Freethought & Rationalism Archive

ApostateAbe · 02-07-2011, 07:25 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Toto

Quote:

Well, I made my case, and you are free to make your counter-arguments, or you can just insult me and leave it at that. I would love it if we could talk in real time and you could quiz me about American politics. I don't think I have ever been accused of possessing a "complete lack" of understanding about American politics, nor even a moderate lack.

Every atheist I have met in America is more concerned with protecting civil liberties than with promoting atheism or enforcing some idea of historical truth. Your claim that atheists in 21st century America might copy some failed tactic from early 20th century Russia is just - some wild fantasy. You did not make a case for this as a possible scenario.

OK, I will explain further, because I took it for granted that ideological groups of people behave differently when they are out of power than when they are in power. When groups are out of power and in the oppressed minority, then they are on the defensive, and they tend to advocate equality, not supremacy. When the same groups are in power, then some of them tend to advocate supremacy. You see it presently when we compare Muslims in the United States to Muslims in the Middle East, Africa and Asia.

ApostateAbe · 02-07-2011, 07:36 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by rizdek

Quote:

Originally Posted by ApostateAbe

"The ancient evidence for that claim does not actually exist. If you disagree, then find the ancient writing, not just someone else who repeats the claim."

But when faced with an outlandish story about a woman giving birth to a god, one wonders where the people that wrote it came up with it. Either it really happened and they wrote the account, they made it up out of thin air, or they heard it from somewhere else. Where does the evidence point?

Well, nobody can say for certain, but I find nothing particularly extraordinary in the model that Christian stories originated with Christians. Such a conclusion keeps the model as simple and plausible. If you are not inclined to think it probable that a few early Christians could have been clever enough to merely invent many of the stories about Jesus, then it is understandable that you would instead be inclined to think that they borrowed their stories from somewhere else. But, of course, you would need evidence, first, about any specific claim, and not repeat just any modern urban legend about where the stories came from.

ApostateAbe · 02-07-2011, 07:48 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mountainman

Quote:

Originally Posted by ApostateAbe

My contempt is directed specifically at the very many people online who pass on the lists of god-men and the list of characteristics they share with Jesus, in a game of telephone traceable to Kersey Graves of the 19th century, without citing primary evidence nor qualified scholars.

This contempt is obviously both blind and uneducated, since it would seem that qualified scholars have not yet assessed this work of Kersey Graves. Carrier admits this fact, and provides a number of disclaimers against whitewashing Graves completely, which you are trying to do without doing the necessary scholarship

Carrier on Graves

For example here is Graves on the miracles and religion of Apollonius of Tyana. If the apologists can use books like those in the new testament canonical collection as sources for the HJ, then all Graves has done here is to use "The Life of Apollonius of Tyana" by Philostratus as a source for the historical Apollonius.

Which of these citations by Graves about Apollonius do you object to and/or are contemptuous of?

[...]

All these events are taken from this source by Philostratus, which Eusebius specifically refers to as a "history" many times in his "Against Hierocles".

OK, how about these four:

Was crucified amidst a display of divine power.
He rose from the dead.
Appeared to his disciples after his resurrection.
Like Christ, he convinced a Tommy Didymus by getting him to feel the print of the nails in his hands and feet.

Very specific claims, especially the last one. Find evidence for any one of them, and I will apologize. If you can find evidence of that point about the nails in his hands and feet, I promise you that I will start taking what you say seriously and no longer almost always ignore you.

Toto · 02-07-2011, 08:06 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ApostateAbe

... OK, I will explain further, because I took it for granted that ideological groups of people behave differently when they are out of power than when they are in power. When groups are out of power and in the oppressed minority, then they are on the defensive, and they tend to advocate equality, not supremacy. When the same groups are in power, then some of them tend to advocate supremacy. You see it presently when we compare Muslims in the United States to Muslims in the Middle East, Africa and Asia.

You are assuming that the atheists in power in the early 20th century USSR bear some resemblance to modern American atheists. But atheists in the US are more likely to take their ideology from the atheistic but anti-communist Ayn Rand, or from Thomas Paine. And there is no common atheist purpose, other than opposing government support for religion. Individual atheists are more likely to make common cause with religionists who share their economic or political philosophies.

This is getting a bit outside of the scope of this forum. But it just seems to be another example of Abe shooting from the hip on a subject that he doesn't know enough about.

We've all done this sort of thing. It takes some knowledge to know exactly what you don't know, and where you are justified in drawing conclusions from what you do know. But this is a pattern with Abe. Please take some time before posting.

mountainman · 02-07-2011, 08:13 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ApostateAbe

Quote:

Originally Posted by mountainman

Quote:

Originally Posted by ApostateAbe

My contempt is directed specifically at the very many people online who pass on the lists of god-men and the list of characteristics they share with Jesus, in a game of telephone traceable to Kersey Graves of the 19th century, without citing primary evidence nor qualified scholars.

This contempt is obviously both blind and uneducated, since it would seem that qualified scholars have not yet assessed this work of Kersey Graves. Carrier admits this fact, and provides a number of disclaimers against whitewashing Graves completely, which you are trying to do without doing the necessary scholarship

Carrier on Graves

For example here is Graves on the miracles and religion of Apollonius of Tyana. If the apologists can use books like those in the new testament canonical collection as sources for the HJ, then all Graves has done here is to use "The Life of Apollonius of Tyana" by Philostratus as a source for the historical Apollonius.

Which of these citations by Graves about Apollonius do you object to and/or are contemptuous of?

[...]

All these events are taken from this source by Philostratus, which Eusebius specifically refers to as a "history" many times in his "Against Hierocles".

OK, how about these four:

Was crucified amidst a display of divine power.
He rose from the dead.
Appeared to his disciples after his resurrection.
Like Christ, he convinced a Tommy Didymus by getting him to feel the print of the nails in his hands and feet.

Very specific claims, especially the last one. Find evidence for any one of them, and I will apologize.

The 2nd and 3rd claims are taken from Book 8

He rose from the dead.
Appeared to his disciples after his resurrection.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Philostratus from the Life of Apollonius of Tyana

31. And even after his death, he continued to preach that the soul is immortal; but although he taught this account of it to be correct, he discouraged men from meddling in such high subjects.

For there came to Tyana a youth who did not shrink from acrimonious discussions, and would not accept truth in argument. Now Apollonius had already passed away from among men, but people still wondered at his passing, and no one ventured to dispute that he was immortal. This being so, the discussions were mainly about the soul, for a band of youth were there passionately addicted to wisdom. The young man in question, however, would on no account allow the tenet of immortality of the soul, and said: "I myself, gentlemen, have done nothing now for over nine months but pray to Apollonius that he would reveal to me the truth about the soul; but he is so utterly dead that he will not appear to me in response to my entreaties, nor give me any reason to consider him immortal."

Such were the young man's words on that occasion, but on the fifth day following, after discussing the same subject, he fell asleep where he was talking with them, and of the young men who were studying with him, some were reading books, and others were industriously drawing geometrical figures on the ground, when on a sudden, like one possessed, he leapt up still in a half sleep, streaming with perspiration, and cried out: "I believe thee."

And, when those who were present asked him what was the matter; "Do you not see," said he, "Apollonius the sage, how that he is present with us and is listening to our discussion, and is reciting wondrous verses about the soul?" "But where is he?" the others asked, "For we cannot see him anywhere, although we would rather do so than possess all the blessings of mankind."

And the youth replied: "It would seem that he is come to converse with myself alone concerning the tenets which I would not believe. Listen therefore to the inspired argument which he is delivering:

etc
etc

Quote:

If you can find evidence of that point about the nails in his hands and feet, I promise you that I will start taking what you say seriously and no longer almost always ignore you.

I will have a further look around for the last two sources. The point about the hands and feet may be related to his reappearance out of the court room of one of the ROman Emperors, and not his death. However it may be quite possible that Graves has fudged these in some way. I dont know for certain yet. But if he has "fudged" these 2 claims, they are 2 out of a total of 50 claims, or as a percentage, he got things 96% right, so I cannot see the basis for your contempt of his presentation in this specific instance of Apollonius. I am unable to say the same for other sources such as Horus or Isis or Mithra, because I have not examined them.

PS

Here is the account where Apollonius rejoins Damis after three days.
Source

Quote:

[§41] And on the next day he called Damis and said: "My defense has to be pleaded by me on the day appointed, so do you betake yourself in the direction of Dicaearchia,[1] for it is better to go by land; and when you have saluted Demetrius, turn aside to the sea-shore where the island of Calypso lies; for there you shall see me appear to you."
"Alive," asked Damis, "or how?"

Apollonius with a smile replied: "As I myself believe, alive, but as you will believe, risen from the dead."

Accordingly he says that he went away with much regret, for although he did not quite despair of his master's life, yet he hardly expected him to escape death. And on the third day he arrived at Dicaearchia, where he at once heard news of the great storm which had raged during those days; for a gale with rain had burst over the sea, sinking some of the ships that were sailing thither, and driving out of their course those which were tending to Sicily and the straits of Messina. And then he understood why it was that Apollonius had bidden him to go by land.

This does not appear to suffice the last "Doubting Thomas" claim.
But perhaps it refers to the incident where Apollonius removes his chains?

Source

Quote:

[§38] Damis says that though Apollonius uttered many more discourses of the same kind, he was himself in despair of the situation, because he saw no way out of it except such as the gods have vouchsafed to some in answer to prayer, when they were in even worse straits. But a little before midday, he tells us that he said: "O man of Tyana," -for he took a special pleasure, it appears, in being called by that name,- "what is to become of us?"

"Why what has become of us already," said Apollonius, "and nothing more, for no one is going to kill us."

"And who," said Damis, "is so invulnerable as that? But will you ever be liberated?"

"So far as it rests with the verdict of the court," said Apollonius, "I shall be set at liberty this day, but so far as depend upon my own will, now and here." And with these words he took his leg out of the fetters and remarked to Damis: "Here is proof positive to you of my freedom, to cheer you up."

Damis says that it was then for the first time that he really and truly understood the nature of Apollonius, to wit that it was divine and superhuman, for without sacrifice -and how in prison could he have offered any?- and without a single prayer, without even a word, he quietly laughed at the fetters, and then inserted his leg in them afresh, and behaved like a prisoner once more.

This is similar to, but not explicitly the same type of "Doubting Thomas" claim.

ApostateAbe · 02-07-2011, 08:42 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mountainman

Quote:

Originally Posted by ApostateAbe

OK, how about these four:

Was crucified amidst a display of divine power.
He rose from the dead.
Appeared to his disciples after his resurrection.
Like Christ, he convinced a Tommy Didymus by getting him to feel the print of the nails in his hands and feet.

Very specific claims, especially the last one. Find evidence for any one of them, and I will apologize.

The 2nd and 3rd claims are taken from Book 8

He rose from the dead.
Appeared to his disciples after his resurrection.

Quote:

If you can find evidence of that point about the nails in his hands and feet, I promise you that I will start taking what you say seriously and no longer almost always ignore you.

I will have a further look around for the last two sources. The point about the hands and feet may be related to his reappearance out of the court room of one of the ROman Emperors, and not his death. However it may be quite possible that Graves has fudged these in some way. I dont know for certain yet. But if he has "fudged" these 2 claims, they are 2 out of a total of 50 claims, or as a percentage, he got things 96% right, so I cannot see the basis for your contempt of his presentation in this specific instance.

You found evidence for at least one of them. It isn't clear if it is a death and resurrection, a bodily death and a persistence of the soul, or just a mistaken death, but I think that is evidence enough. I was wrong, and I am sorry.

show_no_mercy · 02-08-2011, 05:40 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Perspicuo

By the way...
Why don't we have a group arguing for a Historical Heracles? Why the discrimination?

Because there aren't any modern scholars who think they are in communication with Hercules every Sunday. Can't say the same for New Testament scholars...

Perspicuo · 02-08-2011, 02:41 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Toto

You are assuming that the atheists in power in the early 20th century USSR bear some resemblance to modern American atheists.

Hey hey hey! American? Better say "modern atheists in countries where communism is not stuffed down your throat".

Quote:

Originally Posted by Toto

But atheists in the US are more likely to take their ideology from the atheistic but anti-communist Ayn Rand,

Eeeew. Really? Where's the door out?

I'd say Russell. At least in the Spanish speaking world, Russell has been a great influence. Too bad Ingersoll is virtually unknown over here.

mountainman · 02-09-2011, 07:30 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ApostateAbe

CCC, in contrast, is almost exclusively anti-religious, seen only when accompanied with rhetoric against Christianity, and the spread of such ideas are motivated primarily by anti-religious belief and sentiment. I would love to meet those Christians who believe CCC. I think mountainman may be the only such Christian I know, if he counts.

If Constantine had not embraced this plain and simple superstition in the 4th century we might have made it to Alpha Centauri by now. The emergence theories related to "cookie cutter christs" have been almost directly in response to the failure to establish any historical trace of an historical "Jesus Christ" as asserted by Greek texts of the religious authorities ever since the 4th century.

As technology and science have progressed and we begin to perceive ancient history a little more clearly than those like Graves a century ago, the Great Silence of the archaeological evidence and the suspicious nature of the earliest Greek and Coptic and Syriac and Manichaean manuscripts suggest that the very historical accounts of "Christian Origins to the Fifth Century" are inextricably characterised by fraudulent misrepresentation of history, and by the glorification of the "New and Strange Church of Constantine".

CCC theories are trying to make sense of the transition from the Old Greek Gods to the New Christian God, given that the New Christian God was never historical - that is, given that the new testament is non historical. They are a step in the right direction in my opinion. They have rejected as historical "the Early Christian Jesus". What they have thus far not yet been able to do it to reject as historical "the Early Christian Nation of Christians". Once people feel comfortable in even just simulating as an hypothesis that Christian History may have been invented, they will find themselves staring down the barrel of Constantine's smoking canon, and an intelligent investigation can be made concerning the evidence of the 4th century, commencing c.324 CE with that "Porphyrian" Arius of Alexandria, and the Councils of Antioch and Nicaea, immediately followed by the massive Arian controversy which lasted centuries and generations.

Steve Weiss · 02-09-2011, 10:55 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Perspicuo

A core historical Jesus, if there is one, would be so far buried under the mythical one that all attempts to find him are doomed. At most what you can do is what Thomas Jefferson did: rewrite the gospels without the miracles.

But a wedding at Cana without miracles has no more evidence of being true than the miracle you took out. You don't know if it's a real wedding beautified with a miracle, or it was made up just to give a story-context for the miracle!

Which is the reason why I believe that "Historical Jesus" rhetoric is as futile as a hypothetical Historical Heracles rhetoric.

By the way...
Why don't we have a group arguing for a Historical Heracles? Why the discrimination? The only difference is that the pagans were wiped out by the Christians and are no more... so now there is no social conditioning to motivate people to wish there ever was a real Heracles as they have with Jesus.

I agree on all points. Separating myth from fact is lost in history. All that is left is the agenda of apologists.

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

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.