Freethought & Rationalism Archive

thief of fire · 04-30-2012, 03:41 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rick Sumner

Do you honestly expect me to take this comparison seriously?

I mentioned Hannibal as no ones writes about him till after he is dead.

Quote:

Do you think other "messianic" type figures mentioned by Josephus around that period existed? Like Judas the Gallilean, Theudas, The Samaritan prophet or the Egyptian.

Probably. Mostly because we know what Josephus was doing. We know who he was. We know where he was. We know more about him than we do about all four of the gospel authors combined.

We can be confident that Josephus is employing his own historiography. We have no reason to suppose the gospel authors are doing anything of the sort.

I did not mention the gospels though. I don't know of anyone who posits them as the only source.

spin · 04-30-2012, 03:44 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by No Robots

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rick Sumner

I think it unlikely, but haven't undertaken enough time with the evidence to make a firm claim.

An honest answer. Really, to use mythicist criteria would effectively be to take a buzzsaw to the Talmud.

What are mythicist criteria in this case, given Rick's cited views in the link in the op?

No Robots · 04-30-2012, 03:47 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by spin

What are mythicist criteria in this case, given Rick's cited views in the link in the op?

Ask Rick.

spin · 04-30-2012, 03:54 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by thief of fire

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rick Sumner

Do you honestly expect me to take this comparison seriously?

I mentioned Hannibal as no ones writes about him till after he is dead.

I don't think you're on the right page.

outhouse · 04-30-2012, 04:02 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ktotwf

Quote:

Originally Posted by outhouse

sure there is

romans would never deify a poor, peasant, hybrid tax zealot, teacher/healer

but they did

What most people don't seem to get is that he was deified specifically because he was such a stark reversal of the "lordly" type. He appealed to the downtrodden, the masses. He was "our" guy! That is the point!

exactly

his legend spread through the poor hardworking starving peasants, and those who could read and write and those in power would have hated him

spin · 04-30-2012, 04:04 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by No Robots

Quote:

Originally Posted by spin

What are mythicist criteria in this case, given Rick's cited views in the link in the op?

Ask Rick.

You introduced the term. I was asking what you meant by it exactly. You've read his blog entry, so you have some understanding of his thought. Now here you are talking about mythicist criteria. What do you mean? How is it relevant to the o.p. in your sentence: "to use mythicist criteria would effectively be to take a buzzsaw to the Talmud"?

I personally doubt the functionality of Rick's choice of declaring himself a mythicist here in that he has labeled himself agnostic as to Jesus's past presence in the world. (But I guess that I tend to use "historical" to refer to the process of revealing information about the past from evidence from that past.)

outhouse · 04-30-2012, 04:11 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Juma

Quote:

Originally Posted by outhouse

sure there is

romans would never deify a poor, peasant, hybrid tax zealot, teacher/healer

but they did

And how would historicity of jesus follow from this???

The jewish roman authors if they were going to create a mythical charactor would never deify a jewish peasant

the whole thing is a embarrassment and you can see them trying to cover this up with the ficticious biblical jesus they created.

outhouse · 04-30-2012, 04:14 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rick Sumner

Quote:

Originally Posted by outhouse

by using probabilities and the fact they usually have a historical core, [more often then not] sometimes small, sometimes large, and sometimes not at all.

Probability is a word that gets used a lot in history. Almost always incorrectly.

Probability requires objective numbers. We do not have those. What you mean is plausibility. My post addresses why this type of value judgment needs to be avoided.

I would have to agree.

except that we have those objective numbers based on the evidence we are left with.

historical jesus does carry historicity no matter how contested the evidence is.

spin · 04-30-2012, 04:16 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by outhouse

The jewish roman authors if they were going to create a mythical charactor would never deify a jewish peasant

What on earth are you making assertions about "Jewish Roman authors" for? And how would you ever know what you are babbling about? The thread doesn't ask you to throw your pearls of wisdom before us swine, but to consider the o.p.'s reasoning for reaching the stated position.

thief of fire · 04-30-2012, 04:17 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by spin

Quote:

Originally Posted by thief of fire

I mentioned Hannibal as no ones writes about him till after he is dead.

I don't think you're on the right page.

Why?

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

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.