Freethought & Rationalism Archive

mountainman · 07-29-2006, 06:09 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Chris Weimer

Jobar - don't bother. Any evidence he is presented is dismissed or cited as a later forgery.

How did you get to be a moderator?

All evidence which has
been presented in this forum (as being evidence supporting
the inference that there existed christians, and christianity
in the pre-Nicaean period) has been indexed here:
http://www.mountainman.com.au/essenes/article_070.htm

The evidence presented is listed and discussed.
So far, noone here has provided any reasonable
archeological evidence for pre-Nicaean christianity.

Here is the most relevant discussion thread:
http://www.iidb.org/vbb/showthread.php?t=168491
archeological evidence for pre-Nicaean christianity?

Pete Brown

Doug Shaver · 07-29-2006, 06:59 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jobar

I also thought of Gilgamesh- isn't it accepted that he was a very early Accaddian monarch? (Not sure of that.)

I've never heard that before, but I've never done any serious research on Gilgamesh, either. I've just all my life seen passing references to the story and have always assumed that it was only a story.

Toto · 07-29-2006, 07:17 PM

This academic site seems to assume that there was a historical Gilgamesh

Gilgamesh

Quote:

Gilgamesh was an historical king of Uruk in Babylonia, on the River Euphrates in modern Iraq; he lived about 2700 B.C. Although historians (and your textbook) tend to emphasize Hammurabi and his code of law, the civilizations of the Tigris-Euphrates area, among the first civilizations, focus rather on Gilgamesh and the legends accruing around him to explain, as it were, themselves. Many stories and myths were written about Gilgamesh, some of which were written down about 2000 B.C. in the Sumerian language on clay tablets which still survive; the Sumerian language, as far as we know, bears no relation to any other human language we know about. These Sumerian Gilgamesh stories were integrated into a longer poem, versions of which survive not only in Akkadian (the Semitic language, related to Hebrew, spoken by the Babylonians) but also on tablets written in Hurrian and Hittite (an Indo-European language, a family of languages which includes Greek and English, spoken in Asia Minor).

Jayhawker Soule · 07-30-2006, 06:07 AM

While I think the evidence is inconclusive, I also view HC as the less strained/conspiratorial position.

That the Jerusalem sect with its "Pillars" is some clever Pauline (or Lukan) fiction seems a bit of a stretch. That this sect coalesced around a martyred sect leader - a source of much of the early 'Q' material - seems less of one.

I would love to be disuaded ...

Jobar · 07-30-2006, 11:22 AM

I phrased the options as I did to make it easy for me to detect changes in opinion on the subject. So far, there are four who have voted in this poll and also in '04 who changed their minds.

Two have changed to MJers: secular spoon, who voted 'insuff. data' in '04, and knotted paragon, who went with HJ in '04.

Two have changed to HJers: Mod Chris Weimer and JoeWallack both said 'insuff. data' in '04.

If any of you four gentlemen (ladies?) would care to comment on the reasons for your changed positions, I'm interested.

Total percentages are MJers, 46.4%; HJers, 33.35%; and isd, 20.3%. I haven't checked my figures, and there's some rounding error, but that looks right. The results from the original poll are listed in my OP.

It's still early to draw any conclusions, but IIRC the 'isd'ers were in the lead from the very beginning on that old poll. It may be just an artifact of the number of voters so far, but it would seem that there's many fewer who are undecided, and maybe more MJers overall (although again IIRC, the HJers vote started low and built up slowly on the old poll.)

I'll report on how the numbers change every week or so for a month or two.

Chris Weimer · 07-30-2006, 08:21 PM

I'm surprised, Joe, that you and I voted the same way both times. For me its a question of where the evidence lies - the mythicist camp takes too many turns, needs too many interpolations, and generally has the largest burden of evidence, which it consistently fails to substantiate. A better understanding of what the gospels are and how they came into existence did it in for me.

aa5874 · 07-30-2006, 11:17 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by OripahsTrebor

I could only be vague as I do not know much about Christ's life, but I think it is likely that he was born (obviously NOT a virgin birth), he lived in Palestine where later in his life he performed some "miracles." Finally, he was crucified, and like Tupac Shakur (there will be no Tupacalypse, as he will not come back), he died there. I find it hard to believe that the early Christians would invent a tale about their messiah being crucified, as crucifixion was a shameful form of death. Obviously Jesus' followers looked into the Hebrew scriptures for consolation at it was easy to reconcile crucifixion with the Isaiah 53 account.

Stories such as his miracles, virgin birth, and resurrection could be deemed mythology and superstition.

Where do you get your stories from? You need to study your Bible. Constantine and Eusebius would have probably canonised your story.

OripahsTrebor · 07-30-2006, 11:42 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by aa5874

Where do you get your stories from? You need to study your Bible. Constantine and Eusebius would have probably canonised your story.

Any specific verse that supports the Jesus myth?

I must remind you that I am not a trained skeptic in issues concerning Christianity unlike jjramsey or Jgibson.

knotted paragon · 07-31-2006, 03:36 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jobar

Two have changed to MJers: secular spoon, who voted 'insuff. data' in '04, and knotted paragon, who went with HJ in '04.

If any of you four gentlemen (ladies?) would care to comment on the reasons for your changed positions, I'm interested.

Although a ton of reading on both sides of the issue contributed to the change, I don't think I was convinced until I re-read Q, Thomas, and the NT while trying my best to maintain the philosophical mindset of those early audiences.

Some authors that made an impact on the issue: Ludemann, Harris, Doherty, Carrier, Thomas Sheehan, and Pascal Boyer.

Ultimately, once I began viewing the issue in the same manner as any other extraordinary claim in mythology, the AfS became much too loud. HJ is supported not from evidence, but entrenched assumptions "of what the gospels are and how they came into existence.”

JoeWallack · 07-31-2006, 06:35 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Chris Weimer

I'm surprised, Joe, that you and I voted the same way both times. For me its a question of where the evidence lies - the mythicist camp takes too many turns, needs too many interpolations, and generally has the largest burden of evidence, which it consistently fails to substantiate. A better understanding of what the gospels are and how they came into existence did it in for me.

JW:
In 2004 I had only gotten as far as the Question:

What is the Emphasis of our best Sources for Jesus (Paul and "Mark")?

My Answer is Impossible Jesus (MJ).

Of the two Possible explanations:

1) There was No Historical Jesus (HJ).

2) There was a Historical Jesus but these Authors were not interested in HJ.

I was Undecided as to which was better.

Now I've decided that 2) is the better explanation because I think it represents Paul and "Mark":

Paul
Reasons not to be interested in HJ:

1) Didn't know HJ.

2) Competing with those that did (Peter/James).

3) Sold Jesus based on MJ.

4) References to HJ such as "born of a woman" are mainly used in the context of prophecy fulfillment and not otherwise letting people know details of a HJ. Paul is Forced to use these references to a HJ because his Source, the Jewish Bible, is about supposed Historical people.

5) Paul was not persuaded by human witness to HJ. He was persuaded by Revelation of MJ.

All of this makes me see Paul as Reacting to and Rejecting the significance of HJ.

"Mark"

Reasons not to be interested in HJ:

1) Didn't know HJ.

2) Competing with those that did (Peter/James).

3) Sold Jesus based on MJ.

"Mark", coming later, has taken the competition a step further. Where Paul shows disagreement on some issues, "Mark" claims those who knew Jesus were complete Failures and abandoned Jesus. The details of "Mark's" narrative explain why "Mark" was not interested in HJ. Peter/James were interested in HJ, Teaching and Healing. "Mark" was interested in MJ, Suffering and Death.

Again, all of this makes me see "Mark" as Reacting to and Rejecting the significance of HJ.

Since Paul and "Mark" are Reacting to and Rejecting something, I think that something is HJ.

If I Am right though that Paul and "Mark" started with a Reaction and Rejection of HJ and than proceeded with MJ I still question if my answer should be HJ. Technically I think it should be. But practically speaking, if they are in effect starting with a MJ and rejecting the HJ they heard about could I also have the position that there was no HJ because it contributed hardly anything to the details of Paul and "Mark's" stories?

Joseph

http://www.errancywiki.com/index.php/Main_Page

View Poll Results: Jesus: mythical, historical, or insufficient data?
Voted in '04 for MJ, and still think Jesus was a myth.	8	7.69%
Voted in '04 for HJ, and still think Jesus was entirely/mostly historical	2	1.92%
Voted "insufficient data" in '04 and still think we don't have enough info to decide	5	4.81%
Voted in '04, but have changed since to MJer	3	2.88%
Voted in '04, but have changed since to HJer	2	1.92%
Voted in '04, but have since decided that the data is insufficient	2	1.92%
Did NOT vote in '04, but IMO Jesus was a myth.	38	36.54%
Did NOT vote in '04, but IMO Jesus was in some degree historical.	28	26.92%
Did NOT vote in '04, but IMO we have insufficient data to decide the question.	15	14.42%
Other- Biblical literalist, magical brownies, ???	1	0.96%
Voters: 104. You may not vote on this poll

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

07-30-2006, 06:07 AM	#34
Jayhawker Soule Veteran Member Join Date: Jan 2002 Location: Chicago Posts: 1,777	While I think the evidence is inconclusive, I also view HC as the less strained/conspiratorial position. That the Jerusalem sect with its "Pillars" is some clever Pauline (or Lukan) fiction seems a bit of a stretch. That this sect coalesced around a martyred sect leader - a source of much of the early *'Q'* material - seems less of one. I would love to be disuaded ...

07-30-2006, 11:22 AM	#35
Jobar Veteran Member Join Date: Jun 2001 Location: secularcafe.org Posts: 9,525	I phrased the options as I did to make it easy for me to detect changes in opinion on the subject. So far, there are four who have voted in this poll and also in '04 who changed their minds. Two have changed to MJers: secular spoon, who voted 'insuff. data' in '04, and knotted paragon, who went with HJ in '04. Two have changed to HJers: Mod Chris Weimer and JoeWallack both said 'insuff. data' in '04. If any of you four gentlemen (ladies?) would care to comment on the reasons for your changed positions, I'm interested. Total percentages are MJers, 46.4%; HJers, 33.35%; and isd, 20.3%. I haven't checked my figures, and there's some rounding error, but that looks right. The results from the original poll are listed in my OP. It's still early to draw any conclusions, but IIRC the 'isd'ers were in the lead from the very beginning on that old poll. It may be just an artifact of the number of voters so far, but it would seem that there's many fewer who are undecided, and maybe more MJers overall (although again IIRC, the HJers vote started low and built up slowly on the old poll.) I'll report on how the numbers change every week or so for a month or two.

07-30-2006, 08:21 PM	#36
Chris Weimer Veteran Member Join Date: Jun 2004 Location: none Posts: 9,879	I'm surprised, Joe, that you and I voted the same way both times. For me its a question of where the evidence lies - the mythicist camp takes too many turns, needs too many interpolations, and generally has the largest burden of evidence, which it consistently fails to substantiate. A better understanding of what the gospels are and how they came into existence did it in for me.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.