Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Juststeve · 04-27-2012, 09:30 AM

Dog:

The best evidence for the real existence of Hillel is a robust Talmudic tradition describing the life, deeds and saying of Rabbi Hillel. Remind you of anyone else?

Steve

dog-on · 04-27-2012, 09:41 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Juststeve

Dog:

The best evidence for the real existence of Hillel is a robust Talmudic tradition describing the life, deeds and saying of Rabbi Hillel. Remind you of anyone else?

Steve

Perhaps.

Is there any legitimate reason why the authors of the Talmud would have invented this figure?

Juststeve · 04-27-2012, 09:57 AM

Dog:

Like any good myther I can invent reasons for making up Hillel. The Talmudic authors thought they could give additional support their edicts by placing them in the mouth of a great man from the past. That is not as persuasive to me as the hypothesis based what they wrote on existing traditions about Hillel, but is should be good enough for a devout myther.

Bye the Bye, is it you contention that the writers of the canonical gospels "invented" the character of Jesus?

Steve

dog-on · 04-27-2012, 10:26 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Juststeve

Dog:

Like any good myther I can invent reasons for making up Hillel. The Talmudic authors thought they could give additional support their edicts by placing them in the mouth of a great man from the past. That is not as persuasive to me as the hypothesis based what they wrote on existing traditions about Hillel, but is should be good enough for a devout myther.

Bye the Bye, is it you contention that the writers of the canonical gospels "invented" the character of Jesus?

Steve

Nah, they just fleshed him out.

aa5874 · 04-27-2012, 11:25 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Juststeve

Robots:

You make a good point about Hillel and for that very reason you are unlikely to get the mythers to engage. I for one think Hillel probably existed but my reasons for thinking so are no more unassailable than my reasons for thinking Jesus probably existed. Their existence is not at all extraordinary and its the best and simplest explanation for the traditions that grew up about them. Simpler for example than Hillel didn't exist on earth but in some sub-lunar realm.

Steve

I won't allow you to get away with your mis-leading statements about the character called Jesus.

Please, we have the written statements about Jesus in Existing Codices and he was described as EXTRA-ORDINARY.

You very well know that in gMark Jesus supposedly did Miracles that could NOT have happened as described and that he Walked on Water, Transfigured and was Risen.

Those are EXTRA-ORDINARY claims.

Next, you very well know that in gMatthew and gLuke that Jesus was EXTRA-ORDINARILY claimed to be the Son of a Holy Ghost and God the Creator in gJohn.

Jesus was an EXTRA-ORDINARY in the NT.

Jesus was a Myth Fable character.

You very well know that the existence or non-existence of any figure of history has NOTHING whatsoever to do with the Extra-ordinary claims about Jesus.

PhilosopherJay · 04-27-2012, 09:14 PM

I was going to post this here, but decided to make this into a separate thread.

Warmly

Jay Raskin

manoj · 04-27-2012, 11:10 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Juststeve

Some of the other claims made about Jesus that are by no means extraordinary. That he lived in Palestine 2000 years ago, that he preached, that he gathered a band of followers, that he traveled from place to place with his followers, that he got cross wise with the Romans and crucified. These are the claims made by those who believe in an historical Jesus and are by no means extraordinary. There is simply no reason for a fair minded skeptic to demand extraordinary unimpeachable evidence to support mundane claims of that sort, yet they do.
Steve

Steve, let me take a stab at this.

If the only claim that was being made was that a very ordinary person "lived in Palestine some 2000 years ago", then we would not have been here discussing this.

We do not for instance, question the historicity of say Josephus or the many (or most of the) people he wrote about. (At least, not that I know of.

)

Unfortunately the claims being made about Jesus are indeed extraordinary. To be sure, I am not suggesting that you are making such claims. But most of the ancient texts that tell us about Jesus do make really extraordinary claims about him.

We can not simply strip away the extraordinary parts, pick up the ordinary pieces and say that there is good reason to believe those!

Prof. Law does a much better job explaining this.
[I am unable to post links but you should be able to find it at: stephenlaw.blogspot.com]

Cheers
Manoj

outhouse · 04-27-2012, 11:49 PM

Quote:

I don't really care one way or another whether Jesus existed. The issue has been perpetuated in this forum primarily by Christians.

Toto I have to call BS on this.

Christians almost never back a HJ, they follow mythical jesus.

had you stated atheist and agnostic, then I would agree.

Christians, fat chance.

Toto · 04-28-2012, 07:11 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by outhouse

Quote:

I don't really care one way or another whether Jesus existed. The issue has been perpetuated in this forum primarily by Christians.

Toto I have to call BS on this.

Christians almost never back a HJ, they follow mythical jesus.

had you stated atheist and agnostic, then I would agree.

Christians, fat chance.

It doesn't make a lot of sense to me, but the people who are most at pains to show that there was a historical Jesus are Christians. They also believe that this historical person had magical powers, but they don't necessarily talk about that until they get their hooks into a new convert.

There is only one prominent Christian who argues for mythicism - Tom Harpur.

Toto · 04-28-2012, 07:14 AM

manoj is referring to this

Quote:

(Published in Faith and Philosophy 2011. Volume 28, Issue 2, April 2011. Stephen Law. Pages 129-151)
EVIDENCE, MIRACLES AND THE EXISTENCE OF JESUS
Stephen Law

Abstract

The vast majority of Biblical historians believe there is evidence sufficient to place Jesus’ existence beyond reasonable doubt. Many believe the New Testament documents alone suffice firmly to establish Jesus as an actual, historical figure. I question these views. In particular, I argue (i) that the three most popular criteria by which various non-miraculous New Testament claims made about Jesus are supposedly corroborated are not sufficient, either singly or jointly, to place his existence beyond reasonable doubt, and (ii) that a prima facie plausible principle concerning how evidence should be assessed – a principle I call the contamination principle – entails that, given the large proportion of uncorroborated miracle claims made about Jesus in the New Testament documents, we should, in the absence of independent evidence for an historical Jesus, remain sceptical about his existence.

04-27-2012, 09:14 PM	#56
PhilosopherJay Veteran Member Join Date: Aug 2004 Location: Orlando Posts: 2,014	Jesus is Less Historical Than Barnabus Collins or Dracula I was going to post this here, but decided to make this into a separate thread. Warmly Jay Raskin

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

04-27-2012, 09:30 AM	#51
Juststeve Senior Member Join Date: Nov 2004 Location: Dallas Texas Posts: 758	Dog: The best evidence for the real existence of Hillel is a robust Talmudic tradition describing the life, deeds and saying of Rabbi Hillel. Remind you of anyone else? Steve

04-27-2012, 09:57 AM	#53
Juststeve Senior Member Join Date: Nov 2004 Location: Dallas Texas Posts: 758	Dog: Like any good myther I can invent reasons for making up Hillel. The Talmudic authors thought they could give additional support their edicts by placing them in the mouth of a great man from the past. That is not as persuasive to me as the hypothesis based what they wrote on existing traditions about Hillel, but is should be good enough for a devout myther. Bye the Bye, is it you contention that the writers of the canonical gospels "invented" the character of Jesus? Steve

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.