Freethought & Rationalism Archive

spin · 04-11-2008, 10:37 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by trendkill

Quote:

Originally Posted by spin

Quote:

Originally Posted by trendkill

But regardless, if there wasn't one king that King Arthur was based upon, I would at least expect him to have been built up from various human inspirations into a larger-than-life figure, as opposed to having been conceived of initially as a larger-than-life figure and then humanized later on.

So you can't tell if he had a unique source or not. How come you can assume you know regarding Jesus?

Movements tend to be founded by actual people, often having a single (real) person as a founder or focus. King Arthurism isn't a movement, so that criterion doesn't apply to him. The only criterion I mentioned that applies to King Arthur is the maxim that the tale grows in the telling, i.e. the less-fantastic elements come first, they are generally not added later.

Stupidity isn't helping your cause. Your comment has nothing to do with what I said.

Quote:

Originally Posted by trendkill

Sorry, not seeing it. He persecuted Christians, learned about Christianity, had some sort of revelatory experience (ahem, mental breakdown) and converted. Where does a human teacher who he'd actually attribute his own teachings to come into that story, even assuming he had a historical Jesus in mind?

When you read Acts and not Paul, you say this sort of stuff.

Quote:

Originally Posted by trendkill

You used to mention mythicism plenty.

Rubbish. I have never supported mythicism. Check the archives.

Quote:

Originally Posted by trendkill

Agnosticism is annoying.

Blundering is more annoying. You have no contemporary reports. The earliest information we have, from Paul, doesn't support your position. The relationship between the later literature and the figure of Jesus is not transparent.

Quote:

Originally Posted by trendkill

Clearly, we can't know much of anything about many historical figures. If you want to go around being agnostic about them, that's your call. I prefer to go with the preponderance of the evidence.

Rubbish. You have no evidence in this matter, so stop talking rot.

Quote:

Originally Posted by trendkill

That's not how it works for me. Regardless of the amount of evidence, I weigh it.

How do you weigh no evidence?

Quote:

Originally Posted by trendkill

If there's more on one side than the other, that's the way I go. If the total amount of evidence is small, then I adjust my confidence level accordingly. It may be very low, but regardless, I don't go around proclaiming I'm agnostic about things, as if agnosticism were a position in itself, and that other people should be agnostic about them too. If I have no opinion, I have nothing to say.

Opinions aren't worth much.

Quote:

Originally Posted by trendkill

Yes, that he convinced himself that he didn't get it from people is pretty clear. I'm still waiting for an explanation as to why, based on this passage alone, it's any more likely that he convinced himself of a mythical Jesus that he'd actually heard of previously, than of a historical Jesus that he'd actually heard of previously.

There you go sticking mythicism into the discussion again. I gather this is all too complex for you.

I gather that you'll merely continue more of this, so just repeat my responses to you. <wave>

spin

Dutch_labrat · 04-11-2008, 10:43 AM

'A' Jesus existed. So what, many Jesuses (Jesii?) existed. It was a common name.

'The' Jesus from the gospels didn't exist. There may have been someone very much like that Jesus, someone on who that character was based on but most of the gospels and their main character are really shoddy, uninteresting fiction

Solitary Man · 04-11-2008, 11:38 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by spin

You have no evidence in this matter, so stop talking rot.

Just because you refuse to admit the evidence, doesn't mean it doesn't exist.

NewKid3 · 04-11-2008, 12:32 PM

Gosh 52 replies in such a short time. I got lots of reading to do

Toto · 04-11-2008, 01:08 PM

I was severely tempted to close this when I saw it, since this subject has been done before, with much better care and design.

Here are some previous polls:

2006 Poll on the historical Jesus Christ gives these choices:

A god-man hybrid and savior of humanity
A wisdom sage
An apocalyptic prophet
An anti-Roman revolutionary leader
A Jewish holy man
Something else (please explain)
A myth
Magical brownies

This poll in 2003 had these choices

Literal
Historical Jesus
Composite
Myth
Accreted Legends Fabrication
Conspiritorial Fabrication
Undecided; not in any particular "school"

This poll in 2003 had these choices:

Was there a "historical Jesus," as you define that phrase?
Yes, and I am a Christian.
Yes, and I am not a Christian.
No.
I think the question is probably undecidable.
I am looking for more information and argumentation.

NewKid3 · 04-11-2008, 01:26 PM

Thank you Toto. I don't mind if you close/lock this thread or whatever. My question has been answered.

Toto · 04-11-2008, 01:40 PM

Could you tell us what you learned?

NewKid3 · 04-11-2008, 02:15 PM

:wave:

DBT · 04-11-2008, 06:25 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by aa5874

The mention of "Christians" in the 1st century does not suggest that Jesus was a figure of history, it must first be ascertained who these Christians were and if they were actually followers of Jesus of Nazareth or some-one else. It is necessary to note that there were people who were called Christians, not because of Jesus, but because they believed they were anointed of God or anointed with oil of God, the actual root of the greek word "christ".

In effect, some Jews may have been called "Christians", or believe they were "Christians" long before Jesus of Nazareth was fabricated.

I agree that it is pretty loose, but as there appears to be little or no mention of Jews acting on the instigaion of ''Chrestus'' before Christanity appeared, it seem reasonable to assume that it was the early Christians that Suetonius was referring to.

''... since the Jews were continually making disturbances at the instigation of Chrestus, he [Emperor Claudius] expelled them from Rome. '' Suetonius, Life of Claudius xxv 4 (Cf. Acts 18.2)

trendkill · 04-11-2008, 09:56 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by spin

Stupidity isn't helping your cause. Your comment has nothing to do with what I said.

It directly refutes what you've said. From your insult I gather you have no reply.

Quote:

When you read Acts and not Paul, you say this sort of stuff.

When you are condescending and substanceless, you say this sort of stuff.

Quote:

Rubbish. I have never supported mythicism. Check the archives.

"You used to mention mythicism plenty". And you did.

Quote:

Originally Posted by spin in 2005

...there is a functional non-historical model to explain the earliest manifestations of the religious tradition...

But when called to actually explain how this model supposedly functions (and not even the entire model but just the specific points of it that you yourself bring up), you hide behind agnosticism.

Quote:

You have no contemporary reports.

Granted.

Quote:

The earliest information we have, from Paul, doesn't support your position.

Doesn't hurt it ether.

Quote:

The relationship between the later literature and the figure of Jesus is not transparent.

But we do have general inductive rules we can work from, e.g. the tale grows in the telling, and movements are generally started by/focused on historical persons. This is evidence. You may not find it sufficient, but it is not nothing.

Quote:

Rubbish. You have no evidence in this matter, so stop talking rot.

I have a non-zero amount of evidence. If there was no evidence, there would be nothing for you to have discussed, yet the archives that you so blithely mention show you talking about the question repeatedly. Stop hiding behind insults and thoughtless rhetoric.

Quote:

Originally Posted by trendkill

Yes, that he convinced himself that he didn't get it from people is pretty clear. I'm still waiting for an explanation as to why, based on this passage alone, it's any more likely that he convinced himself of a mythical Jesus that he'd actually heard of previously, than of a historical Jesus that he'd actually heard of previously.

There you go sticking mythicism into the discussion again.

You seem to forget that you were the one who brought up Galatians, as evidence against historicism (you are against both historicism and mythicism, right? And you claim there is a working mythicist model, which cancels out any historicist account presumably; evidence against historicism = evidence in favor of mythicism). But now you say there is no evidence and I brought up the mythicist account.

Quote:

I gather this is all too complex for you.

LOL, I'm only human but in this case I don't think I'm the one who's having trouble with the complexities. I'm not surprised you don't want to continue the discussion; I'm more doubtful than ever that you have anything to say. But feel free to get back to me if you ever sort out your confusion.

View Poll Results: Did Jesus exist?
Yes	24	30.38%
No	55	69.62%
Voters: 79. You may not vote on this poll

04-11-2008, 01:08 PM	#55
Toto Contributor Join Date: Jun 2000 Location: Los Angeles area Posts: 40,549	I was severely tempted to close this when I saw it, since this subject has been done before, with much better care and design. Here are some previous polls: 2006 Poll on the historical Jesus Christ gives these choices: A god-man hybrid and savior of humanity A wisdom sage An apocalyptic prophet An anti-Roman revolutionary leader A Jewish holy man Something else (please explain) A myth Magical brownies This poll in 2003 had these choices Literal Historical Jesus Composite Myth Accreted Legends Fabrication Conspiritorial Fabrication Undecided; not in any particular "school" This poll in 2003 had these choices: Was there a "historical Jesus," as you define that phrase? Yes, and I am a Christian. Yes, and I am not a Christian. No. I think the question is probably undecidable. I am looking for more information and argumentation.

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

04-11-2008, 10:43 AM	#52
Dutch_labrat Senior Member Join Date: Apr 2007 Location: Leiden, The Netherlands Posts: 970	'A' Jesus existed. So what, many Jesuses (Jesii?) existed. It was a common name. 'The' Jesus from the gospels didn't exist. There may have been someone very much like that Jesus, someone on who that character was based on but most of the gospels and their main character are really shoddy, uninteresting fiction

04-11-2008, 12:32 PM	#54
NewKid3 Regular Member Join Date: Feb 2008 Location: Near Washington D.C. Posts: 224	Gosh 52 replies in such a short time. I got lots of reading to do

04-11-2008, 01:26 PM	#56
NewKid3 Regular Member Join Date: Feb 2008 Location: Near Washington D.C. Posts: 224	Thank you Toto. I don't mind if you close/lock this thread or whatever. My question has been answered.

04-11-2008, 01:40 PM	#57
Toto Contributor Join Date: Jun 2000 Location: Los Angeles area Posts: 40,549	Could you tell us what you learned?

04-11-2008, 02:15 PM	#58
NewKid3 Regular Member Join Date: Feb 2008 Location: Near Washington D.C. Posts: 224	:wave:

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.