J-D

It's a typical misunderstanding on your part that you should think that the point on which I was seeking clarification was 'which person named Hercules is being described?' and not (as it actually was) 'what do you mean when you use the term "Hercules"?'.

If you can't see that the two questions are not equivalent, or how the distinction between them is critical in this context, that's typical too.

tanya

Yes, or perhaps some Persian word, or, why not, let's go whole hog, maybe this word Homer is derived from some ancient Chinese expression, what with the Silk route, and all.....

Yes, we do not know whether or not Homer was one person or several poets. The difference between Homer and "Paul" could be a topic, one supposes. But, I am perplexed, Diogenes, why would you respond to a point about Homer, but not about Hercules? Why do you avoid addressing my questions? Do you find them off-topic?
I find Diogenes' comments about Robin Hood, King Arthur, and King David to be off-topic, since none of those characters profess divinity, nor are they Greek mythological figures like Jesus and Hercules.

tanya

What do I mean when I write "Hercules"?

Gosh, my IQ must be really low. I had thought myself, just a tad slower than most other forum members, but, after reading this post from J-D, several times, I realize, I have a significantly decreased ability to contribute to this forum, I should withdraw, to avoid inflicting further discomfort on those august forum members, who, in contrast to me, do not lack the intelligence required to submit a meaningful question on a particular topic.

I intend, (when I write "Hercules", and when I provide a link, as I did in post 66, to a stone temple constructed two thousand years ago, to honor "Hercules",) to refer to a figure, of mythical dimension, found in ancient Greek literature, and described by Philo of Alexandria, the historian who wrote in 50 CE, the time period of relevance to this thread.

Well, you mustn't forget that I am stupid, so, please start a new thread dealing with this distinction, and feel free to illustrate that distinction by reference to my incompetence, as demonstrated in this thread.

For this thread, however, the issue is not tanya's inability to distinguish critical elements of philosophical discourse, but, whether or not Diogenes' poll has relevance. You have thus far focused, in your submissions to this thread, on tanya's mental inadequacies, which may interest some forum participants, but which I view as irrelevant to the topic at hand.

aa5874

Please don't HIDE behind tanya. Please, identify what I do not understand about the NT Canon??

Tell me, if you don't mind, what you understand?? Tell us of the EYEWITNESS of the sea-water WALKER??

Matthew 14:25 KJVMark 6:48 KJVJohn 6:19 KJV You MUST understand the Gospels. You MUST understand that People SAW Jesus WALKING on the sea.

You MUST understand that WALKING on Water is NOT humanly possible.

I UNDERSTAND the Specific Gravity of the human body does NOT allow for WATER walking.

The authors of Matthew, Mark and John UNDERSTOOD that Jesus ACTED like a SPIRIT.

I understand the NT.

I understand that the NT is a COMPILATION of Myth Fables about Jesus, the Holy Ghost, angels, the angel Gabriel, the God of the Jews, demons and Satan.

Doug Shaver

You are still misrepresenting me. My selected parameters were not parameters for attestation to Jesus' historicity. They were parameters for characteristics of a historical Jesus.

That is just too bad for what you think constitutes a "logical explanation."

Your understanding certainly is incorrect. Whether that has anything to do with any particulars of your formal education, I have no idea.

outhouse

good point, never thought of it that way.


the real jesus would be someone everyone could still get behind, as every person hates a oppresive government and being overly taxed. And having a man die becoming a martyr over it would retain some people.

but the details of a poor peasant teacher/healer leeding a fringe sect of judaism, being a mortal man would push the spirtitual over the edge realizing they have been following a mortal man.

not a kind loving deity who didnt die for your imaginary sins defined by man.

tanya

So, there is a difference then, beween an historical Hercules and the historicity of Hercules? I do not understand that distinction. To me, if Hercules was an historical person, as defined by certain parameters, a la Diogenes' poll, then, Hercules possessed the attribute of historicity. Is this wrong? Can you give me an illustration of someone, universally acknowledged to be historical, for whom we would then feel uncomfortable claiming his/her historicity?

Doug, you demanded a link to someone attesting to the historicity of Hercules, in order to answer the question posed. Yet, upon receiving the link to the writings of Philo of Alexandria, you continued to ignore the question. Why was that?

In my opinion, a poll devoted to finding qualities useful in defining the "parameters for characteristics of a historical Jesus", is not any different from a poll soliciting public opinion about "characteristics of an historical Hercules".

andrewcriddle

Hi Rick

IMO Thompson has applied to Biblical history principles which are incompatible with the practice of Ancient History as normally understood. (This does not mean that Thompson is certainly wrong, but adopting his position would have drastic consequences over a much wider field than Biblical history.)

On the specific comparisons you made between our sources for Socrates and our sources for Jesus, perhaps you could clarify ?

Is your concern the possibility of very radical answers to questions of provenance, (e.g. the possibility that all the gospels are post 135 CE) ? Or are you saying that even a date for Mark of say c 70 CE and internal evidence that Mark intended his work to be read as some sort of biography would not reduce your concerns about the (im)possibility of using Mark as an historical source ?

Andrew Criddle

tanya

Hi Andrew,

Can one employ Philo's description of Hercules, link above, "as an historical source" for the life of Hercules?

If he did not exist, why was Hercules' name given to the city in Italy with the best library in the world (after the library in Alexandria had been reduced to ashes.) It is not just temples in Rome, and elsewhere, Hercules had an entire city named after him--not just any old city either, but the city with the BEST library in the world. Why would the intellectuals of the day, including Philo of Alexandria, flock to Herculaneum's library, supporting thereby memory of Hercules' life? Isn't their high regard for Hercules' accomplishments, firm evidence of Hercules' historicity?

(I do not accept this notion as genuine, but, I raise it in the context of challenging the poll that Diogenes has constructed.)

MrMacSon

Possibly - it's likely most believers would still continue to believe in the supernatural ...