| Poll: Did Jesus of Nazareth exist as an historical person? This poll is closed. |
|||
| Yes, absolutely; like Julius Caesar. | 11 | 18.03% | |
| Probably. | 12 | 19.67% | |
| Unknown. | 15 | 24.59% | |
| Not probably. | 12 | 19.67% | |
| Definitively not. | 11 | 18.03% | |
| Total | 61 vote(s) | 100% | |
| * You voted for this item. | [Show Results] |
|
Did Jesus exist?
|
 (February 2, 2016 at 11:24 am)Rhythm Wrote: we don;t really know what those particular people would consider embarrassing No one can claim absolute knowledge if that's what you mean by "really". But if experts say they probably know those people would consider it embarrassing based on all the relevant historical studies and textual analyses they've done, then that should suffice as good enough knowledge. RE: Did Jesus exist?
February 2, 2016 at 12:51 pm
(This post was last modified: February 2, 2016 at 12:56 pm by The Grand Nudger.)
Who's claimed absolute knowledge? Who's demanding it? No one in this conversation. What is being claimed, firstly, is that there is a criteria by which they can determine what would embarrass a specific author...whose identity isn't even known, and that further this is a means of inference for the historicity of the narrative.
This is -beyond- speculative, it's purely imaginative, and as already explained, incredibly irrational from the outset -as- a question. Even if we could determine what would be embarrassing to an anonymous author, which we can't, we can't conclude from it's inclusion or their embarrassment or any combination thereof that the event happened (or didn't). That would be a massive non-sequitur. It gives us neither either way in that regard. We are not, in any of this, discussing the historicity of the narrative. That's why this question is uninformative, as is the defense by reference to embarrassing details, if the question is the historicity of the narrative...and not, as the comments above would be discussing, the religiosity or beliefs of the author, or even what would be embarrassing to them regardless of it's historicity. HJ isn't just a person not in evidence, it's a person argued into acceptance with unreasonable statements and inferences.
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!
 Quote:It all comes down to some questions: Why include the crucifixion in the gospels? To the docetists, it did not matter. It only "seemed" that they were crucifying god. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Docetism The Gnostic Apocalypse of Peter, which probably dates to the same time period as all the other 'gospels' ( 2d century ) depicts jesus and peter watching the crucifixion and laughing at it. The key lies in the "heresies." There were numerous visions of jesus before the proto-orthodox won out and eradicated them all. (February 2, 2016 at 12:51 pm)Rhythm Wrote: This is -beyond- speculative, it's purely imaginative, and as already explained, incredibly irrational from the outset -as- a question. Even if we could determine what would be embarrassing to an anonymous author, which we can't, we can't conclude from it's inclusion or their embarrassment or any combination thereof that the event happened (or didn't). That would be a massive non-sequitur. It gives us neither either way in that regard. First, you've already made up your mind that you can't determine what would be embarrassing to the authors. So nothing will convince you that we can determine, for example, that the author(s) of Matthew found certain accepted things regarding Jesus as the Messiah to be embarrassing, and hence tried to rectify them. Second, the argument is that certain embarrassments in the Gospel regarding Jesus are indicators that they probably wouldn't have been accepted by believers of the Messiah if they weren't historical facts. Again, there is no hard proof here, just parsimony and the most reasonable explanation given the current evidence. 
Atheism is a non-prophet organization join today.
Code: <iframe width="100%" height="450" scrolling="no" frameborder="no" src="https://w.soundcloud.com/player/?url=https%3A//api.soundcloud.com/tracks/255506953&auto_play=false&hide_related=false&show_comments=true&show_user=true&show_reposts=false&visual=true"></iframe>Quote:Second, the argument is that certain embarrassments in the Gospel regarding Jesus are indicators that they probably wouldn't have been accepted by believers of the Messiah if they weren't historical facts. The same argument is used in the OT: "Why would anyone invent a story about being SLAVES in Egypt?"  (February 2, 2016 at 11:24 am)Rhythm Wrote: This is the embarrassing details defense. It seems important, informative. The trouble is that it isn't. It makes several fallacious appeals while begging the question. Not only -do- people include embarrassing details, we don;t really know what those particular people would consider embarrassing, and none of this means anything unless we assume that some portions of this narrative are historical in the first place...precisely what we are trying to determine. I think we're close to understanding one another. As Irrational explained, the 'embarrassing details' defense is an indicator that the writers of the Gospels probably wouldn't have accepted certain details of the story, given that they changed so many other details as they saw fit. It's not a matter of "they included it, but didn't have to, therefore it's history" it's not even "they all included it, despite the fact they changed other details where they saw fit, therefore it's history". It's "They all included it, despite the fact they changed other details where they saw fit, therefore they probably had some historical details they felt they couldn't change." Now it's certainly possible that they didn't have any historical details at all. It's not something we'll likely ever know. What I'm suggesting is the -anyman- Jesus would be historical Jesus. The Gospels are not historical. They all have contradicting accounts (which is why it's believed that they probably were working with -some- historical details. They contradicted each other, changed it as they saw fit.) Now that doesn't mean Jesus the -anyman- is a Historical Fact (or that I think he is) If there were an -anyman- Jesus then it's unlikely anyone would have wrote about him. As stated earlier, he'd have basically been Harold Camping and Benny Hinn rolled into one. As for the slaves of Egypt bit... it's possible that they were in fact slaves of Egypt at one point. Or that some of them were, which is where the stories -- the myths -- came from. Just like with Jesus -- them being slaves does not prove Exodus. Nor does Jesus being crucified prove him to have done any of the claimed miracles. Those would require much more proof, because they are things that would have certainly been written about. All the first born sons of Egypt dying? That would have been a significant event that someone would have recorded by other than whoever wrote down the stories of the Old Testament. And certainly at least from an Egyptian Perspective. There also would have been effects from it seen in History as well.
The whole tone of Church teaching in regard to woman is, to the last degree, contemptuous and degrading. - Elizabeth Cady Stanton
 (February 2, 2016 at 7:28 pm)Cecelia Wrote:(February 2, 2016 at 11:24 am)Rhythm Wrote: This is the embarrassing details defense. It seems important, informative. The trouble is that it isn't. It makes several fallacious appeals while begging the question. Not only -do- people include embarrassing details, we don;t really know what those particular people would consider embarrassing, and none of this means anything unless we assume that some portions of this narrative are historical in the first place...precisely what we are trying to determine. The story about slaves in Egypt is really about the Israelites living in "sin" and leaving it for the promised land of living under the law. IOW, it's just an elaborate parable.
The story about slaves in Egypt is about how anything is possible with god's help.... and in order to get god's "help" you have to do exactly what the priests say.
Oh, and the fucking priests wrote the story. Do the math.
Believe and obey without exception.
|
|
« Next Oldest | Next Newest »
|
