Freethought & Rationalism Archive

thief of fire · 11-04-2011, 02:23 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by tanya

Quote:

Originally Posted by Tom Verenna

But I don't believe that such a claim could be made that the scripture is evidence of a figure which never existed historically

I am making exactly that claim.

Let me write it out:
The "scripture", i.e. the New Testament, i.e. the Gospels (just one suffices, I like Mark best) represent evidence that Jesus of Nazareth was a mythical character, not an historical person.

Do you think Sai Baba was an historical person?

tanya · 11-04-2011, 02:40 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Kapyong

But here we are - after a week, and five pages - and we still don't have any un-evidenced assumptions of the Jesus Myth theory.

I offered two examples from Mark, illustrating the Jesus Myth theory. These were evidenced data, not un-evidenced assumptions. Was I wrong, then? Did I misunderstand the OP?

Quote:

Originally Posted by thief of fire

Do you think Sai Baba was an historical person?

I have no idea who that person is or was, nor how this question relates to the OP.

Doug Shaver · 11-04-2011, 02:48 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mountainman

Quote:

Originally Posted by Doug Shaver

As I understand ordinary English, the product of a conspiracy (e.g. Atwill), in particular, is not a myth at all, but simply a fraud.

A fabrication - an invention.

Why? One of it's synonyms is an invented story.

myth

Quote:

1.a traditional or legendary story, usually concerning some being or heroor event, with or without a determinable basis of fact or a natural explanation, especially one that is concerned with deities or demigods and explains some practice, rite, or phenomenon of nature.

2.stories or matter of this kind: realm of myth.

3.any invented story, idea, or concept: His account of the event is pure myth.

4.an imaginary or fictitious thing or person.

5.an unproved or false collective belief that is used to justify a social institution.

Whether you apply it to the Bible or to a dictionary, proof-texting is a lousy way to do scholarship.

archibald · 11-04-2011, 03:13 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by beallen041

Juan Diego Cuauhtlatoatzin seems to me to be an indisputably mythical character after investigating the matter about a year ago. Yet there is a whole nation that reveres him and he is a recently canonized Catholic Saint. The reason I believe him to be wholly mythical is that there is no evidence he ever existed and we would expect such evidence. Surely there were countless peasants who were male and of the appropriate age who walked past the shrine of Tonantzin (the Azteca Goddess) repeatedly during the year 1531. If we remove the supernatural from the account, we are left with a very human story -- and so do we say that any male campesino who walked past the appropriate spot and later spoke with the Bishop about a desire to build a Catholic shrine was "the historical Juan Diego?"

I don't think I would grant that as proving historical existence, but perhaps Jiri or Tom would.

In addition -- Clark Kent is explicitly and knowingly based on a real-live person named Harold Lloyd. We know lots about Harold Lloyd and we have oodles of stories about Clark Kent. Can we refer to Harold Lloyd as the "historical Superman" because of this?

I would argue that such a designation would be laughable to a modern person who understands the nature and genre of Superman stories. What evidence do we have that ancients thought about any individual who the Jesus story may have been "based" on any differently than we do about Harold Lloyd?

Juan Diego is a very interesting analogy.

Perhaps the most interesting thing about Juan Diego is (as far as I am aware, having only just googled him, you are probably in a position to correct me if necessary) is that the main reason his historicity is doubted is the complete lack of any reports about him for over a hundred years after his death and that the story was unknown to those who read the first written accounts of it. In that sense, there appears to be a distinction between this figure and Jesus. I do accept that the datings in the case of the latter are not as clear, but I am provisionally taking the most likely datings, in which case Jesus appeared to have followers almost immediately. I think this is potentially an interesting difference.

Regarding Clark Kent, there is, as far as I am aware, virtually no evidence, and certainly no clear evidence, that anyone in those times believed Jesus was that sort of character, that is to say fictional, but based in part on someone else.

Stringbean · 11-04-2011, 03:13 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by aa5874

People here seem not to understand what a THEORY is.

ALL that is NEEDED for a theory is DATA to support it.

If the NT claimed Jesus was a MAN whose Father was Joseph and mother was Mary and there were writers who claimed that they ACTUALLY saw Jesus and INTERACTED with him then that DATA could be USED to support the HJ theory.

But, the DATA we have SUPPORT the MJ theory. That is ALL.

The NT and supposed contemporaries claim that Jesus was NOT a man, that he was FATHERED by a Ghost, was the Creator, was with SATAN on the Pinnacle of the Jewish Temple, that he WALKED on the sea, Transfigured, Resurrected on the THIRD day and Ascended in a cloud.

That DATA supports the MJ theory. That is ALL.

Whether people BELIEVE Jesus did exist is IRRELEVANT if they have NO DATA to support their BELIEF.

No argument, NO THEORY, can be DEVELOPED without DATA.

The Sources that STATE Jesus was FATHERED by a Holy Ghost cannot be the same sources that show Jesus was a man.

Matthew 1.18-20, Luke 1.26-35, John 1, Matthew 4, Mark 6.48-49, Mark 9.2, Mark 16.6, Acts 1.9, Galatians 1.1-12, and 1 Cor. 15 SUPPORT the MYTH Jesus theory.

DATA is ALL that is fundamentally NEEDED.

Now, where is the DATA to support HJ of Nazareth?

Which history book can I use to find DATA on the "Historical Jesus of Nazareth"?

How can I argue for an "Historical Jesus" WITHOUT DATA from antiquity?

I can't find any DATA in Philo, Josephus, Tacitus, Suetonius, Pliny the younger.

The HJ theory CANNOT be argued at all. There is NOTHING on HJ.

I will argue that Jesus was MYTHOLOGICAL because there is EXTANT DATA that he was FATHERED by a Ghost.

Romulus and Remus were HUMAN BROTHERS and BORN of the same WOMAN and yet it has been THEORISED that they were MYTHOLOGICAL simply because there is DATA to support MYTH Romulus and Myth Remus.

There is FAR MORE DATA for MYTH Jesus the Child of a Ghost, God, Creator and SEA-WATER walker.

Agree.

Kapyong · 11-04-2011, 04:29 AM

Gday,

Quote:

Originally Posted by tanya

Quote:

Originally Posted by Kapyong

But here we are - after a week, and five pages - and we still don't have any un-evidenced assumptions of the Jesus Myth theory.

I offered two examples from Mark, illustrating the Jesus Myth theory. These were evidenced data, not un-evidenced assumptions. Was I wrong, then? Did I misunderstand the OP?

Well, it certainly appears so, tanya :-)
I was asking FOR examples of un-evidenced assertions.

Because - my point was that archibald (and a few others) have repeatedly made the claim that the Jesus Myth Theory depends on many un-evidenced assumptions.

Indeed, archibald repeats this as if it's an established fact.

So I asked WHAT are these un-evidenced assumptions of the Jesus Myth Theory?
(Twice now.)

So then archibald dissappeared for a week, but now finally pops in to make some un-related comment, pointedly ignoring the actual topic, which was aimed specifically at him.

Clearly archibald is unable to back up his assertion with any actual examples.

I thus declare that claim is false.
The Jesus Myth Theory does not depend on un-evidenced assumptions.

It's merely an un-evidenced assertion.

Kapyong

mountainman · 11-04-2011, 04:37 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Doug Shaver

Quote:

Originally Posted by mountainman

Quote:

Originally Posted by Doug Shaver

As I understand ordinary English, the product of a conspiracy (e.g. Atwill), in particular, is not a myth at all, but simply a fraud.

A fabrication - an invention.

Why? One of it's synonyms is an invented story.

myth

Quote:

1.a traditional or legendary story, usually concerning some being or heroor event, with or without a determinable basis of fact or a natural explanation, especially one that is concerned with deities or demigods and explains some practice, rite, or phenomenon of nature.

2.stories or matter of this kind: realm of myth.

3.any invented story, idea, or concept: His account of the event is pure myth.

4.an imaginary or fictitious thing or person.

5.an unproved or false collective belief that is used to justify a social institution.

Whether you apply it to the Bible or to a dictionary, proof-texting is a lousy way to do scholarship.

You originally stated

Quote:

"Myth" should not be treated as if it were synonymous with "untrue story."

The term Myth in fact can be synonymous with the term "fiction". Complain all you like but "fiction" and "myth" are synonymous. Originally, had you instead stated that "Myth" should not necessarily be treated as if it were synonymous with "untrue story", I would not have made any comment.

Kapyong · 11-04-2011, 04:40 AM

Gday,

Quote:

Originally Posted by Horatio Parker

The point is, the gospels as evidence are stronger for MJ than HJ. That is aa's point and it's a good one.

Nah - that's not aa's point.
This is aa's point :

You're WASTING your time, and have completely MISSED THE POINT !!!

Jesus is the SON of A GHOST!

It is COMPLETELY IMPOSSIBLE for Jesus to be real!!!

Why don't you realise that !

;-)

archibald · 11-04-2011, 04:44 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Kapyong

I thus declare that claim is false.
The Jesus Myth Theory does not depend on un-evidenced assumptions.

It's merely an un-evidenced assertion.

Kapyong

Hm. I am not sure I even recall the exact circumstances of my comment, I do know I was not addressing your particular hypothesis, but if it helps you, I am willing to amend it to 'not sufficiently persuasive (to me) evidence.' and you can untangle your knickers.

I think everyone makes provisional assumptions and speculations, by the way, not just MJers, but it is my opinion that MJers normally seem to make more.

And it depends what we mean by 'evidence', of course. One might say that certain suggested interpolations are essentially, physically, unevidenced, but that they can still be argued for.

Chili · 11-04-2011, 06:22 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by aa5874

People here seem not to understand what a THEORY is.

ALL that is NEEDED for a theory is DATA to support it.

If the NT claimed Jesus was a MAN whose Father was Joseph and mother was Mary and there were writers who claimed that they ACTUALLY saw Jesus and INTERACTED with him then that DATA could be USED to support the HJ theory.

But, the DATA we have SUPPORT the MJ theory. That is ALL.

The NT and supposed contemporaries claim that Jesus was NOT a man, that he was FATHERED by a Ghost, was the Creator, was with SATAN on the Pinnacle of the Jewish Temple, that he WALKED on the sea, Transfigured, Resurrected on the THIRD day and Ascended in a cloud.

That DATA supports the MJ theory. That is ALL.

Whether people BELIEVE Jesus did exist is IRRELEVANT if they have NO DATA to support their BELIEF.

No argument, NO THEORY, can be DEVELOPED without DATA.

The Sources that STATE Jesus was FATHERED by a Holy Ghost cannot be the same sources that show Jesus was a man.

Matthew 1.18-20, Luke 1.26-35, John 1, Matthew 4, Mark 6.48-49, Mark 9.2, Mark 16.6, Acts 1.9, Galatians 1.1-12, and 1 Cor. 15 SUPPORT the MYTH Jesus theory.

DATA is ALL that is fundamentally NEEDED.

Now, where is the DATA to support HJ of Nazareth?

Which history book can I use to find DATA on the "Historical Jesus of Nazareth"?

How can I argue for an "Historical Jesus" WITHOUT DATA from antiquity?

I can't find any DATA in Philo, Josephus, Tacitus, Suetonius, Pliny the younger.

The HJ theory CANNOT be argued at all. There is NOTHING on HJ.

I will argue that Jesus was MYTHOLOGICAL because there is EXTANT DATA that he was FATHERED by a Ghost.

Romulus and Remus were HUMAN BROTHERS and BORN of the same WOMAN and yet it has been THEORISED that they were MYTHOLOGICAL simply because there is DATA to support MYTH Romulus and Myth Remus.

There is FAR MORE DATA for MYTH Jesus the Child of a Ghost, God, Creator and SEA-WATER walker.

Yes but if you are a Man you already are not human and so a man-child is not a human child and from here everything you find unbelievable is "as easy as eating and drinking" as Golding said in "The Spire."

The problem is that myth is real and is even natural since there is no 'super' in the natural except in the minds of those below who are stuck on words and dictionary explanations of those words.

And yes, this makes Jesus historiacal but not exactly in the way agnostics may see it from their point of view . . . and of course believers are no better and doubters even worse.

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

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.