rodahi

IntenSity: If there is anything historical about the Jesus story in Mark, what is it? Considering Mark doesnt even tell us whether Jesus was born etc.

I have already gone over this. I see no good reason to presume that Jesus is a fictional character based on the Marcan narrative. Why disbelieve that a Jewish peasant from Galilee performed magical acts and proclaimed himself a prophet? Why disbelieve that he had brothers and sisters? Why disbelieve that he got along with virtually no one and quarreled with just about anyone who would speak to him: his family, disciples, other Jews? Why disbelieve that he was executed by the Romans? Why disbelieve that Jesus was considered insane by his mother and brothers and sisters? Why disbelieve that his fellow Jews thought he was possessed by a demon? Why disbelieve that some of his own people ran him away from their region? Why disbelieve that he was sometimes unsuccessful with his magic, especially with people from his own hometown?

Mark's narrative does NOT seem to be the portrait of a fictional hero. But, perhaps it is. It seems only you KNOW for sure.

Ted Hoffman

Rodahi
WHY BELIEVE?
because it is written?
Because its easy to believe?
Because its difficult to disbelieve?
because they are narrated as historical?

Why disbelieve that a Jewish peasant from Galilee performed magical acts and proclaimed himself a prophet?
Because there is no evidence outside the Gospels that corroborates the claim.
Because Mark is NOT a reliable writer. We cant tell when he is narrating fiction from when he is telling fiction.
If I tell you that "there was a man who lived in New York who owned a business at a lower Manhattan street and who would touch the sick and they got healed immediately. He also raised the dead back to life". Which parts of the story would you say/ think are fiction?

Why disbelieve that he had brothers and sisters?
Why believe that he did? Do I believe just because Mark wrote it?

Why disbelieve that he got along with virtually no one and quarreled with just about anyone who would speak to him: his family, disciples, other Jews?
Why believe?

Why disbelieve that he was executed by the Romans?
Why believe?

Why disbelieve that Jesus was considered insane by his mother and brothers and sisters?
Why believe?
Why disbelieve that his fellow Jews thought he was possessed by a demon?
Why believe?
Why disbelieve that some of his own people ran him away from their region?
Why believe?
Why disbelieve that he was sometimes unsuccessful with his magic, especially with people from his own hometown?
Why believe?

I have demonstrated clearly which parts I disbelieve and you have agreed with me that they are not beleivable and added that Mark was superstitious etc, then you have abandoned that (without getting round to fully addressing the sections I do not believe and now you are asking one big question: WHY DISBELIEVE? And I am asking back, WHY BELIEVE?

As a simple rule, I dont believe everything I read, ESPECIALLY when they are religious writings.
Why do you believe in a book that is obviously NOT narrating things as they happened? Why do you feel compelled to wade through the neck-high swamp of myth just to glean an drop of history? And then tenaciously fight for the historicity of that fragment of history?
Of what value is a drop of history in a sea of myth? Do you want to believe that bad?
If thats the case, I wont begrudge you of your pearl. But remember, I could also open Exodus and ask you why you do NOT believe in the story (by the way, do you?)

My point is this: IN EVERY MYTH, THERE IS ALWAYS SOMETHING BELEIVABLE, that does NOT in itself mean the myths have any HISTORICAL VALUE.
It is NOT enough to pick something beleivable in a sea of myth and shove it in our face and ask, why disbelieve this?
It is naive to beleive something just because its plausible. We must consider surrounding context, the purpose for writing the story etc.

[ July 30, 2002: Message edited by: IntenSity ]</p>

Ted Hoffman

&lt;wipes tears from his eyes&gt;

2. I don't "dislike [IntenSity's]committed approach". You have missed my point. I don't like dogmatism.
This was very funny Rodahi. Thanks for making me laugh.

And I am very flattered Agnost1 thinks I have a "comitted approach" that just sounds great. Its been long since I heard a compliment from these boards.

getting serious...

To be totally honest, I don't know what IntenSity has done to arrive at his opinion.
This is a good thing; being honest about your ignorance.

With respect to my opinion, it has come after about 25 years of hard thinking and a great deal or reading. But, as I keep saying, I prefer the scientific approach, not the dogmatic one.
From my debate with you, anyone who makes an assertion without supporting it is quickly labelled "dogmatic". I think you have a very incorrect concept about what constitutes "dogmatic". Behind dogma is the expectation of acceptance without question and even "force". I havdnt made my opinion unquestionable and I have not threatened you or even insulted you. So how can you regard me as dogmatic?
What have I done to qualify as "dogmatic"?

Agnos1 said: Maybe, as an Atheist, he doesn't like straddling the fence when he deems the evidence sufficient not to do so.

Rodahi responded: I presume that atheists and non-atheists alike formulate their opinions based on what they perceive to be "evidence."

Agnost, you are right about me. Agnosticism is justified whenever there is insufficient evidence to make a decision/ take a stand. But it also affords one an opportunity to be lazy because one has nothing to stand for, nothing to defend. I have been wrong many times in my life and if I am wrong about Jesus' historicity, I will live with it as one of the things I have been wrong about in life.

1. You don't seem to understand what you are saying. Have you determined ABSOLUTELY that Jesus is mythical simply because there is little or no documentation of his existence outside of the NT? If that is the case, you are being illogical AND unscientific. You CANNOT absolutely demonstrate the non-existence of a figure using your criteria.
We dont need the ABSOLUTELY part. That is silly. We werent there. Look, the scenarion we have is this: no mention outside the NT. In the NT, its a swamp of myth. Why should we beleive its historical?
Remember that even after establishing ABSOLUTELY, we could still be wrong.

This is irrelevant to our discussion. AGAIN, we are discussing the figure of a human Jesus, not Christ the god.
The problem is, Mark doesnt say that. The god is the man.

No he doesn't. OTOH, he doesn't say he made it up either.
He doesnt need to. Dead people dont respond to commands. Its evident he made it up.

Go to <a href="http://www.Google.com" target="_blank">www.Google.com</a> and type in "exorcisms." It is pretty simple. Or better yet, read a few books on the subject.
&lt;runs a google check&gt;
None of the books that "support" exorcisms are scientific. They are either religious or pseudoscientific.
So you have no basis for asserting that exorcism may involve mad people calming down. Or voices of mad people being strange.

2. I am not interested in horror movies. However, you might watch The Exorcist to get an idea of what superstitious people think about the subject.
I watched the exorcist, you might also find The Entity very interesting. The Exorcist seems to have rubbed off on you. I have seen countless mad people and none of them have strange voices emanating from them even during "spells" when they become catatonic.
I am sorry if I seem to imply that you believe in exorcisms, but YOU said yourself that cases of exorcism have been documented. That meant assent on your part.

I consider Mark to be an anonymous narrative that may or may not depict a historical personage. I thought I had stated that very clearly. FYI, the word "document" merely means "provide information."
Huh, huh, you are getting semantic all over. A documentation is 1: confirmation that some fact or statement is true [syn: certification, corroboration]
To document is to record things accurately as they actually happen so that the document so created can be used as documentation.

NO, I do not think demons exist. I have stated this numerous times. You have a knack for ignoring much of what I have written.
I did not ask you whether demons exist.

Great. I have yet another opportunity to state that I do not think demons exist. By extension, if demons do not exist, people damned well cannot be possessed, can they?
I asked because you said exorcism has been documented.

Perhaps you don't see the naivete of your questions. I think it very possible that Jesus BELIEVED he had magical powers, even though he DID NOT
Why would anyone beleive he has amgical powers YET he cannot perform magic?

No. I don't think magic actually works. I think that I have said that enough times now so that you don't have to ask any more.
&lt;tears in his eyes&gt; okay okay. But cant really blame me, its you who has asserted that exorcisms have been documented. And that NOT all magicians are deceivers. That means you believe in Magic UNLESS you would like to withdraw the statement "NOT all magicians are deceivers"

I think it possible that the narrative contains both historical and non-historical material.
What is historical? the geographical phenomena? the demons? the pigs? or the magician?

How do you know that I am underating the writer's abilities?
You said: This is plain underration.

Coincidences or not, they DO NOT prove that Jesus is a fictional character
Nice prevarication. The question did NOT involve Jesus' historicity.

You don't seem to understand that fact. Perhaps you can explain why only a tiny fraction of secular scholars find the "parallels" significant.
You are now making an appeal to numbers? Are you that desperate? You cant support your argument on its own merit that you want to use numbers?
Oh Rodahi, I had no idea.

rodahi

I think you have made up your mind. That's fine. Perhaps in the future when you have read more and experienced more, you might decide to take a scientific approach instead of a dogmatic approach. Good luck to you.

rodahi

IntenSity: &lt;wipes tears from his eyes&gt;

Poor baby.

rodahi: 2. I don't "dislike [IntenSity's]committed approach". You have missed my point. I don't like dogmatism.

IntenSity: This was very funny Rodahi. Thanks for making me laugh.

I think your attitude is funny, IntenSity. Of course you are still insufferably dogmatic.

IntenSity: And I am very flattered Agnost1 thinks I have a "comitted approach" that just sounds great. Its been long since I heard a compliment from these boards.

Yes, you seem determined to draw attention to yourself rather than debate.

IntenSity: getting serious...

Now that IS funny.

rodahi

rodahi: To be totally honest, I don't know what IntenSity has done to arrive at his opinion.

IntenSity: This is a good thing; being honest about your ignorance.

Yes, I do try to be honest. Unfortunately, you flash ignorance between moments of naivete.

rodahi

rodahi: You don't seem to understand that fact. Perhaps you can explain why only a tiny fraction of secular scholars find the "parallels" significant.

IntenSity: You are now making an appeal to numbers? Are you that desperate? You cant support your argument on its own merit that you want to use numbers?
Oh Rodahi, I had no idea.

If you had actually read all my posts you would have possibly picked up on the fact that I have not attempted to make an argument. I have merely pointed out why being dogmatic is unreasonable.

rodahi

rodahi: No. I don't think magic actually works. I think that I have said that enough times now so that you don't have to ask any more.

IntenSity: &lt;tears in his eyes&gt; okay okay.

Sarcasm never becomes anyone in a debate, IntenSity. But, if you must be childish, so be it.

IntenSity? But cant really blame me, its you who has asserted that exorcisms have been documented.

Yes, cases of alleged exorcisms have been documented. I think you know that. I have explained quite clearly that I don't think demons exist. I have explained quite clearly that I don't think demons exist. I have explained quite clearly that I don't think demons exist. I have explained quite clearly that I don't think demons exist.

IntenSity: And that NOT all magicians are deceivers. That means you believe in Magic UNLESS you would like to withdraw the statement "NOT all magicians are deceivers".

Well, IntenSity, you certainly don't want to understand my point do you? I will explain it one more time for you: A person practicing the art of magic can believe his magic works and his trusting audience can believe that his magic works, even though there are no supernatural element involved. IF a magician THINKS his magic works (even though it does not in reality) and his audience THINKS his magic works (even though it does not in reality) then there is no deception. IF a magician KNOWS he is an illusionist and he KNOWS that his magic is nothing more than illusion, then he deceives a gullible audience IF they think he has performed a magical act.

If you still don't understand, let me know. I will try again.

rodahi

rodahi: Great. I have yet another opportunity to state that I do not think demons exist. By extension, if demons do not exist, people damned well cannot be possessed, can they?

IntenSity: I asked because you said exorcism has been documented.

I thought you understood after I had explained it many times that all exorcisms are possible ONLY if the magician AND his victim and audience are gullible and superstitious. There are numerous documented cases of priests, witch doctors, magicians, etc. performing exorcisms. That does not mean that demons were actually exorcised. It only means that millions of human beings THINK that they were. I DON'T THINK DEMONS EXIST.


rodahi: Perhaps you don't see the naivete of your questions. I think it very possible that Jesus BELIEVED he had magical powers, even though he DID NOT.

IntenSity: Why would anyone beleive he has amgical powers YET he cannot perform magic?

&lt;Big tears--from laughing out loud--in his eyes&gt;
ONE MORE TIME, magicians who THINK they can perform exorcisms and other magical acts APPEAR to perform exorcisms and magic WHEN their audience is gullible, superstitious, and trusting.
I presume you have never read about the power of suggestion.

rodahi

rodahi: I consider Mark to be an anonymous narrative that may or may not depict a historical personage. I thought I had stated that very clearly. FYI, the word "document" merely means "provide information."

IntenSity: Huh, huh,

Uh, huh.

IntenSity: you are getting semantic all over. A documentation is 1: confirmation that some fact or statement is true [syn: certification, corroboration]
To document is to record things accurately as they actually happen so that the document so created can be used as documentation.

You are the only person that I am aware of who KNOWS that Mark is fictional. Therefore, it does not surprise me that you won't accept how I meant the word "document."