Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Jeffrey Gibson · 04-13-2008, 06:48 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by everettf

All this talk about the teachings of Jesus have been written down by Jesus?

Who said that?

Quote:

Where are the parchments that this Jesus wrote on? If they don't exist then it's all a lie.

Where are the parchments (or papyri or vellum, etc.) that Socrates or Muhammed wrote on?

Jeffrey

everettf · 04-13-2008, 07:05 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jeffrey Gibson

Quote:

Originally Posted by everettf

All this talk about the teachings of Jesus have been written down by Jesus?

Who said that?

Quote:

Where are the parchments that this Jesus wrote on? If they don't exist then it's all a lie.

Where are the parchments (or papyri or vellum, etc.) that Socrates or Muhammed wrote on?

Jeffrey

If I knew, I wouldn't be asking the questions. As far as Mohamed, You'll have to ask an Islamic that question.

mg01 · 04-13-2008, 07:17 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Zimpo

Christ is the Greek word for Messiah. But it's not really His last name, it's what He is. So it should be "Jesus, the Christ"

Just a little nitpick; I see that a few people in this thread assumed that 'Christ' was Jesus' last name.

Carry on.

And since Jesus (Joshua/Yehoshua) means "one who saves", Jesus (the) Christ is "(The) Anointed Savior". What better name for one to serve as the figurehead of a movement based the prophetic messianic expectation of a world savior.

It's not that different from Siddhartha Gautama, the founder of Buddhism, story of the first Buddha who achieved enlightenment under the Bodhi tree. Bodhi means "enlightened" and Buddha means "enlightened one", an obviously allegorical event.

Vampyroteuthis · 04-13-2008, 07:33 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by aa5874

Jesus, the disciples and the Pauls are total fiction, fabricated to distort history and mis-lead people into believing that a god named Jesus was on earth in the 1st century.

I agree with this.

trendkill · 04-13-2008, 07:39 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by spin

I can't help it if you can only see two options, but the situation is not a binary taxonomy.

You really haven't understood my position if you think I think this. Maybe it's my fault for not being clear enough. I'm not obsessed with the Bible or Jesus's historicity, and I don't know all the technical jargon that you evidently wish I knew; I just answered a poll.

Quote:

To help people understand the problem a little I usually refer them to a person mentioned by Tertullian and Epiphanes called Ebion. They understood him to be the founder of the Ebionite movement, yet he did not exist, though they thought he did. It was a logical assumption that someone made that turned out to be wrong. Ebion is not a myth, he is an error. We make mistakes all the time and if the right people make them, then you believe that the mistakes are in fact veracious. The existence of the figure of Ebion has nothing to do with myth. He doesn't take part in some theological story as Jesus does in the eyes of someone like Doherty. He was simply brought into existence because he was thought to have existed.

Others have claimed that the gospel materials were a Roman invention, neither myth nor a natural development. So there are at least three different means of Jesus material without a historical source for the figure.

I'm sure there are any number of ways you can think of for it to have happened if you obsess about it enough. But these sound even more improbable than Jesus mythicism. Maybe if it had been the Ebionites themselves who accidentally assumed their group was founded by Ebion...:P

Quote:

I've proposed that Paul's revelation in Galatians is more in the line of natural development, ie through human mental activity which is not fictionalizing in intent, nor myth-making in intent. (The fictionalizing approach to me is highly unlikely and reflective of a modern jaded view of human beliefs.)

Then what exactly was the intent, and why is it supposed to tell against a historical Jesus? You don't seem to want to clarify this at all, which is odd because it appears to be central to your attack on the claim that Jesus was actually based on a real person (note that you can attack a claim without necessarily agreeing with an opposing one, lest I be accused of binary thinking yet again). Maybe you think it should be self-evident? I assure you it isn't.

Quote:

I don't say that Jesus was born in Paul's head, just that such a development fits the data better than the other proposals I've read.

Yes, I get that. I've gotten it all along, despite your assumptions to the contrary.

spin · 04-13-2008, 07:54 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by trendkill

Quote:

Originally Posted by spin

I can't help it if you can only see two options, but the situation is not a binary taxonomy.

You really haven't understood my position if you think I think this. Maybe it's my fault for not being clear enough. I'm not obsessed with the Bible or Jesus's historicity, and I don't know all the technical jargon that you evidently wish I knew; I just answered a poll.

I'm sure there are any number of ways you can think of for it to have happened if you obsess about it enough. But these sound even more improbable than Jesus mythicism. Maybe if it had been the Ebionites themselves who accidentally assumed their group was founded by Ebion...:P

I've seen this beside-the-pointedness before.

Quote:

Originally Posted by trendkill

Then what exactly was the intent, and why is it supposed to tell against a historical Jesus?

Quote:

Originally Posted by trendkill

You don't seem to want to clarify this at all, which is odd because it appears to be central to your attack on the claim that Jesus was actually based on a real person (note that you can attack a claim without necessarily agreeing with an opposing one, lest I be accused of binary thinking yet again). Maybe you think it should be self-evident? I assure you it isn't.

Umm, there is no evidence that Jesus existed. Starting from Paul's revelation there is no evidence. The gospels from a subsequent period don't afford us any evidence, being so removed. The claim that Jesus existed is just as evidenceless as the contrary claim. Both positions are essentially crap. You may as well make claims about the flying spaghetti monster.

Quote:

Originally Posted by trendkill

Quote:

I don't say that Jesus was born in Paul's head, just that such a development fits the data better than the other proposals I've read.

Yes, I get that. I've gotten it all along, despite your assumptions to the contrary.

I'm impressed with your skill of communication. And, going from your response, my skill of communication as well.

spin

Solo · 04-13-2008, 10:25 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by spin

Quote:

Originally Posted by Solo

So what are you saying ? Are you saying a statement, "no I do not agree Jesus existed ?" is not a denial that Jesus existed ? Or are you saying, that if I have not proved to your satisfaction that Jesus exists, whatever you would answer me cannot be considered a denial?

The issue is a linguistic one. By using the word "deny" puts what's being denied in a reified position.

Let's cut the crap out, shall we ? First of all, the grammar of your sentence is cock-eyed...."by using" is not a valid form of subject to "puts". Second, your definition is logically self-referencing, i.e. tautology. You are saying that by denying something, that which is being denied, acquires a property of reification. That is transparent nonsense.

Soul Invictus babbles:

Quote:

One can't deny something that has failed to be proven to exist.

Here is an attempt to relate "deny" to a proof of verity, which is not the accepted semantics of the verb. The New Oxford defines the verb in our context it, as : to refuse to admit the truth, or the existence, of. This refusal is not contingent on any general or specific proof or lack thereof. It is evidently possible, and done every day by everyone, to deny (or assert) something based on a hypothesis.
The hilarious aspect of SI's, adventure with logic is that the second part of the statement contradicts the former. In conventional, untwisted, English someone who asserts something "has failed to be proven to exist", may very well be using the statement to deny that that "something" exists.

Jiri

Quote:

If you changed your statement to:

"Surely, one can accept or not accept something exists as a possibility? No?"

you might get a different response.

There are actually three separate categories involved:

1. accept existence,
2. not accept but not deny existence,
3. deny existence.

If the evidence is opaque then you would expect category #2, for it doesn't allow you to accept or deny.

Not accept would mean #2 and #3.
Not deny would mean #1 and #2.

Soul Invictus can be in category #2 and not have asserted anything. And category #2 doesn't deny anything either.

spin

spin · 04-13-2008, 11:49 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Solo

Quote:

Originally Posted by spin

The issue is a linguistic one. By using the word "deny" puts what's being denied in a reified position.

Let's cut the crap out, shall we ?

Oh, pu-lease.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Solo

First of all, the grammar of your sentence is cock-eyed...."by using" is not a valid form of subject to "puts".

Good work, Sherlock. Try this:

By using the word "deny" you put what's being denied in a reified position.

(And read the "you" as impersonelle.)

Quote:

Originally Posted by Solo

Second, your definition is logically self-referencing, i.e. tautology.

No definition was proffered. It was a description of what you were doing.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Solo

You are saying that by denying something, that which is being denied, acquires a property of reification. That is transparent nonsense.

Actually, no. Not at all. In English, the word "deny" strongly carries the notion of "refusing to admit the truth of" in the circumstances you used the word. Such an idea implies that that which is being denied is in fact true. Thus, by attributing denial to someone, you may well be surreptitiously reifying that which is said to be denied: the other person just doesn't accept its truth.

spin

Toto · 04-13-2008, 12:03 PM

The author of this poorly designed poll has invited me to close this thread, and I see no reason not to. Feel free to start another thread on your favorite hobby horse.

View Poll Results: Did Jesus exist?
Yes	24	30.38%
No	55	69.62%
Voters: 79. You may not vote on this poll

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

04-13-2008, 12:03 PM	#89
Toto Contributor Join Date: Jun 2000 Location: Los Angeles area Posts: 40,549	The author of this poorly designed poll has invited me to close this thread, and I see no reason not to. Feel free to start another thread on your favorite hobby horse.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.