FacebookTwitter
Hatrack River Forum   
my profile login | search | faq | forum home

  next oldest topic   next newest topic
» Hatrack River Forum » Active Forums » Discussions About Orson Scott Card » Geekson discusses OSC's stance on SSM

   
Author Topic: Geekson discusses OSC's stance on SSM
Sean Monahan
Member
Member # 9334

 - posted      Profile for Sean Monahan   Email Sean Monahan         Edit/Delete Post 
For those who may be interested, Geekson, who has previously interviewed OSC in their 18th episode in 2005, now discusses what they think about OSC's recent public stances on SMM. This discussion is in the 111th episode of 6/1/09, and starts at about 28:40 into the episode.

ETA: fyi, there are a few bad words.

Posts: 1080 | Registered: Apr 2006  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Samprimary
Member
Member # 8561

 - posted      Profile for Samprimary   Email Samprimary         Edit/Delete Post 
When I listened to that segment, I got an image of a few guys in a raft. One of them is rowing towards a discussion about orson scott card's anti-homosexuality. one of them is rowing towards a meta-discussion about whether orson scott card's words constitute treason. one of them is rowing accidentally towards a meta-meta-discussion about whether orson scott card's words are advocacy of revocation of citizenship as gays. one of them is rowing towards a discussion about ayn rand. the raft is going nowhere but a lot of calories are getting wasted.
Posts: 15421 | Registered: Aug 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
TommySama
Member
Member # 9669

 - posted      Profile for TommySama   Email TommySama         Edit/Delete Post 
Lol
Posts: 26 | Registered: Aug 2006  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Orincoro
Member
Member # 8854

 - posted      Profile for Orincoro   Email Orincoro         Edit/Delete Post 
quote:
Originally posted by Samprimary:
The raft is going nowhere but a lot of calories are getting wasted.

Remind you of anywhere?
Posts: 9912 | Registered: Nov 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
BlackBlade
Member
Member # 8376

 - posted      Profile for BlackBlade   Email BlackBlade         Edit/Delete Post 
I thought it was cute that one of them believed a "Mormon Fundamentalist" is somebody who focuses on emulating Jesus' core values.

Would that we had more such fundamentalists. [Wink]

Posts: 14316 | Registered: Jul 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Orincoro
Member
Member # 8854

 - posted      Profile for Orincoro   Email Orincoro         Edit/Delete Post 
Just don't emulate Jesus' diet. Nothing but wine and bread? Empty calories and booze, no roughage to speak of. And come to think of it, for a divine figure, he sure cut a wide swath- turns water to wine, hangs out with a bunch of prostitutes, fights wage inequality, and gets his feet anointed while he crashes at other people's houses on the weekends. Not a bad way to live.
Posts: 9912 | Registered: Nov 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
scifibum
Member
Member # 7625

 - posted      Profile for scifibum   Email scifibum         Edit/Delete Post 
quote:
Originally posted by Orincoro:
Just don't emulate Jesus' diet. Nothing but wine and bread? Empty calories and booze, no roughage to speak of. And come to think of it, for a divine figure, he sure cut a wide swath- turns water to wine, hangs out with a bunch of prostitutes, fights wage inequality, and gets his feet anointed while he crashes at other people's houses on the weekends. Not a bad way to live.

Just a little speed bump at Gethsemane, right? Nothing much to worry about. And that little bother at Golgotha.
Posts: 4287 | Registered: Mar 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
The Rabbit
Member
Member # 671

 - posted      Profile for The Rabbit   Email The Rabbit         Edit/Delete Post 
quote:
Originally posted by Orincoro:
Just don't emulate Jesus' diet. Nothing but wine and bread?

Huh?? There is also record of him eating fish and raw grain and drinking water.
Posts: 12591 | Registered: Jan 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Orincoro
Member
Member # 8854

 - posted      Profile for Orincoro   Email Orincoro         Edit/Delete Post 
Alright guys, just a joke. I don't even believe in Jebus.
Posts: 9912 | Registered: Nov 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
BlackBlade
Member
Member # 8376

 - posted      Profile for BlackBlade   Email BlackBlade         Edit/Delete Post 
quote:
Originally posted by Orincoro:
Alright guys, just a joke. I don't even believe in Jebus.

I get the Simpsons reference, but I assume you mean the divine Jesus, not the historical Jesus.
Posts: 14316 | Registered: Jul 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Orincoro
Member
Member # 8854

 - posted      Profile for Orincoro   Email Orincoro         Edit/Delete Post 
Well to be fair, I'm pretty dubious of the "historical" records that account for the birth of Jesus of Nazareth, given that they were written long after his supposed death, from a standpoint of religious scripture, and according to a rubric that was not unique his story. Given that we have no reliable historical record of any individual who was not a member of the ruling classes during that time (do correct me if you know of some), and that we have no record whatsoever of his life even written in his own lifetime (again, I welcome correction), I think my skepticism is prudent.
Posts: 9912 | Registered: Nov 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Javert
Member
Member # 3076

 - posted      Profile for Javert   Email Javert         Edit/Delete Post 
quote:
Originally posted by The Rabbit:
quote:
Originally posted by Orincoro:
Just don't emulate Jesus' diet. Nothing but wine and bread?

Huh?? There is also record of him eating fish and raw grain and drinking water.
You're assuming he had complete control over all his powers. What if, every time he tried to drink a cup of water, it turned to wine when it got into his mouth? Might account for the high alcoholic content of his blood at the last supper. [Smile]
Posts: 3852 | Registered: Feb 2002  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Orincoro
Member
Member # 8854

 - posted      Profile for Orincoro   Email Orincoro         Edit/Delete Post 
Srslyy meaan... one you's guyzz... yer gonna... onea yuz guyz is gunna betray me man... yeah... iittculd be YOU peter, but meeeybe not... maybe... maybe issgonna be Paul? Heeyyy paulie!... Nahhh, you guyz'r'gunna deny me like, like THREE TIMES man! THREE.. TIMES, mmkay? So checkit out..
Posts: 9912 | Registered: Nov 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Blayne Bradley
unregistered


 - posted            Edit/Delete Post 
Im pretty sure the Romans had some kind of census record of the historical figure of joshua.
IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
rivka
Member
Member # 4859

 - posted      Profile for rivka   Email rivka         Edit/Delete Post 
That still exist?
Posts: 32919 | Registered: Mar 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Blayne Bradley
unregistered


 - posted            Edit/Delete Post 
Weren't most of those preserved by the Byzantines?
IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
hobsen
Member
Member # 11808

 - posted      Profile for hobsen   Email hobsen         Edit/Delete Post 
As I vaguely remember records from Galilee during the time Jesus was growing up still exist; but the problem is not so much they do not mention Jesus as that they do not mention Nazareth either - and the tax collectors mentioned hamlets with twenty people in some cases. Perhaps Nazareth at the time had three houses considered as part of the outskirts of Sepphoris, and its inhabitants were included as residents of that city, but the names mentioned may be so common no one can tell.
Posts: 50 | Registered: Nov 2008  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Mercury
Member
Member # 11822

 - posted      Profile for Mercury           Edit/Delete Post 
There's more evidence for the historical Jesus than the historical Socrates, yet no one doubts the existence of the latter.
Posts: 32 | Registered: Nov 2008  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
kassyopeia
Member
Member # 12110

 - posted      Profile for kassyopeia           Edit/Delete Post 
quote:
There's more evidence for the historical Jesus than the historical Socrates, yet no one doubts the existence of the latter.
I'm afraid I don't know enough classical history to agree or disagree with the first part, but the second part misrepresents the situation a little, it seems to me. As a rule, "believers" in Socrates are comfortable with the notion that the historical and the literary, larger-than-life figure may not have all that much in common, whereas believers in Jesus are not. Non-belief in their respective existences is generally defined by the scope of the belief, and thence entails something quite different.
Posts: 96 | Registered: Jun 2009  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Orincoro
Member
Member # 8854

 - posted      Profile for Orincoro   Email Orincoro         Edit/Delete Post 
quote:
Originally posted by Mercury:
There's more evidence for the historical Jesus than the historical Socrates, yet no one doubts the existence of the latter.

This is not accurate, even in as far as it goes (not far). Although it is the case that it is difficult to pin down the actual contributions that Socrates made, because his voice and character were assumed by several of his students after his death, it is made quite clear in accounts by his contemporaries that he was a real person, and not just a literary cipher. There may be less *information* offered about his actual life in the accounts of it, but that doesn't matter when you're talking about establishing a binary alternative: "lived" or "didn't live."

Now, in regards to his actual contributions to philosophy, his and Jesus' cases are a bit more similar. Primary works from either person do not exist, however accounts of Socrates' life and death, as well as detailed accounts of his philosophy and work were written by his contemporaries, who wrote in their own voices and had their works published academically. The gospels, on the other hand, are quite different as secondary sources. Their authorship is often highly questionable, show evidence of multiple authors, with different accounts of events (often disagreeing more than agreeing on basic facts), and were not written by contemporaries of Jesus, but by members of Christian cults decades or centuries after his death. These accounts also draw heavily on works preceding the supposed life of Jesus, indicating that an ad hoc substitution of "Jesus" in the place of a number of messianic figures is possible, or even likely. It is entirely possible that Jesus really existed, however it is much more difficult to link him to his body of literature, than it is to link Socrates to his. Socrates is likely to have existed as a person very close to the portrait provided by his students and contemporaries, who were all professional academicians and writers themselves.

Should we be forced only to conclude the likelihood of either person's actual existence based on the writings about that person, I would be far, *far* more credulous of Socrates than Jesus- and that doesn't even take into account the supernatural and clearly impossible claims of the sources that claim he existed at all. As a rational person, I see no reason to trust sources which claim a person came back from the dead, or did any number of other seemingly impossible acts. I would be as likely to believe that Icarus, or Prometheus, or Hercules are valid as historical figures- and these characters had many people writing about them. It is only the fact that they are not credited by your faith that you can dismiss them so easily. Socrates has no such baggage- he is eminently believable, and much more human, even if only as the subject of literature. Even though we cannot credit a specific portion of Plato or Aristotle or Plotinus to Socrates himself definitively, they wrote as his students and colleagues, not as believers in his cult, and what they wrote about him is rational and plainly believable.

Posts: 9912 | Registered: Nov 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
kassyopeia
Member
Member # 12110

 - posted      Profile for kassyopeia           Edit/Delete Post 
quote:
had their works published academically
What does that mean, in the historical context? (Honest question, genuinely curious.)
Posts: 96 | Registered: Jun 2009  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Mercury
Member
Member # 11822

 - posted      Profile for Mercury           Edit/Delete Post 
kassyopeia

quote:
I'm afraid I don't know enough classical history to agree or disagree with the first part, but the second part misrepresents the situation a little, it seems to me. As a rule, "believers" in Socrates are comfortable with the notion that the historical and the literary, larger-than-life figure may not have all that much in common, whereas believers in Jesus are not. Non-belief in their respective existences is generally defined by the scope of the belief, and thence entails something quite different.
From a historical perspective, those beliefs shouldn't have any relevance. I don't see much of an effort to discredit Socrates, whose ability to deconstruct and critique the views of others, while not nearly as amazing as acts accredited to Jesus, was often presented as superhuman. Mainstream historians do not question that Jesus exists. But because some people happen to worship Jesus, it is fashionable to set the historical record aside. I don't expect a non-Christian to believe Jesus performed miracles. That is a bit different that question whether the historical figure even existed.

Orincoro

quote:
This is not accurate, even in as far as it goes (not far). Although it is the case that it is difficult to pin down the actual contributions that Socrates made, because his voice and character were assumed by several of his students after his death, it is made quite clear in accounts by his contemporaries that he was a real person, and not just a literary cipher. There may be less *information* offered about his actual life in the accounts of it, but that doesn't matter when you're talking about establishing a binary alternative: "lived" or "didn't live."
There is no question among historians that either of these figures existed. But the question of existence tells us nothing of the historical figure. I am reasonably certain your presentation of the facts is inaccurate. No contemporary historical account of Socrates survives, save that of Aristophanes, Plato and Xenophon, the latter two being much younger and students and the former being a friend. None of them being historians. By modern standards, such accounts would be questionable at best.

I found an encyclopedia that presents all of this far better than I could:

Socrates

In any case, let's pretend that you are correct.

Socrates was a real person. So? He wrote nothing that survives. We have no idea the life he lived, which is presented in mythic proportions by his students. Students which were known for stretching the truth when it was necessary to prove a point. Plato, who wrote about Atlantis as he wrote about the brilliant Socrates is hardly a convincing source.

Yes, his students were "professional" academics and philosophers, but that meant a very different thing in the classical world. There was no regard for accuracy. The ideas were what mattered and there was a willingness to fabricate. This was regarded as perfectly justifiable. Rationality would not preclude them from this practice in the least. These were men who while perhaps not believing in the gods, recognized their stories as containing truth and had no qualms about creating their own myths. I don't know if they viewed rationality quite the same way as you do.

I also don't see rationality as precluding them from viewing Socrates in a cult-like manner. But that is another argument.

Compare this to the time of Jesus. Jesus, who was a Jew and thus unfit for most historical records. He lived among a rebellious people who were constantly producing revolutionaries most never mentioned in the historical record. A handful of people knew Jesus for what He was. Yet not long after Jesus there were the beginnings of a fledgling historical study of Roman history. Josephus and several other historians mention Jesus. These men were also not above presenting inaccuracies when it suited them either. But at least they regarded the historical record much higher than Plato and the students of Socrates. They were true historians, not philosophers. And they weren't, for the most part, admirers wishing to put their friend in the best light.

With all of this in mind, I would believe the existence of Jesus far more than Socrates, just as you would take the opposite view. Your listing of Greek heroes is a bit ironic however, since Plato was not above using myths such as Atlantis and the Amazons as true history to illustrate his arguments. And also because many of those tales were likely based on some true event, just as the Trojan War proved to be.

Of course, whatever you and I believe, mainstream historical study has declared both men likely existed. Anything else is a matter of faith and I would not claim otherwise.

Posts: 32 | Registered: Nov 2008  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
TomDavidson
Member
Member # 124

 - posted      Profile for TomDavidson   Email TomDavidson         Edit/Delete Post 
quote:
Compare this to the time of Jesus. Jesus, who was a Jew and thus unfit for most historical records.
Um....I have no idea what this means. Where do you get the idea that Jews didn't make it into historical records?

quote:
Josephus and several other historians mention Jesus.
Specifically, they mention things said about Jesus. So we know from Josephus that a few decades after Jesus was said to have lived, people were talking about him.

It's worth noting, however, that arguing the ancient historians of Josephus' day valued truth higher than the historians of Plato's day is pretty much a non-starter. Both camps would freely make crap up whenever it made for a better story.

Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
rivka
Member
Member # 4859

 - posted      Profile for rivka   Email rivka         Edit/Delete Post 
quote:
Originally posted by TomDavidson:
Both camps would freely make crap up whenever it made for a better story.

Very true.
Posts: 32919 | Registered: Mar 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Orincoro
Member
Member # 8854

 - posted      Profile for Orincoro   Email Orincoro         Edit/Delete Post 
quote:
Originally posted by kassyopeia:
quote:
had their works published academically
What does that mean, in the historical context? (Honest question, genuinely curious.)
As in, preserved in libraries by academicians and historians, and not necessarily by followers. Also, copied and translated for the purposes of study, not for the purposes of conversion or proselytizing.
Posts: 9912 | Registered: Nov 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Orincoro
Member
Member # 8854

 - posted      Profile for Orincoro   Email Orincoro         Edit/Delete Post 
quote:
Originally posted by rivka:
quote:
Originally posted by TomDavidson:
Both camps would freely make crap up whenever it made for a better story.

Very true.
Yes. I simply happen to be more credulous of accounts of a fairly extraordinarily talented individual, than I am of accounts of an impossibly gifted individual.

quote:
Anything else is a matter of faith and I would not claim otherwise.
I would. It doesn't matter to me if I "believe" in Socrates or not- the man lives in his teachings- you can agree or disagree, his logic was not flawless. Jesus, on the other hand, is claimed to be divine- a claim not made by Aristotle or Plato, or anyone for that matter, about Socrates. Looking at two people represented in only second (for Aristotle) or third and fourth hand accounts, (both of them), I am more credulous of the one who sounds more credible. Occam's razor- you yourself point out that Greek philosophers cribbed myths that were in fact based on probable real events- it makes sense to believe that *something* like them actually happened. With Socrates, it makes perfect sense to believe that quite a bit about him as described by Plato or Aristotle is accurate. The things claimed about Jesus are impossible, or so improbable as to be easily set aside, and they are claims made by unknown people, who never claim to have actually witnessed *anything* that Jesus ever did. Even if every word of Jesus and Socrates is the authorship of some other person, I still believe Plato more than I do whomever wrote the Gospels- 10 times as much in fact.
Posts: 9912 | Registered: Nov 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
kassyopeia
Member
Member # 12110

 - posted      Profile for kassyopeia           Edit/Delete Post 
quote:
From a historical perspective, those beliefs shouldn't have any relevance.
I think I know where you're coming from, but it's a very abstract place. Orincoro put it very well in the preceding post, but let me try an illustration of the aspect that seems particularly relevant to me:

A man camps in the forest. A fox investigates the camp, and the man wakes up just as the fox runs away. Because it's dark and he's a little scared, he thinks he's seen a wolf, which he tells his family about when he gets back home.
Another man camps in another forest, another fox turns up. This man, being on drugs, thinks he's seen a fire-breathing pink unicorn, which he tells his family about.

Now, we as omniscient observers are asked whether the wolf and/or the unicorn really existed. Personally, I would say yes in the first case, the mere misidentification of the canidae species is not sufficient to break the connection of the entity on the one and the perception of it on the other hand. And I would say no in the second case, because the observer's mental state contributed significantly more to the unicorn than the fox-entity did.

By analogy, claiming that Jesus did not exist doesn't mean claiming that accounts of him are not in some small part based on real people living and events occuring in roughly the stated time and place, merely that none of these contribute enough to the fiction to be identifiable as "the historical Jesus".

Posts: 96 | Registered: Jun 2009  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Mercury
Member
Member # 11822

 - posted      Profile for Mercury           Edit/Delete Post 
Tommy Davidson

quote:
Um....I have no idea what this means. Where do you get the idea that Jews didn't make it into historical records?
Roman historians were often dismissive of other cultures. Historical records are filled with distorted history that paint Romans in positive light and their enemies as brutal savages. There are many historical figures that Romans gloss over or ignore. Jesus is one example. Boudica, the Druids, and Spartacus are other examples.

quote:
It's worth noting, however, that arguing the ancient historians of Josephus' day valued truth higher than the historians of Plato's day is pretty much a non-starter. Both camps would freely make crap up whenever it made for a better story.
I don't understand what this means. There were no historians in Plato's day. There were philosophers and academics, but these were not historians. There goal was not to record history. The same is not true of Roman times. Yes, both periods had their share of fictionalized accounts, but it is hard to dispute the goal of Roman historians was to record history whereas the goal of Greek philosophers was to present philosophic truths. Sometimes their history was inaccurate, but no more than in any century prior to the 20th and 21st. I think the argument is sound.

Orincoro

quote:
I would. It doesn't matter to me if I "believe" in Socrates or not- the man lives in his teachings- you can agree or disagree, his logic was not flawless. Jesus, on the other hand, is claimed to be divine- a claim not made by Aristotle or Plato, or anyone for that matter, about Socrates. Looking at two people represented in only second (for Aristotle) or third and fourth hand accounts, (both of them), I am more credulous of the one who sounds more credible. Occam's razor- you yourself point out that Greek philosophers cribbed myths that were in fact based on probable real events- it makes sense to believe that *something* like them actually happened. With Socrates, it makes perfect sense to believe that quite a bit about him as described by Plato or Aristotle is accurate. The things claimed about Jesus are impossible, or so improbable as to be easily set aside, and they are claims made by unknown people, who never claim to have actually witnessed *anything* that Jesus ever did. Even if every word of Jesus and Socrates is the authorship of some other person, I still believe Plato more than I do whomever wrote the Gospels- 10 times as much in fact.
Yet, belief in the existence of the historical figure was what I was writing about in the post you replied to. So it seems to me it matters a great deal whether you believe in the existence of both figures.

I don't also don't see how it makes more sense to believe in Socrates than Jesus just because more outrageous claims were made about Jesus. You are misapplying Occam's Razor. One has no relation to the other. That Jesus was claimed to do miracles has no bearing on whether Socrates did the things claimed about him. Just because his followers were more realistic in their claims does not make them more true. Especially since we know for a fact Plato and the students of Socrates had a low regard for accuracy and a great regard for philosophical truths. To them, it would not have been lying at all. There's an argument to be made that the stories about Socrates were actually more likely to be false. But even if there weren't, Occam's Razor would not have any application.

Anyway, I didn't mention the Gospels as one of the sources to prove the existence of Jesus. I mentioned only Roman histories. The Gospels are a matter of faith, not history, and I still wouldn't argue otherwise (Although there are many Biblical events we know are true, minus the divine aspects and none that we know aren't true.). The existence is the issue.

kassyopeia

quote:
I think I know where you're coming from, but it's a very abstract place.
It's a very abstract world. [Wink]

quote:
Orincoro put it very well in the preceding post, but let me try an illustration of the aspect that seems particularly relevant to me:

A man camps in the forest. A fox investigates the camp, and the man wakes up just as the fox runs away. Because it's dark and he's a little scared, he thinks he's seen a wolf, which he tells his family about when he gets back home.
Another man camps in another forest, another fox turns up. This man, being on drugs, thinks he's seen a fire-breathing pink unicorn, which he tells his family about.

Now, we as omniscient observers are asked whether the wolf and/or the unicorn really existed. Personally, I would say yes in the first case, the mere misidentification of the canidae species is not sufficient to break the connection of the entity on the one and the perception of it on the other hand. And I would say no in the second case, because the observer's mental state contributed significantly more to the unicorn than the fox-entity did.

By analogy, claiming that Jesus did not exist doesn't mean claiming that accounts of him are not in some small part based on real people living and events occuring in roughly the stated time and place, merely that none of these contribute enough to the fiction to be identifiable as "the historical Jesus".

I don't see the analogy. Maybe the problem is that I haven't stated exactly what I think the historical Jesus means:

I don't think there is any historical justification for believing there was not a man named Jesus who taught revolutionary ideas and was crucified. There is no reason to believe this was actually a group of people. There is no reason to believe the basic story of Jesus was not based on historical truth. I think any claim otherwise falls into a trap. Because Jesus also happens to be the Son of God to many people, there is a desire to hold His existence to a higher standard. That is what the story of Socrates illustrates. I think I've presented a clear set of reasons just as compelling as the case others presented against Jesus as to why Socrates may not have done any of the things attributed to him. He may be a complete myth in fact. A ridiculous suggestion, but no more ridiculous than claiming Jesus was fake.

The truth is no mainstream historian is presenting the case against Jesus or Socrates or any other historical figure with an obscure life. The idea that there was a massive conspiracy to create these individuals strains logic. Why would anyone bother to create Jesus? There were numerous revolutionary figures among the Jews who advocated ideas far easier to sell than those of Jesus. There were more revolutionary figures with greater fame, that they could have simply attributed their agenda to. Whoever "they" are.

There's no historical basis for any of this questioning. I would argue it is only because Jesus is a religious figure that these questions are even being presented. If Christianity had died out no one would make these arguments and it would seem just as silly as the arguments I presented about Socrates, because it is.

Posts: 32 | Registered: Nov 2008  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Orincoro
Member
Member # 8854

 - posted      Profile for Orincoro   Email Orincoro         Edit/Delete Post 
quote:
Originally posted by Mercury:

I don't also don't see how it makes more sense to believe in Socrates than Jesus just because more outrageous claims were made about Jesus.

Wait, really? So if I came up to you and said that I lived next to a guy who could turn himself into a hedgehog on command, and somebody else came up to you and said they lived next to a guy named Fred, you would give equal weight to the idea that both of us are talking about real people? Because when somebody tells me a crazy story about someone else, I tend to rate that person's actual existence at a lower probability level.

quote:
Just because his followers were more realistic in their claims does not make them more true
But it makes them more trustworthy as sources. I more generally believe people who are not insane. A person, from my point of view, would have to be insane to believe what is written in the Gospels, and the person who wrote it would either have to also be insane, or more likely writing what they were quite aware was not the truth. This casts doubt on all their claims. To the contrary, the writings of Plato's students address Plato rationally, and do not use him as a device for tall tales and miracle stories. They were a far more objective source. Read carefully here: I do not claim that because some of what is claimed in the gospels is impossible, I therefore dismiss it whole cloth. No, I simply suggest that because some of the claims in the gospels represent obvious untruth, we must therefore apply a great deal of skepticism to all the claims- a story full of untruths is a poor source of credible information. I make a distinction with Socrates: his students did also inflate and fabricate aspects of his arguments and philosophies in the representations of their own, but their works, specifically Plato's, are represented by the authors as works of fiction for the sake of representing philosophy. They are, on the whole, honest about their intentions in using Socrates and his legacy. The intentions of the writers of the gospels are less clear, by a lot.

quote:
I would argue it is only because Jesus is a religious figure that these questions are even being presented.
Yeah. That's right. When the evidence of someone's existence is handed to you out of a contradictory oral tradition that posits this man had no human father, had magical powers, and returned from the dead, you question the idea that he was ever really alive in the first place. That's the sensible thing to do. There would be no accounts of Jesus today if he were not a religious figure- but more than a religious figure you see- he is claimed to be a demi-god. I question the idea that there was ever a Hercules- I think he was probably a composite of several traditions. He might have lived, but to take it as a given, or even to give the benefit of the doubt to the idea that he did live, is silly. Socrates though? Here is a figure who serves no function as a source of myths. He is described, quite simply believably. Plato used his voice as a source of authority- why? Where did that authority derive? Why claim the tutelage of a master logician, instead of claiming all of his insights strictly for yourself? Sure, we could construct a scenario in which that happened, but there's no reason to. And aside from all that, Socrates was written about by many people, many of whom were more trustworthy as writers than the unnamed authors of the gospels. It's quite possible that the gospels were authored by trustworthy people, but we can't know that now, and to assume it was so is to be a bit blind. You haven't addressed that, I think because you can't.

I see where you're going: it's again perfectly possible that all the crazy stuff is made up, and a lot of the ordinary stuff is true- but there is very little reason to actually believe this, because the ordinary stuff is all there just to support the impossible stuff, thus, the impossible stuff motivated and informed pretty much all "historical jesus" information there is- there is no objective source. Socrates has more objective sources. You're not going to convince me that's a matter of semantics or something- there's little reason for a Socrates lie. There is a pretty big reason for a Jesus lie- there is *far* more reason to have created him from nothing, or to have composited a number of people into one narrative.

[ July 26, 2009, 09:36 PM: Message edited by: Orincoro ]

Posts: 9912 | Registered: Nov 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Duke Leto
Member
Member # 12116

 - posted      Profile for Duke Leto           Edit/Delete Post 
quote:
Originally posted by Mercury:
There's more evidence for the historical Jesus than the historical Socrates, yet no one doubts the existence of the latter.

This is just flat out horseshit. With all due respect.

Socrates was attested in the nearly contemporary biographical writings of three of his followers, whose names and personal histories we know in detail. Two of these documents have come down to us in nearly complete form, in the writings of Plato and Xenophon. Socrates was lampooned as a public figure in his own lifetime in Aristophanes' comic play "The Clouds", which has also been preserved. His trial and execution were an important point in the political history of Athenian Democracy and was referred to in extant political speeches from Athens from decades after the event.

If Plato had been the only person ever to write about Socrates you might have a case, but Xenophon and Aristophanes' corroborative testimony seal it.

As to Jesus, the Gospels were written at least a half century after his alleged death, and probably more. We have no evidence whatsoever identifying the authors with the personas the church subsequently attributed to them. Matthew and Luke not only present mutually exclusive genealogies for Jesus that no amount of apologetic handwaving will explain away, but Luke identifies the year of his nativity as 6 AD without any possible ambiguity, while Matthew tells a different nativity story that can not possibly date to after the death of Herod the Great in 4 BC.

Both the Matthew and Luke are clearly dependant on Mark and the lost sayings Gospel of Q, which we no to exist because the sayings of Jesus they plagiarize from it are worded identically. More damningly, in no case do Matthew and Luke agree on the circumstances in which their Jesus said these identical sayings. At least one, and more likely both, was fabricating a story around the list of sayings.

As to the secular historical record it is almost totally silent. Tacitus mentions what the Chistians of his time said about Jesus a century after the fact. The record in Suetonius is not even clearly about Jesus. And the record in Josephus is likely fabricated as it does not agree with the rest of Josephus's religious beliefs and occurs out of the proper historical sequence of the narrative.

The claim that Jesus is better attested then Socrates is not quite as outrageous as the more popular claim that he is better attested than Julius Caesar, but it is still untenable and will be rightly condemned by anyone familiar with the historical sources in question.

Posts: 10 | Registered: Jun 2009  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Orincoro
Member
Member # 8854

 - posted      Profile for Orincoro   Email Orincoro         Edit/Delete Post 
And that too- thanks I'm not up on my actual historical bibliography on either person.
Posts: 9912 | Registered: Nov 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
TomDavidson
Member
Member # 124

 - posted      Profile for TomDavidson   Email TomDavidson         Edit/Delete Post 
Tommy? Dude.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
rivka
Member
Member # 4859

 - posted      Profile for rivka   Email rivka         Edit/Delete Post 
quote:
Originally posted by TomDavidson:
Tommy? Dude.

I had the same reaction. Sheesh.
Posts: 32919 | Registered: Mar 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Orincoro
Member
Member # 8854

 - posted      Profile for Orincoro   Email Orincoro         Edit/Delete Post 
Didn't spot that. [ROFL]
Posts: 9912 | Registered: Nov 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
kassyopeia
Member
Member # 12110

 - posted      Profile for kassyopeia           Edit/Delete Post 
quote:
Originally posted by Mercury:
There is no reason to believe the basic story of Jesus was not based on historical truth.

I guess that, putting it that way, it's hard to disagree. There is no evidence that Jesus didn't exist. That's not saying much, though, it's always tough to prove non-existence. Which is why, generally, the scientific method puts the burden of proof on the other side of the question.
quote:
The idea that there was a massive conspiracy to create these individuals strains logic.
Nowadays, you would have a point. Elevating urban legends to the level of generally held truth does take some effort*. But in antiquity, with most people firmly believing in the supernatural and with much different modes of information dispersal, all it took was for a story to have the right kind of appeal. I don't find the notion that there was no historical Jesus any stranger than that there were no historical dragons.
quote:
Why would anyone bother to create Jesus? There were numerous revolutionary figures among the Jews who advocated ideas far easier to sell than those of Jesus. There were more revolutionary figures with greater fame, that they could have simply attributed their agenda to. Whoever "they" are.
The former would be of no use, if we assume that "their" motive was to spread a certain set of ideas and were looking for a figurehead. The latter would limit "their" artistic freedom, as greater fame means a greater footprint in the historical records, which would have to be adhered to or directly refuted. Why shouldn't a religious movement create a mythology from scratch, to an extent?

* Even today, there are exceptions. The notion that water can be observed to drain from a basin clockwise or counterclockwise depending on which hemisphere one is in is almost entirely false. Yet, because the explanation sounds so convincing, it's prevalent even in science textbooks. I doubt there was a conspiracy to bring that about, it just happened.

quote:
Originally posted by Orincoro:
A person, from my point of view, would have to be insane to believe what is written in the Gospels

That's a bit of a stretch. Insanity is commonly defined by deviation from a norm, and you can't claim that belief in the Gospels (or its equivalents in other creeds) is particularly abnormal.
quote:
You're not going to convince me that's a matter of semantics
Well, that was the point of my illustration above - that in part it does come down to semantics and ontology/epistemology. I'm not quite sure if your statement implies you disagree with that stance, or if it only applies to "Socrates has more objective sources"...
Posts: 96 | Registered: Jun 2009  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Orincoro
Member
Member # 8854

 - posted      Profile for Orincoro   Email Orincoro         Edit/Delete Post 
The statement applies to Socrates having more objective and more numerous and clearly reliable sources. His sources are far superior to those concerning Jesus, despite being quite a bit older to boot.
Posts: 9912 | Registered: Nov 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
kassyopeia
Member
Member # 12110

 - posted      Profile for kassyopeia           Edit/Delete Post 
Age ain't paramount - if I had to choose between Egyptian mythology and Dianetics, say...
Posts: 96 | Registered: Jun 2009  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Noemon
Member
Member # 1115

 - posted      Profile for Noemon   Email Noemon         Edit/Delete Post 
quote:
Originally posted by Mercury:
I don't understand what this means. There were no historians in Plato's day. There were philosophers and academics, but these were not historians. There goal was not to record history.

Are you seriously arguing that Thucydides wasn't a historian?
Posts: 16059 | Registered: Aug 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Mucus
Member
Member # 9735

 - posted      Profile for Mucus           Edit/Delete Post 
quote:
Originally posted by Duke Leto:
... the lost sayings Gospel of Q ...

?
Posts: 7593 | Registered: Sep 2006  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Duke Leto
Member
Member # 12116

 - posted      Profile for Duke Leto           Edit/Delete Post 
Sigh.....

The Q Document

Posts: 10 | Registered: Jun 2009  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Mercury
Member
Member # 11822

 - posted      Profile for Mercury           Edit/Delete Post 
TomDavidson

I apologize for that embarrassing error. I always misidentify names when I'm writing on forums. I'm more interested in what you are writing than how you identify yourself. [Wink] I just get so absorbed in writing and reading my brain makes mistakes. You should have seen what I had kassyopeia labeled on my first draft. My real name is Sam, feel free to call me Sammy.

Orincoro

quote:
Wait, really? So if I came up to you and said that I lived next to a guy who could turn himself into a hedgehog on command, and somebody else came up to you and said they lived next to a guy named Fred, you would give equal weight to the idea that both of us are talking about real people? Because when somebody tells me a crazy story about someone else, I tend to rate that person's actual existence at a lower probability level.
.

That's a false analogy. One story may be more believable than the other. But it doesn't make either story true. Especially when you are dealing with history. If Theodore Roosevelt claimed to be a Jedi that would have no bearing on whether George Washington poisoned George III. Even though the second one is more realistic, it doesn't make either one true.

quote:
But it makes them more trustworthy as sources. I more generally believe people who are not insane. A person, from my point of view, would have to be insane to believe what is written in the Gospels,
I can't respect this view. I don't rate an individual's sanity on whether or not they agree with me. That seems somewhat egotistical. I don't believe in the Koran. A Muslim who does is not insane to me. If you believe those who believe differently from you are insane, you cannot claim to be rational. By definition, most people believe some sort of supernatural claim, thus you think most of the world is insane, except a very small group. When you think everyone else is crazy except you, it may be time to look in the mirror.

The disbelief in the supernatural also does not preclude one from lying. So basing your value of others on how much they believe in the supernatural is not logical and is based on a personal contempt for the supernatural only.

quote:
and the person who wrote it would either have to also be insane, or more likely writing what they were quite aware was not the truth. This casts doubt on all their claims. To the contrary, the writings of Plato's students address Plato rationally, and do not use him as a device for tall tales and miracle stories. They were a far more objective source. Read carefully here: I do not claim that because some of what is claimed in the gospels is impossible, I therefore dismiss it whole cloth. No, I simply suggest that because some of the claims in the gospels represent obvious untruth, we must therefore apply a great deal of skepticism to all the claims- a story full of untruths is a poor source of credible information. I make a distinction with Socrates: his students did also inflate and fabricate aspects of his arguments and philosophies in the representations of their own, but their works, specifically Plato's, are represented by the authors as works of fiction for the sake of representing philosophy. They are, on the whole, honest about their intentions in using Socrates and his legacy. The intentions of the writers of the gospels are less clear, by a lot.
Plato presented his stories as true. We like to believe he knew he was making stuff up. He probably did. But there's no way to be certain. He never wrote that Atlantis was intended to be a parable. He wrote it as fact. Using contextual evidence, historians have deduced this was a common practice, so undoubtedly Plato was not claiming to truly believe such things. But there's nothing in his own writing that acknowledges this. He does not differentiate from the supernatural and the natural.

There are a number of histories from the ancient world full of so-called impossible accounts (I'm insane, as I believe a great number of things are more possible than what you claim). Historians do not dismiss these stories, because they are all we have. If we dismissed every story that had supernatural accounts in it, we would know nothing of ancient Egypt, ancient China, and almost any other ancient culture you can think of. Even Plato, as I said, would at least possibly be included on the list of madmen our world is full of.

You have simply ignored the fact that Plato and his contemporaries were known to lie on a consistent basis. I tend to think a record that is known to be fictitious is far less trustworthy than one we are merely unsure about, insanity of its authors aside. A historian must separate their personal feelings from their examination of the record. I think you are failing at this.

quote:
Yeah. That's right. When the evidence of someone's existence is handed to you out of a contradictory oral tradition that posits this man had no human father, had magical powers, and returned from the dead, you question the idea that he was ever really alive in the first place. That's the sensible thing to do.
The sensible thing to do is do what all historians do. Analyze the accounts and ignore the supernatural. The historical record is full of supernatural accounts attributed to great figures. The sensible thing is certainly not to conclude all Pharaohs must be fictitious, the great unifier of China was never real, the Trojan War did not happen, etc. You do not evenly apply your own standard consistently, unless you are willing to claim most of our history prior to the Renaissance is made up. It is only because Jesus is worshipped that is existence is questioned. Not because there were supernaturally claims attributed to Him.

quote:
There would be no accounts of Jesus today if he were not a religious figure- but more than a religious figure you see- he is claimed to be a demi-god. I question the idea that there was ever a Hercules
I think he was likely a man and a great warrior who had supernatural gifts attributed to him. That would be far more consistent with classical tradition. But this is a false comparison because there are no records of Hercules outside of myths, unlike Jesus, and the time of Hercules was much earlier than the time of Jesus meaning accounts were probably far less accurate. Not at all similar.

quote:
- I think he was probably a composite of several traditions. He might have lived, but to take it as a given, or even to give the benefit of the doubt to the idea that he did live, is silly. Socrates though? Here is a figure who serves no function as a source of myths. He is described, quite simply believably. Plato used his voice as a source of authority- why? Where did that authority derive? Why claim the tutelage of a master logician, instead of claiming all of his insights strictly for yourself? Sure, we could construct a scenario in which that happened, but there's no reason to. And aside from all that, Socrates was written about by many people, many of whom were more trustworthy as writers than the unnamed authors of the gospels. It's quite possible that the gospels were authored by trustworthy people, but we can't know that now, and to assume it was so is to be a bit blind. You haven't addressed that, I think because you can't
Socrates was written about by three people, not many people. Three people some of whom did work very similar to Plato, except less highly regarded, the other who wrote fiction outright. Plato had no motive, that I'm aware of, to create any of the stories he created, save to prove a point. In the case of Socrates, that point was that other philosophies were irrational and spiteful towards anyone who could point out their flaws.

Are you seriously suggesting Socrates has no great powers attributed to him!? He is presented as the greatest debater in history. He is able to point out the flaws of men far greater in public stature with incredible ease. Other philosophies are torn apart by Socrates. He never encountered an individual who could match his intellect. In the end, society rejected his great mind and forced him to kill himself. (Does that story at all sound familiar?)

I haven't addressed the Gospels very much, because I did not include them in my argument. I think the Gospels are a matter of faith. They aren't needed to prove that Jesus existed and are irrelevant to the historical question of His existence.

Duke Leto

quote:
This is just flat out horseshit. With all due respect.
Apparently I'm not due very much respect. [Smile]

Yes, Socrates is referenced in history. By three people. Three people, all of whom had reason to fictionalize the life of Socrates, are not enough to convince me Socrates was the man he is portrayed as. Surely a master debater who embarrassed the Athenian elite so much that they felt the need to murder him would merit more than a play and a few essays by his students?

All those referring to Socrates after his death were not alive in his time and refer only to the writings of his students, primarily Plato. It is false to portray "many" writings on Socrates. There are only three individuals who wrote on the historical Socrates, individuals who also wrote about the historical Atlantis, the historical Zeus, and the historical Amazons, among others.

As for Jesus, there are both secular sources, which you believe are dubious but mainstream historians accept and oral traditions identifying the figure of Jesus. It is not the fault of the Jews that Roman historians enjoyed portraying their enemies as murdering savages or simply ignoring them. The Jews were not the only ones to receive this treatment. Figures like Boudica and the Druids were also largely ignored in the Roman record. Yet no one disputes their existence.

Perhaps I was wrong to say there is more evidence for Jesus. Perhaps it is more appropriate to say the evidence is equal. Either way, I do not think you are very familiar with the "historical record" if you believe that Jesus was a mass conspiracy by individuals who did not desire or even conceive of the popularity of the Christian religion.

I think your post is a bit smelly, with all due respect.

kassyopeia

quote:
I guess that, putting it that way, it's hard to disagree. There is no evidence that Jesus didn't exist. That's not saying much, though, it's always tough to prove non-existence. Which is why, generally, the scientific method puts the burden of proof on the other side of the question.
When experts in the field regard the matter as settled, I believe the burden shifts. The other side must prove the reason for this conspiracy and they must explain why they apply their historical standard to only one historical figure.

quote:
Nowadays, you would have a point. Elevating urban legends to the level of generally held truth does take some effort*. But in antiquity, with most people firmly believing in the supernatural and with much different modes of information dispersal, all it took was for a story to have the right kind of appeal. I don't find the notion that there was no historical Jesus any stranger than that there were no historical dragons.
But why do you apply this standard in such narrow circumstances? My point is not that there is an abundance of evidence that Jesus existed. There is enough to satisfy academics, but who cares what they think anyway? My point is that if you are going to question Jesus, for the sake of consistency, you must question a large number of historical figures, starting with Socrates, a figure as mythic as any dragon. But no one does this, because their motive is not a genuine belief that Jesus was created by a secret society or something. It is because Jesus is worshipped, and the questioners, for the most part, have issue with His worshippers.

quote:
The former would be of no use, if we assume that "their" motive was to spread a certain set of ideas and were looking for a figurehead. The latter would limit "their" artistic freedom, as greater fame means a greater footprint in the historical records, which would have to be adhered to or directly refuted. Why shouldn't a religious movement create a mythology from scratch, to an extent?
Because no religious movement in history ever has? Because the historical record was not available to the Jews who formed Christianity? Because the historical record made few claims about Jewish revolutionaries with greater fame, so it wouldn't have made a difference? There are plenty of reasons why they didn't. Few reasons how they could have pulled it off and why they would have bothered. The modern form of Christianity did not exist at its founding. No one could know what it would end up being. It might be helpful to remember that there was no expectation Christianity would rise above any of the other cults started from Jewish oppression. Once again, these claims strain logic. Heck, they Hulk smash it to pieces.

quote:
* Even today, there are exceptions. The notion that water can be observed to drain from a basin clockwise or counterclockwise depending on which hemisphere one is in is almost entirely false. Yet, because the explanation sounds so convincing, it's prevalent even in science textbooks. I doubt there was a conspiracy to bring that about, it just happened.
But the draining of water is not a matter of historical study or debate.

Neomon

quote:
Are you seriously arguing that Thucydides wasn't a historian?
There are always exceptions. Thucydides is one of the few Greeks who could be called a historian in the modern sense. He is one of the few that placed a great emphasis on evidence. Unfortunately, his methodology did not gain any traction among his contemporaries.
Posts: 32 | Registered: Nov 2008  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Orincoro
Member
Member # 8854

 - posted      Profile for Orincoro   Email Orincoro         Edit/Delete Post 
" A historian must separate their personal feelings from their examination of the record. I think you are failing at this."

That is the ironic statement of the century. None of your arguments work for you as much as they work against you. This is simply a losing battle for you.

quote:
Perhaps it is more appropriate to say the evidence is equal.
:snort: Been watching Fox news a little too much there? The fact that they are both documents, and that they are both historically relevant, and that they are both about people, does not make the Dialogues and the Gospels of equal veracity.


quote:
The sensible thing to do is do what all historians do. Analyze the accounts and ignore the supernatural. The historical record is full of supernatural accounts attributed to great figures. The sensible thing is certainly not to conclude all Pharaohs must be fictitious
I'm sensing you're a little dim on what I'm talking about here. Firstly, historians don't ignore the supernatural- they try to figure out why a story exists in the state that it exists. I never implied that we should discount out of hand any story that is improbable, merely that we should treat such a story with an appropriate level of doubt. In the case of the stories about Jesus, that appropriate level of doubt is extremely high. I realize, and sympathize with the fact that *you* don't doubt them, but reasonable people have, and do.

But historians do a little more than just "analyze," they also have to contextualize. In the case of Jesus, there is little context. He had no contemporary accounts of his life. Zero. None. That means we see not a scrap of paper or a word said about him, by anyone, until decades after his death. Those records do not exist. On the contrary, and this alone is extremely damning to your argument, Socrates had numerous biographers, and numerous mentions during his own lifetime.


quote:
But no one does this, because their motive is not a genuine belief that Jesus was created by a secret society or something. It is because Jesus is worshipped, and the questioners, for the most part, have issue with His worshippers.
I'm sorry you don't see how limp-wristed this statement is. Jesus is not a conspiracy!!..... YOU'RE A CONSPIRACY!

I don't think the gospels are pure fiction- a good deal of evidence shows they are only *mostly* fiction. However I've made it quite clear that I think they are probably much closer to pure fiction than the Dialogues, as an example. It's quite a stretch to disagree with that, and please do consult your fabled historians with their objectivity to demonstrate that to you. I sense that you are going to believe what you want to believe, despite the weakness of your actual argument. I'm going to assume you have little more to say other than to wheedle some small point out of what I'm saying, so unless you do have something of interest, I think we're about done.

[ July 28, 2009, 05:32 PM: Message edited by: Orincoro ]

Posts: 9912 | Registered: Nov 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Duke Leto
Member
Member # 12116

 - posted      Profile for Duke Leto           Edit/Delete Post 
No, you are not due the slightest respect because the position you are maintaining is a joke.

What training do you have in the rules of weighing historical evidence, Mercury? Where are your scholarly publications? I at least took a Bachelors in History at an excellent private university. I know how to judge evidence.

If you are too thick to know the difference in evidentiary value between three near contemporary secondary sources written by known historical personages, and a primary source written by another known author, and two very late secondary sources with no details, one of which is almost certainly a very late insertion by a monastic copyist along with the disjointed and contradictory oral tradition evidence of the Gospels, then there is no hope for you.

Socrates has an order of magnitude better evidence than Jesus by virtue of the superiority of the Primary to the Secondary sources ALONE.

YOU are the one who is positing a conspiracy, since if Socrates was fictional someone would have to have fabricated "the Clouds" in the style of Aristophanes and inserted it into the catalogue of his works. And if they were trying to make the invented Socrates seem a great philosopher, they picked a damned obtuse way of doing it, as the Socrates in the Clouds is in an incompetent blowhard.

Of course, I wouldn't expect you to know this, as I doubt you have ever read or seen a comedy by Aristophanes.

As to your rambling discussion of the "Roman" Historians, whom I cannot bring myself to believe you have ever opened, it is damned in your own words. Josephus was a JEW. He was writing about the religious turmoil among the JEWS that led up to the Jewish Revolt. He is anally retentive in the detail he devotes to Pilate's crimes against the Jewish people and devotes paragraphs of equal length to his supposed "Flavian Testament" to Jesus to several messianic troublemakers who were killed by the Romans in Pilates time. He devoted an entire section to John the Baptist, with a degree of detail such that it's obvious the author of Luke used him as a source.

Why just one paragraph that breaks up the flow of the narrative on Pilate's biggest catch?

I do not NEED to invent a group of conspirators with the motive and opportunity to insert this bogus historical record into Josephus' history. We know of one. There was a thousand years worth of opportunity for some zealous monk while copying out the book to make this pious insertion to correct Josephus' oversight.

In summary, you are obviously completely dependant for this assertion on apologetic historians. You have no understanding of historical methodology, or are brazenly ignoring it to suit your convenience, and you clearly have no familiarity with the source documents are professing to argue from.

Your incompetent presumption is leavened only by the fact that you are at least not using the usual bold faced lie that there is more evidence for Jesus than Caesar.

You have no case, shut the hell up.

Posts: 10 | Registered: Jun 2009  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
MrSquicky
Member
Member # 1802

 - posted      Profile for MrSquicky   Email MrSquicky         Edit/Delete Post 
Leto,
You are ridiculously out of line.

Posts: 10177 | Registered: Apr 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
kassyopeia
Member
Member # 12110

 - posted      Profile for kassyopeia           Edit/Delete Post 
Seconded.

While I too find Mercury's stubbornness frustrating, I certainly don't think it deserves that level of ad-hominem hostility.

Posts: 96 | Registered: Jun 2009  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Papa Janitor
Member
Member # 7795

 - posted      Profile for Papa Janitor           Edit/Delete Post 
Agreed. Please dial it back, Duke Leto -- don't attack the person.

--PJ

Posts: 441 | Registered: Apr 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Duke Leto
Member
Member # 12116

 - posted      Profile for Duke Leto           Edit/Delete Post 
The ad hominem points still stand, if the tone could use some moderation. Nobody familiar with the sources would pretend for an instant that Socrates is better attested than Jesus.

His assertion is an insult to good classical historiography.

I suppose I'm treating him to chewing out I want to give Kent Conrad and Max Baucus.

Posts: 10 | Registered: Jun 2009  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Duke Leto
Member
Member # 12116

 - posted      Profile for Duke Leto           Edit/Delete Post 
OK. I've collected my temper.

Part of my anger regarding Mercury is that he refuses to sit still.

His original thesis was:

quote:
There's more evidence for the historical Jesus than the historical Socrates, yet no one doubts the existence of the latter.
This statement was and is completely indefensible. When Gospel scholars talk about the search for the "Historical Jesus" they are maintaining the existence of a person named Jesus or Yeshua who was executed by Pontius Pilate and inspired the Christian tradition against the competing thesis of "Mythicism", most recently exemplified by the writing of Earl Doherty, that maintains that Jesus originated as a godly figure who was subsequently given a fictional biography by the early church.

I highly recommend Doherty's book "The Jesus Puzzle" as an entry point into that debate.

In those terms a "Mythical Socrates" would be needed to make the comparison. As stated, Mercury's thesis implies that it is possible given the state of the evidence to doubt the existence of a "historical Socrates", that there was no man who inspired Plato and was the friend of Xenophon and target of Aristophanes.

There is no way to credit this notion with the available evidence. If Socrates were the invented character of Plato, then Plato would have had to forge or altar a play known to have been written decades prior to Socrates' death. He would have had to coordinate this plot with Xenophon "long distance" as well, since I do not believe that Xenophon ever returned to Athens after the Persian expedition.

He would also have had to deceive Aristotle as to Socrates' existence, among many others.

Nobody questions Socrates' existence because the evidence will not allow a reasonable way he could not exist. That is not the case with Jesus for the reasons I outlined above. None of the serious Historical Jesus scholars will deny the priority of Mark or the existence of Q. (Crossan et al.) And none of them accept that Josephus' mentions of Jesus are not at least partially edited by a Christian copyist. (The received text has Josephus acknowledge him as the Messiah.) Tacitus is hearsay and Suetonius is not even incontrovertably about Christ, and both are more than 100 years older than the supposed death of Christ. The various epistles are actually almost devoid of biographical content.

That leaves the anonymous Mark, Q and possibly an "authentic core" of Josephus as the only sources. I again refer the reader to Doherty for more on the state of the evidence for a historical core

Mercury does not seem to have meant exactly what he said, since he backpedals to something along the lines of "there is more evidence that Jesus lived and taught as broadly described in the Gospels than that Socrates' life and teachings as broadly described in Plato" or perhaps "If you are going to propose that Jesus wasn't a real person, given that we know Christianity did come into being, you might as well believe that Socrates was a fiction created by a conspiracy of Plato, Xenophon and Aristophanes."

The first alternate version is not even remotely tenable either. If we believe Plato to have put a lot of himself and his philosophy into the mouth of his teacher based on what we know of him, we know absolutely nothing about the beliefs of the authors of Mark and Q. Even assuming something like the apostolic tradition to be true, with Mark being taught about the life of Jesus from the recollections of Peter, and Q being the sayings of Jesus collacted by Levi Matvei, we have no way of knowing how much either Mark or Peter distorted Jesus's teachings and life to fit their own theological agenda. There is good evidence within the Christian tradition that Christianity as it is now practiced was basically invented by Paul in defiance of the 12.

With Plato's dialogues we at least know the identity and biography of the author we are dealing with and can use Xenophon to reconstruct the historical Socrates from underneath Plato's character. We have neither a real alternative source as a control nor a clear idea who Mark was and why he was writing.

Now as to the 2nd alternative, it isn't an argument. It's an intuition pump. Mercury would in that case be trying to prove the absurdity of doubting the historical existence of Jesus by concocting a prima facie absurd scenario and stating that it is more absurd than what he wants us to disbelieve. This removes attention from discussion of the actual evidence that there miht not have been a historical Jesus. It's similar in that respect to John Searle's various specious arguments for the impossibility of AIs being conscious.

Here's two contemporary political examples to assure all are equally offended:

"There's more evidence that Arnold Schwartzenegger is native born then there is that Obama is."

"There's more evidence that Madonna teaches her children appropriate sexual morals than there is that Sarah Palin does."

You see? That makes the conversation about Arnold or Madonna rather than Palin or Obama. The point at issue has been forgotten by people rushing off to refute the extreneous claims. (and it worked on me!) It's actually a rather nice trick.

Mercury is welcome to come back and accuse me of beating up a straw man, to which I will respond that he needs to learn to express himself better. The original statement that it is possible to reasonably disbelieve in a historical Socrates is to my mind refuted.

Posts: 10 | Registered: Jun 2009  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Chris Bridges
Member
Member # 1138

 - posted      Profile for Chris Bridges   Email Chris Bridges         Edit/Delete Post 
[looks back at the thread title, reads the thread again]

This may be one of the most thoroughly derailed threads I've ever seen here, and that's saying something.

Posts: 7790 | Registered: Aug 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
natural_mystic
Member
Member # 11760

 - posted      Profile for natural_mystic           Edit/Delete Post 
With regard to the discussion in the latter part of the thread: did anyone else read 'the Jesus Mysteries'?
Posts: 644 | Registered: Sep 2008  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
   

   Close Topic   Feature Topic   Move Topic   Delete Topic next oldest topic   next newest topic
 - Printer-friendly view of this topic
Hop To:


Contact Us | Hatrack River Home Page

Copyright © 2008 Hatrack River Enterprises Inc. All rights reserved.
Reproduction in whole or in part without permission is prohibited.


Powered by Infopop Corporation
UBB.classic™ 6.7.2