(January 17, 2019 at 7:10 pm)Gae Bolga Wrote:

Quote:I think people look at those who deny Jesus historically existed, like they would flat earthers, or holocaust denialist. We have first hand accounts of someone who met his disciples and brother

We don't have those. We have psuedepigraphy, interpolations, and downright forgery...all swirling around a hellenic mytheme.

No we have those, we have a first hand account of someone who met his brother and disciples, and even had disputes with them. In fact the death of Jesus’s brother, is written of by a Jewish Historian Josephus, whose pretty much the only historian we have writing of that entire period in roman Palestine. And this portion unlike the portion you’re probably thinking of is considered authentic.

Quote:The vox populi.  Everyone wants to cram their favorite saying into the mouth of a demi-god, lol.  

Whose favorite sayings? You have multiple texts, with the same sayings and parables, that incorporate unique styles of irony, reversal of expectations, etc.. attributed to a first century jewish preacher named Jesus, and no one else.

Perhaps you might say there was an original writing perhaps the Q, whose authors composed these sayings, who went around preaching them as well. But you’d be back at square one. Whose the author? We don’t know his name, but a variety of writing indicate their author is named Jesus.

Quote:The romans also acknowledged the existence of the dragons of britain... and vowed to defeat them. 

Then I guess I should deem all historical persons of the time, who lack any physical archeological evidence, but written of by roman historians, as likely to exist as dragons?  

Quote:What events?  The rise of christianity didn't happen until 300ad.  "Jesus" wasn't exactly around to help at that point in time.  They spent their first 1k years as a church purging their own myths......and textual criticism has spent the last 200 pointing out the legendary.  They had to stomp on a few heretics along the way....oddly enough, people didn't seem to agree about "the events"..and, by people, I mean early christians.


If you want to know about events that shaped the christian movement..consider this.  Following a generation of pandemic...and a the assumption of a new dynasty whose emperor needed to fire all the praetorians plotting to kill him.........christ, as we know him...was born.  It was a culture that improved the sick and poors way of life...and an ideology that was useful to that populations owners..both in the immediate (then)present and near future.  The whole situation with the christian apparatus was a sort of street war between vox and the imperial cult, the same man heading both sides of that culture war for a time.

No the NT Writings were composed far earlier than 300ad.

(January 16, 2019 at 8:40 am)BrianSoddingBoru4 Wrote: I tend to treat Jesus the way I treat King Arthur.

Was there a 1st century preacher in Palestine who got into trouble with the authorities?  Very probably.  Are the Gospel stories about him true?  Very probably not.

Was there a 6th century warlord in Britain who gave the Saxons a rough time?  Very probably.  Is Monmouth's Historia an accurate representation of his life?  Very probably not.

Boru

Why do you consider it very probable that Jesus and King Arthur were real? What are the most compelling pieces of evidence?

(January 18, 2019 at 7:59 am)Acrobat Wrote:

(January 17, 2019 at 7:10 pm)Gae Bolga Wrote: We don't have those. We have psuedepigraphy, interpolations, and downright forgery...all swirling around a hellenic mytheme.

No we have those, we have a first hand account of someone who met his brother and disciples, and even had disputes with them. In fact the death of Jesus’s brother, is written of by a Jewish Historian Josephus, whose pretty much the only historian we have writing of that entire period in roman Palestine. And this portion unlike the portion you’re probably thinking of is considered authentic.

Quote:The vox populi.  Everyone wants to cram their favorite saying into the mouth of a demi-god, lol.  

Whose favorite sayings? You have multiple texts, with the same sayings and parables, that incorporate unique styles of irony, reversal of expectations, etc.. attributed to a first century jewish preacher named Jesus, and no one else.

Perhaps you might say there was an original writing perhaps the Q, whose authors composed these sayings, who went around preaching them as well. But you’d be back at square one. Whose the author? We don’t know his name, but a variety of writing indicate their author is named Jesus.

Quote:The romans also acknowledged the existence of the dragons of britain... and vowed to defeat them. 

Then I guess I should deem all historical persons of the time, who lack any physical archeological evidence, but written of by roman historians, as likely to exist as dragons?  

Quote:What events?  The rise of christianity didn't happen until 300ad.  "Jesus" wasn't exactly around to help at that point in time.  They spent their first 1k years as a church purging their own myths......and textual criticism has spent the last 200 pointing out the legendary.  They had to stomp on a few heretics along the way....oddly enough, people didn't seem to agree about "the events"..and, by people, I mean early christians.


If you want to know about events that shaped the christian movement..consider this.  Following a generation of pandemic...and a the assumption of a new dynasty whose emperor needed to fire all the praetorians plotting to kill him.........christ, as we know him...was born.  It was a culture that improved the sick and poors way of life...and an ideology that was useful to that populations owners..both in the immediate (then)present and near future.  The whole situation with the christian apparatus was a sort of street war between vox and the imperial cult, the same man heading both sides of that culture war for a time.

No the NT Writings were composed far earlier than 300ad.

We clearly don't occupy the same reality, or follow the same rules of sensible discourse.... so I can't imagine how a productive discussion would follow from that realization?

-Josephus is not a first hand account of anything.

-"Jesus" wrote nothing.

-You should consider roman acknowledgement of mythemes for exactly what they are, not certification of the existence of dragons -or- demigods. I strongly suspect that you've made a similar mistake with regards to any potentially authentic portion of josephus.

-It doesn't matter when christian fiction was authored, the rise of christianity, in 300ad... had little to do with that, early christians being wholly unaware of the various stories floating around. This is why the first order of business for that nascent unified church (read, catholic, lol)..after securing the will of the people and the backing of the imperial apparatus in exchange - was selecting a romanized canon from the prodigious works of literature available to them, and eradicating any competing liturgical authority. Quite a lift, for a bunch of folks who had contained themselves to handing out cakes to poor people for so long.

(January 18, 2019 at 8:22 pm)PRJA93 Wrote:

(January 16, 2019 at 8:40 am)BrianSoddingBoru4 Wrote: I tend to treat Jesus the way I treat King Arthur.

Was there a 1st century preacher in Palestine who got into trouble with the authorities?  Very probably.  Are the Gospel stories about him true?  Very probably not.

Was there a 6th century warlord in Britain who gave the Saxons a rough time?  Very probably.  Is Monmouth's Historia an accurate representation of his life?  Very probably not.

Boru

Why do you consider it very probable that Jesus and King Arthur were real? What are the most compelling pieces of evidence?

No evidence.  It simply doesn't seem unreasonable that there were historic people who were mythologized into the characters we know as 'Jesus of Nazareth' and 'Arthur of Britain'.  Both areas and eras were in a time of upheaval (religious and military, respectively).  The Hebrews in Palestine felt they were being treated badly, so it isn't terribly far-fetched that some radicalized preacher was killed by the Romans for being a troublemaker. Similarly, Britain had just suffered the Roman withdrawal and the Saxons were a fucking nightmare - it makes sense that someone or other had a few victories against them.

Boru

That would be a legendary jesus and arthur, not historical. There's an easy way to remember the three tiers of characters in these stories, lol.

Mythical Arthur had a magic sword and fought dragons.
Legendary Arthur was a (or a combination of) successful warlord(s).
Historical Arthur was Some Guy™.

The reason that we can't exchange any of them for each other is that there's simply no way of determining whether they're even the same character (or were ever intended to be). Some Guy telling the story of Mythical Arthur may have based the character off of himself, despite not being a legendary warlord of any kind - for example. There's alot of similarity, just for amusement, between arthur and magic book. Both are establishment myths/legends derived from folklore - which is a highly suspect genre if what we're looking for are historical facts.

They're not really intended to record history, but to justify some (then) present reality. Generally speaking, a movement, a people, or the authorities thereof.

*all of this above refers to arthurian lit before mallory gave it a facelift.

(January 21, 2019 at 10:02 am)Gae Bolga Wrote: That would be a legendary jesus and arthur, not historical.  There's an easy way to remember the three tiers of characters in these stories, lol.

Mythical Arthur had a magic sword and fought dragons.  This is christ, lol.
Legendary Arthur was a (or a combination of) successful warlord(s). This is a retelling of a or many lives of middle eastern preachers and crackpots for ideological effect.
Historical Arthur was.......Some Guy™.  Or, Some Guy™ Named jesus who maybe didn't do -any- of that shit above.  

The reason that we can't exchange any of them for each other is that there's simply no way of determining whether they're even the same character (or were ever intended to be).  Some Guy telling the story of Mythical Arthur may have based the character off of himself, despite not being a legendary warlord of any kind - for example.  There's alot of similarity, just for amusement, between arthur and magic book.  Both are establishment myths/legends - which is a highly suspect genre if what we're looking for are historical facts.

They're not really intended to record history, but to justify some (then) present reality.  Generally speaking, a movement, a people, or the authorities thereof.  

*all of this above refers to arthurian lit before mallory gave it a facelift.

But I never claimed there was a historic Jesus or Arthur, merely that there were historical personages on whom these characters were built (NB:  Not based - built)

Boru

They aren't built from individuals in any more meaningful sense than the characters in any other work of fiction are - and this is certainly not what's being asked when someone wants to know why you think there was a real arthur (or jesus).  They aren't looking for Tyler Durden, who was assuredly built from real people in precisely the manner you've offered in case of arthur.


Consider Paul Bunyon and Count Dracula.  Each are built from real people (in the manner we're discussing), one is wholly legendary (there was no guy or even guys whom paul was qualitatively based on).  The other entirely mythical.  Both are expressions of racial/cultural awareness, the influx of french loggers to north america in one story, and eastern wealth in the other.  It isn't reasonable, or more reasonable..to posit (without evidence, as you've noted) that they were based on Some Guy, it's less so.

These characters are characters very much like the demigod of new magic book - a demigod not based on any historical personage. New magic book isn't even in the business of establishing the historical man, only the theological and liturgical authority of the divine.

To put this another way, a deceptive way..seemingly simple but nuanced, if I write the sentence "A man walked across the street" - does that then signify that I am referring to a historical personage? Is it more or less likely that I'm referring to a historical personage? Is there any requirement that there be a historical personage around which my character was built? Is it impossible for me to base my story on a mythical or legendary character? Is it impossible for me to write a story about a mythical or legendary character that posits them as historical personages?

Obviously not all questions that require an answer, just things to think about. The most common response to a question of historicity when it comes to christ (or any of these characters) is the vague idea that there just had to be or probably was Some Guy - but that's not actually the position of reason or scholarship when it comes to this form of literature, and no amount of legendary or mythological narratives go so much as an inch to establishing the likelihood of historical personage.

---

To put more flesh on these bones.  Arthur, as a figure in establishment folklore - is not a king or warlord that anyone ever had, but thie king or warlord they wished for theirs to be - not at the time of the setting of the story...but at the time of it's authoring or circulation.  

The difference between mallory's arthur and geoffreys is astounding - and we know that both were works of fiction.... whole cloth fiction - not based on anything but the minds and sensibilities of each author, one writing in the 1100's, the other in the 15's....about a man purported to have lived in the fifth or sixth century, when no one noticed him. Geoffreys arthur was a conqueror who brought not only britain, but most of europe to his heel. Malloriy's Arthur was a calculating nobleman in a complicated court. Neither were historical personages, though both were based on legendary personages...themselves derived from mythical personages.
(I may be off by a century above, I can't remember offhand).

---

Ultimately, the general (and common) assumption that the way these things work is that we start with a man, and then write legends, and then the legends turn to myths..despite being common since Euhemerus, is turnd on it;s face time and time again.  We could go from arthurian and christ myth to the cargo cults of the pacific (specifically the prince and frum movements) to see another demonstration of the same..where we begin with myth, that myth is then narrated legendarily, and that culture then assumes some historical personage or initiating event.

(January 21, 2019 at 9:49 am)BrianSoddingBoru4 Wrote:

(January 18, 2019 at 8:22 pm)PRJA93 Wrote: Why do you consider it very probable that Jesus and King Arthur were real? What are the most compelling pieces of evidence?

No evidence.  It simply doesn't seem unreasonable that there were historic people who were mythologized into the characters we know as 'Jesus of Nazareth' and 'Arthur of Britain'.  Both areas and eras were in a time of upheaval (religious and military, respectively).  The Hebrews in Palestine felt they were being treated badly, so it isn't terribly far-fetched that some radicalized preacher was killed by the Romans for being a troublemaker. Similarly, Britain had just suffered the Roman withdrawal and the Saxons were a fucking nightmare - it makes sense that someone or other had a few victories against them.

Boru

Bolded by me.

No evidence? Just a hunch? Right.

I certainly think it's possible that Jesus existed, but when we start saying things like "it's probably true," because "it just sort of seems to make sense," - or any other variation of that - we're getting into really murky waters. So, hey, if you're comfortable with viewing history in that way, that's up to you, but what I'm saying is, in reality, there's no good reason to think Jesus was "probably real."

At best, he might've been. Maybe. I still think the evidence that does exist is truly lackluster and doesn't do much to convince me. If anything, maybe even the "historical" writings about Jesus were just an urban legend of the Bronze Age.

All in all, I really don't care all that much. It makes no difference in my life whether or not Jesus was real and even if he was, it does nothing to prove the mythological claims found in the Bible.

(January 21, 2019 at 9:37 am)Gae Bolga Wrote: -Josephus is not a first hand account of anything.

Never said he was a first hand account. But he is the only Roman historian writing about that entire period in 1st century Palestine, that we have, and even if you exclude the disputed portion, you still have a reference to the death of James, Jesus brother. Unless non historical people have literal brothers, this indicates Jesus was a historical person. Trying to due away with Josephus would leave a significant gap for that entire period, pretty much all we have about Pilates life is found in Josephus, etc..

What we do have a first hand account of is someone (Paul) who met both his brother, and his disciples, in fact having various disputes with them.

I’ll wait while you try and take these two pieces and make a more compelling argument for a-historicity based on them without verging on the credulous

Quote:“Jesus" wrote nothing.

No but he said of bunch of things, attested to in multiple writings, credited to him.

Quote:It doesn't matter when christian fiction was authored, the rise of christianity, in 300ad... had little to do with that, early christians being wholly unaware of the various stories floating around. This is why the first order of business for that nascent unified church (read, catholic, lol)..after securing the will of the people and the backing of the imperial apparatus in exchange - was selecting a romanized canon from the prodigious works of literature available to them, and eradicating any competing liturgical authority. Quite a lift, for a bunch of folks who had contained themselves to handing out cakes to poor people for so long.

No the gospels were the prevalent and oldest texts held by the wide variety of Christians way before three hundred AD, it’s a result of how commonly shared they were, that they were canonized.

(January 21, 2019 at 3:15 pm)PRJA93 Wrote:

(January 21, 2019 at 9:49 am)BrianSoddingBoru4 Wrote: No evidence.  It simply doesn't seem unreasonable that there were historic people who were mythologized into the characters we know as 'Jesus of Nazareth' and 'Arthur of Britain'.  Both areas and eras were in a time of upheaval (religious and military, respectively).  The Hebrews in Palestine felt they were being treated badly, so it isn't terribly far-fetched that some radicalized preacher was killed by the Romans for being a troublemaker. Similarly, Britain had just suffered the Roman withdrawal and the Saxons were a fucking nightmare - it makes sense that someone or other had a few victories against them.

Boru

Bolded by me.

No evidence? Just a hunch? Right.

I certainly think it's possible that Jesus existed, but when we start saying things like "it's probably true," because "it just sort of seems to make sense," - or any other variation of that - we're getting into really murky waters. So, hey, if you're comfortable with viewing history in that way, that's up to you, but what I'm saying is, in reality, there's no good reason to think Jesus was "probably real."

At best, he might've been. Maybe. I still think the evidence that does exist is truly lackluster and doesn't do much to convince me. If anything, maybe even the "historical" writings about Jesus were just an urban legend of the Bronze Age.

All in all, I really don't care all that much. It makes no difference in my life whether or not Jesus was real and even if he was, it does nothing to prove the mythological claims found in the Bible.

Again, I never claimed that Jesus was 'probably real'.

Boru