FRDB Archives

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.


Go Back   FRDB Archives > Archives > Biblical Criticism - 2001
Welcome, Peter Kirby.
You last visited: Today at 05:55 AM

Notices

 
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old 05-24-2001, 03:40 PM   #11
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Smile

"Greeks and Roman don't talk about it because it's not important to them. They thought Palestine was totally unimportant. That would be like me saying well you claim to be well informed about current events but you don't know who the mayer of Lancaster Texas is"

What about the Jews? You don't think they'd find it odd that a dead guy came back to life? Especially if he brought a bunch of dead folks back with him (Matt)? I'd bet I'd know the Mayor of Lancaster Texas if he'd been killed on a cross and came back to life!
No I don't think Jesus was a total myth, there probably was a historical person in there somewhere.

Heracles was no doubt based on the stories surrounding Gilgamesh, another ancient demigod (Babylon) with lots of adventures and great strength with godly inlaws and such, though he was a real life person, a King.

[This message has been edited by marduck (edited May 24, 2001).]
 
Old 05-24-2001, 03:45 PM   #12
Iconoclast
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: San Francisco, CA
Posts: 3,588
Post

Quote:
<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">Greeks and Roman don't talk about it because it's not important to them. They thought Palestine was totally unimportant. That would be like me saying well you claim to be well informed about current events but you don't know who the mayer of Lancaster Texas is</font>
No, the Romans did not think it was a totally unimportant area. It was not super-important but neither was it unimportant to them.

[This message has been edited by Iconoclast (edited May 24, 2001).]
Iconoclast is offline  
Old 05-24-2001, 03:51 PM   #13
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Post

Quote:
<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">Originally posted by marduck:
What about the Jews? You don't think they'd find it odd that a dead guy came back to life? Especially if he brought a bunch of dead folks back with him (Matt)? I'd bet I'd know the Mayor of Lancaster Texas if he'd been killed on a cross and came back to life!
No I don't think Jesus was a total myth, there probably was a historical person in there somewhere.

[This message has been edited by marduck (edited May 24, 2001).][/B]</font>
Well, the focus of the present discussion has to do with Jesus' existence, rather than all of the Gospel of Matthew's accounts.

Anyway, most of the New Testament authors were Jews. Josephus and the Talmud do contain references to Jesus.
 
Old 05-24-2001, 04:05 PM   #14
Lance
Regular Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: Overland Park, KS USA
Posts: 335
Exclamation

Layman: I might point out that the legal definition of conspiracy is that you knowingly join such an organization. Unless you're an idiot, you know your church's history.

Toto: I'd stop right here. We have Christian energizer bunny #2 right here and we're back around where at least 3 or 4 debates have started. Yes, Josephus does contain some references, but it is also a compromised source. And on, and on, and on.
Lance is offline  
Old 05-24-2001, 04:24 PM   #15
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Post

Quote:
<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">Originally posted by Lance:
Layman: I might point out that the legal definition of conspiracy is that you knowingly join such an organization. Unless you're an idiot, you know your church's history.
</font>
Yes. My church is a 20 year old independent charasmatic church that has never participated in, nor advocated, any illegal activity.

You knowingly retain your U.S. citizenship. You know its history. You know is has committed attrocities in the past. Does that make you responsible for all of its acts?

You have no idea what criminal conspiracy means.
 
Old 05-24-2001, 04:35 PM   #16
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Post

Quote:
<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">Originally posted by Layman:
Yes. My church is a 20 year old independent charasmatic church that has never participated in, nor advocated, any illegal activity.

You knowingly retain your U.S. citizenship. You know its history. You know is has committed attrocities in the past. Does that make you responsible for all of its acts?

You have no idea what criminal conspiracy means.
</font>
I actually agree with you here Layman.

Holding modern day Christians responsible for acts committed in the middle ages is ludicrous.

 
Old 05-24-2001, 06:55 PM   #17
Lance
Regular Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: Overland Park, KS USA
Posts: 335
Post

Valmorian: I'd agree with you both except for one thing. The same old shit is going on today, just less overt.

If the Christian cult had grown up, become responsible, and didn't terrorize people, that'd be one thing. We all grow up, hopefully...

The Christian cult to date has shown no signs of that.
Lance is offline  
Old 05-24-2001, 09:29 PM   #18
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Post

Quote:
<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">Originally posted by Iconoclast:
How much water did Paul turn into wine?</font>
Both Paul and I speicialize in doing it the other way around.
 
Old 05-24-2001, 09:51 PM   #19
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Post

Quote:
<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">Originally posted by Lance:
Meta: We have multiple crucified saviors. We have multiple holy men that somehow managed to be born on the Winter Solstice.</font>
As far as being born on the Winter Solstice that makes no difference at all. Dec. 25 as Jesus' birthday is not in the bible. Do you realize that? It was added latter as a way of giving the pagans a means of continuing to celibrate on a day they were used to holding feasts on but changing the reason for the feast to a Christian reason. It does not affec the Gospel story at all. And I also doubt that it is true of many of them. Most of that documentation comes from books written excluively to destroy Chrsitnaity, such as the Acharia S. stuff. I have never seen any real documentation form a real scholar which agrees with that. Maybe a few of them were but I doubt that all were.

As for the dying rising savior gods, that is just not true. If you look at the real myths in the classical books that record them, none are crucified, very few actually die, and hardly any are born of virigins. Almost all of those who are said to have been so born or so killed are not recorded as such in the real myths. That is something the Christ mythers have distorted and they put that in their own books and footnote each other but it has no foundation in fact at all.

And that does not affect Jesus' historicity at all. If you just go by the facts, without any theological interpritation, this guy claimed to Messiah and he was crucified. That is not negated by the dying rising savior gods and the only connection is that one could possibly calim that the theological explaination of his followers was colored by these dying rising pagan gods. But not his actual existence, that's unrelated. Moreover, he is rooted in Judaism and they hated the pagan gods who why would they even be influenced by them? why woudl they interprit the life and death of a Messianich claiment in terms of pagan mythology which they hated?

I'm going to start a new thread on this.

Quote:
<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">
And you're quite right, we hardly have anything from the first century. So how can we make such huge decisions based on so flimsy evidence?</font>
Meta =&gt;Because including the Gospels a great deal of what we do have attests to Jesus as a real histoircal person.

1)four Gospels
2)Paul
3) Jospehus
4)Mishna
5) Celsus
6)Phalen
7) Johonine literature
8)Peterian epistles
9)1 Clement
10) Acts
11)testimony fro early second century of those who knew eye witnesses.

The Biblical lit can be defended on the grounds of it's historical validity, at least to the extent that all of these people, the principle players were historical, the neo-platonic notions of Dhortey apply to a latter period, there is no evidence that they took it as anything but history, which John and Clement prove, so why take it otherwise?

You are also just ignoring the argument above which is proof! All those documents tesify to the basic story, why is there no other story?

Layman: Sure I accept responsibility for those things. That's part of what I'm doing right now, trying to change the crapy system so things like that don't happen again.

As to Hiroshima and Nagasaki, thats war. We were attacked and defended ourselves. We got into the mess in Vietnam exactly because we didn't treat a war as a war. Probably that whole topic deserves a thread on its own.

I haven't seen you renouncing the cult of Christianity lately, now have I?

Meta =&gt;That is just ignorant carp. Christianity did not get us into Veitnam, and to a large exent it tried to get us out! Every heard of the Baragins? They were not alone. Priests and Nuns fought the war a lot. I was a protester I know what I'm talking about, Nuns and preists were big in the anti-war movement. Liberation theology in Latin America, I don't see you apologizing for the cult of satan (the Republicans).


Quote:
<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">
Back to Paul: Parts of him may well be over-blown as well. We do have surviving writings that are supposed to be his, so I'd be far willing to assign him a higher likelyhood of existing than Jesus himself.</font>
Meta [-&gt;That how do you explain the fac that Paul accepted Jesus as historical (Romans 1:3) and he also attests to many of the principle people in the Gosples and met many of them?


Quote:
<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">
Now, just because a sun-touched fanatic believes something, does it make it fact? Do we take David Korish's version of things as true? How about Jim Jones? The Hale-Bopp nuts?

The very lack of historical backup makes it far far more likely Paul is in the above category than right-hand of the son of God.[/B]</font>

Meta =&gt;You are not making the connections here man! It's all interconnected, they guys alll knew each other. If Paul was real than we know that Peter and James were, and that Philip, Andrew, Barnabus, Anddronicus and Junia, Pricilla and Aquilla who Paul says followed Jesus in the begining, Luke, they were all real. So what were they doing talking about this guy they knew if he never existed?
 
Old 05-24-2001, 10:02 PM   #20
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Post

Quote:
<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">Originally posted by marduck:
"Greeks and Roman don't talk about it because it's not important to them. They thought Palestine was totally unimportant. That would be like me saying well you claim to be well informed about current events but you don't know who the mayer of Lancaster Texas is"

What about the Jews? You don't think they'd find it odd that a dead guy came back to life? Especially if he brought a bunch of dead folks back with him (Matt)? I'd bet I'd know the Mayor of Lancaster Texas if he'd been killed on a cross and came back to life!
No I don't think Jesus was a total myth, there probably was a historical person in there somewhere.
[/font]

Meta =&gt;That's what I'm concerned with right now. I find it absurdly stupid to think he was a total myth and that's what makes me mad. Defending the res. is secondary to that right now. Not that it is unimportant, but it's just more primiary to establish the probablity that he was actually a real person,risen or not.

But that argument is merely beging the question. You are assuming that they hadn't heard about it. Of course many turned away due to the incredulous nature of the claim, but how did it get going in the first place? Who would beleive it? Well, there were 500 eye witnesses. A lot of people didn't beleive them and a lot did. But how would it go from 12 to 3000 or so over night if a lot of them couldn't testify that it was so?

And you are merely ignoring the argument above. All those sources prove that the whole community knew the facts and weren't in a position to despute them of offer counter versions.


Quote:
Heracles was no doubt based on the stories surrounding Gilgamesh, another ancient demigod (Babylon) with lots of adventures and great strength with godly inlaws and such, though he was a real life person, a King.</font>
Meta =&gt;No, I think I've seen that scholars attribute him to a composit of two different characters, one lived after the Trogjan war and was Greek, the other lived before it but not as far back as Gilgamesh, and I think was northern mediteranian, somewhere. But there's hardly any evidence for that.

[This message has been edited by marduck (edited May 24, 2001).][/B]
 
 

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -8. The time now is 12:45 PM.

Top

This custom BB emulates vBulletin® Version 3.8.2
Copyright ©2000 - 2015, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.