Jesus myth
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
30-01-2014, 06:36 PM
RE: Jesus myth
(30-01-2014 04:39 PM)TwoCultSurvivor Wrote:  I quibble with your use of the term skepticism (why are we spelling it differently, by the way?)
It's the usual difference between American and British English. Smartass

[Image: 7oDSbD4.gif]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
30-01-2014, 07:12 PM
RE: Jesus myth
(30-01-2014 04:39 PM)TwoCultSurvivor Wrote:  I don't disagree with your major points, Brownshirt. I quibble with your use of the term skepticism (why are we spelling it differently, by the way?)

I am trying to distinguish between skepticism and doubt. I do not doubt that Jesus existed, but it is perfectly fair to approach the question of whether he existed with skepticism -- on both sides. I can treat the proposition "Jesus existed" with just as much skepticism as I treat the proposition "Jesus did not exist." I apply that skepticism to the evidence as warranted: does this piece of evidence prove what these folks say it proves?

Wasn't there someone who recently claimed he found proof that Jesus never existed? I remember reading about it recently, and not being convinced by his argument. Forgive me for not remembering the details, but others here may remember exactly who/what I'm talking about, and I'm sure it was brought up early in this thread. The point is, I approached his argument skeptically: not because I did or did not agree with it, but because that is the best way to approach claims. When a claim survives a skeptical analysis, you can place greater confidence in it.

Skepticism is not cynicism. It is not stubborn denial. It is a healthy way to approach evidence. I fear that you are missing parts of what I am saying because you and I are defining the word differently. Forgive me if I seem like a bore trying to explain exactly what I mean by using that word.

We're spelling it differently as I presume you're American. http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/defini...scepticism
Yours is archaic apparently. I think defining terms and intent is key when discussing things, so you're not boring me at all. So many people assume their position is known.

I agree with your definition of scepticism/skepticism, however I find it a little murky when it enters the atheistic realms. I think it's primarily around my issue with atheism as a philosophical label, as I don't believe it provides any insight into what atheists believe and why. I can understand it as a label when they live in a predominantly theistic area, but beyond that I really don't get it. It's akin to saying my position on x is lacking belief in y. This offers little into defining the rationale behind it.

My point here is some atheists cross into sceptics when dealing with a historical Jesus, and while it is possible that he didn't exist, I find it unlikely that he didn't based on evidence to the contrary. I could be sceptical with anything historical, but unless new evidence or account comes to light on a topic I have no inclination to question it. The end result would be second guessing everything and resulting in a post-modern hell, which I really have no desire to do. Scepticism when addressing the existence/god question doesn't mesh personally for me a I see it as a branch of empiricism which depends on a physical reality we can observe to further what reality is, or rather what we perceive reality to be.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
30-01-2014, 09:18 PM
RE: Jesus myth
The problem is that skepticism has multiple valid meanings, and unless I am clear about what I mean, my point may get lost in semantics.

When I talk about skepticism, I'm talking about, in general, taking nothing for granted without sufficient evidence. This gets applied within reasonable limits. I am not the kind of skeptic who will question the existence of other people, for example. You are not figments of my imagination. I am not the kind of skeptic who will entertain the suggestion that all the screen names on this forum belong to one person who is really glad I came along so that now there's two of us.

I am a journalist. In my job, I can afford to take nothing for granted. Just today, I had to supply attribution for reporting a fact that was not in dispute (attribution is to journalism as citation is to academia). The old saying in journalism is, "if your mother says she loves you, check it out." Take no one's word for granted. Of course, that's hyperbole, and that's my point. I don't equate skepticism with doubt or cynicism.

I just told you I'm a journalist. Do you believe me? Probably. But if someone asked you to prove it, could you? No. Aside from my claim, I haven't given you enough information to prove it. You may believe it, but if you're honest, you recognize that your ability to prove it is limited the the quantity and quality of the evidence at your disposal.

That's where I feel I am on the historicity of Jesus. I believe he existed. But I think the Historicists overstate the level of confidence with which we can express our certainty on the issue. The direct evidence is exceedingly weak. The indirect evidence is a bit better, but...


Blah blah blah. I've made my point.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like TwoCultSurvivor's post
30-01-2014, 10:41 PM
RE: Jesus myth
(30-01-2014 09:18 PM)TwoCultSurvivor Wrote:  I am not the kind of skeptic who will entertain the suggestion that all the screen names on this forum belong to one person who is really glad I came along so that now there's two of us.

Good! I'm...er...we're glad you don't believe that.

Softly, softly, catchee monkey.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like toadaly's post
05-02-2014, 09:26 PM
RE: Jesus myth
(30-01-2014 09:18 PM)TwoCultSurvivor Wrote:  The problem is that skepticism has multiple valid meanings, and unless I am clear about what I mean, my point may get lost in semantics.

When I talk about skepticism, I'm talking about, in general, taking nothing for granted without sufficient evidence. This gets applied within reasonable limits. I am not the kind of skeptic who will question the existence of other people, for example. You are not figments of my imagination. I am not the kind of skeptic who will entertain the suggestion that all the screen names on this forum belong to one person who is really glad I came along so that now there's two of us.

I am a journalist. In my job, I can afford to take nothing for granted. Just today, I had to supply attribution for reporting a fact that was not in dispute (attribution is to journalism as citation is to academia). The old saying in journalism is, "if your mother says she loves you, check it out." Take no one's word for granted. Of course, that's hyperbole, and that's my point. I don't equate skepticism with doubt or cynicism.

I just told you I'm a journalist. Do you believe me? Probably. But if someone asked you to prove it, could you? No. Aside from my claim, I haven't given you enough information to prove it. You may believe it, but if you're honest, you recognize that your ability to prove it is limited the the quantity and quality of the evidence at your disposal.

That's where I feel I am on the historicity of Jesus. I believe he existed. But I think the Historicists overstate the level of confidence with which we can express our certainty on the issue. The direct evidence is exceedingly weak. The indirect evidence is a bit better, but...


Blah blah blah. I've made my point.

Since reading Ellis I have decided that Jesus was a real person but we are looking in the wrong era and we are looking for a lowly preacher rather than a messianic soldier/high priest of a Nazarene sect. Start looking for that and there are only a few candidates.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
05-02-2014, 10:09 PM
RE: Jesus myth
(05-02-2014 09:26 PM)Deltabravo Wrote:  
(30-01-2014 09:18 PM)TwoCultSurvivor Wrote:  The problem is that skepticism has multiple valid meanings, and unless I am clear about what I mean, my point may get lost in semantics.

When I talk about skepticism, I'm talking about, in general, taking nothing for granted without sufficient evidence. This gets applied within reasonable limits. I am not the kind of skeptic who will question the existence of other people, for example. You are not figments of my imagination. I am not the kind of skeptic who will entertain the suggestion that all the screen names on this forum belong to one person who is really glad I came along so that now there's two of us.

I am a journalist. In my job, I can afford to take nothing for granted. Just today, I had to supply attribution for reporting a fact that was not in dispute (attribution is to journalism as citation is to academia). The old saying in journalism is, "if your mother says she loves you, check it out." Take no one's word for granted. Of course, that's hyperbole, and that's my point. I don't equate skepticism with doubt or cynicism.

I just told you I'm a journalist. Do you believe me? Probably. But if someone asked you to prove it, could you? No. Aside from my claim, I haven't given you enough information to prove it. You may believe it, but if you're honest, you recognize that your ability to prove it is limited the the quantity and quality of the evidence at your disposal.

That's where I feel I am on the historicity of Jesus. I believe he existed. But I think the Historicists overstate the level of confidence with which we can express our certainty on the issue. The direct evidence is exceedingly weak. The indirect evidence is a bit better, but...


Blah blah blah. I've made my point.

Since reading Ellis I have decided that Jesus was a real person but we are looking in the wrong era and we are looking for a lowly preacher rather than a messianic soldier/high priest of a Nazarene sect. Start looking for that and there are only a few candidates.

I am afraid you have fallen for the ravings of a wacko. Drinking Beverage

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
05-02-2014, 10:57 PM
RE: Jesus myth
(05-02-2014 09:26 PM)Deltabravo Wrote:  Since reading Ellis I have decided that Jesus was a real person but we are looking in the wrong era and we are looking for a lowly preacher rather than a messianic soldier/high priest of a Nazarene sect. Start looking for that and there are only a few candidates.

Maybe. It's possible Jesus was the Essene Teacher of Righteousness from ~150 BCE. It's possible he was a first century son of a Jewish high priest, or some other aristocrat...or any in between or sideways. Jesus is the ultimate silly putty, taking on whatever shape fits your fancy, and in the old days of newspapers, whatever image you wanted too.

Softly, softly, catchee monkey.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
05-02-2014, 11:15 PM
RE: Jesus myth
(05-02-2014 09:26 PM)Deltabravo Wrote:  Since reading Ellis I have decided that Jesus was a real person but we are looking in the wrong era and we are looking for a lowly preacher rather than a messianic soldier/high priest of a Nazarene sect. Start looking for that and there are only a few candidates.

Fuck, don't say his name! You're likely to summon him again from the Pits of Idiocy... Dodgy

[Image: E3WvRwZ.gif]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes EvolutionKills's post
06-02-2014, 01:40 AM
RE: Jesus myth
(05-02-2014 10:57 PM)toadaly Wrote:  
(05-02-2014 09:26 PM)Deltabravo Wrote:  Since reading Ellis I have decided that Jesus was a real person but we are looking in the wrong era and we are looking for a lowly preacher rather than a messianic soldier/high priest of a Nazarene sect. Start looking for that and there are only a few candidates.

Maybe. It's possible Jesus was the Essene Teacher of Righteousness from ~150 BCE. It's possible he was a first century son of a Jewish high priest, or some other aristocrat...or any in between or sideways. Jesus is the ultimate silly putty, taking on whatever shape fits your fancy, and in the old days of newspapers, whatever image you wanted too.



I don't see it as anything more than saying who is the best "fit". The Gamala Jesus is the best one I can see and Atwill says that the likely Jesus person was another of the leaders of the Jewish revolt. Jesus of Gamala was a leader of the Jewish revolt and was married to a woman called Mary.

So, what we have going on here is a debate between someone who is just trying to find if there is a real person upon whom the ministry of a Jesus might have been based and others who seem to want to say either that there was no person at all, it was pure invention, just like Mithra and Horus, or that it "had" to be someone resembling Jesus, like Simon Magnus.

Remember, before "Jesus", he was the messianic avenger who was going to return and lead the Jews. There was a revolt which had leaders but the revolt failed and the only leader figure who emerges is this Jesus character who was thrown out even by orthodox Jews.

Why bother hunting about or even thinking about whether there was a lowly Buddhist preacher in Judea who this might be based on? Nostalgia? "Say it ain't so, surely, there was some peace preacher in white robes?" That is how it comes across particularly in the posts of those people here who can't stand anyone saying something different which they haven't heard of.

I suppose, Chas, the only way to stay on side with you is to just say, "Gee, I dunno, yeah, it must be all really impossilbe to figure out so there's no point thinking anything at all about anything". That's how you come across. As a nihilist. Which you are entitled to be, of course.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
06-02-2014, 01:43 AM (This post was last modified: 06-02-2014 01:58 AM by Deltabravo.)
RE: Jesus myth
(05-02-2014 11:15 PM)EvolutionKills Wrote:  
(05-02-2014 09:26 PM)Deltabravo Wrote:  Since reading Ellis I have decided that Jesus was a real person but we are looking in the wrong era and we are looking for a lowly preacher rather than a messianic soldier/high priest of a Nazarene sect. Start looking for that and there are only a few candidates.

Fuck, don't say his name! You're likely to summon him again from the Pits of Idiocy... Dodgy

Ralph Ellis, Ralph Ellis, Ralph EllisBowingAngel

Does anyone like Fitzgerald? I think the last line of this sums it up. Don't take things so seriously. I like Ellis because he is fun, regardless of whether he is ultimately correct. (which he is Yes ).

XXVI
Why, all the Saints and Sages who discuss'd
Of the Two Worlds so wisely--they are thrust
Like foolish Prophets forth; their Words to Scorn
Are scatter'd, and their Mouths are stopt with Dust.


XXVII
Myself when young did eagerly frequent
Doctor and Saint, and heard great argument
About it and about: but evermore
Came out by the same door where in I went.


XXVIII
With them the seed of Wisdom did I sow,
And with mine own hand wrought to make it grow;
And this was all the Harvest that I reap'd--
"I came like Water, and like Wind I go."


XXIX
Into this Universe, and Why not knowing
Nor Whence, like Water willy-nilly flowing;
And out of it, as Wind along the Waste,
I know not Whither, willy-nilly blowing.


XXX
What, without asking, hither hurried Whence?
And, without asking, Whither hurried hence!
Oh, many a Cup of this forbidden Wine
Must drown the memory of that insolence!


XXXI
Up from Earth's Centre through the Seventh Gate
rose, and on the Throne of Saturn sate;
And many a Knot unravel'd by the Road;
But not the Master-knot of Human Fate.


XXXII
There was the Door to which I found no Key;
There was the Veil through which I might not see:
Some little talk awhile of Me and Thee
There was--and then no more of Thee and Me.


XXXIII
Earth could not answer; nor the Seas that mourn
In flowing Purple, of their Lord forlorn;
Nor rolling Heaven, with all his Signs reveal'd
And hidden by the sleeve of Night and Morn.


XXXIV
Then of the Thee in Me works behind
The Veil, I lifted up my hands to find
A Lamp amid the Darkness; and I heard,
As from Without--"The Me Within Thee Blind!"


XXXV
Then to the lip of this poor earthen Urn
I lean'd, the Secret of my Life to learn:
And Lip to Lip it murmur'd--"While you live
Drink!--for, once dead, you never shall return."
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: