Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Toto · 11-17-2008, 11:40 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Elijah

Quote:

Originally Posted by Toto

Can you demonstrate this? You are assuming what you are trying to prove - that stories about a godman on earth must have a historical core, or be understood as historical.

Demonstrate what??? What I'm saying is that regardless of your understanding of Christ it still happened in history? Regardless if you consider him a political messiah or a genie's superbaby. Are you a believer in the Myth plane?

Doherty's thesis that Paul described events happening in a Platonic higher dimension is one possibility for explaining Paul's references to Jesus' crucifixion. It is not the only one.

Are you a believer in the historical Sherlock Holmes? Did Sherlock Holmes have to operate on a mythical plane?

Elijah · 11-17-2008, 11:52 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by eheffa

Elijah, surely by now you can see that this discussion keeps on circling around the same issues.

If the Jesus of the NT was based on an historical person one would expect certain features or pieces of historical evidence to verify this hypothesis. One would expect a peasant carpenter with a Messianic message who subsequently becomes a local celebrity to have been noticed by the authorities and historians of the day. Indeed, Josephus pays attention to many rather insignificant "Jesus" types in his accounts of that era but fails to notice the "true Messiah" of the Christian story. The Jews and Romans in their extant literatures & histories also fail to notice this man.

You are using one historian who you can’t even say didn’t mention Jesus because of obvious tampering in text. You are begging the question that Jesus’ sacrifice and followers were such a huge deal that everyone in the known world should of heard about it. There is no reason to believe that.

Quote:

THIS IS EVIDENCE. This supports the hypothesis that the Jesus Messiah of the Gospels was a post hoc creation of the mythical type & not an elaboration or magnification of some obscure peasant who did nothing to attract anyone's attention. Your anonymous peasant hypothesis to explain this is as verifiable & as unfalsifiable as Bertrand Russell's celestial teapot.

What evidence do you have again? One historian who may of mentioned Jesus?

Quote:

One would expect that, as opposed to a historically derived hero worshipping movement, a mythical Jesus movement could start from a celestial logos cult & eventually concretize the object of its worship & begin to fabricate details of its founder's earthly life. The mythical movement would likely have rather vague details of their founder's life initially & find them embellished & eventually standardized over time. The Historical Jesus movement with its (postulated) carefully preserved oral history should on the other hand demonstrate better detail early in the history of the movement. (Kind of like the way the Book of Acts tells the tale.)

Celestial logos cult? What are you talking about? What is your understanding of the concept of Logos???

Quote:

What does the data suggest? Apart from the Gospels (which cannot be reliably dated to the first century), we have no hard evidence of any sort of Christian writings before the turn of the second century that have a clear understanding of Jesus' earthly life story. The literature & history we have from that era shows us a Christian movement that isn't even noticed until the turn of the first century by outsiders & then only as a vague logos cult. Even in the early second century many people called themselves "Christians" on the basis of some sort of baptismal rites & have no understanding of the supposed founder of their movement. We have lots of evidence of a second century Christianity without the Jesus of the Gospels. (See Doherty's Second Century Apologists

Where does Paul and his letters fit into your scenario?

Quote:

It isn't until the mid to late second century that those calling themselves Christians begin to identify and relate to the Jesus of the Gospels with direct references to these works.

Yea it was a while before they ever got around to a formal written narrative of what happened. The apostles weren't going town to town reading out of a gospel or passing out pamphlets they were orally giving the good news (gospel). I don’t know why you would expect a lot of writings to survive of such a small group that wasn’t of the educated writing types.

Quote:

How would the Historical Jesus hypothesis explain these findings?
With a lot of convoluted conjecture is the short answer.

What findings, a lack of evidence of early Christians? It was a small cult following of poor working class. I don’t expect there to be the evidence you are looking for.

Quote:

How does the Mythical Jesus hypothesis explain these findings?
Quite easily; as it is exactly what one would expect if this was how Christianity got its start.

Yea it’s easy to say there is no evidence so he didn’t exist but you still need to show how he came into existence and got confused for historical.

Quote:

Anyways, I have to agree with Toto, Spin & others. There is plenty of data & evidence to support the Mythicist position. You just seem to be stubbornly unwilling to read it for yourself.

Do you really think I’m unfamiliar with the myth position? Do you think anyone has said anything in this post that hasn’t been said a thousand times on the never ending myth debate that goes on around here? Same ol same ol.

spamandham · 11-17-2008, 11:56 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Amaleq13

There is absolutely nothing inherently implausible about the notion of a charismatic man making such a profound impression on a small group of followers that they continued to revere him beyond his death is certainly not unreasonable. Nor is there anything inherently implausible about the notion that their reverence could be turned into a new religion among a new group of eager seekers of "truth" with the right guy selling it with the right spin.

Now all you need is relevant evidence to back up this speculation. Paul certainly doesn't give us this story, and neither does Mark.

Elijah · 11-17-2008, 11:58 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Toto

Need one say more?

Yea a reason why I'm wrong.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Toto

Doherty's thesis that Paul described events happening in a Platonic higher dimension is one possibility for explaining Paul's references to Jesus' crucifixion. It is not the only one.

Subluner realm right? So you are saying that is synonymous with the Myth plane I’ve been hearing about? Could you provide some text that illustrates the nature of this subluner realm?

Quote:

Are you a believer in the historical Sherlock Holmes? Did Sherlock Holmes have to operate on a mythical plane?

No he didn’t operate in a mythical plane he is a figment of imagination, best I know, but I’m not sure what this mythical plane is.

spamandham · 11-17-2008, 12:14 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Toto

Wrong, wrong, wrong. The church history has always considered Jesus to be a godman on earth, not merely historical. The historical Jesus is a theory developed after the Enlightenment. There have been about 3 "quests" for the historical Jesus, all of which have come up rather empty handed.

But I don't see the point in continuing this until you do some work on your own.

I concur. This discussion hasn't progressed in the slightest for the past dozen or more pages and has instead turned into a snipe fest.

I'm bowing out.

Elijah · 11-17-2008, 12:22 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by spamandham

I concur. This discussion hasn't progressed in the slightest for the past dozen or more pages and has instead turned into a snipe fest.

I'm bowing out.

Sorry, that happens when it's a one sided conversation. If people would answer questions asked of them it would have been more productive.

And again for you to think about later.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Elijah

The Christ isn’t the messiah, but a Son of God? What is the difference between your understanding of the Son of God and the messiah? How literally and materialistically should I take that sonship?

bacht · 11-17-2008, 12:26 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Elijah

Do you really think I’m unfamiliar with the myth position? Do you think anyone has said anything in this post that hasn’t been said a thousand times on the never ending myth debate that goes on around here? Same ol same ol.

I've been reviewing the thread, and I think the key question you ask is how does a myth become history? Your assumption is that mythical figures usually start with a kernel of historical truth, rather than being completely invented from nothing. Therefore we can assume that some person lies behind the Jesus stories, however much the legend was embellished later.

Your secondary argument is with how Paul thought of Jesus, and there seems to be a range of interpretation from an historical messiah to a spiritual christ in the mythic plane.

[just trying to clarify]

Toto · 11-17-2008, 12:59 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Elijah

Quote:

Originally Posted by Toto

Need one say more?

Yea a reason why I'm wrong.

Subluner realm right? So you are saying that is synonymous with the Myth plane I’ve been hearing about? Could you provide some text that illustrates the nature of this subluner realm?
...

It's sublunar.

Sublunary_sphere

As used in mythicism, read this and note the section "Sublunar incarnation theory."

Read carefully. There will be a quiz.

But to understand this, you need to get into the neo-Platonic mindset, which in the past you have rejected because you couldn't believe that anyone could be retarded enough to think like that.

Elijah · 11-17-2008, 01:06 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Toto

It's sublunar.

Sublunary_sphere

As used in mythicism, read this and note the section "Sublunar incarnation theory."

Read carefully. There will be a quiz.

But to understand this, you need to get into the neo-Platonic mindset, which in the past you have rejected because you couldn't believe that anyone could be retarded enough to think like that.

The texts where they actually mention it please. So I can see if it's meant to be a physical plane or spiritual plane or mythical plane as you claim it to be.

Your understanding of Neo Platonism isn't in line with how I understand platonic theory and you never provided evidence to counter that or show how you came to the conclusion that you did... after numerous requests.

eheffa · 11-17-2008, 01:37 PM

C'mon Elijah... are you still in Kindergarten & need to be spoon-fed one concept at a time? Carrier's article is quite relevant to your many repeated requests & makes the case for what constitutes evidence for the mythicist position. If you can't bring yourself to read this, you are clearly not interested in the issues but must have some other motive or unmet psychological need to account for your intransigence & refusal to engage the question at hand...
:banghead:

-evan

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

11-17-2008, 01:37 PM	#340
eheffa Junior Member Join Date: Nov 2007 Location: Victoria, BC, Canada Posts: 84	C'mon Elijah... are you still in Kindergarten & need to be spoon-fed one concept at a time? Carrier's article is quite relevant to your many repeated requests & makes the case for what constitutes evidence for the mythicist position. If you can't bring yourself to read this, you are clearly not interested in the issues but must have some other motive or unmet psychological need to account for your intransigence & refusal to engage the question at hand... :banghead: -evan

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.