jesus denial=holocaust denial?
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
26-07-2015, 10:38 PM
RE: jesus denial=holocaust denial?
The key word there is "dumbfuck." And it was well-earned in that discussion.

Atheism is NOT a Religion. It's A Personal Relationship With Reality!
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Minimalist's post
27-07-2015, 07:25 AM
RE: jesus denial=holocaust denial?
(14-07-2015 01:53 PM)nintendo2190 Wrote:  i have heard some scholars and people say that to deny the existence of jesus christ is say the holocaust never happened. I cannot make the connection bewteen these things it dose not make sense to me. can someone explain. Also i think it is outragous to place these two things on par with each other

I think the analogy here is to compare those who believe there was no historical Jesus, to conspiracy nuts of all sorts, not just holocaust deniers, but flat-earthers, moon-landing conspiracy folks, 9/11 truthers, etc....

And in that regard that analogy is very apt, there seems to be a very similar psychology operating amongst them all.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
27-07-2015, 07:44 AM
RE: jesus denial=holocaust denial?
(27-07-2015 07:25 AM)Tomasia Wrote:  
(14-07-2015 01:53 PM)nintendo2190 Wrote:  i have heard some scholars and people say that to deny the existence of jesus christ is say the holocaust never happened. I cannot make the connection bewteen these things it dose not make sense to me. can someone explain. Also i think it is outragous to place these two things on par with each other

I think the analogy here is to compare those who believe there was no historical Jesus, to conspiracy nuts of all sorts, not just holocaust deniers, but flat-earthers, moon-landing conspiracy folks, 9/11 truthers, etc....

And in that regard that analogy is very apt, there seems to be a very similar psychology operating amongst them all.

Man named Jesus? Sure, Yeshua bar Joseph is hardly gonna be an uncommon name I guess. Might even have been a rabbi around about the right time period. Guy who was son of God? I'd be interested to see your evidence.

We'll love you just the way you are
If you're perfect -- Alanis Morissette
(06-02-2014 03:47 PM)Momsurroundedbyboys Wrote:  And I'm giving myself a conclusion again from all the facepalming.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes morondog's post
27-07-2015, 07:46 AM
RE: jesus denial=holocaust denial?
(27-07-2015 07:25 AM)Tomasia Wrote:  
(14-07-2015 01:53 PM)nintendo2190 Wrote:  i have heard some scholars and people say that to deny the existence of jesus christ is say the holocaust never happened. I cannot make the connection bewteen these things it dose not make sense to me. can someone explain. Also i think it is outragous to place these two things on par with each other

I think the analogy here is to compare those who believe there was no historical Jesus, to conspiracy nuts of all sorts, not just holocaust deniers, but flat-earthers, moon-landing conspiracy folks, 9/11 truthers, etc....

And in that regard that analogy is very apt, there seems to be a very similar psychology operating amongst them all.

If you consider the ramblings of a poorly written piece of fiction to proper forensic evidence - you've got a serious reality problem.....

.......................................

The difference between prayer and masturbation - is when a guy is through masturbating - he has something to show for his efforts.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
27-07-2015, 07:55 AM
RE: jesus denial=holocaust denial?
(27-07-2015 07:46 AM)onlinebiker Wrote:  If you consider the ramblings of a poorly written piece of fiction to proper forensic evidence - you've got a serious reality problem.....

If you don't know nothing about the historical method, the views and conclusion of historians, than you're just talking ignorance.

The reality is that the writings in question will either be supportive of one explanation or the other. If mythicist can use these writing to support their position, it takes a great deal of confirmation bias to claim they can't be used to support a historical position.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
27-07-2015, 08:47 AM
RE: jesus denial=holocaust denial?
(27-07-2015 07:55 AM)Tomasia Wrote:  
(27-07-2015 07:46 AM)onlinebiker Wrote:  If you consider the ramblings of a poorly written piece of fiction to proper forensic evidence - you've got a serious reality problem.....

If you don't know nothing about the historical method, the views and conclusion of historians, than you're just talking ignorance.

The reality is that the writings in question will either be supportive of one explanation or the other. If mythicist can use these writing to support their position, it takes a great deal of confirmation bias to claim they can't be used to support a historical position.

... The writings in question are of doubtful provenance and AFAIK Jesus is not mentioned in texts other than those of the cult, and even the earliest of those aren't dated to the time of Jesus supposed existence. While probably not commonplace, AFAIK it's still a logically tenable position to hold that the cult grew up around some mythical figure rather than an actual person, or a composite of multiple apocalyptic teachings were coalesced around one person. GWOG can probably comment more than me.

What do you know of the "historical method"?

We'll love you just the way you are
If you're perfect -- Alanis Morissette
(06-02-2014 03:47 PM)Momsurroundedbyboys Wrote:  And I'm giving myself a conclusion again from all the facepalming.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
27-07-2015, 09:15 AM
RE: jesus denial=holocaust denial?
(27-07-2015 08:47 AM)morondog Wrote:  What do you know of the "historical method"?

Probably more so than most.

Quote:it's still a logically tenable position to hold that the cult grew up around some mythical figure rather than an actual person, or a composite of multiple apocalyptic teachings were coalesced around one person.

Unless this explanations holds a great explanatory power, deemed to be more likely than an actual historical person, that acquired a series of legendary attributes after his death, than it ain't worth much at all. It's not a question of what other possibilities are there as much, is whether one possibility is more like than the other.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
27-07-2015, 12:46 PM
RE: jesus denial=holocaust denial?
(27-07-2015 07:55 AM)Tomasia Wrote:  
(27-07-2015 07:46 AM)onlinebiker Wrote:  If you consider the ramblings of a poorly written piece of fiction to proper forensic evidence - you've got a serious reality problem.....

If you don't know nothing about the historical method, the views and conclusion of historians, than you're just talking ignorance.

The reality is that the writings in question will either be supportive of one explanation or the other. If mythicist can use these writing to support their position, it takes a great deal of confirmation bias to claim they can't be used to support a historical position.

So let me get this straight. You are arguing that if something supports a position, that same thing can be used to support the opposite position? This is a gaping logical fallacy. To show it, I'll use one of your common arguments. Let's reverse this statement to "If a historicist can use these writings to support his or her position, it takes a great deal of confirmation bias to claim they can't be used to support a mythical position."
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
27-07-2015, 01:04 PM (This post was last modified: 27-07-2015 01:45 PM by Tomasia.)
RE: jesus denial=holocaust denial?
(27-07-2015 12:46 PM)Iñigo Wrote:  So let me get this straight. You are arguing that if something supports a position, that same thing can be used to support the opposite position?

Yes. The question is which position does it support better, which position takes better account of the various facts. Which holds the greater explanatory power. If one were a 9/11 truther, they would have to make sense of the video evidence in light of their conspiracy theory, show it supports their conclusion better than the official account. It's not just a question here of whether there's a remote possibility that their position could be true, it's question of whether it's more likely than the official account.

Quote:Let's reverse this statement to "If a historicist can use these writings to support his or her position, it takes a great deal of confirmation bias to claim they can't be used to support a mythical position."

Of course they can use it, in fact they have to use it. They have to use the various stories, sayings teaching, events described in these text, the Pauline Epistiles etc.. in support of the mythicist position, to claim it offers a far better explanation as to what occurred during that period in 1st century Jerusalem, that led to the christian movement. And that explanation would have to be one that's more likely than the historicist views.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
27-07-2015, 03:55 PM
RE: jesus denial=holocaust denial?
@Tomasia

The historical consensus on the story of Jesus is the following. A man named Yoshua Ben Yoseph, a self-appointed preacher and faith healer, lived in the early 1st century. Like many of his kind during that period, he was executed for his preaching’s by the Roman authority with the complicity of the elite of the Hebrew society. The Bible, including non-canonical texts, has been determined too unreliable to serve has an historical source due to its unknown authors, several factual errors, numerous amateurish copies and translations, political and theological editing and lack of secondary sources to confirm the important details of its content: namely the history, teachings and miraculous deeds of the Jesus character.

The recognisance of the historicity of Yoshua Ben Yoseph AKA Jesus is due to an historical convention about named characters in ancient documents and a relatively good representation of the socio-political conditions of Palestine during that time period in biblical text. Some can reasonably argue that his notoriety and importance in western culture also help maintain that status. In other terms, the historical consensus is on a person that is so far removed from the myth that one can legitimately question if it’s still pertinent to refer to that person has Jesus Christ. There is no historical consensus on what «Jesus» preached, why he was executed, if he indeed had magical powers and if he indeed resurrected. Considering the analysis of the Bible, it was determine that most of these elements, if not all, were borrowed from other cults like the massively popular cult of Isis amongst the poorer class of citizen and conquered subjects of the Roman Empire. This allowed the numerous Christian cults to establish themselves rather quickly in the Roman Empire. Syncretism is an important part of the formation of Christianity and will keep happening for over a millennia with Celtic and Germanic influence adding itself to the Egyptian, Mesopotamian, Greeko-Roman and Hebrew ones.

Denying the character of Jesus Christ is historically accurate, but not denying the existence of an unremarkable preacher named Yoshua Ben Yoseph who might have served as the base for a myth. Conflating denying the Holocaust and the belief in Yoshua's existence is out of proportion and fallacious. Hope this help clarify a few points.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes epronovost's post
Post Reply
Forum Jump: