Freethought & Rationalism Archive

mountainman · 10-12-2011, 04:48 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Vorkosigan

Quote:

Originally Posted by Toto

Chris Zeichmann, who used to post here, has an article on Papias' description of Judas' death abstracted here.

Never mind that as Spong demonstrated back in the 80s, Judas is a made-up character. So Papias is clearly full of shit, a later invention himself.

Parsimony and Occam's Razor suggest that a discussion of whether it is possible that Big E. was the Editor-In-Chief of the invention of both characters, is not out of the bounds of exploring historical reality.

aa5874 · 10-12-2011, 06:41 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by GakuseiDon

Quote:

Originally Posted by Vorkosigan

So Papias is clearly full of shit, a later invention himself.

Leaving aside whether Papias was lying or even a made-up character himself, I think it is an interesting question: If we had a text where someone claimed that he had met people who knew some the apostles who knew Jesus, would that be enough to say that some of the apostles probably existed, and that Jesus probably existed?

The problem with the Jesus character is that the very people who claimed he was seen described him in a way that makes their claims totally unreliable.

It is completely counter-productive and illogical to assert that Jesus was the Child of a Holy Ghost and still claim he was VISIBLE while on earth.

MCalavera · 10-12-2011, 06:56 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Nathan Poe

Quote:

Originally Posted by MCalavera

I don't think you understand what parsimony means.

It doesn't mean coming up with the simplest answer possible. That's what you're probably arguing against.

It's what you've been arguing for.

No, I'm arguing for the simplest that fits the whole collective evidence.

The lack of existence for a historical Jesus is simple, maybe simpler than his existence ... but it doesn't fit the whole collective evidence as well as the historical Jesus does. So it's not as parsimonious.

Quote:

And we have more evidence; you're just choosing to ignore it in favor of your simpler conclusions.

Simpler conclusions based on the whole collective evidence are the better ones.

Quote:

A historical person whose deeds were greatly mythologized by the people who first told his story orally through the synagogue, and later in writing. That's what I'm arguing for -- not sure if that's what you're arguing against.

Ok, good. Why were you previously arguing with me about the resurrection bit again?

Quote:

And since you don't doubt the existence of the Apostles in general. Then doubting what they believed about Jesus requires even more assumptions that need to be backed up with evidence.

All I know about their actions is contained in the same text which mythologized Jesus' actions. It's not an unnecessary assumption to believe that what the Gospel writers did to the star of their story, they also did to its supporting cast.

The key is to avoid assuming as much as one can and go with the evidence as much as one can.

You may be right, for example, that Judas never existed. Hell, maybe Peter and the others also never existed.

But until you can provide counter evidence to demolish the opposing evidence, then there's no reason to trust their lack of existence as true.

Quote:

In fact, it's not much of assumption at all, since there's enough evidence to suggest that at least one of the apostles, the infamous Judas Iscariot, wasn't even a real apostle, but a work of fiction added in later in the Gospel tradition.

Maybe there's evidence. This can be discussed in another thread as I haven't looked into the Judas bit much yet.

We'll have to see how parsimonious this view is compared to his existence.

MCalavera · 10-12-2011, 06:59 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Doug Shaver

Quote:

Originally Posted by MCalavera

You'd have to explain parsimoniously how the disciples of Jesus treated him as historical

Not until you explain, without begging any questions, how you know that Jesus had any disciples.

Because we have evidence that he did have disciples. The Epistles and the Gospels.

Do you have counter evidence that demolishes the parsimonious view of the evidence I mentioned?

MCalavera · 10-12-2011, 07:00 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Doug Shaver

Quote:

Originally Posted by MCalavera

You doubt the existence of Peter and the other Apostles?

I accept Paul's testimony that they existed. Paul doesn't say they were anybody's disciples.

Apostle => discipleship.

Although not all disciples were Apostles.

Disciples = followers ... (of Jesus Christ)

Nathan Poe · 10-12-2011, 07:20 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by MCalavera

Quote:

Originally Posted by Doug Shaver

Quote:

Originally Posted by MCalavera

You doubt the existence of Peter and the other Apostles?

I accept Paul's testimony that they existed. Paul doesn't say they were anybody's disciples.

Apostle => discipleship.

Although not all disciples were Apostles.

Disciples = followers ... (of Jesus Christ)

And Yet Paul considered himself an Apostle, so clearly the apostles were separate from the mythical twelve.

aa5874 · 10-12-2011, 07:33 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by MCalavera

Quote:

Originally Posted by Doug Shaver

Quote:

Originally Posted by MCalavera

You'd have to explain parsimoniously how the disciples of Jesus treated him as historical

Not until you explain, without begging any questions, how you know that Jesus had any disciples.

Because we have evidence that he did have disciples. The Epistles and the Gospels.

Do you have counter evidence that demolishes the parsimonious view of the evidence I mentioned?

You actually ASSUMED that the Gospels are history when it was a Ghost who "hand" picked his twelve apostles!!!!

Do you understand the meaning of "parsimonious"?

Your ASSUMPTIONS have DEMOLISHED any claims of parsimony.

You are using Ghost stories as assumed evidence for a man.

Nathan Poe · 10-12-2011, 07:36 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by aa5874

You are using Ghost stories as assumed evidence for a man.

Not necessarily -- the man himself is not a ghost, but a ghost story may have cooked up after the fact to hide a more mundane (and far more embarrassing) historical fact about a historical man's paternity.

Solo · 10-12-2011, 09:06 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by GakuseiDon

Papias also recounted a strange tale about Judas' death. If Papias did speak to people who knew the original apostles, then this would count as attributing towards the probability of the existence of Judas.

It would be fair to mention, GDon, that the Papias' tale of Judas' end comes to us via Apollinaris, not Eusebius, who either was not aware of it or did not think it credible. Eusebius makes a point of discounting Papias' testimony, regards sayings of Jesus and 'some legendary accounts' (H.E. 3:39), calling him a man of 'limited intelligence' who had poor grasp of the apostolic accounts which used 'mystic and symbolic language'.

As Nathan Poe pointed out here a little while ago, Judas selling Jesus, looks conspicuously like a midrashic re-telling of Judah's selling of Joseph to the Ishmaelites in Gen 37:26.

Best,
Jiri

aa5874 · 10-12-2011, 09:10 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Nathan Poe

Quote:

Originally Posted by aa5874

You are using Ghost stories as assumed evidence for a man.

Not necessarily -- the man himself is not a ghost, but a ghost story may have cooked up after the fact to hide a more mundane (and far more embarrassing) historical fact about a historical man's paternity.

You are ASSUMING again.

We have Ghost stories so why must you ASSUME they were about a man?

Don't you even realise that people in antiquity BELIEVED Ghost stories?

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

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.