Freethought & Rationalism Archive

spin · 09-26-2010, 12:06 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Solo

Quote:

Originally Posted by spin

The distinction is correct, as I see it. History requires evidence, but lack of evidence--though signifying lack of historicity--doesn't in itself imply not real--a fact that some of the non-believers here have difficulty grasping. Our past is full of people who never made it into records.

It's strange that Solo does not complain about this paragraph. It's as though he simply didn't read it. That would explain the hysterical response he made fundamentally based on a misunderstanding of a diagram.... Or maybe not.

spin

Quote:

Originally Posted by Solo

Quote:

Originally Posted by spin

This is the relationship between "real" and "historical":

[t2="p=4;bdr=1,solid,#000000"]{c:bg=lightgreen;rs=2;w=60}Real|{c:bg=silver;w=80} Historical||{c:bg=lightblue;rs=2}Not historical||{c:bg=white}Not real[/t2]

The proportions aren't accurate, but hopefully one can get the idea that not all real events are historical. Historicity isn't about reality per se, but what can be shown to have (sufficient) evidence for its reality.

This is complete hogwash ! I hope everyone can see that there is no relationship shown among the color boxes spin created. Can you see that ? There are simply two categories set side by side with the negation to each shoved underneath. One cannot talk about proportion among them without sounding lunatic.

Insofar as I can fathom spin's methodological sorcery, there appears to be -somewhere in the background- an obssessional need to deny historical reality of people or things he (as a supporter of the brights) disappoves of. To that end he construes a scheme which divides past reality into 'historical' and 'real', depending on whether we have reliable information about the historical objects. If we do have, say, a multiple attestation of them, then they are pronounced 'historical', if not then they are merely entities and events 'believed to have existed'. Logical relationships between the objects which establish a degree of their historical probability are - to quote the American thinker of the month, pastor Terry Jones -of the devil.

This would make - thanks to GDon for flushing out elegantly this quirk of spin

- Pilate's father 'real' but not 'historical'. We have no information about him, ergo he has no historical substance: he is merely assumed to have had existence.

Buit this is completely stupid nomenclatura, isn't it ?

Pilate biological father's historicity is established beyond reasonable doubt by the dint of the fact that Pilate himself has been established as a historical figure. There is absolutely no need to postulate another category, ie. relegate Pilate's ancestry to some layaway class of historical non-persons. He was real and he was historical. That we don't know anything further about him, historically speaking, does not make one iota of difference to the historical reality of his existence - unless of course one takes a patently unreasonable stand noetically, like bishop Berkeley e.g.

Best,
Jiri

spin · 09-26-2010, 12:12 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by GakuseiDon

I will continue to use "historicity" as synonymous with "real", until common usage dictates otherwise.

This means 1) you remove the word "historical" from having any semantic value and 2) deny yourself the possibility of understanding certain issues. It is a self-motivated enactment of the principle behind NewSpeak, reducing language which in turn reduces the range of thought available.

spin

Toto · 09-26-2010, 12:19 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by GakuseiDon

It does sound that way, but only because we are used to thinking of "historicity" as being synonymous with "real". I've checked some definitions of the word, and it gives two:
(a) the quality of being part of recorded history, as opposed to prehistory
(b) the quality of being part of history as opposed to being ahistorical myth or legend

Spin is using it in the sense of "(a)". Toto, I presume you are also? It seems that everyone else is using it in the sense of "(b)". ...

From my understanding, ancient people did not always distinguish between real history and stories that might not actually be true. After a few generations, you can't always know, and it's not important. The important part is the moral to be drawn.

It's not just ancient people. Look around you at the way nationalist myths pop up and can't be eradicated. David Barton in the US has a career rewriting American history to something that fits what he thinks the moral ought to be, the real facts be damned. You can find current mythmaking in any nation going on right now.

And to add to this - early Christians thought that Jesus was a real supernatural being. Now we know that supernatural beings are not "real" - so did early Christians think that Jesus was real? That's the dilemma at the heart of the historical Jesus.

GakuseiDon · 09-26-2010, 12:46 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Toto

Quote:

Originally Posted by GakuseiDon

Spin is using it in the sense of "(a)". Toto, I presume you are also? It seems that everyone else is using it in the sense of "(b)". ...

From my understanding, ancient people did not always distinguish between real history and stories that might not actually be true.

That's not my understanding. Can you recommend a good article or book that goes into this topic?

Quote:

Originally Posted by Toto

You can find current mythmaking in any nation going on right now.

Well, that's right. Just like back then.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Toto

And to add to this - early Christians thought that Jesus was a real supernatural being. Now we know that supernatural beings are not "real" - so did early Christians think that Jesus was real? That's the dilemma at the heart of the historical Jesus.

I'm a supernaturalist, so I can't rule out the existence of supernatural beings a priori. But AFAICT it's not a dilemma for anyone, naturalists or supernaturalists. Early Christians thought Jesus was real, one way or the other. Or do we need to define the word 'real' as well? :constern01:

GakuseiDon · 09-26-2010, 12:50 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by spin

Quote:

Originally Posted by GakuseiDon

I will continue to use "historicity" as synonymous with "real", until common usage dictates otherwise.

This means 1) you remove the word "historical" from having any semantic value and 2) deny yourself the possibility of understanding certain issues. It is a self-motivated enactment of the principle behind NewSpeak, reducing language which in turn reduces the range of thought available.

Fair point.

Toto · 09-26-2010, 12:59 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by GakuseiDon

...I'm a supernaturalist, so I can't rule out the existence of supernatural beings a priori. But AFAICT it's not a dilemma for anyone, naturalists or supernaturalists. Early Christians thought Jesus was real, one way or the other.

But if early Christians thought that Jesus was a real supernatual spirit, that counts for Jesus being a spiritual, mythical being, right?

You don't have to reject the supernatural a priori. But what would you take as adequate evidence of the supernatural? A third or fourth hand (at best) legendary tale in an anonymous docuement?

aa5874 · 09-26-2010, 01:01 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Toto

Quote:

Originally Posted by GakuseiDon

It does sound that way, but only because we are used to thinking of "historicity" as being synonymous with "real". I've checked some definitions of the word, and it gives two:
(a) the quality of being part of recorded history, as opposed to prehistory
(b) the quality of being part of history as opposed to being ahistorical myth or legend

Spin is using it in the sense of "(a)". Toto, I presume you are also? It seems that everyone else is using it in the sense of "(b)". ...

From my understanding, ancient people did not always distinguish between real history and stories that might not actually be true. After a few generations, you can't always know, and it's not important. The important part is the moral to be drawn.

It's not just ancient people. Look around you at the way nationalist myths pop up and can't be eradicated. David Barton in the US has a career rewriting American history to something that fits what he thinks the moral ought to be, the real facts be damned. You can find current mythmaking in any nation going on right now.

And to add to this - early Christians thought that Jesus was a real supernatural being. Now we know that supernatural beings are not "real" - so did early Christians think that Jesus was real? That's the dilemma at the heart of the historical Jesus.

But, the "historical Jesus" is NOT about whether Jesus was ACTUALLY A God or was ACTUALLY Supernatural.

The "historical Jesus" is NOT about whether people in antiquity or even today BELIEVE Gods DO exist.

The "historical Jesus" is about a theory or speculation that Jesus was just a MERE MAN who did virtually NOTHING in the NT Canon but was FULLY EMBELLISHED or FICTIONALISED by his followers supposedly AFTER he died and that later people, including those who spread the false rumors, BELIEVED the very embellishments and fiction that they themselves fabricated about Jesus.

People who claim Jesus was historical and that the Gospels depiction of Jesus are essentially true support MYTHOLOGY not history.

Toto · 09-26-2010, 01:05 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by gurugeorge

Quote:

Originally Posted by GakuseiDon

Pygmieeeeeeeesssssssssssss! Pygmies, pygmies, pygmies, pygmies, pygmies, pygmies, pygmies...

Btw, what's so f*****g funny about pygmies? Are we so unconsiously racist here that we can't conceive of deep philosophical things coming from a tribe of small people in Africa?

I haven't read her stuff about that so I can't say whether she makes a good case or not, but nothing about the notion strikes me as apriori absurd - Egypt is part of Africa, after all, and a fair proportion of what we talk about has historical roots in Egypt (e.g. Osiris ffs).

There's nothing funny about Pygmies. The joke on Acharya. She makes an embarrassingly inadequate case based on some gullible western travelers who didn't realize that the Pygmies were pulling their legs with some of their tall tales. GDon likes to bring up the Pygmy theory to discredit Acharya.

Solo · 09-26-2010, 01:12 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by GakuseiDon

Quote:

Originally Posted by Solo

Pilate biological father's historicity is established beyond reasonable doubt by the dint of the fact that Pilate himself has been established as a historical figure. There is absolutely no need to postulate another category, ie. relegate Pilate's ancestry to some layaway class of historical non-persons. He was real and he was historical.

But if we use historicity in the sense of "b", isn't that saying the same thing? "He was real and he was historical"? Should we distinguish between those two terms?

On the other hand, "part of recorded history" is oxymoronic, if "history" is defined as that which is recorded. Add to that the word "verifiable", and most of "history" disappears. For myself, I will continue to use "historicity" as synonymous with "real", until common usage dictates otherwise. But I think spin has raised a valid point about how we use that word.

Yes, 'historical' and 'real' are interchangeable. I can think of no person or event in the past in which the two adjectives would be in in contradiction of each other. In creating a distinction between them, one creates arbitrary and superfluous categories. Historical uncertainty of someone or something can (and should) be dealt with by other tools. Historical fraud (e.g. the assertion that Stalin was in Petersburg during the October Revolution) does not interest us here.

For example, it is clear to almost everyone on this board that the question of Jesus existence as a definite historical person does not in any way depend on reports or fantasies of his being born of a virgin, disappearing from his grave and having bodily functions after being certified dead. These kinds of reports or literary inventions simply cannot be evaluated by historians in terms of 'reality/historicity'. If these events are hallucinated they are not real. If they are invented; they are not historical reports. Period.

The problem with spin is that likes to use the 'belief bathwater' (real-but-not-historical events) to throw out the historically probable baby with it.

Just try to ask him whether Paul's proscribing in his church the talk of Jesus Christ except him crucified (1 Cr 2:2), logically implies that there was a "pre-crucified" Jesus Christ which must have been talked about at Corinth. You'll get non-sequiturs and avatars: (listing his favorites :hysterical::boohoo::deadhorse

.

So, I'm afraid I don't see a valid point raised by spin in the historical-vs-real quest. It's a subterfuge which adds nothing to the debate.

Best,
Jiri

aa5874 · 09-26-2010, 01:23 PM

There seems to be people here who pose as advocates of the "historical Jesus" but are essentially advocates of MYTHOLOGY.

The "historical Jesus" is NOT the Jesus of the Roman, Protestant Church, the NT Canon or Church writings. The "historical Jesus" is just pure speculation or is only in speculation stage and cannot advance without any credible evidence.

None of the unknown Gospel writers stated when they actually wrote or claimed that any event in their stories did actually happen.

The unknown author who claimed Jesus lived in Nazareth did NOT say he even SAW Jesus in Nazareth or that he was writing history but people believe his story even though it can be deduced that virtually everything in gMatthew is fiction or implausible about Jesus, the offspring of the Holy Ghost.

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

09-26-2010, 01:23 PM	#430
aa5874 Contributor Join Date: Feb 2006 Location: the fringe of the caribbean Posts: 18,988	There seems to be people here who pose as advocates of the "historical Jesus" but are essentially advocates of MYTHOLOGY. The "historical Jesus" is NOT the Jesus of the Roman, Protestant Church, the NT Canon or Church writings. The "historical Jesus" is just pure speculation or is only in speculation stage and cannot advance without any credible evidence. None of the unknown Gospel writers stated when they actually wrote or claimed that any event in their stories did actually happen. The unknown author who claimed Jesus lived in Nazareth did NOT say he even SAW Jesus in Nazareth or that he was writing history but people believe his story even though it can be deduced that virtually everything in gMatthew is fiction or implausible about Jesus, the offspring of the Holy Ghost.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.