Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Ted Hoffman · 07-31-2002, 05:36 AM

Quote:

I have yet to hear a satisfactory explanation for WHY an unsophisticated writer would create a story using a setting he is unfamiliar with "to satisfy multiple and sometimes conflicting ends.

This argument from ignorance reminds me from rainbow walking (no disrespect intended) when he was arguing that God made his dog rescue him because dogs have not been known to behave the way his dog did.
The fact of the matter is, HE DID write the story. Lack of an explanation why does not fabricate historical characters out of a myth.

Ted Hoffman · 07-31-2002, 05:40 AM

Aikido7

Quote:

If one side insists only on a literal reading of the texts (characteristic of both fundamentalism and secular rationalism) and the other side trumpets a mythological and metaphoric interpretation, then communication and understanding between the two sides will get nowhere.

Well, I have done the literal reading and I am firmly labelled as dogmatic.

rodahi · 07-31-2002, 06:37 AM

rodahi: I have yet to hear a satisfactory explanation for WHY an unsophisticated writer would create a story using a setting he is unfamiliar with "to satisfy multiple and sometimes conflicting ends.

IntenSity: This argument from ignorance reminds me from rainbow walking (no disrespect intended) when he was arguing that God made his dog rescue him because dogs have not been known to behave the way his dog did.

No disrespect intended, but I have not argued "from ignorance" and you are guilty of yet another false analogy. Another poster made a statement and I would like a satisfactory explanation. It is as simple as that. Please read very carefully what he said and what I said in response.

IntenSity: The fact of the matter is, HE DID write the story.

I agree. And it could recount incidents in the life of a historical personage. Of course, we don't know for sure, do we?

IntenSity: Lack of an explanation why does not fabricate historical characters out of a myth.

You continue to state that the narrative is a myth. Apparently, only you KNOW this. You might try reading Carl Sagan's The Demon Haunted World. In several instances, the late scientist makes the following statement after discussing what he thinks about certain claims: "Of course, I could be wrong." Have you ever thought of the possibility that you are mistaken? Or, what about presenting your views like this: "I think that Jesus is a mythical character because..."? That is what a reasonable, thinking person (a scientist, for example) would do. The Christian apologist has an excuse for being absolute and dogmatic. He MUST be. The person who takes a scientific approach can be reasonable and weigh ALL the evidence. He can then offer his opinion based on a careful analysis. I think the scientist should not be bound to dogma, nor should he make dogmatic statements. Of course, I could be wrong.

rodahi · 07-31-2002, 06:40 AM

posted July 31, 2002 06:40 AM
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Aikido7

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
If one side insists only on a literal reading of the texts (characteristic of both fundamentalism and secular rationalism) and the other side trumpets a mythological and metaphoric interpretation, then communication and understanding between the two sides will get nowhere.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

IntenSity: Well, I have done the literal reading and I am firmly labelled as dogmatic.

You have made dogmatic assertions.

rodahi · 07-31-2002, 06:45 AM

IntenSity: Rodahi,
As you have said, you dont care one way or the other about whether or NOT there existed a historical Jesus, so maybe you dont feel any "commitment" in this subject. If that is the case, I would suggest you bow out of the discussion (maybe there are interested parties waiting to swarm in once you are done).

Thanks for your suggestion. I think I will stick around and give my opinions as long as I think it is necessary.

IntenSith: But Vorkosigan has made it clear that its fallacious for you to conflate a persons' writing skills and creativity.

No, I have conflated nothing, IntenSity. It is your choice to ignore what I said and my explanation of it.

IntenSity: If that was your basis for asserting existence of a HJ behind Marks narrative, then I think you would be better off revising it.

Thanks for your thoughts.

rodahi · 07-31-2002, 06:52 AM

IntenSity: Your last straw is this:

Is this supposed to add something to a serious debate? It does nothing.

rodahi: I THINK it possible that, since the narrative presents a basically negative portrait of a Galilean peasant/magician, there in NO GOOD REASON to think the narrative is a work of fiction about a hero.

IntenSity: Let me address this:
"Negative portrait" means what?
I can conjecture that you are referring to Jesus' personality. Why would the people (including Mark)living then be interested in Jesus' personality? What would make his personality significant to them? You have yourself admitted they were very gullible and what made him popular was his "performances", NOT his personality. In fact, Jesus is the one who taught them about personality. Remember "good fiction" is very subjective.

How do you KNOW it is a work of fiction, IntenSity? With respect to Jesus' negative qualities, they are in the narrative for all to see.

rodahi · 07-31-2002, 06:58 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Steven Carr:
I wonder if Joseph Smith could have written such a complicated work as the Book of Mormon.

After all, reading it leads to the conclusion that he was not a very skilful writer.

Would you like to explain how this proves that Jesus is a fictional character? Doesn't it merely show that the narrative attributed to a guy named Mark COULD be a work of fiction SINCE a guy named Joseph Smith assuredly created the Book of Mormon. BTW, based on my understanding of Joseph Smith, he was highly intelligent. I have no idea if the writer of Mark was highly intelligent or not. If you have evidence that the writer of Mark was highly intelligent and capable of creating fiction on the level of the Book of Mormon, I would like to see it.

Layman · 07-31-2002, 07:01 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by IntenSity:
Layman,
I am disapointed that you could make such a weak "objecion" against the Jesus myth idea. I have seen you fare better in other debates..... Provide their arguments against the christ-myth position.

We are not interested in surveys or opinion polls. What we are interested in is rigorous discussion on matters regarding historical Jesus.

I think you misunderstood my point. I was responding to your question, not making a comprehensive case against the loony Jesus-Myth idea. You asked if there were scholarly treatments of the Jesus-Myth idea. I provided you with that information. There is only one that I am aware of. And I also provided you with the reasons why there are not many scholarly treatments of the JM fantasy -- because almost all real New Testament scholars think its loony.

Layman · 07-31-2002, 07:03 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Steven Carr:


Sorry about the wrong attribution. Perhaps Layman can get a statement somewhere by Michael Grant saying that he is an atheist.

My information comes from two sources.

1. Bede, who is a fellow Englishman.

2. A skeptical poster I respect and am on good terms with. She informed me that she had read he was an atheist.

Layman · 07-31-2002, 07:08 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Vorkosigan:

Layman, if you want to argue about mythicism, neither Grant nor Durant, for all their erudition, are relevant sources. I realize you like citing Grant, but he obviously did not do his homework. This was an old Nomad tactic, as if citing atheists was somehow effective against atheists -- a form of rhetorical sympathetic magic, using like against like.

I think you also missed the point. ISity wanted to know about scholarly treatments of the Jesus-Myth idea. I pointed out that they were uncommon because the broad consensus of scholarly opinion thought the idea was loony. The fact that this is true whether the scholar is a humanist, an atheist, a Jew, or a Christian certainly is relevant to showing that it's not a conspiracy of silence among terrified Christian scholars. Far from it.

Quote:

Far from being annihilated by competent scholars; mythicism, represented by the methodological crisis in HJ studies, has grown so profound that Luke Timothy Johnson can only recommend fideism at the end of his recent study of the HJ; since he knows full well that NT scholars have developed no methodology for separating legend from fact. Not their fault; no one else has either. Only the presence of outside historical vectors -- archaeology, other texts -- permits this. We currently have none.

You are really abusing LTJ, he's very clear that Jesus existed. He thinks that Paul's epistles alone prove that. Or the letter ot Hebrews. And the valid reconstruction of the TF.

Quote:

*Which reminds me. Re: your discussion on 'principal men' with PK, I ran it through War and Antiquities and found 58 instances, many unlinked to any city, including a few late in Ant.... So it looks like you are right on that score.

I appreciate that. Do you have a link to a place I could do such searches?

[ July 31, 2002: Message edited by: Layman ]

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

07-31-2002, 06:37 AM	#133
rodahi Regular Member Join Date: Dec 2000 Location: Weslaco, TX, USA Posts: 137	rodahi: I have yet to hear a satisfactory explanation for WHY an unsophisticated writer would create a story using a setting he is unfamiliar with "to satisfy multiple and sometimes conflicting ends. IntenSity: This argument from ignorance reminds me from rainbow walking (no disrespect intended) when he was arguing that God made his dog rescue him because dogs have not been known to behave the way his dog did. No disrespect intended, but I have not argued "from ignorance" and you are guilty of yet another false analogy. Another poster made a statement and I would like a satisfactory explanation. It is as simple as that. Please read very carefully what he said and what I said in response. IntenSity: The fact of the matter is, HE DID write the story. I agree. And it could recount incidents in the life of a historical personage. Of course, we don't know for sure, do we? IntenSity: Lack of an explanation why does not fabricate historical characters out of a myth. You continue to state that the narrative is a myth. Apparently, only you KNOW this. You might try reading Carl Sagan's The Demon Haunted World. In several instances, the late scientist makes the following statement after discussing what he thinks about certain claims: "Of course, I could be wrong." Have you ever thought of the possibility that you are mistaken? Or, what about presenting your views like this: "I think that Jesus is a mythical character because..."? That is what a reasonable, thinking person (a scientist, for example) would do. The Christian apologist has an excuse for being absolute and dogmatic. He MUST be. The person who takes a scientific approach can be reasonable and weigh ALL the evidence. He can then offer his opinion based on a careful analysis. I think the scientist should not be bound to dogma, nor should he make dogmatic statements. Of course, I could be wrong.

07-31-2002, 06:40 AM	#134
rodahi Regular Member Join Date: Dec 2000 Location: Weslaco, TX, USA Posts: 137	posted July 31, 2002 06:40 AM -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Aikido7 quote: -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- If one side insists only on a literal reading of the texts (characteristic of both fundamentalism and secular rationalism) and the other side trumpets a mythological and metaphoric interpretation, then communication and understanding between the two sides will get nowhere. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- IntenSity: Well, I have done the literal reading and I am firmly labelled as dogmatic. You have made dogmatic assertions.

07-31-2002, 06:45 AM	#135
rodahi Regular Member Join Date: Dec 2000 Location: Weslaco, TX, USA Posts: 137	IntenSity: Rodahi, As you have said, you dont care one way or the other about whether or NOT there existed a historical Jesus, so maybe you dont feel any "commitment" in this subject. If that is the case, I would suggest you bow out of the discussion (maybe there are interested parties waiting to swarm in once you are done). Thanks for your suggestion. I think I will stick around and give my opinions as long as I think it is necessary. IntenSith: But Vorkosigan has made it clear that its fallacious for you to conflate a persons' writing skills and creativity. No, I have conflated nothing, IntenSity. It is your choice to ignore what I said and my explanation of it. IntenSity: If that was your basis for asserting existence of a HJ behind Marks narrative, then I think you would be better off revising it. Thanks for your thoughts.

07-31-2002, 06:52 AM	#136
rodahi Regular Member Join Date: Dec 2000 Location: Weslaco, TX, USA Posts: 137	IntenSity: Your last straw is this: Is this supposed to add something to a serious debate? It does nothing. rodahi: I THINK it possible that, since the narrative presents a basically negative portrait of a Galilean peasant/magician, there in NO GOOD REASON to think the narrative is a work of fiction about a hero. IntenSity: Let me address this: "Negative portrait" means what? I can conjecture that you are referring to Jesus' personality. Why would the people (including Mark)living then be interested in Jesus' personality? What would make his personality significant to them? You have yourself admitted they were very gullible and what made him popular was his "performances", NOT his personality. In fact, Jesus is the one who taught them about personality. Remember "good fiction" is very subjective. How do you KNOW it is a work of fiction, IntenSity? With respect to Jesus' negative qualities, they are in the narrative for all to see.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.