|
|
|
tergiversant
Skeptic Friend
USA
284 Posts |
 Posted - 08/28/2001 : 13:40:25 [Permalink]
|
quote:
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)
Then you should have no problem providing us titles and page numbers. I'm not trying to be a pain in the ass here; I just want to peruse the primary sources for myself, as any skeptic ought.
quote:
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.
It seems you must not be well acquainted with the works of J.D. Crossan, G.A. Wells, Burton Mack, Robert Funk, and the various other prominent Bible scholars currently engaged in the so-called "third quest" for the historical Jesus. All of them take on the mythic hypothesis to some degree of another; they embrace such controversy because their bread be buttered by ballyhoo.
Moreover, it seemed you may have overlooked the modifier "secular" above, I'm explicitly talking about academics here rather than churchmen; their "fund raising" comes from universities (and book sales) rather than parishes.
quote:
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.
You assume incorrectly that I've not already read them. I'm asking you to point out the similarities herein the forum yourself, rather than expect your fellow skeptics to facilely accept your unspecified and unsupported claims of similitude.
quote:
It is also the basis of the Christian legend that St Tommy went to India to evangelize.
Please substantiate this claim as well, if you may.
"Nihil curo de ista tua stulta superstitione."
|
 |
|
|
tergiversant
Skeptic Friend
USA
284 Posts |
Posted - 08/28/2001 : 13:40:32 [Permalink]
|
quote:
quote:
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.
It is not melodrama. When some fact seems to indicate that some claim is false, it is routinely said to militate against said claim. This usage is a common formalism in rational discourse, especially those in the analytic schools of philosophical thought.
quote:
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.
I agree wholeheartedly, but then you are making the positive claim that Jesus did not exist, are you not? Or do you advocate an agnostic position towards his existence?
Edited by - tergiversant on 08/28/2001 13:54:22 |
|
|
|
Slater
SFN Regular
USA
1668 Posts |
Posted - 08/28/2001 : 16:41:18 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Funny, among Mythologists it is considered common knowledge. (Campbell rambles on about it ad nauseam)
Then you should have no problem providing us titles and page numbers.
[/quote]
Joseoh Campbell: The Masks of God. Vol. 3 Occidental Mythology. Viking 9th ed 1974. pp 3, 12, 58, 107,191, 241- 244, 247, 251, 255-54, 263, 285, 292, 338, 353, 357, 357, 362, 364, 266, 371, 411, 480
Joseph Campbell: The Masks of God: Vol 2 Oriental Mythology: Viking Penguin 9th ed, 1991 pp. 102, 258, 267, 272, 275, 281-283, 287, 299, 300-320, 339, 481, 484, 493, 508, 516
-------
The brain that was stolen from my laboratory was a criminal brain. Only evil will come from it. |
|
|
|
Slater
SFN Regular
USA
1668 Posts |
Posted - 08/28/2001 : 16:48:44 [Permalink]
|
quote:
I agree wholeheartedly, but then you are making the positive claim that Jesus did not exist, are you not? Or do you advocate an agnostic position towards his existence?
Wow, I made a positive by stating a negative! A MIRACLE!! Maybe I'm Jesus!
If you have an historic Jesus then trot his ass out and let's have a look at him. Or does it just amuse you to yank my chain like some third year under-grad.?
-------
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 - 08/29/2001 : 07:11:22 [Permalink]
|
quote:
quote:
I agree wholeheartedly, but then you are making the positive claim that Jesus did not exist, are you not? Or do you advocate an agnostic position towards his existence?
Wow, I made a positive by stating a negative! A MIRACLE!! Maybe I'm Jesus!
Claiming that some concept in not instantiated in reality is indeed a factual claim, regardless of the grammatical form of the statement. I could say "there is no such thing as a compassionate conservative" and that would still be a factual claim which requires evidential support.
quote:
If you have an historic Jesus then trot his ass out and let's have a look at him. Or does it just amuse you to yank my chain like some third year under-grad.?
I confess it does amuse me a bit to yank your chain when you respond like a 3rd year undergrad, with sarcasm and rhetoric rather than reason. But I'd really rather keep the discussion cordial if that is at all possible.
Surely I cannot "trot his ass out" so that we may "have a look at him" any more than you can trot out Trotsky, Cæsar, or any other historical figure.
What makes you think that a positive claim of nonexistence (or ahistoricity) does not require evidential support? Why ought fiction be the default position when dealing with texts alleged to contain history?
"Nihil curo de ista tua stulta superstitione."
|
|
|
|
tergiversant
Skeptic Friend
USA
284 Posts |
Posted - 08/29/2001 : 07:37:05 [Permalink]
|
Here is a decent essay on negative truth claims an proof by a well-reputed and lucid professional skeptic of religion: Proving a Negative
"Nihil curo de ista tua stulta superstitione."
|
|
|
|
Slater
SFN Regular
USA
1668 Posts |
Posted - 08/29/2001 : 08:25:44 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Surely I cannot "trot his ass out" so that we may "have a look at him" any more than you can trot out Trotsky, Cæsar, or any other historical figure.
I was speaking figuratively. The same standard of proof that you use for Caesar would be just fine for Jesus.
To be an Historic Personage one must fill two requirements.
1) Have been an actual person
2) Have been recorded by history
We don't know if Jesus was number one. The reason we don't know is that he is definitely not number 2. If he was there would be no thread here.
Since he has not been recorded by history then I maintain my claim that there is no 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 - 08/29/2001 : 08:50:29 [Permalink]
|
quote:
quote:
Surely I cannot "trot his ass out" so that we may "have a look at him" any more than you can trot out Trotsky, Cæsar, or any other historical figure.
I was speaking figuratively. The same standard of proof that you use for Caesar would be just fine for Jesus.
Excellent. Now we are getting somewhere.
quote:
To be an Historic Personage one must fill two requirements.
1) Have been an actual person
2) Have been recorded by history
Sounds agreeable.
quote:
We don't know if Jesus was number one. The reason we don't know is that he is definitely not number 2. If he was there would be no thread here. Since he has not been recorded by history then I maintain my claim that there is no historic Jesus.
I agree that we do not know if Jesus was #1, but I'm unclear on whether he was #2. How can we determine whether or not the saying and actions imputed to Jesus by the gospels and Q are actual recordings of history or not? By what criteria do we judge such matters?
It seems to me that thus far you have suggested a single criterion, which I paraphrase as follows: If an utterance appears in an earlier work, then no historical personage could have uttered it. This criterion, if sound, would militate against the historicity of such things as the sayings found in Gnostic Thomas, Q, and perhaps even the Markan parables, provided that there is ample evidence that they are indeed found in earlier works. I look forward to seeing such evidence as soon as possible.
I do not, however, accept the validity of the criterion itself (in strict deductive form) since historical rabbis and sages quite often repeated the words of earlier teachers. It might perhaps be reformulated an as inductive tool, however. Also, it must be broadened to address actions in addition to words, so that the narrative framework of the gospels (particularly Mark) might be addressed. Do you that was lifted from Homer, perchance?
p.s. Thanks for the Joseph Campbell references. I'll look into them ASAP.
"Nihil curo de ista tua stulta superstitione."
|
|
|
|
Tokyodreamer
SFN Regular
USA
1447 Posts |
Posted - 09/26/2001 : 08:20:41 [Permalink]
|
quote:
I could say "there is no such thing as a compassionate conservative" and that would still be a factual claim which requires evidential support.
Ok, say I made a claim, "There are no such things as unicorns" (a popular and oft-repeated example, sorry! I left out the "pink" part, at least!  ).
You are saying this claim by me requires evidential support. How would I possibly provide this? And if I can't, does this mean one can only be correct in being agnostic about unicorns?
This sounds like the old "You can't say God doesn't exist unless you can know everything about everything, and be able to look in every single corner of the Universe!" argument from religionists.
If you ask for evidential support for this, aren't you asking for the impossible?
------------
And if rain brings winds of change
let it rain on us forever.
I have no doubt from what I've seen
that I have never wanted more.
Edited by - tokyodreamer on 09/26/2001 08:21:13 |
|
|
|
Slater
SFN Regular
USA
1668 Posts |
Posted - 09/26/2001 : 09:15:15 [Permalink]
|
I think that the disagreement between tergiversant and myself on this point is a little more subtle than that.
He is saying that the evidence so strongly infers that there was an "historic" rabbi that the Jesus character was based on that he thinks it's a safe bet to go with it.
I, on the other hand, am saying that there is no evidence from the period. That which came shortly there after is so suspect (fits in with Roman political ambitions so well) that it should be discounted.
I'm of course referring to the Synoptic Gospels. Mark is supposed to have come from only a generation or so after Jesus death, however the earliest copy we have is from the 200's and it is only one fragment of a sheet of papyrus about the size of your hand. All other copies suspiciously date from after Constantine.
The majority (or so I've heard) of Books of the Bible were Gnostic. The Gnostic Jesus is completely mythological and so isn't included in this conversation.
I'm also being a stickler about the term "historic" meaning that you had to have left so kind of record. This is pretty much like the www.infidels argument that tergiversant gave about proving a negative. The negatives that infidels prove are not existential but rather conditional. (There are no crows in the box--rather than there are no crows). In this case I believe that I am proving a negative by the use of the conditional--"historic."
-------
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 - 09/26/2001 : 10:09:10 [Permalink]
|
quote:
quote:
I could say "there is no such thing as a compassionate conservative" and that would still be a factual claim which requires evidential support.
Ok, say I made a claim, "There are no such things as unicorns" (a popular and oft-repeated example, sorry! I left out the "pink" part, at least! ).
You are saying this claim by me requires evidential support. How would I possibly provide this? And if I can't, does this mean one can only be correct in being agnostic about unicorns?
To support the claim that there are no unicorns living on the Earth I would point out that we've very carefully documented all the environments in which horse-like ungulates might be expected to live, and we have not found any shred of evidence supporting the unicorn hypothesis. IMHO, this analogous to the basic argument made by Slater, that we've searched out all the historical records and there are no indications of an historical figure. I think such an argument valid, we simply disagree on the interpretation of the relevant evidence.
See also the link to the essay I gave above. I found it rather enlightening.
Edited by - tergiversant on 09/26/2001 10:13:17 |
|
|
|
Tokyodreamer
SFN Regular
USA
1447 Posts |
Posted - 09/26/2001 : 10:18:50 [Permalink]
|
Ok thanks, I get it. I wasn't sure if your example about compassionate conservatives was meant to apply specifically to the argument at hand, or to a particular logical argument in general (i.e. no conditionals such as "on earth" or "historic evidence").
So you're saying that "unicorns don't exist" is treated differently than "no living unicorns exist on earth".
------------
And if rain brings winds of change
let it rain on us forever.
I have no doubt from what I've seen
that I have never wanted more.
|
|
|
|
tergiversant
Skeptic Friend
USA
284 Posts |
Posted - 09/26/2001 : 10:56:55 [Permalink]
|
quote:
So you're saying that "unicorns don't exist" is treated differently than "no living unicorns exist on earth".
Precisely, and therein lies the difference between negatives that cannot be disproved and those that can. I hope in not overly optimisic in thinking that history falls into the latter category. |
|
|
|
Tokyodreamer
SFN Regular
USA
1447 Posts |
Posted - 10/03/2001 : 06:32:22 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Why ought fiction be the default position when dealing with texts alleged to contain history?
In this case, isn't the lack of additional evidence suspiscious enough to place the burden of proof on the claim that Jesus existed?
For a guy as high profile as he was supposed to be, who is claimed to have done wonderous things in front of many many people, you'd think there would be more written about him during his life, not 50+ years later by people who never saw him.
Couple this with the fact that there were guys running around at the time, claiming to do similar feats of wonder, who have numerous eyewitness accounts of their having been actual living historic people.
To switch gears a bit, I wonder why, if they did invent the Jesus character to use as a basis for a new religion, why didn't they pick someone like Apollonius of Tyana (or someone similar) who was known to have existed for sure, to make their stuff more believable?
------------
And if rain brings winds of change
let it rain on us forever.
I have no doubt from what I've seen
that I have never wanted more.
|
|
|
|
Slater
SFN Regular
USA
1668 Posts |
Posted - 10/03/2001 : 09:10:36 [Permalink]
|
quote:
To switch gears a bit, I wonder why, if they did invent the Jesus character to use as a basis for a new religion, why didn't they pick someone like Apollonius of Tyana (or someone similar) who was known to have existed for sure, to make their stuff more believable?
Because when the Emperor Constantius was killed in a revolt in Britain his troops fell under the command of his son Constantine who was, at the time, head of the legions in Gaul. A majority of the troops in Britain and Gaul were Persians of the Mithric faith. With all these troops at his command he was able to make a successful bid at becoming the sole Emperor. To unite these troops with Rome, and divide them from Magi influence he devises an identical religion to Mithraism. He needed a blank sheet to do this. Israel by this time was a romantic story from the past. It didn't exist except in popular adventure stories. Jesus was a name as common as Bob, and sounded very Jewish. You'll note that Jesus starts out as a god of war (In this sign {magic Chi-Rho appears in the sky--not a cross, the Roman army's execution devise} you shall conquer!). Only after the new political order is established does Jesus become a peaceful guy-identical with Apollonius and his Christians
This stuff didn't have to be logical to be believable in the Roman world. If the Emperor ordered you to believe it; you believed it...OR ELSE. It was death not to believe this stuff until fairly recent times.
-------
The brain that was stolen from my laboratory was a criminal brain. Only evil will come from it. |
|
|
 |
|
|
|
Topic Locked
