Freethought & Rationalism Archive

spamandham · 02-06-2010, 09:42 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ynquirer

At the end of the day, the best argument to support the historical Jesus is weakness of the mythicist way of discussing the evidence. For instance, if the historical Jesus was never questioned before the Enlightenment, why did the Christians forge Tacitus’ Annals 15:44?

It would be as natural for Tacitus to mistakenly assume that Christians derived from their founder 'Christus', as it was for Tertullian to mistakenly assume that Ebionites derived from their founder Ebion.

ApostateAbe · 02-06-2010, 10:30 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by lpetrich

It's "the brother of the lord" - Earl Doherty has argued that that is some kind of title.

Yeah, I know. I think he would have no choice but to argue that it is some kind of title, the same as any apologist for an unlikely theory makes possible but unlikely interpretations. I keep saying this, but it is important--speculations are not enough to justify advocacy of a theory when the evidence otherwise seems to contradict it, because almost anything is possible in the studies of history, especially the New Testament. Instead, we should be thinking in terms of probability and evidence. We have evidence that first century Christians interpreted the "title" much more literally. Josephus in 90 CE reported on the myth of the death of this same James, identifying him as: "...brother of Jesus, who was called Christ, whose name was James..." And, of course, we also have the gospels of Matthew and Mark, which list "James" as among the four literal brothers of Jesus. So, while "the Lord's brother" could possibly be a title that the late-first-century Christians misinterpreted and is now lost to history, we should really go with the theory that requires the least number of speculated unlikelihoods (Occam's razor), which is that Paul really met James, the brother of Jesus, in Jerusalem.

Quote:

Originally Posted by lpetrich

Such prophecies could be referring to some sort-of god.

I don't know exactly what you mean, but they were certainly referring to the Judaic God. The point is that human cult leaders are much more likely to say "Truly I say to you, this generation will not pass away until all these things [apocalyptic events] take place," and "I tell you the truth, some who are standing here will not taste death before they see the kingdom of God come with power," than mere mythical characters, because we see such people in the present day and throughout history, not merely mythical people.

Quote:

Originally Posted by lpetrich

You ought to take a closer look some time -- lots of movements don't have charismatic founder figures.

Yes, I would love to. I think it would benefit the evidence in favor of MJ if they could come up with good comparisons to Christianity. HJ advocates have Islam, the LDS church, Buddhism, Confucianism and Rastafarianism. What is the best analogy to Christianity if Jesus was never a human?

Quote:

Originally Posted by lpetrich

Quote:

The complete lack of debate in antiquity, either inside the religion or from the outside, about the seeming human existence of Jesus.

Not a very good argument. People in antiquity believed in the existence of people whose historicity we now consider dubious at best. Romulus, Homer, Aesop, Ebion, ... In fact, a popular theory of the nature of gods was euhemerism, that they were originally human heroes.

I think that is a good point. They skeptics against Christians apparently accepted miracle stories as fact but had different explanations, so it doesn't say much that they accepted that Jesus was a human even if he wasn't.

spamandham · 02-06-2010, 11:03 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ApostateAbe

Yeah, I know. I think he would have no choice but to argue that it is some kind of title, the same as any apologist for an unlikely theory makes possible but unlikely interpretations. I keep saying this, but it is important--speculations are not enough to justify advocacy of a theory when the evidence otherwise seems to contradict it

But 'seems' is highly subjective.

Paul uses variations of 'brother' (as well as other familial designations) dozens of times where it is clear it does not refer to any blood relationship. Yet when James - who

1) happens to be the leader of the lead church, i.e., basically the Pope
2) ...and who is known as 'James the Just' indicating a perception of high moral character, making him 'conformed to the likeness of his son' and thus a brother of the son according to Romans 8:29

- is referred to as 'brother of the lord', suddenly it is probable that this refers to a blood relationship in just this one case.

This has been pointed out to you before, yet you keep going off about some hypothetical group known as 'brothers of the lord' and ignoring these unique aspects of James that make it 'seem' that "brother of the lord" is a unique title for Just James rather than a blood relationship.

Toto · 02-07-2010, 12:50 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ApostateAbe

Quote:

Originally Posted by lpetrich

It's "the brother of the lord" - Earl Doherty has argued that that is some kind of title.

Yeah, I know. <snip repetitive insulting comments>

Robert Price has made that argument.

Quote:

We have evidence that first century Christians interpreted the "title" much more literally. Josephus in 90 CE reported on the myth of the death of this same James, identifying him as: "...brother of Jesus, who was called Christ, whose name was James..."

What is the probability that this was written by Josephus as opposed to a later cleric?

Quote:

.... So, while "the Lord's brother" could possibly be a title that the late-first-century Christians misinterpreted and is now lost to history, we should really go with the theory that requires the least number of speculated unlikelihoods (Occam's razor), which is that Paul really met James, the brother of Jesus, in Jerusalem.

This is a misinterpretation and misuse of Occam's Razor. Occam does not require that the simplest theory be accepted if it does not do a good job of explaining the evidence.

How does your theory that Brother of the Lord meant biological brother account for the positive indications that Paul thought of Jesus as a spiritual divine figure, or at least not as a man who existed in recent history?

Clivedurdle · 02-07-2010, 03:49 AM

Quote:

Now, in what way does a claim that Jesus was both a God and a man, sprit and flesh, corruptible and incorruptible hurt a mythicist?

I am afraid you seem totally unaware of the mythicist's position.

There does seem to be a complete misunderstanding here, that is far more general than just one poster.

Bringing the supernatural to the table in any way is in fact a mythicist position. Theists are by definition mythicists!

My mythicist position is a rational acknowledgement of this. Theists seem unable to acknowledge their base assumptions. Maybe if they did they could no longer be theists or mythicists. Maybe we should start using the term mythicist instead of theist.

My position with regard to am I a mythicist is actually acknowledging us humans are very good at making imaginary friends and that some examples, like the hybrid mangod we are discussing here obviously belongs in the fairy tale category.

We might need another term for the sort of mythicist I am. Theists are inside the mythic world and assume it is real, I am conscious of the mythic world and am able to observe it, I try to work out how it is socially constructed.

Anthropological mythicist?

Quote:

I'd be very careful about historical kernels if I were you.

Clivedurdle · 02-07-2010, 03:55 AM

Quote:

Flash a-ah
Savior of the Universe
Flash a-ah
He'll save every one of us

(Seemingly there is no reason for these extraordinary intergalactical upsets)
(Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha)
(What's happening Flash?)
(Only Doctor Hans Zarkhov, formerly at NASA, has provided any explanation)

Flash a-ah
He's a miracle

(This morning's unprecedented solar eclipse is no cause for alarm)

Flash a-ah
King of the impossible

He's for every one of us
Stand for every one of us
He save with a mighty hand
Every man, every woman
Every child, with a mighty
Flash

(General Kala, Flash Gordon approaching.)
(What do you mean Flash Gordon approaching? Open fire! All weapons! Dispatch war rocket Ajax to bring back his body)

http://www.sing365.com/music/lyric.n...2568940003B30B

lpetrich · 02-07-2010, 04:17 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ApostateAbe

Quote:

Originally Posted by lpetrich

You ought to take a closer look some time -- lots of movements don't have charismatic founder figures.

Yes, I would love to. I think it would benefit the evidence in favor of MJ if they could come up with good comparisons to Christianity. HJ advocates have Islam, the LDS church, Buddhism, Confucianism and Rastafarianism. What is the best analogy to Christianity if Jesus was never a human?

Who's the charismatic founder figure of Rastafarianism? Their claiming that Ethiopian Emperor Haile Selassie was their Messiah is not the same thing.

Let's see about the others:

Islam - no independent documentation
Buddhism - no independent documentation
Confucianism - no independent documentation
Mormonism - Joseph Smith was clearly a founder figure, and one with an abundance of independent documentation

Some movements do have well-defined founder figures, and sometimes well-documented ones at that. Movements without such figures often end up celebrating notable members as heroes, so we may have some tendency to seek founder figures and invent them if necessary.

Quote:

Originally Posted by lpetrich

Not a very good argument. People in antiquity believed in the existence of people whose historicity we now consider dubious at best. Romulus, Homer, Aesop, Ebion, ... In fact, a popular theory of the nature of gods was euhemerism, that they were originally human heroes.

I think that is a good point. They skeptics against Christians apparently accepted miracle stories as fact but had different explanations, so it doesn't say much that they accepted that Jesus was a human even if he wasn't.

Like claiming that Jesus Christ had performed sorcery.

There's something of that in the New Testament itself:

Quote:

For false Christs and false prophets will appear and perform signs and miracles to deceive the elect--if that were possible. (Matt 24:24, Mark 13:22)

Civil1z@tion · 02-07-2010, 04:56 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by lpetrich

Quote:

Originally Posted by ApostateAbe

Yes, I would love to. I think it would benefit the evidence in favor of MJ if they could come up with good comparisons to Christianity. HJ advocates have Islam, the LDS church, Buddhism, Confucianism and Rastafarianism. What is the best analogy to Christianity if Jesus was never a human?

Who's the charismatic founder figure of Rastafarianism? Their claiming that Ethiopian Emperor Haile Selassie was their Messiah is not the same thing.

Leonard Howell doesn't count?

Quote:

Originally Posted by lpetrich

Let's see aboArut the others:

Islam - no independent documentation

Arabs were a united force under a caliph within a few years of the supposed death of Mohammed. Before that the Arab tribes had been disunited and fighting amoungst each other. Someone united the Arabs in the early 7th century and if it wasn't the men who led the Arabs out of Arabia, Mohammed is the most likely alternative.

Quote:

Originally Posted by lpetrich

Confucianism - no independent documentation

If we have to discount every philosophical or religious tract as possible historical evidence we're not going to have all that much evidence of anything to work with. A man calling himself Confucius gets reported by those who supposedly knew him and who wrote down some of his sayings. This is about as good of evidence that of Socrates.

Quote:

Originally Posted by lpetrich

Mormonism - Joseph Smith was clearly a founder figure, and one with an abundance of independent documentation

Other examples include Baha'i's founder the Bahá'u'lláh, Scientology's founder L. Ron Hubbard, and FSM's founder Bobby Henderson (ok the last one is a joke religion, but even joke religion often have definte founders). Modern history shows that more likely than not, religions have charismatic founders. Why shouldn't this be true for the past?

Quote:

Originally Posted by lpetrich

Some movements do have well-defined founder figures, and sometimes well-documented ones at that. Movements without such figures often end up celebrating notable members as heroes, so we may have some tendency to seek founder figures and invent them if necessary.

Like claiming that Jesus Christ had performed sorcery.

Not every religion claims a founding figure. Most polytheistic faiths don't. So its not the case that a religion must claim to have a founder. In modern times, Jediism is an example of a religion that doesn't really claim a founder (George Lucas came up with Jedis but never intended for them to be a religion). So the supposition that we need to make up founders if a religion doesn't have them is false.

Chili · 02-07-2010, 05:32 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Roger Pearse

[

Education, education and education.

All the best,

Roger Pearse

Education is the enemy of faith and in religious studies must end at the age of reason, which then is why I have always maintained that the Gutenburg press was a giant yeast factory . . . and that even today, the best thing that ever could happen to N. America is that we gather all bibles from North to South and burn them from East to West. My point being here that there is nothing wrong with the bible but our reliance on the literal interpretation to make us believers against reason is just the wrong thing to do.

We see it so often in this discussion board that Herod is still active today as the one who kills the inner child by our expectancy of rebirth . . . simply by citing John 13, is it? ("you must be born again") that so has become the sin of the nation in many or most Americans in the particular and that later becomes trump in American rule (such as just here in Hebrews 10 in a different tread). It is kind of like 'loading up for bear' if you are 'learning to fish' (from "teach a man to fish" etc.).

Opposite this would I say that indoctrination is the secret behind faith wherein the material provided must bear witness to truth that it may be 'encountered' later in life by the believer, and yes, our celebration of Christ-mass is a good example of this that should never be 'merry' as it is meant to present our 'advent' of life wherein the light of common day did not appear on the sacred night when the Christ-child is born in us (not unto).

In this sense are icons important in the metaphor they provide that so belong in churches and lower grade schools.

andrewcriddle · 02-07-2010, 05:43 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by gurugeorge

What "synoptic tradition" that might have existed before 70 CE? What gives you the right to slip the word "tradition" in here at this point?

Obviously texts that mention a historical figure from a certain period can't have been written before that period, but the mere presence of a known historical figure in a bit of writing doesn't, in itself, show that the texts are historical proof of another figure mentioned in the texts who lived around that time. It's just a total non sequitur - a "howler".

As to "anti-religious presupposition", well, it depends on what you mean by "religion". For nigh on 2,000 years people believed that there was a historical god-man, a one-shot, miracle-working avatar of the divine, walking this earth. There certainly was a religion based around that fantastic figure, and most people thought the NT texts were as good a proof as you could get of his historical existence. But if you are rational, while it is still open to you to believe such a figure existed, you can't reasonably say you have any rational backing for that position from the NT any more. It's just not strong enough.

Now, you MIGHT be able to show that while there wasn't a miracle-working god-man by the name of Joshua the Messiah walking this earth 2,000 years ago, there was some obscure human fellow called Joshua around whom the famous myth of the miracle-working god-man somehow accreted - and you might be able to have a religion around that fellow (e.g. if his teachings are wise, like the human Buddha figure - supposing you could extract what he really said from those texts).

But if you were to do so, that wouldn't be because there was any direct "historical proofiness" coming from the NT texts themselves any more, that you could take for granted and just blithely translate over to the hypothesised human being.

ALL THE PURPORTED "HISTORICAL PROOFINESS" SUPPOSEDLY INTERNAL TO THOSE TEXTS IS ATTACHED TO THE MIRACLE WORKING GODMAN.

If such an entity doesn't or can't exist, there's no "historical proofiness" that's automatically left over that you can then use to prove the existence of an honest-to-goodness human being by the same name.

The texts could be bloody ANYTHING for all you know. Jokes, satires, made-up religious myths, serious religious tracts about a purely visionary entity, entertainments, etc., etc. What they actually are has to be worked out before their evidentiary status can be established.

There's just a yawning chasm here that no rational argument can cross. Any "historical proofiness" for a historical man you suppose to exist in those texts has to be established from the ground up, from finding out the provenance of the texts, who wrote them, when, where, why, etc. THEN you might be able to say there's some evidence there - or not.

I think we should distinguish here.

It may be possible to use the miraculous elements in the NT texts as (weak) evidence for other claims eg that the texts are late or not intended to be taken literally and to argue against a historical Jesus on the basis of these other claims.

(I think the miraculous elements can only be at most weak evidence for such claims. It is obviously true that a narrative without miraculous elements can be late and/or not intended to be literal history, and it seems almost equally certain that a narrative with miraculous elements can be both early and intended as serious history.)

What I think is simply mistaken is the idea that only accounts without supernatural elements can serve as real historical evidence.

Andrew Criddle

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

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.