Freethought & Rationalism Archive

J-D · 06-03-2012, 04:04 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by tanya

Quote:

Originally Posted by J-D

However, one of your examples puzzles me, because you appear to be saying that a statement which describes an angel as creating or transporting something does not entail any physical impossibility. Do you regard statements about angels as falling within the bounds of what's physically possible?

Yes, of course, angels don't exist, however, the issue with Mormonism is whether or not the gold tablets existed, and the contents thereon

I don't know what you mean when you say 'the issue with Mormonism is ...' (why would you say there's just one issue with Mormonism?). I do know that the statement 'gold plates existed with writing on them' describes something physically possible, while the statement 'an angel produced the gold plates' does not, and I also know that those two statements are not equivalent. If what you meant was that it's physically possible that gold plates existed with writing on them, you should have said that, instead of stating, as you actually did state, that it's physically possible that an angel produced gold plates.

Quote:

Originally Posted by tanya

; how the tablets were excavated, or transported, is a separate problem. My point was that creation of gold tablets does not require supernatural competence, to achieve, unless there is an accompanying claim, deemed integral to the legend, namely, that the tablets had originally been prepared from birch bark, and then an angel descended from heaven, to convert the birch bark to gold. Birch bark, i.e. carbon, cannot be converted to gold, though an argument could be made, one imagines, that with sufficient heat and pressure, the birch bark could be converted to diamonds.....

The way the Mormons tell the story, an angel led Joseph Smith to the gold plates. That's not physically possible, because there are no angels. How you decide whether that element of the story is 'integral' to it I don't know, because I don't know what specifically you mean by 'integral' in this particular context.

Quote:

Originally Posted by tanya

Quote:

Originally Posted by Vorkosigan

Historicist = Jesus existed as a real person, not there was a human being who provided the impetus for Xtianity. No mythicist says there were no humans involved, only that there never was any Jesus.

Almost, but not quite right. Sorry.

Historicist: someone who believes that there did exist in ancient Palestine, a Jewish preacher, named Jesus, who lived about the same time as Philo of Alexandria, who taught that he was the son of YHWH, come to save humanity, and was then executed, either by the Romans or the Jews, or both.

Mythicist: someone who believes that there is no YHWH, (and certainly, no son of YHWH,) no angels, no devils, no Satan.

By those definitions, the categories are not exclusive. There are people who believe that there is no YHWH, no angels, no devils, no Satan, and who also believe that there did exist in ancient Palestine a Jewish preacher named Jesus who lived about the same time as Philo of Alexandria, who taught that he had come to save humanity, and who was executed. By your definitions, such people are both historicists and mythicists, right? But then, those definitions can't be the ones in the minds of all the people here who use those terms as if they refer to exclusive categories. They must have some other meaning in mind; or else, perhaps, they don't really know what they mean.

tanya · 06-03-2012, 05:13 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by J-D

I don't know what you mean when you say 'the issue with Mormonism is ...' (why would you say there's just one issue with Mormonism?). I do know that the statement 'gold plates existed with writing on them' describes something physically possible, while the statement 'an angel produced the gold plates' does not, and I also know that those two statements are not equivalent. If what you meant was that it's physically possible that gold plates existed with writing on them, you should have said that, instead of stating, as you actually did state, that it's physically possible that an angel produced gold plates.

Morning, J-D.

I believe you err, if you imagine that I wrote:
"an angel produced gold plates". I deny having written that. I was attempting to distinguish the angelic portion of the story, from the gold plate aspect, pointing out, that the latter represents a legend, not a myth, simply because it is physically possible to create gold tablets with writing upon them.

If I have miscommunicated, I apologize. I do not believe in angels. They represent myth.

Quote:

Originally Posted by J-D

By those definitions, the categories are not exclusive. There are people who believe that there is no YHWH, no angels, no devils, no Satan, and who also believe that there did exist in ancient Palestine a Jewish preacher named Jesus who lived about the same time as Philo of Alexandria, who taught that he had come to save humanity, and who was executed. By your definitions, such people are both historicists and mythicists, right? But then, those definitions can't be the ones in the minds of all the people here who use those terms as if they refer to exclusive categories. They must have some other meaning in mind; or else, perhaps, they don't really know what they mean.

I believe you have, (probably unintentionally) misrepresented what I wrote, here.

Quote:

Originally Posted by tanya

Historicist: someone who believes that there did exist in ancient Palestine, a Jewish preacher, named Jesus, who lived about the same time as Philo of Alexandria, who taught that he was the son of YHWH, come to save humanity, and was then executed, either by the Romans or the Jews, or both.

J-D · 06-03-2012, 05:30 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by tanya

Quote:

Originally Posted by J-D

I don't know what you mean when you say 'the issue with Mormonism is ...' (why would you say there's just one issue with Mormonism?). I do know that the statement 'gold plates existed with writing on them' describes something physically possible, while the statement 'an angel produced the gold plates' does not, and I also know that those two statements are not equivalent. If what you meant was that it's physically possible that gold plates existed with writing on them, you should have said that, instead of stating, as you actually did state, that it's physically possible that an angel produced gold plates.

Morning, J-D.

I believe you err, if you imagine that I wrote:
"an angel produced gold plates". I deny having written that. I was attempting to distinguish the angelic portion of the story, from the gold plate aspect, pointing out, that the latter represents a legend, not a myth, simply because it is physically possible to create gold tablets with writing upon them.

If I have miscommunicated, I apologize. I do not believe in angels. They represent myth.

Your exact words (on display in this thread for anybody who wants to verify them) were: 'That the book of Mormon was created, or transported, by an Angel, named Moroni, is a legend.' If that's not what you meant, I accept the correction. No apology required.

Quote:

Originally Posted by tanya

Quote:

Originally Posted by J-D

By those definitions, the categories are not exclusive. There are people who believe that there is no YHWH, no angels, no devils, no Satan, and who also believe that there did exist in ancient Palestine a Jewish preacher named Jesus who lived about the same time as Philo of Alexandria, who taught that he had come to save humanity, and who was executed. By your definitions, such people are both historicists and mythicists, right? But then, those definitions can't be the ones in the minds of all the people here who use those terms as if they refer to exclusive categories. They must have some other meaning in mind; or else, perhaps, they don't really know what they mean.

I believe you have, (probably unintentionally) misrepresented what I wrote, here.

Quote:

Originally Posted by tanya

Historicist: someone who believes that there did exist in ancient Palestine, a Jewish preacher, named Jesus, who lived about the same time as Philo of Alexandria, who taught that he was the son of YHWH, come to save humanity, and was then executed, either by the Romans or the Jews, or both.

I was summarising for brevity, but I don't see how it makes any difference. People who believe there is no YHWH, no angels, no devils, no Satan, and who also believe that there did exist in ancient Palestine a Jewish preacher named Jesus who lived about the same time as Philo of Alexandria, who taught that he was the son of YHWH and that he had come to save humanity, and who was executed--such people, by your definitions, would still be be both historicists and mythicists. Your definitions, therefore, can't be the ones intended by those people here who use those terms as if they're mutually exclusive--not, that is, if those people are clear about their own meaning.

aa5874 · 06-03-2012, 07:34 AM

It is most mind-boggling that a simple term like "an historical Jesus" is so confusing to people here.

It is most remarkable that some that have been on this forum have ZERO understanding of the meaning of an HJ.

An Historical Jesus simply means that there was a real human Jesus.

People who argue for an HJ believe that they can show that there was a real human Jesus in Galilee when Pilate was Governor of Judea.

The Myth Jesus theory is Simply the Opposite or counter-argument to an HJ--THERE WAS NO REAL HUMAN character called Jesus in the time of Pilate.

There is really NO comparison between Joseph Smith and Jesus of the Canon.

Jesus did NOT write the NT Canon or any book in it---Joseph Smith wrote ABOUT JESUS in the MORMON Bible.

Joseph Smith was NOT rejected and killed by his own followers.

The Mormons BELIEVE the Jesus stories in the Mormon Bible.

When Joseph Smith was Shot and KILLED the MORMON BIBLE was already WRITTEN and Circulated.

When the supposed HJ was crucified there was NOTHING written of him or by him

We KNOW who started Mormonism. We KNOW who wrote stories about Jesus in the Mormon Bible.

The authors of the Jesus stories in the NT Canon are UNKNOWN but people of antiquity BELIEVED the stories and FORMED CULTS based on the Jesus stories of the UNKNOWN authors.

Joseph Smith is simply a KNOWN author of Jesus stories found in the Mormon Bible that MORMONS BELIEVE.

It is CLEAR that people of Antiquity BELIEVED the Jesus story FOUND in gMark or a similar source.

The story of the Baptism, Temptation, the Miracles, walking on water, the transfiguration, crucifixion, and resurrection of Jesus was BELIEVED in antiquity PRECISELY as people do today--PRECISELY as people BELIEVE the stories in the MORMON Bible.

Regardless of the source for the Mormon Bible and the NT Canon it is the STORIES about Jesus the People BELIEVE.

No human Jesus could have done the things in the stories in Joseph Smith's Mormon Bible and the Unknown authored NT Canon.

ALL we have are FICTIONAL and Implausible STORIES of Jesus and we KNOW PEOPLE BELIEVE them.

Toto · 06-03-2012, 07:57 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by J-D

Quote:

Originally Posted by Toto

Historicist is a useful term.

The "historical Jesus" may be difficult to pin down, but a historicist is a person who insists that there was a real physical person who either inspired or somehow provided the impetus for Christianity, and that mythicists are wrong when they claim that Christianity started with a spiritual Jesus.

If you have an agnostic position on this, you don't need to pick sides, but a number of people have staked out a position.

If 'historicist' means a person who insists that there was a real physical person who either inspired or somehow provided the impetus for Christianity, then anybody who denies that 'historicist' position must deny that any real physical person inspired or provided any impetus for Christianity.

Is there anybody here who thinks that Christianity began without any inspiration or impetus from any real physical person? How else could it possibly have begun if not with real physical people? What's the alternative explanation?

If this sounds imprecise, it is because there are such a variety of theories of the historical Jesus. Some (e.g. Ehrman) think that he was a false prophet who was the leader of a sect. Some seem to hold out the option that he was really a Jewish teacher or reformer whose followers decided to break with Judaism after his death.

The alternative explanation is that some person (not the center of the religion) had a vision, or imagined an object of worship referred to as Jesus, and later followers of this sect imagined that he had been an actual person on earth.

Obviously, real people were involved, but the question is whether one of them was either the leader of the sect who was subsequently turned into a god, or some independent person who was turned into a god - versus someone who had a vision of a savior.

Toto · 06-03-2012, 08:02 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by J-D

I was summarising for brevity, but I don't see how it makes any difference. People who believe there is no YHWH, no angels, no devils, no Satan, and who also believe that there did exist in ancient Palestine a Jewish preacher named Jesus who lived about the same time as Philo of Alexandria, who taught that he was the son of YHWH and that he had come to save humanity, and who was executed--such people, by your definitions, would still be be both historicists and mythicists. Your definitions, therefore, can't be the ones intended by those people here who use those terms as if they're mutually exclusive--not, that is, if those people are clear about their own meaning.

Most people treat the gospels as myth, in the favorable sense of the term. Historicists think that there was a historical person behind the myth, and some of them think that they can mine the mythical gospels to extract historical fact.

Mythicists think that it's myth all the way down.

There may be some people here who still use the terms imprecisely, but this is all old news.

Sheshbazzar · 06-03-2012, 08:03 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Adam

Quote:

Originally Posted by Toto

Quote:

Originally Posted by Adam

I'm still waiting for a substantive reply to any of my posts and threads. No one any longer even points to any refutation whether on FRDB or anywhere else. I'm vulnerable on lots of points, so why can't anyone? (E. G., Teeple's sources, my correlation of sources with direct eyewitnesses, the Gospel According to the Atheists.) I really expected a lot more from you people.

By substantive, I think you mean one that accepts your method.

I have said before that Gospel According to the Atheists is part of your misunderstanding of sources. As long as you continue to use that term, I don't see the point of any response.

I never really thought there would be no refutation of such radical theses as I have put forward, but I'm beginning to wonder whether there really is none. (Of course I thought the exact reverse about my Gospel According to the Atheists, that I have disproven such an obvious falsity as MJ that the MJ position would basically collapse here. I guess the Calvinist doctrine of Predestination if true after all.)

Three points here.

1. When Adam here first invented his asinine term "Gospel According to the Atheists" I immediately protested.
There is no such identifiable 'Gospel' existent, it is solely a figment of this one individuals imagination.

2. Adam has never presented us with a readable copy of any so called "Gospel According to the Atheists".
There has never been any such text, and even Adam his self has failed to ever present this imaginary text of his.

3. The claim that any such thing or writing as a "Gospel According to the Atheists" could exist, is an misrepresentation of mythicist Atheists views.
As mythicist have repeatedly and strongly contended that the events, and most of personages presented in the NT are entirely fictional, There is no way that any such composition, culled from these hokey fictional christian 'gospel' texts, could ever, in any way, be honestly claimed to comprise a " Gospel According to the Atheists"*. To push the existence of such an imaginary DOCUMENT here, is to be pushing what is nothing more than a blatant LIE.

It is irrational and downright ridiculous that we should be maneuvered on this Freethought and Rationalism Forum, into any need to argue against unidentified premises presented within a fictional and NON-EXISTENT DOCUMENT, derived from ancient fictional texts.

*IF any of our HJ faction desires to accept the premise of a "Gospel According to the Atheists" existing, or its contents, let them bring forth and produce any such DOCUMENT.

Until someone can actually produce such a DOCUMENT in complete, fixed, and readable form, I consider Adam's theories, position, and posts as having reached a dead end.

Sheshbazzar

AdamWho · 06-03-2012, 08:10 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by aa5874

It is most mind-boggling that a simple term like "an historical Jesus" is so confusing to people here.

It is most remarkable that some that have been on this forum have ZERO understanding of the meaning of an HJ.

An Historical Jesus simply means that there was a real human Jesus.

People who argue for an HJ believe that they can show that there was a real human Jesus in Galilee when Pilate was Governor of Judea.

The Myth Jesus theory is Simply the Opposite or counter-argument to an HJ--THERE WAS NO REAL HUMAN character called Jesus in the time of Pilate.

There is really NO comparison between Joseph Smith and Jesus of the Canon.

Jesus did NOT write the NT Canon or any book in it---Joseph Smith wrote ABOUT JESUS in the MORMON Bible.

Joseph Smith was NOT rejected and killed by his own followers.

The Mormons BELIEVE the Jesus stories in the Mormon Bible.

When Joseph Smith was Shot and KILLED the MORMON BIBLE was already WRITTEN and Circulated.

When the supposed HJ was crucified there was NOTHING written of him or by him

We KNOW who started Mormonism. We KNOW who wrote stories about Jesus in the Mormon Bible.

The authors of the Jesus stories in the NT Canon are UNKNOWN but people of antiquity BELIEVED the stories and FORMED CULTS based on the Jesus stories of the UNKNOWN authors.

Joseph Smith is simply a KNOWN author of Jesus stories found in the Mormon Bible that MORMONS BELIEVE.

It is CLEAR that people of Antiquity BELIEVED the Jesus story FOUND in gMark or a similar source.

The story of the Baptism, Temptation, the Miracles, walking on water, the transfiguration, crucifixion, and resurrection of Jesus was BELIEVED in antiquity PRECISELY as people do today--PRECISELY as people BELIEVE the stories in the MORMON Bible.

Regardless of the source for the Mormon Bible and the NT Canon it is the STORIES about Jesus the People BELIEVE.

No human Jesus could have done the things in the stories in Joseph Smith's Mormon Bible and the Unknown authored NT Canon.

ALL we have are FICTIONAL and Implausible STORIES of Jesus and we KNOW PEOPLE BELIEVE them.

1. To me it sounds like the opposite positions are artificial and are part of the problem. This type of problem is found all over philosophy, were people back themselves into a corner over definitions. There are defensible (and ultimately boring) positions between the extremes.

2. We know that many, if not most of the accounts of Jesus are mythological. It is completely valid to say that the "Jesus of miracle X, Y, Z" is a myth, regardless if there was a guy named 'Jesus' walking around.

3. The existence of a man named Jesus is irrelevant unless it leads to evidence of his divine origin but since this can never be established with text, so the issue moot.

4. The reason people care all about a historic Jesus is if they assume that such a person was actually divine but there is no rational reason to make this assumption.

Mandelbrot · 06-03-2012, 08:35 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mountainman

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mandelbrot

Spin Ubu spin.

Can anyone translate Mandlebrot's statement?

Ubu

Spin

Yellum Notnef · 06-03-2012, 08:45 AM

You guys should play a different game for a while. Chess maybe?

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

06-03-2012, 07:34 AM	#94
aa5874 Contributor Join Date: Feb 2006 Location: the fringe of the caribbean Posts: 18,988	It is most mind-boggling that a simple term like "an historical Jesus" is so confusing to people here. It is most remarkable that some that have been on this forum have ZERO understanding of the meaning of an HJ. An Historical Jesus simply means that there was a real human Jesus. People who argue for an HJ believe that they can show that there was a real human Jesus in Galilee when Pilate was Governor of Judea. The Myth Jesus theory is Simply the Opposite or counter-argument to an HJ--THERE WAS NO REAL HUMAN character called Jesus in the time of Pilate. There is really NO comparison between Joseph Smith and Jesus of the Canon. Jesus did NOT write the NT Canon or any book in it---Joseph Smith wrote ABOUT JESUS in the MORMON Bible. Joseph Smith was NOT rejected and killed by his own followers. The Mormons BELIEVE the Jesus stories in the Mormon Bible. When Joseph Smith was Shot and KILLED the MORMON BIBLE was already WRITTEN and Circulated. When the supposed HJ was crucified there was NOTHING written of him or by him We KNOW who started Mormonism. We KNOW who wrote stories about Jesus in the Mormon Bible. The authors of the Jesus stories in the NT Canon are UNKNOWN but people of antiquity BELIEVED the stories and FORMED CULTS based on the Jesus stories of the UNKNOWN authors. Joseph Smith is simply a KNOWN author of Jesus stories found in the Mormon Bible that MORMONS BELIEVE. It is CLEAR that people of Antiquity BELIEVED the Jesus story FOUND in gMark or a similar source. The story of the Baptism, Temptation, the Miracles, walking on water, the transfiguration, crucifixion, and resurrection of Jesus was BELIEVED in antiquity PRECISELY as people do today--PRECISELY as people BELIEVE the stories in the MORMON Bible. Regardless of the source for the Mormon Bible and the NT Canon it is the STORIES about Jesus the People BELIEVE. No human Jesus could have done the things in the stories in Joseph Smith's Mormon Bible and the Unknown authored NT Canon. ALL we have are FICTIONAL and Implausible STORIES of Jesus and we KNOW PEOPLE BELIEVE them.

06-03-2012, 08:45 AM	#100
Yellum Notnef Banned Join Date: Sep 2002 Location: Gone Posts: 4,676	You guys should play a different game for a while. Chess maybe?

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.