|
|
|
Slater
SFN Regular
USA
1668 Posts |
 Posted - 08/17/2001 : 13:57:02 [Permalink]
|
quote:
I'm still eagerly awaiting any thoughts on Q. ...yet to find anything about Greek Hercules.
Sorry, I've yet to find it. Many boxes of my books are still in storage even after moving the SF 2 years ago. If you are looking yourself don't bother with the Greek Heracles. That's a dead end.
It is the teachings of the Roman Hercules that are supposed to be the bases of Q. The Roman version is actually closer (though don't ask me how this happened) to the Indo/European "base" god than the Greek version was.
Again the standard agrarian half man half god death and resurrection myth that you find from Spain to Northern China.
You'll find very little Jewishness in the Jesus story.
By the Buy, the Mithra stories are Persian and Pre Hellenistic. They were never adopted by the Greeks. They are also almost entirely about Mithras Earthly existence.
-------
The brain that was stolen from my laboratory was a criminal brain. Only evil will come from it. |
 |
|
|
tergiversant
Skeptic Friend
USA
284 Posts |
Posted - 08/18/2001 : 13:40:39 [Permalink]
|
This is just a question, not an argument from authority. Most of the people in SFN seem to think that there is no historical core to the Jesus Legend, whereas the vast majority of secular professional bible scholars disagree. What is the deal? Do yous guys know something they don't?
"Nihil curo de ista tua stulta superstitione."
|
|
|
|
ljbrs
SFN Regular
USA
842 Posts |
Posted - 08/18/2001 : 14:15:28 [Permalink]
|
quote:
This is just a question, not an argument from authority. Most of the people in SFN seem to think that there is no historical core to the Jesus Legend, whereas the vast majority of secular professional bible scholars disagree. What is the deal? Do yous guys know something they don't?
YES!
ljbrs
Perfection Is a State of Growth... |
|
|
|
Slater
SFN Regular
USA
1668 Posts |
Posted - 08/18/2001 : 18:23:52 [Permalink]
|
quote:
This is just a question, not an argument from authority. Most of the people in SFN seem to think that there is no historical core to the Jesus Legend, whereas the vast majority of secular professional bible scholars disagree. What is the deal? Do yous guys know something they don't?
No, we don't actually know anything that they don't know. They have no additional facts that they are not shareing with us.
But as Skeptics we are not allowed to make assumptions. There is no evidence to be had for an historic Jesus. Frankly I can't find much hard evidence that dates before 300CE.
Bible scholars are willing to make a leap of faith based on this 300CE info and take for granted that the missing evidence would support it. After all the 325CE stuff is "THE GOSPEL TRUTH
However there is plenty of evidence for all sorts of people from that time and place. It seems very strange that GOD could walk around the neighborhood and no one would notice.
That and the fact that the story is a ringer for another, older religion. And that it fist appears during an extreemly politically expedient time.
It is like a story about Men from Mars landing in New Amsterdam 1685 but the first time any report is written is in 2001. You would tend to question it. And when you found that it matched the plot line of a "Pigs In Space" episode you would think twice about assumeing that it was true.
-------
The brain that was stolen from my laboratory was a criminal brain. Only evil will come from it. |
|
|
|
@tomic
Administrator
USA
4607 Posts |
Posted - 08/18/2001 : 21:13:23 [Permalink]
|
I agree with Slater and would like to add that challenging these notions that "everyone agrees with" is what skepticism is all about. Especially when these notions are nothing but notions that appear to be based on myths. Oh sure, people have written zillions of books about these notions and quibbled over details but in the end it all seems to be myth no matter how many biblical scholars agree.
I could just as easily ask why all these biblical scholars give a sh*t about Jesus when all the other religions and their assorted scholars disagree with the Christian ones? I mean get with the system folks! The Chinese are a majority and therefore must be right.....correct? 
If all that matter is numbers then Christianity has never been right!
@tomic
Gravity, not just a good idea...it's the law! |
|
|
|
Slater
SFN Regular
USA
1668 Posts |
Posted - 08/18/2001 : 22:09:47 [Permalink]
|
quote:
The Chinese are a majority and therefore must be right.....correct?
If all that matter is numbers then Christianity has never been right!
My daughter, now in her 30's became a Skeptic in 2nd grade.
They had a hamster at school, and no one knew what sex it was. One boy suggested that they all vote on the critters sex. And they did.
My daughter came home in a blue funk over this vote.
At 7 years old she realized that it didn't matter how the majority felt about a fact. It was what it was (in this case female) no matter what public opinion said.
-------
The brain that was stolen from my laboratory was a criminal brain. Only evil will come from it. |
|
|
|
bjones
Skeptic Friend
Australia
82 Posts |
Posted - 08/24/2001 : 16:52:54 [Permalink]
|
Yes I vote that he was something like the Jesus in the Bible but only very vaguely I was undecided if he was also a character in a narative conjoured up by the early church.
Bob
|
|
|
|
Slater
SFN Regular
USA
1668 Posts |
Posted - 08/24/2001 : 18:06:19 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Yes I vote that he was something like the Jesus in the Bible but only very vaguely
Based on what, Bob? What's your line of reasoning?
-------
The brain that was stolen from my laboratory was a criminal brain. Only evil will come from it. |
|
|
|
tergiversant
Skeptic Friend
USA
284 Posts |
Posted - 08/27/2001 : 11:37:00 [Permalink]
|
I think I've been misconstrued above. I said it was not intended as an appeal to authority, but an appeal to the evidence and reasoning of a vast body of secular Biblical scholarly work. Instead of addressing this evidence and reasoning, the straw man appeal to authority was burned in effigy.
Back to the real matter at hand, we have written sources of Jesus' sayings (such as Q and gnostic Thomas) without hardly any hint of mythical elaboration. These are merely collections of sayings, like those of the Cynic sages and intinerant rabbinical Messianic wannabees. What reason do we have to believe that this Jesus figure is not a real person, like these?
"Nihil curo de ista tua stulta superstitione."
|
|
|
|
Slater
SFN Regular
USA
1668 Posts |
Posted - 08/27/2001 : 15:38:39 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Back to the real matter at hand, we have written sources of Jesus' sayings (such as Q and gnostic Thomas) without hardly any hint of mythical elaboration.
Actually we do not have a copy of Q.
Q is speculation based on similarities in the remaining Gospels.
It seems to be a very good guess..but we don't have a hard copy.
And Thomas is only Docetic doctrines lifted straight out of Mahayana Buddhism.It is complete mythical elaboration.
Both useless in suggesting an historic Jesus.
-------
The brain that was stolen from my laboratory was a criminal brain. Only evil will come from it. |
|
|
|
tergiversant
Skeptic Friend
USA
284 Posts |
Posted - 08/28/2001 : 07:46:05 [Permalink]
|
quote:
quote:
Back to the real matter at hand, we have written sources of Jesus' sayings (such as Q and gnostic Thomas) without hardly any hint of mythical elaboration.
Actually we do not have a copy of Q.
Q is speculation based on similarities in the remaining Gospels.
It seems to be a very good guess..but we don't have a hard copy.
I never suggested we had an individual copy, merely written sources. It is clear that we have from the Matthean and Lukan traditions a collection of sayings attributed to an individual rabbi, which arose independently of the narrative framework of Mark. Do you dispute this?
quote:
And Thomas is only Docetic doctrines lifted straight out of Mahayana Buddhism. It is complete mythical elaboration.
To me they look more like rabbinical doctrines with a Gnostic twist, but this is a matter of subjective hermeneutics. As to whether Thomas was lifted from Mahayana Buddhism or the whether Q was in fact lifted from the sayings of Hercules, these are matters of empirical fact. I've not yet seen a shred of evidence to support either claim.
I would very much like to see the documentation for these claims, which are evidently unknown to the bulk of contemporary professional Bible scholarship, secular or otherwise.
quote:
Both useless in suggesting an historic Jesus.
Why? Even if we ceded your two key factual claims above, how does the preexistence of these sayings militate against the existence of an historical figure? Pharisaical rabbis were well-known for recycling their midrashic traditions from generation to generation, as were cynic sages.
"Nihil curo de ista tua stulta superstitione."
|
|
|
|
tergiversant
Skeptic Friend
USA
284 Posts |
Posted - 08/28/2001 : 08:17:20 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Why? Even if we ceded your two key factual claims above, how does the preexistence of these sayings militate against the existence of an historical figure? Pharisaical rabbis were well-known for recycling their midrashic traditions from generation to generation, as were cynic sages.
Moreover, I'd bet you'd be hard pressed to come up with many examples where the sayings attributed to Jesus in Q are put into the mouth of a mythical figure in the Jewish or Hellenistic traditions. IIRC, far more often they are found on the tongues of actual rabbis and cynics. If this were indeed the case, it would form the basis for an evidential (inductive) argument in favor of Jesus existence.
"Nihil curo de ista tua stulta superstitione."
|
|
|
|
Slater
SFN Regular
USA
1668 Posts |
Posted - 08/28/2001 : 11:23:38 [Permalink]
|
quote:
It is clear that we have from the Matthean and Lukan traditions a collection of sayings attributed to an individual rabbi, which arose independently of the narrative framework of Mark. Do you dispute this?
Though I've read any number of books on different peoples theories of gospel origins they have all gone out of their way to say that the writers of Matthew and Luke both base their work on Mark.
You are the first person I've heard of who suggested that they were independent. What brings you to your conclusion?
quote:
To me (Thomas) look more like rabbinical doctrines with a Gnostic twist, but this is a matter of subjective hermeneutics. As to whether Thomas was lifted from Mahayana Buddhism or the whether Q was in fact lifted from the sayings of Hercules, these are matters of empirical fact. I've not yet seen a shred of evidence to support either claim.
I would very much like to see the documentation for these claims, which are evidently unknown to the bulk of contemporary professional Bible scholarship, secular or otherwise.
Funny, among Mythologists it is considered common knowledge. (Campbell rambles on about it ad nauseam)
These "professional" Bible scholars probably know on which side their bread is buttered. Looking at Christianity as a mythology would be very hard on the old fund raising department. I know if my income depended on it I'd keep my yap shut too.
The match of Thomas with the Mahayana Buddhism is an empirical fact, which is why the Council of Nicaea tossed it. But by all means feel free read Thomas and the tenants of Mahayana Buddhism for yourself.
It is also the bases of the Christian legend that St Tommy went to India to evangelize.
You didn't have to go to India in those days to find Mahayana Buddhism as, at the time, the Buddhists (from Ceylon) were sending missionaries to the Near East and Crete as well as the Far East.
As for the Q Dutch document, I still don't have it. They were reporting on the archeological finds in the Temple of Hercules out side of Pompeii. The sayings of Hercules that were found on the walls were a match (so they say) for the sayings of Jesus that (they assumed) came from Q. That really isn't much of a stretch of the imagination as Jesus pretty much parrots the Greek Philosophers.
quote:
Both useless in suggesting an historic Jesus.
Why? Even if we ceded your two key factual claims above, how does the preexistence of these sayings militate against the existence of an historical figure?
Please don't twist my words, I'm perfectly capable of doing that myself. They do not melodramatically "militate" against anything. They just do not support the existential supposition.
We go through this all the time at SFN, I think @tomic should have a tee shirt made up with these sentiments on it. It is the person that makes the claim who has the burden of proof, not the person who hears the claim.
Jesus may very well have independently come up with the same philosophies that had been prevalent in Greece for years. Even though Israel had been under Greek domination since Alexander the Great, until the Romans (who followed the same philosophers) came. Maybe he didn't get out much. Maybe he was like all those monkeys at all those typewriters pounding out the works of Shakespeare.
I can't say what the guy actually did, I don't even have proof that there was a guy who did anything.
Besides isn't it the mythical Jesus that is what's important? Like King Arthur, there may well have been an actual man that King Arthur is based on. But if there was, who cares? He was just another warlord in a world full of warlords. The Mythical King Arthur on the other hand offers magic, adventure and guides to human courage. The myth is the valuable thing, the man is less than a foot note to history. If there was no real King Arthur it wouldn't matter at all. If there were no historic Jesus nothing would change.
They say that the Irish view their history as myth. But the Christians view their myths as history.
I wonder which of us is worse off for it.
quote:
Pharisaical rabbis were well-known for recycling their midrashic traditions from generation to generation, as were cynic sages.
The Midrash is another piece against Jesus being a Rabbi not in support.
The Jesus doctrine (as does the Mithrain) says that man has FALLEN. He needs a Savior. The Jews were not looking for a Savior for their souls; it was their bodies that they were concerned with.
The Jews never FELL.
A quote from J. H. Hertz (late Chief Rabbi of the British Empire) on the subject of the Midrash.
"Man was mortal from the first, and death did not enter the world through the transgression of Eve… There is no loss of God-likness of man, nor of man's ability to do right in the eyes of God; and no such loss has transmitted to his latest descendents.
Although a few of the Rabbis occasionally lament Eve's share in the poisoning of the human race by the Serpent, even they declare that the antidote to such poison has been found at Sinai; rightly holding that the Law of God is the bulwark against the devastations of animalism and godlessness. The Psalmist often speaks of sin and guilt; but never is there a reference to what Christian theology calls "The Fall." One searches in vain the Prayer Book, of even the Days of Penitence, for the slightest echo of the doctrine of the Fall of man. "My God, the soul which Thou hast given me is pure," is the Jew's daily morning prayer. "Even as the soul is pure when entering upon its earthly career, so can man return it pure to his Maker" (Midrash)…
Mankind descending from Adam became hopelessly corrupt and was swept away by the Deluge. Noah alone was spared. But before many generations pass away, mankind once again becomes arrogant and impious, and moral darkness over spreads the earth. "And God said,Let Abraham be---and there was light," is the profound saying of the Midrash."
Quoted from The Pentateuch and Haftorahs, (London: Soncino Press {1961})
Other than that his pals call him "Rabbi" Jesus does nothing that a Jewish Rabbi would do. He has no wife, he gets baptized, he teaches the main prayer of the Zoroasterians--The Our Father, he holds a Mithrain high mass (the sermon on the mount) and gives a Mithrain communion (loaves and fishes).
You would have a much easier time saying he was based on a Magi.
What ever the Jesus character is, he's not very Jewish.
But before you can even say he was based on a historic figure you have to have a historic figure that he was based on.
We don't.
So the best that we can do is say WE THINK that he MIGHT have been based on a historic figure.
To say that he WAS based on a historic figure would be claiming that we possessed information that we do not. In other words, we would be lying.
------- |
|
|
|
Slater
SFN Regular
USA
1668 Posts |
Posted - 08/28/2001 : 11:34:02 [Permalink]
|
quote:
IIRC, far more often they are found on the tongues of actual rabbis and cynics. If this were indeed the case, it would form the basis for an evidential (inductive) argument in favor of Jesus existence.
Huh? What? You've lost me, Boy-o.
If somebody, that we know is a historical figure, said the same thing before somebody that we don't know is a historical figure is supposed to have said it, that means that the guy we don't have any proof of is real?
I must be totally misunderstanding you.This seems crazy. Please straighten me out.
-------
The brain that was stolen from my laboratory was a criminal brain. Only evil will come from it. |
|
|
|
tergiversant
Skeptic Friend
USA
284 Posts |
Posted - 08/28/2001 : 13:04:15 [Permalink]
|
quote:
quote:
It is clear that we have from the Matthean and Lukan traditions a collection of sayings attributed to an individual rabbi, which arose independently of the narrative framework of Mark. Do you dispute this?
Though I've read any number of books on different peoples theories of gospel origins they have all gone out of their way to say that the writers of Matthew and Luke both base their work on Mark.
You are the first person I've heard of who suggested that they were independent. What brings you to your conclusion?
Please reread what I wrote -- it is only the collection of sayings, that is, the hypothetical quelle source, which is obviously independent of Mark.
"Nihil curo de ista tua stulta superstitione."
|
|
|
 |
|
Topic Locked
