Freethought & Rationalism Archive

aa5874 · 04-06-2012, 04:27 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Diogenes the Cynic

I don't see the camps being necessarily opposed in every respect. Clearly there was a lot of pagan, mythic overlay (the eucharist unquestionably comes from mystery cult practices), but that doesn't preclude Paul taking his inspiration from a genuine, embryonic personality cult and simply adding his special sauce. I think he took some kind of vague and primitive "appearance" claims about Jesus, and made up the resurrection and the eucharist based on his own "visions," inferences from scripture and his knowledge of pagan religious themes.

Paul was, allegedly, originally from Tarsus. That was a city which had a local deity ostensibly worshiped as Herakles, but was really a hybrid based on an earlier vegetation God. This Herakles was burned annually in effigy, descended to "Hades" and re-emerged as the "first fruits" of the wheat harvest.

Paul repeatedly calls Jesus the "first fruit," and my reading of paul (especially 1 Corinthians) is that this is his essential view of Jesus. Jesus was killed, descended, and then had "appeared" to people (including Paul himself), indicating that he had ascended to Heaven. This indicated to Paul that Jesus was the "first fruit" offering (which happened two days after Passover), and that the final "harvest," the raising and judging of the dead, would soon follow.

Under this scenario, you would arguably have both a historical and a mythical Jesus, with the latter inspired by the former.

How come you are relying on Acts of the Apostles for the history of Paul??

When was Acts of the Apostles written???

When did Paul write those things in the 3rd century??

Surely you know that the earliest date for the Pauline writings [P 46] are mid 2nd-3rd century. Plus I do NOT PRESUME the Pauline writer is credible when it has been deduced there are forged letters in the Pauline corpus, that letters attempting to place Paul Before c 70 CE are themselves forgeries and Acts of the Apostles did not state that Paul wrote letters to churches.

In fact, the Pauline writer is far worse than can be even imagined. We have sources that mentioned Paul but they are all MANIPULATED and Fraudulent.

It is most unreasonable by any standard to accept the Pauline writings as credible sources under such circumstances.

I have PREDICTED that NO credible source of antiquity about Paul and Jesus will ever be found that is dated BEFORE c 70 CE and so far my Prediction still holds.

It is a waste of time telling me that Paul wrote BEFORE c70 CE if you have NOTHING but imagination.

smeat75 · 04-06-2012, 05:07 PM

Diogenes the Cynic wrote:

"Under this scenario, you would arguably have both a historical and a mythical Jesus, with the latter inspired by the former."

Absolutely. That in fact is what we do have, and why I think this whole "mythicist vs historicist" argument is phony. People (like me) who conclude, based on the evidence and what has been written by historians we respect, that there was a person called Jesus who was crucified under Pontius Pilate and that is the only (I refrain from putting it in caps this time thanks to Godfrey's advice) thing you can say about him with certainty should not really be called "historicists". That one statement about Jesus is true, all the rest of it is unproven and some of it is obviously myth.
However writing books etc which insist, against the evidence and overwhelming scholarly opinion, that there never was such a person as Jesus at all is counter-productive as well as being factually wrong as it creates the impression that there is a battle between "historicists" who accept everything in the Christian religion and "mythicists" who are atheist.

MrMacSon · 04-06-2012, 05:15 PM

Quote:

Diogenes the Cynic wrote:

"Under this scenario, you would arguably have both a historical and a mythical Jesus, with the latter inspired by the former."

There is plenty of evidence there was writings and teachings about a mythical spiritual Jesus that was later developed and embellished to propose a physical human Jesus.

MrMacSon · 04-06-2012, 05:17 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by smeat75

People (like me) who conclude, based on the evidence and what has been written by historians we respect, that there was a person called Jesus who was crucified under Pontius Pilate and that is the only .. thing you can say about him with certainty should not really be called "historicists". That one statement about Jesus is true, all the rest of it is unproven and some of it is obviously myth.

However writing books etc which insist, against the evidence and overwhelming scholarly opinion, that there never was such a person as Jesus at all is counter-productive as well as being factually wrong as it creates the impression that there is a battle between "historicists" who accept everything in the Christian religion and "mythicists" who are atheist.

Not all mythicists are atheists.

Your appeal to "scholars" is simply an appeal to authority.

This reference to the recorded Jesus's might interest - http://www.jesusneverexisted.com/surfeit.htm

smeat75 · 04-06-2012, 06:08 PM

"Your appeal to "scholars" is simply an appeal to authority."

"Appeal to authority" is a fallacy when it is an appeal to a "fallacious" authority. When you are admitting "I do not know as much on this subject as this eminent authority does, so I am going to be guided by his/her judgement", there is nothing wrong with that. I don't mind admitting that my opinion on the question of Jesus' bare existence was settled by classical secular historian Michael Grant, who wrote many excellent books on classical history that influence me very much and who wrote a whole book on Jesus in which he states "But above all, if we apply to the New Testament, as we should, the same sort of criteria as we should apply to other ancient writings containing historical material, we can no more reject Jesus' existence than we can reject the existence of a mass of pagan personages whose reality as historical figures is never questioned."
That's it, as far as I'm concerned. Anyway it's a trivial matter " there was such a person and we know nothing about him except he was crucified" vs " there was never such a person". Silly argument, it's a fun game for some on a website like this but there are much more important issues of the Bible's accuracy and reliability that need to be brought before the public.

Toto · 04-06-2012, 06:32 PM

Doherty on Grant

Vorkosigan · 04-06-2012, 06:42 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Diogenes the Cynic
Stephen Carlson once wrote a piece arguing that Tacitus was using Josephus.

Thanks, that's quite interesting.

MrMacSon · 04-06-2012, 07:01 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by smeat75

"Your appeal to "scholars" is simply an appeal to authority."

"Appeal to authority" is a fallacy when it is an appeal to a "fallacious" authority. When you are admitting "I do not know as much on this subject as this eminent authority does, so I am going to be guided by his/her judgement", there is nothing wrong with that.

A general appeal to one or more scholars, without referring to their key sound deductive arguments or cogent inductive arguments, is simply fallacious appeal to authority.

aa5874 · 04-06-2012, 07:33 PM

We already know that Annals 15.44 is a forgery based on Sacred Histories 2.29 attributed to Sulpitius Severus supposedly written in the 5th century.

1. There is NO mention of the character called Christus or Chrestus up to 300 years after Annals was written.

2. NOT one apologetic source used Annals 15.44 for over 300 years and mentioned Christus.

3. Eusebius only used the forgeries in Josephus to prove Jesus existed although he was AWARE of Tacitus.

4. No Skeptic like Celsus used Annals to prove Jesus was NOT Divine.

Tacitus Annals with Christus is a very late forgery and was done sometime AFTER Sacred Histories or AFTER the 5th century.

It makes very little sense for HJers to used questionable sources and logical fallacies to support an HJ.

Vorkosigan · 04-06-2012, 07:40 PM

Quote:

I know there is no point in trying to change any "mythicist" minds here, it is like talking to "Oxfordians" who think Shakespeare's works were written by the Earl of Oxford, they will find a quibble and an answer for everything.

ROFL. Thanks for the declaration of "I won't think." It will save much trouble in discourse in the future.

Vorkosigan

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

04-06-2012, 05:07 PM	#92
smeat75 Junior Member Join Date: Apr 2012 Location: Washington DC Posts: 27	Diogenes the Cynic wrote: "Under this scenario, you would arguably have both a historical and a mythical Jesus, with the latter inspired by the former." Absolutely. That in fact is what we do have, and why I think this whole "mythicist vs historicist" argument is phony. People (like me) who conclude, based on the evidence and what has been written by historians we respect, that there was a person called Jesus who was crucified under Pontius Pilate and that is the only (I refrain from putting it in caps this time thanks to Godfrey's advice) thing you can say about him with certainty should not really be called "historicists". That one statement about Jesus is true, all the rest of it is unproven and some of it is obviously myth. However writing books etc which insist, against the evidence and overwhelming scholarly opinion, that there never was such a person as Jesus at all is counter-productive as well as being factually wrong as it creates the impression that there is a battle between "historicists" who accept everything in the Christian religion and "mythicists" who are atheist.

04-06-2012, 06:08 PM	#95
smeat75 Junior Member Join Date: Apr 2012 Location: Washington DC Posts: 27	"Your appeal to "scholars" is simply an appeal to authority." "Appeal to authority" is a fallacy when it is an appeal to a "fallacious" authority. When you are admitting "I do not know as much on this subject as this eminent authority does, so I am going to be guided by his/her judgement", there is nothing wrong with that. I don't mind admitting that my opinion on the question of Jesus' bare existence was settled by classical secular historian Michael Grant, who wrote many excellent books on classical history that influence me very much and who wrote a whole book on Jesus in which he states "But above all, if we apply to the New Testament, as we should, the same sort of criteria as we should apply to other ancient writings containing historical material, we can no more reject Jesus' existence than we can reject the existence of a mass of pagan personages whose reality as historical figures is never questioned." That's it, as far as I'm concerned. Anyway it's a trivial matter " there was such a person and we know nothing about him except he was crucified" vs " there was never such a person". Silly argument, it's a fun game for some on a website like this but there are much more important issues of the Bible's accuracy and reliability that need to be brought before the public.

04-06-2012, 06:32 PM	#96
Toto Contributor Join Date: Jun 2000 Location: Los Angeles area Posts: 40,549	Doherty on Grant

04-06-2012, 07:33 PM	#99
aa5874 Contributor Join Date: Feb 2006 Location: the fringe of the caribbean Posts: 18,988	We already know that Annals 15.44 is a forgery based on Sacred Histories 2.29 attributed to Sulpitius Severus supposedly written in the 5th century. 1. There is NO mention of the character called Christus or Chrestus up to 300 years after Annals was written. 2. NOT one apologetic source used Annals 15.44 for over 300 years and mentioned Christus. 3. Eusebius only used the forgeries in Josephus to prove Jesus existed although he was AWARE of Tacitus. 4. No Skeptic like Celsus used Annals to prove Jesus was NOT Divine. Tacitus Annals with Christus is a very late forgery and was done sometime AFTER Sacred Histories or AFTER the 5th century. It makes very little sense for HJers to used questionable sources and logical fallacies to support an HJ.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.