Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Jeffrey Gibson · 07-09-2008, 09:01 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dog-on

Quote:

Originally Posted by aa5874

So, in effect HJers have rejected the EVIDENCE of Jesus of the NT and have proceeded to fabricate their own.

That about sums it up, imo...

Yes, but why is your opinion anything that anyone should take seriously?

Jeffrey

Jeffrey Gibson · 07-09-2008, 09:03 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dog-on

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jeffrey Gibson

I do not recall that Tacitus or Suetonius ever claimed that they had met Augustus or Claudius or Caligula or Nero. Nor Aristotle Socrates. Nor Philostratus Apollonius. So what?

Jeffrey

Are you serious?

Did Tacticus or Suetonius claim that they received their knowledge of these figures through revelation?

Yes, I'm serious, especially since you've assumed what needs to be proven, namely that Paul say that he received his knowledge of what Jesus said and did only through revelation.

Jeffrey

Jeffrey Gibson · 07-09-2008, 09:05 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by aa5874

Quote:

Originally Posted by dog-on

MJ has the ability to accept the Jesus as portrayed in the writings, as is.

HJ portrays someone not portrayed in the writings.

Doesn't matter whether the NT writers viewed Jesus as human, or not.

So, in effect HJers have rejected the EVIDENCE of Jesus of the NT and have proceeded to fabricate their own.

I ask again, what makes you think that your reading of the evidence is correct?

Why should anyone here trust what you have to say about what the evidence says?

Jeffrey

gstafleu · 07-09-2008, 09:10 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jeffrey Gibson

Quote:

Originally Posted by gstafleu

But here's the thing: as long as MJ makes about as much sense as HJ, MJ has the advantage because it only uses a known mechanism.

May I ask in all sincerity what makes you think you are qualified to say that the MJ hypothesis makes sense?

To what degree, if any, are you familar with, and genuinely capable of evaluating, let alone affirming, the validity of its claims about neo-Platonist beliefs that it appeals to?

You are here, I think, referring to one specific instance of MJ. I was not referring to this. My "MJ" was shorthand for "explaining the data using the mechanism of faith based inventiveness." The point being that both my opponents (GD and Amaleq13) agree that this mechanism is indeed operational. Starting from that uncontroversial basis it is then straightforward to point out that if FBI does indeed explain the data, then we do not need to adduce a historical Jesus. No neo-Platonism need apply in this argument.

Gerard Stafleu

dog-on · 07-09-2008, 09:10 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jeffrey Gibson

But the question -- which you've absolutely avoided answering in the above -- is: what is the extent and basis of your "knowledge".

I ask again, what is the nature and extent of your grounding in NT studies and in Greek?

Why should anyone here accept your claims that you do indeed understand what the NT writers write and that you actually know what the texts "as is" say?

Jeffrey

My knowledge is based on a widely read book called "The Bible". In this book are many fabulous and interesting stories. Perhaps you have heard of it.

I think you missed my point.

I believe that Jesus was mythical because the stories describing Jesus are mythical and that there are no stories describing Jesus from that time that are not mythical.

The earliest writer, Paul, learns about Jesus in a revelation, according to the text.

Do real people make themselves known to others via this technique? Not in my experience.

Are you saying that the stories are not mythical when read in Greek?

dog-on · 07-09-2008, 09:11 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jeffrey Gibson

Quote:

Originally Posted by dog-on

Are you serious?

Did Tacticus or Suetonius claim that they received their knowledge of these figures through revelation?

Yes, I'm serious, especially since you've assumed what needs to be proven, namely that Paul say that he received his knowledge of what Jesus said and did only through revelation.

Jeffrey

Show me where Paul says he learned otherwise.

dog-on · 07-09-2008, 09:13 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jeffrey Gibson

Quote:

Originally Posted by dog-on

That about sums it up, imo...

Yes, but why is your opinion anything that anyone should take seriously?

Jeffrey

Never asked you to take my opinion seriously.

I take your opinion seriously when it comes to your knowledge of the text and what it says.

That though, is irrelevant, to the question of whether or not Jesus Christ is a myth.

gstafleu · 07-09-2008, 09:15 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Amaleq13

Quote:

Originally Posted by gstafleu

That would be correct if both HJ and MJ only used FBI in their explanations (presumably in a slightly different fashion, each from the other). But the thing is, HJ throws in an extra element: the HJ.

A Mythical Jesus is just as much an "extra element" and just as much in need of support.

OK, so here is a definition: a mythical Jesus is the Jesus that emerges via the process of faith based inventiveness. I have now reduced an MJ to FBI. Thus I only need to show that FBI exists, but, as I pointed out in my answer to Jeffrey, that is uncontroversial (at least in this discussion).

So, no, an MJ is not "an extra element." It emerges directly from the FBI mechanism. FBI, IOW (FWIW, don't you just love acronymification?), is the "extra element," only it is not "extra" because we both agree on its existence and effectiveness.

Gerard Stafleu

dog-on · 07-09-2008, 09:20 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by gstafleu

Quote:

Originally Posted by Amaleq13

A Mythical Jesus is just as much an "extra element" and just as much in need of support.

OK, so here is a definition: a mythical Jesus is the Jesus that emerges via the process of faith based inventiveness. I have now reduced an MJ to FBI. Thus I only need to show that FBI exists, but, as I pointed out in my answer to Jeffrey, that is uncontroversial (at least in this discussion).

So, no, an MJ is not "an extra element." It emerges directly from the FBI mechanism. FBI, IOW (FWIW, don't you just love acronymification?), is the "extra element," only it is not "extra" because we both agree on its existence and effectiveness.

Gerard Stafleu

Makes sense to me.

Amaleq13 · 07-09-2008, 09:36 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by gstafleu

OK, so here is a definition: a mythical Jesus is the Jesus that emerges via the process of faith based inventiveness.

Sophistry. A mythical Jesus continues to be just as much an "extra element" as an historical figure. You can't just sweep him under the rug and wave your hands.

You've got the evidence of the texts.

You've got a mechanism by which some of the evidence has been created but not necessarily all of it.

Suggesting that the mechanism also produced the central figure requires specific evidence to support it just as much as suggesting an historical figure inspired it all.

Quote:

So, no, an MJ is not "an extra element." It emerges directly from the FBI mechanism.

Why or how does the FBI mechanism exist prior to the emergence of the central figure?

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

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.