Freethought & Rationalism Archive

andrewcriddle · 04-02-2012, 02:33 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by tanya

Quote:

Originally Posted by Andrew Criddle

...are you saying that even a date for Mark of say c 70 CE and internal evidence that Mark intended his work to be read as some sort of biography would not reduce your concerns about the (im)possibility of using Mark as an historical source ?

Hi Andrew,

Can one employ Philo's description of Hercules, link above, "as an historical source" for the life of Hercules?

If he did not exist, why was Hercules' name given to the city in Italy with the best library in the world (after the library in Alexandria had been reduced to ashes.) It is not just temples in Rome, and elsewhere, Hercules had an entire city named after him--not just any old city either, but the city with the BEST library in the world. Why would the intellectuals of the day, including Philo of Alexandria, flock to Herculaneum's library, supporting thereby memory of Hercules' life? Isn't their high regard for Hercules' accomplishments, firm evidence of Hercules' historicity?

(I do not accept this notion as genuine, but, I raise it in the context of challenging the poll that Diogenes has constructed.)

On the unlikely premise that there was an historical Hercules, he lived more than a thousand years before Philo, Hence Philo is not really a source for the (hypothetical) historical Hercules.

Andrew Criddle

tanya · 04-02-2012, 02:52 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Andrew Criddle

On the unlikely premise that there was an historical Hercules, he lived more than a thousand years before Philo, Hence Philo is not really a source for the (hypothetical) historical Hercules.

Thank you for this comment.

Agree.

In my opinion, even if the report of Hercules' unanticipated demise had reached Philo's hands as a young man, just months after the tragic event, Philo still could not have been a "source for the ... historical Hercules". He would not have encountered him during his own lifetime....

J-D · 04-02-2012, 03:19 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by tanya

Quote:

Originally Posted by J-D

It's a typical misunderstanding on your part that you should think that the point on which I was seeking clarification was 'which person named Hercules is being described?' and not (as it actually was) 'what do you mean when you use the term "Hercules"?'.

What do I mean when I write "Hercules"?

Gosh, my IQ must be really low.

The problem is not any lack of IQ, but a self-stultifying incuriosity.

Quote:

Originally Posted by tanya

I had thought myself, just a tad slower than most other forum members, but, after reading this post from J-D, several times, I realize, I have a significantly decreased ability to contribute to this forum, I should withdraw, to avoid inflicting further discomfort on those august forum members, who, in contrast to me, do not lack the intelligence required to submit a meaningful question on a particular topic.

I intend, (when I write "Hercules", and when I provide a link, as I did in post 66, to a stone temple constructed two thousand years ago, to honor "Hercules",) to refer to a figure, of mythical dimension, found in ancient Greek literature, and described by Philo of Alexandria, the historian who wrote in 50 CE, the time period of relevance to this thread.

If you define the term 'Hercules' to mean 'a figure of mythical dimension', then obviously, by definition, a mythical figure is mythical rather than historical. The answer to any question about whether a mythical figure is mythical is always going to be 'Yes'.

If people are using the term 'historical Jesus' to mean a mythical figure, then they're bound to create confusion by doing so.

Quote:

Originally Posted by tanya

Quote:

Originally Posted by J-D

If you can't see that the two questions are not equivalent, or how the distinction between them is critical in this context, that's typical too.

Well, you mustn't forget that I am stupid, so, please start a new thread dealing with this distinction, and feel free to illustrate that distinction by reference to my incompetence, as demonstrated in this thread.

If you really are that stupid and incompetent, it would be a waste of my time to start the new thread you suggest.

Quote:

Originally Posted by tanya

For this thread, however, the issue is not tanya's inability to distinguish critical elements of philosophical discourse, but, whether or not Diogenes' poll has relevance. You have thus far focused, in your submissions to this thread, on tanya's mental inadequacies, which may interest some forum participants, but which I view as irrelevant to the topic at hand.

I have already dealt with this point in an earlier post. Diogenes the Cynic started this thread in an attempt to find out what people mean when they use the term 'historical Jesus'. Asking them is an obvious way of doing this.

You ignore the fact that I have already made this point in favour of constructing a fantasy in which all I'm doing here is mocking your mentality, but in fact you have spent far more time here making references to your own mentality than anybody else has.

J-D · 04-02-2012, 04:46 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by tanya

So, there is a difference then, beween an historical Hercules and the historicity of Hercules?

Yes, there is.

Quote:

Originally Posted by tanya

I do not understand that distinction. To me, if Hercules was an historical person, as defined by certain parameters, a la Diogenes' poll, then, Hercules possessed the attribute of historicity. Is this wrong?

No.

Quote:

Originally Posted by tanya

Can you give me an illustration of someone, universally acknowledged to be historical, for whom we would then feel uncomfortable claiming his/her historicity?

No, because that's not the distinction that was being made and which you have failed to understand.

Quote:

Originally Posted by tanya

In my opinion, a poll devoted to finding qualities useful in defining the "parameters for characteristics of a historical Jesus", is not any different from a poll soliciting public opinion about "characteristics of an historical Hercules".

I don't think anybody said it was.

J-D · 04-02-2012, 05:43 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by tanya

Quote:

Originally Posted by Andrew Criddle

...are you saying that even a date for Mark of say c 70 CE and internal evidence that Mark intended his work to be read as some sort of biography would not reduce your concerns about the (im)possibility of using Mark as an historical source ?

Hi Andrew,

Can one employ Philo's description of Hercules, link above, "as an historical source" for the life of Hercules?

If he did not exist, why was Hercules' name given to the city in Italy with the best library in the world (after the library in Alexandria had been reduced to ashes.) It is not just temples in Rome, and elsewhere, Hercules had an entire city named after him--not just any old city either, but the city with the BEST library in the world. Why would the intellectuals of the day, including Philo of Alexandria, flock to Herculaneum's library, supporting thereby memory of Hercules' life? Isn't their high regard for Hercules' accomplishments, firm evidence of Hercules' historicity?

(I do not accept this notion as genuine, but, I raise it in the context of challenging the poll that Diogenes has constructed.)

It does not challenge the poll, because the poll does not mean what you think it means.

Diogenes the Cynic · 04-02-2012, 06:16 PM

I didn't expect this thread to be controversial.

It does look like we do have some kind of bare bones consensus taking place - crucified, had some disciples, said some of what is attributed to him, was involved in some kind of ruckus at the Temple, may have been believed to be the Messiah.

Please remember, this is not a conclusion about history, it's a consensus about the definition of a word.

aa5874 · 04-02-2012, 11:30 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Diogenes the Cynic

I didn't expect this thread to be controversial.

It does look like we do have some kind of bare bones consensus taking place - crucified, had some disciples, said some of what is attributed to him, was involved in some kind of ruckus at the Temple, may have been believed to be the Messiah.

Please remember, this is not a conclusion about history, it's a consensus about the definition of a word.

No way!!! Your poll is NOT a definition of the term "historical Jesus" it is a poll to determine the description of an historical Jesus.

You don't seem to understand the difference between a Biography and a definition.

One may define the historical Jesus as a character that was completely human

However one would need to describe the Historical Jesus.

The Biography of any human is NOT the definition of the word Human.

And further, the results of your poll is NOT a consensus.

You don't seem to understand the difference between consensus and Majority

J-D · 04-03-2012, 12:24 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by aa5874

No way!!! Your poll is NOT a definition of the term "historical Jesus" it is a poll to determine the description of an historical Jesus.

You don't seem to understand the difference between a Biography and a definition.

You don't seem to understand what a definition is.

Doug Shaver · 04-03-2012, 12:31 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by tanya

So, there is a difference then, beween an historical Hercules and the historicity of Hercules?

The difference pertinent to this discussion is the difference between defining a historical Hercules and presenting evidence for a historical Hercules.

Quote:

Originally Posted by tanya

Doug, you demanded a link to someone attesting to the historicity of Hercules, in order to answer the question posed.

No, I did not demand a link. You asked me: "What would you need to see, Doug, to say that Hercules was historical, not mythical?" I replied: "That would depend entirely on what the defenders of his historicity were saying about him. Show me one of those defenders, and then I will tell you about the man whom I would consider the historical Hercules if his existence were proven."

Your response was the following quotation from Philo:

Quote:

In the next place, like an actor in a theatre, he was continually wearing different dresses at different times, taking at one time a lion's skin and a club, both gilded over; being then dressed in the character of Hercules...
...
Hercules purified both the earth and the sea, performing labours of the greatest possible importance and of the highest benefit to all mankind, in order to eradicate all that was mischievous and calculated to injure the nature of each of the elements....
...
But I suppose you imitated Hercules in your unwearied labours and your incessant displays of valour and virtue;

That quotation is not sufficient to convince me that Philo was affirming his actual belief in a historical Hercules. Even if he was, there is a difference between affirming a belief and defending that belief. A defense of a belief presents, or claims to present, evidence in support of that belief. Your quotation includes nothing to indicate that Philo was offering, or thought he was offering, any evidence for Hercules' actual existence.

aa5874 · 04-03-2012, 06:24 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by andrewcriddle

On the unlikely premise that there was an historical Hercules, he lived more than a thousand years before Philo, Hence Philo is not really a source for the (hypothetical) historical Hercules.

Andrew Criddle

Once Philo is considered a CREDIBLE source then any information that is found in his writings will be extremely useful.

In any event, whether or not there was an actual Human being named Hercules requires and INDEPENDENT investigation and the evidence for Hercules cannot be TRANSFERRED to an historical.

In other words, the nature of Hercules has ZERO effect on the QUEST for an historical Jesus.

Examine these statements--they have NO effect on Matthew 1.18-20, Luke 1.26-35, John 1 and Mark 6.48-49.

1. Hercules was human.

2. Hercules was NOT human.

3. Hercules was a Myth.

4. Hercules was NOT a Myth.

5. Philo believed Hercules was human.

6. Philo did NOT believe Hercules was human.

7. Romans and Greeks believed Hercules existed as a God.

8. Hercules was an Emperor of Rome.

9. Hercules was God the Creator.

10. Hercules was the Son of a Ghost.

It is most OBVIOUS and Logical that all claims about Hercules ONLY affect the historicity of Hercules.

It is clear that HJers are engaged in fallacies because they have ZERO credible sources for an Historical Jesus.

The DEFINITION for "historical" as related to the QUEST for the "historical Jesus" is that Jesus existed as a KNOWN HUMAN BEING.

There are NO Credible sources of a Biography of an HUMAN BEING called Jesus.

HJers are just going around in a vicious circle day after day simply because they REFUSE to accept defeat knowing full well that there is NOTHING credible to support a HUMAN Jesus.

View Poll Results: Check off everything you would need to see to say a guy was a "Historical Jesus."
God	1	2.63%
Resurrection	3	7.89%
Healed miraculously and drove out real demons	3	7.89%
Was a conventional (non-supernatural) faith healer and exorcist, but did not do miracles	13	34.21%
Performed nature miracles such as walking on water	3	7.89%
Was born of a virgin	2	5.26%
Said all or most of what is attributed to him in the Gospels	4	10.53%
Said at least some of what is attributed to him in the Gospels	21	55.26%
Believed himself to be God	2	5.26%
Believed himself to be the Messiah	5	13.16%
Was believed by his followers to be God	1	2.63%
Was believed by his followers to be the Messiah	16	42.11%
Was involved in some kind of attack on the Temple	9	23.68%
Was crucified	27	71.05%
Was from Nazareth	8	21.05%
Was from Galilee	12	31.58%
Had 12 disciples	3	7.89%
Had some disciples, not necessarily 12	25	65.79%
Raised the dead	2	5.26%
Was believed by his disciples to still be alive somehow after the crucifixion.	17	44.74%
Multiple Choice Poll. Voters: 38. You may not vote on this poll

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

04-02-2012, 06:16 PM	#186
Diogenes the Cynic Moderator - Join Date: Sep 2004 Location: Twin Cities, Minnesota Posts: 4,639	I didn't expect this thread to be controversial. It does look like we do have some kind of bare bones consensus taking place - crucified, had some disciples, said some of what is attributed to him, was involved in some kind of ruckus at the Temple, may have been believed to be the Messiah. Please remember, this is not a conclusion about history, it's a consensus about the definition of a word.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.