Freethought & Rationalism Archive

GakuseiDon · 01-24-2011, 01:13 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Doug Shaver

Quote:

Originally Posted by Toto

There is no cumulative case.

Irrelevant. A consensus among scholars is not evidence for anything.

Are you really happy making that statement, Doug? Surely a consensus among scholars means something.

GakuseiDon · 01-24-2011, 01:15 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Toto

Neil Godfrey has challenged Burridge here.

Oh, I didn't know that Neil Godfrey had challenged that view!

GakuseiDon · 01-24-2011, 01:19 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Kapyong

Gday,

Quote:

Originally Posted by avi

Don : "There is no record of any Christianity that didn't believe in a Jesus that walked the earth"
Umm, what about those sects that imagined Jesus was a phantom......
Sabellianism
Docetism

Yah ...
There is a notable tendency of HJers to use that careful phrase "walked the earth".

Because that can INCLUDE a phantom or illusory Jesus, a phantasm that really truly walked the earth - implying they are HJers - instead of having them classified as MJers.

That is exactly why I worded it that way.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Kapyong

As if a phantasm was historical.

Kapyong, I'm a bit disappointed in that comment. Do you really think that if I argue that docetists thought that a phantom was historical, I am arguing that a phantom was historical? In context of my argument, why do you raise this point?

GakuseiDon · 01-24-2011, 01:29 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by avi

Quote:

Originally Posted by GakuseiDon

Really? As far as I know, modern scholarship affirms:
The Gospels were a form of ancient biography.
The earliest Christians seemed to believe that the Gospels were written around a real person who was crucified under Pilate.
The earliest Christians all believed in a 'real' Jesus.
There is no record of any Christianity that didn't believe in a Jesus that walked the earth.
Paul seems to indicate that Jesus was a real person who died in Paul's recent past, probably around the time of Pilate.

"Really?", right back at ya....

Don, what are you writing here?????

Holy Cow!!!
1. The Gospels were a form of ancient biography????
Where did you come up with that? Is the Iliad a form of ancient biography, as well?

Let's say it is. So what?

Quote:

Originally Posted by avi

If you wish to BELIEVE that the Gospels represent ancient biography, FINE. No problem. But, that is not the way you presented it.

Your English indicates a FACT.

Yes, it does. Or let's say, modern scholarship has moved in the direction of understanding the Gospels as a form of ancient biography.

Quote:

Originally Posted by avi

We have no idea whether or not JC and his "disciples" even existed.... A biography, presupposes, a FACTUAL JC.

I wrote "ancient biography". No, "ancient biography" can be about non-historical people as well. So what? I said it is a cumulative case.

Quote:

Originally Posted by avi

There can no biography of a fictional character.

??? That didn't come from me.

Quote:

Originally Posted by avi

2. "The earliest Christians seemed to believe..."
Really?
How do you know what the "earliest" Christians believed or doubted? On which documents do you base this opinion?

I hope modern scholarship's views are based on all of them.

Quote:

Originally Posted by avi

How do you know but what the earliest Christians were simply disillusioned Jews, (who had been thrown out of Jerusalem by the Roman jack boots,) Jews who then sought to exchange some of their enormous wealth, for an opportunity to attain perpetual life, after death, in Heaven?

I don't know.

Quote:

Originally Posted by avi

3. "There is no record of any Christianity that didn't believe in a Jesus that walked the earth"

Umm, what about those sects that imagined Jesus was a phantom......
Sabellianism
Docetism

What about them?

Quote:

Originally Posted by avi

Didn't Valentinus argue that JC never had a bowel movement, why would he, if he is not a human, but a ghost.... Ghosts don't "walk", they pass right through concrete....

If you can quote Valentinus to the effect that Jesus didn't walk the earth, please do so.

Quote:

Originally Posted by avi

4. "Paul seems to indicate that Jesus was a real person..." Paul, as I understand his writings, seems to indicate, contrary to what you have written, that JC was a ghost. Paul, according to me, did not claim that JC was ALIVE when he met him, au contraire, friend, Paul claimed, in my opinion, that JC was a ghost.

So you disagree with modern scholarship? :huh: I'm not saying "avi believes this."

GakuseiDon · 01-24-2011, 01:35 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Toto

The book was received with a sigh of relief from the NT guild who started to repeat that the gospels were bioi.

Really? A "sigh of relief" eh, Toto? Why did they do that? What were they worried about? Did they secretly think one thing but say another? Please explain.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Toto

People who were not paying close attention heard this as "the gospels were ancient biographies" - which could well have been the intent.

Bioi were not confined to lives of historical persons - they were also written about gods. And they cannot be considered biographies in the modern sense, where the biographer attempts some sort of historical accuracy.

So were they a form of ancient biography or not, Toto? I mean, if they aren't, what does it matter if bioi could be about non-historical people?

mountainman · 01-24-2011, 01:41 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by GakuseiDon

Quote:

Originally Posted by Doug Shaver

Quote:

Originally Posted by Toto

There is no cumulative case.

Irrelevant. A consensus among scholars is not evidence for anything.

Surely a consensus among scholars means something.

Another assumption GDon. A consensus of opinion is still opinion and represents neither fact or evidence. It is not impossible that the tenured blind are leading the tenured blind around and around the mulberry bush. Geocentrism and not heliocentrism was the dominant scholarly consensus for many centuries for example.

Toto · 01-24-2011, 01:43 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by GakuseiDon

Quote:

Originally Posted by avi

... Is the Iliad a form of ancient biography, as well?

Let's say it is. So what?

So an ancient "biography" is not in any way evidence of historicity, the first part of you cumulative argument gets you nowhere

Quote:

... Or let's say, modern scholarship has moved in the direction of understanding the Gospels as a form of ancient biography.

Saying that doesn't make it so. But even if it is so, this does not accumulate any points toward showing that Jesus was a historical figure.

Quote:

I wrote "ancient biography". No, "ancient biography" can be about non-historical people as well. So what? I said it is a cumulative case.

Does cumulative mean that you can build a case on 6 points that are invalid?

Quote:

...

Quote:

Originally Posted by avi

4. "Paul seems to indicate that Jesus was a real person..." Paul, as I understand his writings, seems to indicate, contrary to what you have written, that JC was a ghost. Paul, according to me, did not claim that JC was ALIVE when he met him, au contraire, friend, Paul claimed, in my opinion, that JC was a ghost.

So you disagree with modern scholarship? :huh: I'm not saying "avi believes this."

This is bullshit. You can't play the "modern scholarship" card without naming the scholar and the basis for his or her conclusions. I can't think of a modern secular scholar who has examined the case for Paul knowing that Jesus was a recently deceased person.

Toto · 01-24-2011, 01:50 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by GakuseiDon

Quote:

Originally Posted by Toto

The book was received with a sigh of relief from the NT guild who started to repeat that the gospels were bioi.

Really? A "sigh of relief" eh, Toto? Why did they do that? What were they worried about? Did they secretly think one thing but say another? Please explain.

A sigh of relief because their belief that the gospels were (sort of) historical was finally confirmed.

Why do you keep trying to find hidden meanings?

Quote:

Originally Posted by Toto

People who were not paying close attention heard this as "the gospels were ancient biographies" - which could well have been the intent.

Bioi were not confined to lives of historical persons - they were also written about gods. And they cannot be considered biographies in the modern sense, where the biographer attempts some sort of historical accuracy.

So were they a form of ancient biography or not, Toto? I mean, if they aren't, what does it matter if bioi could be about non-historical people?

Why do you use the words biography and bios interchangably?

If ancient bioi were written about non-historical persons, then any resemblance between the gospels and bioi cannot be used to show that Jesus was a historical person.

You cumulative case has not accumulated any positive scores. You can't add six zero's and get a positive number.

GakuseiDon · 01-24-2011, 02:05 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Toto

Quote:

Originally Posted by GakuseiDon

So were they a form of ancient biography or not, Toto? I mean, if they aren't, what does it matter if bioi could be about non-historical people?

Why do you use the words biography and bios interchangably?

I am using "ancient biography", not "biography".

Quote:

Originally Posted by Toto

If ancient bioi were written about non-historical persons, then any resemblance between the gospels and bioi cannot be used to show that Jesus was a historical person.

You cumulative case has not accumulated any positive scores. You can't add six zero's and get a positive number.

* If ancient biographies could be written about real people, AND
* Everyone apparently thought that the Gospels were about real people, AND
* The Gospels were written about people in the recent past,

THEN the cumulative case starts to build strength. Argument by counter-examples ("well, maybe THIS happened instead") is possible, but only if there is data to support them.

Kapyong · 01-24-2011, 02:30 PM

Gday,

Quote:

Originally Posted by GakuseiDon

Kapyong, I'm a bit disappointed in that comment. Do you really think that if I argue that docetists thought that a phantom was historical, I am arguing that a phantom was historical? In context of my argument, why do you raise this point?

No - I don't think you argue phantasms are historical.

But saying "no Christian denies a Jesus walked the earth" implies that no Christian believed in Jesus as a spiritual being.

But the docetics DID believe in a spiritual being - a phantasm. And we know phantasms are not historical. Even if they believed a phantasm really walked the earth - that is most definitely NOT evidence for a historical Jesus.

This means they supported the MJ theory - they believed in a spiritual Jesus. But by phrasing it the way you did, it makes it sound like the opposite was true.

A phantasm is not a historical Jesus, regardless of what Christians BELIEVED.

Kapyong

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.