Belz...
Fiend God
The Historical Jesus III
- Thread starter IanS
- Start date
- Status
The point is, I don't suppose them to be true. That's my objection to Leumas.
Joseph Smith and Muhammad are supposed to have met and spoken to Angels. We may react in various ways.
- They did meet Angels and the stories are true.
- To meet Angels is impossible. Therefore the stories about Smith and Muhammad are not true; so these people never existed.
- To meet Angels is impossible. Therefore the stories about them meeting Angels are not true. But there are other elements in these stories, which may be true, because untrue details are sometimes added to the accounts of real people.
Voltaire made the same point. The story about an Angel bringing a bottle of holy oil from Heaven to anoint Clovis is untrue, but that doesn't mean that Clovis was not in reality the first King of France.
Belz...
Fiend God
Something occured to me the other day on the topic of the standard of evidence for historical characters as opposed to physics and other hard sciences, and how historians make inferences and such. Please bear with me.
- - -
One of the music bands I follow is coming up with their second album next month. Now, one of the 15 songs on the album is one that was found on their first album, released last year. Now, I have no information as to why they put that one song on two albums in a row, but given that:
1) That song had a lot of Youtube hits.
2) They played it twice during the show I have on Blu-Ray
I conclude that it is their most popular song, and that they wanted to allow new fans to own the song by buying the new album rather than force them to either buy both or choose between them.
That sounds like the most likely explanation, which is why I conclude it. I don't have solid evidence that it is the case; no recorded conversation with the band members, no press release or anything that I know of. Relatively weak evidence is enough in this case, in my opinion, to reach a conclusion. It also doesn't matter that you can think of other explanations, so long as this one is interpreted as more likely.
- - -
History's a bit like that, unfortunately, because historical records tend to be destroyed, or not made at all. Historians looks at a variety of sources and lines of reasoning to determine the most likely -- not the only -- explanation, often in the presence of very weak evidence, like in the case of Jeebus.
- - -
One of the music bands I follow is coming up with their second album next month. Now, one of the 15 songs on the album is one that was found on their first album, released last year. Now, I have no information as to why they put that one song on two albums in a row, but given that:
1) That song had a lot of Youtube hits.
2) They played it twice during the show I have on Blu-Ray
I conclude that it is their most popular song, and that they wanted to allow new fans to own the song by buying the new album rather than force them to either buy both or choose between them.
That sounds like the most likely explanation, which is why I conclude it. I don't have solid evidence that it is the case; no recorded conversation with the band members, no press release or anything that I know of. Relatively weak evidence is enough in this case, in my opinion, to reach a conclusion. It also doesn't matter that you can think of other explanations, so long as this one is interpreted as more likely.
- - -
History's a bit like that, unfortunately, because historical records tend to be destroyed, or not made at all. Historians looks at a variety of sources and lines of reasoning to determine the most likely -- not the only -- explanation, often in the presence of very weak evidence, like in the case of Jeebus.
Craig B said:
How easily you contradict yourself?
You remember that Gabriel is claimed to be an Angel in the Christian Bible but completely forgot that Jesus was claimed to be FROM HEAVEN, God Creator, the Logos and born of a Ghost.
Jesus of Nazareth is claimed to GOD CREATOR, the Logos, from HEAVEN, the Son of God born of a Ghost in the Christian Bible.
1. Matthew 1:18---- Now the birth of Jesus Christ was on this wise: When as his mother Mary was espoused to Joseph, before they came together, she was found with child of the Holy Ghost.
2. 1 Corinthians 15.47 ---The first man is from the earth, earthy; the second man, from heaven.
3. Colossians 1---16 For by him were all things created, that are in heaven, and that are in earth, visible and invisible, whether they be thrones, or dominions, or principalities, or powers: all things were created by him, and for him
4. John 1:1--- In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.
Last edited:
Your absurd HJ argument is based on suppositions.
You believe Jesus of Nazareth really existed in the books called gMark and gMatthew because you SUPPOSE so.
Yes. But perhaps he was joking. He really called his ethereal visitor by the even more absurd name Moroni.
Although I have to admit, the word moron wasn't coined until about 1910
Is that the best you can do, dejudge?
And Muhammad and Smith are claimed to have spoken to Angels. None of these claims can possibly be true. However that doesn't stop you from believing that these people existed.
Is that the best you can do Craig B?
Your posts are just total contradictory nonsense.
You contradict yourself over and over with massive amounts of logical fallacies 24-7 [day after day--post after post].
You forgot that Jesus is GOD CREATOR and a transfiguring water walking son of a Ghost from heaven in the Christian Bible and use gMark and gMatthew as biological sources.
I never expected an admitted non-Christian to put forward such ridiculous argument especially when he easily admits or implies Gabriel was an angel in the same Christian Bible.
Your HJ argument is the very worst that I have seen.
Since you were deriding people for not having the attention span of a Goldfish, perhaps you should look more carefully at the the quote which you gave for Irenaeus and his claims about Polycarp, where you posted quoted it as the following -
According to your own quote, what Irenaeus says is NOT that he had actually ever met Polycarp.
He (Irenaeus) only says that that he had once (whilst a boy) seen someone called "thee" who was at the time with Polycarp. And that he (Irenaeus) could "describe" (presumably now as a memory in his older age) a place where Polycarp used to sit. Whether that is a description from actual physical memory and actual visual sighting, or only a "describing" in his mind of how he envisioned Polycarp sitting with “thee“, is not made clear.
But what he (Irenaeus) does not claim in your quote, is that he had actually ever met Polycarp. He only says that he had seen someone else with Polycarp.
And all that he says about Polycarp, is that Polycarp told stories of how he had in the past "heard instruction" from people who he believed were "apostles" who he says were telling stories of how they (the apostles) claimed to be "eye-witness of the Word".
As you have quoted it, that is not in any sense at all Irenaeus claiming to have spoken to any eye-witness who claimed to have seen Jesus. All that it says in your quote, is that Irenaeus claimed to have "seen" someone (i.e. Polycarp) who was said to have told stories of how he (Polycarp) had once "heard instruction" of stories from other people who he believed were "apostles", where those "apostles" had told stories as if they were "eye-witness", i.e. had visually seen something called "the Word of life", which they were apparently "recount(ing) them all in harmony with the Scriptures", i.e. telling tales from the ancient scriptures!
IOW - your quote does not actually say that Irenaeus had personally met or known Polycarp. And it does not say that Polycarp had met Jesus.
It only says that Irenaeus had once seen someone else with Polycarp. And that Polycarp had told stories of what he had heard from people he believed to be Apostles (whatever an Apostle actually is ... perhaps as distinct from a “Disciple”). And where finally at the end of that chain of who saw or met whom, and who might have said what (truthfully or otherwise) to anyone, you have a statement merely saying that these “apostles” had told stories of how they were “eye-witness” to something called “the Word of Life”, but where that “eye-witness” claim was said by those apostles to have been quote “in harmony with the scriptures”, whatever that might mean ... e.g. whether it meant that the miracles they claimed to witness were all foretold in scripture (which would make their stories absurd untrue nonsense, i.e. you would have to believe in divine prophecy), or alternatively where it may have meant no more than to say that they were “eye-witness” in the sense of knowing scriptural prophecies of a miraculous "Word", i.e. only “eye-witness” in belief (just as Paul’s 500+ “eye witnesses” were only witness in spiritual belief of "Christ").
You conveniently forget Paul claimed to have received information from Jesus, the Son of God from heaven.
None of those claim by Paul can possibly be true!!!
Nothing can stop you from believing Jesus, the Son of God from HEAVEN was really real.
Last edited:
That is the WEIRDEST argument that has ever been made in the history of human thought.
Mr A says Mr B spoke to me from the sky after he was dead.
Mr B could not have spoken to Mr A after he was dead.
Therefore Mr B never existed.
That is a crazy argument. The only conclusion that can be drawn is that Mr A is a liar or deluded. No statement about the existence of anyone can be based on another person saying they saw the first person after he died.
Now you are also telling me that Jesus was the son of God from heaven. I don't think he was, but you believe it because Irenaeus and Tertullian and Origen and Papias tell us so. I don't accept that these people were right, dejudge.
Your analogy is however totally unlike the case of Jesus.
In your analogy all the essential features are known as unarguable facts. E.g.;- it's presented as a fact that (i) this band certainly do exist, that (ii) this song certainly exists, (iii) that particular song certainly is on both albums, etc.
Nothing remotely like that exists as basic facts for Jesus.
So in one case (the music) you are making your tentative conclusion, not merely on some subjective sort of reasoning or subjective possible evidence, but concluding it as a likely reason based upon a foundation of what is defined there as a set of quite certain facts that cannot be argued with.
If you wanted make that music example comparable to the Jesus story then you would have to say something more like -
(i) I believe the band exists because it is foretold in ancient religious prophecy, where (ii) various highly religious people just told me that they had heard from unknown people who had miraculous visions of the band releasing two records with the exact same song, and where (iii) many fans rejoiced to hear that in divine visions it was revealed that the favourite song had been repeated twice. And hence I thereby conclude that (iv) the reason the song was indeed repeated twice (now assumed as a "fact"!) is because the band (their existence now assumed as a "fact"!) wanted all from far and wide to hear it and rejoice, and hence that’s my best explanation for saying it's all most probably true. But where I should perhaps add that, the same unknown informant had previously claimed to have visions of 40 other bands repeating songs twice, and that whilst universally believed at the time, it was later proven that all 40 claims were completely untrue ... but I now believe their new 41st claim is probably true (because why would such known and constant liars, lie?) ... and in any case in this subject we can conclude whatever we like because we have our own meaning for concepts of “fact”, “truth”, and “evidence”.
Last edited:
Belz...
Fiend God
You're missing the point: I'm describing the different standards of evidence associated with non-hard-science studies.
jond
Illuminator
- Joined
- Apr 25, 2006
- Messages
- 3,440
Perhaps a more appropriate analogy would be the band Porcupine Tree. They began life as a fictional "lost progressive rock band" complete with band history and catalog. This was a Spinal Tap-ish spoof, made more real by the creator (Steven Wilson) going so far as to put together an album to finish the joke. What happened from there is that the record got significant airplay on the BBC and a new band was launched which went on to become one of the most successful modern progressive bands.
What nonsense.
You have just CONTRADICTED yourself.
You forgot that you just said that "Muhammad and Smith are claimed to have spoken to Angels. None of these claims can possibly be true."
Craig B said:
You admit that is not possibly true that Muhammad and Smith could have spoken to Angels but believe that Jesus the Son of God from HEAVEN could have spoken to Paul.
What a ridiculous contradictory argument!!!
Your HJ argument is an established contradictory farce.
Last edited:
Belz...
Fiend God
Well, I guess that's the holy trinity of Dejudge stock responses.
David Mo
Philosopher
Achilles and Athena had the same possibility of existence that Saint Gabriel Archange. This is to say, zero.
No. I do not know too much about Romulus, but as far as I know, the legend of Romulus was perfectly consistent with the religion of the Roman State (both Republic and Empire).
On the contrary, the death of Jesus in the cross was absolutely unsuitable to the Pauline politic. Paul and his followers (Luke and the others) were trying to make comfortable the Christianity to the pagans. It was unlikely they had invented a messiah condemned by treason against Rome. This would be contradictory.
They are not real men, but you do a fine mess with literary and legendary characters.
Disputing about historical facts is not to buy a car. Don’t you see the difference? You have a problem: perhaps you are infected by the American TV preacher rhetoric!
This is not my case. Adam and Abraham are not Jesus. I don’t know any reason to applying the same contradiction argument I use with Jesus.
And I can assure you that the believers I know are not very happy with my minimalist outlook. I am tired to fight with them and they often become more aggressive than the mythicists.
I hope my explanation had been clear for you.
I don’t give a damn for “Jesus’ sake”. I have no idea about what he preached or did. It is not my problem. I find that some sayings attributed to Jesus in the Gospels are nice, other are impossible to put into practice and many other frankly upsetting. But this has not to do with the problem of “historical Jesus”. It is a problem with the gospels.
My intervention here against the radical positivism of Dejudge, IanS and others is not directed towards saving the Christianity or religion in any sense. I have done some comments because I consider that some people go in a bad way to fight against religious superstitions and his power in society. And it is also a bad historical praxis!
I don’t know what I can say to make you understand me!
Jesus of Nazareth has the same possibility of existence as Satan.
Satan and Jesus were in conversation and physically in Jerusalem at the Jewish Temple in the Christian Bible.
Matthew 4:5 ----Then the devil taketh him up into the holy city, and setteth him on a pinnacle of the temple..
Satan and Jesus of Nazareth have zero history in antiquity.
Oh, dejudge, that is a horrid fib. I said exactly the opposite!
That is the total opposite of what you now ascribe to me. How awful.
Now you will need to do lifelong penance on bread and water for uttering such falsehoods. I can see only one way out. When you become Pope the first thing you must do is to grant yourself a Plenary Indulgence. Then perhaps you may be spared the eternal fires of Perdition.
- Status