Craig4
Penultimate Amazing
Why would he have to be a fraud? Why couldn't he be a complete whack job who was too crazy or dumb to un**** himself when he learned the Romans wanted to turn him into performance art?
Does Jesus' prediction and acceptance of martyrdom suggest His sincerity?
HansMustermann
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- Mar 2, 2009
- Messages
- 23,741
Why not both?
I already gave you the example of the sailor who confessed starting the 1666 London fire, and must have known at some point that he's judged for a hanging crime. If nothing else, because he was fighting an unusual uphill fight there at the trial, to convince everyone that he's guilty, while the crown was effectively proving that it's physically impossible for him to be the culprit. But the guy fought hard for his right to hang, and was duly hanged.
Was he sincere in his belief that he started the fire? Maybe. But that doesn't rule out that ALSO whatever premise led him to that conclusion was faulty.
It's not really an exclusive or. Someone can be very sincere in believing something based on awfully unsound logic.
Last edited:
It's the so-called "trilemma": Jesus must be "Lord" (understood as a divine being, of course) If not that, he must have been a "Liar" or a "Lunatic" for claiming to be Divine. Well if he did, he may very well have been off his head; but in fact I don't think he did. I think that stuff was added in later, and not by the disciples either, but by later adherents already influenced by pagan "Godman" concepts before their conversion to the new religion.
Here's Peter preaching about Jesus in Acts 2:22. No God here, folks, a man. New International Version (NIV)
Last edited:
The Romans wanted to do what??
It is most amazing that you cannot even repeat the story of Jesus AS it is found written.
It was the Jews who wanted Jesus dead--Not Pilate.
Pilate found NO fault with Jesus.
Jesus was found guilty of death when he was before the JEWISH SANHEDRIN.
Matthew 27:25
The story of Jesus is so simple.
Jesus came to fulfill supposed prophecies.
Jesus predicted that he would be delivered to be KILLED and then resurrect on the third day.
It did happen in the Fables called the NT.
I don't know how one can determine "sincerity" from obvious fiction stories or stories with no known historical value.
HansMustermann
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- Mar 2, 2009
- Messages
- 23,741
Well, I think Craig was referring to a more realistic HJ scenario, basically, rather than taking the miraculous gospels at face value. Realistically, if someone were to be crucified, it would be by the Romans.
Whether it actually happened, that's another question.
Plus, I suppose we can debate the mental problems of fiction characters too. Like, whether Lois Lane is borderline Capgras syndrome and should seek help, if she can't recognize her hero as soon as he puts on a suit and glasses
Plus, I suppose that the argument from "martyr, therefore sincere" premises does appear in more earnest religious arguments (e.g., about the apostles), so I suppose it can't hurt much to point out that being sincere doesn't preclude being wrong or even delusional. Whether Jesus was real or not, and whether he was crucified or not, nevertheless, there have been many many MANY people who got themselves killed for beliefs that were probably sincere but wrong.
Even in first century Judaea or thereabouts, and speaking of messianic religious delusions, from Josephus we find no less than three people reenacting stuff that the first Joshua did (as a reminder, Jesus and Joshua are the same name), and got the crap end of the Roman stick for it. And as for example Carrier points out, they may have actually planned to be the messiah that gets killed by the Romans, and that finally gets God to get off his ass and put the Jews at the top.
Even the Christians would probably agree that none of those was the messiah, so obviously being sincerely willing to die for that belief doesn't make it right. At least some people who went to death for their messianic beliefs must have been more on the Loon side than Lord.
Whether it actually happened, that's another question.
Plus, I suppose we can debate the mental problems of fiction characters too. Like, whether Lois Lane is borderline Capgras syndrome and should seek help, if she can't recognize her hero as soon as he puts on a suit and glasses
Plus, I suppose that the argument from "martyr, therefore sincere" premises does appear in more earnest religious arguments (e.g., about the apostles), so I suppose it can't hurt much to point out that being sincere doesn't preclude being wrong or even delusional. Whether Jesus was real or not, and whether he was crucified or not, nevertheless, there have been many many MANY people who got themselves killed for beliefs that were probably sincere but wrong.
Even in first century Judaea or thereabouts, and speaking of messianic religious delusions, from Josephus we find no less than three people reenacting stuff that the first Joshua did (as a reminder, Jesus and Joshua are the same name), and got the crap end of the Roman stick for it. And as for example Carrier points out, they may have actually planned to be the messiah that gets killed by the Romans, and that finally gets God to get off his ass and put the Jews at the top.
Even the Christians would probably agree that none of those was the messiah, so obviously being sincerely willing to die for that belief doesn't make it right. At least some people who went to death for their messianic beliefs must have been more on the Loon side than Lord.
Last edited:
G'day to you too!
Thank you ... I try hard when I am allowed to do so by the grace of the gods!
There are many orphaned little boys wearing spectacles and living with their uncles who don't quite treat them right.
Does that mean that Harry Potter was a real boy albeit without his wand?
So did the apostles of Harry Potter. They too had a good command of the prophecies in the 7 books of Harry Potterism.
So was Harry Potter.... many Full Blood wizards were trying to kill him and he also knew the prophecies about him written in the libraries of Hogwarts.
This myth that Jews killed their prophets is just that .... a MYTH.
Can you show me verses from the Tanakh were prophets were killed by Jews?
Keeping with the Harry Potter analogy... so did Harry Potter... he willingly went through with the plan of having to be killed by Voldemort... why did he go down that path?
I hope that by now you get the idea.... The writers of the NT could have written anything they wanted... it does not mean that there was a real Jesus nor even if there were it does not mean that he did what they said he did or that he said what they said he said or that he knew what they said he knew nor that anything they said had to have actually been true.
How do you know anything about Jesus that is not outside of the NT which is not based on the NT? There is not a single mention of Jesus or what he did or said or thought that is from a source independent of the NT.
Just like not being able to know anything about Harry Potter that is not in or based upon the Harry Potter Chronicles.
BUT...BUT.... even if Jesus were real and he really thought he was the Messiah and he really did misinterpret the Tanakh to misconstrue that he needed to die... all that means is that he was yet another LOCO much like that WACKO from WACO (see his story of provoking his own death and his disciples going along with him all the way).
BUT...BUT... Have a look here at why Jesus was not the Messiah even if he were real and not a loco wacko.
- Jesus did not fulfill the messianic prophecies.
And do not use the casuistic that he is going to do that when he comes back.... that will remain to be seen if and when he ever comes back.... what remains now is that HE DID NOT:
- Build the Third Temple (Ezekiel 37:26-28).
- Gather all Jews back to the Land of Israel (Isaiah 43:5-6).
- Usher in an era of world peace, and end all hatred, oppression, suffering and disease. As it says: "Nation shall not lift up sword against nation, neither shall man learn war anymore." (Isaiah 2:4)
- Spread universal knowledge of the God of Israel, which will unite humanity as one. As it says: "God will be King over all the world—on that day, God will be One and His Name will be One" (Zechariah 14:9).
- Jesus did not embody the personal qualifications of the Messiah.
- Biblical verses "referring" to Jesus are mistranslations.
Or deliberate deceit
Or Jesus could have been a Loco like the Wacko from Waco.
He too had disciples who thought he was the Messiah.
He too thought he was the Messiah.
He too provoked the authorities to the point where they had to do something about it.
He too willingly died for his beliefs.
His followers too were willing to die for HIS beliefs.
Last edited:
Which is essentially the problem with the "Lord/Liar/Lunatic" false dilemma (which let me tell I can't believe is still getting repainted and presented in 2015) it works just as well for every lair or lunatic as does any real or imagined Lords.
And the whole "This story is so crazy is has to be true" thing... not helping.
I cannot believe that in 2015 anyone in the educated civilized world still thinks Jesus' entire story is not the most amazing insult to intelligence myth and fairy tale ever to emanate from the ignorant imaginations of the most benighted humans.
Even if one wants to believe in an ethereal deity they should still be insulted at the vile slander being hurled at poor God.
How can anyone who wants to believe in GOD the one and only creator of everything and the almighty omnipotent omnibenevolent omniscient above all things and all profanity reconcile this god with the pathetic insult to intelligence that is the myth of Jesus?
None of that is a rational response to
In truth it's not hard to believe that a Jesus figure could have existed, for exactly these reasons, and overt unrealistic fiction composed two thousand years later is quite irrelevant to the question. To say, an author writes fanciful stories for children, in response to the question whether a particular messianic figure existed - when we know that such figures did exist in general - is not a useful contribution to the debate. In fact it's irrelevant to the point of being ludicrous.
Picking on one part of the post and just asserting that it is irrational even though it is entirely rational is irrational.
Read the rest of the post.
What is ludicrous is to say that a Jesus figure is entirely possible because there were other failed pretend messiahs.
There are and were plenty of strong people with almost extraordinary strength.... does that mean that Hercules was a real person?
There were plenty of highwaymen does that mean that Robin Hood was entirely possible?
There were plenty of Druids does that mean that Merlin was entirely possible?
What is irrationally ludicrous is you saying it is irrational and ludicrous to use an analogy with a fictive work to show how most of the elements of the Jesus story could have been fictive too.... I could have used ancient fiction too If I wanted.... what is irrationally ludicrous is you thinking that using a modern fable is irrelevant as an analogy to an old fable like Jesus'.
Besides.... read the rest of the post.
I suggest you read these not so irrational nor so ludicrous books and you might change your mind.
- On the Historicity of Jesus: Why We Might Have Reason for Doubt
For anyone intent on defending a historical Jesus, this is the book to challenge. - Proving History: Bayes's Theorem and the Quest for the Historical Jesus
Anyone with an interest in historical methods, how historical knowledge can be justified, new applications of Bayes’s Theorem, or the study of the historical Jesus will find this book to be essential reading.
Last edited:
No it isn't. It's entirely reasonable. Not ludicrous. Not even slightly eccentric.
No.
Yes, perfectly possible. However, the evidence indicates that he didn't exist, at least in any recognisable form. Same goes for his Swiss equivalent Tell. But the Scottish counterpart, Wallace, is known to have existed. Ample evidence for him, because he got himself involved in a war. So these people might have existed. Some did, some didn't.
Yes it does. But not as a character in the Arthur tales. He originated independently of that series of legends.
http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Merlin
I hardly believe that they were the actual words, but mad war poets were only too common. We have still extant a complete poem of this genre. Y Gododdin, attributed to the bard Aneurin. The Gododdin certainly existed and the site of their fortress Din Eidyn may be visited by any tourist. It is now occupied by Edinburgh Castle.
None of this in any way resembles a series of explicitly fictional stories composed for the amusement of children and known both by their author and her readers to be entirely imaginary in inspiration.
HansMustermann
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- Mar 2, 2009
- Messages
- 23,741
Actually, I find none of those propositions to be ludicrious or even false. It certainly is POSSIBLE that there was an original Robin Hood, or that a romanized celtic petty king had a druid as an advisor, etc. And it's certainly possible that some messiah pretender got himself killed. In fact we know of more than one who actually did.
The problem I see is not with acknowledging something as possible, if maybe improbable (which is really all that Bayes says). The problem lies only with the leap of faith from something being POSSIBLE to assuming it to be TRUE.
The space of what is possible is necessarily larger than the space of what actually happened. (Otherwise you'd have stuff that happened, but is impossible.) And in practice, by quite a HELL of a lot.
E.g., there were millions of lowborn peasants and sons of slaves and freedmen who could have taken the Roman throne. And we know it to be possible because off the top of my head I can think of not one, but TWO that did. But most didn't. The space of the possible is literally tens of millions of times larger than the space of what happened, on that particular subject.
That's just the thing. A lot is possible. And there's nothing wrong with acknowledging it as possible. The problem is just when one takes a running leap from it being merely possible to the conclusion (or even provisional assumption) that it's true.
Yes... exactly ... that is what I mean .... you put it quite eloquently as always.... I wish I had that ability as you do.
Is there something I can drink to get it?
Last edited:
Ah, our old friend Carrier. And our other old friend, Bayes' Theorem. I think that the use of such mathematical devices in this field is "ludicrous" if anything is. Ironically,
Jesus may or may not have existed, but it is not in any way "ludicrous" to argue that he is possible because other failed messiahs are known to have existed. We may well consider it possible that yet more existed than we know of, whose names have not been preserved in the (very sparse) historical record. So Jesus is possible, but not definitely historical.
Failed messiahs are not only possible, but certain. Druids are certain and woodland dwelling outlaws are certain. Thus Hood, Jesus and Merlin are all possible.
HansMustermann
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- Mar 2, 2009
- Messages
- 23,741
Yes... exactly ... that is what I mean .... you put it quite eloquently as always.... I wish I had that ability as you do.
Is there something I can drink to get it?
Captain Morgan's Spiced Rum works for me
Lothian
should be banned
I have a hard time understanding how Gandalf's mindset of Balrogic martyrdom would be compatible with him being a fraud.
But it is easy!
"All the others" are WRONG, and because of that, any doubt works against them.
The christians are RIGHT, and that means, that any doubt can be used to strengthen the case for Jesus or ignore any unpleasant argument.
Simple!
"All the others" are WRONG, and because of that, any doubt works against them.
The christians are RIGHT, and that means, that any doubt can be used to strengthen the case for Jesus or ignore any unpleasant argument.
Simple!
Craig4
Penultimate Amazing
Rome had no problem killing wold be Jewish leaders. The no fault bit was very likely added to get Rome off the hook for his murder when Christianity was becoming a Roman religion.
Craig4
Penultimate Amazing
Well, I think Craig was referring to a more realistic HJ scenario, basically, rather than taking the miraculous gospels at face value. Realistically, if someone were to be crucified, it would be by the Romans.
Whether it actually happened, that's another question.
Plus, I suppose we can debate the mental problems of fiction characters too. Like, whether Lois Lane is borderline Capgras syndrome and should seek help, if she can't recognize her hero as soon as he puts on a suit and glasses
Plus, I suppose that the argument from "martyr, therefore sincere" premises does appear in more earnest religious arguments (e.g., about the apostles), so I suppose it can't hurt much to point out that being sincere doesn't preclude being wrong or even delusional. Whether Jesus was real or not, and whether he was crucified or not, nevertheless, there have been many many MANY people who got themselves killed for beliefs that were probably sincere but wrong.
Even in first century Judaea or thereabouts, and speaking of messianic religious delusions, from Josephus we find no less than three people reenacting stuff that the first Joshua did (as a reminder, Jesus and Joshua are the same name), and got the crap end of the Roman stick for it. And as for example Carrier points out, they may have actually planned to be the messiah that gets killed by the Romans, and that finally gets God to get off his ass and put the Jews at the top.
Even the Christians would probably agree that none of those was the messiah, so obviously being sincerely willing to die for that belief doesn't make it right. At least some people who went to death for their messianic beliefs must have been more on the Loon side than Lord.
I have no doubt that the Romans executed a few Jesus like characters. Remember that these are the same people who crucified every male surviving member of the slave army of the Third Servile War. That's like 5000 people. Crucifixion though was reserved for slaves, provincial subjects of the Empire and political crimes. If Pilate didn't want him on a cross he wouldn't have been on one. He would probably been perfectly happy to let the Jews stone him to death.