skepticismskeptic

Hello Tharleena,

It is great to see a poster respond to the original issue of this thread. Thank you for staying on track, Tharleena. However I would really appreciate it if you would address the specific question I asked in my initial post. In my initial post, the very first post in this thread, I provided the arguments commonly made by those who argue Jesus was not a historical figure and then posted information about the quality of documentation relating to the existence of Confucius in comparison. I then asked ““In light of this information, do you think a historical Confucius existed?�

I only have one question:

When you wrote:


1. Which historical document(s) were you referencing here?

-Skepticismskeptic

skepticismskeptic

Hello Radagast,

I agree completely.

Not necessarily. Historians believe it is important to have evidence in determining history in general.



I agree.


I agree.


I agree completely.



From the materialistic worldview, that is absolutely correct.



-Skepticismskeptic

skepticismskeptic

Hello Vivisector,


You made excellent points. I agree with you 100%.

-Skepticismskeptic

Duke Leto

<edit>to be familiar with the definition of a historical document, I will tell you. A historical document is any artifact that can be used as evidence to draw historical conclusions. Even a sloppy forgery is evidence, because it provides insight into the motivations and tools of the forger.

We don't and we don't care. The point is that these sayings were used as the basis of Confucianism. Whether their originator was actually a man named Confucious is unknowable and unimportant.

Again, if you had read my post with even a modicum of understanding, the only point I raise is that the Analects had an author or authors who existed. And that whether or not this was actually Confucious, they did found the philosophy, which makes them a Pseudo-Confucious.

1. The survival of documents from Iron Age China is to my understanding worse than that of the Mediterranean at that same time.

2. Nobody would have cared anyway.

3. As above, your point is completely irrelevant.

You have not presented any evidence that he WAS a myth either.

This is a legitimate possibility that I accounted for. The second half of Isaiah and the totality of Daniel are excellent examples of this phenomenon. The reason that we can state this is that the first attempts to mimic the Hebrew style of the first half of Isaiah and fails, the author of Daniel screws up his Babylonian and Persian history terribly. There is no such internal or comparative philological evidence to my knowledge that disproves that a historical Confucious did not compose the Analects. Even if there was that still has no effect on the main body of my argument. Which you still have not addressed.

One reason is that there are not myriad problems with the veracity or the original accounts or their historical possibility. The Gospels are riddled with them. And you are STILL ignoring the main point.

The Q document makes no historical assertions<edit> It's just a collection of sayings attributed to Jesus.

Because we have a complete local history of Judea from that time by Flavius Josephus, who reveled in tales about Pilate's barbarity, and it isn't mentioned.

One more time<edit> I accept that a Confucian school of philosophy existed and a Q school of philosophy existed. All we attribute to Confucious is output of his school. Whether or not he actually existed is IRRELEVENT. We know that someone originated the Q sayings, but since we are also expected to accept that this person was the son of the living god who died for our sins the case is quite different.

For the fifteenth time <edit>: I KNOW THAT THET WERE MOST LIKELY POSTHUMOUS COMPILATIONS!!!! The question is not whether or not they were physically written by Confucious. The question is whether or not they accurately reflect the originating thoughts of the movement. The answer yes, and whoever this person was is the person we have come to know as Confucious.

It is a matter of fact. Dead IS Dead.

Wow that would be an absolutely amazing point if we had been talking about Chuang Tzu. But we were talking about the Analects, and Chuang Tzu neither has nor makes any claim to be a contemporary of Confucious, and it is thus a secondary document. Also if you had done your homework, you'd know that the passages in question are considered later interpolations by subsequent followers of Chuang Tzu.




True! Here's a better one:

<edit>

Answerer

<edit>. Thats explain everything. (No wonder he purposely ignored most of our discussions and cut and paste nonsense on this thread) :funny: :funny: Typical christians.

Instead of wasting your time attacking Confucius whom you obviously know nothing about, why don't you go and defend the existence of Jesus as your profile suggests? Is it because you can't? :funny: :funny:

Anyway guys, if you want to know more about the biography of confucius' original version instead of Skeptics' christianized version, I have a few sites:

Biography of Confucius

Everything about Confucius

The second site has English language option I think but I would prefer to read it in the original chinese language if I were you.

skepticismskeptic

Dear Duke Leto,


True.

True.

Alright.


And when were these sayings compiled? Scholars think various sayings were added to the Analects as time passed. As the excerpt I posted previously stated:

“It seems certain that Ts’ui Shu was correct in his hypothesis that Chapters 16-20 represent a still later addition.� 1

Thank you very much for answering my initial question.


This is a matter of opinion.



Hence, you would be proving that numerous contributors to the three different versions of the Analects existed, but not that the events nor people mentioned by those contributors existed. I am asking for evidence for the individuals and events the contributors wrote about….not the contributors.

Also, as I have stated elsewhere, the Analects claim to be much more than mere sayings of Confucius. They too claim to assert historical information.

Below are some examples of the historical assertions:



“Fan Ch’ih was driving. The Master told him about the interview, saying, “Meng-sun asked me about being filial. I answered, ‘Never fail to comply.’� 2



 “The Master said, ‘Ts’an! There is one single thread binding my way together.’ Tseng Tzu assented. After the Master had gone out, the disciples asked, ‘What did he mean?’ Tseng Tzu said, ‘The way of the Master consists in doing one’s best and in using oneself as a measure to gauge others. That is all.’� 3




 "There were four things the Master refused to have anything to do with: he refused to entertain conjectures or insist on certainty; he refused to be inflexible or to be egotistical.� 4




 "When under siege in K’uang, the Master said, “With King Wen dead, is not culture (wen) invested here in me? If Heaven intends culture to be destroyed, those who come after me will not be able to have any part of it. If Heaven does not intend this culture to be destroyed, then what can the men of K’uang do to me?� 5





“Chi-lu asked how the spirits of the dead and the gods should be served. The Master said, ‘You are not able even to serve man. How can you serve the spirits?’ ‘May I ask about death?’ ‘You do not understand even life. How can you understand death?’� 6




 “The Governor of She said to Confucius, ‘In our village there is a man nicknamed ‘Straight Body.’ When his father stole a sheep, he gave evidence against him.’ Confucius answered, ‘In our village those who are straight are quite different. Fathers cover up for their sons, and sons cover up for their fathers. Straightness is to be found in such behavior.� 7



 “Tsai Wo asked about the three-year mourning period, saying, ‘Even a full year is too long. If the gentleman gives up the practice of rites for three years, the rites are sure to be in ruins; if he gives up the practice of music for three years, music is sure to collapse. A full year’s mourning is quite enough. After all, in the course of a year, the old grain having been used up, the new grain ripens, and fire is renewed by fresh drilling.’
The Master said, ‘Would you, then, be able to enjoy eating your rice and wearing your finery?’
‘Yes. I would.’
‘If you are able to enjoy them, do so by all means. The gentleman in mourning finds no relish in good food, no pleasure in music, and no comforts in his own home. That is why he does not eat rice and wear his finery. Since it all appears that you enjoy them, then do so by all means.’�

‘After Tai Wo had left, the Master said, ‘How unfeeling Yu is. A child ceases to be nursed by his parents only when he is three years old. Three years’ mourning is observed throughout the Empire. Was Yu not given three years’ love by his parents?’� 8



 “The Duke of Chou said to the Duke of Lu, “The gentleman does not treat those closely related to him casually nor does he give his high officials occasion to complain because their advice was not heeded. Unless there are grave reasons, he does not abandon officials of long standing. He does not look for all-round perfection in a single person.� 9


Precisely, that would make them Pseudo-Confucius, which does not support the concept of a historical Confucius existing.




This is all special pleading.


I have not claimed, nor am I claiming, Confucius was a myth. I merely asked: “In light of this information (the information I provided in my initial posting), do you think a historical Confucius existed?� You answered the question, and I am very grateful to you for that.


How so? I only saw speculation.



Hmm… there were actually three versions of the Analects. As I posted previously:


 “The name Lun-yu did not appear until the second century B.C. At that time there were three versions of it, with some variations. Two of these have been lost.� 10



Now, going back to your Isaiah and Daniel example:


The Analects also screw up historically as well. As the excerpt I provided in a previous post stated:



“…the Analects contain questionable passages, ranging from the slightly dubious to the clearly false.� 11


***"The material is unsystematic, in a few cases repetitive, and in some
cases historically inaccurate." 12


“A number of passages have nothing to do with either Confucius or with his disciples, and seem to be irrelevant intrusions into the text.� 13


Also, you stated that they were probably composed posthumously.


Yes it does.

Yes, I have.

How do you define “original accounts�? How do you know the Analects represented the original accounts? Which of the three versions was the original version? Were any of these versions the original?

Oh.


Oh.

No, I am not.

Yes, it does.

“’Q’ is an abbreviation of the German word Quell, meaning ‘source.� It is used to designate a document which most scholars believe the authors of Matthew and Luke used in writing their gospels.� 14

“The non-Markan passages common to Matthew and Luke agree word-for-word so often that Q must have been a written document and not simply a body of material that Matthew and Luke took from oral tradition.� 15


Q is believed to have contained:


1. An exorcism:

Q 11:9-19: Beelzebul Controversy: 16

Luke 11:14-23:

11:14 Now he was casting out a demon that was mute. When the demon had gone out, the man who had been mute began to speak, and the crowds were amazed. 11:15 But some of them said, “By the power of Beelzebul, the ruler of demons, he casts out demons.� 11:16 Others, to test him, began asking for a sign from heaven. 11:17 But Jesus, realizing their thoughts, said to them, “Every kingdom divided against itself is destroyed, and a divided household falls. 11:18 So if Satan too is divided against himself, how will his kingdom stand? I ask you this because you claim that I cast out demons by Beelzebul. 11:19 Now if I cast out demons by Beelzebul, by whom do your sons cast them out? Therefore they will be your judges. 11:20 But if I cast out demons by the finger of God, then the kingdom of God has already overtaken you. 11:21 When a strong man, fully armed, guards his own palace, his possessions are safe. 11:22 But when a stronger man attacks and conquers him, he takes away the first man’s armor on which the man relied and divides up his plunder. 11:23 Whoever is not with me is against me, and whoever does not gather with me scatters.

Matthew 12:22-30:

12:22 Then they brought to him a demon-possessed man who was blind and mute. Jesus healed him so that he could speak and see. 12:23 All the crowds were amazed and said, "Could this one be the Son of David?" 12:24 But when the Pharisees heard this they said, "He does not cast out demons except by the power of Beelzebul, the ruler of demons!" 12:25 Now when Jesus realized what they were thinking, he said to them, "Every kingdom divided against itself is destroyed, and no town or house divided against itself will stand. 12:26 So if Satan casts out Satan, he is divided against himself. How then will his kingdom stand? 12:27 And if I cast out demons by Beelzebul, by whom do your sons cast them out? For this reason they will be your judges. 12:28 But if I cast out demons by the Spirit of God, then the kingdom of God has already overtaken you. 12:29 How else can someone enter a strong man's house and steal his property, unless he first ties up the strong man? Then he can thoroughly plunder the house. 12:30 Whoever is not with me is against me, and whoever does not gather with me scatters.


2. Jesus speaking about John the Baptist:

Q 7:22-28: Jesus Praises John: 17

Luke 7:24-28:

7:24 When John's messengers had gone, Jesus began to speak to the crowds about John: "What did you go out into the wilderness to see? A reed shaken by the wind? 7:25 What did you go out to see? A man dressed in fancy clothes? Look, those who wear fancy clothes and live in luxury are in kings' courts! 7:26 What did you go out to see? A prophet? Yes, I tell you, and more than a prophet. 7:27 This is the one about whom it is written, 'Look, I am sending my messenger ahead of you, who will prepare your way before you.' 7:28 I tell you, among those born of women no one is greater than John. Yet the one who is least in the kingdom of God is greater than he is."

Matthew 11:7-11:

11:7 While they were going away, Jesus began to speak to the crowd about John: "What did you go out into the wilderness to see? A reed shaken by the wind? 11:8 What did you go out to see? A man dressed in fancy clothes? Look, those who wear fancy clothes are in the homes of kings! 11:9 What did you go out to see? A prophet? Yes, I tell you, and more than a prophet. 11:10 This is the one about whom it is written: 'Look, I am sending my messenger ahead of you, who will prepare your way before you.'
11:11 "I tell you the truth, among those born of women, no one has arisen greater than John the Baptist. Yet the one who is least in the kingdom of heaven is greater than he is.



3. John Asking If Jesus is the One Who was to Come:

Q 7:18-27: John’s Inquiry 18

Luke 7:18-20, 22-23:

7:18 John's disciples informed him about all these things. So John called two of his disciples 7:19 and sent them to Jesus to ask, "Are you the one who is to come, or should we look for another?" 7:20 When the men came to Jesus, they said, "John the Baptist has sent us to you to ask, 'Are you the one who is to come, or should we look for another?'"
7:22 So he answered them, "Go tell John what you have seen and heard: The blind see, the lame walk, lepers are cleansed, the deaf hear, the dead are raised, the poor have good news proclaimed to them. 7:23 Blessed is anyone who takes no offense at me."

Matthew 11:2-6:

11:2 Now when John heard in prison about the deeds Christ had done, he sent his disciples to ask a question: 11:3 "Are you the one who is to come, or should we look for another?" 11:4 Jesus answered them, "Go tell John what you hear and see: 11:5 The blind see, the lame walk, lepers are cleansed, the deaf hear, the dead are raised, and the poor have good news proclaimed to them. 11:6 Blessed is anyone who takes no offense at me."


4. Jesus Healing Someone While that was Far Away:

Q 7:1-10: Officer’s slave: 19


Luke 7:1-10:

7:1 After Jesus had finished teaching all this to the people, he entered Capernaum. 7:2 A centurion there had a slave who was highly regarded, but who was sick and at the point of death. 7:3 When the centurion heard about Jesus, he sent some Jewish elders to him, asking him to come and heal his slave. 7:4 When they came to Jesus, they urged him earnestly, "He is worthy to have you do this for him, 7:5 because he loves our nation, and even built our synagogue." 7:6 So Jesus went with them. When he was not far from the house, the centurion sent friends to say to him, "Lord, do not trouble yourself, for I am not worthy to have you come under my roof. 7:7 That is why I did not presume to come to you. Instead, say the word, and my servant must be healed. 7:8 For I too am a man set under authority, with soldiers under me. I say to this one, 'Go,' and he goes, and to another, 'Come,' and he comes, and to my slave, 'Do this,' and he does it." 7:9 When Jesus heard this, he was amazed at him. He turned and said to the crowd that followed him, "I tell you, not even in Israel have I found such faith!" 7:10 So when those who had been sent returned to the house, they found the slave well.

Matthew 7:28; 8:5-10, 13:

7:28 When Jesus finished saying these things, the crowds were amazed by his teaching, 7:29 because he taught them like one who had authority, not like their experts in the law.
8:5 When he entered Capernaum, a centurion came to him asking for help: 8:6 "Lord, my servant is lying at home paralyzed, in terrible anguish." 8:7 Jesus said to him, "I will come and heal him." 8:8 But the centurion replied, "Lord, I am not worthy to have you come under my roof. Instead, just say the word and my servant will be healed. 8:9 For I too am a man under authority, with soldiers under me. I say to this one, 'Go' and he goes, and to another 'Come' and he comes, and to my slave 'Do this' and he does it." 8:10 When Jesus heard this he was amazed and said to those who followed him, "I tell you the truth, I have not found such faith in anyone in Israel!

8:13 Then Jesus said to the centurion, "Go; just as you believed, it will be done for you." And the servant was healed at that hour."


5. Jesus’ Temptation in the Wilderness:

Q 4:1-12: Jesus tested: 20

Luke 4:1-4, 9-12, 5-8, 13:

4:1 Then Jesus, full of the Holy Spirit, returned from the Jordan River and was led by the Spirit in the wilderness, 4:2 where for forty days he endured temptations from the devil. He ate nothing during those days, and when they were completed, he was famished. 4:3 The devil said to him, "If you are the Son of God, command this stone to become bread." 4:4 Jesus answered him, "It is written, 'Man does not live by bread alone.'"
4:9 Then the devil brought him to Jerusalem, had him stand on the highest point of the temple, and said to him, "If you are the Son of God, throw yourself down from here, 4:10 for it is written, 'He will command his angels concerning you, to protect you,' 4:11 and 'with their hands they will lift you up, so that you will not strike your foot against a stone.'" 4:12 Jesus answered him, "It is said, 'You are not to put the Lord your God to the test.'"
4:5 Then the devil led him up to a high place and showed him in a flash all the kingdoms of the world. 4:6 And he said to him, "To you I will grant this whole realm--and the glory that goes along with it, for it has been relinquished to me, and I can give it to anyone I wish. 4:7 So then, if you will worship me, all this will be yours." 4:8 Jesus answered him, "It is written, 'You are to worship the Lord your God and serve only him.'"
4:13 So when the devil had completed every temptation, he departed from him until a more opportune time.


Matthew 4:1-11:

4:1 Then Jesus was led by the Spirit into the wilderness to be tempted by the devil. 4:2 After he fasted forty days and forty nights he was famished. 4:3 The tempter came and said to him, "If you are the Son of God, command these stones to become bread." 4:4 But he answered, "It is written, 'Man does not live by bread alone, but by every word that comes from the mouth of God.'" 4:5 Then the devil took him to the holy city, had him stand on the highest point of the temple, 4:6 and said to him, "If you are the Son of God, throw yourself down. For it is written, 'He will command his angels concerning you' and 'with their hands they will lift you up, so that you will not strike your foot against a stone.'" 4:7 Jesus said to him, "Once again it is written: 'You are not to put the Lord your God to the test.'" 4:8 Again, the devil took him to a very high mountain, and showed him all the kingdoms of the world and their grandeur. 4:9 And he said to him, "I will give you all these things if you throw yourself to the ground and worship me." 4:10 Then Jesus said to him, "Go away, Satan! For it is written: 'You are to worship the Lord your God and serve only him.'" 4:11 Then the devil left him, and angels came and began ministering to his needs.


It is also a collection, believed to have been written down, of certain events attributed to Jesus’ life.


Hmmm….and yet there is no mention of Confucius at the time Confucius is thought to have existed.



Alright.


Not really. We attribute certain disciples to him, certain actions, and certain conversations to him.


That would make sense.


So, if a biography dating approximately 40 years after Confucius’ death, instead of four centuries, and if sayings attributed to Confucius were also compiled approximately 40 years after his death, rather than two generations from Confucius’ death, and were available for study, but had supernatural elements in them, would you conclude Confucius did not exist?


Also, recall that Q records Jesus referring to Jesus’ temptation in the wilderness, performing a miraculous healing from a distance, and performing an exorcism.


Good, then you also know that the Analects are secondary sources as well.


I agree.

That is correct, and the quality of their accuracy has not yet been established.

How do you know the Analects accurately reflect the originating thoughts of the movement? The Analects are secondary sources, and there were three versions of them.

This is being assumed, yes.

Really? Please present positive historical evidence for this truth claim.

You are correct. We were talking about the Analects. However, you then shifted topics a bit by making general comparisons between Jesus and Confucius. One of the arguments you made against Jesus’ historicity was the presence of contradictory stories told about Jesus. Consequently, I too compared the accounts of Jesus and Confucius, and showed your argument could also invalidate the historicity of Confucius since there were also contradictory stories told about Confucius. Further, given that you were basing your argument on alleged biographical sources, the Gospels, I too based my argument on an alleged biographical source… Chuang Tzu.

However, if you were not discussing Confucius’ life in general, but what you believe to be merely philosophical words ascribed to him in the Analects, I apologize for the misunderstanding.


Following this same logic, then, the Analects is a secondary document too, because it does not claim to be a contemporary of Confucius either. In fact, as the information I posted previously pointed out, it is most likely the Analects were compiled at least two generations from the time Confucius is believed to have existed.



You are quite correct. However, that does not change the fact that contradictory stories were told about Confucius. The issue was not how credible the sources were from which the stories came, nor whether or not they were interpolations, but whether or not stories were told about Confucius that were contradictory.

-Skepticismskeptic


Bibliography:

1. Creel, H.G. Confucius: The Man and the Myth. New York: The John Day Company, 1949. P. 294

2. Koller, John M. and Patricia Koller. A Sourcebook in Asian Philosophy. Upper Saddle River, New Jersey: Prentice Hall, 1991. Book II.5 P. 411.

3. Ibid. Book IV.15. P. 412.

4. Ibid. Book IX.4. P. 414.

5. Ibid. Book IX.5. P. 414.

6. Ibid. Book XI.12. P. 415.

7. Ibid. Book XIII.18. P 417.

8. Ibid. Book XVII.21. P. 421.

9.Ibid. Book XVIII.10. P. 421.

10. Chan, Wing-Tsit, Translator and Compiler. A Source Book in Chinese
Philosophy. Princeton, New Jersey: Princeton University Press, 1963.
Page 19.

11. Ibid.

12. Ibid.

13. Creel, H.G. Confucius: The Man and the Myth. New York: The John Day Company, 1949. P. 294.

14. Miller, Robert J., editor. The Complete Gospels: Annotated Scholars Version. Santa Rosa, CA: Polebridge Press, 1992. P. 249.

15. Ibid.

16. Ibid. P. 271.

17.Ibid.

18. Ibid. P. 264

19. Ibid. P.P. 263-264.

20. Ibid. P. 262

21. P.P. 254-255

skepticismskeptic

Answerer,

Ad hom…

Ad hom…


I do not consider comparing documentation for the existence of individuals from antiquity a waste of time, nor do I consider asking for reliable evidence of an individual’s existence to be an attack upon that individual.

Obviously?

Why don’t you come and defend the existence of Confucius, as the title of this thread could suggest?


Is it because you can’t?





Answerer,

First, I am not sure how ad hom comments can lead to a productive dialogue.

Second, I am uncertain why you call the information I have posted about Confucius the “Christianized version.� I have not used any Christian sources in this thread, to my knowledge, nor have I “cut and pasted� any of the material found in this thread. All of the material I have posted was drawn from books written by scholars who study/have studied Confucius, and all of these books were cited in my posts.


Third, I am curious to know why you label the information found in these books “nonsense.� Is it because it was posted by someone who you believe holds a Christian worldview or because the information in those books is invalid? Also, I have not seen any responses to the information found in these books from you, and I am intrigued at how fast you are to call scholarship “nonsense.�


Fourth, I am not attacking Confucius. As I thought I had made clear in my initial post, I only asked if Confucius existed in light of the comparisons I drew between the reasons those who believe Jesus was a myth and the documented evidence we have for establishing a historical Confucius.


Finally, why do you say I know nothing about Confucius? Have I presented inaccurate historical information regarding pertaining to him? If I have posted incorrect material about Confucius, or documentation relating to him, please indicate where, and I will correct any errors.


-Skepticismskeptic

Tani

i think there is a need for some things to be clarified:

the analects is a historical document in that it is a document from the past but it is not classified as a history book in any sense ever (even in the warring states period) and it does not proclaim to be so.

it was in general practice of the times to use events (real or otherwise fictitious) to teach lessons, ie. it was not restricted to the school which confucius belonged to. events depicted in all those teachings were meant to be ad hoc examples which people can use to derive principles of ethics. which brings us to the last point:

the school which confucius belongs to has never and is still not named after him in chinese (he is not a divine character and the school which he belongs to does not revolve around him). moreover, his existence does not play any part in the doctrine of that school. ie. none of the doctrines can be invalidated by proving his non-existence because none of the teachings were hinged on his existence - this is in essence very different from the jesus question.

Answerer

I wonder if you did the same thing to your favourite Jesus Christ.


Yeah, obviously.

I did and you are ignoring the responses of most people here.


Nice bait, you got to be better if you want to provoke me. :down: :down:



:rolling: :rolling: Pot and kettle, your accusations on others is pretty bad as well, I'm just returning the favour back to you. And why do you think your thread is already dead for quite some times? :rolling:

Besides, being on this forum for quite some times, I had become accustomed to and sick of the way most Christian newcomers love to argue. All suggestions, no evidences, ignoring others, complaining about ad hom and pretending to be a victim when someone rejects their views.

Because you are a christian who try to prove Jesus' existence by using confucius'.


No, its because all the information that you had cut and pasted is biasedly selected and doesn't make up the whole picture. The story of confucius doesn't contain only a paragraph.

But you are, period. Trying to prove the non-existence of confucius just as to show how wrong the Jesus myth supporters are, is not only useless (two wrongs doesn't make one right) but only show that you are incapable of proving Jesus existence in the light of historical evidences.Thats why you use confucius' existence as an excuse to hide your true incapability.


First of all, what you had been doing all the while in the thread is simply to cut and paste from books or internets, period. Anyone here can do that. But I can tell you that most people won't read that long-winded shit which you had pasted. If you are truly sincere about correcting your mistakes then read and ask more instead of inserting your views on others all this while.

Duke Leto

You seem to have a singular LACK of understanding of what a historical assertion actually IS. Not a one of these things comes close. None is an independant narrative, none give any indication of place, and none fit into any coherent chronological sequence. The personal details are obvious narrative containers for the philosophical aphorisms. About ALL that can be extracted from this is the Master is supposed to have had disciples named such and such at one time or another.

Your ignorance of historical method is pathetic. You have yet to produce a jot of evidence that Confucious WAS a myth. I have alluded to a powerful piece of such evidence in the for non-existance of the Jesus of the Gospel narrative in the absence of the Passion story from Josephus.

Your entire whining complaint about Confucious not being as well attested as Jesus is based on a fundamental misunderstanding of the Mythicist case. Doherty's argument is not based on the rejection of source materials as supernaturally tainted or the elimination of insufficiently attested persons from the historical record for lack of documentation. It is a studied analysis of the narrative as it has come down to us, with all its anomolies and contradictions and peculiarly absent corroboration. He makes an analysis of these given historical documents and postulates a hypothesis that he feels best accounts for the origination of those documents and their anomolies. This analysis precludes the possibility of a Jesus of Nazereth as he is documented in Mark.

All that you have accomplished is to demonstrate that there may not have been a Confucious. You have not once presented any positive evidence that there probably was not one or that the life he is supposed to have led could not have happened. Rather than criticize Doherty on his points you've produced a straw man that your Confucious counter-example is supposed to invalidate.

Your erudition in quoting all this verbatim is second only to your rudeness in not simply LINKING to it. But again if you had done your homework you would know that the authoritative scholar, John S. Kloppenborg, considered these to be late interpolations into the original Q

Confucious's Hellenic soul mate, Sokrates, has only ONE contemporary document. (Aristophanes) Simply put, if you were not a member of the ruling class of a society prior to ~1450 A.D. and you didn't start a revolt or do something else REALLY noteworthy, the odds of your having contemporary documentation are slim to none. Jesus is supposed to have attempted a revolt and done some fairly remarkable junk. (Josephus DID mention John the Baptist... odd that he missed Jesus.)



First, Don't kid yourself. Mark is 120 AD or later.

Second, If the biography said he'd marched into the Zhou court's capital at the head of a mob of vagabonds during a religious festival, had desecrated an important Royal Ancestor shrine in full view of an Imperial barracks full of cranky soldiers with standing orders to keep that kind of thing from happening, had walked away without being apprehended and was only later captured by the betrayal of one of his disciples and executed for treason and blasphemy, and the contemporary chroniclers somehow omitted to mention the incident, I would have to be somewhat incredulous about it. Alexander the Great's biographies are packed with supernatural hooey, but the general outline of his career is both credible and amply documented, both by contemporaries and by archaeology. All Confucious is supposed to have done is wandered around and said things later snapped up by the Fortune Cookie industry. There's nothing incredible to be WORTH doubting.

I'm not going to waste my breath explaining to you what a secondary source is.

The "quality of their accuracy". Some are born stupid, some achieve stupidity, others have stupidity thrust upon them. I have to wonder which is the case here.

You got a better source? You really seem to be having a hard time with this whole corporate identity concept, aren't you? Perhaps I should compose a parable... On second thought, that's too far above you. I'll compose a puppet show.

"Truth claim?" By Satan, the mangled and disfigured abortions of the English language that roll from your palette are enough to make me want to pull a Houston and gouge my own eye out. Maybe you SHOULD just mindlessly copy and paste endless reams of material if your original compositions are this neanderthalesque drivel. But since I'm both a scholar and an Empirical scientist, I'll tell you what, we'll have a little experiment. I'll come and bludgeon you to death with the frozen leg of an unkosher animal while singing the complete works of Marilyn Manson in drag. And then if you rise up on the day of reckoning and I get cast into the outer void with the wailing and the gnashing and the whatnot, I'll accept that my interpretation on the permanent finality of the self on death is invalid. Deal?

Your disingenuousness is sickening. We both know perfectly well that you made your original post as an act of provocation. You wanted me to move the discussion to the Jesus parallel and your attempt to shift the responsibility to me is just another proof of your intellectual dishonesty, if any more were needed besides your selective reading skills.

You wanted to demonstrate that the Jesus mythicist case is invalid by a double standard you perceive... one that is based on a false analogy. From there we go on to the accuracy of the Bible as a historical document and all up through the magnificnt chain of McDowellesque sophistry. You came in with this "better researched than thou" act hoping to impress us heathens, well tough titties because it's obvious you have no training as a historian.

This is, of course, a waste of my breath. Your kind is too thickskulled to admit any mistakes, and you'll simply ignore my main points and rehash your bullshit again to anyone who will listen, as you have done above.