No, biased because you presuppose things mythical that give no indication of necessarily being so. Given the exaggeration propensity of oral histories, there is little reason to disbelieve that a person of that name (Jesus Christ) existed, even if the "miracles" were not as advertised. You also seem to labor under the false dilemma that if some of it is of dubious value then all of it must be. That is a fine opinion ("nonsensical thought"), but would require some serious argument to make it the proclamation you seem to assert. Misrepresented by characterizing it a suicide and thinking the primary difference between denominations is the mode of worship. If you care to make any substantive arguments to back these, more than just proclamations, I am more than happy to challenge them. Or are you only looking to address an atheist audience?
First, I begin with an assumption that atheism is the position of anyone rational. This isn't the dark ages and there is no good reason to settle for the irrational and superstitious platform of people who believe in such things. This is, after all, supposed to be a science forum. Second, that you cannot see that Christian narratives are largely (if not entirely) myth, I would have a hard time accepting that you can be rational. Clearly a person named "Jesus" could have existed. In fact, the name was common in the ancient Near East. But it's painfully obvious that a "Jesus Christ" was invented. Not only is the story of a character that is larger-than-life (much the same as Paul Bunyon or Ahab), but the very name is one that reveals the invention: "Christ" is of the Greek christos, which translates to "anointed" and is the Greek translation of the Hebrew "messiah." So Christ isn't really part of his name, it's a designation made afterwards for the "Jesus" who was "of Nazzarath" -undoubtedly a moniker needed to differentiate him from all the other Jesus's in the region. There's little doubt that there probably existed a person that the new testament narrative was based on. But there is no good reason to accept that this narrative was accurate enough to refer to it as anything more than a myth or legend. Even Melville probably based Ahab on one or more of the many ships captains he encountered as he sailed the seas from 1841-1845. Perhaps one was even named Ahab. The writers of the gospels weren't even writing at the time of the alleged Christ. These anonymous writers based their works on perspectives they thought were accurate or interesting. The inclusion of feats of magical powers is another reason to discount these narratives as anything more than myth, legend, or perhaps historical fiction. Third, I have no false dilemma that "if some of it is of dubious value then all of it must be." I simply see no good reason to place this work of literature above any of the other mythical works humanity has created: the Koran, Popol Vuh, Bhagavad Gita, Ramayana, Egyptian Book of Dead, Jain Agamas, etc. Actually, I think it places quite a bit below many of these as literature if only because the poetry and prose of much of biblical mythology is lacking when compared with something like the Ramayana. But I find the mythology of human cultures to have value and worth. They just aren't what the superstitious would like them to be (any of these). If you're superstitious, then I don't expect you to agree with me. Cognitive dissonance pervades science forums and the superstitious flock to places like SciForums so they can pretend they're rational, logical, and critical in thought -they think science is cool, but will rarely ever take a critical or hard look at their own beliefs. We see it with the UFO nutters, the psychic wannabes, the mystery-mongers, and the significance-junkies that join somehow hoping that they'll get slaps on the back for their own "proofs" that never hold water. The same is true for the religionists, though the one advantage they have over the others is that they can always lean back, throw their hands behind their heads and proclaim "goddidit" and "his ways are not for me to understand."
That is a typical answer from so called educated , downgrade the other person to make himself more learned .
Yet you are moderator of the Religion forum and posting in Comparative Religion. There is nothing scientific about dismissing any subject out of hand, especially if you have not demonstrated any serious understanding of said subject (for example: http://www.sciforums.com/showthread...f-the-Female&p=3031072&viewfull=1#post3031072). This is similar to what pseudoscientific hacks do. And to imply that religion is wholly irrational, as you seem to be doing, would imply that something has gone awry with evolution and that it serves no benefit. Or is there some inherent benefit to the irrational? Wow. Open with an ad hominem only to immediately agree with what I said. And? I just told you: "Given the exaggeration propensity of oral histories, there is little reason to disbelieve that a person of that name (Jesus Christ) existed, even if the "miracles" were not as advertised." This occurs even in more modern histories. Or do you think "history is written by the victors" entails no exaggeration whatsoever? If you grant the person could have existed then you have refuted your own claim that he was mythical (existing only in the imagination), hence the story becomes only mythic (legendary, larger than life). Nikola Tesla was a fairly mythic person. Do you think the host of tales about him in any way casts doubt on his existence or accomplishments? Who said anything about elevating the Bible over any other religious scripture? At least you qualified ("if") that implied ad hominem. You will never find me saying "god did it" or that anything is "beyond understanding", so maybe you have made a hasty generalization here. Your bias seems to preclude you from having a rational discussion about religion, other than to make proclamations (which is the MO of many religious people, btw).
Didn't you just admit that the miracle working Jesus is a myth? While there very well may have been a real person behind the image, this isn't someone we know very much about.
"Mythical" does not necessarily mean fictitious. It can mean that, but it doesn't have to. Skinwalker obviously did not mean it that way. "Mythic" is a better word in these situations, because it prevent people like you from trying to claim a cheap semantic victory, but again, the word does not necessarily mean fictitious. One could call Jesus a mythical figure and be definitionally referring to his character in history rather than whether or not he or anyone like him actually existed.
Syne's trying to win the semantic game. He's pretending that "mythical" can only mean "fictitious," which is untrue. It's what you'd expect from Syne at this point, though.
So everything he taught was pulled out of thin air, huh? It is just more likely that he did exist and did teach as ascribed and that this was the basis upon which people exaggerated. Why not let SkinWalker answer for what he meant? I did not say mythical necessarily meant fictitious, and I did say that "mythic" was more apropos. So it seems you are somehow managing to sound contrary by parroting me. Balerion just being a troll, with multiple posts in a row criticizing something he seems to agree with. Now why do not you run along and play and let the adults continue the discussion?
Yes you did, liar. Skinwalker never explicitly said Jesus didn't exist, he simply said that the figure was mythical. You took that to mean "fictitious." And he did clarify what he meant: Do you remember your response to that? Oops! Busted. No you didn't, liar. You used the word, yes, but you never said it was more accurate than "mythical" for the point Skin was trying to convey. Again, you even defined mythical as "existing only in the imagination," so clearly that was your impression. You even accused him of contradicting himself when he clarified by saying he didn't doubt the NT character had a basis in reality. Are you genuinely confused, or is this just more of your intellectual dishonesty on display? I didn't agree with anything you said. I've clearly demonstrated that you're trying to play a semantic game. Actually, I had originally thought it was a conscious effort on your part, since you know you're in over your head you're simply trying to find something to cling to, but now I'm starting to think that you really just don't know what the hell you're talking about. Take it to PM if you don't want extra participants.
I'm afraid it's you who doesn't like Christianity as it has been revealed...your characterization of Christianity doesn't effect me one way or another. Like I said you do not possess the requisite humility for admission to nursery school.
I never said mythical "necessarily" meant imaginary. But of course you are a troll who is more interested in being as inflammatory as possible. At most, what I did was make a straw man of his argument, but SkinWalker's entire post was very ambiguous on the matter of whether the Jesus in the Bible was, aside from the "miracles", a fairly faithful depiction of an actual person. He grants that "there probably existed a person that the new testament narrative was based on", but then heavily qualifies that with an example of fiction: "Even Melville probably based Ahab on one or more of the many ships captains he encountered as he sailed the seas from 1841-1845." It is your trollish bias which seems to preclude you from reading what was actually written. But all of your little "gotchas" are amusing. Any rational adult should be able to understand the following as saying that "mythic" was more apropos: Notice how I gave a real life example, as opposed to his fictitious example. Hence him needing to clarify his own meaning, rather than have trolls like you make vain attempts to do so on his behalf. And why on earth would I want to PM someone who repeatedly proclaims he is going to ignore me whenever his poor arguments so quickly fail him?
This is insane. Your words are right there for everyone to see, and yet you're still maintaining your lie. You absolutely said that he was talking about mythical in the sense of meaning "imaginary." It's right there on the page. Here, I'll quote it again: Again, busted. Those are your words. It's a direct quote from you. If you didn't say that he necessarily meant Jesus was imaginary, then when he clarified his position, you wouldn't have written what is in the above quote. I mean, seriously. What was actually written was this: Had you simply been nitpicking his usage of "mythical" instead of "mythic," you wouldn't accused him of flip-flopping when he clarified that he assumes there was some historical basis for Jesus. And then you asked him if Tesla--another figure with larger-than-life attributes--was also someone whose historicity SkinWalker doubted, as if SkinWalker hadn't just said that he didn't doubt an historical Jesus figure did exist. So I don't know who you're trying to kid here, or if you're just genuinely confused by this topic, but in either case you're on the wrong side of it. Ad homs and entrenching yourself isn't going to do anything but make you look stupid and petty. He had already said he didn't think Jesus was a wholly fabricated figure, so you (obviously rhetorically) asking if the larger-than-life figure of Tesla gives reason to doubt his existence was a straw man. But this is typical of you, as you have the integrity of a four-year-old with his hand in the cookie jar. I have no idea what your relationship with SkinWalker is, but I'm certain you've never won an argument with him. You don't attempt to make actual points, you attempt to maintain the appearance of correctness by lying and knocking down straw men until your opponent gets fed up and walks away. I've never seen you keep a discussion on the level. Not once. Not even with that GIA fella, who couldn't form a coherent defense of his position if his life depended on it. All I'm saying is that if you don't want others getting involved in your debate, debate via PM. This is a public discussion forum, not your own private clubhouse.
Yep, they are right there for anyone to see. Just like your repeated quote-mining of only part of my sentence: If you grant the person could have existed then you have refuted your own claim that he was mythical (existing only in the imagination), hence the story becomes only mythic (legendary, larger than life). I have already told you that he needs to clarify his own post, rather than have some troll drag it through the mud for him. Again? Really? Oh, you mean every time you repeat the exact same truncated quote? You fail to see where his position is not clear, and how that can only be resolved by him, not your self-appointed troll defense. Really? You mean you have repeated that truncated quote this much and have yet to notice the qualifier at the very beginning? If you grant the person could have existed then... Obviously, "if" denotes some doubt on the degree to which he believes such a person may have existed. Again, something only he can clarify. He admitted no more than that some guy named Jesus existed. He gave every qualification imaginable for that person to have little or nothing to do with the Biblical story. He said: 1. "a person named "Jesus" could have existed" - "the name was common" - "painfully obvious that a "Jesus Christ" was invented" - "a character that is larger-than-life (much the same as Paul Bunyon or Ahab)" [both fictional] - "the very name is one that reveals the invention"2. "there probably existed a person that the new testament narrative was based on" - "there is no good reason to accept that this narrative was accurate [i.e. not factual, you know, fiction] enough to refer to it as anything more than a myth or legend" - "Even Melville probably based Ahab on one or more of the many ships captains he encountered" [again, fictional] - "These anonymous writers based their works on perspectives they thought were accurate or interesting" [at best, an equal likelihood of being fictional or substantially real]3. "The inclusion of feats of magical powers is another reason to discount these narratives as anything more than myth, legend, or perhaps historical fiction." 4. "Christian narratives are largely (if not entirely) myth" Now if you really think you can make an argument for each of these necessarily precluding being fictitious then by all means let us hear your prodigious ( I mean specious) reasoning for each. This is about the time you usually proclaim you are ignoring me again. You misunderstand. I was talking about you, not him. As in PM you in an attempt to keep your trolling out of this thread. I have never discouraged public discussion, only trolls like you, who do not know any better than to shit all over the floor.
You're right, adding the extra bit only makes my case stronger for me. You draw a hard line between mythical and mythic, and posit that mythic is not at all what he was trying to say. This despite him already having clarified the fact that he believes Jesus was a historical figure. He already has. And when he did, you accused him of flip-flopping. Jesus Christ, troll, did you already forget? This is clarification. Clarification that you called a reversal. Remember? His position is entirely clear. He clarified it in the post you responded to and accused him of flip-flopping. You're just lying now that you've been caught in this attempt to play the semantics game. He said mythical, which is a perfectly acceptable word for the point he was trying to convey, and when he saw your confusion at it he clarified. When he clarified, you, troll that you are, jumped on it and pretend that he was actually contradicting himself. You call that an integrity move? No, that's typical Syne troll BS. And you apparently think no one can see what followed: then you have refuted your own claim that he was mythical (existing only in the imagination) Okay, so then you didn't even bother to read his post. This was in the passage you quoted before accusing him of flip-flopping: You really expect us to believe this is unclear to you? I mean, granted, I don't think you're the sharpest knife in the drawer, but I refuse to believe that you are confused as to his meaning. It's quite obvious that you simply did not know that "mythical" does not necessarily mean "existing in one's imagination." You even defined the word as such in the passage I've quoted here multiple times, so you're not fooling anyone. Ah, see, again, you're full of crap. He admitted this: You really can't see the difference? Again, I think you can, and you're just trying to obfuscate the matter. That's different. He's saying that the narrative is largely myth, which is quite obvious to anyone who isn't a brainwashed zealot. Unless you really believe that a guy performed miracles and rose from the dead. Oh wait, you do! The matter at hand here was his position whether or not there was an historical Jesus, which he agrees there probably was. Your point about Tesla speaks precisely to that, not to the dismissal of those larger-than-life myths created around him. He's admitting that the figure this myth is based upon might have even been named Jesus. Sometimes mythic figures are amalgams of several people. Consider the myths of William Wallace. While there really was such a person, many of his "deeds" are just myth, while others are actual deeds done by others and credited to him, creating a sort of umbrella figure under the name of William Wallace. In other words, if there was an historical figure the NT was based on, it doesn't necessitate that this person's name was Jesus, or that many of his attributes are accurately depicted in the texts. Yes, the NT character of Jesus Christ was invented. That doesn't mean that the character wasn't based on someone. There is a very invented Nikola Tesla, as well: the one who invented free energy and practiced dark arts, etc.. He also allows for the potential that Ahab is based on an actual ship captain, perhaps even named Ahab. The point he's making is that many of the events written of him are fictional, not that he is himself fictional. But this is clear to anyone with a brain, so I seriously doubt that you're confused by this. Talk about quote-mining, you hypocritical troll: Now what's confusing or obscure about that? Seriously? You're taking his admission that there probably was an historical Jesus to mean that there wasn't? I mean... Again, he's talking about the narrative being fictitious, not the person. Are you really this dense, or am I simply witnessing an all-time low in human integrity? Yes, the narratives, the story. You know the difference between people and events, no? He's saying that Jesus probably existed, but his story is probably a myth. Obviously. Are you being serious? One of the items you list is ""there probably existed a person that the new testament narrative was based on." I would say that necessarily precludes being fictitious. To think, all of this instead of just admitting that you got the meaning of "mythical" wrong. All it would have taken is you saying "Oops, I guess he didn't necessarily mean imaginary or fictional." But that would require some level of humility, and more than zero integrity. And besides, without that little semantic BS to hold on to, you'd literally have nothing to say. None of your points to follow have been about anything other than you taking umbrage with his claim that there was no historical basis for Jesus, and if you were to admit he never actually claimed that (and moreover, that he actually claimed the opposite) then where would you be? Impotently defending your ridiculous faith to a person who is intellectually and educationally out of your league. I ignore you because you're a troll who never has anything of value to add to a discussion. In fact, you're on my ignore list right now. There is a neat little feature which lets me select which ignored posts I wish to view at any given time, and it's only by pure curiosity that I picked up your latest run. And I'm glad I did, because I got to call you out on an exceedingly childish and unethical tactic you attempted to employ with SkinWalker. Your subsequent humiliation has been a pleasure to witness. But, if I feel like I'm getting near the end of my patience with your persistent lies or insults, I can simply choose not to open any more of your posts. It's a very nice system, actually. Right, because that makes sense. You complained about me being here, so i told you to take it to PM if you didn't want outsiders. You took that to mean PM me? Maybe I was too kind in assuming that this semantics business was intellectually beneath you. Keep flailing, liar. I'm really enjoying it.
You've no reason to think that he didn't exist, and every reason to think that he did. That you need to fall on this device to give self-validation could mean you are more a follower of his than you care to consider. jan.
Except for, of course, the walking on water, turning water into wine, rising from the dead... and all that other impossible stuff.
There's plenty of reason to think that he might not have, and only circumstantial evidence to suggest that he did. Like, why didn't he write anything? Why is there so little written about him? How come none of it comes from outside of scripture? Where are the secular sources? Now, granted, that alone isn't proof that he didn't exist, but it is reason to doubt it. The only reason to assume he did, in my view, is because of the trouble the authors went to to make him born in the city of David.
Sort of like the laundry list for a You know you might be a fictional character if... parody. In fact I think the only reference to Jesus anywhere near his lifetime is in Josephus' work--just a passing reference, which appears to have been inserted later by Christian copyists. As for the City of David, I think Christians have been confused by this and similar references in the Bible. They fail to notice that this was a recently created idea (the notin f a Messiah) perhaps just a century before the Jesus story emerges. Also, some of the text concerning captivity in Persia and Babylonia was probably written very late. Things were written out of order and made to look as if they were prophetic, etc.
