Posts: 67291
Threads: 140
Joined: June 28, 2011
Reputation:
162
RE: Historian explains why Jesus ''mythers'' aren't taken seriously by most Historians
June 8, 2015 at 4:00 pm
(This post was last modified: June 8, 2015 at 4:00 pm by The Grand Nudger.)
Yup. These are special though...lol, for "reasons".
I am the Infantry. I am my country’s strength in war, her deterrent in peace. I am the heart of the fight… wherever, whenever. I carry America’s faith and honor against her enemies. I am the Queen of Battle. I am what my country expects me to be, the best trained Soldier in the world. In the race for victory, I am swift, determined, and courageous, armed with a fierce will to win. Never will I fail my country’s trust. Always I fight on…through the foe, to the objective, to triumph overall. If necessary, I will fight to my death. By my steadfast courage, I have won more than 200 years of freedom. I yield not to weakness, to hunger, to cowardice, to fatigue, to superior odds, For I am mentally tough, physically strong, and morally straight. I forsake not, my country, my mission, my comrades, my sacred duty. I am relentless. I am always there, now and forever. I AM THE INFANTRY! FOLLOW ME!
Posts: 69247
Threads: 3759
Joined: August 2, 2009
Reputation:
259
RE: Historian explains why Jesus ''mythers'' aren't taken seriously by most Historians
June 8, 2015 at 4:02 pm
Ok - so you are selective.
P.S. Both appear within the pages of only one book. Equating 5th century Britain which was rapidly descending into the Dark Ages with the Pax Romana is shaky.
Posts: 5399
Threads: 256
Joined: December 1, 2013
Reputation:
60
RE: Historian explains why Jesus ''mythers'' aren't taken seriously by most Historians
June 8, 2015 at 4:03 pm
(June 8, 2015 at 3:55 pm)Rhythm Wrote: Parsimony....inventing an anyman to fill in where none is required or present is parsimony....lol? Huh, guess we take that term different ways you and I. The simplest, most logical explanation for Dracula is a blood drinking transylvanian count........, of course, I assume? It sounds like maybe our ideas of "inventing an anyman to fill in where none is required or present" differs too.
He who loves God cannot endeavour that God should love him in return - Baruch Spinoza
Posts: 46417
Threads: 540
Joined: July 24, 2013
Reputation:
109
RE: Historian explains why Jesus ''mythers'' aren't taken seriously by most Historians
June 8, 2015 at 4:04 pm
As far as parsimony goes, Occam's Razor never shaved the barber.
Boru
‘I can’t be having with this.’ - Esmeralda Weatherwax
Posts: 5399
Threads: 256
Joined: December 1, 2013
Reputation:
60
RE: Historian explains why Jesus ''mythers'' aren't taken seriously by most Historians
June 8, 2015 at 4:07 pm
(This post was last modified: June 8, 2015 at 4:08 pm by Mudhammam.)
(June 8, 2015 at 4:02 pm)Minimalist Wrote: Ok - so you are selective.
P.S. Both appear within the pages of only one book. I'm selective about what? For one, my standard of evaluation would be the same: What do the sources say? What would we expect to appear in the writers of that era? When do the sources appear? How many independent relevant attestations? Second, you're comparing apples and oranges... and by "one book" you mean the Gospel of Mark?
He who loves God cannot endeavour that God should love him in return - Baruch Spinoza
Posts: 69247
Threads: 3759
Joined: August 2, 2009
Reputation:
259
RE: Historian explains why Jesus ''mythers'' aren't taken seriously by most Historians
June 8, 2015 at 4:56 pm
You want to accept this jesus shit and so you do. It's okay. Nothing to be ashamed about.
But remember, we only have one source which tells the story: What is now known as "Mark." The rest are add-ons.
Posts: 2174
Threads: 89
Joined: August 26, 2012
Reputation:
38
RE: Historian explains why Jesus ''mythers'' aren't taken seriously by most Historians
June 8, 2015 at 6:43 pm
(June 8, 2015 at 3:59 pm)robvalue Wrote: To me, the simplest explanation for any piece of writing is always the same. And I can tell you the explanation without even looking at what the writing says.
Of course, I may well come to a more likely scenario once I read it. If I have a good enough reason to do so.
The intent and purpose of the Gospels was to con simpletons into believing that the writers and friends had a special connection to god. They knew that the stupid people wouldn't get an answer from an imaginary being in the sky so they claimed to be different from everyone else. They claimed that they were "beloved" in a special way that no one else could be. only they could talk to god and write his words. Everybody else had to make do with warm fuzzies for prayer answers and guesses for conversations.
Funny how today's christians don't have a problem with inequality. and that they are not as valuable or trustworthy as the ancient goat molesters.
Find the cure for Fundementia!
Posts: 23195
Threads: 26
Joined: February 2, 2010
Reputation:
106
RE: Historian explains why Jesus ''mythers'' aren't taken seriously by most Historians
June 8, 2015 at 6:44 pm
(June 8, 2015 at 7:42 am)Rhythm Wrote: They also assert the existence of "jesus the man". So regardless of divinity......
And thats fine. Then they can be analyzed for accuracy ... except for the fact that the myth has overtaken the man to the extent that seventeen hundred years of editing has occurred.
I'm fine with the idea of a historical Jesus. If there was really a Jesus who preached and garnered a following, it doesn't change the fact that the Gospels aren't evidence of his existence, because they aren't unbiased history. They are religious polemic, and as such, untrustworthy as sources.
Posts: 5399
Threads: 256
Joined: December 1, 2013
Reputation:
60
RE: Historian explains why Jesus ''mythers'' aren't taken seriously by most Historians
June 8, 2015 at 8:49 pm
(This post was last modified: June 8, 2015 at 8:50 pm by Mudhammam.)
(June 8, 2015 at 4:56 pm)Minimalist Wrote: You want to accept this jesus shit and so you do. It's okay. Nothing to be ashamed about.
But remember, we only have one source which tells the story: What is now known as "Mark." The rest are add-ons. I like to accept the most reasonable hypothesis. So even though we know nothing, for example, about the life of Diogenes Laertius, the most reasonable hypothesis granting the evidence is that he was the man responsible for compiling a "history" of the Greek philosophers.
The same goes for Jesus. I'm not saying you have to accept the most reasonable hypothesis given the evidence. I acknowledge, to the pleasure of religious nuts that point out the fact, that atheists can be just as irrational as believers, though unlike believers, they're really not required to be.
He who loves God cannot endeavour that God should love him in return - Baruch Spinoza
Posts: 23195
Threads: 26
Joined: February 2, 2010
Reputation:
106
RE: Historian explains why Jesus ''mythers'' aren't taken seriously by most Historians
June 8, 2015 at 8:56 pm
(This post was last modified: June 8, 2015 at 8:57 pm by Thumpalumpacus.)
(June 8, 2015 at 3:19 pm)Nestor Wrote: (June 5, 2015 at 2:22 pm)Parkers Tan Wrote: "Even without looking at the Gospel material"?
How can the Gospels be counted as evidence of Jesus? They are the claim. Principle of parsimony. The simplest, most logical explanation for the portrayal of Jesus in the Gospels is that there was a man whom his followers viewed as god-like.
The problem with that is that the Bible was written and compiled by his followers. I don't think it's a coincidence that they never mention Jesus farting, or how irritated Mary got with having to change his diapers after eating figs, or whatnot. The followers of any hero tend to be biased towards presenting the good side and obscuring the not-so-good.
The Gospels have been doctored for centuries by people with an agenda. Regarding them as evidence of a human Jesus would be like regarding For Whom the Bell Tolls as evidence of Robert Jordan. Everything sounds in place, but none of it is proven real, because we have no other evidence of either protagonist.
It's circular argumentation.
|
