Freethought & Rationalism Archive

archibald · 09-28-2011, 08:39 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Doug Shaver

At the same time, plausible speculation about what could have happened to any hypothetical text is a reasonable response to any argument claiming that if we don't know about that text, then it must never have existed.

Yes, and if you ever catch anybody saying that such a text must never have existed, I suggest you put them straight. In the meantime, I have no idea why you're telling me that obvious fact.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Doug Shaver

You could, of course, say, "Yes, it's evidence, but it is not sufficient evidence to justify his conclusion." But maybe you'd rather not concede even that much.

On the contrary, this is exactly what I would say, and have said.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Doug Shaver

Quote:

Originally Posted by archibald

And the argument for mythicism is an argument from silence.

Not entirely.

There is a thread on this. Post your evidence.

archibald · 09-28-2011, 08:44 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by TedM

Why don't we have a single -- just one -- unambiguous reference to purely mythical Jesus origins?

Best 'mythicist' answer I have heard so far (on the 'Heresies' thread) is that Doherty's scenario is that mythicists morphed into Gnostics and/or Docetics before anyone addressing heresies encountered them. In it's own way (i.e the way of no evidence, or at least none that I have yet heard of) it's rather neat. :]

Whoops, sorry, my answer would be more appropriate to 'why don't we even have any evidence that such a heresy was ever addressed?'

The answer to your question would then be (a) my answer above plus, (b) the mythicist texts themselves have not survived and/or (c) the orthos erased all of such texts and (d) revamped other texts (eg Paul) to make them look ortho, even though according to some, if not most mythicists, they don't look ortho. They still look mythicist. It must have been a busy day at distractedinterpolaters.com.

It's simple, and parsimonius, and not at all speculative. Nor is it a conspiracy theory.

And as for non-mythicist answers, gurugeorge's and maryhelena's hypotheses are closer to plausible, IMO, though I'm having trouble seeing them as more likely than the boring old 'dud prophet' hypothesis.

Edit: Sorry D C Hindley, I should probably have included your hypothesis in the 'less unlikely' (to me) category.

Iskander · 09-28-2011, 08:48 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by archibald

Quote:

Originally Posted by TedM

Why don't we have a single -- just one -- unambiguous reference to purely mythical Jesus origins?

Best answer I have heard so far (on the 'Heresies' thread) is that Doherty's scenario is that mythicists morphed into Gnostics and/or Docetics before anyone addressing heresies encountered them. In it's own way (i.e the way of no evidence, or at least none that I have yet heard of) it's rather neat. :]

Whoops, sorry, my answer would be more appropriate to 'why don't we even have any evidence that such a heresy was ever addressed?'

posted by mistake,sorry

mountainman · 09-28-2011, 06:31 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Doug Shaver

Quote:

Originally Posted by mountainman

What are these "mythicist vestiges" from the first century?

If I told you, you'd just say they weren't really from the first century.

OK I'll make a guess. Were you refering to the books of the new testament?

aa5874 · 09-28-2011, 06:49 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Juststeve

Doug asserts two thing that call for examination.

First, he says that the argument for mythicism is not entirely an argument from silence which is true. The reason it is true is that unlike most cases where an argument from silence is deployed it is not so clear that there is silence in the first place. Even in Paul the plain reading of the text indicates that Paul is talking about a fellow that actually appeared in history. Therefore the argument from silence for mythicism is preceded by a number of preliminary moves such as: 1) Paul didn't really write that, its and interpolation, or 2) Maybe Paul did write that but it doesn't mean what it seems to mean. You need to check with a mythical Jesus theorist to find out what the words mean.

Second, to suggest that Jesus was not an historical figure until the gospels had become widely circulated is nonsense. The Gospels stand as proof that at least some folk regarded Jesus as an historical figure with an earthly career at least by the time the Gospels were written, all within the first century. Unless it is imagined that the Gospels arose completely from the minds of their authors there must have been information about an earthly Jesus even earlier. The most plausible explanation for these traditions is an earthly Jesus.

Steve

Again, more BS from Juststeve.

The "historical Jesus" is NOT found in the Gospels nor the NT hence the QUEST for the "historical Jesus".

Do you even understand what "QUEST" means?

People are LOOKING for HJ presumed to have been born in Nazareth.

Jesus of FAITH, Jesus of the NT, was CLAIMED to be BORN in BETHLEHEM and his FATHER was a Ghost

Do you understand why PEOPLE are NOW LOOKING for HJ of Nazareth?

They CAN'T FIND him.

HJ of Nazareth is UNDOCUMENTED.

mountainman · 09-28-2011, 06:52 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by J-D

Quote:

Originally Posted by mountainman

Quote:

Originally Posted by J-D

Quote:

Originally Posted by aa5874

It is MYTH JESUS that HJers REFUSE to accept and claim there is ANOTHER Jesus.

What and where is the SOURCE for the OTHER Jesus of Nazareth?

In other parts of the same codices.

What is the provenance for this same codex before Nicaea?

Vaticanus | Sinaiticus | Alexandrinus | Bibles_of_Constantine

The more likely overall explanation is that the HJ first appeared in the Constantine Bibles and that the Constantinian sponsored heresiologists simply lied about its earlier provenance via a pious forgeries (e.g. "Church History").

No, it isn't.

Ruthlessly short may have been its real history.

J-D · 09-28-2011, 09:19 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mountainman

Quote:

Originally Posted by J-D

Quote:

Originally Posted by mountainman

Quote:

Originally Posted by J-D

Quote:

Originally Posted by aa5874

It is MYTH JESUS that HJers REFUSE to accept and claim there is ANOTHER Jesus.

What and where is the SOURCE for the OTHER Jesus of Nazareth?

In other parts of the same codices.

What is the provenance for this same codex before Nicaea?

Vaticanus | Sinaiticus | Alexandrinus | Bibles_of_Constantine

The more likely overall explanation is that the HJ first appeared in the Constantine Bibles and that the Constantinian sponsored heresiologists simply lied about its earlier provenance via a pious forgeries (e.g. "Church History").

No, it isn't.

Ruthlessly short may have been its real history.

A man in the wilderness asked me
How many strawberries grow in the sea
I answered him as I thought good
As many red herrings swim in the wood

J-D · 09-28-2011, 09:30 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by aa5874

Quote:

Originally Posted by Juststeve

Doug asserts two thing that call for examination.

First, he says that the argument for mythicism is not entirely an argument from silence which is true. The reason it is true is that unlike most cases where an argument from silence is deployed it is not so clear that there is silence in the first place. Even in Paul the plain reading of the text indicates that Paul is talking about a fellow that actually appeared in history. Therefore the argument from silence for mythicism is preceded by a number of preliminary moves such as: 1) Paul didn't really write that, its and interpolation, or 2) Maybe Paul did write that but it doesn't mean what it seems to mean. You need to check with a mythical Jesus theorist to find out what the words mean.

Second, to suggest that Jesus was not an historical figure until the gospels had become widely circulated is nonsense. The Gospels stand as proof that at least some folk regarded Jesus as an historical figure with an earthly career at least by the time the Gospels were written, all within the first century. Unless it is imagined that the Gospels arose completely from the minds of their authors there must have been information about an earthly Jesus even earlier. The most plausible explanation for these traditions is an earthly Jesus.

Steve

Again, more BS from Juststeve.

The "historical Jesus" is NOT found in the Gospels nor the NT hence the QUEST for the "historical Jesus".

Do you even understand what "QUEST" means?

People are LOOKING for HJ presumed to have been born in Nazareth.

Jesus of FAITH, Jesus of the NT, was CLAIMED to be BORN in BETHLEHEM and his FATHER was a Ghost

Do you understand why PEOPLE are NOW LOOKING for HJ of Nazareth?

They CAN'T FIND him.

HJ of Nazareth is UNDOCUMENTED.

There are written references to him.

aa5874 · 09-28-2011, 09:54 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by J-D

Quote:

Originally Posted by aa5874

....HJ of Nazareth is UNDOCUMENTED.[/b]

There are written references to him.

It was the Child of a Ghost that is DOCUMENTED in Extant Codices to have lived in Nazareth AFTER being born in Bethlehem.

It was the Child of a Ghost of Nazareth that was documented in Extant Codices that was on the Pinnacle of the Temple with SATAN, WALKED on the sea, TRANSFIGURED, resurrected on the THIRD day, ATE FISH when he was supposed to be dead, and ASCENDED in a cloud.

The Presumed HJ is ASSUMED to have been born in Nazareth.

That is what I HEAR. I may be wrong. What you hear? I am yet to see a credible SOURCE of antiquity about the "historical Jesus" of Nazareth,

What do the references for HJ of Nazareth state?

What happened to HJ? Was He STONED to death and was his mother's name YRAM?

Please, tell me about HJ of Nazareth if he was Not MYTH.

Plutarch's Romulus was described LIKE human but was MYTH and Romulus had a brother called Remus THAT LIVED and DIED in Rome.

Without sources, HJ of Nazareth will dumped into the pile of MYTHOLOGY.

There are MYTHOLOGICAL references!!!

J-D · 09-28-2011, 10:07 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by aa5874

Quote:

Originally Posted by J-D

Quote:

Originally Posted by aa5874

....HJ of Nazareth is UNDOCUMENTED.[/b]

There are written references to him.

It was the Child of a Ghost that is DOCUMENTED in Extant Codices to have lived in Nazareth AFTER being born in Bethlehem.

Some parts of the extant codices say that. Other parts say other things. Mark never says Jesus was the child of a ghost.

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.