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 7th October 2019, 12:36 AM   #521
HansMustermann
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 15,746
Originally Posted by David Mo View Post
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?
We can however have a sneaking suspicion that some stuff attributed to Thales may be mis-attribution in all that time.

Probably the easiest is the fight that supposedly stopped because of the eclipse that Thales predicted. It's self-contradictory even in Herodotus, since elsewhere he has one of the combatant kings there being dead for 10 years at that point.

Actually even easier is his calculation of the year length. Egypt's civil calender is AT LEAST 2000 years older than Thales -- but may go all the way back to the predynastic era --- and already had the duration of the year at 365 days. Because, you know, for an agricultural civilizations it was kinda important to know that kinda stuff. Thales, who is reported to have spent time in Egypt, yeah, gets credited with something that he totally didn't invent.

The angles of an isosceles triangle, same story. More than 2000 years before Thales was even born, the Egyptians already knew that if you have a right angle with length x for one side, and y for the other (as would happen if you take a perpendicular through an isosceles triangle), it's the same angle. It was in fact how they measured angles. They didn't measure angles in degrees, but used what we nowadays would call the tangent of that angle: the ratio of the two perpendicular lines. They called it the sekhed, and they KNEW it's always the same angle if it has the same sekhed. They built the pyramids with that. E.g., the great pyramid has a sekhed of 9/10 for the sides.

Thales's accurate predictions of weather for a whole year, with what year would be great for olives and whatnot, yeah, probably didn't happen either. Because never mind the meteorological models, but he wouldn't even have the data from all over the place to put in such models.

Etc.

So again we have a historical guy called Thales which may or may not have actually done anything that our Thales is credited with. I.e., the Thales we get from the ancient authors may well be a very different person from the Thales who actually lived in the 6'th century BCE.
__________________
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 7th October 2019, 02:03 AM   #522
David Mo
Illuminator
 
David Mo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Location: Somewhere on the Greenwich meridian
Posts: 4,547
Originally Posted by HansMustermann View Post
We can however have a sneaking suspicion that some stuff attributed to Thales may be mis-attribution in all that time.

Probably the easiest is the fight that supposedly stopped because of the eclipse that Thales predicted. It's self-contradictory even in Herodotus, since elsewhere he has one of the combatant kings there being dead for 10 years at that point.

Actually even easier is his calculation of the year length. Egypt's civil calender is AT LEAST 2000 years older than Thales -- but may go all the way back to the predynastic era --- and already had the duration of the year at 365 days. Because, you know, for an agricultural civilizations it was kinda important to know that kinda stuff. Thales, who is reported to have spent time in Egypt, yeah, gets credited with something that he totally didn't invent.

The angles of an isosceles triangle, same story. More than 2000 years before Thales was even born, the Egyptians already knew that if you have a right angle with length x for one side, and y for the other (as would happen if you take a perpendicular through an isosceles triangle), it's the same angle. It was in fact how they measured angles. They didn't measure angles in degrees, but used what we nowadays would call the tangent of that angle: the ratio of the two perpendicular lines. They called it the sekhed, and they KNEW it's always the same angle if it has the same sekhed. They built the pyramids with that. E.g., the great pyramid has a sekhed of 9/10 for the sides.

Thales's accurate predictions of weather for a whole year, with what year would be great for olives and whatnot, yeah, probably didn't happen either. Because never mind the meteorological models, but he wouldn't even have the data from all over the place to put in such models.

Etc.

So again we have a historical guy called Thales which may or may not have actually done anything that our Thales is credited with. I.e., the Thales we get from the ancient authors may well be a very different person from the Thales who actually lived in the 6'th century BCE.
Of course. While certain statements of Thales are held to be authentic (water is the beginning of all things), others can be held in suspense. I did not know that Thales had said something about the angles of a triangle. Won't you confuse him with Pythagoras? (Another that is also doubtful).

But I meant that I know of no one who denies that Thales existed on the same grounds that some mitistas give for denying that Jesus the Galilee 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 7th October 2019, 02:07 AM   #523
David Mo
Illuminator
 
David Mo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Location: Somewhere on the Greenwich meridian
Posts: 4,547
Originally Posted by David Mo View Post
Conspiracy theory is the weakest part of mysticism.
.
"Mythicism". Sorry.
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, 02:32 AM   #524
HansMustermann
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 15,746
Originally Posted by David Mo View Post
Of course. While certain statements of Thales are held to be authentic (water is the beginning of all things), others can be held in suspense. I did not know that Thales had said something about the angles of a triangle. Won't you confuse him with Pythagoras? (Another that is also doubtful).

But I meant that I know of no one who denies that Thales existed on the same grounds that some mitistas give for denying that Jesus the Galilee existed.
I'm not sure how those same arguments would even apply. Did anyone claim to have messages revealed from Thales in visions? Was there a mystery cult of Thales that I missed?
__________________
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 7th October 2019, 02:34 AM   #525
HansMustermann
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 15,746
Originally Posted by David Mo View Post
Of course. While certain statements of Thales are held to be authentic (water is the beginning of all things), others can be held in suspense. I did not know that Thales had said something about the angles of a triangle. Won't you confuse him with Pythagoras? (Another that is also doubtful).
Thales supposedly proved that the two angles at the base of an isosceles triangle are equal. Also that if you draw two intersecting lines, the opposite angles are equal.
__________________
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 7th October 2019, 03:02 AM   #526
David Mo
Illuminator
 
David Mo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Location: Somewhere on the Greenwich meridian
Posts: 4,547
Originally Posted by HansMustermann View Post
I'm not sure how those same arguments would even apply. Did anyone claim to have messages revealed from Thales in visions? Was there a mystery cult of Thales that I missed?
Okay, this is a difference. Thales, unlike Pythagoras or Jesus, is not a religious character.

This is a sufficient argument to admit his historicity? What if there were political motives in the invention of Thales of Miletus?
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, 03:29 AM   #527
HansMustermann
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 15,746
It's enough to not say that the same ground apply. Since you've read Doherty and Carrier, you know that their arguments for MJ rely quite crucially on the religious and visions part. Which, as you say, is not applicable to Thales.

Whether DIFFERENT arguments can be applied to make Thales ahistorical, that is another question. But if you put up a well reasoned argument for why Thales was a later invented figure, I will give it an open minded consideration. I can be persuaded if the argument makes sense.
__________________
Which part of "Ph'nglui mglw'nafh Cthulhu R'lyeh wgah'nagl fhtagn" don't you understand?

Last edited by HansMustermann; 7th October 2019 at 03:33 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 7th October 2019, 06:40 AM   #528
dejudge
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Nov 2013
Posts: 5,062
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.
You have already admitted that the NT, including the Epistles, is riddled with impossible events which are really a pack of lies.

Multiple packs of lies about the conception, birth, baptism, miracles, trial and resurrection of the supposed Jesus are found in the NT.

You have no historical evidence for Jesus and Paul so must must appeal to whatever plenty people believe.

It is already known that hundreds of millions of people believe Jesus existed and that they never ever have been able to present one shred of historical evidence for their believe.
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 7th October 2019, 07:48 AM   #529
HansMustermann
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 15,746
I would add that "oh that's just CT" is kinda rich from any HJ proponent, considering that Mark -- which tends to be VERY used to cherrypick a HJ -- is itself one huge conspiracy theory. ALL OVER THE PLACE, when Mark says that his Jesus did something, or sent his disciples to do something, or whatever, he asks everyone to keep it secret, and apparently they did. Not just the apostles or inner circle, or even the initiates of some mystery cult, or even newly converted Xians as a whole. Random men, women and children on the street witness some miracle healing (which apparently the HJ gang is inclined to believe actually happened), or someone just preaching, or Jesus delivering a smart answer to some question, but they're told to keep it a secret and of course they do.

It's not just a CT, it's the most ludicrious CT in recorded history. Even the medical conspiracy only says that doctors keep that secret from self interest. Or the Flat Earth CT only says that scientists are keeping the secret; the rest of us are apparently just gullible. NO other CT I ever heard of goes the length to make even thousands of random bystanders all keep a secret, just because someone told them to. Mark does just that.

By the time of Matthew, things aren't THAT secret any more, although even he has the Jews be part of a CT to keep the resurrection secret. By the time of John, eh, it's plenty clear that nobody is asking that kind of questions, so John goes the opposite direction: his Jesus might just as well be handing out "I'm the messiah, biatch!" business cards, because that's all he ever talks about. But Mark feels like he has a need to tell the reader every other paragraph why they've never heard about any of that.

Of course, it's also pretty clear WHY Mark goes the mass CT route. Mark is the first to come up with such a biography, and is obviously afraid that people would ask stuff like, "so why has nobody else heard about some guy being openly welcomed as the new king of Jerusalem by the crowds?" Well, Mark's answer was, because he told them not to tell anyone

I.e., because Mark is lying and he knows it.
__________________
Which part of "Ph'nglui mglw'nafh Cthulhu R'lyeh wgah'nagl fhtagn" don't you understand?

Last edited by HansMustermann; 7th October 2019 at 07:50 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 7th October 2019, 08:14 AM   #530
David Mo
Illuminator
 
David Mo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Location: Somewhere on the Greenwich meridian
Posts: 4,547
Originally Posted by HansMustermann View Post
It's enough to not say that the same ground apply. Since you've read Doherty and Carrier, you know that their arguments for MJ rely quite crucially on the religious and visions part. Which, as you say, is not applicable to Thales.

Whether DIFFERENT arguments can be applied to make Thales ahistorical, that is another question. But if you put up a well reasoned argument for why Thales was a later invented figure, I will give it an open minded consideration. I can be persuaded if the argument makes sense.
The religious or mythical content of an ancient writing is a valid reason to doubt everything that is attributed to a character from the religious or mythical content. Not of his mere existence, inasmuch as it is stripped of the doctrinal agenda.

Therefore, Thales of Miletus can only be said with relative certainty of two or three things, some of which are difficult to interpret. For example, that everything that exists has a soul. The rest is doubtful.

Therefore, one can rightly doubt almost everything of the life and miracles of Jesus the Galilean , but not of independent of religious agenda things, such as that he was executed by the Romans.

For this reason, I believe that the mythicists go further than their assumptions allow.
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, 11:56 AM   #531
dejudge
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Nov 2013
Posts: 5,062
Originally Posted by dejudge
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".
Originally Posted by David Mo View Post
This does not mean that Jesus did not exist, but that, due to his characteristics, he is not a "historical" character.
Your statement that Jesus is not a "historical character" does not mean that Jesus did exist
Originally Posted by David Mo
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?
Your claim is simply baseless. The evidence used to determine the existence/non-existence of Thales cannot be transferred to the supposed character called Jesus of Nazareth . It is just mind-bogginly void of logic to assume Jesus was a figure of history because Thales may or may not have existed.

It is so basic.

A lack of historical evidence of existence is the fundamental criteria to argue against the historicity of Jesus and Paul coupled with the fact that stories about Jesus and Paul are found to be either implausible, impossible, fiction or products of forgeries or corrupted writings.
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 7th October 2019, 06:33 PM   #532
smartcooky
Penultimate Amazing
 
smartcooky's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2012
Location: Nelson, New Zealand
Posts: 12,525
Originally Posted by dejudge View Post
Your claim is simply baseless. The evidence used to determine the existence/non-existence of Thales cannot be transferred to the supposed character called Jesus of Nazareth . It is just mind-bogginly void of logic to assume Jesus was a figure of history because Thales may or may not have existed.
Agree.

The "If Thales then Jesus" mantra is a tired old canard that liars for jeebus often fall back on when they have been rat-cornered!

It holds no evidentiary value as regards proving the historicity (or otherwise) of Jesus.
__________________
“Give me your tired, your poor, your huddled masses yearning to breathe free, the wretched refuse of your teeming shore - if they're white!"
If you don't like my posts, my opinions, or my directness then put me on your ignore list.
This will be of benefit to both of us; you won't have to take umbrage at my posts, and I won't have to waste my time talking to you... simples! !
smartcooky 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, 10:12 PM   #533
David Mo
Illuminator
 
David Mo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Location: Somewhere on the Greenwich meridian
Posts: 4,547
Originally Posted by dejudge View Post
Your statement that Jesus is not a "historical character" does not mean that Jesus did exist


Your claim is simply baseless. The evidence used to determine the existence/non-existence of Thales cannot be transferred to the supposed character called Jesus of Nazareth . It is just mind-bogginly void of logic to assume Jesus was a figure of history because Thales may or may not have existed.

It is so basic.

A lack of historical evidence of existence is the fundamental criteria to argue against the historicity of Jesus and Paul coupled with the fact that stories about Jesus and Paul are found to be either implausible, impossible, fiction or products of forgeries or corrupted writings.
What "historical evidence" do we have that Thales of Miletus existed?

When I say that Jesus was not a "historical" character, I mean that his life took place outside the mainstream of the politics and culture of 1st century Palestine. The powers attributed to him by the Gospels are manifestly legendary and the only more or less contemporary fragment that refers to him is a forgery (Flavius Josephus). That is why it is perfectly logical that he did not leave the historical traces that can be expected from characters such as Alexander the Great or Julius Caesar. It is absurd to deal with Jesus the Galilean like a historical character, as you do and it is also done in the opposite direction.

It is a situation similar to that of Thales. Nor was he a historical character in the same sense. The only difference that Hans has established correctly is that Thales does not seem to be a religious figure (we really know practically nothing about him), while Jesus was and, what is worse, remained so until now.

This introduces an additional reason for suspicion about the religious content of the Gospels. Even about the existence of Jesus. But at this point the suspicion is not definitive.

Of course, the possibility does not imply existence. But the possibility is an argument against a strong mythicism. Therefore, I am skeptical on this point. I have a minimalist position: of Jesus of Galilee one can hardly say anything. This infuriates the mythicists (I don't know why) but doesn't satisfy the believers. They need to know their myth and this is impossible.
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, 10:38 PM   #534
smartcooky
Penultimate Amazing
 
smartcooky's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2012
Location: Nelson, New Zealand
Posts: 12,525
Originally Posted by David Mo View Post
What "historical evidence" do we have that Thales of Miletus existed?
None, but you have yet to demonstrate that relevance of that fact to the alleged existence of a Historical Jesus

Originally Posted by David Mo View Post
When I say that Jesus was not a "historical" character, I mean that his life took place outside the mainstream of the politics and culture of 1st century Palestine. The powers attributed to him by the Gospels are manifestly legendary and the only more or less contemporary fragment that refers to him is a forgery (Flavius Josephus). That is why it is perfectly logical that he did not leave the historical traces that can be expected from characters such as Alexander the Great or Julius Caesar.
Wait! A person...

a. whose alleged birth allegedly caused the King of Judea to order the execution of all male children two years old and under in the vicinity of Bethlehem, and

b. who allegedly performed miracles seemingly at will, and

c. who allegedly, by coming through the East Gate of the Temple Mount on Palm Sunday on a donkey (and thereby co-opting the Jewish messiah prophecy) upset the Jews so much that they wanted him killed

... would not have been at all newsworthy at the time? NONE of this made it into contemporaneous writings in that area - and you believe this would be expected?

Really?

The first one is particularly problematic as the story only appears in Matthew... the other gospels do not mention it at all. As early as AD94, the historian Josephus makes no mention of it in his Antiquities of the Jews, writings that note in some detail most of Herod's wrongdoings, including the murder of three of his sons
__________________
“Give me your tired, your poor, your huddled masses yearning to breathe free, the wretched refuse of your teeming shore - if they're white!"
If you don't like my posts, my opinions, or my directness then put me on your ignore list.
This will be of benefit to both of us; you won't have to take umbrage at my posts, and I won't have to waste my time talking to you... simples! !

Last edited by smartcooky; 8th October 2019 at 12:15 AM.
smartcooky 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 8th October 2019, 01:47 AM   #535
HansMustermann
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 15,746
Originally Posted by David Mo View Post
The religious or mythical content of an ancient writing is a valid reason to doubt everything that is attributed to a character from the religious or mythical content. Not of his mere existence, inasmuch as it is stripped of the doctrinal agenda.

Therefore, Thales of Miletus can only be said with relative certainty of two or three things, some of which are difficult to interpret. For example, that everything that exists has a soul. The rest is doubtful.

Therefore, one can rightly doubt almost everything of the life and miracles of Jesus the Galilean , but not of independent of religious agenda things, such as that he was executed by the Romans.

For this reason, I believe that the mythicists go further than their assumptions allow.
Look, let me be even clearer.

1. It's not just that it's religiously MOTIVATED. The bigger problem is that only real connection to Jesus is to the Jesus that Paul hallucinated. Therefore Paul's Jesus can be just that: a hallucination. The same, as you've noticed, does NOT apply to Thales. NONE our sources claim that Thales's theorems came from someone having a vision of Thales, much less end up with visions being the only real connection.

2. Almost EVERYTHING that Mark gives us about Jesus is falling into at least one of the following three categories, and most of them more than one:

a. Stuff that is flat out miraculous, and can't have really happened

b. Stuff that is a reworking of stories about Adam, Moses, Joshua, Elijah, Elisha, etc, to make a symbolic point

c. Stuff that is a repeat or otherwise there to create that "Markan sandwiches" structure (or in more scholarly terms, the structures of "inclusio" and "chiasm")

Once you remove ALL THREE categories, not just the miraculous stuff, you're pretty much left with a big fat nothing about Jesus. (Price actually says that point blank, and, you know, that guy actually taught bible studies.) We don't actually know if he said or did anything at all.

He MIGHT have tried to do or claimed to have done the symbolic stuff in category B. After all we know of at least three different guys in Josephus that were essentially ceremonially re-enacting stuff that Joshua did. Or maybe not. Because if it's possible for one guy to come up with the idea "oh, I'll enact what Darth Vader did", it's also possible for some other guy to go, "oh, I'll say he did. That'll convince the detractors." Or dream or hallucinate someone who did. We don't really know if Jesus actually did any of that, or someone else was picking his role for him posthumously.

The same, as you notice, does NOT apply to Thales. None of the stuff attributed to him fits a pre-made role. (Unlike, as you also correctly note, Pythagoras.) Thales is not re-enacting (symbolically or otherwise) the role of the guy who discovered that opposite angles are equal. He's credited with being the first one who even thought of actually mathematically proving it. As I was saying, Egyptians knew that, but they seem to have taken it as just common sense and thousands of years of experience confirming it is so, but they didn't actually prove it.

Hell, not only the exact theorems aren't a reenactment, but even the role of mathematical philosopher didn't even exist before him. He's not symbolically reenacting the first guy to apply philosophy to geometry, he actually IS the first guy we know of that did that.

Ditto for the other two categories. There may be other reasons to doubt that Thales actually came up with those theorems, but they're neither miraculous, nor repeated to form any particular structure.


Anyway, as I was saying, there may be other valid reasons to doubt the existence of Thales. I don't know any myself, but I'll give them a fair consideration if anyone makes a well reasoned argument. But saying that you can doubt Thales on the SAME grounds that mythicists doubt Jesus, is just flat out false. I can't even imagine how someone who's actually read Doherty or Carrier could come out the other side thinking that the same arguments could possibly apply to Thales.
__________________
Which part of "Ph'nglui mglw'nafh Cthulhu R'lyeh wgah'nagl fhtagn" don't you understand?

Last edited by HansMustermann; 8th October 2019 at 02:05 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 8th October 2019, 02:02 AM   #536
HansMustermann
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 15,746
Originally Posted by smartcooky View Post
None, but you have yet to demonstrate that relevance of that fact to the alleged existence of a Historical Jesus



Wait! A person...

a. whose alleged birth allegedly caused the King of Judea to order the execution of all male children two years old and under in the vicinity of Bethlehem, and

b. who allegedly performed miracles seemingly at will, and

c. who allegedly, by coming through the East Gate of the Temple Mount on Palm Sunday on a donkey (and thereby co-opting the Jewish messiah prophecy) upset the Jews so much that they wanted him killed

... would not have been at all newsworthy at the time? NONE of this made it into contemporaneous writings in that area - and you believe this would be expected?

Really?

The first one is particularly problematic as the story only appears in Matthew... the other gospels do not mention it at all. As early as AD94, the historian Josephus makes no mention of it in his Antiquities of the Jews, writings that note in some detail most of Herod's wrongdoings, including the murder of three of his sons
I'd also add that it's not just the stuff that JESUS allegedly did or claimed that should have been noteworthy, but stuff other people did too.

E.g., Josephus also makes a point of noting any excesses or irregularities of the Roman governors. Because as I was saying, one of the points he's trying to make is that the Jews on the whole are not some bunch of completely irrational religious nutcases, but people like everyone else, and a lot of the conflicts were just in response to being provoked. The early Xians may be exonerating the Romans of everything, but Josephus is the polar opposite. You may think that writing for Vespasian would make him more on the side of the Romans, but actually he has no problem saying that Vespasian is the real deal, and the Emperors before him (which nobody liked at all) and their governors were crap. It just makes Vespasian's decision to grab the throne look more justified.

And Pilate in particular was the focus of not only Josephus, but of a LOT of people. And not only to write about it in some history, but they wrote to complain to the Emperor at the slightest excuse to complain.

And most of what Pilate does in the gospels should have been VERY noteworthy for a lot of people.

Dressing a rebel in purple and proclaiming him the king of the Jews? Hell, riling everyone by hinting that he can crucify a king of the Jews? THAT didn't interest anyone? Really?

Never mind that the dressing in purple and crown made of a branch were actually making it a mockery of the Roman Emperor, so even more noteworthy. If you were dead set on bad-mouthing someone to the Emperor, wouldn't you use such a low hanging fruit as, "hey, he just did a mockery of your coronation with a condemned criminal, and then crucified the guy he had dressed up as emperor"? The symbolism of THAT simply escaped everyone? In a year when Tiberius had just had to deal with Sejanus' plot against him, and was in full paranoid mode, executing everyone who was even suspected of being against him, nobody thought of using that against Pilate? Really?

For that matter, doing a crucifixion on a holy day? In all the complaints about how the Roman governors and specifically Pilate riled the people by going against local religious customs, THAT doesn't make the cut to be written down by anyone?

Giving a corpse to a stranger? Really? Nobody connected the dots that he's doing something flat out illegal there? In all the things that they find noteworthy and complaint-worthy about him, actually breaking the law didn't make the cut?

Etc.
__________________
Which part of "Ph'nglui mglw'nafh Cthulhu R'lyeh wgah'nagl fhtagn" don't you understand?

Last edited by HansMustermann; 8th October 2019 at 02:26 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 8th October 2019, 02:35 AM   #537
David Mo
Illuminator
 
David Mo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Location: Somewhere on the Greenwich meridian
Posts: 4,547
Originally Posted by smartcooky View Post
None, but you have yet to demonstrate that relevance of that fact to the alleged existence of a Historical Jesus

Relevance in what sense. Usefulness?

Originally Posted by smartcooky View Post
Wait! A person...

a. whose alleged birth allegedly caused the King of Judea to order the execution of all male children two years old and under in the vicinity of Bethlehem, and

b. who allegedly performed miracles seemingly at will, and

c. who allegedly, by coming through the East Gate of the Temple Mount on Palm Sunday on a donkey (and thereby co-opting the Jewish messiah prophecy) upset the Jews so much that they wanted him killed

... would not have been at all newsworthy at the time? NONE of this made it into contemporaneous writings in that area - and you believe this would be expected?

Really?

The first one is particularly problematic as the story only appears in Matthew... the other gospels do not mention it at all. As early as AD94, the historian Josephus makes no mention of it in his Antiquities of the Jews, writings that note in some detail most of Herod's wrongdoings, including the murder of three of his sons
No. That's what I've already answered:
"The powers attributed to him by the Gospels are manifestly legendary and the only more or less contemporary fragment that refers to him is a forgery (Flavius Josephus)"
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 8th October 2019, 02:56 AM   #538
David Mo
Illuminator
 
David Mo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Location: Somewhere on the Greenwich meridian
Posts: 4,547
Originally Posted by HansMustermann View Post
Look, let me be even clearer.

1. It's not just that it's religiously MOTIVATED. The bigger problem is that only real connection to Jesus is to the Jesus that Paul hallucinated. Therefore Paul's Jesus can be just that: a hallucination. The same, as you've noticed, does NOT apply to Thales. NONE our sources claim that Thales's theorems came from someone having a vision of Thales, much less end up with visions being the only real connection.
You had been very clear. What you are saying now only adds to what you have already said. Paul's visions or Mark's religious agenda invalidate everything that naturally falls into them. I had already granted that to him. Or are they not religious? What we know of Thales comes fundamentally from Aristotle who had his own metaphysical agenda. We do not know if his reference to souls would not be part of that agenda. The concept of soul is very important to Aristotle. In any case, we trusted Aristotle because he had a "scientific" spirit, when in fact, he had a whole metaphysical theory behind him, within which Ionian physicism fit as a stage of philosophy overcomed by his.

However, it is true that Aristotle's authority seems more grounded than that of the evangelists. I grant you that because religion illusions are stronger that metaphysical illusions... usually.

Now, having eliminated everything that corresponds to the Markan religious agenda, there remains some fact that is not explained from it, such as crucifixion, a humiliating punishment that no inhabitant of the Hellenized world would have associated with a god.

As for Paul's silence, which on the other hand affirms that Jesus existed in the flesh and was crucified, it does not mean any more that Paul was not very interested in the earthly life of Jesus and what mattered to him was his divine character. It is logical that the accounts in the Gospels did not interest him. Probably in his time they were not canonized and their sources are contradictory in the few data that they match each other.
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 8th October 2019, 03:04 AM   #539
David Mo
Illuminator
 
David Mo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Location: Somewhere on the Greenwich meridian
Posts: 4,547
Originally Posted by HansMustermann View Post
I'd also add that it's not just the stuff that JESUS allegedly did or claimed that should have been noteworthy, but stuff other people did too.

E.g., Josephus also makes a point of noting any excesses or irregularities of the Roman governors. Because as I was saying, one of the points he's trying to make is that the Jews on the whole are not some bunch of completely irrational religious nutcases, but people like everyone else, and a lot of the conflicts were just in response to being provoked. The early Xians may be exonerating the Romans of everything, but Josephus is the polar opposite. You may think that writing for Vespasian would make him more on the side of the Romans, but actually he has no problem saying that Vespasian is the real deal, and the Emperors before him (which nobody liked at all) and their governors were crap. It just makes Vespasian's decision to grab the throne look more justified.

And Pilate in particular was the focus of not only Josephus, but of a LOT of people. And not only to write about it in some history, but they wrote to complain to the Emperor at the slightest excuse to complain.

And most of what Pilate does in the gospels should have been VERY noteworthy for a lot of people.

Dressing a rebel in purple and proclaiming him the king of the Jews? Hell, riling everyone by hinting that he can crucify a king of the Jews? THAT didn't interest anyone? Really?

Never mind that the dressing in purple and crown made of a branch were actually making it a mockery of the Roman Emperor, so even more noteworthy. If you were dead set on bad-mouthing someone to the Emperor, wouldn't you use such a low hanging fruit as, "hey, he just did a mockery of your coronation with a condemned criminal, and then crucified the guy he had dressed up as emperor"? The symbolism of THAT simply escaped everyone? In a year when Tiberius had just had to deal with Sejanus' plot against him, and was in full paranoid mode, executing everyone who was even suspected of being against him, nobody thought of using that against Pilate? Really?

For that matter, doing a crucifixion on a holy day? In all the complaints about how the Roman governors and specifically Pilate riled the people by going against local religious customs, THAT doesn't make the cut to be written down by anyone?

Giving a corpse to a stranger? Really? Nobody connected the dots that he's doing something flat out illegal there? In all the things that they find noteworthy and complaint-worthy about him, actually breaking the law didn't make the cut?

Etc.
Everything you write over and over again only proves that almost everything written in the Gospels, especially the passion story, is legendary. I don't know why you repeat it over and over again if it's something I said a few comments ago.
What that doesn't prove, unless you add something special, is that Jesus the Galilean didn't exist as a little prophet who was executed by the Romans.

For Josephus cannot be invoked one way or the other. The existence of a manipulated text only proves the falsity of what has come to us. Not that Josephus never mentioned Jesus. Maybe to blame him like a messianic rebel.
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 8th October 2019, 03:16 AM   #540
HansMustermann
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 15,746
What I am saying that it proves is that even if he existed, the little guy who got killed doesn't really bear any resemblance to the guy in the gospels. He didn't say the same things (as I was saying even HJ scholars say no more than 30% can be plausibly said by the same person), he didn't do the same things, he didn't visit the same places, his life didn't happen in that order, and the circumstances of his death bear no resemblance to Mark's account. Even the people around him were nothing like those in Mark. And as I've said somewhere else, may or may not have even actually been called Jesus. It may be a role name. Essentially, that if he existed, his relationship to the gospel Jesus may be as thin as Lovecraft's mom's to Abdul Al Hazred.

And that's too thin for me to call that guy "the historical Jesus."

But, as I was saying, if someone is ok with saying that Lovecraft's mom IS "the historical Abdul Al Hazred", then I will cheerfully grant that that standard would also allow for a Jesus that's just about that historical. And I'm perfectly ok with such a figure possibly existing.

Hell, even Carrier, Doherty, Price and the gang don't say it's impossible for such a guy to have existed. They think it's less probable than their purely mythical Jesus, but certainly not impossible. Hell, not even particularly improbable. Sure, less probable than their MJ, but certainly not the kind of improbability like being struck by lightning while holding the lottery ticket that won the jackpot.

Edit: what anyone needs though to claim that something merely POSSIBLE did actually exist, is evidence. Because the space of what's possible is necessarily greater than the space of what is real. Because the former necessarily includes the latter. But, again, if they merely want to claim it's possible, they don't need anything else, and won't really find any opposition.
__________________
Which part of "Ph'nglui mglw'nafh Cthulhu R'lyeh wgah'nagl fhtagn" don't you understand?

Last edited by HansMustermann; 8th October 2019 at 03:32 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 8th October 2019, 03:36 AM   #541
HansMustermann
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 15,746
Also, just to be clear, such an original guy is essentially indistinguishable from MJ anyway. Because then the actual guy is nowhere to be found in the Jesus we got. The guy got all his defining attributes removed, and replaced with those of an imaginary figure. He just got posthumously cast into the role of a purely fictive character.

He's just as much "Jesus" as Kenny Baker is R2D2 in Star Wars. You could replace him with another actor or just a remote controlled drone, and you probably wouldn't even notice the difference.
__________________
Which part of "Ph'nglui mglw'nafh Cthulhu R'lyeh wgah'nagl fhtagn" don't you understand?

Last edited by HansMustermann; 8th October 2019 at 03:41 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 8th October 2019, 07:14 AM   #542
dejudge
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Nov 2013
Posts: 5,062
Originally Posted by David Mo View Post
What "historical evidence" do we have that Thales of Miletus existed?

When I say that Jesus was not a "historical" character, I mean that his life took place outside the mainstream of the politics and culture of 1st century Palestine. The powers attributed to him by the Gospels are manifestly legendary and the only more or less contemporary fragment that refers to him is a forgery (Flavius Josephus). That is why it is perfectly logical that he did not leave the historical traces that can be expected from characters such as Alexander the Great or Julius Caesar. It is absurd to deal with Jesus the Galilean like a historical character, as you do and it is also done in the opposite direction.

It is a situation similar to that of Thales. Nor was he a historical character in the same sense. The only difference that Hans has established correctly is that Thales does not seem to be a religious figure (we really know practically nothing about him), while Jesus was and, what is worse, remained so until now.

This introduces an additional reason for suspicion about the religious content of the Gospels. Even about the existence of Jesus. But at this point the suspicion is not definitive.

Of course, the possibility does not imply existence. But the possibility is an argument against a strong mythicism. Therefore, I am skeptical on this point. I have a minimalist position: of Jesus of Galilee one can hardly say anything. This infuriates the mythicists (I don't know why) but doesn't satisfy the believers. They need to know their myth and this is impossible.
You are repeating the same nonsense, the very same fallacy, that evidence for the existence/non-existence of Thales is to be used to determine the existence/non-existence of the supposed character called Jesus of Nazareth.

You seem not to even understand that there are writings from antiquity which describe Jesus of Nazareth as a myth like those of the Greeks and Romans.

First Apology attributed Justin.

First Apology XXI
Quote:
And when we say also that the Word, who is the first-birth of God, was produced without sexual union, and that He, Jesus Christ, our Teacher, was crucified and died, and rose again, and ascended into heaven, we propound nothing different from what you believe regarding those whom you esteem sons of Jupiter.
On the Flesh of Christ attributed to Tertullian.

On the Flesh of Christ 18
Quote:
As, then, before His birth of the virgin, He was able to have God for His Father without a human mother, so likewise, after He was born of the virgin, He was able to have a woman for His mother without a human father...
Epistle to the Magnesians attributed to Ignatius

Epistle to the Magnesians
Quote:
.....but that you may rather attain to a full assurance in Christ, who was begotten by the Father before all ages, but was afterwards born of the Virgin Mary without any intercourse with man.
We know the character called Jesus of Nazareth was most likely non-historical because there could have been no witnesses to virtually all the events (from conception to the ascension) described in writings of antiquity in which he supposedly participated.
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 8th October 2019, 11:52 PM   #543
David Mo
Illuminator
 
David Mo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Location: Somewhere on the Greenwich meridian
Posts: 4,547
Originally Posted by HansMustermann View Post
What I am saying that it proves is that even if he existed, the little guy who got killed doesn't really bear any resemblance to the guy in the gospels. He didn't say the same things (as I was saying even HJ scholars say no more than 30% can be plausibly said by the same person), he didn't do the same things, he didn't visit the same places, his life didn't happen in that order, and the circumstances of his death bear no resemblance to Mark's account. Even the people around him were nothing like those in Mark. And as I've said somewhere else, may or may not have even actually been called Jesus. It may be a role name. Essentially, that if he existed, his relationship to the gospel Jesus may be as thin as Lovecraft's mom's to Abdul Al Hazred.

And that's too thin for me to call that guy "the historical Jesus."

But, as I was saying, if someone is ok with saying that Lovecraft's mom IS "the historical Abdul Al Hazred", then I will cheerfully grant that that standard would also allow for a Jesus that's just about that historical. And I'm perfectly ok with such a figure possibly existing.

Hell, even Carrier, Doherty, Price and the gang don't say it's impossible for such a guy to have existed. They think it's less probable than their purely mythical Jesus, but certainly not impossible. Hell, not even particularly improbable. Sure, less probable than their MJ, but certainly not the kind of improbability like being struck by lightning while holding the lottery ticket that won the jackpot.

Edit: what anyone needs though to claim that something merely POSSIBLE did actually exist, is evidence. Because the space of what's possible is necessarily greater than the space of what is real. Because the former necessarily includes the latter. But, again, if they merely want to claim it's possible, they don't need anything else, and won't really find any opposition.
After some days discussing I think we are agree in the essential. Only some fringe of disagreement or maybe just some nuances.

A major difference between Abdul Alhazred and Jesus the Galileen is that we know who invented the former out from nothing. We don't know, in principle, if the evangelists invented the legend of Jesus out from nothing or were basing on a real character. This leaves a loophole for Jesus' real existence. Maybe a small crack, but crack after all.

I don't think the mythicism has any advantage over "realism". The crucifixion gives a little advantage to latter. And mythicism has the risk to fall into a conspiracy theory without much support. These are not strong advantages, of course. Many times it is difficult to me understand why Carrier and other concede authenticity to some NT writings and no others. This is a problem of lack of precise method of discern.

But, as I have said, we agree in the essentials.
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 9th October 2019, 12:25 AM   #544
David Mo
Illuminator
 
David Mo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Location: Somewhere on the Greenwich meridian
Posts: 4,547
Originally Posted by dejudge View Post
You seem not to even understand that there are writings from antiquity which describe Jesus of Nazareth as a myth like those of the Greeks and Romans.

(...)

We know the character called Jesus of Nazareth was most likely non-historical because there could have been no witnesses to virtually all the events (from conception to the ascension) described in writings of antiquity in which he supposedly participated.

Your arguments are empty.

Justin, Tertullian and Ignatius didn't believe that Jesus Christ was a myth. They defended Jesus' dual nature and his life on the earth as a real person. Anyway, they were theologians of the second century and they are not major sources for the historical Jesus.

Your argument to discard Jesus is also valid to discard Thales and almost every character in Ancient History: there have been no witnesses to all the events described in writings of antiquity in which Thales supposedly participated.

If you want to say that you don't believe in supernatural events, I don't. But in the gospels are related events that are not supernatural and that without supernatural features can be credible: A man thinks he is a prophet, preaches the End of Times and is crucified by the Romans. Nothing miraculous in this. Why do you refuse to admit this natural story of Jesus?

Last edited by David Mo; 9th October 2019 at 12:28 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 9th October 2019, 12:32 AM   #545
HansMustermann
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 15,746
Well, technically mythicism does have the advantage of the criterion of historical necessity in the actual historical method (as opposed to the obsolete one practiced by bible studies), which is basically Occam's Razor for historians. Is there any actual NEED to assume the extra entity that is a historical Jesus -- plus a LOT of extra entities that would form the chain of information between him and Mark -- or can Paul's hallucination explain the same things? Well, I'd say we don't really NEED more than Paul.

That said, I do have my own disagreement with Carrier about how and when euhemerization actually happened to ancient myths. But hey, he has the Ph.D. in classic history, I don't. So nobody has to care about what I think.

Personally I wouldn't necessarily go with saying that one person invented Jesus on purpose. My simpler explanation is that Paul had hallucinations of Jesus, which passed for prophetic in Judaism. (See for example, Deuteronomy 13:1.) That part is common with Doherty and Carrier. What differs though is that I don't think that necessarily someone went and deliberately euhemerized him. Just not everyone was in the clear about whether Jesus is mythical or not, and legends and myths grew around him. People were telling tall tales about Jesus all over the place. (See the many stories that didn't make it into our gospels. E.g., the early ones mentioned by Papias.)

Essentially all I'm proposing is that, well, you know how tall tales and legends can grow up around a guy? I'm saying that that guy doesn't have to be real for that to happen. Just the people circulating the stories have to believe he's real.

It's not even a new idea. There are official saints in catholicism that have whole stories of their lives, and we're pretty sure they never actually existed. But the people circulating and embellishing the stories thought they were real, and that was enough.

Even about bible characters, we have solid examples of that happening. For example, the unnamed soldier who pierced Jesus on the cross in the gospels -- again, something I'm pretty sure never happened because it's a deviation from the standard coup de grace for no reason other than fulfilling an OT "prophecy" -- eventually got a name (Longinus, a derivative of "longche", i.e., "lance", the weapon he used on Jesus, so again, fake), a rank (centurion, who wouldn't do such guard duty because he's the equivalent of a colonel in modern armies), a place of origin (Lanciano, another derivative of lance, so again fake), details like his eye problems, a biography, and eventually a miraculous conversion and martyrdom, and ended up a saint that is still venerated. And it only started happening by the end of the 6'th century. But a whole life of some unnamed character in a book was invented. And he doesn't have to be real. Just the people inventing and circulating stories about him thought he was real, and that was enough for legends to grow.
__________________
Which part of "Ph'nglui mglw'nafh Cthulhu R'lyeh wgah'nagl fhtagn" don't you understand?

Last edited by HansMustermann; 9th October 2019 at 12:48 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 9th October 2019, 03:08 AM   #546
smartcooky
Penultimate Amazing
 
smartcooky's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2012
Location: Nelson, New Zealand
Posts: 12,525
Originally Posted by HansMustermann View Post
Essentially all I'm proposing is that, well, you know how tall tales and legends can grow up around a guy? I'm saying that that guy doesn't have to be real for that to happen. Just the people circulating the stories have to believe he's real.
Robin Hood, William Tell, Arthur Pendragon. Three historical figures who are almost certainly not real, and yet to this day, there are those who still think these were real people.
__________________
“Give me your tired, your poor, your huddled masses yearning to breathe free, the wretched refuse of your teeming shore - if they're white!"
If you don't like my posts, my opinions, or my directness then put me on your ignore list.
This will be of benefit to both of us; you won't have to take umbrage at my posts, and I won't have to waste my time talking to you... simples! !
smartcooky 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 9th October 2019, 03:54 AM   #547
HansMustermann
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 15,746
Yep. Along with many others.
__________________
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 9th October 2019, 06:33 AM   #548
dejudge
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Nov 2013
Posts: 5,062
Originally Posted by David Mo View Post
Your arguments are empty.
Your statement is hopelessly irrelevant. You still cannot and never will present a single shred of historical evidence for your Jesus.

Originally Posted by David Mo View Post
Justin, Tertullian and Ignatius didn't believe that Jesus Christ was a myth. They defended Jesus' dual nature and his life on the earth as a real person. Anyway, they were theologians of the second century and they are not major sources for the historical Jesus.
You have no historical sources at all for your Jesus.

It is simply absurd to suggest that since second century writers did believe their Jesus (born without sexual intercourse) was not a myth then he did exist.

Based on your absurdity, Romulus and Remus were not myths because Plutarch and people in the Roman Empire believed they existed.

Originally Posted by David Mo View Post
Your argument to discard Jesus is also valid to discard Thales and almost every character in Ancient History: there have been no witnesses to all the events described in writings of antiquity in which Thales supposedly participated.
My argument that the character called Jesus of Nazareth never ever existed is based on writings of antiquity relating to the supposed character.

The stories of Jesus are either implausible, impossible, fiction or associated with forgeries and manipulation.

In addition, the supposed Pauline letters clearly show that the Christian faith did not require an historical character.

In the Epistles it is claimed that there would be no Christian faith, no salvation, without the resurrection of Jesus.

The resurrection is a non-historical event.

1 Corinthians 15:17
Quote:
And if Christ be not raised, your faith is vain; ye are yet in your sins.
The Christian religion is directly based on a fiction character (a resurrected being) who could never have been historically corroborated.

Your position on the existence/non-existence of Thales is irrelevant.

Originally Posted by David Mo View Post
....If you want to say that you don't believe in supernatural events, I don't. But in the gospels are related events that are not supernatural and that without supernatural features can be credible: A man thinks he is a prophet, preaches the End of Times and is crucified by the Romans. Nothing miraculous in this. Why do you refuse to admit this natural story of Jesus?

You made up your natural story of your Jesus which cannot be historically corroborated.

You seem to have no idea that your natural story is an invention derived from your imagination because you realise the stories of Jesus are not historically credible.

You must know that even stories that appear natural can be complete fiction.

Examine Against Celsus attributed to Origen.

Against Celsus 1.32
Quote:
It was to be expected, indeed, that those who would not believe the miraculous birth of Jesus would invent some falsehood.
Please, I am sorry!! I cannot accept your invented natural story of your Jesus. As expected you have no credible evidence to support it.

All you have done is to invent your own natural Jesus without historical corroboration.
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 9th October 2019, 10:23 PM   #549
David Mo
Illuminator
 
David Mo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Location: Somewhere on the Greenwich meridian
Posts: 4,547
Originally Posted by HansMustermann View Post
Well, technically mythicism does have the advantage of the criterion of historical necessity in the actual historical method (as opposed to the obsolete one practiced by bible studies), which is basically Occam's Razor for historians. Is there any actual NEED to assume the extra entity that is a historical Jesus -- plus a LOT of extra entities that would form the chain of information between him and Mark -- or can Paul's hallucination explain the same things? Well, I'd say we don't really NEED more than Paul.

That said, I do have my own disagreement with Carrier about how and when euhemerization actually happened to ancient myths. But hey, he has the Ph.D. in classic history, I don't. So nobody has to care about what I think.

Personally I wouldn't necessarily go with saying that one person invented Jesus on purpose. My simpler explanation is that Paul had hallucinations of Jesus, which passed for prophetic in Judaism. (See for example, Deuteronomy 13:1.) That part is common with Doherty and Carrier. What differs though is that I don't think that necessarily someone went and deliberately euhemerized him. Just not everyone was in the clear about whether Jesus is mythical or not, and legends and myths grew around him. People were telling tall tales about Jesus all over the place. (See the many stories that didn't make it into our gospels. E.g., the early ones mentioned by Papias.)

Essentially all I'm proposing is that, well, you know how tall tales and legends can grow up around a guy? I'm saying that that guy doesn't have to be real for that to happen. Just the people circulating the stories have to believe he's real.

It's not even a new idea. There are official saints in catholicism that have whole stories of their lives, and we're pretty sure they never actually existed. But the people circulating and embellishing the stories thought they were real, and that was enough.

Even about bible characters, we have solid examples of that happening. For example, the unnamed soldier who pierced Jesus on the cross in the gospels -- again, something I'm pretty sure never happened because it's a deviation from the standard coup de grace for no reason other than fulfilling an OT "prophecy" -- eventually got a name (Longinus, a derivative of "longche", i.e., "lance", the weapon he used on Jesus, so again, fake), a rank (centurion, who wouldn't do such guard duty because he's the equivalent of a colonel in modern armies), a place of origin (Lanciano, another derivative of lance, so again fake), details like his eye problems, a biography, and eventually a miraculous conversion and martyrdom, and ended up a saint that is still venerated. And it only started happening by the end of the 6'th century. But a whole life of some unnamed character in a book was invented. And he doesn't have to be real. Just the people inventing and circulating stories about him thought he was real, and that was enough for legends to grow.
What historians "basically" use the "method" of Occam's Razor? I don't know any.

Among other things because Occam's Razor does not designate one single thing and because it has been interpreted in different ways. Among other things because it is not a scientific method of contrasting theories but a heuristic norm of hypothesis construction.

As you interpret it, it is like the principle of parsimony (not needlessly multiplying entities). But it is also used as a principle of simplicity (the hypothesis that introduces less axioms is preferable).

In the first case it is inapplicable to the opposition between mitistas and realists. Both introduce the same number of entities: a Jewish prophet and an inventor of myths as respective origins of the legend.

As for the second, the theory you propose (Paul was the inventor) is more complex than the realistic (a real prophet) because it forces you to introduce a lot of implausible assumptions: Paul had to invent an execution, a family of Christ, some witnesses of his death (Cephas and the other disciples) and assume that the recipients of his letters were foolish enough to believe everything he invented about the Jerusalem church. Wow. A little overdone.

No, if Occam's razor gives any advantage, it's not to your theory.
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 9th October 2019, 10:24 PM   #550
David Mo
Illuminator
 
David Mo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Location: Somewhere on the Greenwich meridian
Posts: 4,547
Originally Posted by smartcooky View Post
Robin Hood, William Tell, Arthur Pendragon. Three historical figures who are almost certainly not real, and yet to this day, there are those who still think these were real people.
Yeah. So what?
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 9th October 2019, 10:50 PM   #551
David Mo
Illuminator
 
David Mo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Location: Somewhere on the Greenwich meridian
Posts: 4,547
Originally Posted by dejudge View Post
You have no historical sources at all for your Jesus.
So what?
Originally Posted by dejudge View Post
It is simply absurd to suggest that since second century writers did believe their Jesus (born without sexual intercourse) was not a myth then he did exist.
Of course.

Originally Posted by dejudge View Post
Based on your absurdity, Romulus and Remus were not myths because Plutarch and people in the Roman Empire believed they existed.
Of course, except I have not said so.


Originally Posted by dejudge View Post
My argument that the character called Jesus of Nazareth never ever existed is based on writings of antiquity relating to the supposed character.

The stories of Jesus are either implausible, impossible, fiction or associated with forgeries and manipulation.
Also the Song of Roland and that doesn't mean that Charlemagne didn't exist.

Originally Posted by dejudge View Post
In addition, the supposed Pauline letters clearly show that the Christian faith did not require an historical character.

In the Epistles it is claimed that there would be no Christian faith, no salvation, without the resurrection of Jesus.

The resurrection is a non-historical event.
What you're saying doesn't make sense.
Paul believed that Jesus rose from the dead. Then he believed that there was a person who had previously died.
What you mean is that you don't believe in the possibility of someone being resurrected. Neither do I. But I don't know how the epistles show what you and I believe. You're making a mess.

Originally Posted by dejudge View Post
Your position on the existence/non-existence of Thales is irrelevant.
Typical exit of the one who doesn't know what to say. You're stuck with Thales.




Originally Posted by dejudge View Post
You seem to have no idea that your natural story is an invention derived from your imagination because you realise the stories of Jesus are not historically credible.
You think it's not credible that a Jewish prophet was crucified by the Romans? Why?

Originally Posted by dejudge View Post
You must know that even stories that appear natural can be complete fiction.
Just because it can be fiction doesn't mean it is.

Originally Posted by dejudge View Post
Examine Against Celsus attributed to Origen.

Against Celsus 1.32

Please, I am sorry!! I cannot accept your invented natural story of your Jesus. As expected you have no credible evidence to support it.
Do you now quote the authority of Origen against those who do not believe in the miracles of Jesus? Have you become a Christian? You seem a little dizzy, actually.

Last edited by David Mo; 9th October 2019 at 11:49 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 10th October 2019, 02:33 AM   #552
HansMustermann
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 15,746
Originally Posted by David Mo View Post
What historians "basically" use the "method" of Occam's Razor? I don't know any.

Among other things because Occam's Razor does not designate one single thing and because it has been interpreted in different ways. Among other things because it is not a scientific method of contrasting theories but a heuristic norm of hypothesis construction.

As you interpret it, it is like the principle of parsimony (not needlessly multiplying entities). But it is also used as a principle of simplicity (the hypothesis that introduces less axioms is preferable).

In the first case it is inapplicable to the opposition between mitistas and realists. Both introduce the same number of entities: a Jewish prophet and an inventor of myths as respective origins of the legend.

As for the second, the theory you propose (Paul was the inventor) is more complex than the realistic (a real prophet) because it forces you to introduce a lot of implausible assumptions: Paul had to invent an execution, a family of Christ, some witnesses of his death (Cephas and the other disciples) and assume that the recipients of his letters were foolish enough to believe everything he invented about the Jerusalem church. Wow. A little overdone.

No, if Occam's razor gives any advantage, it's not to your theory.
So basically your argument is based on not understanding the criterion of historical necessity, and pulling your own irrelevant nonsense out of the ass instead? Yeah, funny the kind of things you can rationalize when you have zero clue what you're talking about.

The criterion of historical necessity deals with something being necessary to happen, in order for history to have gone that way. Not just for it to be a possibility, but NECESSARY.

E.g., Alexander's conquest of Asia passes that criterion because NECESSARILY someone had to actually march an army there, occupy all those cities, and defeat the Persian army so it can't take them back. All the flipping to Helenic rulership and the subsequent Diadochi wars can't possibly have happened on just a rumour or a lie. You wouldn't find Ptolemy ruling Egypt afterwards if someone just heard a rumour there's a fictive guy called Alexander coming to Egypt with a fictive army. It HAD to be an actual army and it HAD to actually be there.

E.g., Caesar's crossing the Rubicon passes that criterion because, among other things, the Roman civil war couldn't have possibly gone the way it did, unless someone actually occupied Rome. SOME army had to actually come into Rome at that time and secure it, and there was no other place from which it could have come. It's not enough for someone to have invented such an army, or just believed there's an army or whatever. The original abandoning of Rome COULD have happened on a rumour or lie, but the scouts and the remaining republic fans in Rome would see if there wasn't actually one entering the city.

THAT is the criterion of historical necessity. Your pulling your own alternate dumbassery out of the ass is just flat out irrelevant.

But generally, what you do there is stupid even for any other application of Occam. When it becomes just a way to rationalize dumb gullibility to the effect of "someone wouldn't have imagined it", that's not even Occam, it's just a nonsense ad-hoc rationalization of gullibility. Because the real Occam is used to distinguish between stuff that obviously people could invent. Otherwise they wouldn't even be there as an alternative to exclude.

Additionally, even applying your own nonsense interpretation is still stupidly flawed. Because even if you count "someone thought X" as an entity, you fail to count the dozens or possibly even hundreds of people telling each other about Jesus, to form a chain of information between Jesus and the people writing down the stories about him. For even Paul to have any reliable information about Jesus, and doubly so if you want to take ANYTHING from the gospel writers for your HJ, some guy had to tell some other guy, who told yet another guy, who told Paul, since he had no personal knowledge of not only Jesus at that point, but hadn't been to Jerusalem yet or met anyone supposedly associated with Jesus. All those people and actions in between are extra entities/actions/axioms/whatever you have to postulate without any evidence, to make that work. Because without that chain of information, "Paul invented it" is just the null hypothesis, not an extra.
__________________
Which part of "Ph'nglui mglw'nafh Cthulhu R'lyeh wgah'nagl fhtagn" don't you understand?

Last edited by HansMustermann; 10th October 2019 at 03:10 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 10th October 2019, 02:41 AM   #553
dejudge
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Nov 2013
Posts: 5,062
Originally Posted by dejudge
...... the supposed Pauline letters clearly show that the Christian faith did not require an historical character.

In the Epistles it is claimed that there would be no Christian faith, no salvation, without the resurrection of Jesus.

The resurrection is a non-historical event.
Originally Posted by David Mo
What you're saying doesn't make sense.
Paul believed that Jesus rose from the dead. Then he believed that there was a person who had previously died.
What you mean is that you don't believe in the possibility of someone being resurrected. Neither do I. But I don't know how the epistles show what you and I believe. You're making a mess.
Your claim about the character called Paul mis-represents the written statement in a so-called Epistle to the Corinthians.

The writer under the name of Paul stated that he himself SAW Jesus after the resurrection.


1 Corinthians 15
Quote:
3 For I delivered unto you first of all that which I also received, how that Christ died for our sins according to the scriptures

and that he was buried, and that he rose again the third day according to the scriptures:

5 And that he was seen of Cephas, then of the twelve:

6 After that, he was seen of above five hundred brethren at once; of whom the greater part remain unto this present, but some are fallen asleep.

7 After that, he was seen of James; then of all the apostles.

8 And last of all he was seen of me also, as of one born out of due time.
1 Corinthians 15 have exposed your fallacies.

The supposed Pauline writer openly lied about seeing the resurrected Jesus.

The Christian faith and salvation did not require an historical Jesus. It was based on the fiction of a non-historical resurrection.


Originally Posted by dejudge
Examine Against Celsus attributed to Origen.

Against Celsus 1.32
Quote:
It was to be expected, indeed, that those who would not believe the miraculous birth of Jesus would invent some falsehood.
Originally Posted by David Mo
Do you now quote the authority of Origen against those who do not believe in the miracles of Jesus? Have you become a Christian? You seem a little dizzy, actually.
I made reference to Against Celsus to show that it was known that there would be people who would mis-represent the claims by Christians or invent their own Jesus story because they did not accept the miraculous stories of Jesus.

Although you appear not to believe the miracles of the supposed Jesus you have mis-represented the fact that a Pauline writer stated he and over 500 persons was seen of the resurrected Jesus.

Last edited by dejudge; 10th October 2019 at 02:47 AM.
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 10th October 2019, 03:19 AM   #554
HansMustermann
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 15,746
Well, maybe Paul or maybe someone who told him about it, but SOMEONE had to lie. For that information to be actually true, ALL the following have to be true:
1. Someone did see the risen Jesus.
2. Someone told Paul that they saw the risen Jesus.
3. Paul is reporting it truthfully.

Since each of those is one bit of information (0=false, 1=true), there are 8 combinations and only 1 would make it a testimony worth anything. I mean even true-false-true would make Paul coincidentally right, but still basically a liar. And since any true-anything-anything combination involves a miracle, the remaining 4 combinations still involve a lie somewhere down the chain.

So, yeah, any reconstruction from there involves believing that one can know that source X lies, but still believe that they can totally pick the parts they didn't lie about, without any evidence or really anything more than wishful thinking.
__________________
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 10th October 2019, 03:49 AM   #555
HansMustermann
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 15,746
I would somewhat challenge that simple understanding though, on the basis that down the page in 1 Corinthians 15:35-54 Paul dismisses as foolish the idea that anyone would be resurrected in their own body. It's not even a fringe view. Ehrman for example says the exact same too: "Here Paul stresses that Jesus rose from the dead in a "spiritual body."" That's a direct quote of Paul's words, btw: "spiritual body."

So Paul isn't actually saying that Peter, James and the 500 actually "saw" a zombie Jesus in his old body. Somehow they "saw" Jesus just like Paul did, as a risen ghost.

In fact, Paul's seeing Jesus is described in 2 Corinthians 12, from the top of the page. He describes "a man", which is hinted and understood as being Paul, being taken to paradise, where he talks to Jesus. I.e., he doesn't even see the "spiritual body" Jesus on Earth, but in a whole other realm.

It is a fair guess that the other 500+ people "saw" Jesus in that realm too.

Actually an even better translation is not as much that they "saw" it, but that he "appeared" or was "revealed" to them, or was somehow "discerned" by them. The subject of that sentence is Jesus, not those guys. The verb "horao" is also used quite EXTENSIVELY as basically "seeing with the mind", so to speak, rather than with the eyes.

This is actually rather crucial to the MJ theory. Paul doesn't actually say anyone actually ever saw Jesus's earthly body, before or after. He only says that Jesus was somehow revealed to them after his resurrection, which, as we established, was as a spirit. Indeed Paul spends half a page debunking as absurd the idea that Jesus could have risen in his old material body, so, you know, that's not what those guys could have seen. As such, it's not really crucial that those guys ever saw Jesus in a material body. That's not how they recognized him.

Edit: In fact, other than some mass hallucination (e.g., caused by Ergot), it's rather unlikely that ghostly Jesus would be revealed to 500 different people at the same time as an actual vision. Their somehow just "discerning" that, yeah, the scripture says he already rose is a rather more plausible version.

So here's a possible timeline: Peter somehow "discerns" that the messiah already rose. Possibly in a vision, possibly in a dream, or just has a flash of enlightenment while poring over the scriptures. He TELLS the 12, who also "discern" that, yeah, you know, Peter is right. Their messiah already came and already was resurrected. Then 500 followers of this cult agree to it. James arrives a bit later and is convinced too. Meanwhile way later, Paul has the same revelation in a vision, and proceeds to preach it all over the place. And when he finally meets Peter and James, of course they don't have anything to add to his version, because both reconstructed the same thing from the same scriptures. In fact, Paul's version may even be more detailed than theirs.
__________________
Which part of "Ph'nglui mglw'nafh Cthulhu R'lyeh wgah'nagl fhtagn" don't you understand?

Last edited by HansMustermann; 10th October 2019 at 03:56 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 10th October 2019, 08:44 AM   #556
dejudge
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Nov 2013
Posts: 5,062
Originally Posted by HansMustermann View Post
I would somewhat challenge that simple understanding though, on the basis that down the page in 1 Corinthians 15:35-54 Paul dismisses as foolish the idea that anyone would be resurrected in their own body. It's not even a fringe view. Ehrman for example says the exact same too: "Here Paul stresses that Jesus rose from the dead in a "spiritual body."" That's a direct quote of Paul's words, btw: "spiritual body."

So Paul isn't actually saying that Peter, James and the 500 actually "saw" a zombie Jesus in his old body. Somehow they "saw" Jesus just like Paul did, as a risen ghost.


In fact, Paul's seeing Jesus is described in 2 Corinthians 12, from the top of the page. He describes "a man", which is hinted and understood as being Paul, being taken to paradise, where he talks to Jesus. I.e., he doesn't even see the "spiritual body" Jesus on Earth, but in a whole other realm.

It is a fair guess that the other 500+ people "saw" Jesus in that realm too.

Actually an even better translation is not as much that they "saw" it, but that he "appeared" or was "revealed" to them, or was somehow "discerned" by them. The subject of that sentence is Jesus, not those guys. The verb "horao" is also used quite EXTENSIVELY as basically "seeing with the mind", so to speak, rather than with the eyes.

This is actually rather crucial to the MJ theory. Paul doesn't actually say anyone actually ever saw Jesus's earthly body, before or after. He only says that Jesus was somehow revealed to them after his resurrection, which, as we established, was as a spirit. Indeed Paul spends half a page debunking as absurd the idea that Jesus could have risen in his old material body, so, you know, that's not what those guys could have seen. As such, it's not really crucial that those guys ever saw Jesus in a material body. That's not how they recognized him.

Edit: In fact, other than some mass hallucination (e.g., caused by Ergot), it's rather unlikely that ghostly Jesus would be revealed to 500 different people at the same time as an actual vision. Their somehow just "discerning" that, yeah, the scripture says he already rose is a rather more plausible version.
Please, tell me how a spiritual body would appear after it resurrected?

Please, tell me how a dead, buried for three days, would appear, after a resurrection.

All you have done is to show that the claims by the so-called Pauline about seeing a resurrected Jesus are hopelessly false.


The so-called Pauline Epistles confirm that the writers under the name of Paul were both liars and deceivers when they attempted to historicise the resurrection of Jesus.


Originally Posted by HansMustermann View Post
So here's a possible timeline: Peter somehow "discerns" that the messiah already rose. Possibly in a vision, possibly in a dream, or just has a flash of enlightenment while poring over the scriptures. He TELLS the 12, who also "discern" that, yeah, you know, Peter is right. Their messiah already came and already was resurrected. Then 500 followers of this cult agree to it. James arrives a bit later and is convinced too. Meanwhile way later, Paul has the same revelation in a vision, and proceeds to preach it all over the place. And when he finally meets Peter and James, of course they don't have anything to add to his version, because both reconstructed the same thing from the same scriptures. In fact, Paul's version may even be more detailed than theirs.
So you want me to believe your uncorroborated story that you invented from your imagination?

You must know that it is stated in the NT that Peter and other disciples met the resurrected Jesus multiple times and that it is stated that the resurrected body of Jesus was physically examined.


Luke 24
Quote:
38 And he said unto them, Why are ye troubled? and why do thoughts arise in your hearts?

39 Behold my hands and my feet, that it is I myself: handle me, and see; for a spirit hath not flesh and bones, as ye see me have.

40 And when he had thus spoken, he shewed them his hands and his feet.
John 20
Quote:
24 But Thomas, one of the twelve, called Didymus, was not with them when Jesus came.

25 The other disciples therefore said unto him, We have seen the Lord. But he said unto them, Except I shall see in his hands the print of the nails, and put my finger into the print of the nails, and thrust my hand into his side, I will not believe.

26 And after eight days again his disciples were within, and Thomas with them: then came Jesus, the doors being shut, and stood in the midst, and said, Peace be unto you.

27 Then saith he to Thomas, Reach hither thy finger, and behold my hands; and reach hither thy hand, and thrust it into my side: and be not faithless, but believing.

28 And Thomas answered and said unto him, My Lord and my God.
The NT including the supposed Pauline Epistles teaches that Jesus physically resurrected on the third day after he was dead and buried.

Jesus of the NT is a figure of fiction.

Last edited by dejudge; 10th October 2019 at 08:46 AM.
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 10th October 2019, 10:37 PM   #557
David Mo
Illuminator
 
David Mo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Location: Somewhere on the Greenwich meridian
Posts: 4,547
Originally Posted by HansMustermann View Post
So basically your argument is based on not understanding the criterion of historical necessity, and pulling your own irrelevant nonsense out of the ass instead? Yeah, funny the kind of things you can rationalize when you have zero clue what you're talking about.

The criterion of historical necessity deals with something being necessary to happen, in order for history to have gone that way. Not just for it to be a possibility, but NECESSARY.

E.g., Alexander's conquest of Asia passes that criterion because NECESSARILY someone had to actually march an army there, occupy all those cities, and defeat the Persian army so it can't take them back. All the flipping to Helenic rulership and the subsequent Diadochi wars can't possibly have happened on just a rumour or a lie. You wouldn't find Ptolemy ruling Egypt afterwards if someone just heard a rumour there's a fictive guy called Alexander coming to Egypt with a fictive army. It HAD to be an actual army and it HAD to actually be there.

E.g., Caesar's crossing the Rubicon passes that criterion because, among other things, the Roman civil war couldn't have possibly gone the way it did, unless someone actually occupied Rome. SOME army had to actually come into Rome at that time and secure it, and there was no other place from which it could have come. It's not enough for someone to have invented such an army, or just believed there's an army or whatever. The original abandoning of Rome COULD have happened on a rumour or lie, but the scouts and the remaining republic fans in Rome would see if there wasn't actually one entering the city.

THAT is the criterion of historical necessity. Your pulling your own alternate dumbassery out of the ass is just flat out irrelevant.

But generally, what you do there is stupid even for any other application of Occam. When it becomes just a way to rationalize dumb gullibility to the effect of "someone wouldn't have imagined it", that's not even Occam, it's just a nonsense ad-hoc rationalization of gullibility. Because the real Occam is used to distinguish between stuff that obviously people could invent. Otherwise they wouldn't even be there as an alternative to exclude.

Additionally, even applying your own nonsense interpretation is still stupidly flawed. Because even if you count "someone thought X" as an entity, you fail to count the dozens or possibly even hundreds of people telling each other about Jesus, to form a chain of information between Jesus and the people writing down the stories about him. For even Paul to have any reliable information about Jesus, and doubly so if you want to take ANYTHING from the gospel writers for your HJ, some guy had to tell some other guy, who told yet another guy, who told Paul, since he had no personal knowledge of not only Jesus at that point, but hadn't been to Jerusalem yet or met anyone supposedly associated with Jesus. All those people and actions in between are extra entities/actions/axioms/whatever you have to postulate without any evidence, to make that work. Because without that chain of information, "Paul invented it" is just the null hypothesis, not an extra.
You have invented that "historians basically apply Occam's Razor method" and now the "historical criterion of necessity". If you said your sources perhaps we could know what you are talking about because the examples you cite have nothing to do with Occam's razor. Although in the two examples the word "necessity" appears, it is not in the same sense. Moreover, it has nothing to do with the usual version of Occam's principle: "Entities should not be multiplied without necessity".
The examples you quote are simply causal explanations of particular events. The data we have narrating the invasion of Persia by Alexander and the Roman civil war are conclusive in stating that Alexander's army occupied Persia and that Caesar probably passed the Rubicon. And I say probably because in history there is nothing that is necessary. Unless you accept Hegelianism or Marxism, the concept of necessity does not exist in the historical explanation. What's more, Marx reduces it to the effects of the economy, not to particular events. What you call "necessity" is that data can be explained much more likely in one way or another. And that's even arguable about the Rubicon's passage.

Perhaps all of this could be made clearer if you explain to us where you got that ghostly "criterion of historical necessity". I haven't found anything like it on Google. Maybe I've looked for it wrong and you can help me. Or maybe you are a fantasist. We'll see.

I apologize for this long introduction. It really has nothing to do with what we're discussing because we're not talking about historical characters that we know from a multitude of cross-referenced data, but about a character that is not historical, but the protagonist of legendary stories.

It is funny that you now accuse me of bringing Occam's razor here when it was you who, to my surprise, introduced it into the debate on the grounds that it was a "historical method" demonstrating the superiority of mythicism. I would ask you to fix your position because this looks like a barcarola. No wonder you end up dizzy.

If you want a simple explanation, which is neither more nor less simple than to suppose one or more inventors of a character, you cannot turn to Paul, because he speaks of people who allegedly knew Jesus directly before his death. If we accept the authenticity of these quotes we must assume that Paul was not the inventor of the legend of Jesus the Galilean. The simplest thing is that when he converted to Christianity there were already some stories circulating about Jesus based on people who knew him, like his brother James. Whether they were true or not we cannot know, because what we have about the life and miracles of Jesus are later writings that do not allow us to get a precise idea of what people like Cephas or Santiago believed.

Last edited by David Mo; 11th 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 10th October 2019, 10:47 PM   #558
David Mo
Illuminator
 
David Mo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Location: Somewhere on the Greenwich meridian
Posts: 4,547
Originally Posted by dejudge View Post
Your claim about the character called Paul mis-represents the written statement in a so-called Epistle to the Corinthians.

The writer under the name of Paul stated that he himself SAW Jesus after the resurrection.


1 Corinthians 15

1 Corinthians 15 have exposed your fallacies.

The supposed Pauline writer openly lied about seeing the resurrected Jesus.

The Christian faith and salvation did not require an historical Jesus. It was based on the fiction of a non-historical resurrection.






I made reference to Against Celsus to show that it was known that there would be people who would mis-represent the claims by Christians or invent their own Jesus story because they did not accept the miraculous stories of Jesus.

Although you appear not to believe the miracles of the supposed Jesus you have mis-represented the fact that a Pauline writer stated he and over 500 persons was seen of the resurrected Jesus.
I don't know what the hell you have in your head, but if Paul claims that Jesus rose from the dead after being buried, it is to be assumed that he believed that Jesus had a body to bury. In other words, at least in part, he was a person of flesh and blood. This belief is maintained in other passages of the epistles that attribute to him a birth "according to the flesh," a human lineage and family, a presence as a human being among the disciples, and a death on the cross. All this are human events that had nothing of strange in themselves.
You may believe that he is lying or not, but this is what he preached.

I don't believe in Christ's miracles nor any other. I have said it twenty times. I will only believe in miracles if you quote me correctly once. That would be an indisputable miracle.
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 11th October 2019, 12:01 AM   #559
David Mo
Illuminator
 
David Mo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Location: Somewhere on the Greenwich meridian
Posts: 4,547
Originally Posted by HansMustermann View Post
I would somewhat challenge that simple understanding though, on the basis that down the page in 1 Corinthians 15:35-54 Paul dismisses as foolish the idea that anyone would be resurrected in their own body. It's not even a fringe view. Ehrman for example says the exact same too: "Here Paul stresses that Jesus rose from the dead in a "spiritual body."" That's a direct quote of Paul's words, btw: "spiritual body."

So Paul isn't actually saying that Peter, James and the 500 actually "saw" a zombie Jesus in his old body. Somehow they "saw" Jesus just like Paul did, as a risen ghost.

In fact, Paul's seeing Jesus is described in 2 Corinthians 12, from the top of the page. He describes "a man", which is hinted and understood as being Paul, being taken to paradise, where he talks to Jesus. I.e., he doesn't even see the "spiritual body" Jesus on Earth, but in a whole other realm.

It is a fair guess that the other 500+ people "saw" Jesus in that realm too.

Actually an even better translation is not as much that they "saw" it, but that he "appeared" or was "revealed" to them, or was somehow "discerned" by them. The subject of that sentence is Jesus, not those guys. The verb "horao" is also used quite EXTENSIVELY as basically "seeing with the mind", so to speak, rather than with the eyes.

This is actually rather crucial to the MJ theory. Paul doesn't actually say anyone actually ever saw Jesus's earthly body, before or after. He only says that Jesus was somehow revealed to them after his resurrection, which, as we established, was as a spirit. Indeed Paul spends half a page debunking as absurd the idea that Jesus could have risen in his old material body, so, you know, that's not what those guys could have seen. As such, it's not really crucial that those guys ever saw Jesus in a material body. That's not how they recognized him.

Edit: In fact, other than some mass hallucination (e.g., caused by Ergot), it's rather unlikely that ghostly Jesus would be revealed to 500 different people at the same time as an actual vision. Their somehow just "discerning" that, yeah, the scripture says he already rose is a rather more plausible version.

So here's a possible timeline: Peter somehow "discerns" that the messiah already rose. Possibly in a vision, possibly in a dream, or just has a flash of enlightenment while poring over the scriptures. He TELLS the 12, who also "discern" that, yeah, you know, Peter is right. Their messiah already came and already was resurrected. Then 500 followers of this cult agree to it. James arrives a bit later and is convinced too. Meanwhile way later, Paul has the same revelation in a vision, and proceeds to preach it all over the place. And when he finally meets Peter and James, of course they don't have anything to add to his version, because both reconstructed the same thing from the same scriptures. In fact, Paul's version may even be more detailed than theirs.
The problem for mythicism is not the apparitions of the risen Christ. These could be hallucinations or they could not have existed. To "see" Christ was a certificate of "apostolate" and it is not strange that the supporters of one or the other apostle (sometimes at odds with each other) attributed visions to them. But Paul believed that apart from the divine character of Jesus or his "spiritual body" (what a mixture!) he had a human presence before his resurrection: a birth, a linage, a family, many disciples, a death and a burial. This is what he tells in the epistles, at least. Nothing to justify mythicism.

The case is not the borrowing of legendary deeds from scriptures. This is evident. Alternative is whether this borrowing was used to justify the evident Jesus' failure or to invent the apparent Jesus' failure. Latter sounds illogical.
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 11th October 2019, 12:22 PM   #560
dejudge
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Nov 2013
Posts: 5,062
Originally Posted by David Mo View Post
I don't know what the hell you have in your head, but if Paul claims that Jesus rose from the dead after being buried, it is to be assumed that he believed that Jesus had a body to bury. In other words, at least in part, he was a person of flesh and blood. This belief is maintained in other passages of the epistles that attribute to him a birth "according to the flesh," a human lineage and family, a presence as a human being among the disciples, and a death on the cross. All this are human events that had nothing of strange in themselves.
You may believe that he is lying or not, but this is what he preached.
The Pauline writer lied when it is stated that he was seen of Jesus after he was dead, buried and resurrected.

You very well know that it is stated that Jesus was God's son made of a woman and he was from heaven.

Galatians 4:4
Quote:
But when the fulness of the time was come, God sent forth his Son, made of a woman, made under the law.
1 Corinthians 15:45
Quote:
And so it is written, The first man Adam was made a living soul; the last Adam was made a quickening spirit.
1 Corinthians 15:47
Quote:
The first man is of the earth, earthy; the second man is the Lord from heaven.
1 Corinthians 15
Quote:
39 All flesh is not the same flesh: but there is one kind of flesh of men, another flesh of beasts, another of fishes, and another of birds.

40 There are also celestial bodies, and bodies terrestrial.
The Pauline Jesus, the Lord from heaven who resurrected is a fiction/myth character - it never ever existed.

Originally Posted by David Mo
I don't believe in Christ's miracles nor any other. I have said it twenty times. I will only believe in miracles if you quote me correctly once. That would be an indisputable miracle.
So because you don't believe the Jesus stories with miracles you have invented your own story without miracles and without historical corroboration.

You seem to have no idea that the miracles in the Jesus stories must have been believed to be plausible by people of antiquity who accepted mythology/fiction as 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
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 11:47 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.