Freethought & Rationalism Archive

TomboyMom · 06-07-2006, 07:24 PM

[QUOTE=Gamera]

Quote:

Originally Posted by TomboyMom

This is pure tendentious reasoning. The fact that there is a Christian movement some 70 or 80 years after the death of Jesus, a movement important enough to be mentioned by Pliny, and the fact that this movement is based on the believe of a certain person called Jesus, and the fact that there are written documents that narrate his life, is in fact probative of the details of Jesus life.

The fact that there was a [Mormon] [Rastafarian][Muslim][whatever] movement [during the life of][a few years after] [however long] [Joseph Smith] [Haile Selaisie] [Allah] is probative of...what?

In any case, it's irrelevant, Gamera. The claim was made that there are many historical, contemporary, non-forged references to Jesus, not his followers. I believe we have now shown this claim to be false. I only wish I would not have to go through this again, when the next misbegotten Christian wanders in here believing what he's been told.

Each individual can decide for themselves what conclusions to draw from the facts, but I think it's important to start with the facts, not lies.

Quote:

Rhetoric. The fact is there are written documents that narrate Jesus life. That's what history is: written documents. The mythologizers are stuck in the unenviable position of claiming the mss were intended as fiction, but something went horribly wrong and people took them seriously, the first and only time something like this happened.

I don't have enough expertise to subscribe to the Mythical Jesus theory. I have to follow the experts, who tell me there probably was a historical Jesus.
If by written documents you are referring the the New Testament, do you give it the same credence as other holy books, such as the Koran?

Quote:

You've now ventured from historicity to literalism. One can accept the historicity of Jesus without taking the OT literally. The two are unrelated.

You lost me. Could you re-phrase this? Thanks.

gregor · 06-07-2006, 07:27 PM

There are records of people following Zeus. Thus, Zeus is a historical figure.

seraphimkawaii · 06-07-2006, 07:29 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Gamera

There are no contemporary references to Jesus. There are later references by nonChristians.

Well, at least you admit that. Puts you a step ahead of others, I must say

However, given the amount of jews there throwing rocks at Jesus and making him drink vinegar, don't you think when any of them saw everything that supposedly happened when Jesus died, they wrote a letter or a journal entry or something going "Holy crap...we messed up"?
It says people admitted when they saw the aftermath of his death "Truely this man was the son of God" (forgive me, i'm too lazy to pull out my bible and look up the exact verse chapter and number). So if they were willing to admit that there, in a public forum, why not to others?

xaxxat · 06-07-2006, 07:34 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Gamera

There are no contemporary references to Jesus. There are later references by nonChristians. This shouldn't surprise you. It was the pattern of the time. There are no contemporary referenced to most historical figures during the classic period (Aristotle writes about some living athletes tangentially, they being long forgotten). They didn't have newpapers. Historical figures -- unless they were emperors or something analogous -- didn't get written about until later. Hence nobody wrote about Socrates while he was alive. All the references come later. Do you conclude from this that Socrates wasn't an historical figure and Plato made him up?

The fact is more is written about Jesus in a shorter period of time after his death than is written about virtually any historical figure of the time. Indeed, I suspect he was the most written-about single personage of the 1st century. I doubt even emperors got that much ink.

Sure, we have lots of texts about Yeshua. Lots of texts that disagree with each other... Why do you think that is? And does the number of texts prove that he actually existed? I think not.

The fact is that he was so unimportant during his life (assuming he existed at all) that no one considered him worth mentioning. He was just another wannabe that got crucified like a lot of other wannabes...

Sue Grafton has sold millions of her books about her character Kinsey Millhone. Does that mean Kinsey is real?

Toto · 06-07-2006, 07:35 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Gamera

There are no contemporary references to Jesus. There are later references by nonChristians. This shouldn't surprise you. It was the pattern of the time. There are no contemporary referenced to most historical figures during the classic period (Aristotle writes about some living athletes tangentially, they being long forgotten). They didn't have newpapers. Historical figures -- unless they were emperors or something analogous -- didn't get written about until later. Hence nobody wrote about Socrates while he was alive. All the references come later. Do you conclude from this that Socrates wasn't an historical figure and Plato made him up?

Both Xenophon and Aristophanes wrote about Socrates. But perhaps the Socrates that we know of is a creation of Plato. Would anyone care?

And no one who knew Jesus seems to have written about him. There were eyewitnesses who wrote about Socrates, Alexander, and various other classical figures.

Quote:

The fact is more is written about Jesus in a shorter period of time after his death than is written about virtually any historical figure of the time. Indeed, I suspect he was the most written-about single personage of the 1st century. I doubt even emperors got that much ink.

I doubt this. I think it is more the case that what was written about Jesus was preserved by the church, and other writings were not preserved.

show_no_mercy · 06-07-2006, 07:45 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Toto

I doubt this. I think it is more the case that what was written about Jesus was preserved by the church, and other writings were not preserved.

The only reason we have Aristotle is because the Muslims kept his writings - IIRC (yes, I used that damned abbreviation in context!)

Ben C Smith · 06-07-2006, 08:46 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Toto

Both Xenophon and Aristophanes wrote about Socrates. But perhaps the Socrates that we know of is a creation of Plato. Would anyone care?

Yes, of course. Classicists and ancient historians would care.

Ben.

06-07-2006, 09:25 PM

I only did ancient history in high school, and a little uni philosophy, but I remember being told that all we knew of Socrates teachings was through Plato, And therefore we couldn't be too sure of the truth of the details. No-one actually suggested he was totally fictitious, but they sure as taxes didn't present Plato as the one infallible truth about Socrates' life & teachings...

I'm inclined to believe in an HJ, for similar reasons to TomboyMom. But the MJ argument does seem quite plausible. I'll remain formally agnostic on this issue. However, even if I were convinced of an HJ, you'd still have an unbelievably long way to go to convince me that he was god.

aa5874 · 06-07-2006, 09:47 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Patriarch Verlch

He repented that He had made man, because everythought of his mind was wicked, every nano second.

Are all your thoughts wicked, every nanosecond? Patriarch, get real. Don't let the Christian Bible destroy you. It is mind boggling that a person should think so little of oneself.

seraphimkawaii · 06-07-2006, 10:24 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by aa5874

Are all your thoughts wicked, every nanosecond? Patriarch, get real. Don't let the Christian Bible destroy you. It is mind boggling that a person should think so little of oneself.

Not too mindboggling when youve gone through a class on how to convert someone to Xianity. The first step is to make them unsure/uncomfortable/unhappy, then tell them God can handle it. But I agree...that low of an attitude is horrible. It's that kind of attitude that makes so many (including myself) have a horrible self-image and depression. Thankfully, that kind of mental damage is reparable :grin:

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

06-07-2006, 07:27 PM	#342
gregor Senior Member Join Date: Sep 2003 Location: Texas Posts: 932	There are records of people following Zeus. Thus, Zeus is a historical figure.

06-07-2006, 09:25 PM	#348
cajela Guest Posts: n/a	I only did ancient history in high school, and a little uni philosophy, but I remember being told that all we knew of Socrates teachings was through Plato, And therefore we couldn't be too sure of the truth of the details. No-one actually suggested he was totally fictitious, but they sure as taxes didn't present Plato as the one infallible truth about Socrates' life & teachings... I'm inclined to believe in an HJ, for similar reasons to TomboyMom. But the MJ argument does seem quite plausible. I'll remain formally agnostic on this issue. However, even if I were convinced of an HJ, you'd still have an unbelievably long way to go to convince me that he was god.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.