Freethought & Rationalism Archive

crispy · 05-19-2008, 05:52 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by J.F. Gaul

Quote:

Originally Posted by Vampyroteuthis

I think I missed the announcement proclaiming jebus was a real person. Can you send me a pic or something?

It's Jesus. Yay!

Oh that one is exploitable

(as in photoshopable)

Solo · 05-19-2008, 06:39 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jules?

If we were to deal with a similar hero such as King Arthur or Merlin then 'scholars' tend towards the mythical with the element of a real person lurking somewhere. Jesus is different and it is telling that from the very creation of Christianity writers were at great pains to point out that their hero really did exist. It is telling because if it was widely accepted they need not have wasted their breath. All the early writers were of the Greco-Roman world and wrote in Greek or Latin [is this correct?] indicating they were never directly connected to the events described.

I agree in some respects with the OP in that if Darkins had said Merlin was probably a great historical man but just a man and not born of an angel/woman then we would probably be quite critical.

Imagine, if you will the story od Vivian's entrapment of Merlin, with a bit of Markan twist to it:

When the enchantress conjures a tower around her lover, suddenly her family and friends appear on the set, waving their hands and screaming: 'sorry guys,.... hey guys, yes you.... who are reading this....listen : sorry, no tower.....there is no tower here, really, no way Vivian can do this sort of thing, she's just out of her mind, you see - this is a misunderstanding; we know her and we tell you she has no training in masonic sorcery. Please, excuse her ! .

Now, our reading of the Arthurian legends would sure be different if the mythical panoply in them was being subverted in this wise.

Jiri

05-19-2008, 07:13 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by J.F. Gaul

Quote:

Why does Dawkins always say that Jesus probably existed, he always uses that wording instead simply saying, "let's pretend he existed, than..." or "Jesus probably didn't exist"

Most scholars accept that Jesus existed. Much of Jesus' life was simply mythologized. Granted, all of the events of Jesus' life that we have in the Gospels are copied/borrowed from earlier sources, including the Old Testament, but on the whole most evidence points to an existing Jesus as a teacher who was executed.

Quote:

Am I missing something here, it's hard to believe Dawkins would be so uninformed..

I'm afraid Dawkins isn't the one who is misinformed in this case...

I agree with you, J.F. There probably was a guy called Jesus, whose life was mythologised to become Jesus Christ of religious fame. On the other hand, maybe not. But really why should an atheist care, since if there is no god, then the Jesus story is largely fiction?

Clivedurdle · 05-19-2008, 10:52 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jules?

Hmmmm hasn't the concept of a mythical Jesus been around since christians started to worship as gnostics?

But how long has the historical Jesus been around?

Schweizer?

The godman has been around since the beginning, the proto orthodox view may be understood as gnostic with added flesh.

Did any ancients say hey, this godman of yours sounds very like Hercules et al. Or was the problem that then they thought Hercules was real?

J-D · 05-19-2008, 05:45 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jules?

The 'was Jesus historical' arguement rages on several fronts but from the perspective of what should the default position be

I don't understand what you mean by a 'default' position or why you think there should be one.

Malachi151 · 05-19-2008, 08:08 PM

FYI, I sent a copy of my book (based on the article you linked) to Dawkin's organization, with a note to pass it on to him. I've never heard back from him or anyone else with his org., so I have no idea what happened with it, but I was indeed trying to inform him on this issue so that at the very least he wouldn't keep proclaiming with certainty that Jesus was such a great guy and moral teacher.

Quote:

Originally Posted by AtheistVirus

Why does Dawkins always say that Jesus probably existed, he always uses that wording instead simply saying, "let's pretend he existed, than..." or "Jesus probably didn't exist"

Has he read this-
http://www.rationalrevolution.net/ar...th_history.htm

Am I missing something here, it's hard to believe Dawkins would be so uninformed..

Why go positive on probability of his existence instead of negative which is more concordant with available evidence??
I thought he would be more scientific than that...

jules? · 05-20-2008, 02:43 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by J-D

Quote:

Originally Posted by jules?

The 'was Jesus historical' arguement rages on several fronts but from the perspective of what should the default position be

I don't understand what you mean by a 'default' position or why you think there should be one.

The default or factory settings for history should be based on evidence. King arthur is a good example being literal and myth but further research throws up the possibility of one or more historical candidates. The Historical 'arthurs' offer a foundation for the myths but do not and could not do the magical exploits and in some respects drawing a history of a real person from the myth is futile. Jesus is different, there is a religion based on him being historical so therefore the bias makes logical argument particularly difficult,

There just seems to be a complete lack of objectiveness on the subject.

jules? · 05-20-2008, 02:44 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Clivedurdle

Quote:

Originally Posted by jules?

Hmmmm hasn't the concept of a mythical Jesus been around since christians started to worship as gnostics?

But how long has the historical Jesus been around?

Schweizer?

The godman has been around since the beginning, the proto orthodox view may be understood as gnostic with added flesh.

Did any ancients say hey, this godman of yours sounds very like Hercules et al. Or was the problem that then they thought Hercules was real?

I would also add that Jesus had been a mythical person for at least five centuries before his appearance.

spamandham · 05-20-2008, 08:49 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jules?

I would also add that Jesus had been a mythical person for at least five centuries before his appearance.

I've never heard that. What do you base it on?

jules? · 05-20-2008, 03:08 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by spamandham

Quote:

Originally Posted by jules?

I would also add that Jesus had been a mythical person for at least five centuries before his appearance.

I've never heard that. What do you base it on?

I think you will find the prophets were awaiting the messiah in the 6th century, and later writers are even more specific such as Dan and especially enoch who describes the messiah in apperance and the fact that he had pre-existed since creation. hence the reason the gospels search and quote 48 [matt] passages to prove JC was the one. which is a bit rubbish really because the messiah; herald of the End Time that never came.

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

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.