Freethought & Rationalism Archive

archibald · 10-04-2011, 01:53 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Toto

Archibald - I am sorry if I have failed to keep your voluminous writings straight.

No prob. Thanks for apologizing. I aplogize for getting cross.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Toto

Tim O'Neill has not posted here in a while. There is no hex on his comments, but you cannot refer to some argument he made somewhere else as if he is an established authority. If you want to use his arguments, you have to link to them or reproduce them. There is nothing that he posted here that proved any point you are trying to make.

No, of course it doesn't prove anything, but please accept that I was not citing him because he is an authority (though his general understanding of ancient history is better than mine) but because, as an author might refer to what someone else says in support of something via a footnote, I agree with him that there is not, in fact, a shortage of evidence for Jesus by comparison with other similar ancient figures. Now, moving on....

Quote:

Originally Posted by Toto

Try to find a character in history with "evidence" as flimsy and contradictory and full of legends as that for Jesus. You will find that the historical verdict is "maybe historical, maybe legendary." That is how many Buddhists treat the historical stories in their scriptures.

The problem is that there is a lack of the sort of evidence we would expect if Jesus resembled the gospel story, so historical Jesus proponents have redefined the real historical Jesus to be someone different, totally marginal and not worthy of attention, so that no evidence would really be expected.

I would have preferred if you had tried to answer my question first before asking yours,

but, nevertheless, yours is a very good question, IMO, and I take the point behind it.

The bottom line is, interestingly, that "maybe historical, maybe legendary" is not far from my position, and I think agnosticism (if that is the right word) is one of the more rational and defensible positions.

So, how do we all end up at each other's throats?

Speaking for myself, just as you feel an urge to defend mythicism from those who dismiss it out of hand, I think I take exception to those who sound too certain of their mythicist hypothesis. That probably goes a long way to explaining why I, unfortunately, get sucked into tit for tat, t'is/t'isn't arguments like so many here, and I may therefore seem at times as if I am strongly and vehemently opposed to mythicism. I'm not.

I do have slight HJ leanings, because I think it is the more parsimonius, less unusual of the two explanations, but even this may have more to do with my seeing many mythicist hypotheses as weak, rather than an HJ hypothesis as necessarily particularly strong, of itself, so it's a comparative thing, for me.

I won't bore you by recapping, in this reply, the reasons why I do place my hypothetical bet in one direction, but I will do it, briefly, in my next reply to you, if you are interested to hear it again. Suffice to say here that I do agree that "maybe historical, maybe legendary" is a very reasonable and rational position. If it were an actual cash bet that I stood to lose, I would not put much monety on the table.

archibald · 10-04-2011, 01:59 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by tanya

Quote:

Yes, but don't you think it's odd that a messiah should need his sins cleansed?

Jesus was the annointed, not the messiah. Was it not common, a couple thousand years ago, for other Temple rabbis, who had also been annointed, to continue to follow the Law, after annointment, and undergo (daily?) ritual bathing exercises, akin to baptism? If John had been regarded (either in history, or in fiction) as a divinely empowered prophet, would it then not be entirely logical, rather than "odd", for all persons, including those who had been annointed, to undergo his baptism ceremony?

Fair point. That could make decent sense (to me). Though I do think Jesus was described as the messiah, even by Mark.

As ever, when I look at one particular piece of the puzzle, it seems easier to be undecided. It is only when I look at the overall jigsaw that I start to feel that the evidence suggests, slightly, one type of explanation being better than another type.

archibald · 10-04-2011, 02:05 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by andrewcriddle

Yes there is solid contemporary evidence for the very basic facts about Alexander the Great.

However, a surprising amount of what we think we know about Alexander, e.g. that he killed his comrade Cleitus the Black in a drunken quarrel, depends on much later sources.

Andrew Criddle

Since it is the basic fact (of existence) that we are more concerned with here, I personally would take the point made against me. Though I should stress that I was not suggesting that the two were equivalent. I even started out explicitly saying this.

aa5874 · 10-04-2011, 02:06 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by maryhelena

[.....archibald, the only sort of evidence that can settle the HJ/MJ debate is something 'solid', something tangible, like inscriptions on stone, coins. Written words are open to interpretation; written sources are open to interpolation.
Obviously, such evidence is not going to be forthcoming for the gospel JC - however much that figure is removed from all the mythological and theological elements. A carpenter crucified under Pilate, by the name of Jesus - that's like looking for a needle in a haystack. It can't be done. If there was such a figure - then that figure is lost to history - and the JC historicists should abandon their futile searching and learn to live with their assumption of historicity.....

Archibald will not agree with you because he claims there is NO proof of HJ or MJ, nothing is certain nor can be conclusive.

Now even Origen claimed Jesus was NOT taught to be a carpenter while he Origen alive.

"Against Celsus" 6

Quote:

....in none of the Gospels current in the Churches is Jesus Himself ever described as being a carpenter.

Quote:

Originally Posted by maryhelena

However, the fact that the HJ camp cannot produce evidence to support their assumption of historicity for the gospel JC (however redefined...)does not give the 'game' to the mythicists. ....

What!!!!! HJers have NOTHING for HJ of Nazareth and that is NOT the end game???/

I have NOT heard such absurdity in my entire life.

The END GAME is when HJers PROVIDE NO EVIDENCE, NO HISTORY, for HJ of Nazareth.

This is the END for HJ of Nazareth.

The QUEST for HJ of Nazareth is OVER, DONE, FINISH.

Quote:

Originally Posted by maryhelena

....The mythicists have their own problems - the illogical idea that it's all from the mind, the vision, of 'Paul'. That is one very difficult idea to sell. Yes, ideas do sell - until the next grand vision comes along.....

I have heard about STRAW MAN arguments but now you have introduced STRAWMAN problems.

You have your own problems. You want to SELL your difficult ideas and nobody is buying. You have problems.

Myth Jesus has NO problems at all. Myth Jesus is the probably the WORLD'S MOST DOCUMENTED MYTH with hundreds or possibly thousands of writings of antiquity.

In the NT, Jesus was a Ghost, a God and a Man simultaneously.

I only want to deal with the ACTUAL WRITTEN EVIDENCE of antiquity to avoid your problems.

archibald · 10-04-2011, 02:15 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by maryhelena

archibald, the only sort of evidence that can settle the HJ/MJ debate is something 'solid', something tangible, like inscriptions on stone, coins. Written words are open to interpretation; written sources are open to interpolation.
Obviously, such evidence is not going to be forthcoming for the gospel JC - however much that figure is removed from all the mythological and theological elements. A carpenter crucified under Pilate, by the name of Jesus - that's like looking for a needle in a haystack. It can't be done. If there was such a figure - then that figure is lost to history - and the JC historicists should abandon their futile searching and learn to live with their assumption of historicity.

An assumption which, of course, the mythicists are willing to challenge.....

However, the fact that the HJ camp cannot produce evidence to support their assumption of historicity for the gospel JC (however redefined...)does not give the 'game' to the mythicists. The mythicists have their own problems - the illogical idea that it's all from the mind, the vision, of 'Paul'. That is one very difficult idea to sell. Yes, ideas do sell - until the next grand vision comes along. Ideas have to relate to something tangible if they are to have any chance of a long life. The ideas of the early christians could never have got off the ground unless they were seen to have some relevance to the social/political environment - relevant to history. Relevant to real people, to historical figures. It's history we have to look at. Historical figures that could have been viewed as significant in some way or viewed as inspirational. Historical figures that have left evidence of their existence behind.

archibald - the gospel JC had no historical existence - but other figures that could have been relevant to the early christians did. The more likely explanation for christianity is that history mattered - that historical figures mattered.

I go a long way to agreeing to all of that. Personally, I slightly prefer the 'grain of actual sand in the oyster' explanation at the finish up. It seems to be more in accordance with the norm. Followers in cults tend to follow people. When they follow non-people, these are not usually (as far as we can tell) recent 'figures'.

Yes, before someone jumps in, I do accept that it is not certain that he was concieved of as recent. I do think it more likely. 'Fulfilled' or imminent eschatological expectations (which there were after his supposed time) are normally associated with an eschatological event or claim. Even that darling of the mythicist ancient historians, Robert Carrier, seems to agree with me about the 'believed to be recent', whether it be fact or fiction. Oops. There I go again. Making an argument from authority.

aa5874 · 10-04-2011, 02:51 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by archibald

... Personally, I slightly prefer the 'grain of actual sand in the oyster' explanation at the finish up. It seems to be more in accordance with the norm. Followers in cults tend to follow people. When they follow non-people, these are not usually (as far as we can tell) recent 'figures'....

Again, you have ZERO source, ZERO proof, to support your inconclusive preferences.

You have ZERO data that the PRESUMED HJ of Nazareth had any followers.

Name a FOLLOWER of HJ of Nazareth?? Not you or Ted M.

It was NOT Paul.

The PAULINE Jesus was the LORD from heaven who was resurrected on the THIRD day.

HJ of Nazareth could NOT have resurrected.

please name some followers of your "recent" jesus of nazareth. Please name your source that show when your "recent" jesus lived.

I don't deal with Ghost stories for history so you better get historical sources.

Quote:

Originally Posted by archibald

.....Yes, before someone jumps in, I do accept that it is not certain that he was concieved of as recent. I do think it more likely. 'Fulfilled' or imminent eschatological expectations (which there were after his supposed time) are normally associated with an eschatological event or claim. Even that darling of the mythicist ancient historians, Robert Carrier, seems to agree with me about the 'believed to be recent', whether it be fact or fiction. Oops. There I go again. Making an argument from authority.

Why do you post when you are just displaying that you really have NOTHING but contradictions and illogical assumptions.

You have NO idea what you are saying, you can't prove what you say, nothing is certain.

You argue that YOUR Jesus is recent and then claim simultaneously that you don't know if he was really recent.

Come on!!!!!!!

We PREDICTED correctly that you had NOTHING about HJ of Nazareth and everything has now come true.

1. Archibald has no proof that HJ is the more likely explanation.

2. Archibald cannot conclude that HJ is the more likely explanation.

3. Archibald is NOT certain that HJ is the more likely explanation.

Why is archibald posting when we are CERTAIN that he has NOTHING for HJ of Nazareth?

To CONFIRM our CERTAINTY.

MCalavera · 10-04-2011, 02:57 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by tanya

Quote:

Yes, but don't you think it's odd that a messiah should need his sins cleansed?

Jesus was the annointed, not the messiah. Was it not common, a couple thousand years ago, for other Temple rabbis, who had also been annointed, to continue to follow the Law, after annointment, and undergo (daily?) ritual bathing exercises, akin to baptism? If John had been regarded (either in history, or in fiction) as a divinely empowered prophet, would it then not be entirely logical, rather than "odd", for all persons, including those who had been annointed, to undergo his baptism ceremony?

*sigh*

Jesus is said to be the Messiah according to all earliest sources we have access to.

I like how mythicists like to play words games so much and then project this game they play on the opposite side.

MCalavera · 10-04-2011, 02:59 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Doug Shaver

Quote:

Originally Posted by Doug Shaver

Paul himself gives no clue as to when his Jesus was crucified.

Paul is the one who claimed to have had a revelation, not I.

As for what Paul could have meant by whatever he actually said, I can speculate as well as anybody else. What I won't do is treat my speculations as if they were evidence of anything aside from the powers of my imagination.

That's a lot of irony in there, lol.

tanya · 10-04-2011, 04:53 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Archibald

Though I do think Jesus was described as the messiah, even by Mark.

Quote:

Originally Posted by McAlavara

*sigh*

Jesus is said to be the Messiah according to all earliest sources we have access to.

I like how mythicists like to play words games so much and then project this game they play on the opposite side.

Mark 1:1 (Blue letter bible)
url removed as this is not yet post 5

ἀρχὴ τοῦ εὐαγγελίου Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ υἱοῦ θεοῦ

Looks to me, like Mark is writing:

The first words of the good news of Jesus Christ, son of God.

So, what does "Cristou", i.e. Χριστοῦ, mean to you two members of this forum?

To me, it means, "annointed".

I have no idea from which source you have found "messiah", but I am 100% confident that you will agree with me, that Χριστοῦ does NOT translate as "messiah", but rather, as "annointed".

If the Blue letter bible is wrong, please let me know, I will search for some other source.

Here is my usual source of reference:

url removed as this is not yet post 5

looking forward to your explaining how (precisely how) the most ancient sources identify Jesus of Nazareth as the "messiah".

Not interested in gossip, name calling, or opinions. Just the text.

tanya · 10-04-2011, 04:56 PM

Mark 1:1 (Blue letter bible)
http://www.blueletterbible.org/Bible...&t=MGNT&q=mark

ἀρχὴ τοῦ εὐαγγελίου Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ υἱοῦ θεοῦ

Looks to me, like Mark is writing:

The first words of the good news of Jesus Christ, son of God.

So, what does "Cristou", i.e. Χριστοῦ, mean to you two members of this forum?

Here is my usual source of reference:

http://www.scripture4all.org/OnlineI...NTpdf/mar1.pdf

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

10-04-2011, 04:56 PM	#470
tanya Banned Join Date: Sep 2011 Location: middle east Posts: 829	Mark 1:1 (Blue letter bible) http://www.blueletterbible.org/Bible...&t=MGNT&q=mark ἀρχὴ τοῦ εὐαγγελίου Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ υἱοῦ θεοῦ Looks to me, like Mark is writing: The first words of the good news of Jesus Christ, son of God. So, what does "Cristou", i.e. Χριστοῦ, mean to you two members of this forum? Here is my usual source of reference: http://www.scripture4all.org/OnlineI...NTpdf/mar1.pdf

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.