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 6th October 2019, 02:04 AM   #481
David Mo
Illuminator
 
David Mo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Location: Somewhere on the Greenwich meridian
Posts: 4,692
Originally Posted by Craig B View Post
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.
Everything you write in the first paragraph is hypothetical. It could be. Or it might not be.
The question is how can we know whether or not it is. That is to say, it is a question of method: which method allows us to differentiate the real from the fictitious through some mythified stories?

The truth is that I don't see a clear answer for what you say in the second paragraph. How do we know if that hypothetical prophet had the fame of a healer or fame was added by the first Christians thirty years later? What if he was simply a prophet?
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, 03:10 AM   #482
Craig B
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: May 2011
Posts: 22,829
Originally Posted by David Mo View Post
Everything you write in the first paragraph is hypothetical. It could be. Or it might not be.
The question is how can we know whether or not it is. That is to say, it is a question of method: which method allows us to differentiate the real from the fictitious through some mythified stories?

The truth is that I don't see a clear answer for what you say in the second paragraph. How do we know if that hypothetical prophet had the fame of a healer or fame was added by the first Christians thirty years later? What if he was simply a prophet?
If he was simply a prophet he must have existed. If he was also a healer that doesn't mean that he had super powers, but it does mean he was believed to have existed by people who wrote about his therapeutic acts.

"Thirty years later" than when, by the way, if Jesus never lived?

Last edited by Craig B; 6th October 2019 at 03:17 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 6th October 2019, 03:31 AM   #483
HansMustermann
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 15,765
Originally Posted by Craig B View Post
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
And that's a big IF, as there are problems with even that.

1. For example a "disturbance in the temple", much less the attack in the synoptics, and much less the ARMED attack in John, would have been dealt with on the spot by the whole cohort of armed soldiers posted there as guards to prevent exactly that kind of thing from happening. There would be no last supper or anything.

2. It would also be a noteworthy event. Josephus even writes about some random schmuck who was arrested and beaten up for prophecising against Jerusalem on the STREETS. Which was significant for Josephus since the point he repeatedly is trying to make is that the the destruction of the temple and the coming of Vespasian as the messiah were God's will and prophecized ahead of time. Also, because the Jews had altered the shape of the temple. So any crazy guy speaking cryptic prophecies against Jerusalem was been of GREAT interest to Josephus as supporting his point. A guy even speaking in the temple against what the temple had become, doubly so before passover, and doubly so one actually prophecising the destruction of the temple like in John, would have been of even greater interest to Josephus. Yet apparently he's never heard of that Jesus guy.

3. But let's even talk about WHAT would Jesus even say against the temple there. Having merchants right in front of the actual temple (it was only in the courtyard, mind you) was just how it had always worked, and because what God through Moses had demanded that the people sacrifice there. There were all sorts of animals required for various sacrifices for occasions as mundane as that the wife had her period, and a peasant couldn't be expected to haul his own goat or whatever from Bethlehem to Jerusalem each time. A Jesus who accused the Jews of not keeping the laws of Moses had no real reason to rail against people buying a fresh required sacrifice right in front of the temple, in order to stick to the Law.

And it's not a view we find represented or attributed historically to any of the Jewish groups that people try to fit Jesus in.

The view that the whole temple is a house of a god, and any public affairs had to be kept outside was in fact a Roman not a Jewish view. Mark is accepted as having written in Rome, so, yeah, we can take an educated guess that the whole thing came from Mark not from any Jew named Jesus.

4. "if there was such a person called Jesus" is actually another thing that's not clear at all. Paul for example seems to say that his messiah got the name Jesus AFTER his death and resurrection. In effect he BECAME Jesus because of his sacrifice. It's his apotheosis name. Which as I was saying, is the same name as Joshua, the guy whose return as a messiah a bunch of other guys were awaiting.

So for all we know, the guy who inspired it all could have even been called Alexander, and people only started to refer to him as the returned Jesus after his death.
__________________
Which part of "Ph'nglui mglw'nafh Cthulhu R'lyeh wgah'nagl fhtagn" don't you understand?

Last edited by HansMustermann; 6th October 2019 at 03:48 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 6th October 2019, 03:39 AM   #484
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 .
The earliest sources Paul and Mark know nothing about this. The fourth evangelist John, whose Jesus is by now nearly a god and who makes him a creator from the beginning, twice calls Jesus son of Joseph and mentions no virgin. In sum, we can see these dogmas developing before our eyes.
Quote:
It is simply ridiculous to assume such a character existed and had the ability to walk, talk, hear and even see.
Won't do. Link me to a source that tells us Jesus was deaf mute. The virgin story in the later Synoptics can be explained as an attempted fulfilment of a misunderstanding of Isaiah 7:14. It needs to be explained because it's there; and it can be explained. Jesus as deaf mute isn't there as a source, so it doesn't need to be explained at all.

Quote:
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.
Then he didn't walk on water, same as his mother wasn't a virgin.

Quote:
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 reject the existence of Paul too? For Paul Jesus was in Paul's recent past, and in Paul's day the Temple still existed. Paul underwent purification there. So Paul lived after Jesus and before the destruction of the Temple. Therefore the Jesus story, authentic or not, predates the fall of the Temple.

Last edited by Craig B; 6th October 2019 at 03:45 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 6th October 2019, 04:02 AM   #485
HansMustermann
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 15,765
Originally Posted by Craig B View Post
You reject the existence of Paul too? For Paul Jesus was in Paul's recent past, and in Paul's day the Temple still existed. Paul underwent purification there. So Paul lived after Jesus and before the destruction of the Temple. Therefore the Jesus story, authentic or not, predates the fall of the Temple.
Paul undergoing purification in the Temple is from Acts, which is generally taken to be a work of fiction, not from anywhere in Paul's own epistles.

Paul only references the "Temple Of God" a couple of times (1 Corinthians 3:16-17, 2 Corinthians 6:16; Ephesians 2:21, 2 Thessalonians 2:3-4.) And it's pretty darned clear that he doesn't talk about the temple in Jerusalem at all. Let's go through them.

In 1 Corinthians he says, "Don't you know that you yourselves are God's temple and that God's Spirit dwells in your midst? If anyone destroys God's temple, God will destroy that person; for God's temple is sacred, and you together are that temple."

In 2 Corinthians he says, "For we are the temple of the living God."

And in Ephesians he says, "built on the foundation of the apostles and prophets, with Christ Jesus himself as the chief cornerstone. In him the whole building is joined together and rises to become a holy temple in the Lord. And in him you too are being built together to become a dwelling in which God lives by his Spirit."

And in 2 Thessalonians he says, "Let no one deceive you in any way. For that day will not come, unless the rebellion comes first, and the man of lawlessness is revealed, the son of destruction, who opposes and exalts himself against every so-called god or object of worship, so that he takes his seat in the temple of God, proclaiming himself to be God." Again, it's not clear why he would care about the temple in Jerusalem, since for him those following the Law only deserve death anyway, and only Jesus saves. Also since no leader of a Jewish rebellion would claim to BE God. It seems pretty clear he's talking about someone trying to present himself as god to his congregation and split it.

That's it. That's the only temple that Paul ever talks about. And if he ever felt a need to be purified before God -- which he never actually mentions -- I think it's pretty damn clear that THAT would be the only temple for him: the Xian church.
__________________
Which part of "Ph'nglui mglw'nafh Cthulhu R'lyeh wgah'nagl fhtagn" don't you understand?

Last edited by HansMustermann; 6th October 2019 at 04:15 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 6th October 2019, 04:04 AM   #486
HansMustermann
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 15,765
Also, I'm not addicted to quoting the Bible, I can quit any time I want to
__________________
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, 04:14 AM   #487
Craig B
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: May 2011
Posts: 22,829
Originally Posted by HansMustermann View Post
Paul undergoing purification in the Temple is from Acts, which is generally taken to be a work of fiction, not from anywhere in Paul's own epistles.

Paul only references the "Temple Of God" a couple of times (1 Corinthians 3:16-17, 2 Corinthians 6:16; Ephesians 2:21.) And it's pretty darned clear that he doesn't talk about the temple in Jerusalem at all. Let's go through them.

In 1 Corinthians he says, "Don't you know that you yourselves are God's temple and that God's Spirit dwells in your midst? If anyone destroys God's temple, God will destroy that person; for God's temple is sacred, and you together are that temple."

In 2 Corinthians he says, "For we are the temple of the living God."

And in Ephesians he says, "built on the foundation of the apostles and prophets, with Christ Jesus himself as the chief cornerstone. In him the whole building is joined together and rises to become a holy temple in the Lord. And in him you too are being built together to become a dwelling in which God lives by his Spirit."

That's it. That's the only temple that Paul ever talks about. And if he ever felt a need to be purified before God -- which he never actually mentions -- I think it's pretty damn clear that THAT would be the only temple for him: the Xian church.
So in your view Acts is fictional on this point. And Paul's epistles never refer to a Temple in Jerusalem, but are referring figuratively to the Christian Church. So when do you believe that the epistles were composed?
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, 04:17 AM   #488
HansMustermann
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 15,765
I have no idea when he wrote them. I'm just saying that he doesn't say he ever underwent any purification in the Temple Of Jerusalem. In fact, that he doesn't even mention the Temple in Jerusalem at all. Ever.

And given his views on the Law (see, Romans for example) and Jesus, it would seem very strange indeed if he ever felt a need to undergo any kind of Jewish atonement rituals. Jesus was the only atonement he ever needed.
__________________
Which part of "Ph'nglui mglw'nafh Cthulhu R'lyeh wgah'nagl fhtagn" don't you understand?

Last edited by HansMustermann; 6th October 2019 at 04:18 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 6th October 2019, 05:56 AM   #489
Craig B
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: May 2011
Posts: 22,829
Originally Posted by HansMustermann View Post
I have no idea when he wrote them. I'm just saying that he doesn't say he ever underwent any purification in the Temple Of Jerusalem. In fact, that he doesn't even mention the Temple in Jerusalem at all. Ever.

And given his views on the Law (see, Romans for example) and Jesus, it would seem very strange indeed if he ever felt a need to undergo any kind of Jewish atonement rituals. Jesus was the only atonement he ever needed.
Let me be clear. You believe that Paul's visits to Jerusalem happened following the destruction of 70 CE, and that it was at that time that Paul met James and Peter, or do you believe that he never visited that city and never met these people?
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, 06:25 AM   #490
HansMustermann
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 15,765
I believe his conversion at least must have been at some point before 40 CE, since in 2 Corinthians 11:32 he mentions that when he went to Damascus it was under king Aretas. Who died in 40 CE. And he went to Arabia first when he had his conversion.

That is IIRC really the only mention in Paul that can have any date put on it.

I'm just saying that his undergoing any purification at the temple is not a good argument.


That said, if you really want to discuss it, it's regarded as doubtful if Aretas ever actually controlled Damascus. Other than Paul and the novel that is Acts, nobody seems to have been told that he actually ever did. So that escape bit may be a later interpolation, or rather, retrofit from Acts. Or not.

Also note that cf Galatians 1 even Damascus is a whole 3 years before he actually goes to Jerusalem and stays with Peter for two weeks, and meets James (who apparently also had nothing to add to what Paul was preaching). So only God knows what he had been preaching while having all his information from a revelation and not getting ANY of it from any man. Whatever connection to an actual "historical Jesus" would be coincidental at best.
__________________
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, 06:34 AM   #491
dejudge
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Nov 2013
Posts: 5,062
Originally Posted by Craig B View Post
The earliest sources Paul and Mark know nothing about this. The fourth evangelist John, whose Jesus is by now nearly a god and who makes him a creator from the beginning, twice calls Jesus son of Joseph and mentions no virgin. In sum, we can see these dogmas developing before our eyes.
The NT stories of Jesus represent what people believed - they are not historical accounts. The claim that writings [falsely] attributed to Mark do not mention the the miraculous birth of Jesus without a human father does absolutely nothing to support his historicity.

All the Gospels are riddled with non-human and implausible events with respect to the character called Jesus of Nazareth.



Originally Posted by Craig B View Post
Then he didn't walk on water, same as his mother wasn't a virgin.
The earliest gospel and gJohn claimed Jesus walked on water [ a non-human event] so you are contradicting yourself when you reject his virgin birth because it was not mentioned by gMark.

Originally Posted by Craig B View Post
You reject the existence of Paul too? For Paul Jesus was in Paul's recent past, and in Paul's day the Temple still existed. Paul underwent purification there. So Paul lived after Jesus and before the destruction of the Temple. Therefore the Jesus story, authentic or not, predates the fall of the Temple.
Your claims about Paul are all without historical corroboration. The credibility of the Epistles cannot be substantiated at all. The Epistles are products of false attribution and known fiction.

The supposed writers called Paul were liars when they claimed to have seen Jesus alive after he was dead and buried for at least 3 days.
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 6th October 2019, 06:50 AM   #492
Craig B
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: May 2011
Posts: 22,829
Originally Posted by dejudge View Post
The earliest gospel and gJohn claimed Jesus walked on water [ a non-human event] so you are contradicting yourself when you reject his virgin birth because it was not mentioned by gMark.
I reject the virgin birth story because it is impossible. Even if it was mentioned by Mark I would reject it. However it is one of the elaborations of the Jesus story that was inserted subsequently to Mark. To Paul as you have said, "Jesus" as a supernatural being. appeared at the resurrection. To Mark, at the baptism. They need no birth stories and have none. To the later Synoptics Jesus appeared at conception. Earlier and earlier. To John he was with God at the creation. We can see this increasing supernatural singularity, and its retrojection in time, appearing before our eyes as we read later and later texts. Finally in postscriptural times Pliny tells us that Christians were singing hymns to Jesus as to a god, so apotheosis had been completed. But it took time to develop.


Quote:
The Epistles are products of false attribution and known fiction.

The supposed writers called Paul were liars when they claimed to have seen Jesus alive after he was dead and buried for at least 3 days.
So these sources are lies and fiction. That is clear. Thank you.
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, 07:40 AM   #493
HansMustermann
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 15,765
But again, something being not impossible doesn't mean it's true. It's not impossible that I'm the last Japanese ninja. It's not impossible that some nice Nigerian general really wanted to transfer 80 million dollars to my account. But neither is actually true.

And especially when you're dealing with a source which provably made up some 90% of the material, provably duplicated events, provably lied about how real people act, and provably at the very least rearranged the story into a a more literary format... let's just say it's naive at best to essentially claim that everything you can't disprove must be true. A more sane heuristic would be that, yeah, no, I'd want some extra evidence before I trust THAT guy. Because judging by the sheer number of lies and fiction he wrote in that story, I have reason to suspect two lies if he even says "good morning"
__________________
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, 08:01 AM   #494
Craig B
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: May 2011
Posts: 22,829
Originally Posted by HansMustermann View Post
But again, something being not impossible doesn't mean it's true
That's not what I was saying. I stated that things that are impossible are not true, which is the converse of the silliness you ascribe to me.
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, 08:20 AM   #495
HansMustermann
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 15,765
Well, conversely nobody said that a historical guy who inspired the bible story is flat out impossible. Even Carrier only argues that it's less probable, but certainly doesn't claim it to be impossible. So keeping on arguing that it's not impossible is not really bringing anything to the table.
__________________
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, 09:07 AM   #496
Craig B
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: May 2011
Posts: 22,829
Originally Posted by HansMustermann View Post
Well, conversely nobody said that a historical guy who inspired the bible story is flat out impossible. Even Carrier only argues that it's less probable, but certainly doesn't claim it to be impossible. So keeping on arguing that it's not impossible is not really bringing anything to the table.
You're not grasping this, evidently. A crucified Jesus is not impossible, so maybe he's authentic. Maybe. A virgin born Jesus is impossible, so he's not authentic even if Mark says he is, which in fact Mark doesn't say. That's my position.
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, 09:31 AM   #497
Darat
Lackey
Administrator
 
Darat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: South East, UK
Posts: 88,008
Originally Posted by Craig B View Post
You're not grasping this, evidently. A crucified Jesus is not impossible, so maybe he's authentic. Maybe. A virgin born Jesus is impossible, so he's not authentic even if Mark says he is, which in fact Mark doesn't say. That's my position.
Who claims a crucified Jesus is impossible?

Set that to one side, have we a candidate for this Jesus? One that is evidenced not from the biblical sources and what evidence links this JCrux to the biblical Jesus?
__________________
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, 10:03 AM   #498
Craig B
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: May 2011
Posts: 22,829
Originally Posted by Darat View Post
Who claims a crucified Jesus is impossible?
Darat says it
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? ... Set that to one side, have we a candidate for this Jesus? One that is evidenced not from the biblical sources and what evidence links this JCrux to the biblical Jesus?
Of course we have no such information among the tiny amount of stuff left to us from ancient times. The evidence is from many sources, but they have all been canonised into Christian scripture or are embedded in scriptural texts, like the Synoptic Sayings Source. They have to be sorted out by critical undertakings applied to the text.
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, 10:24 AM   #499
RecoveringYuppy
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 9,296
Originally Posted by Craig B View Post
Darat says it
No, he doesn't. He say that the Jesus described in the bible is impossible. But it's not the crucifixion that makes him impossible. Obviously, lots of people were actually crucified.

The resurrection on the other hand...
__________________
REJ (Robert E Jones) posting anonymously under my real name for 30 years.

Make a fire for a man and you keep him warm for a day. Set him on fire and you keep him warm for the rest of his life.
RecoveringYuppy 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, 10:46 AM   #500
Steve
Philosopher
 
Steve's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2005
Posts: 5,772
Originally Posted by RecoveringYuppy View Post
No, he doesn't. He say that the Jesus described in the bible is impossible. But it's not the crucifixion that makes him impossible. Obviously, lots of people were actually crucified.

The resurrection on the other hand...
Interesting how Craig B has read into Daratís words something that Darat did not say. I suspect he reads the words in the New Testament in a similar manner.
__________________
Caption from and old New Yorker cartoon - Why am I shouting? Because I'm wrong!"
Steve is online now   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, 11:03 AM   #501
Craig B
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: May 2011
Posts: 22,829
Originally Posted by RecoveringYuppy View Post
No, he doesn't. He say that the Jesus described in the bible is impossible. But it's not the crucifixion that makes him impossible. Obviously, lots of people were actually crucified.

The resurrection on the other hand...
No, that's what I say. Here is what Darat says, with my emphasis and comments where necessary
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.
Jesus is an impossible person, not "a possible person with some impossible things said about him in unreliable biographies". And impossible people exist only in fiction.
Quote:
We also know this character lived in a fictional world, not our world.
But Jesus was crucified in our existing world, albeit long ago, on the order of a person for whose historicity we have literary and documentary evidence
Quote:
so everything about the character of Jesus is consistent with him being a fictional creation.
There are no possible and impossible. Everything is consistent with him being a fictional creation. Therefore nothing is consistent with his real existence.

Last edited by Craig B; 6th October 2019 at 11:05 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 6th October 2019, 11:47 AM   #502
Darat
Lackey
Administrator
 
Darat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: South East, UK
Posts: 88,008
Originally Posted by Craig B View Post
Darat says it
I think you are struggling to keep the different Jesus's straight in your mind. The Jesus in the christian biblical texts is an impossible character, as you have also posted, no one can raise the dead, no one is executed and then returns to life and so on.

Originally Posted by Craig B View Post
Of course we have no such information among the tiny amount of stuff left to us from ancient times.
Why "of course"? It is astonishing what little bits of evidence survive down the centuries, some of it about the most mundane everyday lives of ancient people so it would not be fantastical for there to be an account preserved in some Roman record about a Jesus being executed. We have such information about other people being executed.

Originally Posted by Craig B View Post
The evidence is from many sources, but they have all been canonised into Christian scripture or are embedded in scriptural texts, like the Synoptic Sayings Source. They have to be sorted out by critical undertakings applied to the text.
As Hans has said - there is pretty much an endless numbers of Jesuses that you can create by picking and choosing as you do what bits are "fact" and what are fiction from the biblical Jesus.

So let's say we re-construct one of these possible Jesuses from the biblical texts. What that does not do is provide one iota of evidence that 1) such a "real" Jesus did exist and 2) that it is a description of the Jesus that inspired the origins of Christianity as we know it today.

You still need to have evidence that links your reconstructed assumed to be the real Jesus to the biblical Jesus to be able to say a historical Jesus existed.

Given we know that religions are often founded by their originators based on pure fiction I see no explanation for the origins of Christianity that requires an actual real Jesus to have ever existed. Indeed one could argue that it would be an exception for Christianity to have been founded based on a real person.

So until we have some evidence that requires a real person to have existed I'm happy with my stance that there is no evidence of a real Jesus who originated Christianity. If such evidence turns up then of course I would change my mind.
__________________
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, 11:49 AM   #503
RecoveringYuppy
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 9,296
I can't make sense of your post Craig B. In particular I can't tell if your words are meant to be your opinion or your (mis?)interpretation of Darat's words you are quoting.
__________________
REJ (Robert E Jones) posting anonymously under my real name for 30 years.

Make a fire for a man and you keep him warm for a day. Set him on fire and you keep him warm for the rest of his life.
RecoveringYuppy 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, 11:51 AM   #504
Darat
Lackey
Administrator
 
Darat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: South East, UK
Posts: 88,008
Originally Posted by Craig B View Post
No, that's what I say. Here is what Darat says, with my emphasis and comments where necessary
Jesus is an impossible person, not "a possible person with some impossible things said about him in unreliable biographies". And impossible people exist only in fiction.
But Jesus was crucified in our existing world, albeit long ago, on the order of a person for whose historicity we have literary and documentary evidence
There are no possible and impossible. Everything is consistent with him being a fictional creation. Therefore nothing is consistent with his real existence.
I really can't unpick what you are trying to convey in the above. Hopefully my post above this one will help you understand my opinions.
__________________
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, 12:08 PM   #505
Craig B
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: May 2011
Posts: 22,829
Originally Posted by Darat View Post
I think you are struggling to keep the different Jesus's straight in your mind. The Jesus in the christian biblical texts is an impossible character, as you have also posted, no one can raise the dead, no one is executed and then returns to life and so on.
I have also posted that people can have brothers called James, be considered insane by their mothers, and be executed. These gthings are in the BIble and are not impossible. So we have sources attributing both possible and impossible things to Jesus, which makes him a possible character with unreliable biographers. You say he's impossible, only belongs infiction, and not in the real world. You have said that;don't deny it. Now you say you would change your mind if required, which is odd to say about an impossible person who can exist only in fiction. What you are in fact doing is saying contradictory things that "cover all the bases" as the Americans say.



Originally Posted by Darat View Post
Why "of course"? It is astonishing what little bits of evidence survive down the centuries, some of it about the most mundane everyday lives of ancient people so it would not be fantastical for there to be an account preserved in some Roman record about a Jesus being executed. We have such information about other people being executed.
Yes, we even have the body of a crucified person. One out of how many? On the day of Jesus' Crucifixion we are told, with what degree of veracity we don't know, that four people were due to be put to death. Jesus, the thieves and Barabbas, who was allegedly reprieved. These executions were performed on a mass scale. What evidence is left to us?

We know how many legions there were, and how often soldiers were paid, so we know that millions of pay advice notices were prepared. Three examples survive, I have read, out of these millions generated over the centuries. We have the scanty debris of a vanished civilisation, that's all.

Last edited by Agatha; 7th October 2019 at 05:06 AM. Reason: corrected quote tags again
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, 12:31 PM   #506
dejudge
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Nov 2013
Posts: 5,062
Originally Posted by Craig B View Post
I reject the virgin birth story because it is impossible. Even if it was mentioned by Mark I would reject it. However it is one of the elaborations of the Jesus story that was inserted subsequently to Mark. To Paul as you have said, "Jesus" as a supernatural being. appeared at the resurrection. To Mark, at the baptism. They need no birth stories and have none. To the later Synoptics Jesus appeared at conception. Earlier and earlier. To John he was with God at the creation. We can see this increasing supernatural singularity, and its retrojection in time, appearing before our eyes as we read later and later texts. Finally in postscriptural times Pliny tells us that Christians were singing hymns to Jesus as to a god, so apotheosis had been completed. But it took time to develop.
You are only confirming that the NT is not historically credible.

The very account of the baptism of Jesus in gMark with the Holy Ghost bird is fiction.

Every event with respect to Jesus in gMark and the Epistles are either impossible, implausible, fiction or without historical corroboration.

The writers called Paul are liars and deceivers. These deceivers not only lied about seeing Jesus alive after he was dead and buried but also lied about hearing from him after he was deceased.

In addition, Acts of the Apostles in the NT, a most fictional account, although mentioning Paul over a hundred times shows no awareness at all of a single Epistle written by the Saul/Paul character.

The claim that Pliny the younger wrote about Christians does not corroborate that Jesus of Nazareth was an actual figure of history. You ought to have known that people were singing Psalms [songs] to their myth Gods for hundreds of years before and after people called Christians.


Originally Posted by Craig B View Post
So these sources are lies and fiction. That is clear. Thank you.
Why are you using sources that are clear lies and fiction to support your plausibility argument?
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 6th October 2019, 12:52 PM   #507
Darat
Lackey
Administrator
 
Darat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: South East, UK
Posts: 88,008
Originally Posted by Craig B View Post
I have also posted that people can have brothers called James, be considered insane by their mothers, and be executed. These gthings are in the BIble and are not impossible. So we have sources attributing both possible and impossible things to Jesus, which makes him a possible character with unreliable biographers. You say he's impossible, only belongs infiction, and not in the real world. You have said that;don't deny it. Now you say you would change your mind if required, which is odd to say about an impossible person who can exist only in fiction. What you are in fact doing is saying contradictory things that "cover all the bases" as the Americans say.
...snip...
This seems to be an emotive topic for you so perhaps that is what is preventing you from understanding what I have posted?

I'll try again:

In the biblical texts we have a Jesus that could not have been real because that Jesus dies and is resurrected (to use just one example of one of the impossible things about that Jesus).

Do you agree with that?
__________________
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, 01:30 PM   #508
HansMustermann
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 15,765
Originally Posted by Craig B View Post
Yes, we even have the body of a crucified person. One out of how many? On the day of Jesus' Crucifixion we are told, with what degree of veracity we don't know, that four people were due to be put to death. Jesus, the thieves and Barabbas, who was allegedly reprieved. These executions were performed on a mass scale. What evidence is left to us?

We know how many legions there were, and how often soldiers were paid, so we know that millions of pay advice notices were prepared. Three examples survive, I have read, out of these millions generated over the centuries. We have the scanty debris of a vanished civilisation, that's all.
1. The problem is that a Jesus whose only defining characteristic is that he got crucified, is not much of a historical Jesus. Because it's so generic, that by sheer probabilities alone, there'd be hundreds of other crucified Jesuseseseses. It's like identifying what novel I have in mind (War And Peace) by just saying "it's about Russia."

You have to narrow it down a bit for it to actually have any value.

2. And there start the problems.

For a start, which of the half a dozen or so cherrypickable Jesuseseseses is yours? What evidence do you have that it's your cherrypicking and not that of some other (and probably more reputable) scholar.

Second, most cherrypickable stuff would make him actually noteworthy. Sure, they didn't record everyone who was nailed, but for example Josephus made a point of mentioning (A) messiah claimants, because he was making the point that those were false, Vespasian was the real thing, (B) anyone speaking against Jerusalem or the Temple, for the same reason, down to mentioning a random peasant who did so, (C) conflicts with the Roman governors, because of the point he's making that the Jews were just another people, and weren't creating friction with the governors just because of being unreasonable religious nutcases on the whole, etc. A guy actually creating a major scene in the Temple? How'd he never hear about that one?

And that's not even counting other ancient authors who should have been very interested. Philo of Alexandria for example is THE guy who wrote the theology of John, namely the whole Logos thing being a second deity and firstborn of God. And around Passover he might even have been right there on site in Jerusalem. Don't you think he'd be VERY interested if someone claimed to BE his Logos, like Jesus does in John? Hell, even if the sect of some recent dead guy claimed that posthumously about their guru, don't you think he'd be interested?

E.g., the claim to be THE son of man, when that's in both Hebrew and Aramaic just a kenning for "man", and only exists as a special title in a foreign language and in apocrypha... don't you think SOMEONE would be interested in that kind of radically different theology?

3. Even the crucifixion as described in the Bible takes a massive leap of faith to take at face value.

It's a highly irregular proceeding that
- doesn't fit Jewish law,
- breaks Roman law in the process too (more than once: giving a body to a stranger was also a capital offense),
- doesn't fit the historical character of Pilate,
- doesn't fit the historical character of Caiaphas,
- is in the wrong place (turning Jesus unwittingly into a tropaeum, a symbol of VICTORY, by making it on the hill),
- breaks the law again by making an innocent carry the cross in a crucifixion procession,
- is for an offense that would have him killed or arrested on the spot instead of the next day, yet somehow Pilate finds nothing punishable about it
- has just one convict be given a different coup de grace than the standard Roman coup de grace, for no obvious reason, and nobody even asks why
etc.

And that's not including other details that require a leap of faith, such as that Jesus debates priests in the Temple and whatnot, but the next day they need to bribe Judas to identify the guy. Or that one of Jesus's followers actually commits assault with a deadly weapon, but I guess everyone forgives and forgets, because it is never mentioned ever again. Etc.

So did Mark know ANYTHING about that crucifixion? More importantly again, when someone writes a dozen things that are wrong about an event, why would you believe anything else about that event from him?
__________________
Which part of "Ph'nglui mglw'nafh Cthulhu R'lyeh wgah'nagl fhtagn" don't you understand?

Last edited by HansMustermann; 6th October 2019 at 02:31 PM.
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, 03:47 PM   #509
Oystein
Penultimate Amazing
 
Oystein's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Posts: 16,706
Originally Posted by Craig B View Post
Quote:
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.
Huh? Which they don't what? Are you saying the two doctrines do NOT have zero plausibility and possibility from the get-go? I.e.you think they have some non-zero plausibility and possibility from the get-go?

Originally Posted by Craig B View Post
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;
The eternal virginity dogma is laughable with 1 or 7 or 666 children.

Originally Posted by Craig B View Post
and it is resolutely eschewed by the churches despite the plain message of the gospel texts.
Now that's a problem of the churches. I was talking about the Jesus stories in the NT.

Originally Posted by Craig B View Post
You don't really think that this reductio ad absurdum has no implication for the plausibility of the doctrine.
But yes, yes I do think it has no implication for the plausibility of the doctrine.
The plausibility is zero with Jesus as an only child, and it is zero with Jesus having 6 siblings. It makes no difference.

Originally Posted by Craig B View Post
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.
Wowowowow, you do a lot of presuming. And you are presuming it all wrong.
You also lost the plot.
I wasn't making a point about the unreality of Jesus. I was making a point about the mundaneness (mundacity? mundanity?) of one gospel inserting six more children.
__________________
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 6th October 2019, 04:34 PM   #510
Craig B
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: May 2011
Posts: 22,829
Originally Posted by dejudge View Post
You are only confirming that the NT is not historically credible.

The very account of the baptism of Jesus in gMark with the Holy Ghost bird is fiction.

Every event with respect to Jesus in gMark and the Epistles are either impossible, implausible, fiction or without historical corroboration.



In addition, Acts of the Apostles in the NT, a most fictional account, although mentioning Paul over a hundred times shows no awareness at all of a single Epistle written by the Saul/Paul character.

The claim that Pliny the younger wrote about Christians does not corroborate that Jesus of Nazareth was an actual figure of history. You ought to have known that people were singing Psalms [songs] to their myth Gods for hundreds of years before and after people called Christians.
No doubt, but Pliny was commissioned to write a report about Christians specifically and he described what he learned through his investigation. Jesus was now a god. What happened hundreds of years previously was not what Pliny had been commanded by Trajan to investigate, so it is not relevant. And it is only a claim, that he conducted an investigation, is it? Pliny didn't exist and his report to Trajan is a Fiction concocted by a gang of unidentified miscreants for unknown purposes? Did Trajan exist? Perhaps his surviving coins are the work of a gang of forgers.

Quote:
Why are you using sources that are clear lies and fiction to support your plausibility argument?
I am using sources that YOU believe to be lies and fiction
The writers called Paul are liars and deceivers. These deceivers not only lied about seeing Jesus alive after he was dead and buried but also lied about hearing from him after he was deceased.
you have told me. It is significant that you believe the epistles were written by a gang of liars for purposes of deception. That is not a mainstream view, and it requires explanation which of course you don't provide. What is the origin and motive of this gang? What did they do with poor Paul, if Paul ever existed. Did he? Presumably he was just invented by the liars to cover their deceit. Then the disciples must be a gang of liars as well, and not honest but deluded, unless Paul invented them too. Did Cephas and James exist or are they also inventions? If so, who invented them? The Paul gang?

Last edited by Craig B; 6th October 2019 at 04:36 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 6th October 2019, 09:41 PM   #511
dejudge
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Nov 2013
Posts: 5,062
Originally Posted by Craig B View Post
No doubt, but Pliny was commissioned to write a report about Christians specifically and he described what he learned through his investigation. Jesus was now a god. What happened hundreds of years previously was not what Pliny had been commanded by Trajan to investigate, so it is not relevant. And it is only a claim, that he conducted an investigation, is it? Pliny didn't exist and his report to Trajan is a Fiction concocted by a gang of unidentified miscreants for unknown purposes? Did Trajan exist? Perhaps his surviving coins are the work of a gang of forgers.
You very well ought to know that the supposed Pliny letter to Trajan about Christians does not mention anyone called Jesus and does not claim Jesus was now a god.

In addition, it cannot be assumed that all people called Christians believed the Jesus stories when Christian writers admitted there were many heretics and heresies even since the time of Claudius.

Originally Posted by Craig B View Post
I am using sources that YOU believe to be lies and fiction
The writers called Paul are liars and deceivers. These deceivers not only lied about seeing Jesus alive after he was dead and buried but also lied about hearing from him after he was deceased.
you have told me. It is significant that you believe the epistles were written by a gang of liars for purposes of deception. That is not a mainstream view, and it requires explanation which of course you don't provide. What is the origin and motive of this gang? What did they do with poor Paul, if Paul ever existed. Did he? Presumably he was just invented by the liars to cover their deceit. Then the disciples must be a gang of liars as well, and not honest but deluded, unless Paul invented them too. Did Cephas and James exist or are they also inventions? If so, who invented them? The Paul gang?
It is quite illogical and utterly useless to assume Paul and Jesus were figures of history because plenty people believe they were.

You will never ever be able to present a single shred of historical evidence for Paul and Jesus from your mainstream or any other "stream".


Since at least the 4th century it was already known that Paul and Jesus were without historical corroboration by well known writers who mentioned events in the time of Tiberius and Claudius.

To historicise Paul and Jesus numerous writings were forged or corrupted.
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 6th October 2019, 10:15 PM   #512
Craig B
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: May 2011
Posts: 22,829
Originally Posted by dejudge View Post
You very well ought to know that the supposed Pliny letter to Trajan about Christians does not mention anyone called Jesus and does not claim Jesus was now a god.

In addition, it cannot be assumed that all people called Christians believed the Jesus stories when Christian writers admitted there were many heretics and heresies even since the time of Claudius.



It is quite illogical and utterly useless to assume Paul and Jesus were figures of history because plenty people believe they were.

You will never ever be able to present a single shred of historical evidence for Paul and Jesus from your mainstream or any other "stream".


Since at least the 4th century it was already known that Paul and Jesus were without historical corroboration by well known writers who mentioned events in the time of Tiberius and Claudius.

To historicise Paul and Jesus numerous writings were forged or corrupted.
This isn't a study of religious origins; it is a delusional conspiracy theory. Not only is evrrything a lie, but people don't even believe the lies, forgeries and corruption from which their religion was formed. This is a freakish marginal position, and it is not surprising that "plenty people" reject 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, 10:42 PM   #513
David Mo
Illuminator
 
David Mo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Location: Somewhere on the Greenwich meridian
Posts: 4,692
Originally Posted by Craig B View Post
"Thirty years later" than when, by the way, if Jesus never lived?
Thirty years after his hypothetical death.
What I was stressing was the difficulty of establishing the facts and sayings of Jesus the Galilean, even though we admit that the person existed.
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, 10:48 PM   #514
David Mo
Illuminator
 
David Mo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Location: Somewhere on the Greenwich meridian
Posts: 4,692
Originally Posted by HansMustermann View Post
And that's a big IF, as there are problems with even that.

1. For example a "disturbance in the temple", much less the attack in the synoptics, and much less the ARMED attack in John, would have been dealt with on the spot by the whole cohort of armed soldiers posted there as guards to prevent exactly that kind of thing from happening. There would be no last supper or anything.

2. It would also be a noteworthy event. Josephus even writes about some random schmuck who was arrested and beaten up for prophecising against Jerusalem on the STREETS. Which was significant for Josephus since the point he repeatedly is trying to make is that the the destruction of the temple and the coming of Vespasian as the messiah were God's will and prophecized ahead of time. Also, because the Jews had altered the shape of the temple. So any crazy guy speaking cryptic prophecies against Jerusalem was been of GREAT interest to Josephus as supporting his point. A guy even speaking in the temple against what the temple had become, doubly so before passover, and doubly so one actually prophecising the destruction of the temple like in John, would have been of even greater interest to Josephus. Yet apparently he's never heard of that Jesus guy.

3. But let's even talk about WHAT would Jesus even say against the temple there. Having merchants right in front of the actual temple (it was only in the courtyard, mind you) was just how it had always worked, and because what God through Moses had demanded that the people sacrifice there. There were all sorts of animals required for various sacrifices for occasions as mundane as that the wife had her period, and a peasant couldn't be expected to haul his own goat or whatever from Bethlehem to Jerusalem each time. A Jesus who accused the Jews of not keeping the laws of Moses had no real reason to rail against people buying a fresh required sacrifice right in front of the temple, in order to stick to the Law.

And it's not a view we find represented or attributed historically to any of the Jewish groups that people try to fit Jesus in.

The view that the whole temple is a house of a god, and any public affairs had to be kept outside was in fact a Roman not a Jewish view. Mark is accepted as having written in Rome, so, yeah, we can take an educated guess that the whole thing came from Mark not from any Jew named Jesus.

4. "if there was such a person called Jesus" is actually another thing that's not clear at all. Paul for example seems to say that his messiah got the name Jesus AFTER his death and resurrection. In effect he BECAME Jesus because of his sacrifice. It's his apotheosis name. Which as I was saying, is the same name as Joshua, the guy whose return as a messiah a bunch of other guys were awaiting.

So for all we know, the guy who inspired it all could have even been called Alexander, and people only started to refer to him as the returned Jesus after his death.
The anti-Mystist replies that perhaps the evangelists are swelling up what was just a heated discussion.
How can we know if it was like that or if it is a total invention of the evangelists?
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, 10:53 PM   #515
Craig B
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: May 2011
Posts: 22,829
Originally Posted by David Mo View Post
Thirty years after his hypothetical death.
What I was stressing was the difficulty of establishing the facts and sayings of Jesus the Galilean, even though we admit that the person existed.
At least, if he lived he had a date and circumstance of death. If he never lived, he had no date and no cause of death, or his imagined lifetime could have been in any period at all. As it is, his magic virgin birth stories disagree on the date of birth, Matthew says it was in the reign of Herod - who died in 4 BCE - while Luke puts it in the year of the Census, which was 6 CE. Ten years' discrepancy. In the gospels nobody even suggests a date for the crucifixion.
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, 11:05 PM   #516
HansMustermann
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 15,765
Well, I'm ok with the idea that maybe some guy -- who may or may not have been called Jesus -- was going to the temple with his pal Peter, and Peter slipped in some goat dung, to which our guy muttered that maybe those guys could just flippin' set their stall OUTSIDE the temple courtyard. And maybe 30 years later this got embellished to "yeah, he actually drove them out." It can happen.

My problem is that that's not the Jesus the Bible describes, even if you take out the supernatural stuff. So is it really a "historical Jesus"? If you change enough identifying attributes of someone or something, are you really talking about the same person?

My canonical example is Lovecraft's mad Arab called Abdul Al Hazred. We know who inspired that character. It's Lovecraft's mom. It's even based on her maiden name Hazard. But she wasn't a man, wasn't Arabic, didn't live in the 8'th century, as far as we know never found the ruins of an ancient city, as far as we know didn't actually write the Kitab Al Azif, a.k.a. Necronomicon, didn't die in Damascus, and we're pretty sure she didn't die by being lifted in the air and devoured by an invisible demon in front of a terrified crowd.

So my question to the HJ gang would be this simple question: would you call Lovecraft's mom "the historical Abdul Al Hazred". If yes, then I will cheerfully grant that there might have been a Jesus that was about that historical. If no, well, then that's my problem with that identification.
__________________
Which part of "Ph'nglui mglw'nafh Cthulhu R'lyeh wgah'nagl fhtagn" don't you understand?

Last edited by HansMustermann; 6th October 2019 at 11:13 PM.
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, 11:53 PM   #517
David Mo
Illuminator
 
David Mo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Location: Somewhere on the Greenwich meridian
Posts: 4,692
Originally Posted by Craig B View Post
This isn't a study of religious origins; it is a delusional conspiracy theory. Not only is evrrything a lie, but people don't even believe the lies, forgeries and corruption from which their religion was formed. This is a freakish marginal position, and it is not surprising that "plenty people" reject it.
Conspiracy theory is the weakest part of mysticism.
A hard core of counterfeiters would have built a god with a very different image. Suffering, he may be, but not humiliated in his dignity. Like a block and not with so many contradictions. As Abdul Alhazred, the Mad Arab.
The form of New Testament literature refers to a collective work with fissures and contradictions, with loose fringes and fillings, typical of the uncontrolled evolution of a folk legend. But a legend does not have to be the fruit of a conscious conspiracy, but a collective-popular creation. In that case there is no reason to suppose that this popular creation rests or does not rest on a real figure.

Last edited by David Mo; 7th October 2019 at 12:02 AM.
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, 11:59 PM   #518
David Mo
Illuminator
 
David Mo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Location: Somewhere on the Greenwich meridian
Posts: 4,692
Originally Posted by HansMustermann View Post
Well, I'm ok with the idea that maybe some guy -- who may or may not have been called Jesus -- was going to the temple with his pal Peter, and Peter slipped in some goat dung, to which our guy muttered that maybe those guys could just flippin' set their stall OUTSIDE the temple courtyard. And maybe 30 years later this got embellished to "yeah, he actually drove them out." It can happen.
You're very "optimistic". It may be possible to talk about the "historicity" of Jesus. Peter's, historicity and much more of his wanderings and speeches, seems to me so inevitably wrapped up in legend that to say whether or not it existed is pure speculation.
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 7th October 2019, 12:06 AM   #519
David Mo
Illuminator
 
David Mo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Location: Somewhere on the Greenwich meridian
Posts: 4,692
Originally Posted by dejudge View Post

You will never ever be able to present a single shred of historical evidence for Paul and Jesus from your mainstream or any other "stream".
This does not mean that Jesus did not exist, but that, due to his characteristics, he is not a "historical" character.

Keep in mind that the same criteria you use to affirm that Jesus of Galilee did not exist would disqualify the existence of a certain Thales of Miletus. However, no one doubts that such a philosopher existed. Where is the difference?
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 7th October 2019, 12:11 AM   #520
HansMustermann
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 15,765
Originally Posted by David Mo View Post
You're very "optimistic". It may be possible to talk about the "historicity" of Jesus. Peter's, historicity and much more of his wanderings and speeches, seems to me so inevitably wrapped up in legend that to say whether or not it existed is pure speculation.
Well, I did say "maybe".
__________________
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
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 09:43 AM.
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.