Jesus myth
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
24-01-2014, 06:18 AM
RE: Jesus myth
(24-01-2014 12:05 AM)toadaly Wrote:  The actual message has nothing to do with miracles and fig trees. The fig tree represents the temple, the leaves represent the impressive show of piety that goes on there, with sacrifices and observance of law and tradition, and the nonexistent fruit is understanding (from an early xian perspective) that the temple and all it's disply of religiosoty has failed to produce...so the temple and those associated with it are rejected and later on "whither" as a result.
Well, that's little more than your personal interpretation.

[Image: 7oDSbD4.gif]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
24-01-2014, 06:23 AM
RE: Jesus myth
(23-01-2014 09:14 PM)Free Wrote:  
Quote:Right, Carrier is wrong because you don't like how he evaluate evidence. And it doesn't matter what he says because you don't like him and he's wrong, and he's wrong because he's wrong. And when his book comes out it'll be even more wrong because... reasons...

On the contrary, I do not dislike nor like Carrier at all. My problem with the guy is that he appears to be taking the side of mythicism as a means to gain a degree of popularity.

and some suspect Ehrman is taking the side of a historical Jesus, so he can keep his popularity.

But, anyway, I do like to read both sides of an argument.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
24-01-2014, 06:50 AM
RE: Jesus myth
(23-01-2014 01:46 AM)Taqiyya Mockingbird Wrote:  EDIT: 1900 posts, Bitchez!

Fucking idiot.

Yes 1900 worthless posts that stand as a testimony that you are a waste of oxygen. Do something useful--die and donate your organs. Your brain will be disposed as waste--as it should be.
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
24-01-2014, 08:05 AM
RE: Jesus myth
(23-01-2014 10:55 PM)toadaly Wrote:  
(23-01-2014 12:02 AM)Chas Wrote:  The story of young George Washington and the cherry tree is a parable.

...I'd say it's legend, not parable. There are many examples of legends building up around historical people. Really, any magical laquer falls into that same category. The purpose of such a glaze is to reinforce the godlike image of the person in it.

But back to the parable of the fig tree. Although Jesus does do something magical in that story, taken at face value, it makes him seem somewhat volatile and insane. The actual message doesn't have anything to do with a human Jesus or figs or a fig tree. The story is not designed to demonstrate how super fantastic Jesus is, the story is designed for something completely different, and Jesus plays an allegorical role in this allegorical story.

I'd say it is quite clearly a parable as the point of it is to teach a lesson in honesty.

Skepticism is not a position; it is an approach to claims.
Science is not a subject, but a method.
[Image: flagstiny%206.gif]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
24-01-2014, 08:09 AM (This post was last modified: 24-01-2014 08:34 AM by anonymous66.)
RE: Jesus myth
(23-01-2014 09:14 PM)Free Wrote:  
Quote:Right, Carrier is wrong because you don't like how he evaluate evidence. And it doesn't matter what he says because you don't like him and he's wrong, and he's wrong because he's wrong. And when his book comes out it'll be even more wrong because... reasons...



You wait and see how he applies his theorem to Jesus of Nazareth, and then watch how I, Bart, and just about anybody else with a clue will demonstrate that by using his procedure we can effectively eliminate almost all ancient historical figures from existence.

As opposed to what exactly?

Using the criterion of embarrassment to "prove" that known fictional characters must actually have existed as historical figures?

Creating theoretical sources (Q, M, L) and suggesting they are historical evidence? The Criterion of multiple attestation has it's problems.

As does the Criterion of dissimilarity.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
24-01-2014, 08:19 AM
RE: Jesus myth
All the arguments for a historical Jesus start with a historical Jesus as a given, then discredit any effort to question the assumption. If you start with the question as a question, it becomes very difficult to arrive at his historical existence as a conclusion rather than an assumption.

Sounds familiar.

I would like to know the names of any historical figure whose existence can be challenged as effectively using the same arguments the mythicists use about Jesus. Dare I invoke the slippery slope fallacy?
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
24-01-2014, 08:24 AM
RE: Jesus myth
(24-01-2014 08:09 AM)anonymous66 Wrote:  
(23-01-2014 09:14 PM)Free Wrote:  You wait and see how he applies his theorem to Jesus of Nazareth, and then watch how I, Bart, and just about anybody else with a clue will demonstrate that by using his procedure we can effectively eliminate almost all ancient historical figures from existence.

As opposed to what exactly?

Using the criterion of embarrassment to "prove" that known fictional characters must actually have existed as historical figures?

Creating theoretical sources (Q, M, L) and suggesting they are historical evidence?

No.

It's called The Historical Method, also known as "historiography."

Quote:Historical method comprises the techniques and guidelines by which historians use primary sources and other evidence, including the evidence of archaeology, to research and then to write histories in the form of accounts of the past. The question of the nature, and even the possibility, of a sound historical method is raised in the philosophy of history as a question of epistemology. The study of historical method and of different ways of writing history is known as historiography.

Click the link to learn more.

Having problems with your computer? Visit our Free Tech Support thread for help!
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
24-01-2014, 08:26 AM
RE: Jesus myth
You can use the historical method to bolster the true history of Sherlock Holmes from the apocryphal. That doesn't make Sherlock Holmes a historical figure.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
24-01-2014, 08:48 AM
RE: Jesus myth
(23-01-2014 09:44 PM)TwoCultSurvivor Wrote:  Again, you would not permit such rationalization from a theist. You can't explain away his failure to mention Jesus, and you can't seriously argue that said failure is more consistent with your view than with mine. Tacitus' reference to Christus is inconsistent with his reliance on a record referencing Jesus.

You did not understand a point I made in a previous post in regards to evidence, so I will post it again, followed by a question and answer situation:


Quote:...history is not just about probabilities, but also about actual tangible evidence, detailed textual analysis, cross-referencing, archaeology, collective of intelligence, as well as numerous other components that allow the collective of intelligence to arrive at an unbiased and well-supported consensus to approximate the truth on a whole ...

http://www.thethinkingatheist.com/forum/...#pid475128

Therefore, when we look at what Tacitus says about Christ and Christians, it requires no effort at all to reason that he is speaking of Jesus of Nazareth as being Christus due to the following reasoning:

Q: Using all other available evidence, and knowing the "Christ" is a title, then what is the most probable answer to the question of "What is the name of this Christ whom Tacitus is speaking about?"

A: All available evidence indicates that no one else has ever been considered as holding the title of Christ and being the originator of the Christians religion other than the person known as Jesus of Nazareth.

But if you want to continue extrapolating singular pieces of evidence and evaluate it without using the Historical Method, then that's up to you.

That's precisely what Christ Myth Theorists do, and that is precisely why they are easily and rapidly dismissed.

Drinking Beverage

Having problems with your computer? Visit our Free Tech Support thread for help!
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
24-01-2014, 08:49 AM
RE: Jesus myth
(24-01-2014 08:24 AM)Free Wrote:  
(24-01-2014 08:09 AM)anonymous66 Wrote:  As opposed to what exactly?

Using the criterion of embarrassment to "prove" that known fictional characters must actually have existed as historical figures?

Creating theoretical sources (Q, M, L) and suggesting they are historical evidence?

No.

It's called The Historical Method, also known as "historiography."

Quote:Historical method comprises the techniques and guidelines by which historians use primary sources and other evidence, including the evidence of archaeology, to research and then to write histories in the form of accounts of the past. The question of the nature, and even the possibility, of a sound historical method is raised in the philosophy of history as a question of epistemology. The study of historical method and of different ways of writing history is known as historiography.

Click the link to learn more.

Um, yes... the 3 criterions mentioned in my post #345 have obvious issues. Why not look for better ways to judge the historicity of ancient events and people?
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: