Why was Jesus not educated...?

[dogsgod]

Socrates came along way before Jesus, besides your missing the point. He could walk on water and raise the dead but had no language??? Smell the fish,...?

Contemporaries of Socrates wrote about him, the same can't be said for the "historical" Jesus.

 

[Oberon]

Contemporaries of Socrates wrote about him, the same can't be said for the "historical" Jesus.

They did. And they totally disagree. The portrait painted by Aristophanes is completely different from that of Plato, which is quite distinct from that of Xenophan. Yet all of these supposedly knew him. Were we applying the same methods used by the mythicists, we could conclude that socrates was a mere archetype adopted by the literary elite as a mouth for their own views. It would be foolish, of course, but then so are the methods of the mythicists.

 

[dogsgod]

Of course different writers will view Socrates from their own perspective view and interests. That much stands to reason, the fact is that Socrates was not without his contemporaries, he was not born out of an historical vacuum.


------

Plato is frequently viewed as the most informative source about Socrates' life and philosophy.[5] At the same time, however, many scholars believe that in some works Plato, being a literary artist, pushed his avowedly brightened-up version of "Socrates" far beyond anything the historical Socrates was likely to have done or said; and that Xenophon, being an historian, is a more reliable witness to the historical Socrates. Parsing which Socrates—the "real" one, or Plato's own mouthpiece—Plato is using at any given point is a matter of much debate.


However, it is also clear from other writings, and historical artifacts that Socrates was not simply a character, or invention, of Plato. The testimony of Xenophon and Aristotle, alongside some of Aristophanes' work (especially The Clouds), can be usefully engaged in fleshing out our perception of Socrates beyond Plato's work. wiki

 

[angellous_evangellous]

So this is where my confusion comes in, if this religion is based upon this man and his story and we may have it wrong. How much else is wrong that is being told....

Believers participate in the myths.

Being "myth" does not necessarily mean "wrong."

 

[MW0082]

Believers participate in the myths.

Being "myth" does not necessarily mean "wrong."

Does Myth not mean untrue?

 

[angellous_evangellous]

Does Myth not mean untrue?

Absolutely not.

 

[Oberon]

Of course different writers will view Socrates from their own perspective view and interests. That much stands to reason, the fact is that Socrates was not without his contemporaries, he was not born out of an historical vacuum.

Neither was Jesus. Although it is unlikely Paul ever met him, he was a contemporary, and did know Jesus' followers. You simply chose to ignore this, or marginalize it by declaring that when Paul refers specifically to Jesus' brother, he didn't actually mean brother. You likewise ignore scholarship on the genre and historical value of the gospels.

The point is, what difference does it make if Aristophanes, Plato, and Xenophon all supposedly knew Socrates, if their portraits contradict one another?

The testimony of Xenophon and Aristotle, alongside some of Aristophanes' work (especially The Clouds), can be usefully engaged in fleshing out our perception of Socrates beyond Plato's work. wiki

Of course, it is all useful stuff...unless one uses the same techniques and principles adopted by the mythicists. Find any contradictions or unhistorical parts, and then reject the whole work.

When you cite wiki as evidence, can I accuse you of arguing from authority? Or is that only when someone actually cites a real authority? I'm trying to understand how your misinterpretation of that particular fallacy works.

 

[dogsgod]

Does Myth not mean untrue?

Yes and no. Fiction can be an effective means of expressing truths about the nature of the human condition.

 

[MW0082]

Absolutely not.

This is how I see a myth....
myth

   https://secure.reference.com/sso/register_pop.html?source=favorites/mɪθ/ Show Spelled[mith] Show IPA
–noun 1. a traditional or legendary story, usually concerning some being or hero or event, with or without a determinable basis of fact or a natural explanation, esp. one that is concerned with deities or demigods and explains some practice, rite, or phenomenon of nature.

2. stories or matter of this kind: realm of myth.

3. any invented story, idea, or concept: His account of the event is pure myth.

4. an imaginary or fictitious thing or person.

5. an unproved or false collective belief that is used to justify a social institution.

 

[indian tea]

I am asking simply due to why he or anyone would not see the signifigance of recording this. I mean if you want doubt about your messiahness then good job. yet what good does that due?

oral law was taught more back then...
such that, teachings were handed down from memory
in fact for some schools of "religion" one had/has to memorize stories, rites, ideas
etc before one is allowed to teach any thing

reasons for this include, tradition, as I just mentioned
and several others am sure; most notably of course being that
spiritual teachings or religious or whatever you want to call them, can only be taught
verbally really... sure they can be written down and recorded, read and acted upon...but..the there is a difference between oral teachings, receiving oral teachings and simply reading them.... unless one has real experience of teaching or receivign this way, there really is no way to convey the differences adequatly...however I have tried

 

[Willamena]

This is how I see a myth....
myth

   /mɪθ/ Show Spelled[mith] Show IPA
–noun 1. a traditional or legendary story, usually concerning some being or hero or event, with or without a determinable basis of fact or a natural explanation, esp. one that is concerned with deities or demigods and explains some practice, rite, or phenomenon of nature.

2. stories or matter of this kind: realm of myth.

3. any invented story, idea, or concept: His account of the event is pure myth.

4. an imaginary or fictitious thing or person.

5. an unproved or false collective belief that is used to justify a social institution.

#1 is the context for a culture that describes their collective mythology.

 

[indian tea]

He wasn't looking to future generations, he was talking to the people around him.

I disagree, parable by their very nature ofen transcend culture or time....
which is why we can read parables today, that are still relivant.

Of course we can look to judaism...which has had oral teachings, and still does..for centuries if not longer...although the age of "oral torah" is an argument for historians...

 

[Willamena]

I disagree, parable by their very nature ofen transcend culture or time....
which is why we can read parables today, that are still relivant.

Of course we can look to judaism...which has had oral teachings, and still does..for centuries if not longer...although the age of "oral torah" is an argument for historians...

While parable talks to people from all generations, that says a different thing than I did.

 

[indian tea]

While parable talks to people from all generations, that says a different thing than I did.

um you stated he was only talking to those around him...
I would argue he was discussing things that would be relivant generations later
so really your proposal was false.... given the context it was in

 

[Willamena]

um you stated he was only talking to those around him...
I would argue he was discussing things that would be relivant generations later
so really your proposal was false.... given the context it was in

As I agree that they are relevant generations later, to readers in the present, I must disagree that that's relevant to what I'd said.

But okay.

 

[dogsgod]

When you cite wiki as evidence, can I accuse you of arguing from authority? Or is that only when someone actually cites a real authority? I'm trying to understand how your misinterpretation of that particular fallacy works.

I didn't cite wiki as evidence, nor as an argument from authority, I simply offered it as another point of view from one that articulated in an unbiased and matter of fact way the different writing approaches of Socrates' contemporaries.

 

[Oberon]

I didn't cite wiki as evidence, nor as an argument from authority, I simply offered it as another point of view from one that articulated in an unbiased and matter of fact way the different writing approaches of Socrates' contemporaries.

Yet you didn't just quote info on writing approaches, but deliberately quoted something contradicting what I said one could determine (using the methods of mythicists) based on the differences between sources:

However, it is also clear from other writings, and historical artifacts that Socrates was not simply a character, or invention, of Plato.

Now, this is perfectly true. However, it is true because one doesn't just throw the baby out with the bathwater when it comes to problematic sources. We can use the contradictory information about socrates by critically analyzing them. We can do the same with the gospels. Neither are perfect, and neither were meant solely to inform us of the historical nature of the central character. Yet both say a great deal about the historical person behind the narratives.

 

[angellous_evangellous]

a traditional or legendary story, usually concerning some being or hero or event, with or without a determinable basis of fact or a natural explanation, esp. one that is concerned with deities or demigods and explains some practice, rite, or phenomenon of nature.

This does not mean that the myth is not true.... in as much as a novel is a made-up story that can contain and express all kinds of truth.

 

[dogsgod]

Yet you didn't just quote info on writing approaches, but deliberately quoted something contradicting what I said one could determine (using the methods of mythicists) based on the differences between sources:



Now, this is perfectly true. However, it is true because one doesn't just throw the baby out with the bathwater when it comes to problematic sources. We can use the contradictory information about socrates by critically analyzing them. We can do the same with the gospels. Neither are perfect, and neither were meant solely to inform us of the historical nature of the central character. Yet both say a great deal about the historical person behind the narratives.

Socrates had contemporaries such as historians, philosophers, and students that wrote about him, hardly a problem when you at least have something to critically analyze.

 

[Oberon]

Socrates had contemporaries such as historians, philosophers, and students that wrote about him, hardly a problem when you at least have something to critically analyze.

Jesus had historians and contemporaries who wrote about him as well. And, lo and behold, scholars have been critically analyzing them for centuries. The difference is that nobody cares enough about Socrates to waste time constructing ridiculous arguments about how, as the sources about him are imperfect and contradictory, they can be safely ignored.