Skepticwiki historical jesus

[jjramsey]

If Smaug didnt exist, why is Bilbo writing as if he did?

Strawman. Mark 6:1-6 isn't too consistent with the author of the Gospel of Mark intending to write fiction. It looks suspiciously like a failure of Jesus to induce a placebo effect. Moreover, it looks like an attempt to explain away a failure. When fictional characters fail, it is by the will of the author, so there is no need to explain away such a failure; it's part of the plot. If Jesus is mythical, why is he shown failing in the way a charlatan would, or the way an ordinary man who has delusions of having powers to heal would? If Jesus was supposed to fail, why is Mark looks like he is trying to obscure the failure?

If Mark is supposedly fiction, why do the authors of the gospels of Matthew and Luke use him as a source in works presented as if they were fact? Why does the Christian community act as if it never got the memo that Mark was supposed to be fiction? Origin himself was bothered by Mark apparently getting his geography wrong and offered the rationalization that Mark really wrote "Gergesa," which is a town near water, rather than "Gerasa," which isn't. That factual problem would be a non-issue if Mark was supposed to be fictional and not taken as historical. BTW, this too is in a SkepticWiki article:

http://www.skepticwiki.org/wiki/index.php/Geographical_errors_of_Gerasene/Gadarene_demoniac_accounts

Guess who wrote it?

 

[elliotfc]

If Mark is supposedly fiction, why do the authors of the gospels of Matthew and Luke use him as a source in works presented as if they were fact? Why does the Christian community act as if it never got the memo that Mark was supposed to be fiction?

Right. If it was fiction, they wouldn't die for it as they did. You could die for theological beliefs, be they beliefs in mythological deities that existed thousands of years ago, or dogmatic tenets and precepts, or the hope of things to come. Things you couldn't have touched in your lifetime, things outside the realm of tangible appreciation. But these are events supposedly witnessed. At the very least, you'd think one or two of the guys would have said "whoa whoa whoa chief, it's all a bunch of lies".

-Elliot

 

[pipelineaudio]

Lots of Hawaiians and other polynesians would tell the same stories with similar legends, a few details changed here or there

You know, I guess Pele really DOES live in the Volcano

 

[jjramsey]

Occams razor favor a highly exaggerated account rather an a highly complex deliberate fraud.

Ahhh, duh why didnt I see it before? I get it now

The bible says it so its true

Blatant strawman.

Lots of Hawaiians and other polynesians would tell the same stories with similar legends, a few details changed here or there

Me "channeling" CFLarsen : Evidence?

 

[geetarmoore]

Strawman. Mark 6:1-6 isn't too consistent with the author of the Gospel of Mark intending to write fiction. It looks suspiciously like a failure of Jesus to induce a placebo effect. Moreover, it looks like an attempt to explain away a failure. When fictional characters fail, it is by the will of the author, so there is no need to explain away such a failure; it's part of the plot. If Jesus is mythical, why is he shown failing in the way a charlatan would, or the way an ordinary man who has delusions of having powers to heal would? If Jesus was supposed to fail, why is Mark looks like he is trying to obscure the failure?

If Mark is supposedly fiction, why do the authors of the gospels of Matthew and Luke use him as a source in works presented as if they were fact? Why does the Christian community act as if it never got the memo that Mark was supposed to be fiction? Origin himself was bothered by Mark apparently getting his geography wrong and offered the rationalization that Mark really wrote "Gergesa," which is a town near water, rather than "Gerasa," which isn't. That factual problem would be a non-issue if Mark was supposed to be fictional and not taken as historical. BTW, this too is in a SkepticWiki article:

http://www.skepticwiki.org/wiki/index.php/Geographical_errors_of_Gerasene/Gadarene_demoniac_accounts

Guess who wrote it?

I sure read Mark 6 as a allegorical story with a theological point. Not sure how you can miss that....

 

[geetarmoore]

Blatant strawman.

I don't think it is. I think it's a statement.

If you start from the position that the Gospels are true... Then you have to believe in the Historical Jesus. End of the story.

And, if you believe the Gospels are true, you had better not miss Church on Sunday! Jesus is going to be PISSED when he finds out you've been hanging out on a forum full of Heathens

Now, if you want to pick-and-choose what's true and what isn't, then I say you start on a slippery slope that you can't recover from. How do you pick the truth from the BS?

 

[geetarmoore]

Right. If it was fiction, they wouldn't die for it as they did. You could die for theological beliefs, be they beliefs in mythological deities that existed thousands of years ago, or dogmatic tenets and precepts, or the hope of things to come. Things you couldn't have touched in your lifetime, things outside the realm of tangible appreciation. But these are events supposedly witnessed. At the very least, you'd think one or two of the guys would have said "whoa whoa whoa chief, it's all a bunch of lies".

-Elliot

Lots of witches died for their beliefs too! If only they would have spoke up

Where is the evidence for all the 'Martyrs' we're always hearing about? Is this actual, recorded history, or just more story telling over the years?

 

[geni]

Don't think I assume a fraud. I never used these words.

I think Paul believed his vision of Jesus.

I believe Mark was writing an earthly (fictional) 'story' based a bit on the writings of Paul.

On what basis? Why would he want to do that? Nothing in Mark suggests the author thinks he is writeing fiction.

Consider:

For the jesus existed as a man group the axilierly assumption is that the story was somwhat exaggerated. This is pretty much a given for any story about the founder of an idiology/religion when told by it's supporters.

For the no jesus the axilierly assumption is that Paul put together a mistry religion but wasn't able to make himself clear enough and some tried to give it a real word foundation.

The first contains fewer axilierly assumptions


Remeber Paul by his own account knew something about christianty before his conversion so the story is unlikely to start there which again pushes you into the timeframe problem.

Something triggered proto-christianty. Paul doesn't think it was him. The Jeruserlem group claim it was someone they knew (a claim Paul appears to accept particularly in the case of james) the area appears to be lousy with rabies with their altered versions of judaism. It is harly a major step to take to say that one of them got lucky.

 

[jjramsey]

I sure read Mark 6 as a allegorical story with a theological point. Not sure how you can miss that....

Well, there is the lack of textual cues to indicate that it is supposed to be allegorical, and that Matthew's redaction of it indicates that he was embarassed by what it literally meant. Of course, with enough creativity one can come up with an allegorical interpretation of just about anything. It does not follow that this won't get slashed by Occam's Razor.

I don't think it is. I think it's a statement.

geni clearly was calling the Bible's account exaggerated. That is a far cry from pipelineaudio's "The bible says it so its true." So yes, pipelineaudio was spearing a strawman.

Now, if you want to pick-and-choose what's true and what isn't, then I say you start on a slippery slope that you can't recover from.

Slippery slope is a fallacy, you know.

How do you pick the truth from the BS?

Look for information delivered offhandedly. Look for statements against the author's interests. If possible, look for corroboration. That list isn't exhaustive, but it should give you an idea of how to read between the lines of a text.

For the jesus existed as a man group the axilierly assumption is that the story was somwhat exaggerated. This is pretty much a given for any story about the founder of an idiology/religion when told by it's supporters....

Good points, but fix yor speling.

 

[pipelineaudio]

Blatant strawman.



Me "channeling" CFLarsen : Evidence?

http://www.google.com/search?source...GIC,GGIC:2006-06,GGIC:en&q=polynesian+legends

 

[geetarmoore]

Well, there is the lack of textual cues to indicate that it is supposed to be allegorical, and that Matthew's redaction of it indicates that he was embarassed by what it literally meant. Of course, with enough creativity one can come up with an allegorical interpretation of just about anything. It does not follow that this won't get slashed by Occam's Razor.

Geeze!

I used to TEACH bible study... Want me to tell you what it means?

Here you go, class....

It might seem to you in Mark6:1-6, that Jesus couldn't do miracles in the presence of people without faith - a potential problem for the God-man.....

But in reality, Jesus wouldn't do them there, because he was being rejected as the messiah, in his own home town.....

See? Don't reject your messiah. a very clear message.

 

[elliotfc]

Lots of witches died for their beliefs too! If only they would have spoke up

Let's sort that one out actually.

Lots of witches confessed to be witches because they thought that by confessing to be witches, they would stop being beaten and tortured severely because they woud not confess that they were witches, but then they were killed because they confessed to be witches.

Or...some witches really were witches, and knew it. In which case it's good that they were killed, because witches apparently had the power to kill crops and the evil eye and all that.

Or...some witches just mistakenly thought that they were witches, but for good reason, because maybe they actually did have red hair and maybe they did actually yell at their neighbor and look at them funny and maybe their neighbor's crops did actually turn out bad. In which case there were tangible reasons for supporting the propositition.

Where is the evidence for all the 'Martyrs' we're always hearing about? Is this actual, recorded history, or just more story telling over the years?

Good question. You offer a dichotomy...actual/recorded history, or story telling, so yours is more of a rhetorical question, isn't it?

Anyhow, to answer your question, I think it's primarily Christian oral tradition that was never recorded as "actual, recorded history", because that just didn't occur to them to record "actual, recorded history" to satisfy sketpics 2000 years later. Maybe I'm being a bit too charitable with the fiends.

I probably give more credence to the early Christian "historians" than do you.

-Elliot

 

[geetarmoore]

On what basis? Why would he want to do that? Nothing in Mark suggests the author thinks he is writeing fiction.

Nothing???

Jesus calms a storm....
A dead girl lives again...
A sick woman is healed...
Jesus feeds 5000 people with some fish and bread sticks...
Jesus walks on water....
Jesus is Risen......


Yep. Nothing there that looks like fiction to me, either.

 

[elliotfc]

Nothing???

Jesus calms a storm....
A dead girl lives again...
A sick woman is healed...
Jesus feeds 5000 people with some fish and bread sticks...
Jesus walks on water....
Jesus is Risen......


Yep. Nothing there that looks like fiction to me, either.

Are you merely feigning confusion? Can you not intellectually grasp that other people may honestly believe in the legitimacy of events that you can not possibly accept, and then write about such things?

-Elliot

 

[geetarmoore]

Are you merely feigning confusion? Can you not intellectually grasp that other people may honestly believe in the legitimacy of events that you can not possibly accept, and then write about such things?

-Elliot

Here is what I can accept;

If 'they' believed in the legitimacy of this stuff, 'they' could have believed, and have been led to believe anything....

You want to know why Mark could write fiction, and 10 years later Matthew and Luke were copying it as truth? It's right there. All you have to do is want to believe it. We have 'skeptics' who still believe this mumbo jumbo today, with zero external evidence.

I should start writing my book now, so in 5000 years, I can be a messiah....

 

[elliotfc]

Here is what I can accept;

If 'they' believed in the legitimacy of this stuff, 'they' could have believed, and have been led to believe anything....

I disagree. I don't think that they could have been led to believe that they had a Lexus automobile parked in the garage attached to their cottage on the Hamptons. If you'd like to convince me otherwise, please make that attempt!

You want to know why Mark could write fiction, and 10 years later Matthew and Luke were copying it as truth?

It *has* to be fiction for you. You are arguing from a position of absolute belief with accompanying rhetorical questions. It's better to *not* use the question marks and just tell me what to think directly.

It's right there. All you have to do is want to believe it.

It'd be right there even if you DIDN'T believe it.

We have 'skeptics' who still believe this mumbo jumbo today, with zero external evidence.

No, there is not zero external evidence.

I should start writing my book now, so in 5000 years, I can be a messiah....

Yeah...sure...good luck with that one. Pardon my skepticism regarding your claim.

-Elliot

 

[geetarmoore]

I disagree. I don't think that they could have been led to believe that they had a Lexus automobile parked in the garage attached to their cottage on the Hamptons. If you'd like to convince me otherwise, please make that attempt!

Right. They couldn't be convinced of things that they lacked vocabulary for. Good call. However, they had a good understanding of the vocabulary and ideas expressed in the Gospel story, as it was all familiar territory for them. Justin Martyr spent time apologizing for the similarities between his belief and the beliefs of other contemporary cults. These were common themes.

And when we say also that the Word, who is the first-birth of God, was produced without sexual union, and that He, Jesus Christ, our Teacher, was crucified and died, and rose again, and ascended into heaven, we propound nothing different from what you believe regarding those whom you esteem sons of Jupiter.

"Be well assured, then, Trypho," I continued, "that I am established in the knowledge of and faith in the Scriptures by those counterfeits which he who is called the devil is said to have performed among the Greeks; just as some were wrought by the Magi in Egypt, and others by the false prophets in Elijah's days. For when they tell that Bacchus, son of Jupiter, was begotten by[Jupiter's] intercourse with Semele, and that he was the discoverer of the vine; and when they relate, that being torn in pieces, and having died, he rose again, and ascended to heaven; and when they introduce wine into his mysteries, do I not perceive that[the devil] has imitated the prophecy announced by the patriarch Jacob, and recorded by Moses? And when they tell that Hercules was strong, and travelled over all the world, and was begotten by Jove of Alcmene, and ascended to heaven when he died, do I not perceive that the Scripture which speaks of Christ, 'strong as a giant to run his race,' has been in like manner imitated? And when he[the devil] brings forward sculapius as the raiser of the dead and healer of all diseases, may I not say that in this matter likewise he has imitated the prophecies about Christ?"

We do not act as fools, O Greeks, nor utter idle tales, when we announce that God was born in the form of a man. I call on you who reproach us to compare your mythical accounts with our narrations.

It *has* to be fiction for you. You are arguing from a position of absolute belief with accompanying rhetorical questions. It's better to *not* use the question marks and just tell me what to think directly.

Your assumption is wrong. It doesn't have to be fiction for me. It's just that over the past 20 years, it has started to look more and more like fiction to me. I started out 'on the team'.

No, there is not zero external evidence.

Ok, please list the evidence for any of this that occurs outside of the Christian texts.

 

[Dr Adequate]

http://www.google.com/search?source...GIC,GGIC:2006-06,GGIC:en&q=polynesian+legends

Is there anything in particular we should be looking at?

Maui was a hero of Polynesian mythology. For Maui and his mother the days were too short. For them, there was never enough time to accomplish anything in only one day. Maui wanted to allow his mother to have more daylight to make bark cloth. He thought that if the Sun were moving slower across the sky, there would be more hours of light in one day.
So, Maui cut off the sacred tresses of his wife, Hina, to make a rope that would not burn in the Sun. With his rope he caught the Sun as it was rising and beat it with the magic jawbone of his grandmother. The Sun was so weak after the beating that it could not run but only creep along its course. In this way, sunlight lasted longer, and it was possible to work more during the day.

Maui was small but very heroic. In one tale, he desired the art of making fire. Maui stole a hen from heaven because fire was guarded by the celestial chicken.

 

[AWPrime]

Right. If it was fiction, they wouldn't die for it as they did. You could die for theological beliefs, be they beliefs in mythological deities that existed thousands of years ago, or dogmatic tenets and precepts, or the hope of things to come. Things you couldn't have touched in your lifetime, things outside the realm of tangible appreciation. But these are events supposedly witnessed. At the very least, you'd think one or two of the guys would have said "whoa whoa whoa chief, it's all a bunch of lies".

-Elliot

They might not have know it was fiction, considering that checkingg the information in that era would be very hard.

And I have seen plenty of fundies/wackos that would kill or want to die for something that was clearly a lie.

 

[Dr Adequate]

I should start writing my book now, so in 5000 years, I can be a messiah....

Well no. I have bad news. If you founded a religion, then a guy who would have lived several decades ago if he actually existed, which he didn't, would get to be a messiah.

You might think it's difficult for non-existent people to steal credit. But I hear they can work miracles ...

I see Acharya S has also proved that the Buddha didn't exist. Nope, he's just another solar myth. Makes you wonder who really did found Buddhism. I mean, someone must have.