Freethought & Rationalism Archive

spamandham · 02-14-2010, 05:27 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by GakuseiDon

Whatever the reason, there is a pattern of lack of interest in historical details beyond just historical details of Jesus that exists, and is ignored.

Why would we expect Paul to write about irrelevant historical details of his day?

Regardless, Paul *does* include theologically irrelevant historical details. He greets lists of people, he goes off on a rant about Peter and what a hypocrite he is, and on and on.

Doug Shaver · 02-14-2010, 06:27 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Doug Shaver

Can you name one who was (a) a Jew and (b) worshiped by other Jews as a god (or something similar to a god) within a few years after his death?

Quote:

Originally Posted by arnoldo

Menachem Mendel Schneerson

I was responding to a remark you made about people living two thousand years ago.

Doug Shaver · 02-14-2010, 06:37 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rick Sumner

Without getting into quibbles about whether or not the ToR was historical, there can be no doubt that the Scrolls present him as an historical character.

I haven't read the scrolls enough to have an opinion either way. However, whenever I hear anyone say "there can be no doubt" about the correct reading of some ancient document, my skepticism goes on red alert.

maryhelena · 02-14-2010, 09:06 AM

Update re the debate

http://ancienthebrewpoetry.typepad.c...mythicist.html

Rick Sumner · 02-14-2010, 09:13 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Doug Shaver

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rick Sumner

Without getting into quibbles about whether or not the ToR was historical, there can be no doubt that the Scrolls present him as an historical character.

I haven't read the scrolls enough to have an opinion either way. However, whenever I hear anyone say "there can be no doubt" about the correct reading of some ancient document, my skepticism goes on red alert.

I would be very interested in seeing an analysis of, for example, just the peshars (without moving to the abundant material outside them) that sees them as something other than an application of prophecy to events.

Toto · 02-14-2010, 12:04 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by GakuseiDon

... Whatever the reason, there is a pattern of lack of interest in historical details beyond just historical details of Jesus that exists, and is ignored.

Do not assume it is being ignored just because no one draws the same conclusion you do.

mountainman · 02-14-2010, 01:21 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Toto

Quote:

Originally Posted by GakuseiDon

Quote:

Originally Posted by Toto

From the NT, I would conclude that the early church is mythical, not that it was historical but people didn't talk about the details.

Fair enough. So the early church is mythical, also.

What about later Second Century writers? There isn't a lot of history there either, except when we get to heresiologists. Most of the Second Century apologists appear to neglect the history of pretty much anything also. Was the later Second Century church mythical as well?

Probably.

Surely this now begs the same question concerning the Third Century. Was the later Third Century church mythical as well?

aa5874 · 02-14-2010, 01:24 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by GakuseiDon

Quote:

Originally Posted by Toto

This is truly the mark of desparation, scraping the bottom of the barrel of arguments. Paul didn't include any details about Jesus, even when they would seem to be vital to his point, because he ran out of room on the scroll? And therefore the HJ existed?

No (and thank you for at least asking this as a question this time!) A pattern definitely exists, which mythicists ignore. I personally suspect that the length of the scroll offered constraints on writing that we can't appreciate today (which is no more than what Doherty wrote). But it is irrelevant to my point. Whatever the reason, there is a pattern of lack of interest in historical details beyond just historical details of Jesus that exists, and is ignored.

But, this is really amusing.

The mythicist argument is directly based on lack of historical details about Jesus. Lack of hitorical details is PRECISELY the fundamental catalyst or basis of the mythicist's argument.

It must be the historicist who have ignored the fact that he has no history for his Jesus of history.

Once virtually 100% of the documents which have randomly survived do not contain any historical details about Jesus, then it can be reasonably hypothesised that the lost documents are also lacking in historical details.

And this is exactly what a mythicist would have expected. Jesus was known or believed to be a God, therefore all the surviving documents would clearly describe Jesus as a God.

And that is exactly the state of affairs. It can only get worse for HJ.

Toto · 02-14-2010, 03:49 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mountainman

Quote:

Originally Posted by Toto

Probably.

Surely this now begs the same question concerning the Third Century. Was the later Third Century church mythical as well?

Actually, for the second half of the second century we do have some indications of the church's existence, in the form of Lucian's parody, not to metion proto-orthodox writers who describe various heretics, including Marcion.

arnoldo · 02-14-2010, 03:49 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mountainman

Quote:

Originally Posted by Toto

Probably.

Surely this now begs the same question concerning the Third Century. Was the later Third Century church mythical as well?

Hell, maybe the 21st century church is mythical. Although according to one definition mythical=having supernatural attributes

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

02-14-2010, 09:06 AM	#214
maryhelena Veteran Member Join Date: Mar 2009 Location: England Posts: 2,527	Update re the debate http://ancienthebrewpoetry.typepad.c...mythicist.html

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.