What is Christianity?

[Balerion]

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.

Yeah, I leave Josephus out precisely because, as far as I'm aware, it seems to accepted as a fraud.

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.

I agree, though I have to think that without some kind of historical figure, there wouldn't be the need for such subterfuge. If he was a wholecloth fabrication, why not just put him where he's supposed to be?

 

[Jan Ardena]

Balerion,

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?

Even if you use these objections, they still don't amount to him never having existed, which is why there is no point in using these diversions.
On the other hand, his existence would not be verified if these things were in place, and as such another diversion tactic would have to be used.

How come none of it comes from outside of scripture?

What's wrong with scripture (apart from your own bias)?

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.

Secular sources aren't concerned with spiritual things.


jan.

 

[Balerion]

Even if you use these objections, they still don't amount to him never having existed, which is why there is no point in using these diversions.

Nonsense. You can't prove someone never existed, you can only go by the evidence one way or the other. Those objections add up to there being plenty of reason to doubt his existence. Remember, your point was that there was "no reason to think he didn't exist," which is proven untrue by those objections. Those are very valid reasons to suspect he might not have existed.

What's wrong with scripture (apart from your own bias)?

The fact that it was written, copied, and collected by various people across decades and centuries for whom maintaining the myth was in their best interest.

Secular sources aren't concerned with spiritual things.

Oy vey. Seriously, Jan?

I'm talking about secular sources making mention of this alleged historical Jesus. Why aren't there all these historical accounts of him doing--or even alleging to do--these acts?

 

[kx000]

A following of a book, with words not written by Jesus.

 

[Syne]

You're right, adding the extra bit only makes my case stronger for me.

No, adding the rest of the sentence shows how you have made a trolling confrontation out of nothing. Compare:

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). -me

"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. -you​

Disregarding you paper-thin argument about "mythical" in no way implying fictitious, you only parroted what I said, even using the same words.

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.

First, I explicitly said "if", so I clearly indicated that I was not certain what he was trying to say.

Second, historical figure? The only thing SkinWalker said about being historical was:

The inclusion of feats of magical powers is another reason to discount these narratives as anything more than myth, legend, or perhaps historical fiction.
​

Seems you have decided what you think he meant, regardless of his actual words, just as you are doing with me. No wonder you are so eager to keep steamrolling instead of simply waiting for him to answer for himself.

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.

The only trolling here is from you, as you are so worked up you cannot even manage to wait for him to possibly confirm what you are claiming and clear up his position for me. If he did not mean fictitious at all then he would have said "historical". Instead, he said "mythical" and "historical fiction". But keep up all the ad homs, they really seem to be selling your nonsense.

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:

I do not appreciate you quoting SkinWalker and attributing it to me.

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.

All of his qualifiers seemed to indicate that any actual "Jesus" had little or nothing to do with the story, just like Melville perhaps having met a captain named Ahab. Are you trying to say that Moby Dick was "historical"?!

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.

Yep, and the only examples he gave of stories possibly being based on real people are works of fiction. Seems pretty clear. I did give him a real life example, Tesla, but he has yet to respond to that. I am doing nothing but waiting for him to clarify his own post, rather than have it distorted by a troll like you.

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.

Way to erect a straw man, make a hasty generalization, and make it an ad hominem to boot. Talk about your intellectual dishonesty. Earlier, I clearly said:

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.​

Trolling imbecile.

And there is plenty of the narrative that is not larger-than-life. Even if you admit the teaching are an amalgam of those of others, you lend credence to the fact that man could originate such, and cast no doubt that a single man could have made such a synthesis.

Again, SkinWalker never said anything about being historical other than "historical fiction". He has not made it clear that he thinks there is any fact in the story of Jesus, and has yet to respond to my example of Tesla. If he thinks that Jesus was real and that the narrative was largely true, discounting the obviously fantastical miracles (just as the fantastical is discounted in stories of Tesla), then he loses all grounds to claim it wholly irrational to think it so (which was exactly what he was claiming).

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.

Nowhere does he reference any real examples, only fiction. Now if you want to make this argument on your own, that is fine, but he did not make any such argument. You keep saying "historical figure" where SkinWalker never did. Pull you head out of your ass already.

Talk about quote-mining, you hypocritical troll:

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.

Now what's confusing or obscure about that?

And? Several of the disciples had Greek names, and the Hebrew "messiah" is the Greek "christos". Do you think people who purportedly traveled and came from Greece would not have used the Greek word contemporary to Jesus?

Seriously? You're taking his admission that there probably was an historical Jesus to mean that there wasn't? I mean...

Saying there was an actual person Superman was very loosely based on is very far from admitting there was an historical Superman. This whole "historical" argument of yours is a complete straw man, and one that I would hazard SkinWalker would not appreciate.

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.

If the narrative is wholly fictitious then there is absolutely no point in positing any actual person. But I know, your trolling rant precludes you from reasoning well, as you have demonstrated before.

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.

Boy, you must really think you can get a lot of mileage out of all those ad hominems and appeals to emotion. "Based on" directly implies that it is not wholly accurate, hence some degree of fiction and hence mythical.

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.

Maybe you should catch up on the discussion then, as either you have missed crucial bits or you are just blatantly intellectually dishonest. Although, even from just our past encounters, the intellectual dishonesty is much more likely.

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.

It does if you are not prone to false dilemmas. Just because I wish you would not troll the thread does not mean that I wish all other input barred, as it would be in PM. Thus the only reasonable option would be to try to engage you in PM hoping to avoid trashing this thread with your nonsense. But like I said, you would be even more apt to go back to ignoring me, especially when you would not be so overly concerned with saving face.

 

[Photizo]

A following of a book, with words not written by Jesus.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fNhh0IjcroA

 

[Balerion]

No, adding the rest of the sentence shows how you have made a trolling confrontation out of nothing. Compare:

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). -me

"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. -you​

Disregarding you paper-thin argument about "mythical" in no way implying fictitious, you only parroted what I said, even using the same words.

I didn't say it in no way implies fictitious. It certainly can, and your initial confusion on the matter can be understood. It's your continued assertion that it must have meant fictitious that is at issue. You were not implying that mythic is a better word for SkinWalker's point; you were employing it with Tesla to show that not all characters with spurious histories are necessarily ahistorical. In other words, you weren't of the opinion that SkinWalker was trying to say "mythic," you were of the opinion that in using "mythical" he necessarily meant fictitious. Otherwise nothing of what you said to follow would have made sense.

First, I explicitly said "if", so I clearly indicated that I was not certain what he was trying to say.

I read that as a rhetorical "if" and I maintain that's how you meant it. But even if you weren't lying (and what are the odds of that?) you'd still be guilty of trying to insist upon a particular definition of the word that SkinWalker did not intend, even though he explicitly clarified his position in a previous post.

Second, historical figure? The only thing SkinWalker said about being historical was:

The inclusion of feats of magical powers is another reason to discount these narratives as anything more than myth, legend, or perhaps historical fiction.
​

Seems you have decided what you think he meant, regardless of his actual words, just as you are doing with me. No wonder you are so eager to keep steamrolling instead of simply waiting for him to answer for himself.

More semantic games? He said he believed Jesus was based on a real person. Just because he didn't say "Jesus was an historical figure" doesn't mean he didn't convey as much using different words. Man, you have zero integrity.

The only trolling here is from you, as you are so worked up you cannot even manage to wait for him to possibly confirm what you are claiming and clear up his position for me. If he did not mean fictitious at all then he would have said "historical". Instead, he said "mythical" and "historical fiction". But keep up all the ad homs, they really seem to be selling your nonsense.

He's already clarified. You're the only one who seems to be confused--though we both know you're not really confused, and that you're just pulling your typical dishonest bullshit so you don't have to admit you were wrong. It's pathological with you at this point.

All of his qualifiers seemed to indicate that any actual "Jesus" had little or nothing to do with the story, just like Melville perhaps having met a captain named Ahab. Are you trying to say that Moby Dick was "historical"?!

What a surprise, you're moving the goal posts. Now in order to agree that Jesus was based on a real person, we have to admit that he really did any of the things attributed to him? No, sorry, that's not part of the deal. There's no reason to believe the stories of the Christ are true in any fashion. You have all of your work in front of you if you want anyone to believe any of that crap actually happened.

Yep, and the only examples he gave of stories possibly being based on real people are works of fiction. Seems pretty clear.

Wow, I really do give you too much credit. Can you not see the point he was making? Scripture is fiction. But fictional stories can feature real characters, or at least be based on actual characters.

I did give him a real life example, Tesla, but he has yet to respond to that. I am doing nothing but waiting for him to clarify his own post, rather than have it distorted by a troll like you.

The question was absurd. First, we know Tesla was a real person. There is an historical record of his existence, so dismissing him based on the false stories attributed to him would be ridiculous. As it pertains to Jesus, we have no historical record of him outside of scripture, which is a dubious source to say the very least, considering its claims of miracles and gods floating around on clouds, so we have no "real" Jesus to contrast these fantastic claims against. However, in either case, we can safely say that the characters in these tales--both in the Jesus Christ stories and in the "Free Energy Occult" Nikola Tesla--are fictitious. Just as the Edward Longshanks is fictional in Braveheart. He has a real-life basis, but the character you see on the screen is fictional. Can you follow this ridiculously simple premise, or are you out to lunch here, as well?

Way to erect a straw man, make a hasty generalization, and make it an ad hominem to boot. Talk about your intellectual dishonesty. Earlier, I clearly said:

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.​

[/quote]

Fantastic job of missing the point. I'm really tired of having to explain simple things to you over and over again.

Trolling imbecile.

Clever.

And there is plenty of the narrative that is not larger-than-life. Even if you admit the teaching are an amalgam of those of others, you lend credence to the fact that man could originate such, and cast no doubt that a single man could have made such a synthesis.

No one said it's impossible that a man--or a group of men--taught some of what is attributed to Jesus in the bible. What SkinWalker is dismissing is the whole arc of his story. I mean, there are teachers who have been bullied by students, and teachers who have fought back against them. But that doesn't mean "The Principal" actually happened.

Again, SkinWalker never said anything about being historical other than "historical fiction".

Liar. You don't even have any shame, do you? Holy crap. He said he believed there was an actual person Jesus was based on.

He has not made it clear that he thinks there is any fact in the story of Jesus, and has yet to respond to my example of Tesla.

Are you blind, or do you just have trouble reading?

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.

What isn't clear about that?

If he thinks that Jesus was real and that the narrative was largely true, discounting the obviously fantastical miracles (just as the fantastical is discounted in stories of Tesla), then he loses all grounds to claim it wholly irrational to think it so (which was exactly what he was claiming).

Why would anyone who isn't some fraudulent, pseudo-intellectual hack such as yourself believe that the Jesus narrative is largely true? There's literally no mention of him outside of scriptural sources, save for one phony passage attributed to Josephus. It's like asking us to believe that Tesla was a real guy with real accomplishments based on nothing but "The Prestige." If we had no independent sources to verify Tesla, and only the obviously false accounts of his life and work, then it would be perfectly reasonable to assume that the story of Tesla--as we know it--is fiction. If you have some other documentation of Jesus that doesn't include these ridiculous feats and him being this well-known guy that absolutely no one contemporary to him is writing about, by all means, let us see it. Until then, we have no reason to believe that the narrative is "largely true," and every reason to believe it is mostly--if not entirely--false.

Nowhere does he reference any real examples, only fiction. Now if you want to make this argument on your own, that is fine, but he did not make any such argument. You keep saying "historical figure" where SkinWalker never did. Pull you head out of your ass already.

I advise you to do the same, because he clearly said that he believed there was a real basis for the Jesus character. He even said it's possible that his name was Jesus. You are again hung up on these useless details and missing the actual point. I used to think this was intentional, but I'm no longer so sure.

Saying there was an actual person Superman was very loosely based on is very far from admitting there was an historical Superman.

No there isn't. You're again having a difficult time separating people from events. If it is true that Lucius Artorius Castus is the basis for King Arthur, then Lucius is the historical Arthur. It doesn't matter that he did none of the things attributed to him as King Arthur, nor that he never lived in a place called Camelot (or even a real-life analog). It only matters that his acts and deeds and personality were the impetus for the creation of the myth.

This whole "historical" argument of yours is a complete straw man, and one that I would hazard SkinWalker would not appreciate.

I don't think you know what a straw man is.

If there narrative is wholly fictitious then there is absolutely no point in positing any actual person.

Oops! According to whom?

Boy, you must really think you can get a lot of mileage out of all those ad hominems and appeals to emotion. "Based on" directly implies that it is not wholly accurate, hence some degree of fiction and hence mythical.

Now you're trying to change definitions. Sorry, chum, that's not how it works. "Based on" is the same as "historical" is the same as "basis for." Otherwise, you'd refute your own claim that there can be an historical Jesus who did not perform miracles. Then the historical Jesus would not be "wholly accurate." Oops!

Flail, flail, flail.

 

[Syne]

I didn't say it in no way implies fictitious. It certainly can, and your initial confusion on the matter can be understood. It's your continued assertion that it must have meant fictitious that is at issue. You were not implying that mythic is a better word for SkinWalker's point; you were employing it with Tesla to show that not all characters with spurious histories are necessarily ahistorical. In other words, you weren't of the opinion that SkinWalker was trying to say "mythic," you were of the opinion that in using "mythical" he necessarily meant fictitious. Otherwise nothing of what you said to follow would have made sense.



I read that as a rhetorical "if" and I maintain that's how you meant it. But even if you weren't lying (and what are the odds of that?) you'd still be guilty of trying to insist upon a particular definition of the word that SkinWalker did not intend, even though he explicitly clarified his position in a previous post.

You can "maintain" whatever fiction helps you feel like you have justified your nonsense. That is a personal issue.

myth·i·cal
1 based on or described in a myth especially as contrasted with history
2 usually mythical : existing only in the imagination : fictitious, imaginary
3 usually mythic : having qualities suitable to myth : legendary
-http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/mythical


myth·i·cal
adj.
1. Of or existing in myth: the mythical unicorn.
2. Imaginary; fictitious.
3. often mythic Of, relating to, or having the nature of a myth
-http://www.thefreedictionary.com/mythical


myth·i·cal
adjective
1. pertaining to, of the nature of, or involving a myth.
2. dealt with in myth, as a prehistoric period.
3. dealing with myths, as writing.
4. existing only in myth, as a person.
5. without foundation in fact; imaginary; fictitious
-http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/mythical​

I used the first definition, above, for both "mythical" and "mythic". You will notice that I added SkinWalker's own wording to the definition of "mythic":

Not only is the story of a character that is larger-than-life (much the same as Paul Bunyon or Ahab)

hence the story becomes only mythic (legendary, larger than life)

The point is that I am in doubt about what SkinWalker was trying to say, and your trolling does not help the least little bit. You should really quit talking as self-appointed representative for others. As it stands, your whole argument is hobbled by the simple fact that it is not your own. Maybe you should make your own, independent arguments. At least that way you could not weasel around about what you only think someone's argument is.

More semantic games? He said he believed Jesus was based on a real person. Just because he didn't say "Jesus was an historical figure" doesn't mean he didn't convey as much using different words. Man, you have zero integrity.

Integrity? Oh, you mean like proclaiming what others believe, even contrary to being told otherwise?

Clearly a person named "Jesus" could have existed.
...
There's little doubt that there probably existed a person that the new testament narrative was based on.

Nowhere did he state a belief that anything about the story was accurate to the person.

He's already clarified. You're the only one who seems to be confused--though we both know you're not really confused, and that you're just pulling your typical dishonest bullshit so you don't have to admit you were wrong. It's pathological with you at this point.

If he already fully clarified his point then why do you have such a obsession to re-clarify it ad nauseam? Yes, I get it that you disagree with what I say, but none of your nonsense will substitute for him confirming his own meaning.

What a surprise, you're moving the goal posts. Now in order to agree that Jesus was based on a real person, we have to admit that he really did any of the things attributed to him? No, sorry, that's not part of the deal. There's no reason to believe the stories of the Christ are true in any fashion. You have all of your work in front of you if you want anyone to believe any of that crap actually happened.

The only goalpost moved is the one where you suddenly introduced this nonsense about him claiming Jesus was an actual, historical figure. Do not confuse my argument to your nonsense with my refute of SkinWalker's post. It is only your claim that Jesus was an "historical figure" that warrants such attribution.

Yet, there is "a consensus of sorts" on the basic outline of Jesus' life in that most scholars agree that Jesus was baptized by John the Baptist, debated Jewish authorities on the subject of God, performed some healings, gathered followers, and was crucified by Roman prefect Pontius Pilate. -http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historical_Jesus​

That seems like enough to warrant him an actual historical figure, hence refuting that the narrative is "largely myth". You cannot coherently make both arguments at once. Now this may be a problem of trying to argue on someone's behalf, but it is more likely that I am being generous there.

Wow, I really do give you too much credit. Can you not see the point he was making? Scripture is fiction. But fictional stories can feature real characters, or at least be based on actual characters.

If the only history we have for a person is wholly fictional then we have absolutely no evidence that any such real person ever existed. You can say you believe one did, but that has no bearing on whether the narrative about them has any merit. If the narrative is wholly fictional then you cannot claim the person an historical figure based on anything but your belief. Either way you are asserting nothing but beliefs, without any more support in evidence than any opposing belief.

That is not science, regardless of what SkinWalker alludes.

The question was absurd. First, we know Tesla was a real person. There is an historical record of his existence, so dismissing him based on the false stories attributed to him would be ridiculous. As it pertains to Jesus, we have no historical record of him outside of scripture, which is a dubious source to say the very least, considering its claims of miracles and gods floating around on clouds, so we have no "real" Jesus to contrast these fantastic claims against. However, in either case, we can safely say that the characters in these tales--both in the Jesus Christ stories and in the "Free Energy Occult" Nikola Tesla--are fictitious. Just as the Edward Longshanks is fictional in Braveheart. He has a real-life basis, but the character you see on the screen is fictional. Can you follow this ridiculously simple premise, or are you out to lunch here, as well?

Exactly. We have plenty of independently verifiable sources for the existence of people like Nicola Tesla. That is what makes him a bona fide historical figure. So how can you claim Jesus is definitely an historical figure without any similar verifiability? Seems you are just being a contrary troll without any substance whatsoever.

Your argument seems to rely on a false dilemma of any fictional character (by your account) necessarily being based on a real person. Now you can claim that all fiction is based on an amalgam of reality, but that is stretching your argument to the point of complete triviality.

Way to erect a straw man, make a hasty generalization, and make it an ad hominem to boot. Talk about your intellectual dishonesty. Earlier, I clearly said:

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.​

Fantastic job of missing the point. I'm really tired of having to explain simple things to you over and over again.

Oh, you mean the point of you evading providing the least little bit of support for your little tirade of fallacies and outright lies? No, the point is that you made a complete fool of yourself by trying to characterize me as contrary to my consistently expressed views.

No one said it's impossible that a man--or a group of men--taught some of what is attributed to Jesus in the bible. What SkinWalker is dismissing is the whole arc of his story. I mean, there are teachers who have been bullied by students, and teachers who have fought back against them. But that doesn't mean "The Principal" actually happened.

You continue to assume more than SkinWalker said. Be a man, make you own arguments instead of trying to hide behind his. Or is that the whole point? Are you seeking to use his status as moderator as some kind of appeal to authority?

So based on nothing but a fictional story, you claim that we necessarily assume that Jim Belushi's character was based on a real person? What about Jabba the Hut? He was based on a real mobster, right? Again, if that is the point you are trying to make then it is completely trivial and has nothing to do with any person being historical.

Again, SkinWalker never said anything about being historical other than "historical fiction".

Liar. You don't even have any shame, do you? Holy crap. He said he believed there was an actual person Jesus was based on.

Then find me where he said Jesus was an "historical figure", troll. He did not, nor did he even imply it.

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...

He explicitly doubts the veracity of the story being accurate enough to confer such a status, and even goes on to compare him with a garden variety fictional character. You are deluded to think otherwise.

Why would anyone who isn't some fraudulent, pseudo-intellectual hack such as yourself believe that the Jesus narrative is largely true? There's literally no mention of him outside of scriptural sources, save for one phony passage attributed to Josephus. It's like asking us to believe that Tesla was a real guy with real accomplishments based on nothing but "The Prestige." If we had no independent sources to verify Tesla, and only the obviously false accounts of his life and work, then it would be perfectly reasonable to assume that the story of Tesla--as we know it--is fiction. If you have some other documentation of Jesus that doesn't include these ridiculous feats and him being this well-known guy that absolutely no one contemporary to him is writing about, by all means, let us see it. Until then, we have no reason to believe that the narrative is "largely true," and every reason to believe it is mostly--if not entirely--false.

Again, exactly why he was not saying that Jesus was an historical figure. Just like no one in their right mind would try to say that the Great Danton was an historical figure. If scripture is wholly fictional then, at most, only the theologians, etc. who promoted it to its historical prominence qualify as historical figures. Do you assume that all of the gods were also based on real people? Or just the incarnate ones?

Saying there was an actual person Superman was very loosely based on is very far from admitting there was an historical Superman.

No there isn't. You're again having a difficult time separating people from events. If it is true that Lucius Artorius Castus is the basis for King Arthur, then Lucius is the historical Arthur. It doesn't matter that he did none of the things attributed to him as King Arthur, nor that he never lived in a place called Camelot (or even a real-life analog). It only matters that his acts and deeds and personality were the impetus for the creation of the myth.

Really?! So you are saying there could be an "historical Superman"? That is hilarious. Again, we have evidence that Castus actually existed, so it is the actual person who could be the historical basis. You are the one who insists we have no credible evidence for the existence of Jesus. So from what do you insist an historical basis would have existed?

This whole "historical" argument of yours is a complete straw man, and one that I would hazard SkinWalker would not appreciate.

I don't think you know what a straw man is.

Pretty straight forward. You are claiming SkinWalker made an argument that he very well may not have made at all. Look it up. Oh, I see. You are confused over the straw man not being erected for the purpose of it being refuted. I will explain it to you...slowly. You are conflating "erecting a straw man" with "attacking a straw man". You did the former but not the later. You can attribute an erroneous argument to someone for other purposes than to attack it directly. For any purpose it is a logical fallacy.

If the narrative is wholly fictitious then there is absolutely no point in positing any actual person.

Oops! According to whom?

What would be the point? If the narrative does not reflect on the supposed real person in any way then, barring any independent evidence, we have no evidence for their existence at all. You cannot get much more irrelevant than that.

And you seem to be imagining gotchas I cannot even guess at now. Self-delusion is degenerative.

Now you're trying to change definitions. Sorry, chum, that's not how it works. "Based on" is the same as "historical" is the same as "basis for." Otherwise, you'd refute your own claim that there can be an historical Jesus who did not perform miracles. Then the historical Jesus would not be "wholly accurate." Oops!

Really?! "Based on" = "historical"? What utter nonsense.

his·tor·i·cal
adjective
1. of, pertaining to, treating, or characteristic of history or past events: historical records; historical research.
2. based on or reconstructed from an event, custom, style, etc., in the past: a historical reenactment of the battle of Gettysburg.
3. having once existed or lived in the real world, as opposed to being part of legend or fiction or as distinguished from religious belief: to doubt that a historical Camelot ever existed; a theologian's study of the historical Jesus.
4. narrated or mentioned in history; belonging to the past.
5. noting or pertaining to analysis based on a comparison among several periods of development of a phenomenon, as in language or economics.
-http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/historical​

So by that reasoning, we can learn accurate history from any "based on a true story". Any exaggeration must be inconsequential. Wait a minute, exaggerations like "miracles"?

 

[Balerion]

You can "maintain" whatever fiction helps you feel like you have justified your nonsense. That is a personal issue.

myth·i·cal
1 based on or described in a myth especially as contrasted with history
2 usually mythical : existing only in the imagination : fictitious, imaginary
3 usually mythic : having qualities suitable to myth : legendary
-http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/mythical


myth·i·cal
adj.
1. Of or existing in myth: the mythical unicorn.
2. Imaginary; fictitious.
3. often mythic Of, relating to, or having the nature of a myth
-http://www.thefreedictionary.com/mythical


myth·i·cal
adjective
1. pertaining to, of the nature of, or involving a myth.
2. dealt with in myth, as a prehistoric period.
3. dealing with myths, as writing.
4. existing only in myth, as a person.
5. without foundation in fact; imaginary; fictitious
-http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/mythical​

I used the first definition, above, for both "mythical" and "mythic". You will notice that I added SkinWalker's own wording to the definition of "mythic":

So you admit you were mistaken. That's fine, at first. The problem, as I've said before, is that you continued to assert he was flip-flopping on the issue. This simply is not the case, as he clarified his position, and the word "mythical," while perhaps not the best word he could have used, still works.

The point is that I am in doubt about what SkinWalker was trying to say, and your trolling does not help the least little bit. You should really quit talking as self-appointed representative for others. As it stands, your whole argument is hobbled by the simple fact that it is not your own. Maybe you should make your own, independent arguments. At least that way you could not weasel around about what you only think someone's argument is.

This is obviously disingenuous, as his point is clear. He has said he believed Jesus was based on a real figure. No more needs to be said on that matter.

Integrity? Oh, you mean like proclaiming what others believe, even contrary to being told otherwise?

Yes, that is exactly what I mean, and what you have done repeatedly. I shouldn't have to quote your dishonest passages for what would be the sixth or seventh time, should I?

Nowhere did he state a belief that anything about the story was accurate to the person.

Another lie. He stated that he believed the narrative was mostly, if not entirely, fabricated. And again, for there to be an "historical" basis for a character, said basis does not actually have to have done the things attributed to the character. Historical Arthur does not have to have been king, or rule from a place called Camelot, or have a round table of trusted knights, or any of the attributes of the Arthurian legend. He simply needs to be the basis for the myth. Maybe he was a mighty soldier, or a particularly competent general. Same goes for Jesus: perhaps he was in fact an apocalyptic rabbi, or maybe he was several apocalyptic rabbis. Maybe he was even crucified. Who knows?

f he already fully clarified his point then why do you have such a obsession to re-clarify it ad nauseam?

At this point, my efforts are probably teetering on the edge of uselessness, but the original object was simply to not allow you to attempt to get away with more of your intellectual dishonesty. And I've done that. Your subsequent trolling, personal attacks, ad hominem, and puerile mewling to the moderators about your treatment has effectively outed you as fraudulent and devoid of integrity to anyone bothering to follow this thread, so I really should be satisfied. I guess this will be my last post on the matter.

The only goalpost moved is the one where you suddenly introduced this nonsense about him claiming Jesus was an actual, historical figure. Do not confuse my argument to your nonsense with my refute of SkinWalker's post. It is only your claim that Jesus was an "historical figure" that warrants such attribution.

He said himself that Jesus was based on an historical figure, probably one even named Jesus. You're again trying to split hairs and play your petty semantic games, but you know full well what the score is. What you want is for someone to agree that Jesus Christ was real, and the only fabrication comes from the miracles (and even that you've been sketchy on, leaving no doubt that you actually do believe the miracles occurred), but you're not going to get that. All you're going to get is what SkinWalker said, which is that Jesus was probably based on someone real.

Yet, there is "a consensus of sorts" on the basic outline of Jesus' life in that most scholars agree that Jesus was baptized by John the Baptist, debated Jewish authorities on the subject of God, performed some healings, gathered followers, and was crucified by Roman prefect Pontius Pilate. -http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historical_Jesus​

These "scholars," shockingly, all seem to be true believers, and in most cases tenured professors of New Testament Studies, or something of the like.

That seems like enough to warrant him an actual historical figure, hence refuting that the narrative is "largely myth".

No, that's nonsense. Even if it were true that he was crucified, that in no way gives credence to the rest of the story. Tesla really did do some tremendous things with electricity; that in no way implies that the popular narrative of his life is mostly true. Most of what is written of Tesla is fiction.

You cannot coherently make both arguments at once. Now this may be a problem of trying to argue on someone's behalf, but it is more likely that I am being generous there.

No, you're just building up another one of your false dichotomies. A plan about as opaque as Saran Wrap.

If the only history we have for a person is wholly fictional then we have absolutely no evidence that any such real person ever existed.

Another false dilemma. We have circumstantial evidence that someone fitting the description to some degree existed. It's in the way the texts are written, and the trouble gone to--and contradictions made in the effort of--putting Jesus in the City of David at his birth. Granted, it's minimal, but I think it's telling enough to suggest that the authors knew of him as an historical figure in need of shoehorning into the prophecy.

I return to the example of Arthur. While the King Arthur legend is entirely fictional, there is some evidence to suggest that he was in fact based on a real person. So your false dilemma crumbles like the rest of your argument--with the slightest resistance.

Exactly. We have plenty of independently verifiable sources for the existence of people like Nicola Tesla. That is what makes him a bona fide historical figure. So how can you claim Jesus is definitely an historical figure without any similar verifiability? Seems you are just being a contrary troll without any substance whatsoever.

Syne 2: Return of the Straw Man

Seriously, do I even need to point out that no one here has ever said that Jesus definitively existed? SkinWalker said a man named Jesus could have existed, and probably did. I said the evidence is suggestive of his existence, and that he probably did. I know you have a lot of trouble with definitions, but "probably" and "could have" seem pretty straightforward, even for you.

What's funny about this is that it's a complete reversal of your previous tack. Earlier, you argued that the fictional events surrounding Tesla was no reason to doubt his existence, and used this as an example as to why SkinWalker had no reason to doubt Jesus' existence. Now you say Tesla's independently-verifiable historicity is why we shouldn't believe that Jesus was an historical figure. Is this the reason you insisted on pretending that SkinWalker was saying Jesus didn't exist at all? Because you knew that the alternative was arguing against Jesus' historicity?

I mean...wow.

Your argument seems to rely on a false dilemma of any fictional character (by your account) necessarily being based on a real person. Now you can claim that all fiction is based on an amalgam of reality, but that is stretching your argument to the point of complete triviality.

I haven't made that argument, SkinWalker did. His assertion seems to be that it's no big deal to admit that Jesus was a real person, because most fiction is based on some real-world analog. I don't see what's wrong with that argument. You want him to admit to Jesus being more than that, but there's no good reason to do so.

Oh, you mean the point of you evading providing the least little bit of support for your little tirade of fallacies and outright lies? No, the point is that you made a complete fool of yourself by trying to characterize me as contrary to my consistently expressed views.

No, I made a fool out of you. Anyone reading this thread can see it.

You continue to assume more than SkinWalker said. Be a man, make you own arguments instead of trying to hide behind his. Or is that the whole point? Are you seeking to use his status as moderator as some kind of appeal to authority?

You've finally accepted the weakness of your own position in light of SkinWalker's, so now you want to take the fight to me, hoping that my stance will be weaker. Wile E. Coyote had less transparent schemes than this.

SkinWalker has already clarified his position in plain English. No one believes you're really confused as to what he meant, so you might as well drop the act.

So based on nothing but a fictional story, you claim that we necessarily assume that Jim Belushi's character was based on a real person? What about Jabba the Hut? He was based on a real mobster, right? Again, if that is the point you are trying to make then it is completely trivial and has nothing to do with any person being historical.

I claim we can assume Jesus was based on at least one real person based on the evidence in scripture.

Then find me where he said Jesus was an "historical figure", troll. He did not, nor did he even imply it.

I've already shown you where he's implied it. You've drawn an imaginary line between "based upon" and "historical figure."

He explicitly doubts the veracity of the story being accurate enough to confer such a status, and even goes on to compare him with a garden variety fictional character. You are deluded to think otherwise.

You keep getting hung up on who he's comparing them to, instead of the purpose of the comparisons. This is intentional, and disingenuous. I've already covered this, and explained why you're wrong. I suggest re-reading my previous posts.

Again, exactly why he was not saying that Jesus was an historical figure. Just like no one in their right mind would try to say that the Great Danton was an historical figure. If scripture is wholly fictional then, at most, only the theologians, etc. who promoted it to its historical prominence qualify as historical figures. Do you assume that all of the gods were also based on real people? Or just the incarnate ones?

We've already been over this.

Really?! So you are saying there could be an "historical Superman"? That is hilarious. Again, we have evidence that Castus actually existed, so it is the actual person who could be the historical basis. You are the one who insists we have no credible evidence for the existence of Jesus. So from what do you insist an historical basis would have existed?

You're attempting to appeal to the absurdity of the title "Superman." If I say "Yes, there was an historical Superman," you would take it as an implication that there was really someone with super powers, who came from an exploded planet wrapped in a blanket that would become his cape (I think...I haven't read Superman in years). In reality, I'm simply saying that there very well could have been an historical figure this character was based on. As it is, we know Clark Kent is based on Cary Grant, a real person.

What would be the point? If the narrative does not reflect on the supposed real person in any way then, barring any independent evidence, we have no evidence for their existence at all. You cannot get much more irrelevant than that.

I don't know if SkinWalker believes Jesus was a real person simply because most historical fiction is based on real people, or if he thinks there is actual evidence to support his historicity. He did not say. What he did say was that Jesus was a real person. He made that much clear, your caterwauling notwithstanding.

And you seem to be imagining gotchas I cannot even guess at now. Self-delusion is degenerative.

There's a lot you pretend not to be able to guess at in this thread. Not surprised you've turned to pretending not to know where you've contradicted yourself.

Really?! "Based on" = "historical"? What utter nonsense.

Of course it is. Where do you get the idea that it's otherwise?

his·tor·i·cal
adjective
1. of, pertaining to, treating, or characteristic of history or past events: historical records; historical research.
2. based on or reconstructed from an event, custom, style, etc., in the past: a historical reenactment of the battle of Gettysburg.
3. having once existed or lived in the real world, as opposed to being part of legend or fiction or as distinguished from religious belief: to doubt that a historical Camelot ever existed; a theologian's study of the historical Jesus.
4. narrated or mentioned in history; belonging to the past.
5. noting or pertaining to analysis based on a comparison among several periods of development of a phenomenon, as in language or economics.
-http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/historical​

[/quote]

None of that contradicts what I've said.

So by that reasoning, we can learn accurate history from any "based on a true story". Any exaggeration must be inconsequential. Wait a minute, exaggerations like "miracles"?

There's another straw man. No one has said that we can learn accurate history from "based on a true story." Nor that the exaggerations are inconsequential. You've constructed that because you have no argument for my actual points.

 

[SkinWalker]

Historical -vs- Mythical Jesus

I've made comments in this thread that have sparked lively, if not vehement discussion. For readers that lurked but didn't participate, I apologize. There was much heat, but precious little light.

Accusations of "troll" this and "troll" that. Both parties have been warned. One continued with the name calling and received an infraction.

My comments were regarding an historical versus a mythical Jesus as portrayed in biblical mythology. I make no apology about seeing the Bible as a work of literature, largely if not completely mythic in nature. If you take offense to this, create a thread and show why it's an historical document and not a work of historical mythology. Mythology is a better term than fiction since the various, mostly anonymous, authors intended the work to be taken as truth. They may even have believed it, writing down the stories as they, themselves heard it orally.

By myth, I use the definition that nearly every archaeologist would use, and can be found in the Oxford English Dictionary (OED):

A traditional story, typically involving supernatural beings or forces, which embodies and provides an explanation, aetiology, or justification for something such as the early history of a society, a religious belief or ritual, or a natural phenomenon.

Like most reasoned scholars, I would agree that there are kernels of truth buried in many if not most myths, the Bible included.

But that doesn't imply that we should accept the Bible as an historical document any more than we should the Popul Vuh. There is much we can learn from the cultures that created these works, they even help us understand cult practices of the cultures when it comes to religion, superstition, and the supernatural. But the literal purposes of these two works includes, among other things, justifications for divine rights of the people that follow them as "historical" rather than "mythical."

So was there an historical Jesus?

Probably. But he wasn't the same character ultimately portrayed in biblical mythology. I say "probably" since aggrandizing heroes is something that humans have done since writing was invented and, evidence would suggest, even before. It isn't inconceivable that a person named Jesus (Jesus Smith?) was a minor cult leader in the Near East at around the time portrayed in biblical mythology. It isn't inconceivable that this person traveled to many of the places the mythical Jesus did (as depicted in the Bible) and built a small following.

But I would leave him at a minor cult leader, historically if only because no contemporaries of Jesus felt him important enough to write about. I'm sure he was immensely important to his followers, few though they were. And I concede that the aggrandized, overly embellished version that was created well after his death by several anonymous writers is immensely important to his many followers.

Jesus Smith (just a point of distinction, clearly not a real name) may or may not have been real. Without some archaeological, literary or epigraphical evidence contemporary to him coming to light, we can never say. Jesus Christ, however, almost certainly did not exist and is not an historical figure -rather a completely mythical one. Perhaps a mythologized version of Jesus Smith or perhaps a mythical character invented of whole cloth. If I had to bet, I'd lay five quid on the former.

What good reason would anyone have to conclude otherwise?

 

[Balerion]

Calling another person a troll is something everyone does, including moderators. Have a look around the various subfora here at Sci and you'll see it for yourself. I've just watched prometheus call someone an "ignorant jerk" in a recent thread.

Just saying, maybe some context is in order. Sometimes a troll is being a troll and needs to be told.

 

[Syne]

Balerion,

I will ignore your last, misguided post in favor of finally discussing SkinWalker's clarification of his own post and how it verifies exactly what I have been saying all along.

Historical -vs- Mythical Jesus

I've made comments in this thread that have sparked lively, if not vehement discussion. For readers that lurked but didn't participate, I apologize. There was much heat, but precious little light.

Accusations of "troll" this and "troll" that. Both parties have been warned. One continued with the name calling and received an infraction.

And if I was told that use of the word "troll", even when demonstrably true, was the problem, I would never have repeated it. But then your profile shows Balerion as a friend and he was defending your post. Seems this clarification could have come much sooner and avoided all of this mess instigated by Balerion.

My comments were regarding an historical versus a mythical Jesus as portrayed in biblical mythology. I make no apology about seeing the Bible as a work of literature, largely if not completely mythic in nature. If you take offense to this, create a thread and show why it's an historical document and not a work of historical mythology. Mythology is a better term than fiction since the various, mostly anonymous, authors intended the work to be taken as truth. They may even have believed it, writing down the stories as they, themselves heard it orally.

Obviously "mythology" was used in the primary sense of "fiction", with only a minor qualification about the beliefs/intent of the authors.

By myth, I use the definition that nearly every archaeologist would use, and can be found in the Oxford English Dictionary (OED):

A traditional story, typically involving supernatural beings or forces, which embodies and provides an explanation, aetiology, or justification for something such as the early history of a society, a religious belief or ritual, or a natural phenomenon.

Like most reasoned scholars, I would agree that there are kernels of truth buried in many if not most myths, the Bible included.

Same general definition I used, and same trivial basis in reality that any fiction/myth has, exactly as I said.

But that doesn't imply that we should accept the Bible as an historical document any more than we should the Popul Vuh. There is much we can learn from the cultures that created these works, they even help us understand cult practices of the cultures when it comes to religion, superstition, and the supernatural. But the literal purposes of these two works includes, among other things, justifications for divine rights of the people that follow them as "historical" rather than "mythical."

Again, verifying what I said about the people who promoted the scripture being historical, while maintaining that the scripture itself was mythical in contrast.

So was there an historical Jesus?

Probably. But he wasn't the same character ultimately portrayed in biblical mythology. I say "probably" since aggrandizing heroes is something that humans have done since writing was invented and, evidence would suggest, even before. It isn't inconceivable that a person named Jesus (Jesus Smith?) was a minor cult leader in the Near East at around the time portrayed in biblical mythology. It isn't inconceivable that this person traveled to many of the places the mythical Jesus did (as depicted in the Bible) and built a small following.

But I would leave him at a minor cult leader, historically if only because no contemporaries of Jesus felt him important enough to write about. I'm sure he was immensely important to his followers, few though they were. And I concede that the aggrandized, overly embellished version that was created well after his death by several anonymous writers is immensely important to his many followers.

"Probably", heavily qualified as "isn't inconceivable". No commitment to a belief that there definitely was an historical Jesus, just as I repeatedly said.

And exactly as I said earlier. Barring the fantastical such as "miracles" as an exaggerating propensity of oral tradition, the story could have been largely true. Nowhere in the Bible does it make Jesus out to be anything other than a "minor cult leader" or to have anything other than a "small following". Without our modern communication and news media even more recent small cults would not have received anything but local notoriety. Not to mention the lack of education and the associated scarcity of documented events.

Jesus Smith (just a point of distinction, clearly not a real name) may or may not have been real. Without some archaeological, literary or epigraphical evidence contemporary to him coming to light, we can never say. Jesus Christ, however, almost certainly did not exist and is not an historical figure -rather a completely mythical one. Perhaps a mythologized version of Jesus Smith or perhaps a mythical character invented of whole cloth. If I had to bet, I'd lay five quid on the former.

What good reason would anyone have to conclude otherwise?

Noncommittal on whether an historical Jesus was real, just as I kept saying was unclear. Notice how much your bias, Balerion, led you to read into it much more than was intended or implied. Your inferences run amok.

He seems to be taking the narrative as either wholly valid or not at all, which is a false dilemma, especially if he potentially grants that: "It isn't inconceivable that this person traveled to many of the places the mythical Jesus did (as depicted in the Bible) and built a small following."

Yes, there is no independent archaeological evidence, and any literary evidence could have been subsumed in the scripture. But then, aside from a mathematical proof, we cannot prove something true in science, only false. So the matter comes down to belief, either way you wish to view it. Proclamations on such a subject are not scientifically warranted, and necessarily biased, as there is no evidence in favor of either.

 

[Syne]

Calling another person a troll is something everyone does, including moderators. Have a look around the various subfora here at Sci and you'll see it for yourself. I've just watched prometheus call someone an "ignorant jerk" in a recent thread.

Just saying, maybe some context is in order. Sometimes a troll is being a troll and needs to be told.

Here we agree. There was no moderator action necessarily called for in this thread, although the post debated could have been clarified by that poster much earlier.


ETA: Here is the moderator's post he mentions, where both "trolling" is accused (which is splitting hairs between calling the person a troll) and "know nothing jerk", which would be comparable to anything in this thread.

http://www.sciforums.com/showthread...farsight-ban&p=3032407&viewfull=1#post3032407

 

[Balerion]

The level of delusion here is incredible. Syne actually took SkinWalker's post to mean that he agreed with him.

Unreal.

 

[Balerion]

Here we agree. There was no moderator action necessarily called for in this thread, although the post debated could have been clarified by that poster much earlier.

Some people have lives, believe it or not.

And we don't really agree, since you think the moderation was really just a conspiracy to keep you down.

 

[Syne]

The level of delusion here is incredible. Syne actually took SkinWalker's post to mean that he agreed with him.

Unreal.

Nonsense. I said it verified exactly what I took his original post to mean, as opposed to your biased misrepresentation. That I continued to argue my own point in contrast to his post is what you seem to have naively mistaken for me supposedly thinking he agreed with me. I have not said nor implied any such thing. Just more of your unsupported inflammatory bias.

Some people have lives, believe it or not.

And we don't really agree, since you think the moderation was really just a conspiracy to keep you down.

Who said anything about a conspiracy? There is no need for collusion in the actions of a single person, no matter the possible motive.

 

[SkinWalker]

Noncommittal on whether an historical Jesus was real, just as I kept saying was unclear.

I'm being quite clear. The character that we end up with in biblical mythology is not real. There may or may not have been a genuine person for whom the myth was based, but we'll probably never be able to conclude one way or the other with any confidence given the nature of the data.

He seems to be taking the narrative as either wholly valid or not at all, which is a false dilemma, especially if he potentially grants that: "It isn't inconceivable that this person traveled to many of the places the mythical Jesus did (as depicted in the Bible) and built a small following."

I'm creating no false dilemma's. Is there information in biblical mythology that is useful for the anthropologist/archaeologist? Definitely. Should it be considered an historical account of the people it seeks to describe from cover to cover -should it be taken at face value? Definitely not. Indeed a great many aspects of the narratives within this seemingly arbitrary set of texts is simply wrong. As a source of ethnographic data of a few cultures that lived in the Near East in the Bronze and Iron Ages, biblical mythology does well. As a source of how to live one's life; how to construct a morality; how to manage a society; etc.... biblical mythology falls very, very short.

Yes, there is no independent archaeological evidence, and any literary evidence could have been subsumed in the scripture. But then, aside from a mathematical proof, we cannot prove something true in science, only false. So the matter comes down to belief, either way you wish to view it. Proclamations on such a subject are not scientifically warranted, and necessarily biased, as there is no evidence in favor of either.

And I have maintained that there is no good, rational reason to believe the core propositions of biblical mythology. And, to bring this back to the OP, "What is Chrisitanity?," I remind that I was accused by several of misrepresenting Christianity. But not a one demonstrated this accusation to be true. Where have I misrepresented Christianity?

 

[Syne]

Noncommittal on whether an historical Jesus was real, just as I kept saying was unclear.

I'm being quite clear. The character that we end up with in biblical mythology is not real. There may or may not have been a genuine person for whom the myth was based, but we'll probably never be able to conclude one way or the other with any confidence given the nature of the data.

And? What part of that is at odds in any way to how I represented your view? I did not say that you were noncommittal on the mythical Jesus ("mythology is not real"). Quite the opposite, as I have argued that you thought the mythical Jesus was largely a work of fiction. What I did say (if you read what you just quoted me as saying) is that you were "noncommittal on whether an historical Jesus was real" ("There may or may not have been a genuine person"). Your admitted lack of confidence only affirms what I said.

He seems to be taking the narrative as either wholly valid or not at all, which is a false dilemma, especially if he potentially grants that: "It isn't inconceivable that this person traveled to many of the places the mythical Jesus did (as depicted in the Bible) and built a small following."

I'm creating no false dilemma's. Is there information in biblical mythology that is useful for the anthropologist/archaeologist? Definitely. Should it be considered an historical account of the people it seeks to describe from cover to cover -should it be taken at face value? Definitely not. Indeed a great many aspects of the narratives within this seemingly arbitrary set of texts is simply wrong. As a source of ethnographic data of a few cultures that lived in the Near East in the Bronze and Iron Ages, biblical mythology does well. As a source of how to live one's life; how to construct a morality; how to manage a society; etc.... biblical mythology falls very, very short.

You seem to be evading. We are specifically talking about the narrative of Jesus, not the cultural/anthropological value of things ancillary to that story. It is this specific narrative that you seem to dismiss in its entirety simply because it includes exaggeration we would expect of such sources. You already said: "It isn't inconceivable that this person traveled to many of the places the mythical Jesus did (as depicted in the Bible) and built a small following." That is only a matter of degree away from conceding that the same man could have conceivably made the synthesis of disparate religious thought that the authors of the Bible did.

As far as morality, society, etc., seeing as the world is ~80 religious, the majority of that being Christian (~33% -http://www.religioustolerance.org/worldrel.htm), this criticism is no less a criticism of modern society. In other words, it has little to do with the degree to which the narrative may be factual, and is no more than a red herring.

Yes, there is no independent archaeological evidence, and any literary evidence could have been subsumed in the scripture. But then, aside from a mathematical proof, we cannot prove something true in science, only false. So the matter comes down to belief, either way you wish to view it. Proclamations on such a subject are not scientifically warranted, and necessarily biased, as there is no evidence in favor of either.

And I have maintained that there is no good, rational reason to believe the core propositions of biblical mythology. And, to bring this back to the OP, "What is Chrisitanity?," I remind that I was accused by several of misrepresenting Christianity. But not a one demonstrated this accusation to be true. Where have I misrepresented Christianity?

Again, we were not talking about "the core propositions of biblical mythology". And apparently you have not bothered to keep up with this thread, or you would have seen where I did address your misrepresentation:

...Jesus Christ essentially committed suicide...
...creating hundreds if not thousands of cults that think they have the correct way to worship a mythical character...

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.

So far, you have made no substantial arguments to challenge.

 

[wellwisher]

..Jesus Christ essentially committed suicide...
...creating hundreds if not thousands of cults that think they have the correct way to worship a mythical character...

Say you were on a battle field, pinned down under enemy fire. One of your comrades makes a run up the hill to take out the enemy defense. His actions can either motivate the rest of the soldiers, or make them all freeze in place. It is all dependent if he was successful. For the first three days after the death of Christ, the followers were frozen in place. But when they suddenly realize the machine gun nest was taken out, as their friends appears from the smoke, they all regain their vigor and start to charge.

 

[Billy T]

What is Christianity?
"When the white missionaries came to Africa they had the Bible and we had the land. They said 'Let us pray.' We closed our eyes. When we opened them we had the Bible and they had the land." ~ Desmond Tutu

Same story with Spanish missionaries in all of South America, or in China, until the Boxers rebelled, etc.
Christianity is very consistent in its methods. (Give me all you have in exchange for pie in the sky later.)