Freethought & Rationalism Archive

PhilosopherJay · 04-28-2012, 07:51 AM

Hi Andrew,

Good point. Thanks.

I do think that poor Elizabeth Bathory was a victim of a political witchhunt. I doubt that she could have killed dozens or hundreds of young women without intervention from the authorities. I think it is more probable that she killed only several women or she was entirely innocent and framed in a witch hunt.

Warmly,

Jay Raskin

Quote:

Originally Posted by andrewcriddle

FWIW one should also link Dracula to (the legend of) Elizabeth_Bathory

Andrew Criddle

johno · 04-28-2012, 08:54 AM

The OP reminded me of the following from Patience or Bunthorne's bride by W. S. Gilbert and Arthur Sullivan

If you want a receipt for that popular mystery,
Known to the world as a Heavy Dragoon,
Take all the remarkable people in history,
Rattle them off to a popular tune.

The pluck of Lord Nelson on board of the Victory--
Genius of Bismarck devising a plan--
The humour of Fielding, (which sounds contradictory)--
Coolness of Paget about to trepan--
The science of Jullien, the eminent musico--
Wit of Macaulay, who wrote of Queen Anne--
The pathos of Paddy, as rendered by Boucicault--
Style of the Bishop of Sodor and Man--
The dash of a D'Orsay, divested of quackery--
Narrative powers of Dickens and Thackeray--
Victor Emmanuel--peak-haunting Peveril--
Thomas Aquinas, and Doctor Sacheverell--
Tupper and Tennyson--Daniel Defoe--
Anthony Trollope and Mr Guizot !

Take of these elements all that is fusible,
Melt them all down in a pipkin or crucible,.
Set them to simmer and take off the scum,
And a Heavy Dragoon is the residuum !

If you want a receipt for this soldierlike paragon,
Get at the wealth of the Czar (if you can)--
The family pride of a Spaniard from Arragon--
Force of Mephisto pronouncing a ban--
A smack of Lord Waterford, reckless and rollicky--
Swagger of Roderick, heading his clan--
The keen penetration of Paddington Pollaky--
Grace of an Odalisque on a divan,--
The genius strategic of Caesar or Hannibal--
Skill of Sir Garnet in thrashing a cannibal--
Flavour of Hamlet, the Stranger, a touch of him--
Little of Manfred (but not very much of him)--
Beadle of Burlington Richardson's show--
Mr. Micawber and Madame Tussaud !

Take of these elements all that is fusible
Melt 'em all down in a pipkin or crucible
Set 'em to simmer and take off the scum,
And a Heavy Dragoon is the residuum !

outhouse · 04-28-2012, 10:02 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by maryhelena

Quote:

Originally Posted by Diogenes the Cynic

But you still allow that there could have been an unknown man?

I think the Dracula analogy is a good one (I sometimes use Historical St. Nikolaus/Santa Claus myself).

I think that I would still say Vlad the Impaler is "the historical Dracula," or to put it another way, I think we all understand that Gospel Jesus - as written - is a mythical character, but that doesn't mean there couldn't have been a Vlad or a St. Nick behind the myth. I realize that, to many, this would not really be Jesus and not be interesting, but it's interesting to me.

And that's it really, is it not? However much a character in a story is a literary creation, that fact does not negate the possibility, the very real possibility, that the created fictional character has been 'colored' by the life stories of flesh and blood, historical, figures.

Even Earl Doherty granted this fact:

Quote:

http://jesuspuzzle.humanists.net/rfset5.htm#Mary

I can well acknowledge that elements of several representative, historical figures fed into the myth of the Gospel Jesus, since even mythical characters can only be portrayed in terms of human personalities, especially ones from their own time that are familiar and pertinent to the writers of the myths.

It is this issue that I have tried to get Earl to consider more fully. However, for whatever reason, a reluctance to do so seems to be there...

When, over 30 years ago, I started to read on the question of myth in the Jesus story and realized the extent of myth in that Jesus story, I did not go the way of the historicists. I did not think that by removing the mythological and supernatural elements, that a normal man lies underneath, or behind, all the magic stuff. Basically, because I don't think a Jewish culture is going to go this route for a flesh and blood man.

What's left? What's behind or underneath the gospel JC story is history. I reached for a history book. It's by considering the historical figures relevant to Jewish history that a composite Jesus figure emerges. That method, a composite Jesus figure, allowed the Jewish writers of the gospel Jesus story, the freedom to overcome their cultural reluctance to ascribe mythical, supernatural, elements to a normal human man.

So, while I think interpretation of the gospel JC story, in and for itself, is an interesting thing to do - interpretation of the JC story will only produce interpretations of the JC story - it will not produce, or lead to, a historical gospel JC (of whatever variation...). There is no such historical JC figure. There is only historical figures. Historical figures whom the gospel writers deemed to be relevant to their creation of their literary JC gospel figure.

So - if it's early christian history that we are seeking - then the historical figures that were relevant to the gospel writers, in the creation of their literary JC figure - should be considered. How can a search for early christian origins be undertaken if such historical figures are deemed to be of no consequence?

Here is a link to a historical chart from an earlier thread:

http://www.freeratio.org/showthread.php?t=313038

Mythers fail miserably with poor excuses like this

why would romans deify [turn into a myth] a poor peasant teacher who was a hybrid zealot who was murdered at the hands of their own, Pilate. Who was looked down upon by most romans to begin with.

You could never answer this simple question with anything that would make more sense then a real HJ, its why mythers fail and will continue to be less then the vast minority.

PhilosopherJay · 04-28-2012, 12:12 PM

Hi johno,

Hilarious.
I often listen to G & S, not that I am an orphan, you understand.

Warmly,

Jay Raskin

Quote:

Originally Posted by johno

The OP reminded me of the following from Patience or Bunthorne's bride by W. S. Gilbert and Arthur Sullivan

If you want a receipt for that popular mystery,
Known to the world as a Heavy Dragoon,
Take all the remarkable people in history,
Rattle them off to a popular tune.
[snip]...

Take of these elements all that is fusible
Melt 'em all down in a pipkin or crucible
Set 'em to simmer and take off the scum,
And a Heavy Dragoon is the residuum !

mysteriousworld · 04-28-2012, 12:37 PM

If you are going to compare how legend distorts the original character then the comparison should be the real Vlad vs eastern european legends and stories about him. Not the hollywood or modern fiction Dracula.

If the Dracula of romanian or eastern european stories is a warlord who fights the turks and impales his enemies, then the stories did not actually misrepresent him much.

If there were a Dracula cult that according to tradition was founded by Vlad himself and they wrote stories about him within 50-100 years of his death then whatever those stories would be they would not be the hollywood Dracula either.

So its a bad comparison. If you want to compare how legend and folklore distorts a character then you use the actual legends not modern movies or fiction.

MrMacSon · 04-28-2012, 02:41 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by outhouse

Mythers fail miserably with poor excuses like this

why would romans deify [turn into a myth] a poor peasant teacher who was a hybrid zealot who was murdered at the hands of their own, Pilate. Who was looked down upon by most romans to begin with.

You could never answer this simple question with anything that would make more sense then a real HJ, its why mythers fail and will continue to be less then the vast minority.

HJers fail miserably with rhetorical questions like this, about a story that is likely all - or almost all - fiction.
.

Diogenes the Cynic · 04-28-2012, 02:59 PM

Simply calling it fiction does not make it unequivopcally so or end all arguments. It's not fiction that the earliest Christian literature advocates a belief in a crucified Messiah, and it's not fiction that a crucified Messiah is a contradiction in terms in a Jewish context.

MrMacSon · 04-28-2012, 03:39 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Diogenes the Cynic

It's not fiction that the earliest Christian literature advocates a belief in a crucified Messiah,

Of course 'the belief' is not a fiction! But, the basis for that belief is steeped in fiction, aka myth.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Diogenes the Cynic

and it's not fiction that a crucified Messiah is a contradiction in terms in a Jewish context.

Of course the contradiction is not fiction. But, the 'crucified Messiah' almost certainly is.

Quote:

Simply calling it [the Jesus narrative & associated narratives] fiction does not make it unequivocally so or end all arguments.

Throwing in 'unequivocally', ironically, invokes the equivocation fallacy.

aa5874 · 04-28-2012, 03:52 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Diogenes the Cynic

Simply calling it fiction does not make it unequivopcally so or end all arguments. It's not fiction that the earliest Christian literature advocates a belief in a crucified Messiah, and it's not fiction that a crucified Messiah is a contradiction in terms in a Jewish context.

It is the HJ argument that is a Contradiction.

HJers claim Jesus was NOT a Messiah in REAL LIFE.

Do you understand the HJ argument???

HJers are claiming Jesus was a MERE preacher man--an obscure preacher man in REAL LIFE

Please, based on HJers own argument, there could NOT have been an CHRISTIANS because Jesus was NOT CHRIST, He was NOT the Messiah.

Do you understand the HJ argument???

IN REAL LIFE based on the HJ argument when THEIR HJ died he was NOT known as a Messiah, Not known as Christ, Not Known as Savior.

HJers Jesus was NOTHING but an obscure preacher man when he was supposedly crucified.

All of a sudden, this obscure preacher man becomes a Messiah!!!

When did the obscure preacher man become a Messiah when he DIED as a preacher man???

A dead obscure preacher cannot MAGICALLY become the King of the Jews.

If a person dies as a preacher they cannot become the Emperor of Rome or the King of the Jews.

The HJ argument makes very little or NO sense.

HJ was a preacher when he was crucified and he was a Messiah after he was dead. What absurdity!!!

Myth fables are Fiction.

The Jesus stories in gMark are Fiction.

Jesus can be considered to be a Non-historical character.

outhouse · 04-28-2012, 04:56 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by MrMacSon

Quote:

Originally Posted by outhouse

Mythers fail miserably with poor excuses like this

why would romans deify [turn into a myth] a poor peasant teacher who was a hybrid zealot who was murdered at the hands of their own, Pilate. Who was looked down upon by most romans to begin with.

You could never answer this simple question with anything that would make more sense then a real HJ, its why mythers fail and will continue to be less then the vast minority.

HJers fail miserably with rhetorical questions like this, about a story that is likely all - or almost all - fiction.
.

typical poor myther lack of rebuttle

more myther ignorance

its not fiction if the author's believed it to be true.

Can you prove its all fiction, hell no. :constern01:

yes we all know there is a difference between biblical jesus and real jesus

04-28-2012, 08:54 AM	#12
johno Veteran Member Join Date: Dec 2005 Location: Scotland Posts: 1,549	Jesus as a heavy dragoon The OP reminded me of the following from Patience or Bunthorne's bride by W. S. Gilbert and Arthur Sullivan If you want a receipt for that popular mystery, Known to the world as a Heavy Dragoon, Take all the remarkable people in history, Rattle them off to a popular tune. The pluck of Lord Nelson on board of the Victory-- Genius of Bismarck devising a plan-- The humour of Fielding, (which sounds contradictory)-- Coolness of Paget about to trepan-- The science of Jullien, the eminent musico-- Wit of Macaulay, who wrote of Queen Anne-- The pathos of Paddy, as rendered by Boucicault-- Style of the Bishop of Sodor and Man-- The dash of a D'Orsay, divested of quackery-- Narrative powers of Dickens and Thackeray-- Victor Emmanuel--peak-haunting Peveril-- Thomas Aquinas, and Doctor Sacheverell-- Tupper and Tennyson--Daniel Defoe-- Anthony Trollope and Mr Guizot ! Take of these elements all that is fusible, Melt them all down in a pipkin or crucible,. Set them to simmer and take off the scum, And a Heavy Dragoon is the residuum ! If you want a receipt for this soldierlike paragon, Get at the wealth of the Czar (if you can)-- The family pride of a Spaniard from Arragon-- Force of Mephisto pronouncing a ban-- A smack of Lord Waterford, reckless and rollicky-- Swagger of Roderick, heading his clan-- The keen penetration of Paddington Pollaky-- Grace of an Odalisque on a divan,-- The genius strategic of Caesar or Hannibal-- Skill of Sir Garnet in thrashing a cannibal-- Flavour of Hamlet, the Stranger, a touch of him-- Little of Manfred (but not very much of him)-- Beadle of Burlington Richardson's show-- Mr. Micawber and Madame Tussaud ! Take of these elements all that is fusible Melt 'em all down in a pipkin or crucible Set 'em to simmer and take off the scum, And a Heavy Dragoon is the residuum !

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

04-28-2012, 12:37 PM	#15
mysteriousworld Regular Member Join Date: Mar 2009 Location: northern europe Posts: 130	If you are going to compare how legend distorts the original character then the comparison should be the real Vlad vs eastern european legends and stories about him. Not the hollywood or modern fiction Dracula. If the Dracula of romanian or eastern european stories is a warlord who fights the turks and impales his enemies, then the stories did not actually misrepresent him much. If there were a Dracula cult that according to tradition was founded by Vlad himself and they wrote stories about him within 50-100 years of his death then whatever those stories would be they would not be the hollywood Dracula either. So its a bad comparison. If you want to compare how legend and folklore distorts a character then you use the actual legends not modern movies or fiction.

04-28-2012, 02:59 PM	#17
Diogenes the Cynic Moderator - Join Date: Sep 2004 Location: Twin Cities, Minnesota Posts: 4,639	Simply calling it fiction does not make it unequivopcally so or end all arguments. It's not fiction that the earliest Christian literature advocates a belief in a crucified Messiah, and it's not fiction that a crucified Messiah is a contradiction in terms in a Jewish context.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.