Freethought & Rationalism Archive

gurugeorge · 09-21-2011, 06:23 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by aa5874

The Jesus of the NT is NOT the "historical Jesus".

The "historical Jesus" REFERS to an ordinary man with earthly parents that may have existed.

The "historical Jesus" is HERESY according to the Church and its writers.

Yes, yes, I understand that, and agree with it.

Quote:

Whether Christians BELIEVED Jesus of the NT existed or NOT is really IRRELEVANT.

It is when my interlocutor is talking about what they believed.

aa5874 · 09-21-2011, 06:29 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by J-D

Quote:

Originally Posted by aa5874

The Church and its writers are in effect claiming that the Jesus story did NOT need an historical Jesus.

They nowhere make any such claim.

You don't know what you are talking about. You have NO reliable sources to support your assertion.

In "Against Heresies" the "historical Jesus" was LISTED as Heresy.

See "Against Heresies" 1. for a LIST of HERETICAL teachings.

gurugeorge · 09-21-2011, 06:31 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by archibald

Let me ask you a similarly speculative question. People follow a figure who was thought of as purely spiritual.

As I've said to you several times, the "purely spiritual" figure in the earliest texts is also a spiritual figure capable of either possessing someone, taking on or creating a human body for himself, or any number of variations (precisely which, was a subject of great debate).

There can be little doubt that the earliest believers had some element to the story that was historical-to-them - they really believed that that spiritual figure had incarnated, or whatever.

The difficulty is to distinguish a spiritual-but-incarnating myth from a myth-with-a-guy-at-the-root-of-it.

What's said in texts about one entity might look pretty similar to what's said in texts about the other.

The HJ difficulty is to get evidence for the latter - and it's not so easy as just stripping away the spiritual stuff and BINGO!, what you're left with is evidence for a human being. It doesn't work like that.

aa5874 · 09-21-2011, 06:44 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by archibald

....Second, aa5874's oft repeated claim that because Jesus was (his choice of phrase, not mine) described as mythical therein has very little bearing on whether there was or was not a grain of sand at the centre of the oyster, that is to say that the gospels embellished an historical character rather than a non-historical one.....

Please, do not mis-represent my position. This is the problem that I have with HJers. You appear to be DELIBERATELY making a BLATANT error about my position.

I DETEST when you mis-represent me. I am NOT playing any games with HJers.

This is MY POSITION.

HJERS have ZERO sources of antiquity to support their HJ of Nazareth and are ENGAGED in logical fallacies, absurdities, circular and strawman arguments, KNOWN forgeries and unreliable sources.

Please, refer to this POST at all times so that you won't forget my position.

gurugeorge · 09-21-2011, 06:47 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by archibald

Quote:

Originally Posted by gurugeorge

Not "someone who is historical", like an ordinary Joshua - an entity who is "over all" - i.e. DIVINE - who is historical to the Christians, and who has some sort of human aspect or component.

That's what all the "documentary evidence" is about - that entity.

Is this 'having divine qualities' not the norm for 'special persons', eg. numerous messianic claimants, and to some lesser extent anyone supposedly capable of a miracle, or special powers, including seeing/hearing ghosts and doing prophecies?

Sure, and if you have some independent evidence that the person existed, you can definitely say that there you have to do with a person who had divine qualities attached to them (e.g. some Roman emperors).

Quote:

Also, I sometimes think 'entity' is a questionable word. It's not as if he was thought of as having been a supernatural cloud or as having 10 tentacles and 45 eyes. :]

Figure that seemed human, maybe?

Figure that seemed partly human, yes (with all the variations you find in doctrine - from Ebionite "all man" - a heresy - to fully spiritual and only appearing human - a heresy - with half man half god - orthodoxy - in the middle). But it's begging the question to say "ah, it must have just be a man mythologized".

Quote:

Anyhow, the point, surely, is not what the form or make-up of his constitution was variously interpreted as, but the apparent belief that he was believed to have had an earthly, humanlike existence.

Something like that was believed, but that's not evidence of a human being. Once again, we go back to the causal chain. That's the only thing you have to distinguish "story about entity that's part-man-part-god" from "story about entity that's part-man-part-god that's based in some obscure way on a human being who actually lived".

Quote:

Originally Posted by gurugeorge

Sure, for early Christians, there was a "historical Jesus" - they thought that a divine being either possessed a man, or magically took on a human body, or appeared to have flesh, or some other kludge. For centuries, it was thought that the NT Canon was good enough evidence of the historical existence of that divine being, a one-shot avatar of the Divine on earth.

With the rise of rationalism, it became obvious that the NT Canon couldn't possibly be good enough evidence of that kind of entity. So rational people thought that perhaps there was some sort of ordinary human being behind the pseudo-historical myth.

George, do you not think that if no one at the time, as far as we can reasonably tell, appeared to think he hadn't existed, that this might be something usually taken to be somewhat in favour of the likelihood of his existence, given that they were all a heck of a lot closer to purported events than we are?

Yes. But why would they believe he didn't exist? Sure he existed - God sent his Son to earth to incarnate (in some manner) in human form. What's the problem?

gurugeorge · 09-21-2011, 06:55 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sheshbazzar

A visit to any fundamentalist church will net a dozen or more cock-and-bull 'miraculous' religious stories that the claimants are willing to swear to be absolutely true accounts of their personal religious experiences. But what does that have to do with reality or with actual history other than displaying a group reinforced mental aberration?
Am I to believe and give credence to the those tales told to me by old Jacob, of Jebus Christ sitting down beside him on a stump and conversing with him while he was out hunting?
Or believe and repeat as being a 'historical' fact that Jebus Christ miraculously appeared and levitated old Jake out of a river, thus saving him from drowning?
Or that a living, physical Jebus Christ did actually materialize and take over the steering wheel of old Jake's automobile, yet again saving old Jake's hide?
('course they still hit a tree....apparently Jebus Christ wasn't much better of a driver than old Jake)

Seriously, these are samples of the type of Christian 'testimonies' that I have heard first hand from a believer that I have known all of my life, and whom having repeated them so often, quite succeeded in convincing himself that his accounts are exactly what happened.
When I read 'Paul's' stories it all comes across as equally hokey 'witnessing', although somewhat 'doctored up' by his continuators for mass consumption.

I don't-cannot- accept or believe these 'testimonies' by old Jake (and his ilk)
Why should I give any credence to the religious claims of 'Paul' (or those pseudo-'Paul's' who invented additional tales in his name)???
'Paul' according to his own accounts in the NT, never once met or even laid eyes any flesh and blood living Jebus the Christ, only 'visions' and claims of holding conversations with an dead and long departed stranger, and 'miracle' stories that are the basis of all of 'Paul's' 'testimonies'.
'Paul' has no more credibility than old Jake or any other religiously infected person who invents such tales and convinces himself of them.

You don't have to accept them as objective evidence, but you can accept them heterophenomenologically - as sincere reports of subjective experience.

Whether they are then, further, objective evidence, depends on Humean tests, and that we haven't yet been able to get from any religion or anything woo-woo.

But such experiences aren't that difficult to obtain for yourself - and you will see that it's quite possible for someone who's poorly educated and/or not very well trained in logic, to believe that what they are seeing is real. (Actually even if you are a supreme logician like Je Tsongkhapa - the "Tibetan Aquinas" - or was Aquinas the "Christian Tsonghkapa"?

- it's still possible to think what you are seeing is real.)

Sure, sometimes people play up, or perpetrate fraud. But to condemn every religious founder who has ever lived as a liar about their own experiences, or completely mad, is a step I'm unwilling to take.

That option is far more implausible than the option that there are just simply things the brain does under certain conditions that produce real-seeming visions - especially nowadays, as science is starting to get a handle on such phenomena.

aa5874 · 09-21-2011, 07:06 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by gurugeorge

.....Sure, and if you have some independent evidence that the person existed, you can definitely say that there you have to do with a person who had divine qualities attached to them (e.g. some Roman emperors)......

This is the problem with the HJ argument.

HJers are claiming that there was an HJ of Nazareth but have NO sources.

The QUEST for the "historical Jesus" is an ATTEMPT to find ANOTHER Jesus, NOT the "Jesus of FAITH" or "the DIVINE Jesus", so whether people of antiquity believed the DIVINE Jesus or the Jesus of Faith existed is NOT really an issue.

HJers JUST have to PRODUCE the sources of antiquity for HJ of Nazareth. That is all.

The NT and Church writings are about the JESUS OF FAITH, the Child of a Ghost, the Word that was God and the Creator of heaven and earth.

HJers cannot find THEIR HJ of Nazareth anywhere.

HJ of Nazareth is best explained by IMAGINATION.

Iskander · 09-21-2011, 07:13 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by aa5874

Quote:

Originally Posted by gurugeorge

.....Sure, and if you have some independent evidence that the person existed, you can definitely say that there you have to do with a person who had divine qualities attached to them (e.g. some Roman emperors)......

This is the problem with the HJ argument.

HJers are claiming that there was an HJ of Nazareth but have NO sources.

The QUEST for the "historical Jesus" is an ATTEMPT to find ANOTHER Jesus, NOT the "Jesus of FAITH" or "the DIVINE Jesus", so whether people of antiquity believed the DIVINE Jesus or the Jesus of Faith existed is NOT really an issue.

HJers JUST have to PRODUCE the sources of antiquity for HJ of Nazareth. That is all.

The NT and Church writings are about the JESUS OF FAITH, the Child of a Ghost, the Word that was God and the Creator of heaven and earth.

HJers cannot find THEIR HJ of Nazareth anywhere.

HJ of Nazareth is best explained by IMAGINATION.

Are you trying to impress the ladies?

dog-on · 09-21-2011, 07:19 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by gurugeorge

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sheshbazzar

A visit to any fundamentalist church will net a dozen or more cock-and-bull 'miraculous' religious stories that the claimants are willing to swear to be absolutely true accounts of their personal religious experiences. But what does that have to do with reality or with actual history other than displaying a group reinforced mental aberration?
Am I to believe and give credence to the those tales told to me by old Jacob, of Jebus Christ sitting down beside him on a stump and conversing with him while he was out hunting?
Or believe and repeat as being a 'historical' fact that Jebus Christ miraculously appeared and levitated old Jake out of a river, thus saving him from drowning?
Or that a living, physical Jebus Christ did actually materialize and take over the steering wheel of old Jake's automobile, yet again saving old Jake's hide?
('course they still hit a tree....apparently Jebus Christ wasn't much better of a driver than old Jake)

Seriously, these are samples of the type of Christian 'testimonies' that I have heard first hand from a believer that I have known all of my life, and whom having repeated them so often, quite succeeded in convincing himself that his accounts are exactly what happened.
When I read 'Paul's' stories it all comes across as equally hokey 'witnessing', although somewhat 'doctored up' by his continuators for mass consumption.

I don't-cannot- accept or believe these 'testimonies' by old Jake (and his ilk)
Why should I give any credence to the religious claims of 'Paul' (or those pseudo-'Paul's' who invented additional tales in his name)???
'Paul' according to his own accounts in the NT, never once met or even laid eyes any flesh and blood living Jebus the Christ, only 'visions' and claims of holding conversations with an dead and long departed stranger, and 'miracle' stories that are the basis of all of 'Paul's' 'testimonies'.
'Paul' has no more credibility than old Jake or any other religiously infected person who invents such tales and convinces himself of them.

You don't have to accept them as objective evidence, but you can accept them heterophenomenologically - as sincere reports of subjective experience.

Whether they are then, further, objective evidence, depends on Humean tests, and that we haven't yet been able to get from any religion or anything woo-woo.

But such experiences aren't that difficult to obtain for yourself - and you will see that it's quite possible for someone who's poorly educated and/or not very well trained in logic, to believe that what they are seeing is real.

Sure, sometimes people play up, or perpetrate fraud. But to condemn every religious founder who has ever lived as a liar about their own experiences, or completely mad, is a step I'm unwilling to take.

That options is far more implausible than the option that there are just simply things the brain does under certain conditions that produce real-seeming visions - especially nowadays, as science is starting to get a handle on such phenomena.

Perhaps so, however in the case of the gospels, a much more plausible solution is that we are dealing with literary events as the solution for the miracle stories, based on the actual evidence, (literary borrowing, etc).

aa5874 · 09-21-2011, 07:19 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Iskander

Quote:

Originally Posted by aa5874

Quote:

Originally Posted by gurugeorge

.....Sure, and if you have some independent evidence that the person existed, you can definitely say that there you have to do with a person who had divine qualities attached to them (e.g. some Roman emperors)......

This is the problem with the HJ argument.

HJers are claiming that there was an HJ of Nazareth but have NO sources.

The QUEST for the "historical Jesus" is an ATTEMPT to find ANOTHER Jesus, NOT the "Jesus of FAITH" or "the DIVINE Jesus", so whether people of antiquity believed the DIVINE Jesus or the Jesus of Faith existed is NOT really an issue.

HJers JUST have to PRODUCE the sources of antiquity for HJ of Nazareth. That is all.

The NT and Church writings are about the JESUS OF FAITH, the Child of a Ghost, the Word that was God and the Creator of heaven and earth.

HJers cannot find THEIR HJ of Nazareth anywhere.

HJ of Nazareth is best explained by IMAGINATION.

Are you trying to impress the ladies?

You are an HJer?? HJers are engaged in absurdities to support THEIR HJ of Nazareth.

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

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.