Originally posted by telerionlol at "Jesus hates WY", its more like "Telerion hates WY" I just noticed that, Didnt you think that Jesus dont exist
[b]1. Show me a SINGLE INSTANCE of someone claiming that Zeus was a historical human being. Again, confusing the historicity issue with the deity issue.
Think about selling in the fish market? You seem to have cornered the market on red herrings.
Clearly, you have distorted the nature of my objection (perhaps due to some inadequancy on your part ...[text shortened]... e you better take that 'one point' and give it to its rightful owner: ignorant zealotry.
[/b]
Originally posted by flyUnityCan't you see Jesus right there? He's saying, "Here I am. Oh and by the way I really hate WY."
lol at "Jesus hates WY", its more like "Telerion hates WY" I just noticed that, Didnt you think that Jesus dont exist
Maybe WY is just a product of the Fall? Jesus hates it, but he doesn't want to violate our free will 🙂 .
Originally posted by telerionROFL,. Maybe I oughta move to Utah
Can't you see Jesus right there? He's saying, "Here I am. Oh and by the way I really hate WY."
Maybe WY is just a product of the Fall? Jesus hates it, but he doesn't want to violate our free will 🙂 .
Originally posted by lucifershammerPray, where have I used a post hoc argument?
Originally posted by David C
[b]Then your involvment in this thread amounts to trolling, since the question was evidence of extra-biblical reference to Jesus. There simply aren't any credible sources.
Actually, your q ...[text shortened]... how you respond to the three options in the paragraph before this.[/b]
1) Jesus existed, they wrote the gospels because of him.
2) The gospels prove Jesus existed.
While this may be enough for you, flyU and the dj2's of this forum, unfortunately you have yet to prove causal sufficiency in my estimation. Isn't that what this thread is about?
That depends on how you respond to the three options in the paragraph before this.
Forget it, lu. Your tactics smack of that scientology guy:
Me: I don't think Jesus existed.
You: Most moon-landing conspiracists don't.
Surely that's some other type of long latin logical fallacy.
Originally posted by David CAlright, let's consider the Gospels as historical writings for the moment (I'm not using the term 'historical documents' because that seems to tick you off entirely):
[b]Pray, where have I used a post hoc argument?
1) Jesus existed, they wrote the gospels because of him.
2) The gospels prove Jesus existed.
While this may be enough for you, flyU and the dj2's of this forum, unfortunately you ...[text shortened]...
Surely that's some other type of long latin logical fallacy.[/b][/b]
The composition of the three Synoptic Gospels can be dated back to around 60-80AD. You're, no doubt, aware of the Synoptic problem; most contemporary historians postulate the existence of two sources for these Gospels:
1. Proto-Mark
2. Q
Which means that these two sources date back to around 40-50AD. So, if your hypothesis of a made-up Jesus is correct, he was "created" at most a decade or two after the events in his life were supposed to have happened. Factor in the Gospel of John and the Apocryphal Gospels, and you have at least three or four independent compositions all dating to within a few decades of Jesus's death. If Jesus was "created" in the manner you speak of, who created him? When? How? Why? Which is more probable:
1. That a very small group of people composed a story about a contemporary man named Jesus and created the independent oral traditions that would eventually lead to the written compositions, all within a space of about 20 years
2. That there really was a man named Jesus (possibly a well-known wandering preacher) about whom stories were written by independent eye-witness traditions
Your hypothesis that the man of Jesus was merely an updating of older Egyptian myths is even more problemmatic. If this were true, was this updated suddenly or gradually? For instance, the story of Horus dates back to 10th cent. BC Egypt. How was the story of Horus updated to correspond it to a man living in 1st cent. Judaea? If it was done gradually, say some kind of "Hebraicisation" of the Egyptian myths, then we should have documentary evidence of some such Hebraicisation in the intervening nine centuries (nine centuries that, I might add, produced virtually the entire Old Testament). Where's the proof?
If it was updated suddenly (say, a group of people suddenly discovered old Egyptian scrolls or something and decided to "modernise" them), where's the evidence for that?
Don't bother answering my second question - I had not yet seen your post acknowledging yourself to be a conspiracy-theorist.
EDIT: The post hoc fallacy is to assume that, because event B follows event A chronologically, event B was caused by event A. In this case, you're assuming that, because the story of Jesus bears some resemblance to that of Horus, it must have come from the story of Horus.
Originally posted by lucifershammerAlright, let's consider the Gospels as historical writings for the moment (I'm not using the term 'historical documents' because that seems to tick you off entirely):
Alright, let's consider the Gospels as historical writings for the moment (I'm not using the term 'historical documents' because that seems to tick you off entirely):
The composition of the three Synoptic Gospels can be dated back to around 60-80AD. You're, no doubt, aware of the Synoptic problem; most contemporary historians postulate the exi ...[text shortened]... ory of Jesus bears some resemblance to that of Horus, it must have come from the story of Horus.
It's entirely inaccurate. They might be called fanciful narratives at best, "early dianetics" at worst.
The composition of the three Synoptic Gospels can be dated back to around 60-80AD. You're, no doubt, aware of the Synoptic problem; most contemporary historians postulate the existence of two sources for these Gospels:
1. Proto-Mark
2. Q
Which means that these two sources date back to around 40-50AD.
So, you admit to the possibility of Q. I'm not sure how you arrive at the dates 40-50 C.E., since the hypothetical Q has yet to be found, and we have no way of knowing how Mark may have interpolated the data. Really, it's a non-issue...can you show me that any of the canons predate the late 2nd century?
Your hypothesis that the man of Jesus was merely an updating of older Egyptian myths is even more problemmatic. If this were true, was this updated suddenly or gradually?
Suddenly. About late 2nd or early 3rd C.E. And then written in stone, so to speak, in 325 C.E.
For instance, the story of Horus dates back to 10th cent. BC Egypt. How was the story of Horus updated to correspond it to a man living in 1st cent. Judaea?
Check your dates. You seem to have some difficulty with them. The Osiris/Horus myth was first associated with the 5th dynasty (~2500 B.C.E.), and survived even beyond the supposed events your gospels relate. I'll spare you the point-by-point detailing as you will dismiss them as "prophecy", but I'm sure you can google them up if you are so inclined.
If it was done gradually, say some kind of "Hebraicisation" of the Egyptian myths, then we should have documentary evidence of some such Hebraicisation in the intervening nine centuries (nine centuries that, I might add, produced virtually the entire Old Testament). Where's the proof?
I've noted it wasn't done gradually. Are you going to dismiss the obvious parallels of the OT with Sumerian tableture as well? There's evidence for you that gradual "Hebraicisation" exists, if you wish.
If it was updated suddenly (say, a group of people suddenly discovered old Egyptian scrolls or something and decided to "modernise" them), where's the evidence for that?
You've already admitted to possibility of Q. The nature of that document would almost certainly be a "mystery religion". Nothing to note that it wasn't interpolated by the presumed "Mark" or even "proto-Mark", or worse: but you don't want to hear about any more non-moon-landings.
Don't bother answering my second question - I had not yet seen your post acknowledging yourself to be a conspiracy-theorist.
Oops. Sorry. That's right, I forgot...I'm probably a psychotic wife-beater that deals smack to school children on the steps of a church, too. Warn your neighbours!
EDIT: The post hoc fallacy is to assume that, because event B follows event A chronologically, event B was caused by event A. In this case, you're assuming that, because the story of Jesus bears some resemblance to that of Horus, it must have come from the story of Horus.
Are you attempting to use this to deflect the criticism of your own post hoc? Until you familiarize yourself with the Horus myth and its' resemblance to the Jesus myth, you're talking out of your hat.
Originally posted by David C
It's entirely inaccurate. They might be called fanciful narratives at best, "early dianetics" at worst.
Your bias betrays you.
So, you admit to the possibility of Q.
Sure. Is there any reason I shouldn't?
I'm not sure how you arrive at the dates 40-50 C.E., since the hypothetical Q has yet to be found, and we have no way of knowing how Mark may have interpolated the data. Really, it's a non-issue...can you show me that any of the canons predate the late 2nd century?
Huh? The Gospel of Mark itself can be dated back to around 70AD (although historians debate whether it was written before or after the destruction of the Temple in 70AD. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gospel_of_mark#Date ). Assuming there was a Q and proto-Mark (which is the best available solution for the Synoptic problem), that would place it around 20 years or so before the composition of Mark (See Harrington. The Gospel According to Mark). Further, Papias of Hierapolis (early 2d cent.), along with other early Christian writers, cite the Gospel of Mark (ibid.)
Check your dates. You seem to have some difficulty with them. The Osiris/Horus myth was first associated with the 5th dynasty (~2500 B.C.E.), and survived even beyond the supposed events your gospels relate. I'll spare you the point-by-point detailing as you will dismiss them as "prophecy", but I'm sure you can google them up if you are so inclined.
Actually, I did. And it is quite interesting:
http://www.adam.com.au/bstett/BJesusandHorus74.htm
A nice rebuttal:
http://tektonics.org/copycat/osy.html
One Minute Version: Most of the alleged "similarities" between Horus/Osiris and Jesus have no basis in any known actual Egyptian documents. Now there's a conspiracy!
I've noted it wasn't done gradually. Are you going to dismiss the obvious parallels of the OT with Sumerian tableture as well? There's evidence for you that gradual "Hebraicisation" exists, if you wish.
No, I'm not dismissing OT parallels with Sumerian tableture [sic].
You've already admitted to possibility of Q. The nature of that document would almost certainly be a "mystery religion". Nothing to note that it wasn't interpolated by the presumed "Mark" or even "proto-Mark", or worse: but you don't want to hear about any more non-moon-landings.
You're being obtuse here. Is it your assertion that both Q and proto-Mark were entirely fictional compositions?
Oops. Sorry. That's right, I forgot...I'm probably a psychotic wife-beater that deals smack to school children on the steps of a church, too. Warn your neighbours!
I will. Actually, you used the words "conspiracy" yourself in a post on the first page. 🙂
Are you attempting to use this to deflect the criticism of your own post hoc? Until you familiarize yourself with the Horus myth and its' resemblance to the Jesus myth, you're talking out of your hat.[/b]
I did. See the links above.
Originally posted by lucifershammer
Your bias betrays you.
Said the kettle to the pot.
Sure. Is there any reason I shouldn't?
Depends. Many of your Christian apologist/scholars are doing their best to deny it's existence. Why is that?
Huh? The Gospel of Mark itself can be dated back to around 70AD
The events described can be traced to that period, perhaps. Got any copies of it dating before circa 350 C.E.?
Actually, I did. And it is quite interesting:
http://www.adam.com.au/bstett/BJesusandHorus74.htm
A nice rebuttal:
http://tektonics.org/copycat/osy.html
One Minute Version: Most of the alleged "similarities" between Horus/Osiris and Jesus have no basis in any known actual Egyptian documents. Now there's a conspiracy!
So, you're a psychopathic crack dealer, too, uhh?
This is an interesting exchange on the topic: (Warning...really dry)
http://www.geocities.com/intheword1/resurrection_of_osiris_.htm
http://www.geocities.com/intheword1/osiristill.htm
http://www.geocities.com/intheword1/ohsighris.htm
Too bad Till got plungered. IMO.
No, I'm not dismissing OT parallels with Sumerian tableture [sic].
Wow. So, what do you make of it? Prophecy? (btw...scripture/tableture. If Bush Jr. can invent words, why not I?)
You're being obtuse here. Is it your assertion that both Q and proto-Mark were entirely fictional compositions?
I'll forgive your inability to understand what I was getting at. Maybe some "dianetics" would help you get "clear". ;-)
Did I say they were fictional? No. I said since they are hypothetical, we have no way of suggesting what they may have contained. Could be the author(s) of Mark interpolated the data to fit the program. What if Q referred to the central figure as "Krishna"?
I will. Actually, you used the words "conspiracy" yourself in a post on the first page. 🙂
...and?
I did. See the links above.
I'm glad that you did. It's not surprising, though, that you would find your rebuttals on an apologetic's website. I must say, they make a convincing argument that the Horus myth is a bare conspiracy to discredit Jesusbots everywhere. Darn it, there I go using that word again.
Originally posted by David C
Said the kettle to the pot.
At least I'm not pretending to be a disinterested observer.
Depends. Many of your Christian apologist/scholars are doing their best to deny it's existence. Why is that?
How should I know? You should ask them.
The events described can be traced to that period, perhaps. Got any copies of it dating before circa 350 C.E.?
Ooh, very nice! Asking for manuscript versions of documents written nearly 2000 years ago. Very smooth.
(I take it you will reject the O'Callaghan-Thiede hypothesis on 7Q5 entirely).
In any case, both the existence and canonicity of Mark are expressly affirmed by 2d cent. writers such as Papias and Clement. (Since you like conspiracy theories, you might want to Google for "Secret Gospel of Mark" - essentially passages quoted as Markian in Clement but not part of canon. Of course, that would mean that Mark did exist in the 1st-2d cent and does point to the existence of Jesus ...)
This is an interesting exchange on the topic: (Warning...really dry)
http://www.geocities.com/intheword1/resurrection_of_osiris_.htm
http://www.geocities.com/intheword1/osiristill.htm
http://www.geocities.com/intheword1/ohsighris.htm
Too bad Till got plungered. IMO.
Yes, he did. But that doesn't help your case of a sudden "conspiracy" in the late 2d - early 3d cent. AD. Care to bring up any more evidence?
Wow. So, what do you make of it? Prophecy?
Maybe. Or editing.
Did I say they were fictional? No. I said since they are hypothetical, we have no way of suggesting what they may have contained. Could be the author(s) of Mark interpolated the data to fit the program. What if Q referred to the central figure as "Krishna"?
Then it seems quite odd that Luke and Matthew (not to mention half a dozen Apocryphal Gospels) would all mention Jesus and not Krishna.
Talking of which, your timeline of late 2d - early 3d cent. for the "Jesus conspiracy" is too late. Versions of both canonical and apocryphal Gospels were already in wide circulation by then.
...and?
That makes you a self-avowed conspiracy theorist.
I did. See the links above.
I'm glad that you did. It's not surprising, though, that you would find your rebuttals on an apologetic's website. I must say, they make a convincing argument that the Horus myth is a bare conspiracy to discredit Jesusbots everywhere. Darn it, there I go using that word again.
Yes, and I'm still waiting for your counter-rebuttal.
Your historical method continues to baffle me. You demand mss. versions of the Gospels dating prior to 3d-4th cent AD. How on earth do you believe anything about Ancient History unless you see the mss. themselves? In a strange sort of way, it reminds me of the man who once said, "Unless I can see the holes that the nails made in his hands and can put my finger into the holes they made, and unless I can put my hand into his side, I refuse to believe" (Jn 20:25)
The two of you don't seem to be getting very far in your discussion.
David C is arguing from an incontestable position: the physical existence of Jesus bar-Joseph cannot be proven beyond reasonable doubt, short of someone somewhere turning up a rag, a bone or a hank of hair.
LH presents the textual evidence, which David C dismisses out of hand. He brings up Horus, forgetting that the topic under discussion is the historicity of the man from Galilee. (Horus & other parallels, esp. Mithras, is indeed a fascinating topic; here's another interesting link: http://www.themystica.com/mystica/articles/c/christ_constantine_sol_invictus.html). The case for his historical existence can only be argued from textual evidence, with some primary sources thrown in here and there for good measure.
The gospels are the primary textual evidence. They are curious texts, compounded of fact and myth. On important fact is that Pontius Pilate was Prefect at the time, but this could not be proved until 1960, when a stone inscription to that effect was discovered ( http://www.bible-history.com/archaeology/israel/pilate-inscription.html). Until then, lack of proof for Pilate's existence had formed part of the case against a historical Man of Sorrows. If the physical existence of a Roman government official is so tenuously proven, how much more so the life of a penniless nobody from the sticks?
By all accounts, Judea had no shortage of self-proclaimed prophets in the first century? Of this multitude of charlatans, why should the name of Jesus have been the one to make the news?
One problem with dismissing Jesus as pure fiction, rather than an historical personage on whom various divine attributes (corresponding in many cases to Horus, Mithras, etc.) is that the supporting cast also have to be written off--notably the apostles (and their Acts). Is it likely that the gospel writers would have gone to such novelistic lengths simply to bolster the credibility of their main protagonist? Why not simply write a collection of sayings (as in the apocryphal Gospel of Thomas) and leave it at that? And why write four gospels when one would do?
Apparently, the evangelists had particular audiences in mind--different Christian communities in different parts of the world. These communities pre-existed the writing of the gospels; the story of Jesus must already have existed in some form (probably oral tradition; viz. Gospel of Thomas). Here's a link (very long) on the gospel of Mark, said to be the oldest gospel:
http://www.abu.nb.ca/courses/NTIntro/Mark.htm.
Here's the most relevant part of it (for me):
"External Evidence
1.2.1. The earliest piece of external, direct evidence comes to us from Papias, bishop of Hierapolis, (c. 60-130) who quotes "the Presbyter" (elder) (Eusebius, H.E. 3.39.15; see also Irenaeus, Adv. Haer. 3.1; Tertullian Adv. Marc. 4.5). Eusebius quotes from what he identifies as the five treatises written by Papias, entitled, Interpretation of the Oracles of the Lord, which are no longer extant:
"And the Presbyter used to say this, Mark became Peter's interpreter and wrote accurately all that he remembered, not, indeed, in order, of the things said and done by the Lord. For he had not heard the Lord, nor had followed him, but later on, followed Peter, who used to give teaching as necessity demanded but not making, as it were, an arrangement of the Lord's oracles, so that Mark did nothing wrong in thus writing down single points as he remembered them. For to one thing he gave attention, to leave out nothing of what he had heard and to make no false statements in them."
The first sentence is probably the statement of the presbyter, whereas the remainder is Papias' elaboration of the meaning of the presbyter's statement. Three claims are made in this quotation from Papias:
A. Mark wrote the gospel identified in Eusebius' day (and ours) as the Gospel of Mark.
B. Mark obtained his information from Peter, not being an eyewitness himself.
C. The gospel written by Mark lacks "order," reflecting the piecemeal and occasional nature of Peter's use of the gospel tradition in his preaching.
There are two questions raised by this quotation from Papias:
A. What exactly did Papias mean when he called Mark the "interpreter" (hermeneutês) of Peter? Although this term normally means interpreter, the context suggests more the meaning of "translator."
B. Why did the presbyter say that Mark wrote accurately what Peter remembered (hosa emnemoneusen akribôs egrapsen) but not indeed in order (ou mentoi taxei)? It seems criticism was leveled against the Gospel of Mark for lacking chronological accuracy. In response, the presbyter points out that chronological accuracy was never Mark's intention. Papias explains further that Mark's method of composition was to collect the traditions used by Peter as occasion demanded in his preaching and that there was nothing wrong with this.
If true, what do you conclude about the author of the Gospel of Mark from Papias' statement?
One can conclude that the author was John Mark, who used the apostle Peter as his source for his gospel. He did not concern himself, however, with chronological accuracy, and so did not attempt to arrange Peter's teaching "in order."
How trustworthy is this tradition?
It seems trustworthy, because it is an old tradition quoted by a usually reliable anthologist and it agrees with the internal evidence".
(I like that Mark's lack of chronological accuracy was already commented on by Eusebius, who wrote long before the oldest copy of Mark was copied).
Of course, none of the above negates that JC's historical existence cannot be proven beyond a reasonable doubt. However, the secondary evidence is enough for me.
Originally posted by lucifershammer
At least I'm not pretending to be a disinterested observer.
So, only "interested" observers are allowed to carry bias? I'll try to remember that.
How should I know? You should ask them.
Nah, I'm pretending to be a disinterested observer. That seems like effort. If I had to guess, I'd say they don't like a rocking boat.
Ooh, very nice! Asking for manuscript versions of documents written nearly 2000 years ago. Very smooth.
Since essentially all of the NT comes from the Codex V or Codex S, which postdate the Nicene council, it's a matter of importance. Sorry.
Yes, he did. But that doesn't help your case of a sudden "conspiracy" in the late 2d - early 3d cent. AD. Care to bring up any more evidence?
Not at this time, Ham. See below.
Maybe. Or editing.
What do you mean by "editing"? Wholesale plagarism or minor "customisation" of older texts? If so, what are the consequences for the fidelity of anything in the xtian bible?
Then it seems quite odd that Luke and Matthew (not to mention half a dozen Apocryphal Gospels) would all mention Jesus and not Krishna.
Not really. Krishna didn't fit the program. Claiming that these gospels were produced independantly of each other is specious.
That makes you a self-avowed conspiracy theorist.
*sigh* The sudden "conspiracy" I've postualted is a result of the First Council. It was meant to hegemonize power, and keep the masses in line.
Yes, and I'm still waiting for your counter-rebuttal.
I'm not going to continue down this path. Horus/Osiris is but one possible source for the Jesus myth, there are others. I've conceded your apologist website does a credible job rebutting the Jesus/Horus comparison. I am no Egyptologist, although maybe one day I will try to find the source(s) for the ubiquitous comparison argument.
Your historical method continues to baffle me. You demand mss. versions of the Gospels dating prior to 3d-4th cent AD. How on earth do you believe anything about Ancient History unless you see the mss. themselves? In a strange sort of way, it reminds me of the man who once said, "Unless I can see the holes that the nails made in his hands and can put my finger into the holes they made, and unless I can put my hand into his side, I refuse to believe" (Jn 20:25)
It's your apologists historical method(s) that are in question. What baffles me is your willingness to accept this incredible Jesus fantasy wholesale on the basis of monumentally non-existent evidence. Especially when presented with information that details apparent precursor myths. Yes, I know...."faith". As I tried to lightheartedly point out in an eariler reply to orfeo, this isn't a minor historical event we're discussing. In fact, for many (all?) Jesusbots it is the Most Important Story Ever Told. In my opinion, too much ambiguity exists.
Originally posted by David CI totally agree that this was a conspiracy, which labelled all documents inconsistent with their views as apocrypha (coincidentally the most interesting early Christian documents). However, that they should also have concocted the entire story, texts included, stretches credibility too far.
[[b]That makes you a self-avowed conspiracy theorist.
*sigh* The sudden "conspiracy" I've postualted is a result of the First Council. It was meant to hegemonize power, and keep the masses in line.
.[/b]
Besides, this conspiracy was predated by Paul's conspiracy...unless you're questioning his existence, too.
Originally posted by Bosse de NageThanks for the input, Bosse. Some very interesting and thoughtful points.
The two of you don't seem to be getting very far in your discussion.
David C is arguing from an incontestable position: the physical existence of Jesus bar-Joseph cannot be proven beyond reasonable doubt, short of someone somewhere turning up a rag, a bone or a hank of hair.
LH presents the textual evidence, which David C dismisses out of hand ...[text shortened]... yond a reasonable doubt. However, the secondary evidence is enough for me.
The two of you don't seem to be getting very far in your discussion.
I agree, I'm getting bogged down in a personal point-couterpoint with LH. Telerion's welcome cheerleading notwithstanding, I'm losing focus.
He brings up Horus, forgetting that the topic under discussion is the historicity of the man from Galilee.
I think I mentioned the Jesus/Horus similarities while trying to describe the saviour archetype for orfeo. It became a point of contention, and seems to have driven me to distraction.
And why write four gospels when one would do?
I'd like to think the answer is evident. 4 rather than 1 provides the element of corroboration.
There's much more in your post I'd like to address, but my eyes are exhausted at this point.
[/b] David C: I think I mentioned the Jesus/Horus similarities while trying to describe the saviour archetype for orfeo. It became a point of contention, and seems to have driven me to distraction.[/b]
It's a vital point, but not in this debate. Nobody has yet claimed a historical existence for Horus (well, maybe Stargate?). It would be crucial in a debate about the mythological Jesus.
[/b] David C: I'd like to think the answer [to the question of 4 gospels ] is evident. 4 rather than 1 provides the element of corroboration.[/b]
The inconsistencies were carefully worked in for the sake of verisimilitude? For clarity's sake, please state when you think these books were written, by whom, and to what purpose.