Solo

Hi Jay,

You are probably thinking of the Franklin expedition, though I have not seen madness (or lead poisoning as root cause of madness) recorded as the reason for cannibalism. Eating human flesh by humans is quite common as a last resort in a fight for survival.

Best,
Jiri

true story

To be perfectly serious, I think Loch Ness and Jesus is not a good comparison from the mythicist side. People who want us to believe in a historical Jesus are asking for something mundane, i.e. the existence of an ordinary human who was killed and inspired a movement. The comparable thing would be Loch Ness, I think. You have people who apparently experienced mundane phenomena and came to ludicrous conclusions. Isn't this what people are suggesting? Jesus was exalted to divinity by his followers, the way experiences on Loch Ness were exaggerated by the credulous? Or rather, there really was a school of fish, but not not a giant sea monster?

jakejonesiv

Nessie is a good example of people believing in something that has no factual basis. The best we can do for Nessie is a school of fish, a rotten log, or outright lies and fabrication. If Historical Jesus is the rotten log of Gospel Jesus, you ought to be glad for mythicists to pretty it up.

Jake

PhilosopherJay

Hi jakejonesiv,

Yes, you have the exact point.

The sightings of Nessie may be due to a number of causes: sea otters, sturgeons, logs, boats, too much whiskey, overactive imagination, and deliberate hoaxers. This still makes Nessie herself a myth.

The writings on Jesus may be due to a number of causes as well - interpretation of Hebrew Scriptures, mystery cult practices, Roman novels, Judas the Galilean, reports of Jewish revolutionaries, prophets, cynical philosophers, magical healing, zombies and maybe even a crucifixion or two. Add all the pieces together and we still get only a mythological Jesus.

Warmly,

Jay Raskin

Solo

Except, the earliest written documents are Paul's letters and in them the witnessing of Christ is spoken of in terms of experience of an invasive spirit.

One can get this experience in many ways - Q fever, for example. Histamine poisoning ? Not excluded !

Jiri

mountainman

Hi Philosopher Jay,

I am busy looking for postulates for the field of BC&H in regard to the various historical theories on the question of christian origins. It appears to me that there must have been various postulates in regard to the historicity of the Loch Ness monster before the theory of the Loch Ness Monster left the shores of Scotland.

You have listed what common sense would tell us might be common simple postulates in regard to the Loch Ness Monster.


* The Loch Ness Monster was hypothetically a bunch of sea otters,
* The Loch Ness Monster was hypothetically a bunch of sturgeons,
* The Loch Ness Monster was hypothetically a bunch of logs,
* The Loch Ness Monster was hypothetically a bunch of boats,
* The Loch Ness Monster was hypothetically too much whiskey,
* The Loch Ness Monster was hypothetically overactive imagination,
* The Loch Ness Monster was hypothetically created by deliberate hoaxers
* The Loch Ness Monster was hypothetically made from nothing existing.

A combination of these might be selected.

Do these things appear to you to be postulates used in the theory of the historicity of the Loch Ness Monster?

Best wishes



Pete

Keith&Co.

Well, to sonar, the hull of a boat in the water is usually indistinguishable from the top of the ocean. Both reflect sonar pings.
We usually depend on some speciallized equipment or the ship's motor/screw noise to detect it before we surface under it.

Unless Jesus was wearing tap sandals, it's doubtful sonar could detect his footprints. And even then, he'd have to be right on top of the hydrophones...

johno

In the spirit of interdisciplinary co-operation I commend the following references:
The population density of monsters in Loch Ness
www.aslo.org/lo/toc/vol_17/issue_5/0796.pdf
An alternate method of calculating the population density of monsters in Loch Ness
www.aslo.org/lo/toc/vol_18/issue_2/0343a.pdf

both published in the highly rated biological journal Limnology and oceanography in the early '70s.

I wonder if this is a pertinant addition to the discussion, probably not, but the papers amused biologists at the time.

mountainman

Thanks johno.

These papers from the 70's are amusing. In reading them I was reminded of a claim made somewhere that not until the 80's did the oceanographers have a reasonable understanding of the landscape of the sea-floor of Earth, and that before this time, scientists had a far more accurate idea of the surface of both Mars and Venus, than they did of Earth.

In which decade were the first sonar-technology maps made of the floor of Loch Ness? The historicity of Jesus was sketched by researchers in the high technology of the codex as early as the 4th century.

PhilosopherJay

Hi Johno,

I think this is highly relevant. It shows that until fairly recently the idea of a family of Monsters in Loch Ness was taken fairly seriously by some scientist, at least seriously enough to calculate the population size.

Warmly,

Jay Raskin