MCalavera

Just for the record, I enjoy archibald's posts because he does have a clear mind hwen it comes to such topics, and I do appreciate his gentleness with others. He does it much better than I could.

Just don't like giving the other side (the absolute MJ, I mean, not agnostic) the impression that both the HJ and the MJ are on the same level when it comes to evidence and coherence and such factors. I think the absolute MJ position is not a good position at all to take because it, for the sake of satisfying personal agendas, undermines all the efforts scholars and historians put in their work as they investigate these historical matters and search for what facts can be discerned beneath the top layers of falsehoods and embellished myths and because it doesn't represent rational thinking at all. You read posts like tanya's, like Doherty's, aa..., and others and it's as if you're reading posts from a Jehovah's Witness or some other cult member who twist the meanings and contexts of words and phrases to serve their own purposes.

This bothers me a lot because that is not the kind of "rationality" that I've imagined intelligent atheists and skeptics to have. When I was still a fundamentalist Christian and just about to abandon the faith, I listened and read a lot of materials from atheists and skeptics with very rational arguments that eventually led me to realize Christianity wasn't what it made itself out to be.

Now as a skeptic, instead of me having to debate fundies and show them how wrong their views are, I see myself debating a bunch of atheists and skeptics instead just because they can't seem to understand the position that Jesus Christ may have existed and it was quite likely according to the evidence we have at the moment.

I find this schism among skeptics very frustrating because one side is simply so dogmatic and absolute it's unfalsifiable while the other side is falsifiable.

I don't mind the agnostic position by the way. In fact, I don't know of any HJer who's not agnostic about this (of course, aside from Christian believers).

aa5874

Once you continuously ADMIT that your understanding may or may not be correct then your are simply wasting time here.

You have ZERO intention of producing any sources of antiquity to show that HJ of Nazareth is the more likely explanation.

Now, your understanding is NOT correct.

The Jews did NOT expect a Messiah from heaven.

Please read the writings of Josephus "Wars of the Jews' 6.5.4, Tacitus 'Histories' 5 and Suetonius 'Life of Vespasian.

gMark is a GHOST story about a character that WALKED on the sea, TRANSFIGURED and was RAISED from the dead. See Mark 6.49, 9.2 and 16.6

It does NOT make any sense to PRESENT a Ghost story as evidence of HJ of Nazareth.

Away with your Ghost story.

You don't know what you are talking about and you are using Ghost stories as historical evidence for HJ of Nazareth.

Again, why are you arguing that HJ is the more likely explanation and now ADMIT you really cannot explain anything.

You have just WASTED everybody's time.

You ONLY have GHOST stories for your HJ of Nazareth.

aa5874

Your statement is extremely problematic since archibald has consistently ADMITTED that he does not really know what he is talking about.

In effect, archibald has destroyed his own arguments for HJ of Nazareth.

This is achibald's ANSWER to his own THREAD.

Quote:

.....As Toto put it yesterday the BEST, MOST RATIONAL, general answer is arguably 'maybe HJ, maybe MJ' and it is probably a pity that some/more of us can't find basic agreement on that more often.

Incredibly, archibald did NOT support his OP. Archibald is AGNOSTIC and did NOT know how to resolve the HJ/MJ argument from the very start.

It was simply MIS-LEADING for an AGNOSTIC to imply that HJ of Nazareth is the more likely explanation when he himself does NOT hold such a position.

Archibald has DESTROYED his own thread.

gurugeorge

What you're viewing as absolutism is just frustration. Until they've really thought hard about it, atheists offhandedly assume HJ is the only logical position and MJ is just obviously absurd.

In fact, it's almost a sign that you haven't thought about the subject much, or read about it much, if you think that.

In reality, when you look closely, the two are much more evenly matched - i.e. there's less plausibility to the HJ scenario than one previously thought, and more plausibility to the MJ scenario than one previously thought.

One's view of the truth shouldn't be guided by whether it's convenient for some meta- or political strategy, it should be guided by love of truth. That is what defines rationalism, not opposition to religion or the need to appear sensible so you can convert religionists to atheism.

Sheshbazzar

Messiah, Hebrew משיח 'masiach' -pronounced as 'ma'shee'kah', and meaning 'anointed' is translated into Greek by the word χριστὸν 'christos', meaning 'anointed'.

example 1.
From the Hebrew MT text;
ואלה דברי דוד האחרנים נאם דוד בן־ישי ונאם הגבר הקם על משיח אלהי יעקב ונעים זמרות ישראל׃

and its Greek LXX translation;
καὶ οὗτοι οἱ λόγοι Δαυιδ οἱ ἔσχατοι πιστὸς Δαυιδ υἱὸς Ιεσσαι καὶ πιστὸς ἀνήρ ὃν ἀνέστησεν κύριος ἐπὶ χριστὸν θεοῦ Ιακωβ καὶ εὐπρεπεῖς ψαλμοὶ Ισραηλ


NKJV English;
"Now these are the last words of David. Thus says David the son of Jesse; Thus says the man raised up on high, The ANOINTED of the EL of Jacob, And the sweet psalmist of Israel: (2 Sam 23:1)

A light tap to a spike only serves to set its point. Seven blows will serve to drive it in full and hard.

A hundred more examples could be provided.



.

Iskander

Like Samson destroyed the temple?
And Samson grasped the two middle pillars upon which the house rested, and he leaned his weight upon them, his right hand on the one and his left hand on the other

Solo

Maybe it has something to do with Jesus' identity crisis, although we have the confession of Woody Allen who said it took him a while to figure out that the Tsar and the Czar were actually the same person.

Best,
Jiri

Horatio Parker

Such as?

This is an interesting question. Which ancient figures of importance do we assume to have existed on comparable or less evidence than HJ?

I'm agnostic on HJ, but lean towards mythicism because I think it's a better fit. I'm not antagonistic towards religion, rather the opposite.

Solo

So nothing; just don't draw any funny pictures of the guy whom God made recite instructions even on when to wipe your infidel ass [the holy book, chapter 5:6]. You'll be ok. Your kid-and-a-half (average) will not have to worry about fucking free-thinkers or lying liberals, that's for sure :huh:

Jiri

archibald

Yes, Horatio, it is an interesting question.

And, I think, not a difficult one.

I will call it question 1.

It depends what you man by 'we' of course. I may name some that you would say you don't believe are historical.

But, how about.....briefly......for starters......John the Baptist, Spartacus, Siddharta Gautama (sometimes), Wereket-El, several prophet-types in Josephus, such as Theudas.......Anthroges, Menahem Ben Judah, Simon of Peraea......can I stop there? I really don't think it would be very hard at all to come up with people who are treated (for the most part) by historians as if they were historical, with much less evidence. And the fact that Jesus (if he existed) wouldn't have been 'of importance' during his own lifetime (sorry, unlike Toto I don't see a dilemma here) only adds to the view that we have at least as much early evidence as we should reasonably expect. That's why I asked Toto to make a list of Judeans from that time. I might call this question 1 mk2 (as in version 2, not gospel of mark 2). I think there are in fact numerous people mentioned by Josephus and nobody else.

Now, against that, I would like to ask another, similar question, by quoting Toto from yesterday in a comment that I found to be equally persuasive as question 1 (I mean both versions, my question to Toto, and yours to Judge, both of which are similar in some ways):

I will call this question 2.

The first paragraph is a tricky question, and I think Toto makes a good point, one which makes a good case for agnosticism, and certainly not HJ. I might take out the word 'flimsy' (since I do believe that's what the evidence not, in the context of ancient historical standards). I would keep 'contradictory', but note that biographical contradictions are not that unusual (dare I mention Alexander the Great again?), same might even be said for 'legends'. However, when viewed as an overall trio, I think Toto is probably correct.

(I could digress into gurugeorge's mindset when he can opt for HBuddha but not HJesus, because that sort of choice intrigues me, but I'll leave it off for now, here)

The second paragraph is about the supposed 'dilemma', to which I don't easily subscribe.

Moving on....

Finally, (and in good Presbyterian-Sunday-morning-fashion).......Question 3.


This is the question I put to gurugeorge. And this one has me leaning back towards HJ.

How many groups have followed a figure (prophet/hero/messiah/whatever) who was non-existent (that is to say, not historical, whether conceived as mythical or conceived as real) when that figure is said to have existed quite recently?

There are some, but not many that I can think of. A small minority of similar candidates, maybe.

Answers to these questions on a postcard please. First respondent with correct answers pulled out of the hat wins a weekend in paradise for him/herself and two friends (sorry, everything has to be threes).