Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Sheshbazzar · 10-26-2011, 04:53 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by J-D

I see no basis for deciding one way or the other. As far as I can see, it’s an open question. If you know of some basis for deciding the question, please state it.

The obviously fictional context that these 'selected' verses occur within is indicative a no higher degree of accuracy, or probability of actuality than that of the surrounding verses and totality of the obviously fictional narrative contexts that they they are part and parcel of.
Thus I find there is a valid basis and rationale on which to reject them as 'being accurate reports of events that actually took place'.
They are simply minor bit parts of a totally fictional religious narrative about fictional events that in actuality never occurred.
There never was a historical JC. The Gospel stories in total are pure fabrication. And these flyspecks do nothing to redeem them.

J-D · 10-26-2011, 05:49 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sheshbazzar

Quote:

Originally Posted by J-D

I see no basis for deciding one way or the other. As far as I can see, it’s an open question. If you know of some basis for deciding the question, please state it.

The obviously fictional context that these 'selected' verses occur within is indicative a no higher degree of accuracy, or probability of actuality than that of the surrounding verses and totality of the obviously fictional narrative contexts that they they are part and parcel of.

Thus I find there is a valid basis and rationale on which to reject them as 'being accurate reports of events that actually took place'.

They are simply minor bit parts of a totally fictional religious narrative about fictional events that in actuality never occurred.

There never was a historical JC. The Gospel stories in total are pure fabrication. And these flyspecks do nothing to redeem them.

As I have said several times, some of the statements in the canonical Gospels using the name Jesus cannot possibly be literally accurate reports of events that actually took place. I do not see how that is an adequate basis for concluding that none of the statements in the canonical Gospels using the name Jesus are literally accurate reports of events that actually took place, because the presence in a document of some false statements does not automatically prove that all the statements in the document are false, so to me the question remains open.

J-D · 10-26-2011, 06:07 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mountainman

Quote:

Originally Posted by J-D

I don't know if that's what 'HJ' means ...

Get up to speed J-D.

No, you get up to speed.

My comment was a direct response to tanya. I was referring to what specifically tanya means by ‘HJ’ in this specific context, not discussing all the different possible things that different people might (or might not) mean by ‘HJ’. What tanya said specifically was that ‘HJ’ means that ‘there was once a real living human being, named Jesus of Nazareth, who could cure epilepsy by waving his hands in the air’.

Only tanya can tell us whether she meant precisely what she said, and if she did not mean precisely what she said only she can tell us what she did mean. As a reply to my post your response does not help.

Sheshbazzar · 10-26-2011, 06:48 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by J-D

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sheshbazzar

Quote:

Originally Posted by J-D

I see no basis for deciding one way or the other. As far as I can see, it’s an open question. If you know of some basis for deciding the question, please state it.

The obviously fictional context that these 'selected' verses occur within is indicative a no higher degree of accuracy, or probability of actuality than that of the surrounding verses and totality of the obviously fictional narrative contexts that they they are part and parcel of.

Thus I find there is a valid basis and rationale on which to reject them as 'being accurate reports of events that actually took place'.

They are simply minor bit parts of a totally fictional religious narrative about fictional events that in actuality never occurred.

There never was a historical JC. The Gospel stories in total are pure fabrication. And these flyspecks do nothing to redeem them.

As I have said several times, some of the statements in the canonical Gospels using the name Jesus cannot possibly be literally accurate reports of events that actually took place. I do not see how that is an adequate basis for concluding that none of the statements in the canonical Gospels using the name Jesus are literally accurate reports of events that actually took place, because the presence in a document of some false statements does not automatically prove that all the statements in the document are false, so to me the question remains open.

When 98% of the texts are composed of a string of fantastic and improbable tales and circumstances, there remains little left to be defensive of.
At the very least there never was any Jebus of Nazareth in any way similar to that thing that is portrayed within these NT writings.

People may have believed a lot of things, but whoever it was that composed those alleged situations, and verbatim 'conversations' was nothing but a god damned liar.

J-D · 10-26-2011, 08:04 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sheshbazzar

Quote:

Originally Posted by J-D

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sheshbazzar

Quote:

Originally Posted by J-D

I see no basis for deciding one way or the other. As far as I can see, it’s an open question. If you know of some basis for deciding the question, please state it.

The obviously fictional context that these 'selected' verses occur within is indicative a no higher degree of accuracy, or probability of actuality than that of the surrounding verses and totality of the obviously fictional narrative contexts that they they are part and parcel of.

Thus I find there is a valid basis and rationale on which to reject them as 'being accurate reports of events that actually took place'.

They are simply minor bit parts of a totally fictional religious narrative about fictional events that in actuality never occurred.

There never was a historical JC. The Gospel stories in total are pure fabrication. And these flyspecks do nothing to redeem them.

As I have said several times, some of the statements in the canonical Gospels using the name Jesus cannot possibly be literally accurate reports of events that actually took place. I do not see how that is an adequate basis for concluding that none of the statements in the canonical Gospels using the name Jesus are literally accurate reports of events that actually took place, because the presence in a document of some false statements does not automatically prove that all the statements in the document are false, so to me the question remains open.

When 98% of the texts are composed of a string of fantastic and improbable tales and circumstances, there remains little left to be defensive of.
At the very least there never was any Jebus of Nazareth in any way similar to that thing that is portrayed within these NT writings.

People may have believed a lot of things, but whoever it was that composed those alleged situations, and verbatim 'conversations' was nothing but a god damned liar.

I have not gone through the whole text of the canonical gospels and evaluated every statement. You have not shown that you have done so, either. I don’t know what percentage of the texts consists of fantastic and improbable tales and circumstances. You have not shown where you got your figure of 98% from.

Even if 98% of the texts consists of statements that cannot be literally accurate reports of events that actually took place, that would still leave statements, even if amounting to only 2% of the total, which might or might not be literally accurate reports of events that actually took place.

J-D · 10-26-2011, 08:26 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mountainman

Quote:

Originally Posted by J-D

Quote:

Originally Posted by mountainman

Quote:

Originally Posted by tanya

Here are two hypothetical characters in a plot:

one: a real, living human being: HJ,
two: a genuinely fictional character, capable of superhuman activities: MJ.

The distinction between the two can be expediently exemplified by the concept of and the relative measure of historicy. In scenario one the character has a historicity somewhere between 1 and 100, whereas in scenario two the character has a historicity of precisely zero.

Associated the the relative measure of historicity is the ability to produce ancient historical evidence by which positive historicity greater than zero may be asserted. Much evidence has been claimed in support of the HJ postulate, but these claims in every case are very wanting.

I have not yet seen the discussion of such evidence in any one case to arrive at a consensus that does not leave doubt that the evidence itself is inconclusive in ascribing an element (no matter how small) of positive historicity.

You have not explained what you mean, in this context, by the historicity of a character as something which can be measured on a quantitative scale.

The historicity of every person and evert event starts with zero points. Jesus is not special. He does not get a free walk.

You get positive (relative) points towards establishing the historicity of Jesus (or anyone else, or any event, etc) on an item by item basis every time you bring to the table ancient historical evidence that is able to corroborate the claim that Jesus is part of ancient history, and which is judged to be unambiguous evidence for historicity. (IOW you cant just walk in here and wave the Shroud of Turin around as "THE PROOF everyone has been waiting for"!)

Having said this, note in the above post the mention of relative historicity. There is no absolute measure of historicity, we can only say that the historicity of Apollonius of Tyana exceeds the historicity of Jesus, or the historicity of the Loch Ness Monster exceeds that of Jesus. The points towards a measure of historicity are relative, and ultimately represent a probabilistic result.

If you have no evidence that is corroborated and/or unambiguous, then you dont score any points. It's pretty simple.

It is impossible to say whether any evidence does or does not corroborate a claim if the meaning of the claim itself is not well-defined, and you have not explained what you understand by the claim 'Jesus is part of ancient history'.

mountainman · 10-26-2011, 08:31 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sheshbazzar

When 98% of the texts are composed of a string of fantastic and improbable tales and circumstances, there remains little left to be defensive of.
At the very least there never was any Jebus of Nazareth in any way similar to that thing that is portrayed within these NT writings.

People may have believed a lot of things, but whoever it was that composed those alleged situations, and verbatim 'conversations' was nothing but a god damned liar.

If Eusebius did not oversight and edit the invention of the NT texts then he certainly packaged these writings and is to be considered as the very very first "Editor-In-Chief" responsible for their widespread publication in the 4th century. For packaging he used his own works - tha contain evidence of piously forged material and false documents - "Church History" and "In Preparation for the Good News" and various gruesome martyrologies and almanacs. Eusebius knew all about the Apostolic writings, and who wrote first and second etc. Eusebius also knew all about Papias and Hegessipus and the Great Shepherd of Hermas / Hermes.

Anyone suspecting a liar need go no further than Big E. To Big E, the centralized state Monotheistic Christian God of the Universe inside the Hubble Limit was very immanent, and patronly. There was a revolution happening, and writing voluminously in the midst of widescale slavery and war and death and destruction, our tax exempt, clean-handed, man on the ground was Big E. A prime suspect for the pious forgery of the MJ.

Sheshbazzar · 10-26-2011, 08:40 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by J-D

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sheshbazzar

Quote:

Originally Posted by J-D

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sheshbazzar

Quote:

Originally Posted by J-D

I see no basis for deciding one way or the other. As far as I can see, it’s an open question. If you know of some basis for deciding the question, please state it.

The obviously fictional context that these 'selected' verses occur within is indicative a no higher degree of accuracy, or probability of actuality than that of the surrounding verses and totality of the obviously fictional narrative contexts that they they are part and parcel of.

Thus I find there is a valid basis and rationale on which to reject them as 'being accurate reports of events that actually took place'.

They are simply minor bit parts of a totally fictional religious narrative about fictional events that in actuality never occurred.

There never was a historical JC. The Gospel stories in total are pure fabrication. And these flyspecks do nothing to redeem them.

As I have said several times, some of the statements in the canonical Gospels using the name Jesus cannot possibly be literally accurate reports of events that actually took place. I do not see how that is an adequate basis for concluding that none of the statements in the canonical Gospels using the name Jesus are literally accurate reports of events that actually took place, because the presence in a document of some false statements does not automatically prove that all the statements in the document are false, so to me the question remains open.

When 98% of the texts are composed of a string of fantastic and improbable tales and circumstances, there remains little left to be defensive of.
At the very least there never was any Jebus of Nazareth in any way similar to that thing that is portrayed within these NT writings.

People may have believed a lot of things, but whoever it was that composed those alleged situations, and verbatim 'conversations' was nothing but a god damned liar.

I have not gone through the whole text of the canonical gospels and evaluated every statement. You have not shown that you have done so, either. I don’t know what percentage of the texts consists of fantastic and improbable tales and circumstances. You have not shown where you got your figure of 98% from.

Even if 98% of the texts consists of statements that cannot be literally accurate reports of events that actually took place, that would still leave statements, even if amounting to only 2% of the total, which might or might not be literally accurate reports of events that actually took place.

Well, it seems that Herod and Pontius Pilate were real personages with a traceable history outside of these religious propaganda texts, and that Jerusalem and the Jordan River are real world locations.
That small percentage that is accurate however, provides nothing at all to validate any other claims made regarding the NTs cast of fictional characters and fantasy circumstances. Not a hell of a lot to be hanging any HJ hat on.

J-D · 10-26-2011, 09:30 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sheshbazzar

Quote:

Originally Posted by J-D

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sheshbazzar

Quote:

Originally Posted by J-D

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sheshbazzar

Quote:

Originally Posted by J-D

I see no basis for deciding one way or the other. As far as I can see, it’s an open question. If you know of some basis for deciding the question, please state it.

The obviously fictional context that these 'selected' verses occur within is indicative a no higher degree of accuracy, or probability of actuality than that of the surrounding verses and totality of the obviously fictional narrative contexts that they they are part and parcel of.

Thus I find there is a valid basis and rationale on which to reject them as 'being accurate reports of events that actually took place'.

They are simply minor bit parts of a totally fictional religious narrative about fictional events that in actuality never occurred.

There never was a historical JC. The Gospel stories in total are pure fabrication. And these flyspecks do nothing to redeem them.

As I have said several times, some of the statements in the canonical Gospels using the name Jesus cannot possibly be literally accurate reports of events that actually took place. I do not see how that is an adequate basis for concluding that none of the statements in the canonical Gospels using the name Jesus are literally accurate reports of events that actually took place, because the presence in a document of some false statements does not automatically prove that all the statements in the document are false, so to me the question remains open.

When 98% of the texts are composed of a string of fantastic and improbable tales and circumstances, there remains little left to be defensive of.
At the very least there never was any Jebus of Nazareth in any way similar to that thing that is portrayed within these NT writings.

People may have believed a lot of things, but whoever it was that composed those alleged situations, and verbatim 'conversations' was nothing but a god damned liar.

I have not gone through the whole text of the canonical gospels and evaluated every statement. You have not shown that you have done so, either. I don’t know what percentage of the texts consists of fantastic and improbable tales and circumstances. You have not shown where you got your figure of 98% from.

Even if 98% of the texts consists of statements that cannot be literally accurate reports of events that actually took place, that would still leave statements, even if amounting to only 2% of the total, which might or might not be literally accurate reports of events that actually took place.

Well, it seems that Herod and Pontius Pilate were real personages with a traceable history outside of these religious propaganda texts, and that Jerusalem and the Jordan River are real world locations.
That small percentage that is accurate however, provides nothing at all to validate any other claims made regarding the NTs cast of fictional characters and fantasy circumstances. Not a hell of a lot to be hanging any HJ hat on.

I'm not hanging any sort of hat on anything. All I'm saying is that although some of the statements in the canonical Gospels using the name Jesus cannot possibly be literally accurate reports of events that actually took place, other of the statements in the canonical Gospels using
the name Jesus might or might not be literally accurate reports of events that actually took place. If you have an adequate basis for concluding definitely that none of the statements in the canonical Gospels using the name Jesus are literally accurate reports of events that actually took place, you have not yet revealed it.

J-D · 10-26-2011, 09:37 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jakejonesiv

Quote:

Originally Posted by archibald

Quote:

Originally Posted by jakejonesiv

Wouldn't you be better off admitting that trying to extract any meaniful history from the gospels is a dubious enteprise? if Jesus wasn't a myth, he might as well be the way you chop and slash the stories.

Jake

Almost every messianic claimant, eschatological prophet, or person thought to have been divine has had stuff written about them which is less likely to be true. The trimming away is not an indicator. The question as to whether there is a real person in there is open, obviously, but there is nothing unusual about having to discount less likely material.

Not good enough. You have four gospels full of claims that a main component of the Jesus story is his immense fame and large crowds.

It is one thing to say that the gospels include statements that Jesus was famous and statements that large crowds followed Jesus. It is another to say that those statements are a main component of the Jesus story. The first is hard to dispute. The second depends on applying some standard of importance/relevance to decide what is a 'main component', and that standard needs to be justified, not just assumed.

Quote:

Originally Posted by jakejonesiv

If all that is a lie, and all the supernatural elements are B.S, the claims for the Historical Jesus are vanishing before our very eyes.

The fact that some of the statements in the canonical gospels using the name Jesus cannot possibly be literally accurate reports of events that actually occurred is not enough to establish the conclusion that not a single one of the statements in the canonical gospels using the name Jesus is a literally accurate report of an event that actually occurred.

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

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.