Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Butters · 10-22-2002, 03:42 PM

Posted by Leonarde,

Quote:

Historians should take seriously just about
all claims of supernatural phenomena because even if a given one isn't historical the belief of the given adherents in the phenomenon can have a concrete historical result. Think of
the early tentativeness of Montezuma when he first found out about the Spaniards having landed.
His tentativeness and his later fatalism were inextricably linked to his belief that these Spaniards (Cortes and company) were the fulfillment of a religious prophecy/story about
light-skinned gods who would one day appear from
over the ocean. Even when the first Spaniards died
in combat with the Aztecs (thus proving to be mortal after all), even this apparently didn't shake some Aztecs out of their
awe of the Spaniards. The conquest of the Aztecs
would never have happened so quickly without the
religious element and the belief in the supernatural.
As to the merits of this or that supernatural claim, they must be taken on a case by case basis; any sweeping statements along those
lines are bound to be off.

Not so fast. Scholars should study supernatural beliefs in as far as to explore how that BELIEF affected them as you say above. This is a lot different that accepting that these beliefs are true. If we claim to be historians, and believe an account of supernatural events, then we must give the same credence to all other claims.

Butters · 10-22-2002, 04:11 PM

O.K. What about the info from this site?

<a href="http://www.secweb.org/asset.asp?AssetID=79" target="_blank">web page</a>

Should I accept the ascention of these men as well as Jesus, the documentation is much stronger for their stories.

Ion · 10-22-2002, 04:53 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by leonarde:
Ion,
It is difficult to imagine ANY realistic scenario
whereby the resurrection even if true would
be reported as such by today's history books.
As to Egypt and 'making the news': there weren't
foreign correspondents writing for newspapers in
those days: it required centuries more and the
invention of moveable type before a widespread dissemination of 'news' on a regular basis became
possible.

Cheers!

Again Leonarde, Matt 24:30 writes:
"...and then all the tribes on the earth will mourn, and they will see the Son of Man coming...".
It means that Jesus resurrection was promised to appear world wide in a obvious maner to "...all the tribes on the earth...".

Jesus, originally Yeshua, was a common name of that place and time.

The earliest known documentation of a Jesus of Nazareth performing miracles, is from the Bible.

The earliest mention of the Biblical Jesus is in a piece of papyrus containing a fragment of the Gospel by John, written in Greek about 125 A.D..
Most of the existing early texts for the New Testament date from 300 or more years after the time of Jesus. The First Gospel, by Mark, is thought to have been composed about A.D. 70.

The only historical mention of a Jesus outside of the Bible, is by the first century Jewish historian Josephus, who mentioned that a Jesus brother named James, originally Ya'akov, had been stoned to death in 62 A.D..

These writings about Jesus of Nazareth, aren't
"...and then all the tribes on the earth will mourn, and they will see the Son of Man coming...".
that's for sure.

All the tribes on earth didn't mourn and didn't see Jesus resurrected, otherwise they would have recorded it in their cultures:
Jesus resurrection, and side stories like Judas, would be -if true- the most formidable event in humanity, appearing to anyone world wide, worth noticing by "...all the tribes on earth..." and worth recording.

Looks like the person doing miracles was concocted on a small scale after he allegedly lived, by a cult that subsequently grew in importance.

[ October 22, 2002: Message edited by: Ion ]

Family Man · 10-22-2002, 05:43 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by leonarde:

You assume that these men were "gullible
hero-worshippers" whereas the situation that the
Gospel portrays post-Crucifixion is one in which
most apostles scoffed at the first reports of an
empty tomb (with only John and Peter running there after the women had made the empty tomb claim).

Cheers![/QB]

And you assume that second and third-hand accounts written about a supernatural event a minimum of 40 years after the facts by people with a vested interest in promoting their religion are actually writing the truth. And the Bible also portray these apostles as dolts who couldn't comprehend the simplest of Jesus's sayings and as waverers who questioned his divinity even though they allegedly witnessed his many miracles. These guys were such non-entities that only Peter is mentioned by name after Jesus's death. There's a reason why even Christian scholars don't proclaim the post-Resurrection appearances to be historical. The appearances aren't natural and the "witnesses" are laughable.

As for James, he didn't become a leader until after Jesus's death, right? Given all those miracles, it makes me wonder why.

Family Man · 10-22-2002, 05:53 PM

Leonarde --

Your claims about researching the supernatural border on the bizarre. As far as supernatural claims affect human behavior, the research is legitimate. Hence your Aztec example is apt. But to imply that truth of supernatural claims is researchable flies in the face of how modern historical research is done. I have repeatedly thrown down this challenge and it's been evaded every time: show us a supernatural event that is widely held by historians to be true, or even researchable. If you can't (and I know from experience you can't) they only one off here is yourself.

leonarde · 10-23-2002, 05:35 AM

Ion,
You raise a lot of disparate points, each of which
----to do justice to it---would require at least
a post. But just on the document thing: this isn't
unique to religious documents. It frequently occurs that a manuscript is of a later provenance than the text that that manuscript displays. This takes us into the whole
field of paleography: the study of ancient documents. In general terms, the record is
good for the preservation of the original text with minimal interpolations, deletions, additions.
Frequently when a change has been made by
a monastic scribe it is a (good-faith) attempt to
make sense of a text which apparently is meaningless to the transmitter. There are, of course, many instances (in the whole field that is)of inadvertent (usually small) errors in the
transmission (copying) of a text.

Cheers!

Steven Carr · 10-23-2002, 05:44 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by leonarde:
Ion,
You raise a lot of disparate points, each of which
----to do justice to it---would require at least
a post. But just on the document thing: this isn't
unique to religious documents. It frequently occurs that a manuscript is of a later provenance than the text that that manuscript displays. This takes us into the whole
field of paleography: the study of ancient documents. In general terms, the record is
good for the preservation of the original text with minimal interpolations, deletions, additions.
Frequently when a change has been made by
a monastic scribe it is a (good-faith) attempt to
make sense of a text which apparently is meaningless to the transmitter. There are, of course, many instances (in the whole field that is)of inadvertent (usually small) errors in the
transmission (copying) of a text.

Cheers!

<a href="http://www.bowness.demon.co.uk/reli2.htm" target="_blank">http://www.bowness.demon.co.uk/reli2.htm</a> has some examples of doctored manuscripts - doctored by Christians

leonarde · 10-23-2002, 05:52 AM

Posted by Family Man:

Quote:

Your claims about researching the supernatural border on the bizarre.

No, I think that, though I may be a bit inarticulate in the characterizations, historians
and archaeologists routinely try to discern
any kernel of truth----historical or psychological/mythological----in reports of supernatural events. Here at II, alas, as always everything is categorized in black-and-white terms: the naturalistic=true versus the (allegedly)supernatural=silly stories.

When one has very specific and very detailed accounts---as for instance in the instance of the
demoniacs of the NT whom I mentioned previously --- one can say that the account is probably based on a real incident: a purely imaginary or mythological story wouldn't need or bother with details (ie symptoms)that can be recognized by a modern psychiatrist/psychologist.

Cheers!

leonarde · 10-23-2002, 06:03 AM

Partial post by Family Man:

Quote:

And you assume that second and third-hand accounts written about a supernatural event a minimum of 40 years after the facts by people with a vested interest in promoting their religion are actually writing the truth.

Since I'm closer to 50 than to 40 years old, the
time frame you mention doesn't seem so awful: could the remaining members of "Camelot"
(the JFK administration)working only from memory
give us a good picture of what that administration
was like 40 years ago? I think they could. What
about if Robert McNamara, Arthur Schlesinger Jr.,
and several others have proteges whom they entrust
the writing to? (2nd hand accounts)I still think we would have a good idea of what happened. Would something be lost? No doubt. But the most important things should endure.

Cheers!

Capt_Drakes · 10-23-2002, 08:06 AM

The important things would endure, and probably be embellished.

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

10-22-2002, 04:11 PM	#82
Butters Regular Member Join Date: Jul 2002 Location: Houston Texas Posts: 444	O.K. What about the info from this site? <a href="http://www.secweb.org/asset.asp?AssetID=79" target="_blank">web page</a> Should I accept the ascention of these men as well as Jesus, the documentation is much stronger for their stories.

10-22-2002, 05:53 PM	#85
Family Man Veteran Member Join Date: Jun 2000 Location: Superior, CO USA Posts: 1,553	Leonarde -- Your claims about researching the supernatural border on the bizarre. As far as supernatural claims affect human behavior, the research is legitimate. Hence your Aztec example is apt. But to imply that truth of supernatural claims is researchable flies in the face of how modern historical research is done. I have repeatedly thrown down this challenge and it's been evaded every time: show us a supernatural event that is widely held by historians to be true, or even researchable. If you can't (and I know from experience you can't) they only one off here is yourself.

10-23-2002, 05:35 AM	#86
leonarde Veteran Member Join Date: Mar 2002 Location: North America Posts: 1,603	Ion, You raise a lot of disparate points, each of which ----to do justice to it---would require at least a post. But just on the document thing: this isn't unique to religious documents. It frequently occurs that a manuscript is of a later provenance than the text that that manuscript displays. This takes us into the whole field of paleography: the study of ancient documents. In general terms, the record is good for the preservation of the original text with minimal interpolations, deletions, additions. Frequently when a change has been made by a monastic scribe it is a (good-faith) attempt to make sense of a text which apparently is meaningless to the transmitter. There are, of course, many instances (in the whole field that is)of inadvertent (usually small) errors in the transmission (copying) of a text. Cheers!

10-23-2002, 08:06 AM	#90
Capt_Drakes Veteran Member Join Date: Mar 2002 Location: Ventura, CA Posts: 1,870	The important things would endure, and probably be embellished.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.