dejuror wrote:The Mormon religion is a perfect modern example of how religions are started.

The Mormon religion was able to be started Josephn Smith because people BELIEVE Angels, God and Sons of God Exist.

Zwaarddijk wrote:

dejuror wrote:The Mormon religion is a perfect modern example of how religions are started.

The Mormon religion was able to be started Josephn Smith because people BELIEVE Angels, God and Sons of God Exist.

Yes, sure, but ... nowhere there was an earthly person fabricated. I want an example where someone along the lines of Joseph Smith *was made up out of thin air*.

Zwaarddijk wrote:

proudfootz wrote:

Zwaarddijk wrote:A question that might get us onto some more fertile grounds, I hope:

What is the most recent 'widely accepted as historical' character that you would reject the existence of? Why? What other characters that are supposed to have lived between that character's time and Jesus' time do you reject the historicity of?

Can you give an example?

Are there any figures whose existence you consider to be questionable?

Thanks in advance!

Do you think Jesus is the most recent example of such a guy?

If Robin Hood's existence were widely accepted, I'd use him as an example - doesn't seem to be any good reason to think he existed, yet some people seem convinced he did. Maybe a better example would be Bishop Henry of Uppsala (12th century), in case he did not exist. At least a few scholars doubt his existence.

So, do you have any other candidates for ahistorical people that have been mistaken for historical ones? Is Jesus the most recent one that such a mistake has happened with in your view?

Zwaarddijk wrote:A question that might get us onto some more fertile grounds, I hope:

What is the most recent 'widely accepted as historical' character that you would reject the existence of? Why? What other characters that are supposed to have lived between that character's time and Jesus' time do you reject the historicity of?

Zwaarddijk wrote: I want an example where someone along the lines of Joseph Smith *was made up out of thin air*.

Moses;
St Paul ie. Saul/Paul of Tarsus;
Socrates is a possibility ie. he could be just a literary invention of Plato and his contemporaries
King Arthur
other religious characters

Abraham, etc
Mary (and other Christian icons)
Mohammed

RealityRules wrote:

Zwaarddijk wrote:A question that might get us onto some more fertile grounds, I hope:

What is the most recent 'widely accepted as historical' character that you would reject the existence of? Why? What other characters that are supposed to have lived between that character's time and Jesus' time do you reject the historicity of?

Zwaarddijk wrote: I want an example where someone along the lines of Joseph Smith *was made up out of thin air*.

Moses;
St Paul ie. Saul/Paul of Tarsus;
Socrates is a possibility ie. he could be just a literary invention of Plato and his contemporaries
King Arthur
other religious characters

Abraham, etc
Mary (and other Christian icons)
Mohammed

Akhmet wrote:Think I'd leave out Socrates since we have three probably independent contemporary sources that used him in different ways.

Σωκράτης
εἰσὶν γάρ, ὦ παῖ, μάλ᾽ εὖ ἄμουσοι: ἇλλοι δὲ πολὺ κομψότεροι, ὧν μέλλω σοι τὰ μυστήρια λέγειν. ἀρχὴ δέ, ἐξ ἧς καὶ ἃ νυνδὴ ἐλέγομεν πάντα ἤρτηται, ἥδεαὐτῶν, ὡς τὸ πᾶν κίνησις ἦν καὶ ἄλλο παρὰ τοῦτο οὐδέν, τῆς δὲ κινήσεως δύοεἴδη, πλήθει μὲν ἄπειρον ἑκάτερον, δύναμιν δὲ τὸ μὲν ποιεῖν ἔχον, τὸ δὲ πάσχειν.ἐκ δὲ τῆς τούτων ὁμιλίας τε καὶ τρίψεως πρὸς ἄλληλα γίγνεται ἔκγονα πλήθειμὲν

Socrates
So they are, my boy, quite without culture. But others are more clever, whose secret doctrines I am going to disclose to you. For them the beginning, upon which all the things we were just now speaking of depend, is the assumption that everything is real motion and that there is nothing besides this, but that there are two kinds of motion, each infinite in the number of its manifestations, and of these kinds one has an active, the other a passive force. From the union and friction of these two are born offspring, infinite in number, but always twins, the object of sense

RealityRules wrote:Another 'widely accepted as historical' character that one might be able to reject the existence of is Buddha.

Akhmet wrote: I don't think their existence matters much either way.

RealityRules wrote:

Akhmet wrote: I don't think their existence matters much either way.

The death and alleged "resurrection" of Jesus is a pretty big aspect of Christianity. and Christians seem to be trying to assert his human existence more as their religion contracts.

proudfootz wrote:
Sherlock Holmes is tough case: is being based loosely on a real person the same thing as his being historical? Not in this case IMO. If Bell were a private detective, then we'd be moving a little closer to 'historical' territory. Some of the adventures are supposed to be based on real events - more like 'inspired by'.

I bought a book called the Annotated Sherlock Holmes thinking it would be like Martin Gardner's Annotated Alice (which I am very fond of) but it turns out the 'notes' treat Holmes as if he were a real person and the adventures thinly veiled true accounts.

proudfootz wrote:Yes, Mohammed (PTUI) is of more recent vintage than Jesus.

Arthur also more recent - and Robin Hood.

St Christopher would be another.

Sherlock Holmes is tough case: is being based loosely on a real person the same thing as his being historical? Not in this case IMO. If Bell were a private detective, then we'd be moving a little closer to 'historical' territory. Some of the adventures are supposed to be based on real events - more like 'inspired by'.

I bought a book called the Annotated Sherlock Holmes thinking it would be like Martin Gardner's Annotated Alice (which I am very fond of) but it turns out the 'notes' treat Holmes as if he were a real person and the adventures thinly veiled true accounts.

RealityRules wrote:

Akhmet wrote: I don't think their existence matters much either way.

The death and alleged "resurrection" of Jesus is a pretty big aspect of Christianity. and Christians seem to be trying to assert his human existence more as their religion contracts.

Ducktown wrote:

proudfootz wrote:Yes, Mohammed (PTUI) is of more recent vintage than Jesus.

Arthur also more recent - and Robin Hood.

St Christopher would be another.

Sherlock Holmes is tough case: is being based loosely on a real person the same thing as his being historical? Not in this case IMO. If Bell were a private detective, then we'd be moving a little closer to 'historical' territory. Some of the adventures are supposed to be based on real events - more like 'inspired by'.

I bought a book called the Annotated Sherlock Holmes thinking it would be like Martin Gardner's Annotated Alice (which I am very fond of) but it turns out the 'notes' treat Holmes as if he were a real person and the adventures thinly veiled true accounts.

Therein lies the historicity claim in a nutshell. Just because a fictional character is modeled on or inspired by something actual is not proof of historicity. Proof of historicity requires that the individual in the account have an actual physical existence.

If I write a story about a billionaire I know and I model this story on my neighbor who I consider wealthy but who is not even a millionaire, is my neighbor the historical billionaire of my story? Is my billionaire now historical?

This is the problem with the "historical Jesus' argument. There is no such chap. That should be obvious to the most illiterate among us. Now we wish to know what inspired the jesus tale but unfortunately the authors are dead and anonymous.

It is most likely no person inspired these tales but they are simply religious fables like many others designed to satisfy a religious need.

Free gave us his version of the "historical Jesus." His is as farcical and fantastic as all the rest and totally without justification. It is safe to assume the authors of other jesus tales did the same thing with their version of fan fiction.

Akhmet wrote:

Ducktown wrote:

proudfootz wrote:Yes, Mohammed (PTUI) is of more recent vintage than Jesus.

Arthur also more recent - and Robin Hood.

St Christopher would be another.

Sherlock Holmes is tough case: is being based loosely on a real person the same thing as his being historical? Not in this case IMO. If Bell were a private detective, then we'd be moving a little closer to 'historical' territory. Some of the adventures are supposed to be based on real events - more like 'inspired by'.

I bought a book called the Annotated Sherlock Holmes thinking it would be like Martin Gardner's Annotated Alice (which I am very fond of) but it turns out the 'notes' treat Holmes as if he were a real person and the adventures thinly veiled true accounts.

Therein lies the historicity claim in a nutshell. Just because a fictional character is modeled on or inspired by something actual is not proof of historicity. Proof of historicity requires that the individual in the account have an actual physical existence.

If I write a story about a billionaire I know and I model this story on my neighbor who I consider wealthy but who is not even a millionaire, is my neighbor the historical billionaire of my story? Is my billionaire now historical?

This is the problem with the "historical Jesus' argument. There is no such chap. That should be obvious to the most illiterate among us. Now we wish to know what inspired the jesus tale but unfortunately the authors are dead and anonymous.

It is most likely no person inspired these tales but they are simply religious fables like many others designed to satisfy a religious need.

Free gave us his version of the "historical Jesus." His is as farcical and fantastic as all the rest and totally without justification. It is safe to assume the authors of other jesus tales did the same thing with their version of fan fiction.

Well, I think it depends on the type of claim being made. Many people engaged in HJ debates think that if there was a Jesus he was only an inspiration for the character presented in the gospels. And, yes, that means that they think there was an historical person behind it.

That does not mean they think that there was anything in the gospels that is historical except maybe his death, possibly some details that we cannot prove one way or another at this late date.

This is why I don't understand why people spend so much time on this debate. I think it is much more interesting to look at how the gospels appear to have been constructed, but that is just my own take on it.

Personally, I don't see how anyone could say that there was or was not a person who could have served as inspiration. You can say you personally believe there was no one behind the stories and provide a reconstruction that makes sense or say that you personally believe that there was someone behind the stories and provide the alternate reconstruction. I think that is as far as we can take it.

ETA To answer your question, no the billionaire would not be historical; but that is not what some HJers maintain. I don't think anyone involved in a debate in this forum thinks that many or even any of the stories about Jesus are true, again aside from some details -- like possibly death at the hands of the Romans, etc.

Akhmet wrote:
I didn't think there were any believers engaged in this debate, though.

Ducktown wrote: ... even dragons are historical in this sense.

Ducktown wrote:

Akhmet wrote:

Ducktown wrote:

proudfootz wrote:Yes, Mohammed (PTUI) is of more recent vintage than Jesus.

Arthur also more recent - and Robin Hood.

St Christopher would be another.

Sherlock Holmes is tough case: is being based loosely on a real person the same thing as his being historical? Not in this case IMO. If Bell were a private detective, then we'd be moving a little closer to 'historical' territory. Some of the adventures are supposed to be based on real events - more like 'inspired by'.

I bought a book called the Annotated Sherlock Holmes thinking it would be like Martin Gardner's Annotated Alice (which I am very fond of) but it turns out the 'notes' treat Holmes as if he were a real person and the adventures thinly veiled true accounts.

Therein lies the historicity claim in a nutshell. Just because a fictional character is modeled on or inspired by something actual is not proof of historicity. Proof of historicity requires that the individual in the account have an actual physical existence.

If I write a story about a billionaire I know and I model this story on my neighbor who I consider wealthy but who is not even a millionaire, is my neighbor the historical billionaire of my story? Is my billionaire now historical?

This is the problem with the "historical Jesus' argument. There is no such chap. That should be obvious to the most illiterate among us. Now we wish to know what inspired the jesus tale but unfortunately the authors are dead and anonymous.

It is most likely no person inspired these tales but they are simply religious fables like many others designed to satisfy a religious need.

Free gave us his version of the "historical Jesus." His is as farcical and fantastic as all the rest and totally without justification. It is safe to assume the authors of other jesus tales did the same thing with their version of fan fiction.

Well, I think it depends on the type of claim being made. Many people engaged in HJ debates think that if there was a Jesus he was only an inspiration for the character presented in the gospels. And, yes, that means that they think there was an historical person behind it.

That does not mean they think that there was anything in the gospels that is historical except maybe his death, possibly some details that we cannot prove one way or another at this late date.

This is why I don't understand why people spend so much time on this debate. I think it is much more interesting to look at how the gospels appear to have been constructed, but that is just my own take on it.

Personally, I don't see how anyone could say that there was or was not a person who could have served as inspiration. You can say you personally believe there was no one behind the stories and provide a reconstruction that makes sense or say that you personally believe that there was someone behind the stories and provide the alternate reconstruction. I think that is as far as we can take it.

ETA To answer your question, no the billionaire would not be historical; but that is not what some HJers maintain. I don't think anyone involved in a debate in this forum thinks that many or even any of the stories about Jesus are true, again aside from some details -- like possibly death at the hands of the Romans, etc.

My point is that this is true of all fictional writing. As I stated earlier, even dragons are historical in this sense.