ISF Logo   IS Forum
Forum Index Register Members List Events Mark Forums Read Help

Go Back   International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » Religion and Philosophy
 


Welcome to the International Skeptics Forum, where we discuss skepticism, critical thinking, the paranormal and science in a friendly but lively way. You are currently viewing the forum as a guest, which means you are missing out on discussing matters that are of interest to you. Please consider registering so you can gain full use of the forum features and interact with other Members. Registration is simple, fast and free! Click here to register today.
Reply
Old 4th October 2019, 08:55 AM   #441
ahhell
Master Poster
 
Join Date: Feb 2017
Posts: 2,688
Originally Posted by Craig B View Post
The Christian scriptures say some things about Jesus that can't be true because they are impossible. But they also relate things that are perfectly possible, and some of them are inconvenient for the miraculous Jesus. Like his mother thought he was nuts, or that he had brothers called James, Joses, Simeon and Judas; and "sisters" too, plural and unnamed.

These things are not consistent with his mother being a virgin told she was giving birth to the Son of God. The Son of God is insane? The Son of God has at least six siblings? So the Biblical Jesus is a composite character with possibly true and certainly false incidents in his career. Based on one real or imaginary person? Or more than one? We don't know, but we do know that there is no single "Biblical" Jesus, except in the minds of literalist Christians.
Seems like a fair summation to me.

More importantly, if Mary thought Jesus was crazy, was she suffering from amnesia? Wasn't she visited by an Angel and a bunch of wise men in her youth telling her Jesus was the Messiah?

Personally, I think we can't ever really know but it does seem to me that the most parsimonious explanation is that the Story is wild exaggeration of the life of one or more real people. Get rid of the supernatural crap and the story just isn't that special or unlikely. A wondering preacher in the middle east irritated the Romans and the local elites and was killed for it.
ahhell is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 4th October 2019, 09:01 AM   #442
Craig B
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: May 2011
Posts: 22,829
Originally Posted by HansMustermann View Post
The differences are, starting from the most important:
I believe that there was a Solon, the meagre and late evidence notwithstanding, so I won't argue that point

Quote:
We don't have the same necessity for a figure beyond the grave that gave messages to Paul in visions and revelations. (And not just once.) People are perfectly able of inventing or hallucinating non-existent persons too. We don't need a historical Gabriel to explain who was talking to Muhammad in those visions of his in the cave.
Muhammad doesn't presume to tell us that Gabe had recently been on earth, was executed and restored to life. Nor that Gabe was of the seed of David. Paul does tell us these details about Jesus, so his visions of Jesus was not like Muhammad channelling Gabe. Though I'm sure they were equally inauthentic.
Quote:
The necessity for SOMEONE to have done SOMETHING to start Xianity stops at Paul, really.
Agreed. I don't think that Jesus intended to, or in fact really did, start a new religion. If he lived he was a messianic Jew preaching the imminence of the establishment of the kingdom of God. Paul turned elements of that into a new religion.
Craig B is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 4th October 2019, 09:11 AM   #443
MRC_Hans
Penultimate Amazing
 
MRC_Hans's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Posts: 22,320
Originally Posted by Ricardo View Post
Has anyone who recommends loving enemies existed?
Mahatma Gandhi comes in mind.

Hans
__________________
Experience is an excellent teacher, but she sends large bills.
MRC_Hans is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 4th October 2019, 09:33 AM   #444
Craig B
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: May 2011
Posts: 22,829
Originally Posted by Darat View Post
Not so sure what your point is? We know the biblical Jesus can't have existed and all fictional characters even super heroes have "everyday" attributes.
My point, to be understandable, requires acceptance that there is no single "Biblical" Jesus. The impossible one has a virgin mother told by angels that she would conceive the Son of God. The one with six or more siblings is inconsistent with the virgin born one. But they're both "in the Bible".

Last edited by Craig B; 4th October 2019 at 09:35 AM.
Craig B is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 4th October 2019, 10:57 AM   #445
Darat
Lackey
Administrator
 
Darat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: South East, UK
Posts: 88,015
Originally Posted by Craig B View Post
My point, to be understandable, requires acceptance that there is no single "Biblical" Jesus. The impossible one has a virgin mother told by angels that she would conceive the Son of God. The one with six or more siblings is inconsistent with the virgin born one. But they're both "in the Bible".
That's a pick and choose methodology, how do you decide which bit belongs to which Jesus?

My way is to look at the stories and when I do so I see stories about an impossible person. And we know impossible people can't exist apart from being characters in fiction. We also know this character lived in a fictional world, not our world, so everything about the character of Jesus is consistent with him being a fictional creation. There is absolutely no requirement and not a single piece of evidence that require an actual Jesus to have existed. Why then think there was one?
__________________
I wish I knew how to quit you
Darat is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 4th October 2019, 12:24 PM   #446
Craig B
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: May 2011
Posts: 22,829
Originally Posted by Darat View Post
That's a pick and choose methodology, how do you decide which bit belongs to which Jesus?
I don't need to in order to know that the impossible and the plausible Jesuses are both in the Bible. I look and I see the Virgin, in Matthew and Luke. And when I peruse Mark no virgin do I find, but I see the names of Jesus' brothers. Both these versions of Jesus are "Biblical".

Quote:
My way is to look at the stories and when I do so I see stories about an impossible person.
You also see possible stories
Quote:
And we know impossible people can't exist apart from being characters in fiction. We also know this character lived in a fictional world, not our world
Augustus Caesar and Pontius Pilate lived in this world, as with a high degree of probability did John the Baptist.
Quote:
so everything about the character of Jesus is consistent with him being a fictional creation. There is absolutely no requirement and not a single piece of evidence that require an actual Jesus to have existed. Why then think there was one?
There is ample writing from several authors. That's evidence. Which you reject in its totality, but it is evidence. The existence of that evidence needs to be explained. Maybe your explanation is right, that it is fiction like the novels of the period, composed by liars and imposed as truth on simpletons, for purposes of deceit. I'm not so sure. I think an authentic core is probable.

Last edited by Craig B; 4th October 2019 at 12:27 PM.
Craig B is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 4th October 2019, 05:39 PM   #447
dejudge
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Nov 2013
Posts: 5,062
Originally Posted by Puppycow View Post
Your evidence that he didn't?
What an absurd question. You should have known that things which never existed would never have evidence of existence.
dejudge is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 4th October 2019, 05:52 PM   #448
dejudge
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Nov 2013
Posts: 5,062
Originally Posted by Craig B View Post
There is evidence in the form of writings composed in the decades following his lifetime. You reject it as unreliable, but that doesn't mean it's not there. It is there, and it is evidence. Is it reliable? Certainly not wholly so. But to what extent do these sources contain real historical information? The person who says, such and such an event is probably true, is required to justify that assessment, but there is a similar requirement on the person who says it is probably false, and the means by which such assessments are made is critical analysis of the sources.
Are you claiming that the NT is a reliable historical source? The NT is evidence that the Jesus stories are fiction and implausible. All the miracles in the NT are fiction. His supposed birth, baptism and trial are all implausible.

Jesus was a product of belief never a product of history.
dejudge is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 4th October 2019, 06:42 PM   #449
Steve
Philosopher
 
Steve's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2005
Posts: 5,789
Originally Posted by Craig B View Post
I don't need to in order to know that the impossible and the plausible Jesuses are both in the Bible. I look and I see the Virgin, in Matthew and Luke. And when I peruse Mark no virgin do I find, but I see the names of Jesus' brothers. Both these versions of Jesus are "Biblical".

You also see possible stories Augustus Caesar and Pontius Pilate lived in this world, as with a high degree of probability did John the Baptist. There is ample writing from several authors. That's evidence. Which you reject in its totality, but it is evidence. The existence of that evidence needs to be explained. Maybe your explanation is right, that it is fiction like the novels of the period, composed by liars and imposed as truth on simpletons, for purposes of deceit. I'm not so sure. I think an authentic core is probable.
If part of the biblical Jesus story is obviously wrong how can you have any confidence that any of it is correct? The best you can say is that parts of the story are plausible for any individual that may have lived at that time. There is zero evidence tying those parts of the story to any individual.
__________________
Caption from and old New Yorker cartoon - Why am I shouting? Because I'm wrong!"
Steve is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 4th October 2019, 11:20 PM   #450
Craig B
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: May 2011
Posts: 22,829
Originally Posted by Steve View Post
If part of the biblical Jesus story is obviously wrong how can you have any confidence that any of it is correct? The best you can say is that parts of the story are plausible for any individual that may have lived at that time. There is zero evidence tying those parts of the story to any individual.
Every individual had brothers called James, etc? We have a statement to the effect that Jesus in particular had brothers of these names. The story is a) plausible and b) it contradicts the impossible virgin birth stories. It is therefore evidence whose existence requires to be explained. We have one proposal, that it's all intentionally concocted as fictional by wilful deceivers. Do you agree? If not, how do you explain the origin of this plausible material?
Craig B is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 4th October 2019, 11:26 PM   #451
dejudge
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Nov 2013
Posts: 5,062
The claim that parts of the Jesus story are plausible is rather useless and irrelevant when there is no historical evidence of his exstence?

If Jesus did live and was a deaf mute since birth would it be plausible that he spoke to or heard anyone?
dejudge is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 4th October 2019, 11:32 PM   #452
Craig B
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: May 2011
Posts: 22,829
Originally Posted by dejudge View Post
The claim that parts of the Jesus story are plausible is rather useless and irrelevant when there is no historical evidence of his exstence?

If Jesus did live and was a deaf mute since birth would it be plausible that he spoke to or heard anyone?
Where is there even a statement that Jesus was a deaf mute from birth? If there was a statement, we would need to,explain why it was made. But there is none.
Craig B is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 5th October 2019, 02:35 AM   #453
HansMustermann
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 15,765
Originally Posted by Craig B View Post
I don't need to in order to know that the impossible and the plausible Jesuses are both in the Bible. I look and I see the Virgin, in Matthew and Luke. And when I peruse Mark no virgin do I find, but I see the names of Jesus' brothers. Both these versions of Jesus are "Biblical".
The problem goes beyond what's possible and impossible. It's been mainstream biblical scholarship for a century -- I can link you Bart Ehrman saying exactly that, for example -- that only about 30% of the sayings of Jesus can plausibly be said by the same person, because they reflect fundamentally incompatible world views at the time. The problem is: WHICH 30%? Because you can cherrypick several mutually-incompatible sets of 30% that are self-consistent. Different biblical scholars cherrypick different, mutually-incompatible Jesuseseseses. You can cherrypick rabbi Jesus, fundamentalist Sadducee Jesus, etc.

We KNOW -- and again, it's mainstream bible scholarship, not some fringe nutcasery -- that several different persons (real or fictive author-inserts, so to speak) have been mashed up into our Jesus. Because, again, he says things that can't plausibly reflect the views of any single person at the time.

None of those are impossible. But WHICH is the real Slim Shady, if any? Well, that's where it would be nice to actually have some evidence.

Just picking what's not impossible just won't cut it, unfortunately.
__________________
Which part of "Ph'nglui mglw'nafh Cthulhu R'lyeh wgah'nagl fhtagn" don't you understand?

Last edited by HansMustermann; 5th October 2019 at 02:39 AM.
HansMustermann is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 5th October 2019, 04:29 AM   #454
Craig B
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: May 2011
Posts: 22,829
Originally Posted by HansMustermann View Post
... it's mainstream bible scholarship, not some fringe nutcasery -- that several different persons (real or fictive author-inserts, so to speak) have been mashed up into our Jesus. Because, again, he says things that can't plausibly reflect the views of any single person at the time.

None of those are impossible. But WHICH is the real Slim Shady, if any? Well, that's where it would be nice to actually have some evidence.

Just picking what's not impossible just won't cut it, unfortunately.
It cuts it for most scholars
The Christ myth theory is a fringe theory, supported by few tenured or emeritus specialists in biblical criticism or cognate disciplines. It is criticised for its outdated reliance on comparisons between mythologies, and deviates from the mainstream historical view.
link
Craig B is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 5th October 2019, 05:40 AM   #455
HansMustermann
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 15,765
There is a difference between fully Christ myth and just saying that the one in the bible remains a composite that never existed in that form, if you just remove the impossible stuff. Because no single person actually did or believed all that. As I was saying, the consensus is that about 30% is said by a single person. The latter is quite mainstream.

That said, yes, the biblical scholars still pretend that if you can cherrypick one Jesus, then that's the real Slim Shady, and you can ignore that other guys cherrypicked some 4 other fundamentally different Jesuseseses, that have just as little support for being the real thing. And nevermind that by sheer probabilities alone, in the absence of other evidence, your pick is PROBABLY not the right one.

But I guess that's the kind of aberrations you get when you're actually a subset of theology, you use an obsolete pseudo-historical method, but like to pretend you're an actual historian. Frankly, at this point the difference between bible studies and history is exactly like between astrology and astronomy. Quite literally: you can see why that methodology seemed valid at some point in the past, but nowadays it's just cute to hear someone practice the former and pretend they're the latter.

Which is also why I'm not entirely fussed by what passes for a consensus or fringe in a domain using an obsolete methodology.
__________________
Which part of "Ph'nglui mglw'nafh Cthulhu R'lyeh wgah'nagl fhtagn" don't you understand?

Last edited by HansMustermann; 5th October 2019 at 05:42 AM.
HansMustermann is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 5th October 2019, 06:13 AM   #456
clayflingythingy
Critical Thinker
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Posts: 435
HJ supporters,

Just curious, have you read Avalos' The End of Biblical Studies? If not, I suggest you do so as it helps illuminate how flawed "the consensus" may be regards HJ.

Have you extensively read Bart Erhman, both his popular books and more scholarly works? Leaving aside DJE, I would not at all be surprised if, upon retirement, Erhman announced his support for MJ or took an agnostic position. His broader body of work helps supports the MJ view IMHO.

Are you aware of what happened to Thomas L Thompson?

How much MJ literature have you read? Have you read Carrier, Doherty, Lataster, and Price?

Are you aware that mainstream HJ scholars have acknowled the Criterion of Authenticity are flawed? This eliminates the COE that seems beloved of HJ supporters.

Helms and others have demonstrated that the Jesus life moments in Mark's Gospel were taken from scripture. Mark knew so little of HJ history that he had to rewrite existing scripture. And Matthew plagiarized Mark so we can discount his having historical memory as well.

Mainstream scholars are moving to a second century date for Luke/Acts making it less likely Luke had access to real historical remembrance. Given the artificial agenda of acts there was never any reason to think it was offering up real history anyway.

I am waiting for the HJ work to be published that effectively tackles head on the MJ argument.

The Epistles have convinced me the Doherty thesis is correct. There is no smoking gun in the early Epistles that screams HJ.

In any event, the agnostic position is justified by the sorry state of evidence for HJ it seems to me.



Sent from my QTASUN1 using Tapatalk
clayflingythingy is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 5th October 2019, 06:47 AM   #457
Craig B
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: May 2011
Posts: 22,829
Originally Posted by clayflingythingy View Post
HJ

Are you aware that mainstream HJ scholars have acknowled the Criterion of Authenticity are flawed? This eliminates the COE that seems beloved of HJ supporters.
Give us sources, and a fuller treatment of this point please.
Craig B is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 5th October 2019, 08:03 AM   #458
dejudge
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Nov 2013
Posts: 5,062
Originally Posted by Craig B View Post
Where is there even a statement that Jesus was a deaf mute from birth? If there was a statement, we would need to,explain why it was made. But there is none.
There are statements that Jesus was born of a virgin without a human father and was the creator from the beginning . It is simply ridiculous to assume such a character existed and had the ability to walk, talk, hear and even see.

The NT provides zero historical evidence to show that character called Jesus of Nazareth was really human. There are statements that he walked on water for at least 3 miles.

No human being can walk on water.

The NT is about a non-historical character called Jesus of Nazareth invented after the fall of the Jewish Temple - after c 70 CE.
dejudge is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 5th October 2019, 08:31 AM   #459
Craig B
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: May 2011
Posts: 22,829
Originally Posted by dejudge View Post
There are statements that Jesus was born of a virgin without a human father and was the creator from the beginning . It is simply ridiculous to assume such a character existed and had the ability to walk, talk, hear and even see.

The NT provides zero historical evidence to show that character called Jesus of Nazareth was really human. There are statements that he walked on water for at least 3 miles.

No human being can walk on water.

The NT is about a non-historical character called Jesus of Nazareth invented after the fall of the Jewish Temple - after c 70 CE.
You're dodging my question. Who says Jesus was deaf mute from birth? Answer that, then go on about the other stuff.
Craig B is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 5th October 2019, 09:06 AM   #460
Steve
Philosopher
 
Steve's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2005
Posts: 5,789
Originally Posted by Craig B View Post
Every individual had brothers called James, etc? We have a statement to the effect that Jesus in particular had brothers of these names. The story is a) plausible and b) it contradicts the impossible virgin birth stories. It is therefore evidence whose existence requires to be explained. We have one proposal, that it's all intentionally concocted as fictional by wilful deceivers. Do you agree? If not, how do you explain the origin of this plausible material?
Yes, I agree with that proposal. The plausible material is so mundane that it is evidence of nothing. Just filler material to connect the unbelievable stories that are the point of the narrative. Many fictional novels have characters with brothers who are named. This does not make any of the stories more likely to be about actual people.
__________________
Caption from and old New Yorker cartoon - Why am I shouting? Because I'm wrong!"
Steve is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 5th October 2019, 10:04 AM   #461
clayflingythingy
Critical Thinker
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Posts: 435
Craig B,

Start with Morna Hooker article On Using the Wrong Tool. Also read Rafael Rodriguez article that is chapter 6 in Jesus, Criteria, and the Demise of Authenticity.

I also suggest The End of Biblical Studies by Avalos. I don't remember him addressing the criteria in the book (it's been a while since I read it) but it is an important read nonetheless.

Sent from my QTASUN1 using Tapatalk
clayflingythingy is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 5th October 2019, 11:17 AM   #462
Darat
Lackey
Administrator
 
Darat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: South East, UK
Posts: 88,015
http://www.google.com.au/url?sa=t&rc...kukhT92GXXtkeg
__________________
I wish I knew how to quit you
Darat is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 5th October 2019, 11:56 AM   #463
Craig B
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: May 2011
Posts: 22,829
Originally Posted by Steve View Post
Yes, I agree with that proposal. The plausible material is so mundane that it is evidence of nothing. Just filler material to connect the unbelievable stories that are the point of the narrative. Many fictional novels have characters with brothers who are named. This does not make any of the stories more likely to be about actual people.
Just to preclude the possibility of anyone adopting that view, I have already pointed out the non-mundane implication of Jesus having at least six siblings. Far from connecting the unbelievable stories, these siblings dispose of the eternal virgin doctrine, and make the begotten by the Holy Ghost dogma completely preposterous. Were Jesus' siblings also divinely begotten? This annihilates the Virgin story rather than connecting it to other absurd doctrines. I'm sure you can perceive this. Therefore your post is too fundamentally unsound to deserve further comment, or it would be even if it was a seriously-considered intellectual observation, which I don't believe for a moment.
Craig B is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 5th October 2019, 12:01 PM   #464
Craig B
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: May 2011
Posts: 22,829
Originally Posted by Darat View Post
Here's a passage from Morna D Hooker's work linked by you.
If we concentrate on the whole rather than the details, however, we shall find that we know quite a lot about Jesus, even though we may not be able to reconstruct with certainty any of his sayings or actions. It is clear, for example, that he spoke with impressive authority, even though there is considerable doubt about the exact form of all the stories demonstrating that fact. It is beyond question, also, that he taught in parables, however difficult it may be to reconstruct them, or to be certain about their original meaning. Few scholars, if any, have doubted that the centre of his teaching was the Kingdom of God – though what he might have meant by that phrase is a matter of dispute
By contrast, here is your view.
Originally Posted by Darat View Post
My way is to look at the stories and when I do so I see stories about an impossible person. And we know impossible people can't exist apart from being characters in fiction. We also know this character lived in a fictional world, not our world, so everything about the character of Jesus is consistent with him being a fictional creation. There is absolutely no requirement and not a single piece of evidence that require an actual Jesus to have existed. Why then think there was one?

Last edited by Craig B; 5th October 2019 at 12:06 PM.
Craig B is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 5th October 2019, 12:33 PM   #465
Darat
Lackey
Administrator
 
Darat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: South East, UK
Posts: 88,015
Originally Posted by Craig B View Post
Here's a passage from Morna D Hooker's work linked by you.
If we concentrate on the whole rather than the details, however, we shall find that we know quite a lot about Jesus, even though we may not be able to reconstruct with certainty any of his sayings or actions. It is clear, for example, that he spoke with impressive authority, even though there is considerable doubt about the exact form of all the stories demonstrating that fact. It is beyond question, also, that he taught in parables, however difficult it may be to reconstruct them, or to be certain about their original meaning. Few scholars, if any, have doubted that the centre of his teaching was the Kingdom of God though what he might have meant by that phrase is a matter of dispute
By contrast, here is your view.
And?
__________________
I wish I knew how to quit you
Darat is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 5th October 2019, 01:04 PM   #466
Craig B
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: May 2011
Posts: 22,829
Originally Posted by Darat View Post
And?
What message did you intend me to derive from your linked article? What did you intend your link to illustrate? That you completely disagree with it? MDH Supposes that we can know quite a lot about Jesus if we "concentrate on the whole". By contrast you, when you look at stories "see stories about an impossible person."

Which of these opposing views do you prefer me to embrace?
Craig B is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 5th October 2019, 03:37 PM   #467
Steve
Philosopher
 
Steve's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2005
Posts: 5,789
Originally Posted by Craig B View Post
Just to preclude the possibility of anyone adopting that view, I have already pointed out the non-mundane implication of Jesus having at least six siblings. Far from connecting the unbelievable stories, these siblings dispose of the eternal virgin doctrine, and make the begotten by the Holy Ghost dogma completely preposterous. Were Jesus' siblings also divinely begotten? This annihilates the Virgin story rather than connecting it to other absurd doctrines. I'm sure you can perceive this. Therefore your post is too fundamentally unsound to deserve further comment, or it would be even if it was a seriously-considered intellectual observation, which I don't believe for a moment.
I do appreciate you providing additional evidence that the dude in question did not actually exist. But It does make your argument even harder to follow.
__________________
Caption from and old New Yorker cartoon - Why am I shouting? Because I'm wrong!"
Steve is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 5th October 2019, 04:39 PM   #468
Oystein
Penultimate Amazing
 
Oystein's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Posts: 16,706
Originally Posted by Craig B View Post
...the non-mundane implication of Jesus having at least six siblings. Far from connecting the unbelievable stories, these siblings dispose of the eternal virgin doctrine, and make the begotten by the Holy Ghost dogma completely preposterous...
Uhm no.
Having at least six siblings is perfectly mundane - plenty of people in antiquity had at least six siblings.
Whether or not Mark writes about six siblings has absolutely zero effect on the veracity or plausibility of the eternal virgin doctrine or the Holy Ghost dogma: Both have zero plausibility and possibility, with or without the mention of six siblings.
__________________
Thermodynamics hates conspiracy theorists. (Foster Zygote)
Oystein is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 5th October 2019, 07:04 PM   #469
Craig B
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: May 2011
Posts: 22,829
Originally Posted by Oystein View Post
Uhm no.
Having at least six siblings is perfectly mundane - plenty of people in antiquity had at least six siblings.
Whether or not Mark writes about six siblings has absolutely zero effect on the veracity or plausibility of the eternal virgin doctrine or the Holy Ghost dogma: Both have zero plausibility and possibility, with or without the mention of six siblings.
No they don't. The eternal virginity dogma vanishes at once, and the idea that Mary had one divine child and also at least six mundane ones or that the Holy Ghost had his wicked way with Mary seven or more times, is laughable; and it is resolutely eschewed by the churches despite the plain message of the gospel texts.

You don't really think that this reductio ad absurdum has no implication for the plausibility of the doctrine. You're "jest kiddin'" In a desire to make a point at any cost about the alleged unreality of Jesus. Presumably because you believe that if you admit his historicity you will be mistaken for a Christian, which is nonsense.
Craig B is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 5th October 2019, 07:07 PM   #470
Craig B
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: May 2011
Posts: 22,829
Originally Posted by Steve View Post
I do appreciate you providing additional evidence that the dude in question did not actually exist. But It does make your argument even harder to follow.
No doubt you find my argument hard to follow. That doesn't surprise me at all.
Craig B is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 5th October 2019, 07:41 PM   #471
Steve
Philosopher
 
Steve's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2005
Posts: 5,789
Originally Posted by Craig B View Post
No doubt you find my argument hard to follow. That doesn't surprise me at all.
Oh, oh. Another towering intellect. Quite a few on this forum. I bow to your astounding amount of knowledge regarding an insignificant Jew who lived in the middle-east 2000 years ago. The amount of material written about that man by his contemporaries of course provides so much detail about his mundane existence.

So the dude had six brothers huh. What about the rest of the family - aunts, uncles, cousins? Surely someone must have counted them too. And what about sisters? Perhaps females were not worth counting in those days. Mom was obviously not a virgin, quite the busy little bunny in fact. Was her name actually Mary. Dad must have had a well paying job to support all those kids. Carpenter I hear. Probably union tradesman, but who knows. Not much was written about him.

You pick and choose irrelevant little details to support what you think happened with absolutely no way to determine if any aspect of the story is true and then present yourself as an expert. Your posts in this thread contain no evidence whatsoever. Just conjecture.
__________________
Caption from and old New Yorker cartoon - Why am I shouting? Because I'm wrong!"
Steve is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 5th October 2019, 07:55 PM   #472
Craig B
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: May 2011
Posts: 22,829
Originally Posted by Steve View Post
Oh, oh. Another towering intellect. Quite a few on this forum. I bow to your astounding amount of knowledge regarding an insignificant Jew who lived in the middle-east 2000 years ago. The amount of material written about that man by his contemporaries of course provides so much detail about his mundane existence.

So the dude had six brothers huh. What about the rest of the family - aunts, uncles, cousins? Surely someone must have counted them too. And what about sisters? Perhaps females were not worth counting in those days. Mom was obviously not a virgin, quite the busy little bunny in fact. Was her name actually Mary. Dad must have had a well paying job to support all those kids. Carpenter I hear. Probably union tradesman, but who knows. Not much was written about him.

You pick and choose irrelevant little details to support what you think happened with absolutely no way to determine if any aspect of the story is true and then present yourself as an expert. Your posts in this thread contain no evidence whatsoever. Just conjecture.
If reason fails, try provocation and disparagement. Why not? Because the evidence requires explanation as to its origin, and you attempt none. What if it is conjecture? Are all conjectures equally probable? Why should anyone mention Jesus' aunts? There's a "mother of God" in Christian dogma, but not an "aunt of God". Or by stating this am I claiming to be an expert again? On this point of expertise ... the gospels don't give Jesus six brothers; they give four. So at least you're not arrogantly presenting yourself as an expert reader of these texts.

Last edited by Craig B; 5th October 2019 at 07:59 PM.
Craig B is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 5th October 2019, 10:51 PM   #473
David Mo
Illuminator
 
David Mo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Location: Somewhere on the Greenwich meridian
Posts: 4,694
Originally Posted by clayflingythingy View Post
HJ supporters,

Just curious, have you read Avalos' The End of Biblical Studies? If not, I suggest you do so as it helps illuminate how flawed "the consensus" may be regards HJ.

Have you extensively read Bart Erhman, both his popular books and more scholarly works? Leaving aside DJE, I would not at all be surprised if, upon retirement, Erhman announced his support for MJ or took an agnostic position. His broader body of work helps supports the MJ view IMHO.

Are you aware of what happened to Thomas L Thompson?

How much MJ literature have you read? Have you read Carrier, Doherty, Lataster, and Price?

Are you aware that mainstream HJ scholars have acknowled the Criterion of Authenticity are flawed? This eliminates the COE that seems beloved of HJ supporters.

Helms and others have demonstrated that the Jesus life moments in Mark's Gospel were taken from scripture. Mark knew so little of HJ history that he had to rewrite existing scripture. And Matthew plagiarized Mark so we can discount his having historical memory as well.

Mainstream scholars are moving to a second century date for Luke/Acts making it less likely Luke had access to real historical remembrance. Given the artificial agenda of acts there was never any reason to think it was offering up real history anyway.

I am waiting for the HJ work to be published that effectively tackles head on the MJ argument.

The Epistles have convinced me the Doherty thesis is correct. There is no smoking gun in the early Epistles that screams HJ.

In any event, the agnostic position is justified by the sorry state of evidence for HJ it seems to me.



Sent from my QTASUN1 using Tapatalk
I've read Avalos, Price, Ehrman, Carrier, Doherty, etc. And others that you don't quote like Guignebert or Onfray. I have also carefully read Bultmann, Schweitzer, Dunn, Vermes, Crossan, Meier, etc. My opinion coincides mostly with the former, although I must draw attention to the fact that some of those you recommend to read are not mitists. For example, Ehrman.

These readings have given me a personal opinion that does not exactly coincide with anyone.
I think the whole problem hangs in the balance. There is no definitive argument for or against mythicism. The same things that are explained by the theory of the myth that arose from nothing are explained by the theory of a real character that has been mythologized a posteriori.
I am inclined to think that the second interpretation is more plausible, although I would not put my hand on the fire.

I think both sides put more passion than desirable.

Last edited by David Mo; 5th October 2019 at 11:41 PM.
David Mo is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 5th October 2019, 11:38 PM   #474
HansMustermann
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 15,765
Kinda my conclusion too. It makes a good case that Mythical Jesus is a plausible alternative, but it doesn't exclude it being, shall we say, inspired by one or more messiah claimants. Which I wouldn't call a "historical Jesus" mainly because they'd still be different from the guy described in the bible, but basically it still may or may not have had the divine Jesus expectations overimposed over some actual poor dead schmuck.
__________________
Which part of "Ph'nglui mglw'nafh Cthulhu R'lyeh wgah'nagl fhtagn" don't you understand?
HansMustermann is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 6th October 2019, 12:01 AM   #475
David Mo
Illuminator
 
David Mo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Location: Somewhere on the Greenwich meridian
Posts: 4,694
Originally Posted by HansMustermann View Post
Kinda my conclusion too. It makes a good case that Mythical Jesus is a plausible alternative, but it doesn't exclude it being, shall we say, inspired by one or more messiah claimants. Which I wouldn't call a "historical Jesus" mainly because they'd still be different from the guy described in the bible, but basically it still may or may not have had the divine Jesus expectations overimposed over some actual poor dead schmuck.
That's right. The problem arises when we try to separate what this hypothetical prophet had actually done and what is a mythical invention.
It is easy to remove all miraculous things. The same goes for the fabulous stories derived from the Old Testament and popular imagery. We can easily erase all contradictions and implausible data.
What's left?

Hardly anything. The sad story of a Jewish prophet executed by the Romans whose disciples hoped to see him return imminently to earth to triumph over his enemies.
David Mo is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 6th October 2019, 12:40 AM   #476
Darat
Lackey
Administrator
 
Darat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: South East, UK
Posts: 88,015
Originally Posted by Craig B View Post
What message did you intend me to derive from your linked article? What did you intend your link to illustrate? That you completely disagree with it? MDH Supposes that we can know quite a lot about Jesus if we "concentrate on the whole". By contrast you, when you look at stories "see stories about an impossible person."



Which of these opposing views do you prefer me to embrace?
I was providing a link to the foreword that dejudge mentioned but hadn't provided a link...

That aside nothing she wrote in that foreword (first time I've read it) is at odds with what I wrote and I don't see how you think it was?
__________________
I wish I knew how to quit you
Darat is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 6th October 2019, 12:59 AM   #477
Darat
Lackey
Administrator
 
Darat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: South East, UK
Posts: 88,015
Originally Posted by HansMustermann View Post
Kinda my conclusion too. It makes a good case that Mythical Jesus is a plausible alternative, but it doesn't exclude it being, shall we say, inspired by one or more messiah claimants. Which I wouldn't call a "historical Jesus" mainly because they'd still be different from the guy described in the bible, but basically it still may or may not have had the divine Jesus expectations overimposed over some actual poor dead schmuck.
Pretty much my view, I think I am slightly more dubious than you are about there being an inspirational bloke who was the origin of the many fictions, that's based simply on knowing how some religions did begin.

I think that the issue for those claiming Jesus was an actual bloke always fails on one particular point and that is there isn't one iota of evidence outside the bible that links (Craigb note the word links) anybody we have evidence existed not from the bible to the Jesus that Paul wrote about (and went on to became the Jesus of Christianity). Without that evidence of the link we have no need for a "real" Jesus to have existed.

For me personally it makes no difference whether a Jesus that inspired the stories in the bible existed or not as we know even if he "historically" lived he wasn't the son of a god, a gatekeeper to the life after death, came back to life, raised the dead, exorcised demons and so on.

And it actually makes no difference to the founding of Christianity because the Jesus Paul created is still a fiction regardless if Paul was inspired by someone who had actually lived or not.
__________________
I wish I knew how to quit you
Darat is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 6th October 2019, 01:00 AM   #478
Craig B
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: May 2011
Posts: 22,829
Originally Posted by Darat View Post
I was providing a link to the foreword that dejudge mentioned but hadn't provided a link...

That aside nothing she wrote in that foreword (first time I've read it) is at odds with what I wrote and I don't see how you think it was?
I thought it was meant to illustrate an opinion, but if it was to provide a link omitted by dejudge, thank you for it.
Craig B is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 6th October 2019, 01:16 AM   #479
HansMustermann
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 15,765
Originally Posted by Darat View Post
Pretty much my view, I think I am slightly more dubious than you are about there being an inspirational bloke who was the origin of the many fictions, that's based simply on knowing how some religions did begin.
Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying I have any degree of confidence in there having been some original poor dead schmuck. I just think it can't be excluded.

Kinda in the same way I can't exclude an alien observation post in the asteroid belt, or indeed a fine china teapot in orbit.
__________________
Which part of "Ph'nglui mglw'nafh Cthulhu R'lyeh wgah'nagl fhtagn" don't you understand?
HansMustermann is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 6th October 2019, 01:31 AM   #480
Craig B
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: May 2011
Posts: 22,829
Originally Posted by Darat View Post
For me personally it makes no difference whether a Jesus that inspired the stories in the bible existed or not as we know even if he "historically" lived he wasn't the son of a god, a gatekeeper to the life after death, came back to life, raised the dead, exorcised demons and so on.

And it actually makes no difference to the founding of Christianity because the Jesus Paul created is still a fiction regardless if Paul was inspired by someone who had actually lived or not.
I don't see that at all. If there was a person named Jesus who was baptised by John, went preaching, performed healing acts, such as are non miraculous and commonplace among charismatic preachers. In those days there was no medical science to refute that demons had been expelled from sick patients. And was arrested and executed following a disturbance in the Temple. A single person could have done these things, and if there was such a person called Jesus, that person is a historical Jesus regardless of the mythology that developed around his name in later times. King Arthur might have existed as a Celtic warrior even if the magic sword is mythology. The earliest notice of Arthur in literature makes no mention of that myth, even as Paul and then Mark know of no virgin birth in Bethlehem.

That presumed authentic core is what this discussion is about. Now the Jesus whom Paul created is truly a fiction and therefore the Christian religion is founded on that fiction, but that is not the same issue. Paul tells us very little about any human Jesus. To Paul Jesus as a supernatural being began at the resurrection. Paul even says as much in 2 Cor 5:16, though he acknowledged that the previous physical Jesus was born in a normal way, of human ancestry. Paul who invented Christianity, also accepted a historical Jesus and added a posthumous miraculous Jesus to the natural one, just as later mythographers gave a probably real Arthur a certainly fictitious sword embedded in a stone.
Craig B is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Reply

International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » Religion and Philosophy

Bookmarks

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 01:07 PM.
Powered by vBulletin. Copyright ©2000 - 2019, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.

This forum began as part of the James Randi Education Foundation (JREF). However, the forum now exists as
an independent entity with no affiliation with or endorsement by the JREF, including the section in reference to "JREF" topics.

Disclaimer: Messages posted in the Forum are solely the opinion of their authors.