MCalavera

And that, my friend, is one reason for why I believe Jesus was actually a real historical person. The Jews would not have made up this shit about a dead Messiah. But when the followers of Jesus saw that their Messiah actually did die without achieving the long awaited victory and triumph against the Roman oppressors, they had to come up with the Resurrection bit so that the Messiah title wouldn't be in vain.

They fantasized about his resurrection and they deluded themselves into believing he really did get resurrected.

Nathan Poe

The simpler explanation to the question "where do babies come from?" involves a stork, as opposed to the biological complexiities of human reproduction.

Alas, a simpler explanation isn't always a correct one.

Which raises the question: did those theologically driven motives and biases ever override this alleged desire for historical truth -- assuming such a desire existed in the first place? I don't see how anyone can study the Bible and not answer that question with a resounding "yes." Furthermore, in the interest of honesty, you'd have to quantify that with "yes -- all over the place."

In fact, we can read the individual Gospels and see where theological agendas and biases overrode even the most token attempts to portray the events as historical fact -- nobody can reconcile the events as history/biography without twisting their mind into a pretzel of special pleading.

Funny how Luke 1:1-4 explicitly shoots down the notion of the Gospel writers being eyewitnesses, but plenty of sincere believers still cling on to that canard.

But it is funny that you bring up Luke 1:1-4, since it actually supports, not refutes, my assumption. Consider the following:

The word translated as "instructed" in verse 4 can also mean "catechized." And while many people assume that "Theophilius" in verse 3 is a proper name, the literal translation is "Lover of God" -- certainly a proper title for any fellow Christian.

Is it possible, then, that Luke's prologue reads, "Because many other people have described these things which we believe in, I, who has understood this all from the start, would like to tell the whole story to Christians who have only been catechized"? Could Luke be preparing to explain Christian tradition to new converts who, up until that point, have only gotten the short version?

Nathan Poe

And who says he wasn't? Many skeptics may call his existence into question, but not here. Alas, existence alone is no evidence of miraculous stories (all of which were lifted from the Old Testament) and bodily resurrections.


Well that's a bit strong -- I think allegory and liturgy is a more plausible explanation than massive self-delusion. Just because modern Christians have a stunning capacity for self-delusion, doesn't mean the originals would've let it happen on the scale you're suggesting.

If the early Jewish followers of Christ were actually reading the gospels as history/biography, not one of them would've bought into such obvious horseshit.

MCalavera

The stork is not an explanation that's in line with our observations and evidence.

Mythicists continue to misunderstand Occam's razor.

Nevermind that you're adding your thoughts to what Luke 1 says.

MCalavera

Go live in the same village I lived in then (in my homecountry). So many people there claim they saw the Virgin Mary appear to them on several occasions during a period of "miracles" and "faith healing" near the local church. This is not something I find hard to believe as I've seen how easy it is for people to be mass deluded.

Kapyong

Gday,

Pardon?
Several posters here, including myself, argue Jesus did not exist historically.


K.

Nathan Poe

Actually, Occam's Razor has nothing to do with it -- I am merely pointing out that the simplest explanation is not always the correct one. Agree or not?

In an effort to discern its meaning, I am merely pointing out an alternative interpretation based on information that other such as yourself may not have been aware of. Let's not pretend that thinking is a liability.

Nathan Poe

If you will recall I did make a distinction between modern Christians and the Earliest ones. I am of the opinion that because many modern Christians have completely lost the meaning behind their faith, they'll latch on to damn near anything that promises to provide some.
While I agree that this has also happened throughout history, it doesn't change the notion that the Gospel writers themselves were attempting something other than history/biography to their works. That there were, no doubt, people back then who didn't get the message doesn't mean that there weren't any who did.

MCalavera

Ok. As you wish.

Atheos

I'm curious as to how Occam's razor applies to MJ vs HJ, and why mythicists don't understand it. As others have pointed out the razor is a tool, not a divining rod. My take is that MJ / HJ controversy is more a matter of how one interprets available evidence, not a matter of removing a non-essential part of the hypothesis.

As an example, a mythicist might argue that the "Jesus" legend is fraught with obviously mythical elements, including a virgin birth, a historically suspect massacre of the innocents, miracles galore, dead people coming back to life and the ascension. Obviously most of it is entirely fiction.

Since most of it is fiction why wouldn't the most parsimonious interpretation (Occam's Razor) be that all of it is fiction? HJ proponents need both a historical Jesus and a fictional Jesus. MJ proponents need only the fictional one.

I don't think this is a valid a use of Occam's Razor. I also fail to see how the razor can be applied in the other direction with success.