Freethought & Rationalism Archive

DCHindley · 12-05-2007, 07:31 AM

Aa,

What I am getting at is this. It looks like "embellishments" is your term which you have put into HJer's mouths. My guess is that you did so in order to use it in your rants against their inability to see what, to you, is clear as a bell, that an HJ is really the result of mirrors and a puff of smoke.

There may be smoke here, but I am not so sure it is coming from HJers, or what is being smoked.

DCH

Quote:

Originally Posted by aa5874

Quote:

Originally Posted by DCHindley

Well,

Not to push or anything, but I am not sure where you would have encountered HJers, especially the academic ones, calling the virgin birth, resurection, etc, "embellishments." Could you give a few examples?

DCH

Once a person believes that Jesus was just human, then his virgin birth and resurrection, as described in the NT, can be considered embellishments.

Gamera · 12-05-2007, 10:55 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by aa5874

Quote:

Originally Posted by Gamera

I think the idea is that historical figures often attract legendary material that accretes around their narrative. This is a common phenomena: Alexander and his supernatural birth; Washington and his cherry tree; Lincoln and his book returning rigor; Joseph Smth and his apotheosis after his defenestration.

The point is, the legendary material that tends to accumulate around famous or notorious historical figures is not evidence that rebuts their historicity. It is simply how narratives form.

So I wouldn't get too huge up on the definition of embellishment.

Mythical figures also attract legendary material, such as supernatural births and resurrections.

Yep, that's why legendary material in a narrative doesn't tell us anything useful about historicity, which rebuts the OP.

Narratives attract legendary material. That's how narratives form (at least in a semi-literate society)

aa5874 · 12-05-2007, 11:08 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by DCHindley

Aa,

What I am getting at is this. It looks like "embellishments" is your term which you have put into HJer's mouths. My guess is that you did so in order to use it in your rants against their inability to see what, to you, is clear as a bell, that an HJ is really the result of mirrors and a puff of smoke.

There may be smoke here, but I am not so sure it is coming from HJers, or what is being smoked.

Strange you should make those remarks, since I started this new thread because an HJer claimed "embellishments are certain" in another thread.

In a thread titled "myth arguments are pointless, even if true" in post #128, this an excerpt of "Solitary Man", a claimed HJer.

Quote:

Then if you take into account multiple, independent attestation, you lose the idea that while embellishments are certain, it begining as fiction is incorrect.

Solitary Man · 12-05-2007, 11:22 AM

I don't recall me saying that the virgin birth and the resurrection of the dead were, in fact, embellishments. I also used the term rather loosely, which I thought was clear by context. I suppose not.

aa5874 · 12-05-2007, 02:13 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Solitary Man

I don't recall me saying that the virgin birth and the resurrection of the dead were, in fact, embellishments. I also used the term rather loosely, which I thought was clear by context. I suppose not.

All I have established is that the word "embellishment" is used by HJers to explain certain elements of the events surrounding their Jesus of history.

aa5874 · 12-05-2007, 02:23 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Gamera

Quote:

Originally Posted by aa5874

Mythical figures also attract legendary material, such as supernatural births and resurrections.

Yep, that's why legendary material in a narrative doesn't tell us anything useful about historicity, which rebuts the OP.

Narratives attract legendary material. That's how narratives form (at least in a semi-literate society)

So, therefore, you are not certain whether Apollo, Achilles, Augustus Caesar, Christus, Chrestus or Jesus ever existed.

Solitary Man · 12-05-2007, 04:55 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by aa5874

Quote:

Originally Posted by Gamera

Yep, that's why legendary material in a narrative doesn't tell us anything useful about historicity, which rebuts the OP.

Narratives attract legendary material. That's how narratives form (at least in a semi-literate society)

So, therefore, you are not certain whether Apollo, Achilles, Augustus Caesar, Christus, Chrestus or Jesus ever existed.

Or perhaps you have stupid criteria?

Toto · 12-05-2007, 05:19 PM

There are people who think that even the Greek gods were based on actual humans, with lots of legendary accretions. Achilles might have been a real ancient warrior.

Solitary Man · 12-05-2007, 08:50 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Toto

There are people who think that even the Greek gods were based on actual humans, with lots of legendary accretions. Achilles might have been a real ancient warrior.

Achilles may have been. I think there's far less evidence to confirm that for Achilles than for Jesus. Hercules, like Abraham, is almost certainly actual myth, though.

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

12-05-2007, 11:22 AM	#14
Solitary Man Veteran Member Join Date: Sep 2006 Location: ירושלים Posts: 1,701	I don't recall me saying that the virgin birth and the resurrection of the dead were, in fact, embellishments. I also used the term rather loosely, which I thought was clear by context. I suppose not.

12-05-2007, 05:19 PM	#18
Toto Contributor Join Date: Jun 2000 Location: Los Angeles area Posts: 40,549	There are people who think that even the Greek gods were based on actual humans, with lots of legendary accretions. Achilles might have been a real ancient warrior.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.