Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Layman · 05-31-2002, 03:30 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Vorkosigan:
[QB]

ROTFL. This issue isn't whether Jesus existed. That's a red herring. The issue is to what extent the early writings reflect the reality of that existence.

While I understand that this may not be an issue for you, I fail to see why on earth you continue to deny that it's an issue of others?

Type in "Did Jesus Exist" into the Lycos search engine and you will get dozens of hits.

Layman · 05-31-2002, 03:34 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Toto:
I am an amateur at this, and I only speak up here to keep you theists from dominating the conversation and using this forum as a propaganda tool. But I try to do my best. Please show me one instance where I have propagated a falsehood. When I have made mistakes, I acknowledge them. Otherwise retract your libel.

Yeah. The SecWeb is in terrible danger of being dominated by Christians and used as their propaganda platform. So Toto--despite admitting that he doesn't know much--just has to carp about style and post endless references to amazon.com.

Vorkosigan · 05-31-2002, 03:42 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Layman:


That is precisely what you have been arguing here. You've been arguing that the lack of methodology and agreement among scholars demonstrates that we can't determine what Josephus wrote.

Now you disavow the entire focus of your previous posts. I'm not sure what to make of that.

I must not have been clear. I was differentiating between text criticism and methodologies intended to show that X claim is historically true. My fault.

Vorkosigan

Vorkosigan · 05-31-2002, 03:50 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Layman:


You have claimed there is no difference between the legend cycle of Jesus and that of Robin Hood.

Might you support this argument by providing a list of the sources commonly used to study Robin Hood. And the relevant information, such as date of composition, context, textual tradition, and alleged authorship.

Here is a good site to start:
<a href="http://www.geocities.com/puckrobin/rh/index.html" target="_blank">http://www.geocities.com/puckrobin/rh/index.html</a>

Veil is not "begging the question." Why is it that in the case of this one legend, suddenly historicity is regarded as the default status, when in all other myths of this nature it is routinely regarded as highly problematic?

Vorkosigan

Jayhawker Soule · 05-31-2002, 04:03 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Anunnaki:
Layman & Bede,

Why are you both here? You two are all alone and nobody here agrees with either of you. Your comedy team is very amusing, but why are you here if theres nothing to gain besides lost patience and wasted time?

Actually, leaving aside my attitude towards Layman's bedside manner, I think the discussion has been interesting. Certainly, it ranks above comedy.

Layman · 05-31-2002, 04:23 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Vorkosigan:


Here is a good site to start:
<a href="http://www.geocities.com/puckrobin/rh/index.html" target="_blank">http://www.geocities.com/puckrobin/rh/index.html</a>

Veil is not "begging the question." Why is it that in the case of this one legend, suddenly historicity is regarded as the default status, when in all other myths of this nature it is routinely regarded as highly problematic?

Vorkosigan

Sure she is. She's equating the evidence and literature about Jesus with that of the likes of Robin Hood. No one has demonstrated why any such equivalence exists.

You provided a link to a website about Robin Hood. Didn't see anything equivalent to the materials about Jesus. However, if you could provide a more specific link or discussion, I would be interested in it. At least as interested as I was in your Jesus Alchemy article.

Vorkosigan · 05-31-2002, 09:19 PM

Really, so you mean that the kind of analysis done by Campbell and others showing commonality of theme and development in dozens upon dozens of legends and myths has no validity? Both the Jesus legends and the Robin Hood legends, and King Arthur, and dozens of other myths, are produced and elaborated by similar social processes, with similar results. Of course, in other such collections of myth and legend, we assume its all fiction and then dig to see how it is related to the vastly different reality it sprung from. Only Jesus gets a pass on that. Can't imagine why.

Robin Hood is a good example of how some of those processes work. The myths from the 14th century reflect 14th century events and ideals, but the legend itself is traceable earlier. Some authorities identify Robin with individual bandits, other find the idea that Robin Hood was a slang term for criminal to be more congenial -- a term gradually come to life in song and story. Likewise, some try to identify Jesus with a particular figure, others believe he is simply a historicized mythical savior. Note that the second position, uncontroversial in other myths and legends, is suddenly radical in this one.

Vorkosigan

Vinnie · 05-31-2002, 09:24 PM

""""""""So you'd apply a HIGHER standard of evidence to the things you ALREADY BELIEVE are fiction, however, the Gospels get a pass in that regard because... um... they're old. And written in a funny language.""""""""""

No, I wouldn't word it like that. I'd go along with a view like this:

1. Bob comes over and says he saw a movie last night that I had recommended. We talked about some parts of it.

I have no reason to doubt what Bob says is true.

2. Bob comes over and says he went fishing yesterday. He said he only caught a few sunfish but that he had hooked a huge one. He said he had at least a 14 lb bass on the line but it broke away a few yards from the shore.

On this I am not sure of what to believe. I need more knowledge. Being a fisherman I know some people like to exaggerate. The 7 lb 12 oz fish becomes 12 lb and 7 oz. Yes, someone I went fishing with actually reversed the numbers like that on the way home and stopped to tell people. Now, if I have gone fishing with Bob I might know whether he exaggerates or not or I might have heard from others who fish with him that he exaggerates. A 14 lb large mouth sounds exaggerated in itself but its not impossible--especially if in a trophy lake. Its just rare to see one that big. Now if Bob is a world class angler in trophy likes I might think he could estimate the weight of a fish that broke the line with a "little" accuracy. But overall, I think it would be reasonable to conclude Bob had a somewhat large fish on the line and it snapped it.

3. Bob comes over and says he flew to Jupiter, the fifth planet from the sun, and took some nice close up pictures of Europa, Io and the Great Red Spot on Jupiter. Then he says he landed on europa and decided to do some ice fishing. He said he hooked a giant blob fish which dissolved into nothingness when he went to dehook it. The film also didn't come out right and his space ship was stolen and that is why he can offer no proof of the occurence.

Not only do I not believe Bob, I slap the snot out of him and tell him to quit imbibing psycotropic substances.

I agree that extraordinary cliams do require extraordinary proof but I would further state that anyone who posits Jesus was not a historical figure is the one making the extraordinary claim. But I would say the burden shifts if a Christian were to posit Jesus atoned for the sins of the world and rose from the dead.

"""""Why you expect coroborating evidence for every quasi-historical figure EXCEPT Jesus is a blantant example of how intellectually dishonest people like to try to play "connect the dots" after having already decided what picture they're going to "find".""""""

Actually, I posted 10 reasons why we should not expect to find any extra-biblical references to Jesus under the assumption of a very very very very very (beyond dispute) basic picture of Jesus. Some might contest "beyond dispute" but despite the efforts of Christ Mythers, other fringe groups and some here at II, its still considered "beyond dispute" in my book. If you can refute my reasons then please do so. But resorting to "you are intellectually dishonest" in a debate instead of addressing 10 lines of evidences I brought forward in defense of my claim is much closer to being "intellectually dishonest."

"""""There's no significant difference between the legend cycle of Jesus and the legend cycle of Robin Hood, excepting, maybe, that there's more evidence beyond the legend cycle for Robin Hood's existence. """"""

I know nothing about Robin Hood save the Kevin Costner version. Can you please summarize the "Robin Hood legend cycle"?

Vinnie · 05-31-2002, 09:32 PM

ooh, I found a discrepancy on that site:

""As you'll read below, someone fabricated a family tree for Robin Hood"""

Compare that to the contradictory genealogies of Luke and Matthew and we are on to something

""""I'm skeptical that there was a real Robin Hood. I think it is a mythic name like Santa Claus. You become Santa Claus when you put a beard on and give presents to children at Christmas. And you become Robin Hood when you're an outlaw, and live in the forest shooting the king's deer. That did happen."""""

Compare that with the copycat saviour myth found...

Seriously, from that site:

Quote:

Finding a real Robin Hood is quite a feather in one's cap. Several books and TV shows have claimed that Robin Hood was most certainly real. But this is sensationalism. We have few facts about any of the historical outlaws named Robin Hood. We aren't even sure that some of them were outlaws. But people manage to create seemingly convincing cases out of one line entries in court records and tonnes of speculation. Usually these arguments end up sounding like those TV specials on Nostradamus or alien visitations narrated by out-of-work Star Trek actors.

You know, I am reading E.P. Sanders book, The Historical Figure of Jesus, right now (have very few pages to go) and I see nothing like the arguments posed in favor of alien visitations or Nostradamus. Am I uncritical to the point of being blind? What gives?

Vinnie

Vorkosigan · 06-01-2002, 03:44 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by ilgwamh:

You know, I am reading E.P. Sanders book, The Historical Figure of Jesus, right now (have very few pages to go) and I see nothing like the arguments posed in favor of alien visitations or Nostradamus. Am I uncritical to the point of being blind? What gives?

Vinnie

Perhaps you should read the site carefully. It author identified some specific properties of those fruitcake works. Is the EP Sanders tome a TV special? Does it make a case for Jesus based on one line? Is it sensationalistic? If so, then you are being uncritical to the point of being blind. However, that does not sound like the EP Sanders I know....

Vorkosigan

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

05-31-2002, 09:19 PM	#77
Vorkosigan Contributor Join Date: Jan 2001 Location: Barrayar Posts: 11,866	Really, so you mean that the kind of analysis done by Campbell and others showing commonality of theme and development in dozens upon dozens of legends and myths has no validity? Both the Jesus legends and the Robin Hood legends, and King Arthur, and dozens of other myths, are produced and elaborated by similar social processes, with similar results. Of course, in other such collections of myth and legend, we assume its all fiction and then dig to see how it is related to the vastly different reality it sprung from. Only Jesus gets a pass on that. Can't imagine why. Robin Hood is a good example of how some of those processes work. The myths from the 14th century reflect 14th century events and ideals, but the legend itself is traceable earlier. Some authorities identify Robin with individual bandits, other find the idea that Robin Hood was a slang term for criminal to be more congenial -- a term gradually come to life in song and story. Likewise, some try to identify Jesus with a particular figure, others believe he is simply a historicized mythical savior. Note that the second position, uncontroversial in other myths and legends, is suddenly radical in this one. Vorkosigan

05-31-2002, 09:24 PM	#78
Vinnie Veteran Member Join Date: Apr 2001 Location: Waterbury, Ct, Usa Posts: 6,523	""""""""So you'd apply a HIGHER standard of evidence to the things you ALREADY BELIEVE are fiction, however, the Gospels get a pass in that regard because... um... they're old. And written in a funny language."""""""""" No, I wouldn't word it like that. I'd go along with a view like this: 1. Bob comes over and says he saw a movie last night that I had recommended. We talked about some parts of it. I have no reason to doubt what Bob says is true. 2. Bob comes over and says he went fishing yesterday. He said he only caught a few sunfish but that he had hooked a huge one. He said he had at least a 14 lb bass on the line but it broke away a few yards from the shore. On this I am not sure of what to believe. I need more knowledge. Being a fisherman I know some people like to exaggerate. The 7 lb 12 oz fish becomes 12 lb and 7 oz. Yes, someone I went fishing with actually reversed the numbers like that on the way home and stopped to tell people. Now, if I have gone fishing with Bob I might know whether he exaggerates or not or I might have heard from others who fish with him that he exaggerates. A 14 lb large mouth sounds exaggerated in itself but its not impossible--especially if in a trophy lake. Its just rare to see one that big. Now if Bob is a world class angler in trophy likes I might think he could estimate the weight of a fish that broke the line with a "little" accuracy. But overall, I think it would be reasonable to conclude Bob had a somewhat large fish on the line and it snapped it. 3. Bob comes over and says he flew to Jupiter, the fifth planet from the sun, and took some nice close up pictures of Europa, Io and the Great Red Spot on Jupiter. Then he says he landed on europa and decided to do some ice fishing. He said he hooked a giant blob fish which dissolved into nothingness when he went to dehook it. The film also didn't come out right and his space ship was stolen and that is why he can offer no proof of the occurence. Not only do I not believe Bob, I slap the snot out of him and tell him to quit imbibing psycotropic substances. I agree that extraordinary cliams do require extraordinary proof but I would further state that anyone who posits Jesus was not a historical figure is the one making the extraordinary claim. But I would say the burden shifts if a Christian were to posit Jesus atoned for the sins of the world and rose from the dead. """""Why you expect coroborating evidence for every quasi-historical figure EXCEPT Jesus is a blantant example of how intellectually dishonest people like to try to play "connect the dots" after having already decided what picture they're going to "find"."""""" Actually, I posted 10 reasons why we should not expect to find any extra-biblical references to Jesus under the assumption of a very very very very very (beyond dispute) basic picture of Jesus. Some might contest "beyond dispute" but despite the efforts of Christ Mythers, other fringe groups and some here at II, its still considered "beyond dispute" in my book. If you can refute my reasons then please do so. But resorting to "you are intellectually dishonest" in a debate instead of addressing 10 lines of evidences I brought forward in defense of my claim is much closer to being "intellectually dishonest." """""There's no significant difference between the legend cycle of Jesus and the legend cycle of Robin Hood, excepting, maybe, that there's more evidence beyond the legend cycle for Robin Hood's existence. """""" I know nothing about Robin Hood save the Kevin Costner version. Can you please summarize the "Robin Hood legend cycle"?

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.