J-D

Once again, lack of adequate clarity in the definition of terms leaves no clear meaning there to be discussed.

aa5874

No, you are wasting my time because you cannot answer a simple question.

When were ALL the other Gospels written???

As soon as people here are challenged they throw tantrums.

I write in CAPITAL LETTERS and RED when people who shoul know better repeat unsubstantiated claims about Jesus, the disciples and Paul.

People here accuse fundamentlists of believing the Bible yet they do the very same thing and call themselvies atheists and Historians.

Now, anyone that can read the short-ending, the long-ending gMark and gMatthew can see that they are virtually identical and that a REAL human Jesus was NOT required.

Even if Jesus did exist he could NOT have walked on water or transfigured.

It is unheard of that three authors could have written the very same story word-for-word and chronoloy from the Baptism of John to the Empty Tomb independently.

And what is even most fascinating is that the stories about Jesus that do NOT agree are TOTAL Fiction.

spin

If I went into my disappointment it would only tend to reopen discussion that really would be a one-sided effort. Consider:

:banghead:

Vorkosigan

Historicist = Jesus existed as a real person, not there was a human being who provided the impetus for Xtianity. No mythicist says there were no humans involved, only that there never was any Jesus.

yalla

"How else could it possibly have begun if not with real physical people?"

The same way that all other religions that feature a god-man or god-woman or both, began?
There is no shortage of god persons complete with stories and dialogue around them as if they were real people that actually lived. Probably tens of thousands such, maybe lots lots more.
Their adherents could ask the same question and if you were to grant them the historicity of their gods then we would be knee deep in a world full of gods.

J-D

I have considered it. I see no reason for the banging of heads against walls. I am well aware that when Toto defined 'historical Jesus' as 'a person who we know through historiographical methods participated in the past', Toto did not in fact really mean that the term 'historical Jesus' refers to just any arbitrary person we know through historiographical methods participated in the past. But that's the way Toto expressed it. The choice of expression--an expression which, taken at face value, does in fact apply to Timur the Lame (along with an indefinitely large number of other equally arbitrary individuals I could have chosen to illustrate the point)--was Toto's, not mine. The point of my illustration was that what Toto said was, clearly, not literally what Toto meant. If Toto did have a clear meaning, the words Toto chose failed to capture it precisely.

And if you think--or if Toto thinks--or if anybody thinks--that this is just quibbling on my part, that Toto's failure to capture the desired meaning in words was a trivial oversight which could easily be rectified; if anybody thinks, perhaps, that I'm just being contrary and awkward because I'm like that, and that there's a clear meaning there which everybody including me is well aware of; if anybody thinks that the only reason that meaning has not yet been precisely captured in words is because it hasn't been worth anybody's while to make the effort, because the essence of the answer has been obvious all along; then the point is easily enough demonstrated, and I'm easily enough shown up, by producing the clear precise exact definition. But if nobody does that, I'm going to keep thinking what I think now.

Will Wiley

I'd have to agree.
How can it be helpful to make pronouncements such as the following.


and

Maybe in Oregon.

J-D

If you think the meaning of the statement 'Jesus existed as a real person' (or the meaning of the statement 'there never was any Jesus') is clear enough for the purposes of the present discussion, you're mistaken. If some people say 'there never was any Jesus', does the existence of Jesus Maria Ciriaco Jimenez Zamora, twice President of Costa Rica, prove them wrong? why or why not? If some people say 'Jesus existed as a real person, does the existence of Jesus Maria Ciriaco Jimenez Zamora, twice President of Costa Rica, prove them right? why or why not? I pose these questions not because I imagine that anybody who refers to Jesus in this discussion here is in fact referring to Jesus Maria Ciriaco Jimenez Zamora. But the term 'Jesus' can, in some contexts, properly be used to refer to Jesus Maria Ciriaco Jimenez Zamora. The term can properly be used to refer to various people in various contexts. I know that in this context it's not being used to mean Jesus Maria Ciriaco Jimenez Zamora. But what is it being used to mean? If people think that the term has a clear and obvious meaning in this context, known to all parties, I don't accept that assertion without demonstration. If you're sure you know what the term means in this context, clearly and exactly, then tell me.

J-D

On the contrary, there is not merely a 'shortage' of god persons but a complete and utter absence of them. There are no gods or god persons, and it automatically follows that no religion ever began with a god or a god person.

You are closer to the mark when you refer to stories about god persons. There are surely lots of those. But where could any kind of story possibly come from without real physical people to tell it? What's the alternative explanation that involves no real physical people?

Consider, for example, the case of Mormonism. Was there a real physical person who inspired it or somehow provided the impetus for it? Yes, there surely was: but it was Joseph Smith, not the angel Moroni (there was, of course, no angel Moroni; there are no angels). Likewise, there must have been real physical people (whoever they may have been) who inspired or somehow provided the impetus for Christianity.

tanya

Maybe, in part, the problem with our exchange is due to lack of harmony on "the issue". I am writing, with your disapproval, about the distinction, clear in my mind if if no one else's!, that Legend and Myth are neither synonyms, nor interchangeable. I am writing on this subpoint, regarding the more central issue, of why it is that some folks cannot abandon the idea of an historical Jesus. I would simply ask those who believe in a Jesus cavorting about with Demons and Satan on rooftops, why they cannot accept as well, the story of Mohammed flying to Jerusalem on al-Buraq?

I don't believe that I am attempting "to achieve the purpose" of converting anyone's opinion, I am simply seeking to offer a distinction between Legend, and Myth, a distinction which is, at present, blurred, by casual use of either term, as if the words were interchangeable.

Ok, we agree here.

Then, the question posed by Roger, and Joan, see below, and previously, by spin, is why one should accept such a "rigid" definition, as I employ. Spin employs a book, a whole book, to explain the concept of a myth. His approach requires one to understand and accept fundamental tenets of the social sciences, and I am loathe to investigate that realm of human endeavor.

Yes, of course, angels don't exist, however, the issue with Mormonism is whether or not the gold tablets existed, and the contents thereon; how the tablets were excavated, or transported, is a separate problem. My point was that creation of gold tablets does not require supernatural competence, to achieve, unless there is an accompanying claim, deemed integral to the legend, namely, that the tablets had originally been prepared from birch bark, and then an angel descended from heaven, to convert the birch bark to gold. Birch bark, i.e. carbon, cannot be converted to gold, though an argument could be made, one imagines, that with sufficient heat and pressure, the birch bark could be converted to diamonds.....

I think that this exchange between Joan and Kapyong clearly illustrates the problems we have, on this forum, with understanding the distinction between myth and legend.

1. If the story about Jesus WERE true, ... STOP. no. If the speed of light were changed by distance traveled, ..... It does not matter if ten billion people saw the flying saucers land in Roswell, N.M., the event is a myth. There are no flying saucers of extraterrestrial origin, at least not yet. The quantity of eye witness accounts, does not affect the veracity of their supposed hearsay.

2. Consistency does not render a story more or less accurate or inaccurate. The sequel to Catch-22, which takes place in New York City, half a century later, ages the main character only four decades, not five. Why? Would the character, Yossarian, change from fictional to historical, had his age been consistently reported? In my opinion, Joan errs, here.

I apologize, for I cannot accept even this sentence, as valid.

I disagree that the origins of Christianity owe a debt to the historical existence of someone named Jesus. The USA air force flew many missions in Italy, during WWII, and maybe there had been some character, flying in that combat, similar to Yossarian in Catch-22, but I do not attribute the description of Yossarian, in a work of fiction, to any actual events of the war. Yossarian, the fictional character, neither caused nor prevented deployment of any actual bombs from USA aircraft, during, prior to, or after the second world war.

Thanks for this comment, Grog. Yup, you are correct, the rigid definition I use is at variance with common parlance, and one observes the confusion that abounds, as a result. In other words, whether MW, or Oxford, or any other dictionary, myth, in my opinion, ALWAYS, without exception, ALWAYS infers supernaturality. Legend, in my opinion, ALWAYS, no exception, represents unconfirmed, historically possible, event or person. Legends do not involve supernatural phenomena. Myths always do so.

Language evolves. What was once crystal clear, becomes muddy. I believe, without an ability to cite a reference in support of my position, that engaging in a serious dialogue about the origins of Christianity requires a clear distinction between casual use of words: best example I can think of:

kata tas grafas.

To me, this means "according to the writings", implying human invention. If one asks Roger, on the other hand, or Adam, or many, many others on this forum, the phrase means, contrarily, "according to scripture", implying a divine authorship.

We need, in short, to separate our beliefs, from FACTS. Sometimes the two overlap, but often they do not.

Almost, but not quite right. Sorry.

Historicist: someone who believes that there did exist in ancient Palestine, a Jewish preacher, named Jesus, who lived about the same time as Philo of Alexandria, who taught that he was the son of YHWH, come to save humanity, and was then executed, either by the Romans or the Jews, or both.

Mythicist: someone who believes that there is no YHWH, (and certainly, no son of YHWH,) no angels, no devils, no Satan. The question of whether or not there existed some genuine Jesus fellow, executed by, or during, the reign of Pontius Pilate, is completely irrelevant. What is relevant, to a mythicist, is that no one is able to cure epilepsy by waving their hands in the air. No one can restore vision by spitting in the eye of one who is blind. No one can raise the dead. No one can walk on water. Those are all myths, because they are all physically impossible.




I, for one, hope that you continue just as you have done in this thread, thank you for your effort.