leonidas or Agamemnon or King Arthur to a more reasonable effect. Taking the argument to the absurd is not a reasonable rhetorical device if one is trying to actually discourse (as opposed to ridicule). The problem with using Leonidas or Agamemnon or King Arthur is clear, however: there might be elements within each that have some sort of connection with historical occurrence, even if the depictions themselves are almost assuredly fictional. That doesn't prove or disprove claims of an historical Jesus, though, but the examinations of those figures do give us a methodology for approaching the question of historicity.

Additionally, take a look at the bio-pic movies of the last few decades, particularly the last decade (Ali, Ray, Walk the Line, Ghandi, Alexander, etc.). They show how we (people) can romanticize others, sometimes to ridiculous degrees, even when presenting things that might make the stories seem more realistic (or critical). Could you imagine historical record being created from popular opinion and gossip? The way that the normal, the mediocre or the two-faced can get lionized (or demonized) through the inherent confirmation bias within gossip or urban legend is well-known-- does anyone think this didn't exist 2000 years ago?

What I'm getting at, however, isn't an argument of historicity or not. I'm just pointing out that the methods for finding out whether there's even any veracity to historicity claims aren't black-and-white. People have a tendancy to not only romanticize, they also rewrite certain aspects to self-identify with the romantic figure. It even happens today. We always know to some degree that this has happened to religious figures, including Jesus. Hell, people can't even agree on the historical accuracy about people like Joseph Smith, and his fantasy isn't even two centuries old. If you're going to expect any kind of certainty from two thousand years, you're going to be sorely disappointed.


Wonderist
atheist
Wonderist's picture
Posts: 2479
Joined: 2006-03-19
User is offlineOffline
theidiot wrote:natural

theidiot wrote:
natural wrote:

Quote:

The plaque that was nailed to the cross is one of the few clear pieces of historical evidence that we have....

He's referring of course to the INRI plaque. Is this for real? Has such a plaque actually been discovered? The quote is accredited to Prof Michael White of University of Texas, Austin. What's the status of this claim? Misquoted, or complete bullshit?

No, the claim is accurate, you just understood it wrong. Prof. White is not speaking of evidence in support of the actual Crucifixion happening, or even as evidence for the existence of Jesus, his use of the plaque is for neither of these purpose. 

The question being explored is "was Jesus killed for political insurrection"? Even if we ignore the question of the historicity of Jesus, the answer would be yes, the Gospel writers saw it as such with the label on the plaque being "King of the Jews" a charge with political implications. The Professor's use of the plaque as evidence, can be rendered even for Jesus Myth proponents as: was the literary character of Jesus killed for being a political insurrectionist? Based on the evidence, on the reading and interpretation of INRI plaque the answer is yes.

What part of "historical evidence that we have" is confusing you? He did not call it "literary evidence" or "scriptural evidence", and he implied that we "have" it.

It is not historical evidence if it's just a reference in a story. That would be like saying "The ax that George Washington used to chop down the cherry tree is the best historical evidence we have" that he chopped down a cherry tree. What ax? Where is this ax? Where is there a historical attestation that such an ax ever existed, outside of the story of the chopping of the cherry tree? Using the ax from the story might be 'literary evidence', and if the story was part of a religion, it might be 'scriptural evidence', but it's not 'historical evidence'. It is certainly not historical evidence that 'we have'. It is imagined evidence if anything.

Wonderist on Facebook — Support the idea of wonderism by 'liking' the Wonderism page — or join the open Wonderism group to take part in the discussion!

Gnu Atheism Facebook group — All gnu-friendly RRS members welcome (including Luminon!) — Try something gnu!


theidiot
TheistTroll
Posts: 152
Joined: 2008-08-03
User is offlineOffline
natural wrote:It is not

natural wrote:

It is not historical evidence if it's just a reference in a story. That would be like saying "The ax that George Washington used to chop down the cherry tree is the best historical evidence we have" that he chopped down a cherry tree.

Actually, in this case it is. Let's assume that it's accepted that Jesus was a historical person who was executed under Roman Rule, now we are trying to gather up data for the reasons he might have been executed. Let's say I believed that Jesus was executed for being an insurrectionist, can I use the beliefs of those living around that time in support of my case? 

All four gospels accounts containing a portrayal of the INRI plaque encrypted with "King of the Jews" which suggest that all four gospel writers believed Jesus was executed for being a political insurrectionist, can be used in support of my claim. 

 

 

 

 

"I'm really an idiot! I have my own head way the fuck up my ass! Watch me dig myself into a hole over and over again!" ~Rook Hawkins (just citing sources)


Answers in Gene...
High Level Donor
Answers in Gene Simmons's picture
Posts: 4214
Joined: 2008-11-11
User is offlineOffline
Actually, I was going

Actually, I was going to go to King Arthur on my next post. Since that is no longer viable, let me switch myths.

 

We can know for certain that Eric Clapton exists.

 

We can know for certain that Elton John exists.

 

We can know for certain that Tina Turner exists.


From this, we can conclude that Tommy Walker must have been a real person.

NoMoreCrazyPeople wrote:
Never ever did I say enything about free, I said "free."

=


Wonderist
atheist
Wonderist's picture
Posts: 2479
Joined: 2006-03-19
User is offlineOffline
theidiot wrote:natural

theidiot wrote:

natural wrote:

It is not historical evidence if it's just a reference in a story. That would be like saying "The ax that George Washington used to chop down the cherry tree is the best historical evidence we have" that he chopped down a cherry tree.

Actually, in this case it is. Let's assume that it's accepted that Jesus was a historical person who was executed under Roman Rule, now we are trying to gather up data for the reasons he might have been executed.  

Do you simply not understand what the word 'evidence' means? Maybe you don't understand 'historical'? Maybe it's the combination of the two, 'historical evidence'?

To call a reference in a story 'historical evidence' is to speak falsely. For a historian to do so is even worse.

It is not evidence of history. It is not evidence from history. It is not historical, and it's certainly not historical evidence. End of argument.

If you can't understand this, then your username suits you well.

Wonderist on Facebook — Support the idea of wonderism by 'liking' the Wonderism page — or join the open Wonderism group to take part in the discussion!

Gnu Atheism Facebook group — All gnu-friendly RRS members welcome (including Luminon!) — Try something gnu!


theidiot
TheistTroll
Posts: 152
Joined: 2008-08-03
User is offlineOffline
natural wrote:Do you simply

natural wrote:
Do you simply not understand what the word 'evidence' means? 

I'll play along.

i guess I don't know what evidence means, so perhaps you'd like to tell me what it means? And what does it take for that evidence to be historical?

 

"I'm really an idiot! I have my own head way the fuck up my ass! Watch me dig myself into a hole over and over again!" ~Rook Hawkins (just citing sources)


Answers in Gene...
High Level Donor
Answers in Gene Simmons's picture
Posts: 4214
Joined: 2008-11-11
User is offlineOffline
theidiot wrote:natural

theidiot wrote:

natural wrote:
Do you simply not understand what the word 'evidence' means? 

I'll play along.

i guess I don't know what evidence means, so perhaps you'd like to tell me what it means? And what does it take for that evidence to be historical?

 

 

Actually existing would be a good start.  Citing an object that nobody has ever found is just making shit up.

 

Now read my sig.

NoMoreCrazyPeople wrote:
Never ever did I say enything about free, I said "free."

=


theidiot
TheistTroll
Posts: 152
Joined: 2008-08-03
User is offlineOffline
Answers in Gene Simmons

Answers in Gene Simmons wrote:

Actually existing would be a good start.  Citing an object that nobody has ever found is just making shit up.

Uhm, i asked what's the meaning of evidence, you tell me that its something that actually exists, which doesn't really say much at all. Does that include tangible and intangible? Why don't you try articulating your point, why don't individuals here who think they have a clue as to what "evidence" means and is, actually try and define it, since the previous posted accused me of not knowing what it means.

 

 

"I'm really an idiot! I have my own head way the fuck up my ass! Watch me dig myself into a hole over and over again!" ~Rook Hawkins (just citing sources)


Answers in Gene...
High Level Donor
Answers in Gene Simmons's picture
Posts: 4214
Joined: 2008-11-11
User is offlineOffline
OK, that is a fair

OK, that is a fair question. Intangible evidence is evidence of intangible things.

 

Before I continue, let me make my position clear on the matter of “the Jesus myth”. I do not ascribe to the idea that atheism is a religion. Lack of evidence is not evidence of lack. God does not exist but that does not mean that Jesus did not exist.

 

Jesus may well have been a real guy and he may well have said certain things.

 

Real verifiable evidence exists that tell us that the Roman Empire was not based on people being nice to each other. If some radical guy started preaching the message that people ought to be nice to each other, that would have caused a huge cluster fuck.

 

Just possibly, he would have been executed for that (among other things). Also, it is possible that the plaque was posted on the top of the cross as has been written in the gospels.

 

So let's say that a year from now, some archaeologist actually finds the plaque and does so in a modern secure manner. What does that tell us?

 

Well, it tells us that he was real. It tells us that he did as much as he did. However, consider that the four gospels also have four different versions of what was written on the plaque. Finding the thing would also tell us which, if any of them had that part of the story right. Possibly none of them have the exact text down and the real inscription is slightly different from any version.

NoMoreCrazyPeople wrote:
Never ever did I say enything about free, I said "free."

=


theidiot
TheistTroll
Posts: 152
Joined: 2008-08-03
User is offlineOffline
Answers in Gene Simmons

Answers in Gene Simmons wrote:

OK, that is a fair question. Intangible evidence is evidence of intangible things.

Ah, so your saying intangible evidence can't be used to make cases for tangible things? i.e intangible evidence can't be used to make cases for the existence of a person, or whether or not an event happened?

 

"I'm really an idiot! I have my own head way the fuck up my ass! Watch me dig myself into a hole over and over again!" ~Rook Hawkins (just citing sources)


jcgadfly
SuperfanBronze Member
Posts: 6789
Joined: 2006-07-18
User is offlineOffline
theidiot wrote:natural

theidiot wrote:

natural wrote:

It is not historical evidence if it's just a reference in a story. That would be like saying "The ax that George Washington used to chop down the cherry tree is the best historical evidence we have" that he chopped down a cherry tree.

Actually, in this case it is. Let's assume that it's accepted that Jesus was a historical person who was executed under Roman Rule, now we are trying to gather up data for the reasons he might have been executed. Let's say I believed that Jesus was executed for being an insurrectionist, can I use the beliefs of those living around that time in support of my case? 

All four gospels accounts containing a portrayal of the INRI plaque encrypted with "King of the Jews" which suggest that all four gospel writers believed Jesus was executed for being a political insurrectionist, can be used in support of my claim. 

 

 

 

 

If only the gospels hadn't been written 40 years after the alledged incident....

You have to make too many assumptions for the Christ story to work - assumptions that aren't supported by any evidence outside of the gospels..

"I do this real moron thing, and it's called thinking. And apparently I'm not a very good American because I like to form my own opinions."
— George Carlin


GreNME
Posts: 19
Joined: 2007-12-01
User is offlineOffline
theidiot wrote:Answers in

theidiot wrote:

Answers in Gene Simmons wrote:

OK, that is a fair question. Intangible evidence is evidence of intangible things.

Ah, so your saying intangible evidence can't be used to make cases for tangible things? i.e intangible evidence can't be used to make cases for the existence of a person, or whether or not an event happened?

 

No, what I'm pretty sure he's saying is that claiming unprovable supernatural reasons as evidence results in unprovable supernatural conclusions. Self-fulfilling prophecy, so to speak.

Have you ever heard of the phrase 'tautology'? You're drifting really close to it at this point.


theidiot
TheistTroll
Posts: 152
Joined: 2008-08-03
User is offlineOffline
GreNME wrote:No, what I'm

GreNME wrote:

No, what I'm pretty sure he's saying is that claiming unprovable supernatural reasons as evidence results in unprovable supernatural conclusions. Self-fulfilling prophecy, so to speak.

Have you ever heard of the phrase 'tautology'? You're drifting really close to it at this point.

wtf??

supernatural?? when the freak did "unprovable supernatural reasons" come in to the picture? 

And i seriously doubt that's what he was saying. I find it more likely that he was talking about my wife.

"I'm really an idiot! I have my own head way the fuck up my ass! Watch me dig myself into a hole over and over again!" ~Rook Hawkins (just citing sources)