Freethought & Rationalism Archive

show_no_mercy · 11-26-2008, 10:48 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by No Robots

I am quoting the Bible to people who I assume are familiar with its meaning, and here the meaning regards taking a mature attitude toward the question of heroes. Your quotations regard maintaining a healthy naivete that allows us to place ourselves under the tutelage of the great hero. At bottom, these quotations are about the difference between being childlike and being childish.

That's all great and dandy, but all of this is really your opinion. Evidenced by your subjective use of the words "mature" and "healthy". Who determines what's "mature / immature" and what's "healthy / unhealthy" when performing some sort of exegesis? It's all relative to the reader/believer.

spamandham · 11-26-2008, 11:02 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by No Robots

When I was a child, I spoke as a child, I understood as a child, I thought as a child. But, when I became a man, I put away the things of a child.--1Cor 13:11

I'm amused when believers quote this, all the while failing to realize that faith is the pinnacle of childish thinking.

aa5874 · 11-26-2008, 11:11 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Solo

I do not hold up much hope for a case of "mistaken identity". I think that HJ was probably (60%-80%) a very transient figure on the historical map. He likely was adopted by James post-mortem as a martyr of the last times, and his martyrdom used in the temple politics as an example of priestly perfidy and collaboration with the imperialists. He would have not become much had his name not become associated with the "mystery of the Spirit" by the Jamesian missionaries. It was they who made Paul eventually go berserk and proclaim himself the man to whom God trusted the ultimate secret of life.

Jiri

Very very little is written about James, the Lord's brother. And with more than one character called James in the NT, it is extremely difficult to know which James any author is making reference to.

There is just not enough information available to claim it is likely James did anything, when it may be that there was not even any person known as James in the first place.

spin · 11-26-2008, 01:02 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by No Robots

I've done my best to make the case for the historicity of Christ.

No, you haven't. You haven't done one constructive thing towards that goal. The historicity of the past is built squarely on evidence. And apparently you haven't got a jot. Your performance has been dismal, if you honestly thought you were attempting to demonstrate a case for historicity. You seem to have merely assumed your conclusion and ignored the problems. So, no, you haven't done your best. You ought to stop recycling other people's opinions and ready some historiography. Then you might learn what is necessary to mount a case.

Quote:

Originally Posted by No Robots

But I would like to say something about why I think it important. It is important because man needs heroes, and this is the greatest of heroes. Here is how Carlyle puts it:

There is good reason why people don't cite Carlyle these days. He was a man of his time: optimistic, conservative, erudite, ignorant, misogynist, devout, idealistic, totally unaware of the forces of history and revesting a tradition of individual greatness that goes back to Plutarch in a cloak of romanticism. Citing his claptrap is tantamount to adhering to his naivety. Carlyle is not the way to go, No Robots. He will teach you nothing about history. The blind leading the blind usually has one destination.

spin

spin · 11-26-2008, 01:12 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Solo

I think that HJ was probably (60%-80%) a very transient figure on the historical map. He likely was adopted by James post-mortem as a martyr of the last times, and his martyrdom used in the temple politics as an example of priestly perfidy and collaboration with the imperialists. He would have not become much had his name not become associated with the "mystery of the Spirit" by the Jamesian missionaries. It was they who made Paul eventually go berserk and proclaim himself the man to whom God trusted the ultimate secret of life.

You don't know anything from Paul about what James believed. You don't know what made Paul "go beserk" (to use your colorful phrase). While Paul believed somehow that Jesus was real, he certainly didn't need a real one to proselytize his gentiles. He was happy with his revelation of a gospel not taught to him by people.

What you are doing is like a puzzle on the children's page: there are numbered dots and you have to draw a line joining the dots to see what comes out, only you do not have the numbers, just the dots.

spin

premjan · 11-26-2008, 01:17 PM

Basically I imagine it takes quite a bit of work to invent someone new. If it was done long after the fact with obvious mythological elements it is plausible (e.g. Rama, Krishna, perhaps Moses) that it is at least 90% invention. With Jesus there is a little more realism and with Muhammad a lot more yet.

No Robots · 11-26-2008, 01:49 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by spin

You ought to stop recycling other people's opinions and ready some historiography.

But if I consult historiography, won't I be in danger of recycling opinions I find there? But, please do make some reading recommendations. I suspect that whatever you recommend will tend to bolster my case rather than yours, which is why you so studiously avoid making any recommendations for scholarly reading.

mountainman · 11-26-2008, 03:10 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by premjan

Basically I imagine it takes quite a bit of work to invent someone new.

Dear premjan,

Harry Potter took alot of work.

Quote:

If it was done long after the fact with obvious mythological elements it is plausible (e.g. Rama, Krishna, perhaps Moses) that it is at least 90% invention.

Time clouds evidence.

Quote:

With Jesus there is a little more realism and with Muhammad a lot more yet.

With Jesus there is no evidence apart from the work undertaken by the fourth century monotheistic official state religion to promote a series of books about this character. We have as yet no independent and scientific evidence by which we may feel confident that the series of books, purported to have been written in the first century, are in fact not 4th century fiction.

We have no pressing need to invoke any sense of realism which is independent of the available evidence in the appropriate field (ie: ancient history and C14).

Best wishes,

Pete

premjan · 11-26-2008, 03:12 PM

Is Harry Potter that compelling though? Entertaining maybe but I sort of doubt it will remain captivating 2000 years later.

mountainman · 11-26-2008, 04:16 PM

We have no means of knowing in advance whether Harry Potter would still around 1,683 years after His first official state publication date.

View Poll Results: What do you think the probability of a historical Jesus is?
100% - I have complete faith that Jesus of Nazareth was a real person.	8	6.15%
80-100%	10	7.69%
60-80%	15	11.54%
40-60%	22	16.92%
20-40%	17	13.08%
0-20%	37	28.46%
o% - I have complete faith that Jesus of Nazareth was not a real person,	21	16.15%
Voters: 130. You may not vote on this poll

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

11-26-2008, 01:17 PM	#166
premjan Obsessed Contributor Join Date: Aug 2003 Location: NJ Posts: 61,538	Basically I imagine it takes quite a bit of work to invent someone new. If it was done long after the fact with obvious mythological elements it is plausible (e.g. Rama, Krishna, perhaps Moses) that it is at least 90% invention. With Jesus there is a little more realism and with Muhammad a lot more yet.

11-26-2008, 03:12 PM	#169
premjan Obsessed Contributor Join Date: Aug 2003 Location: NJ Posts: 61,538	Is Harry Potter that compelling though? Entertaining maybe but I sort of doubt it will remain captivating 2000 years later.

11-26-2008, 04:16 PM	#170
mountainman Contributor Join Date: Mar 2006 Location: Falls Creek, Oz. Posts: 11,192	We have no means of knowing in advance whether Harry Potter would still around 1,683 years after His first official state publication date.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.