Freethought & Rationalism Archive

mountainman · 10-26-2011, 01:09 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by J-D

Quote:

Originally Posted by mountainman

Quote:

Originally Posted by tanya

Here are two hypothetical characters in a plot:

one: a real, living human being: HJ,
two: a genuinely fictional character, capable of superhuman activities: MJ.

The distinction between the two can be expediently exemplified by the concept of and the relative measure of historicy. In scenario one the character has a historicity somewhere between 1 and 100, whereas in scenario two the character has a historicity of precisely zero.

Associated the the relative measure of historicity is the ability to produce ancient historical evidence by which positive historicity greater than zero may be asserted. Much evidence has been claimed in support of the HJ postulate, but these claims in every case are very wanting.

I have not yet seen the discussion of such evidence in any one case to arrive at a consensus that does not leave doubt that the evidence itself is inconclusive in ascribing an element (no matter how small) of positive historicity.

You have not explained what you mean, in this context, by the historicity of a character as something which can be measured on a quantitative scale.

The historicity of every person and evert event starts with zero points. Jesus is not special. He does not get a free walk.

You get positive (relative) points towards establishing the historicity of Jesus (or anyone else, or any event, etc) on an item by item basis every time you bring to the table ancient historical evidence that is able to corroborate the claim that Jesus is part of ancient history, and which is judged to be unambiguous evidence for historicity. (IOW you cant just walk in here and wave the Shroud of Turin around as "THE PROOF everyone has been waiting for"!)

Having said this, note in the above post the mention of relative historicity. There is no absolute measure of historicity, we can only say that the historicity of Apollonius of Tyana exceeds the historicity of Jesus, or the historicity of the Loch Ness Monster exceeds that of Jesus. The points towards a measure of historicity are relative, and ultimately represent a probabilistic result.

If you have no evidence that is corroborated and/or unambiguous, then you dont score any points. It's pretty simple.

mountainman · 10-26-2011, 01:17 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by archibald

I only say this to illustrate the possibility that there is no dilemma in thinking that there might be a real man in there.

Children like myself also observe that there is no dilemma in thinking that there might be a real man in "The Hobbit" or in "Harry Potter and the Infidels" or <<INSERT ANY BOOK HERE>>. I cannot see how one differentiates between the dilemma of children and the dilemma of adults without a discussion of the ancient historical evidence. Over.

Sloncha !

Toto · 10-26-2011, 01:17 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by archibald

Quote:

Originally Posted by Toto

Is the fact that someone thought he was real evidence?

<snip excess verbiage> if we have a figure who is genuinely and generally believed to have existed in the vicinity relatively recently,

Here we get to the rub - how recently? and based on what evidence? We don't know of anyone of his time who knew that he existed. We don't know of anyone who knew him. We just have people from a later age writing inconclusive comments that can be interpreted as claiming that somebody knew somebody who knew him.

Quote:

especially if his existence is a prerequisite for a conviction that the world was due to end because of his arrival,

But the world didn't end, and people who think that the world was going to end were reading the Hebrew Scriptures to find the evidence, not looking out their windows.

Quote:

then, although it's not certain that he did exist (obviously, the contrary is not unheard of, just uncommon) it's one indicator that he may have, for the other reasons given in that post, unless one's mind is so dogmatically blind that one cannot admit that some things are HJ indicators and some things are MJ indicators.

If you could resist the temptation to smear anyone who doesn't agree with you, your message might go over better.

Or maybe not. You've still got nothing.

J-D · 10-26-2011, 01:46 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sheshbazzar

Quote:

Originally Posted by J-D

.....; other of the statements in the canonical Gospels using the name Jesus might or might not be literally accurate reports of events that actually took place;

Such as?
Please provide some specific examples of the texts and verses that you think '-might- be accurate reports of events that actually took place.'
Where? Which?

I was about to answer this question of yours when you first posed it on an earlier thread, but at just that moment the thread was locked.

If you had bothered to take the trouble to read what I posted to that thread, you would have seen that I had already provided an answer.

A list of all the possible examples would take too much time to compile and too much space to post here, but I offer again the small assortment I offered before: Matthew 9:14; Mark 1:9; Luke 23:7; John 19:38.

I also happily repeat my previous offer to provide a few more examples if that's not enough for you.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sheshbazzar

Designate exactly which texts it is, that form the basis of your support for a HJ.

When somebody chooses to reply to me, I feel entitled to resent if they haven't taken the trouble to read what I said in the first place, and here's another example. I never said 'I support an HJ'. If you want me to show a basis for this 'support' of which you speak, you should in justice first direct my attention to the actual words of mine to which you are referring.

dog-on · 10-26-2011, 02:04 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by J-D

A list of all the possible examples would take too much time to compile and too much space to post here, but I offer again the small assortment I offered before: Matthew 9:14; Mark 1:9; Luke 23:7; John 19:38.

The disciples of Elijah set up a parable where Jesus predicts Christianity and his own demise.

JtB playing Elijah, a bit too contrived.

Pilate sending Jesus to Herod, the Gentiles giving the Jews another chance to pound a nail into their own coffin...

And, of course, the OT 'messianic' reference about being buried in a rich man's tomb, when, quite unexpectedly, a secret rich man shows up just in time.

But, considering the alternatives, I suppose they are not bad choices...

J-D · 10-26-2011, 02:05 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by tanya

Quote:

Originally Posted by gurugeorge

Yes I think that's broadly on the money - except with the caveat that many Christians evidently believed their (what we understand as) fictional supergod existed and sojourned on Earth for a time, and some believed he "had DNA" (so to speak) while others didn't.

Thanks for this comment, George.
From my narrow minded perspective, it is not terribly important, and surely not useful, to focus on what "people believed". I have no idea what people TODAY believe, let alone those alive 2000 years ago.

I don't look at the HJ vs. MJ argument in terms of popular "belief". What anyone believes, or doubts, is irrelevant to me.

When I wrote that HJ meant a genuine human being with human DNA, that's what I meant, not, "people believe that he had DNA". I seek to communicate the fact that Jesus of Nazareth did have human DNA. That's HJ, not, "people suppose", or "people imagine", or "people wish that", or "people believe" that Jesus of Nazareth possessed human DNA. "HJ" means, irrespective of what people believe or deny, that there was once a real living human being, named Jesus of Nazareth, who could cure epilepsy by waving his hands in the air. That is HJ.

I don't know if that's what 'HJ' means, but if that is specifically what the discussion is about, then I have no difficulty answering the question: there never has been a real living human being who could cure epilepsy by waving his hands in the air.

But is that the question? Even if it is true that there never has been a real living human being who could cure epilepsy by waving his hands in the air, that does not prove that not a single one of the statements in the canonical gospels using the name 'Jesus' is a literally accurate report of an event that actually took place.

Quote:

Originally Posted by tanya

MJ, by contrast, also has NOTHING to do with people's beliefs. It doesn't matter one iota, if 10 billion souls disagree with me. What counts, here, is not people's beliefs, what counts is DNA. Jesus didn't have any. It does not matter whether or not I believe it. What matters is, Jesus was a fictional character, not a living, breathing human being. That is MJ.

Neither HJ, nor MJ depend AT ALL, on the quantity of folks who accept one or the other hypothesis. If I am alone, on the planet, believing in MJ, that's fine. No problem. What does matter, is Jesus' DNA, not my belief. Either he had it (HJ), or he didn't (MJ). End of story.

Quote:

Originally Posted by archibald

Since the extant ones are indeed Koine literature, I don't think anybody is going to argue with you on that one.

I think you may have misunderstood me. My writing is notoriously sloppy. I wrote "Koine literature", meaning, NOT Koine theology, and NOT Koine history.

Quote:

Originally Posted by jakejonesiv

But I think your suggestion to define terms is a good one.

I agree with your assessment of J-D's input.

Quote:

Originally Posted by J-D

Well, then, what if the plot I imagine is the plot of the Romance Of The Three Kingdoms? Are the characters of that story, Liu Bei, Cao Cao, and the rest, 'historical' or 'mythical', in the sense of those words you are using?

I don't know a lot about Chinese culture and civilization, and I would certainly defer to your apparent superior knowledge of that great culture, but, I believe, perhaps in error, that CaoCao, at least, was a real human being.

And yet there are statements in the Romance Of The Three Kingdoms using the name Cao Cao which are not literally accurate reports of events that actually took place.

And how about the character of Louis XIV in Vonda N McIntyre's book The Moon And The Sun? Is that character 'historical' or 'mythical', in the sense of those words you are using?

Quote:

Originally Posted by tanya

I know too little to comment on the other characters of the romance.

For me, it is simple: historical = DNA was present; fictional = DNA not present, at any time; mythical = fictional + superhuman traits (flying through the air, for example)

So if no DNA was ever present on Halley's Comet, does that make it fictional and not historical?

Sheshbazzar · 10-26-2011, 02:11 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by J-D

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sheshbazzar

Quote:

Originally Posted by J-D

.....; other of the statements in the canonical Gospels using the name Jesus might or might not be literally accurate reports of events that actually took place;

Such as?
Please provide some specific examples of the texts and verses that you think '-might- be accurate reports of events that actually took place.'
Where? Which?

I was about to answer this question of yours when you first posed it on an earlier thread, but at just that moment the thread was locked.

If you had bothered to take the trouble to read what I posted to that thread, you would have seen that I had already provided an answer.

A list of all the possible examples would take too much time to compile and too much space to post here, but I offer again the small assortment I offered before: Matthew 9:14; Mark 1:9; Luke 23:7; John 19:38.

I also happily repeat my previous offer to provide a few more examples if that's not enough for you.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sheshbazzar

Designate exactly which texts it is, that form the basis of your support for a HJ.

When somebody chooses to reply to me, I feel entitled to resent if they haven't taken the trouble to read what I said in the first place, and here's another example. I never said 'I support an HJ'. If you want me to show a basis for this 'support' of which you speak, you should in justice first direct my attention to the actual words of mine to which you are referring.

On what basis do you believe Matt 9:14

Quote:

Then came to him the disciples of John, saying, Why do we and the Pharisees fast oft, but thy disciples fast not?

represents a accurate report of an event that actually took place? Do you use that same basis or methodology to assess Matt 9:18-26?

Mearly throwing out verse numbers does nothing to explain your methodology in determining which texts you are going to claim as being accurate reports, and which you are going to reject.

It would be fascinating to see what out of all of the Gospels would survive after you have eliminated whatever you think -might not be- accurate reports of events that actually took place.'

Might be able to condense all of the Gospels into one single page. And you still would not arrive at any identifiable historical figure.

mountainman · 10-26-2011, 02:18 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by J-D

I don't know if that's what 'HJ' means ...

Get up to speed J-D. Most people agree that there does exist a spectrum of HJ possibilties and positions for which the historicity varies from 100% (where the HJ was the God of this Universe (inside the Hubble Limit), to 50% (where the HJ was an important historical religious figure) to 7.5% (where Jesus was an itinerant preacher). OTOH there is also a spectrum of HJ possibilities for which the defined positions have a historicity of zero - these are the MJ positions.

Here is a table, a rough map with 8 gradations, and picture - feel free to add more.

[T2]{r:bg=lightgray}{c:bg=slategray;ah=center;b-b=2,solid,black}Type of Jesus
|
{c:ah=center;b-b=2,solid,black}HISTORICITY% of Jesus
|
{c:ah=center;b-b=2,solid,black}Status of Jesus
|
{c:ah=center;b-b=2,solid,black}Characteristics
|
{c:ah=center;b-b=2,solid,black}Worth of the gospels
|
{c:w=45;ah=center;b-b=2,solid,black}Use of Myth
|
{c:ah=center;b-b=2,solid,black}Published Proponents
||
{c:bg=#80C0C0;av=top}Maximal
|
{c:bg=#00C000;av=top}90% to 100%
|
{c:bg=#00C000;av=top}Existed in real world
|
{c:av=top}The gospels are seen as reliable documentary evidence and record the known events in the life of the man who started the religion.
|
{c:bg=#0070B0;av=top}Basically historical material
|
{c:bg=#ffe4b0;av=top}Minimal
|
Joseph Klausner, Birger Gerhardsson, Luke Timothy Johnson
||
{c:bg=#80C0C0;b-b=2,dashed,black;av=top}Historical
|
{c:bg=#00C000;b-b=2,dashed,black;av=top}40% to 90%
|
{c:bg=#00C000;b-b=2,dashed,black;av=top}Existed in real world
|
{c:b-b=2,dashed,black;av=top}The record is problematical, but literary records--gospels, church fathers and even pagan sources--contain vestiges of real world knowledge of a preacher, who was crucified.
|
{c:bg=#0090D0;b-b=2,dashed,black;av=top}Historical data obscured by transmission problems
|
{c:bg=#f6d480;b-b=2,dashed,black;av=top}Some, causing source problems
|
{c:b-b=2,dashed,black;av=top}Marcus Borg, J.D. Crossan, Burton Mack, & Jesus seminar
||
{c:bg=#80C0C0;b-b=3,double,black;av=top}"Accreted"
|
{c:bg=#A0FFA0;b-b=3,double,black;av=top}5% to 40%|
{c:bg=#A0FFA0;b-b=3,double,black;av=top}A core preacher existed
|
{c:b-b=3,double,black;av=top}Jesus was the product of various sources including knowledge of a real person, as can be found in "Q". This position does not see the crucifixion as historical.
|
{c:bg=#60B0FF;b-b=3,double,black;av=top}Little of historical value
|
{c:bg=#F0C060;b-b=3,double,black;av=top}Yes
|
{c:b-b=3,double,black;av=top}G.A. Wells
||
{c:bg=RoyalBlue;av=top}Traditional
|
{c:bg=#D0D0B0;av=top}Unknown (tradition doesn't permit clarification)
|
{c:bg=#D0D0B0;av=top}Unknown (tradition doesn't permit clarification)
|
{c:av=top}Tradition doesn't distinguish between real and non-real. It merely takes accepted elements ("accepted" -> believed to be real) and passes them on with associated transmission distortions.
|
{c:bg=#D0D0B0;av=top}A complex of traditions with complex transmission, making veracity unverifiable
|
{c:bg=#D0D0B0;av=top}[-]
|
{c:av=top}[-]
||
{c:bg=RoyalBlue;av=top}Jesus agnostic
|
{c:bg=#D0D0B0;av=top}A Spectrum from 100% to 0% to N/A
|
{c:bg=#D0D0B0;av=top}Unknown
|
{c:av=top}Due to the nature of available information there is insufficient evidence to decide on the existence of Jesus.
|
{c:bg=#D0D0B0;av=top}No current way of evaluating for veracity
|
{c:bg=#D0D0B0;av=top}[-]
|
{c:av=top}Robert M. Price
||
{c:bg=DarkOrchid;b-b=3,double,black;av=top}Spiritual realm
|
{c:bg=DarkOrchid;b-b=3,double,black;av=top}Zero% or N/A?
|
{c:bg=#FF2050;b-b=3,double,black;av=top}Existed in spiritual realm, not the mundane world
|
{c:b-b=3,double,black;av=top}Purely theological in origin, Jesus died in our stead not in this mundane world, but in a spiritual realm. Later this spiritual being became reconceived as having acted in this world and reified.
|
{c:bg=#E060C0;b-b=3,double,black;av=top}Embody a complex myth & reflect honest belief distorted by reification
|
{c:bg=Orange;b-b=3,double,black;av=top}Full
|
{c:b-b=3,double,black;av=top}Earl Doherty (*)
||
{c:bg=#B05070;b-b=2,dashed,black;av=top}Mythological composite
|
{c:bg=#F00000;b-b=2,dashed,black;av=top}N/A (null)
|
{c:bg=#F00000;b-b=2,dashed,black;av=top}Authorial invention
|
{c:b-b=2,dashed,black;av=top}Jesus was the product of mainly pagan mythological elements, be they solar myth (Acharya S) or dying & resurrection myths of Osiris/Dionysis (Freke & Gandy).
|
{c:b-b=2,dashed,black;av=top}Nothing but cobbled myths
|
{c:bg=Orange;b-b=2,dashed,black;av=top}Full
|
{c:b-b=2,dashed,black;av=top}Acharya S, Freke & Gandy
||
{c:bg=#B05070;b-b=2,dashed,black;av=top}Fictional
|
{c:bg=#F00000;b-b=2,dashed,black;av=top}N/A (null)
|
{c:bg=#F00000;b-b=2,dashed,black;av=top}Authorial invention
|
{c:b-b=2,dashed,black;av=top}Jesus was the product of purely literary activity. A Roman emperor constructed a new religion. In the Atwill version, it was Titus with the aid of Josephus who tried to gain control over the unruly Jews.
|
{c:b-b=2,dashed,black;av=top}A tool for deceiving & manipulating people
|
{c:bg=#B05070;b-b=2,dashed,black;av=top}Pious Forgery of Myth
|
{c:b-b=2,dashed,black;av=top}Joe Atwill (*)
||
{c:bg=#B05070;b-b=2,solid,black;av=top}Transformed
|
{c:bg=#F00000;b-b=2,solid,black;av=top}N/A (null)
|
{c:bg=#F00000;b-b=2,solid,black;av=top}Did not exist
|
{c:b-b=2,solid,black;av=top}Jesus was the product of corrupted retelling of events relating to Julius Caesar. Under Vespasian the story was developed into a new religion.
|
{c:b-b=2,solid,black;av=top}Underlying history garbled beyond recognition
|
{c:bg=#B05070;b-b=2,solid,black;av=top}Pious Forgery of Myth
|
{c:b-b=2,solid,black;av=top}Francesco Carotta
[/T2]

This table is from the thread: Developing table as beginner's guide to Jesus positions

Quote:

Originally Posted by R G PRICE

A Spectrum of Historical Possibilities ...

(1) The Gospels are inerrant and absolutely historically true. Jesus is the Son of God who was predicted by the Hebrew scriptures, who came to earth in human form, was born of a virgin, preached, and was crucified by Pilate, then rose from the dead and now sits on the right hand of God. The Gospels are historical eyewitness accounts or based on solid eyewitness accounts.

(2) The Gospels are generally true but somewhat exaggerated accounts of a real Jesus who had a following of people who thought he was the Son of God. He wasn't born of a virgin and didn't walk on water or perform miracles or rise from the dead, but the Gospels reflect his true teachings and the basic events of his life, and he was crucified by Pilate. The Gospels come from eye witness accounts mixed with a little legend.

(3) The Gospels are generally true but somewhat exaggerated accounts of a real Jesus who was influential in the region. He may or may not have really been crucified by Pilate. He was later mythologized and elevated in status. The Gospels come from eye witness accounts mixed with legend.

(4) The Gospels are mostly fabricated stories inspired by a real Jesus. The Gospels come almost entirely from legends and scriptures, but are still loosely based on the actions of a real Jesus whom we don't know very much about.

HJ with Positive historicity above this line ...

====================[zero historicity]=================

HJ with Zero historicity (i.e. the MJ) below this line ...

(5) The Gospels are mostly fabricated stories inspired by a real person or persons from a spectrum of time, perhaps from events as far back as 200 years before the supposed life of Jesus. Over time stories were put together that cobbled various political events and persons into a single "Jesus Christ" figure. The events and teachings in the Gospels are mythologized, but based on real-life events that took place over time and were done by a person or various people. The Gospels come almost entirely from legends and scriptures, but are still based on the actions of some real people, without which the story of Jesus would never have come into existence.

(6) The Gospels are completely fabricated stories based on scripture, legends, and the mystical beliefs of existing Jewish cults. There is no human figure at the center of the Gospel stories at all. The Gospels were generally written in the same manner that most scholars claim, during the late 1st century to early 2nd century, but there is no person at the core of them, whether all of the writers themselves knew it or not.

(7) The Gospels are completely fabricated stories based on pagan myths about figures such as Dionysus and Mithras. The Gospels were written by directly mixing Jewish and non-Jewish religions and beliefs into stories that borrow from both traditions. The meaning of the Gospels has been largely lost and generally has little to do with Judaism.

(8) Pious Forgery
"The Gospels are completely fabricated stories that were intentionally crafted to deceive people, and there is no historical person at their core. The Gospels were really written anywhere from the 2nd century to the 4th century and much of early Christian history has been fabricated. The writers of the Gospels knew that there was no Jesus and the whole crafting of the religion was part of a political tool by Roman Emperors or others of a similar kind.

NOTE:

The diminishing YELLOW Shading in the above picture represents diminishing HISTORICITY.
You can see that it fades out to NOTHING in the middle of the array.

Sheshbazzar · 10-26-2011, 02:22 PM

J-D
Example 2;

Quote:

And it came to pass in those days, that Jesus came from Nazareth of Galilee, and was baptized of John in Jordan. (Mark 1:9)

Do you also accept Mark 1:10-11 as being an equally historical event???

J-D · 10-26-2011, 04:22 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sheshbazzar

Quote:

Originally Posted by J-D

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sheshbazzar

Quote:

Originally Posted by J-D

.....; other of the statements in the canonical Gospels using the name Jesus might or might not be literally accurate reports of events that actually took place;

Such as?
Please provide some specific examples of the texts and verses that you think '-might- be accurate reports of events that actually took place.'
Where? Which?

I was about to answer this question of yours when you first posed it on an earlier thread, but at just that moment the thread was locked.

If you had bothered to take the trouble to read what I posted to that thread, you would have seen that I had already provided an answer.

A list of all the possible examples would take too much time to compile and too much space to post here, but I offer again the small assortment I offered before: Matthew 9:14; Mark 1:9; Luke 23:7; John 19:38.

I also happily repeat my previous offer to provide a few more examples if that's not enough for you.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sheshbazzar

Designate exactly which texts it is, that form the basis of your support for a HJ.

When somebody chooses to reply to me, I feel entitled to resent if they haven't taken the trouble to read what I said in the first place, and here's another example. I never said 'I support an HJ'. If you want me to show a basis for this 'support' of which you speak, you should in justice first direct my attention to the actual words of mine to which you are referring.

On what basis do you believe Matt 9:14

Quote:

Then came to him the disciples of John, saying, Why do we and the Pharisees fast oft, but thy disciples fast not?

represents a accurate report of an event that actually took place?

Your question presupposes that I believe it to be an accurate report of an event that actually took place.

But I did not say that. Please do not attribute to me views that I have not expressed. It’s rude.

I mentioned that verse as one of a few examples that might or might not be literally accurate reports of events that actually took place. There are many more in the same category. I did not say that they are literally accurate reports of events that actually took place. I see no basis for deciding one way or the other. As far as I can see, it’s an open question. If you know of some basis for deciding the question, please state it.

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

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.