Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Goliath · 04-21-2003, 01:24 PM

Vinnie,

Quote:

Originally posted by Vinnie
I got number 5 of the Mythicist methodology!

Compliments of a little gem from Goliath we have this:

5. Make the existence of Jesus out to be a supernatural or extraordinary claim. Then say that history cannot reconstruct the supernatural or demand extrordinary proof for this extraordinary claim.

Two things:

1. I do not need to "make the existence of Jesus out to be a supernatural claim." Since you believe that Jesus was the son of a god, your claiming that Jesus exists makes your claim about the existence of Jesus a supernatural claim.

2. I am not a Jesus Myther (I hold absolutely no beliefs whatsoever towards the existence of Jesus).

Sincerely,

Goliath

Goliath · 04-21-2003, 01:28 PM

Vinnie,

You had said (to someone else):

Quote:

No, your assumption is as incorrect as Goliath's nonsense. Jesus didn't exist because some people believe he is the Son of God. Goliath clearly articulated this nonsense and repeated it.

I've asserted no such thing! Point out where I have EVER asserted for ANY REASON that Jesus did not exist, or take your above quote back.

Sincerely,

Goliath

Vinnie · 04-22-2003, 11:02 AM

"""Would you complete the following sentences for me?""""""

Sure.

"""Historically speaking, a Unicorn is most likely ___________. """"

I don't know what a "unicorn" is"??? Horses exist and existed in "history". If a unicorn is a white, flying magic horse with a cone nose then NO! Horses can't fly. I would say that their bodies are not aerodynamically fit for flight. Aside from what I see as the impossibility of a flying horse, what evidence is there of unicorns? Or how does that evidence parallel the evidence for the existence of Jesus of Nazareth (which is presumably what you are getting at?)

""""Historically speaking, Achilles is most likely ___________. """

Please describe Achilles for me? From what I see at the link above I would say mythical. But I do not know of when ground zero is supposed to be, I do not know of the sources and stratification of Achilles material. Could there have been some historical incident which gave rise to it? Maybe, maybe not. I know too little about Achilles to conclusively say whether there is something behind all the fiction. At any rate, most of what I have read about Achilles cannot be argued on historical grounds.

""""Historically speaking, the Christian Jesus is most likely __________. """"

Today's composite Christian Jesus? Definately not historical.

When I argue for the existence of Jesus I am not arguing for the existence of a man who stilled a storm, a man who walked on water, who as born of a virgin, who rose from the dead, who was the Son of God etc. If I believe any of these things it has nothing to do with historical apoologetics which I do not subscribe to.

Miracles are a metaphysical question, not a historical one. History deals with reconstruction based upon observations of the world's consistency. Historical reconstruction deals in terms of probability and this rules out the possibility of reconstructing miracles. As I have stated, at best, history can say Peter thought Jesus brought back a man or woman from the dead. It cannot say Jesus brought that person back. Such are the limits of historical reconstruction. It is folly to suggest otherwise.

many a naive apologist will assert that history is "what happened in the past" so if miracles are possible we can reconstruct them. Again, the nature of historical reconstruction and its need for methodology and its results in terms of probability and the assumption that the world works then as it does today, this is impossible. All we have is reconstruction.

If miracles were possible and if we had a time machine it would be possible to "reconstruct" them. Unfortunately, at least one of them "ifs" and probably both of them, IMO, are not true.

Vinnie

MortalWombat · 04-22-2003, 01:44 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Vinnie
""""Historically speaking, the Christian Jesus is most likely __________. """"

Today's composite Christian Jesus? Definately not historical.

I agree with this. I would also agree if you had stated "Today's composite King Arthur."

Comparing the historicity of King Arthur with that of Jesus, we can see many stirking parallels with regard to what is and isn't considered historical and/or mythical:

Quote:

Arthur obviously had to come from somewhere, however. One common theory, argued convincingly by Green, is that Arthur was not originally a historical figure that was mythologized, but rather a mythical character that was later historicised. Using the bear etymology, some scholars have argued that Arthur was originally a Celtic bear spirit similar to Artaio (�Bear-like one�), a spirit worshipped by an ancient Celtic Bear cult in what is now Switzerland. However, there is no known corroborating evidence of any such cults in the British Isles. Another theory postulates that Arthur was derived from a Celtic woodland spirit, based on pre-Galfridian Welsh sources that portray him as a �woodland adventurer� and locate his court at Kelliwic (�forest grove�). It has even been suggested that Arthur was originally a Raven spirit, based primarily on the mysterious line from Y Gododdin, �He fed black ravens on the rampart of a fortress,� and the passing similarity between �Arthur� and the Welsh arrdhu, �very black.� Green urges caution, however: �Just as an almost infinite number of historical prototypes for Arthur can be identified with enough enthusiasm, it seems very likely that a similar number of mythical prototypes can also be identified.�
So where do all these theories leave the modern scholar in his or her examination of the problem of a historical Arthur? There is a reason why all theories must proceed from the few extant pre-Galfridian sources. While we may harbor suspicions about these sources, they cannot be automatically discounted. However, neither can we simply make the a priori assumption that a historical Arthur did exist and proceed merrily to our various theories. History is rarely an exact science. We must simply make the best conclusion he can with the evidence available, and in this case, there happens to be very little evidence. We must seek the most probable theory, and even in the case of Arthur there are certain probabilities, though fewer in number. If we allow the vast body of evidence to lead us to the most probable conclusion, I believe we can say, with assurance, that there was a historical person called Arthur who won renown as a warrior in the British Isles some time before the mid 7th century. That is all.

Taken from here

One can replace the words 'Arthur', 'warrior', 'the British Isles', and '7th' with 'Jesus', 'messianic pretender', 'Palestine', and '1st' in the penultimate sentence, and probably not too many JMers would disagree with this. Given the fact that Josephus records dozens of people who claimed to be messiahs, and that Jesus was a common name (Josephus again lists at least four Jesuses), it wouldn't be too surprising that there would be a 1st century messianic pretender who happened to be named Jesus, who also happened to get himself crucified. The problem lies in connecting one of them with the Jesus of Christianity.

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

04-22-2003, 11:02 AM	#33
Vinnie Veteran Member Join Date: Apr 2001 Location: Waterbury, Ct, Usa Posts: 6,523	"""Would you complete the following sentences for me?"""""" Sure. """Historically speaking, a Unicorn is most likely ___________. """" I don't know what a "unicorn" is"??? Horses exist and existed in "history". If a unicorn is a white, flying magic horse with a cone nose then NO! Horses can't fly. I would say that their bodies are not aerodynamically fit for flight. Aside from what I see as the impossibility of a flying horse, what evidence is there of unicorns? Or how does that evidence parallel the evidence for the existence of Jesus of Nazareth (which is presumably what you are getting at?) """"Historically speaking, Achilles is most likely ___________. """ Please describe Achilles for me? From what I see at the link above I would say mythical. But I do not know of when ground zero is supposed to be, I do not know of the sources and stratification of Achilles material. Could there have been some historical incident which gave rise to it? Maybe, maybe not. I know too little about Achilles to conclusively say whether there is something behind all the fiction. At any rate, most of what I have read about Achilles cannot be argued on historical grounds. """"Historically speaking, the Christian Jesus is most likely __________. """" Today's composite Christian Jesus? Definately not historical. When I argue for the existence of Jesus I am not arguing for the existence of a man who stilled a storm, a man who walked on water, who as born of a virgin, who rose from the dead, who was the Son of God etc. If I believe any of these things it has nothing to do with historical apoologetics which I do not subscribe to. Miracles are a metaphysical question, not a historical one. History deals with reconstruction based upon observations of the world's consistency. Historical reconstruction deals in terms of probability and this rules out the possibility of reconstructing miracles. As I have stated, at best, history can say Peter thought Jesus brought back a man or woman from the dead. It cannot say Jesus brought that person back. Such are the limits of historical reconstruction. It is folly to suggest otherwise. many a naive apologist will assert that history is "what happened in the past" so if miracles are possible we can reconstruct them. Again, the nature of historical reconstruction and its need for methodology and its results in terms of probability and the assumption that the world works then as it does today, this is impossible. All we have is reconstruction. If miracles were possible and if we had a time machine it would be possible to "reconstruct" them. Unfortunately, at least one of them "ifs" and probably both of them, IMO, are not true. Vinnie

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.