Jesus--Fact or Fiction??

[Baruch]

It has been constantly astounding to me that most Christians believe the bible plopped to the earth,  totally complete and error free; and written in all the languages of the earth, then and now.

Goes back to the epic of Gilgamesh (inscribed on a tablet of lapis lazuli (not clay) in the Heaven of Anu).  Anu, Enlil and Enki made up a trinity ;-)

This was claimed by extremists for the Bible, but especially by the general believers in Islam.  There is a imperishable gold Quran in Heaven.  Some Protestants have picked up on this.  The question for a Christian is ... what is Logos?  Is it word, or man.  For me it is man.  For those other people, it is word.  Bibliolatry, which religious Jews do practice.

[Mike Cl]

Baruch, I do see your point.  But you see it because you have learned what literature of that time was for.  You have learned that the standards of today don't hold up well back in that time period.  I appreciate that.  But the fact that literature was a blend of fancy and fact needs to be brought up and looked at when studying the bible and christian origins--because both happened in that time period.  To accept that periods literature as totally factual would not be right; it needs to be demonstrated that that would be inaccurate.  That does not mean that that literature did not serve a legitimate function--only that it is not possible to use it as a basis for the historicity of Jesus.   

[Cavebear]

The Aztecs were sincere literalists, like you.  They were wrong about what it took to keep the sun rising.  But you would cut the hearts out of the well to do, to satisfy your Robespierre tendencies. "Liberté, égalité, fraternité" mon cherie.  Not a sermon, just a diatribe ...

No.  But the billionaires don't need a bigger yacht or 10 more rooms on the house while some waitress is deciding whether to buy food or pay the rent.  Given the choice, I side with the waitress. 

[Baruch]

Baruch, I do see your point.  But you see it because you have learned what literature of that time was for.  You have learned that the standards of today don't hold up well back in that time period.  I appreciate that.  But the fact that literature was a blend of fancy and fact needs to be brought up and looked at when studying the bible and christian origins--because both happened in that time period.  To accept that periods literature as totally factual would not be right; it needs to be demonstrated that that would be inaccurate.  That does not mean that that literature did not serve a legitimate function--only that it is not possible to use it as a basis for the historicity of Jesus.

I agree ... historicity of Jesus is mere apologetic.  So yes, I analyze this as literature as well, and I appreciate literary criticism as good as Collier's.  Accuracy has nothing to do with art, that is just a dodge by the philistine or the religious apologist (or both if the same person).

If you let lay people read anything, they get it wrong.  It takes great scholarship like Collier to get it right, almost (perfect scholarship is neutral).  But lay people won't pay attention to Collier (just another egghead).  And clergy have a conflict of interest.

[Baruch]

No.  But the billionaires don't need a bigger yacht or 10 more rooms on the house while some waitress is deciding whether to buy food or pay the rent.  Given the choice, I side with the waitress.

If you are sans culottes ... then you are without pants ;-)

[Mike Cl]

I agree ... historicity of Jesus is mere apologetic.  So yes, I analyze this as literature as well, and I appreciate literary criticism as good as Collier's.  Accuracy has nothing to do with art, that is just a dodge by the philistine or the religious apologist (or both if the same person).

If you let lay people read anything, they get it wrong.  It takes great scholarship like Collier to get it right, almost (perfect scholarship is neutral).  But lay people won't pay attention to Collier (just another egghead).  And clergy have a conflict of interest.

I see where literature of that time period could be called art.  I do appreciate art.  And, as it happens, the art of the work we would call a novel was alive and well in those days.  Art speaks to a person and good art speaks to a great many people.  Fiction (good fiction---art) can purvey real lessons that can apply to one's life.  And I'm sure the good literature of that time period fits that bill well.  But the problem with art is that it is not a 'fact' based mode of communication.  And when it is used as fact it always fails.  The theists of today try to use the art of that time period as fact and proof of the historicity of quite a few things from that period.  Carrier is pointing that out; and I think doing a great job of it.  I see what the theists are trying to do as a misuse of that literature.  If used as it was intended it would still be of interest and still have lessons to share with us.  When misused it is or can be, destructive.

[Baruch]

I see where literature of that time period could be called art.  I do appreciate art.  And, as it happens, the art of the work we would call a novel was alive and well in those days.  Art speaks to a person and good art speaks to a great many people.  Fiction (good fiction---art) can purvey real lessons that can apply to one's life.  And I'm sure the good literature of that time period fits that bill well.  But the problem with art is that it is not a 'fact' based mode of communication.  And when it is used as fact it always fails.  The theists of today try to use the art of that time period as fact and proof of the historicity of quite a few things from that period.  Carrier is pointing that out; and I think doing a great job of it.  I see what the theists are trying to do as a misuse of that literature.  If used as it was intended it would still be of interest and still have lessons to share with us.  When misused it is or can be, destructive.

The Mona Lisa is a fact.  The woman Leonardo is probably a fact, as he also probably is.  If Leonardo had used a photograph, then given the artistry of photography, and Photoshop, you would still not know if that photo of La Gioconda was a real person or not.  Why the obsession with unobtainable truths?

Of course humans misuse literature.  They even plagiarize.  This isn't limited to theists.  Protocols of the Elders of Zion?  You and I both hate humanity, do we not?  Because it won't behave the way we want it to.  Which means we both channel Caligula, et tu?  Or is Cassius right, that our faults don't lie in our stars, but in ourselves.

[Mike Cl]

The Mona Lisa is a fact.  The woman Leonardo is probably a fact, as he also probably is.  If Leonardo had used a photograph, then given the artistry of photography, and Photoshop, you would still not know if that photo of La Gioconda was a real person or not.  Why the obsession with unobtainable truths?

Of course humans misuse literature.  They even plagiarize.  This isn't limited to theists.  Protocols of the Elders of Zion?  You and I both hate humanity, do we not?  Because it won't behave the way we want it to.  Which means we both channel Caligula, et tu?  Or is Cassius right, that our faults don't lie in our stars, but in ourselves.

The object, Mona Lisa, is a fact.  The painting is real.  But what does it mean?  That is truly in the eye of the beholder.  And it matters not what the painter had in mind.  Did Mona Lisa in fact exist?  It doesn't matter for nobody is trying to prove that one way or the other.  Did Jesus exist?  Look at all the paintings of him--he must of since those paintings are a fact.  And those paintings are powerful, if you think they are.  Or simply personification of somebodies fictional idea.  From the paintings we don't know.  The literature of his (Jesus') era can be fact or art, or both.  Carrier is exploring both of those options.   I suppose I could use fictional literature to try and determine where Bugs Bunny was born.  If I pro-port that that literature (art or not) is factual then, I could use it to show that Bugs was born in whatever place I say the literature indicated.  If that literature is fictional it then matter not where it says he was born; it's fictional.  Carrier is showing that the literature (art or not) cannot demonstrate that Jesus was a historical person, because that literature is mostly fictional or fake.   

[Baruch]

The object, Mona Lisa, is a fact.  The painting is real.  But what does it mean?  That is truly in the eye of the beholder.  And it matters not what the painter had in mind.  Did Mona Lisa in fact exist?  It doesn't matter for nobody is trying to prove that one way or the other.  Did Jesus exist?  Look at all the paintings of him--he must of since those paintings are a fact.  And those paintings are powerful, if you think they are.  Or simply personification of somebodies fictional idea.  From the paintings we don't know.  The literature of his (Jesus') era can be fact or art, or both.  Carrier is exploring both of those options.   I suppose I could use fictional literature to try and determine where Bugs Bunny was born.  If I pro-port that that literature (art or not) is factual then, I could use it to show that Bugs was born in whatever place I say the literature indicated.  If that literature is fictional it then matter not where it says he was born; it's fictional.  Carrier is showing that the literature (art or not) cannot demonstrate that Jesus was a historical person, because that literature is mostly fictional or fake.

Again, you want facts.  But facts you cannot have.  At best the past is a biased reconstruction.  The future is a waking dream.  My hand typing this is a fact, because it is here and now.  You ask what does the Mona Lisa mean?  People always think they see an enigmatic smile.  That is the question of the art critic and the lay viewer.  Is she smiling at Leonardo?  We don't know, we project.  That is what a crystal ball is good for, you can project visions into it.  But visions only you can see.  In your quest for truth, you are asking, what can two people agree to?  Not much.

Yes, Carrier is mostly telling the truth, mostly because he is sincere and mostly neutral.  His scholarship projects us out of the present and into a well reconstructed past.  But what is truth?  That is what Pontius Pilate asks Jesus.  Are you Pontius Pilate?  If you look (into the story), what do you see?  What do I see?  A Jewish hagiography, not unlike the story of Socrates.  Jesus asks Peter ... who do you say I am?  The centurion says ... "surely this is the son of a god" ... but at that time, that meant, Jesus wasn't just a minor king of the Jews, he was the Emperor of the world.

We post for whoever cares to read, not just for ourselves or the immediate target.  So I know you aren't trying to convince me of what I already know.  Are you throwing punches at Christians in your past?  I doubt many visit here, so you box with shadows in your own mind then.

[Mike Cl]

Again, you want facts.  But facts you cannot have.  At best the past is a biased reconstruction.  The future is a waking dream.  My hand typing this is a fact, because it is here and now.  You ask what does the Mona Lisa mean?  People always think they see an enigmatic smile.  That is the question of the art critic and the lay viewer.  Is she smiling at Leonardo?  We don't know, we project.  That is what a crystal ball is good for, you can project visions into it.  But visions only you can see.  In your quest for truth, you are asking, what can two people agree to?  Not much.

Yes, Carrier is mostly telling the truth, mostly because he is sincere and mostly neutral.  His scholarship projects us out of the present and into a well reconstructed past.  But what is truth?  That is what Pontius Pilate asks Jesus.  Are you Pontius Pilate?  If you look (into the story), what do you see?  What do I see?  A Jewish hagiography, not unlike the story of Socrates.  Jesus asks Peter ... who do you say I am?  The centurion says ... "surely this is the son of a god" ... but at that time, that meant, Jesus wasn't just a minor king of the Jews, he was the Emperor of the world.

We post for whoever cares to read, not just for ourselves or the immediate target.  So I know you aren't trying to convince me of what I already know.  Are you throwing punches at Christians in your past?  I doubt many visit here, so you box with shadows in your own mind then.

Mona Lisa isn't smiling--she is suffering gas pains. 

I always throw punches at christians.  Of course who knows if any will read any of this.  So, I most post for myself.  That is why I read Carrier.  To see if I can prove it for myself.  And when posting to explain things to others on this board, I often clarify points for myself.  So, being a good self-centered human, I do this mainly for myself.

[Baruch]

I have been counting.  Have you not done Carrier #3?

[Mike Cl]

I have been counting.  Have you not done Carrier #3?

Yeah, I did:  Element 2:
When Christianity began. Judaism was highly sectarian and diverse.  There was no 'normative' set of Jewish beliefs, but a countless array of different Jewish belief systems vying for popularity.  We know of at least ten competing sects,  possibly more than 30 and there could have easily been more.  .......................... No argument, therefore, can proceed from an assumption of any universally normative Judaism.

And.......................

[Mike Cl]

Element 45:
A popular version of this phenomenon in ancient faith literature was the practice of euhemerization:  the taking of a cosmic god and placing him at a definite point in history as an actual person who was later deified.  We already noted Plutrach's criticism of the trend (which he frowns upon, but in so doing concedes its popularity) in Element 14.

Euhemerus was a Greek writer of the early third century bce, who wrote a book called The Sacred Scriptures in which he depicted an imaginary scholar discovering that Zeus and Uranus were once actual kings.  In the process Euhemerus invents a history for these 'god kings', even though we know there is no plausible case to be made that either Zeus or Uranus was ever a real person.  Yet the idea caught on; biographies and histories of non-existent people proliferated, and ancient literature flowered with attempts to assign mythic heroes and gods to real historical periods and places.  .....................And many other uses were found for the procedure, as we saw for inventing King Arthur, Ned Ludd, Abraham, Moses, and other national heroes I explored in Chapter 1.  There is nothing at all unusual about doing this.

[AllPurposeAtheist]

Well WWJD now?  Hire a public relations firm..

[Mike Cl]

Well WWJD now?  Hire a public relations firm..

He already has one of the best in the history of the world!