Historical Jesus

[bilby]

We can be sure that the historic Jesus had some sort of charisma, but was he an eloquent speaker? We don't know. Did he have some hypnotic or healing powers? We don't know. Did he exist? There are HUGE circumstantial reasons to say that he almost certainly did exist we don't know.

There's no need to use 13 words, when three convey the exact same meaning.

 

[Swammerdami]

A perfect example of the utter BULLSHIT that fills this thread:

The historic Davy Crockett had some sort of charisma, but was he an eloquent speaker? We don't know. Did he have some hypnotic or healing powers? We don't know. Did he exist? There are HUGE circumstantial reasons to say that he almost certainly did exist we don't know.

There's no need to use 13 words, when three convey the exact same meaning.

Do you REALLY believe what you just wrote? That "there are HUGE circumstantial reasons to say that he almost certainly did exist" and "we don't know" have identical meanings?

Hoping to help, I've taken the liberty of replacing the antecedent with "Davy Crockett." (It seems that some of you are unable to cogitate well when "Jesus" is mentioned. ) With this amendment, reread the sentences and see if you still believe that "there are HUGE circumstantial reasons to say that he almost certainly did exist" and "we don't know" have identical meanings.

 

[bilby]

Do you REALLY believe what you just wrote? That "there are HUGE circumstantial reasons to say that he almost certainly did exist" and "we don't know" have identical meanings?

Not identical, but certainly close enough, given the abject weakness of the 'circumstantial reasons', which boil down to "I wanna believe it".

"We don't know", has the advantage of being the honest truth, without the mealy-mouthed attempt to bolt an opinion to an evidential foundation that is woefully inadequate to support knowledge claims by either side of the debate.

Anything beyond "We don't know" is bullshitting, whichever side of the discussion it comes from.

The evidence for the existence of Davy Crockett is not comparable, if only in regards to it's not being exclusively hearsay about opinions about stories. That you believe it to be comparable is not evidence for anything other than your failure to understand what constitutes evidence.

 

[Swammerdami]

Do you REALLY believe what you just wrote? That "there are HUGE circumstantial reasons to say that he almost certainly did exist" and "we don't know" have identical meanings?

Not identical, but certainly close enough, given the abject weakness of the 'circumstantial reasons', which boil down to "I wanna believe it".

Pop Quiz: Recite 3 or 4 of the STRONGEST (or LEAST weak, if you prefer) clues pointing to the historicity of Jesus. If you got nuthin it turns your "abject weakness" into prattle.

 

[bilby]

Do you REALLY believe what you just wrote? That "there are HUGE circumstantial reasons to say that he almost certainly did exist" and "we don't know" have identical meanings?

Not identical, but certainly close enough, given the abject weakness of the 'circumstantial reasons', which boil down to "I wanna believe it".

Pop Quiz: Recite 3 or 4 of the STRONGEST (or LEAST weak, if you prefer) clues pointing to the historicity of Jesus. If you got nuthin it turns your "abject weakness" into prattle.

You seem to have delusions of authority. I am not your student, nor interested in employing you as a teacher.

 

[T.G.G. Moogly]

Do you REALLY believe what you just wrote? That "there are HUGE circumstantial reasons to say that he almost certainly did exist" and "we don't know" have identical meanings?

My point has been and continues to be that myths are inspired narratives. It's the definition of historicity that seems to always be lacking in these discussions. Some wish to equate inspiration with historicity. We can search for the historical Icarus, even the bird that inspired his mythical flight based on native populations and call it the historical something-or-other. I mean he had to get the feathers from somewhere. And those bees that gave the wax. Can we find the historical hive? Maybe a bird landed in some gooey honey and got all aught up in the mess, inspiring the tale. Pretty historical stuff, no? Look at how much flight permeates our culture. Certainly we should give some credence to the Icarus story based on that fact.

The Jesus tale is and will always be inspired fiction, same as Icarus, Charlie Brown, Santiago and innumerable other tales. Writers get it. Worshippers don't.

 

[steve_bank]

That Christianity came to be indicates something happened.

I tend to think there was an HJ, but we have no idea who and what he was.

 

[Jarhyn]

That Christianity came to be indicates something happened.

I tend to think there was an HJ, but we have no idea who and what he was.

In many ways, the Mythicist does not say "there was no HJ." It just says "JH is not meaningfully accessible in any reasonable respect to say anything about them, not even whether they were a single person or many amalgamated together."

 

[steve_bank]

It just says there is no bound to human imagination and invention. There is no bound to the human capacity for the 'willing suspension of disbelief.

When you watch movies like LOTR or Star Wars for a while you accept it as reality. That is what fiction is about.

If you want to undestandr Christian mythology look at it as watching a scifi movie. To Christians it is reality not myth.

Fans act out Star Trek and LOTR. Captain Kirk is a cultural icon, yet Shatner once said about fans 'get a life' and then had to walk it back. In an inerview he said he took the role 'for a lark'.

 

[T.G.G. Moogly]

The Jesus tales are never ending. Persons have been writing new fiction about him since he supposedly lived. All these stories about him are just more gospels.

Along those lines, is there a historical bible? People are constantly changing and revising that thing too. Does that mean at one time there was a historical writing from which all the other tales evolved? Not hardly. But people worship the bible like they worship the Jesus tales. I personally find this behavior fascinating. I understand how easy it is to swallow so it makes sense that it is so prevalent.

 

[TomC]

That Christianity came to be indicates something happened.

I tend to think there was an HJ, but we have no idea who and what he was.

In many ways, the Mythicist does not say "there was no HJ." It just says "JH is not meaningfully accessible in any reasonable respect to say anything about them, not even whether they were a single person or many amalgamated together."

In what important way is this different from my opinions?

I believe it's more plausible that the Gospels were inspired by a real human than entirely fictional. That human didn't much resemble the character in Scripture.

How closely He resembled Gospel Jesus is a matter of speculation. And it is quite possible that He never existed. Almost all of this is speculation. There's just no real evidence about the details.

Which is why I find the whole mythicist thing unimportant. That whole thread, with all those "authorities", looks like medieval bishops arguing about how many angels can dance on a pin.
Tom

 

[Jarhyn]

That Christianity came to be indicates something happened.

I tend to think there was an HJ, but we have no idea who and what he was.

In many ways, the Mythicist does not say "there was no HJ." It just says "JH is not meaningfully accessible in any reasonable respect to say anything about them, not even whether they were a single person or many amalgamated together."

In what important way is this different from my opinions?

I believe it's more plausible that the Gospels were inspired by a real human than entirely fictional. That human didn't much resemble the character in Scripture.

How closely He resembled Gospel Jesus is a matter of speculation. And it is quite possible that He never existed. Almost all of this is speculation. There's just no real evidence about the details.

Which is why I find the whole mythicist thing unimportant. That whole thread, with all those "authorities", looks like medieval bishops arguing about how many angels can dance on a pin.
Tom

My point is not to in fact differentiate your opinions on the "Mythicist" but to point out that "Mythicism" in general is actually descriptive of your position, at least within the definition developed by the people who call themselves that.

Then I suppose there are hard Mythicists, ie, "original fictionalists" who would purport that all the young Jewish men who got executed didn't exist and nothing at all like "cultist gets got by the fed" ever happened, too, but most of us are in fact strong believers that at least one human lived a life in the region at the time (one of those being an actual historical personage, John the Baptist) which fit the roughest geometries of the gospel: "cultist gets got, claiming he's God or whatever".

Seeing as claiming they're God is still the number one delusion across the world, I would in fact like to meet such an original fictionalist so I can laugh offensively in their face at how dumb they sound, should they repeat such a claim after the explanation that it's ludicrous, at least until I start to feel embarrassed for them.

But the folks I see here are almost certainly, to a person, 100% in accord with the idea that at least one cultist got "got", and that this most certainly factors into the development of the mythos.

 

[TomC]

My point has been and continues to be that myths are inspired narratives.

This probably explains our differences. You and I are using the word "myth" differently.

To me, a myth is entirely fictional. A legend is not. Both are inspirational stories.

Take MLKj as an example. He was inspiring. I doubt that everything told about him was entirely true or the whole truth. A bit of legend there. But his life was inspiring. Some of the most inspirational parts, like the "I have a Dream" speech are extremely well documented.

Then there's Yahweh. Inspirational, in a primitive sort of way. But near zero credibility for objective existence. Similar to Odin and Icarus, Yahweh is a myth.

Historical Jesus falls in-between, to me. Inspiring and probably existed.

Tom

 

[Jarhyn]

My point has been and continues to be that myths are inspired narratives.

This probably explains our differences. You and I are using the word "myth" differently.

To me, a myth is entirely fictional. A legend is not. Both are inspirational stories.

Take MLKj as an example. He was inspiring. I doubt that everything told about him was entirely true or the whole truth. A bit of legend there. But his life was inspiring. Some of the most inspirational parts, like the "I have a Dream" speech are extremely well documented.

Then there's Yahweh. Inspirational, in a primitive sort of way. But near zero credibility for objective existence. Similar to Odin and Icarus, Yahweh is a myth.

Historical Jesus falls in-between, to me. Inspiring and probably existed.

Tom

To me, "legend" is agnostic to veracity: Babe Ruth was and is a legend. "Myth" impugns veracity necessarily: it is a Myth that Babe Ruth only missed the ball on purpose. "Pure fiction" is itself whole-cloth spun: Barnaby Ruthless, Robo-baseball playing champ of Alpha Centauri pirated a thousand planets."

Everything in the Bible is almost certainly a myth. I expect it is an Amalgam myth: a myth wherein multiple personages, their teachings, and minutae of their assorted lives were fused into something that is mostly fictional.

 

[steve_bank]

I am watching a series on the Roman Empire. What is interesting relative to the thread is how Roman historians got things wrong, emblelished, or just made things up. It was not fraud, it was the way things were. There was no media and communcations like we have today. Filling in the blanks when writing was neccesary to present a complete narative.

They were not historians as we would think today, a better word may be chroniclers.

We see it in our media today. especially during Trump's presidency. Someone quotes an anonoous WH source or says he or she heard something form a contavct. It gets interpreted and spun into an alleged factual narrative of alleged goings on in the WH.

 

[TomC]

My point has been and continues to be that myths are inspired narratives.

This probably explains our differences. You and I are using the word "myth" differently.

To me, a myth is entirely fictional. A legend is not. Both are inspirational stories.

Take MLKj as an example. He was inspiring. I doubt that everything told about him was entirely true or the whole truth. A bit of legend there. But his life was inspiring. Some of the most inspirational parts, like the "I have a Dream" speech are extremely well documented.

Then there's Yahweh. Inspirational, in a primitive sort of way. But near zero credibility for objective existence. Similar to Odin and Icarus, Yahweh is a myth.

Historical Jesus falls in-between, to me. Inspiring and probably existed.

Tom

To me, "legend" is agnostic to veracity: Babe Ruth was and is a legend. "Myth" impugns veracity necessarily: it is a Myth that Babe Ruth only missed the ball on purpose. "Pure fiction" is itself whole-cloth spun: Barnaby Ruthless, Robo-baseball playing champ of Alpha Centauri pirated a thousand planets."

Everything in the Bible is almost certainly a myth. I expect it is an Amalgam myth: a myth wherein multiple personages, their teachings, and minutae of their assorted lives were fused into something that is mostly fictional.

I'll have the garlic ranch dressing with my word salad.
Tom

 

[Jarhyn]

My point has been and continues to be that myths are inspired narratives.

This probably explains our differences. You and I are using the word "myth" differently.

To me, a myth is entirely fictional. A legend is not. Both are inspirational stories.

Take MLKj as an example. He was inspiring. I doubt that everything told about him was entirely true or the whole truth. A bit of legend there. But his life was inspiring. Some of the most inspirational parts, like the "I have a Dream" speech are extremely well documented.

Then there's Yahweh. Inspirational, in a primitive sort of way. But near zero credibility for objective existence. Similar to Odin and Icarus, Yahweh is a myth.

Historical Jesus falls in-between, to me. Inspiring and probably existed.

Tom

To me, "legend" is agnostic to veracity: Babe Ruth was and is a legend. "Myth" impugns veracity necessarily: it is a Myth that Babe Ruth only missed the ball on purpose. "Pure fiction" is itself whole-cloth spun: Barnaby Ruthless, Robo-baseball playing champ of Alpha Centauri pirated a thousand planets."

Everything in the Bible is almost certainly a myth. I expect it is an Amalgam myth: a myth wherein multiple personages, their teachings, and minutae of their assorted lives were fused into something that is mostly fictional.

I'll have the garlic ranch dressing with my word salad.
Tom

So defining terms as used, and using them as defined, is word salad to you.

That's not a salad, Tom, and please quit trying to eat a dictionary. That's not how reading works.

 

[steve_bank]

I beg to differ, there is nothing but nothing mythical about Babe Ruth.


Yes it is your typical word salad. Often convoluted multiple sentences to say something basic, obvious, and straightforward.

 

[Jarhyn]

I beg to differ, there is nothing but nothing mythical about Babe Ruth.


Yes it is your typical word salad. Often convoluted multiple sentences to say something basic, obvious, and straightforward.

"it is a Myth that Babe Ruth only missed the ball on purpose."

Reading comprehension much? This is in fact the only myth referenced.

I give, systematically, an example of "legend", "myth", and "whole-cloth fiction", each built around a historic person.

That you fail to read three sentences (really more like six, since each of the three use a colon to indicate a subsentence example) is not very encouraging.

 

[steve_bank]

I am sorry, there are numerous corroborating reports on Babe Ruth. There is nothing mythical.

You will have to prove otherwise.