spin

What on earth makes you think Yossarian is a fictional character?? It should be obvious from Heller's narrative that the writer had received real information. WWII happened. The Americans had bombers working overtime in Europe during the war. Lots of verifiable background there. Using your normal analysis, I can't see how you could doubt that Yossarian was a real person. Either Heller or one of his sources had met the fellow. (And he looks as much like a young Alan Arkin as Jesus looked like Jim Caviezel.)


spin

fromdownunder

Fine, I will agree with what you claim about Heller's Yossarian (despite his disclaimer in the book about the island on which they were stationed - simply an eggagerated account of something that actually exists). World War 2 happened, so Yossarian existed, but the events in the book cannot be historically confirmed.

So, by your own logic, since we can independantly confirm that the Romans invaded and controlled what is now Israel at the time of the synoptics claim, Jesus existed but the events in the book cannot be historically verified.

Thanks for agreeing with what I have been saying through this entire discussion.

Norm

gstafleu

Have a look at this page on radikalkritik.de (it is in English).

Gerard

hatsoff

We have done so. The Christian movement of the 50s AD is best explained by the existence of a historical Jesus on which it was apparently based. A "real live Jesus" is the simplest and therefore most likely source of all the hubbub. The best hard evidence takes the form of Paul's Epistles and early Gospel traditions. The MJers debate the implications of said evidence in an elaborate effort to prove their point. We HJers do have some difficulty refuting those arguments, not because they are sound or firm, but rather because they are ridiculously complicated, and incorporate endless spackles of faulty logic. As you have pointed out, covering all that can be time-consuming and headache-inducing.

spin

Read what I said again:

I can't see how you could doubt that Yossarian was a real person.

The magic word is "you". That should help you understand my comment.

Not mine, yours. It was your logic you were reading.

Yes, this is the erroneous conclusion you had already indicated.

We are not dealing with a binary taxonomy of existed/not existed, when we do historical research. We often cannot say either. Think of Edward de Bono's three possibilities, yes, no, and po. You need to learn to say "po".

It was merely you agreeing with yourself.


spin

aa5874

It is strange that you think so little of the 'word of God'. I was of the opinion that 'the word of God' would expand my knowledge.

John 1:1-3, 'In the begininng was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.
The same was in the beginning with God.
All things were made by him; and without him was not any thing made that was made'.

After studying the 'Word of God,' I have come to the conclusion that Jesus never existed. You probably will never find any evidence, outside of the Bible, anywhere in the World, that Jesus ever was real.

There is no information, anywhere in the World, that I know of, from any person believed to be real, that has ever seen Jesus alive. There is no known description of the physical characteristics of Jesus from anyone believed to be real.

The genealogy of so-called Jesus cannot be resolved.
The place where Jesus lived as a child cannot be resolved.
The time when Jesus was born cannot be resolved.
The miraculous acts of Jesus never occured.
The temptation of Jesus is fictitious.
The transfiguration of Jesus is fictitious.
The words of Jesus are fictitious.
The resurrection of Jesus is fictitious
The ascension of Jesus is fictitious.
Jesus was fictitious.

After you study Middle East history, tell me if you can find Jesus.

gurugeorge

But all the "hubbub" (lovely word!) comes later (of literary and cultic activity), we've no evidence of any hubbub at the time. Granted a real person could have created a hubbub, and certainly a real, live godman performing miracles and all would have created one, but there's no hubbub to be found at the time this person was supposed to have lived.

So the only alternative is to claim a mysterious godly "force" radiating out from the man but creating its hubbub at a slightly later time than his own supposed time on the planet.

Cutting "Jesus" down to mere-remarkable-man-size is a possibility outside that box, but again that absence-of-contemporary-hubbub comes back to bite us at our ankles, and we are faced with the task of explaining how obscurity results in later hubbub.

Roger Pearse

I was curious, in my humble way, as to what your qualification is to advise others to study "Middle East history".

All the best,

Roger Pearse

rlogan

So noted. There's enough Doherty threads in the attic here not to embark upon yet another one. If I hear Kata Sarka again I think I'm a-gonna puke.

Forgive my ignorance on not knowing what last Thursdayism is.

But I think Detering has an extremely solid line of thinking on this. Most scholars reject whole sets of "Pauline" writing as fraudulent. The game seems to be using, say, statistical analysis in matching words and concepts to get down to a core of "legitimate" Pauline writings.

Regardless of what that group is we have the logical fallacy of drawing a false conclusion. Saying that you have arrived at a set of bona-fide writings from the same hand is not the same thing as demonstrating the veracity of the content. The same person wrote them, that's all.

If we step back for a moment and consider that this is generally true across the entire Bible - tracts penned not by the alleged author, but by someone else and meddled with by yet others, and for purposes contrary to the weakly contrived ostensible scenario -

Then we have to ask ourselves why we are not approaching this core Pauline corpus with the same tendency in mind. Instead, we have this posed as some kind of singular exception to the rule. Why is that plausible when the content itself is goofy religious mumbo-jumbo to begin with?


What I find so odd is the attitude of shock and revulsion by people who readily accept whole classes of Biblical works as pious frauds when you suggest the same may be true of what little they cling to that remains.

Seems to me that in this context it is especially important that the text offer verifiable historical anchors - and they just don't. When they make geographical or linguistic mistiakes it ought very well add a lot of credibility to the suggestion they were written outside the frame they claim.

Solo

Thanks for the link, Pete. No doubt, Julian did not have a friendly disposition to the Galileans and what survives of his writing was controlled by them. But if he committed himself to attacking Jesus as someone who tampered with tombs and tries to discredit his followers by saying they practice necromancy (as presumably he taught them) .....and Cyril defends the creed against that...., I can't see offhand where Julian would be trying to discredit them also by arguing that they invented Jesus. See what I mean ?

At any rate, I would be really grateful if you could get me the text referred to in note 140. of the web with the translated Galileans. i.e. According to Cyril, Julian quoted Matthew 8.21,22 : Let the dead bury their dead to prove that Christ had no respect for graves. It's fine if it is in Latin.

Thanks again, Pete

Jiri