Freethought & Rationalism Archive

lintrap · 11-05-2009, 01:59 PM

I agree

aa5874 · 11-05-2009, 02:50 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by WishboneDawn

Quote:

Originally Posted by lintrap

But we don't know what really happened with his disciples, since the accounts weren't written until 60-120 years after the events, and were spread by the highly unreliable coupling of oral tradition and ancient biography. Neither of these focused on accuracy.

I think the Jesus story only makes sense as a cobbled together religious text.

Exactly.

None of this counters the assertion of a HJ. It counters a conservative reading that claims the gospels are unerring, literal history.

Your statement is self-contradictory.

"None of this counters the assertion of a HJ" contradicts "it counters a conservative reading that claims the gospels are unerring, literal history."

An HJ means a literal historical Jesus.

lintrap · 11-05-2009, 03:01 PM

It might be because I am part-retarded or because I only glance at this when I am sure my boss isn't looking, but I am agreeing that Jesus is fake right?

jgoodguy · 11-05-2009, 05:21 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by show_no_mercy

Quote:

Originally Posted by jgoodguy

Nationalism with a strong religious flavor?

Abomination of Desolation

Quote:

The 1 Maccabees usage of the term points to the actions of Antiochus IV Epiphanes in the mid-second century BC. Specifically, he set up an altar to Zeus in the Second Temple in Jerusalem, and sacrificed swine on it around the year 167 BC

One commentator relates the prophecy to the actions of Caligula c. 40 AD when he ordered that a golden statue depicting himself as Zeus incarnate be set up in the Temple in Jerusalem

Some scholars, including Hermann Detering see it as another vaticinium ex eventu about Emperor Hadrian's attempt to install the statue of Jupiter Capitolinus on the site of the ruined Jewish Temple in Jerusalem leading to the Bar Kokhba rebellion of 132-135 AD.

Quote:

Following the re-dedication of the temple, the supporters of the Maccabees were divided over the question of whether to continue fighting or not. When the revolt began under the leadership of Mattathias, it was seen, in the view of the author of the First Book of Maccabees, as a war for religious freedom to end the oppression of the Seleucids. However, as the Maccabees realized how successful they had been, many wanted to continue the revolt and conquer other lands with Jewish populations or to convert their peoples. This policy exacerbated the divide between the Pharisees and Sadducees under later Hasmonean monarchs such as Alexander Jannaeus.[3] Those who sought the continuation of the war were led by Judah Maccabee. ....
Most modern scholars argue that the king was intervening in a civil war between traditionalist Jews in the countryside and Hellenized Jews in Jerusalem.[11][12][13] According to Joseph P. Schultz, modern scholarship "considers the Maccabean revolt less as an uprising against foreign oppression than as a civil war between the orthodox and reformist parties in the Jewish camp."[14] In the conflict over the office of High Priest, traditionalists with Hebrew/Aramaic names like Onias contested with Hellenizers with Greek names like Jason and Menelaus.[15] Other authors point to possible socio/economic factors in the conflict.[16] What began as a civil war took on the character of an invasion when the Hellenistic kingdom of Syria sided with the Hellenizing Jews against the traditionalists.[17] As the conflict escalated, Antiochus prohibited the practices of the traditionalists, thereby, in a departure from usual Seleucid practice, banning the religion of an entire people.[18] Other scholars argue that while the rising began as a religious rebellion, it was gradually transformed into a war of national liberation.[19] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maccabees

It is difficult to separate the pure religious from the political. THis is not to say the religion might be the spark that sets off a conflict, but nationalism is not far behind.

Even the 70 AD revolt had Jew vs Jew conflict in much the same manner.
One even sees this in the way Jesus divided up the political government of his government.

So IMHO, the religious impulse may provide the spark, but the potential for a conflict must already exist before we get a large scale conflict.

WishboneDawn · 11-05-2009, 05:32 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by aa5874

Quote:

Originally Posted by WishboneDawn

Exactly.

None of this counters the assertion of a HJ. It counters a conservative reading that claims the gospels are unerring, literal history.

Your statement is self-contradictory.

"None of this counters the assertion of a HJ" contradicts "it counters a conservative reading that claims the gospels are unerring, literal history."

An HJ means a literal historical Jesus.

I may be misunderstanding then. I was assuming HJ simply meant there was some real dude named Jesus at some time. You arguments do nothing to counter that assertion. But if HJ means something like a real guy who conforms to the claims of the gospels then you're right.

I've been gone for awhile and am a little rusty. Be gentle.

aa5874 · 11-05-2009, 05:48 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by WishboneDawn

Quote:

Originally Posted by aa5874

Your statement is self-contradictory.

"None of this counters the assertion of a HJ" contradicts "it counters a conservative reading that claims the gospels are unerring, literal history."

An HJ means a literal historical Jesus.

I may be misunderstanding then. I was assuming HJ simply meant there was some real dude named Jesus at some time. You arguments do nothing to counter that assertion. But if HJ means something like a real guy who conforms to the claims of the gospels then you're right.

I've been gone for awhile and am a little rusty. Be gentle.

Well, if you are little rusty, you may not be even aware that the HJ can now be considered senseless.

The Pauline writer claimed that he was NOT the apostle of a man, or by man, but the apostle of Jesus who God raised from the dead.

If you are rusty, see Galatians 1.1

The assertion that Jesus was a man is a unsupported SENSELESS assertion.

Toto · 11-05-2009, 06:42 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by WishboneDawn

...
I may be misunderstanding then. I was assuming HJ simply meant there was some real dude named Jesus at some time. ...

This is in fact what most people mean by the historical Jesus. aa5874 is arguing from his own unique definitions.

aa5874 · 11-05-2009, 08:13 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Toto

Quote:

Originally Posted by WishboneDawn

...
I may be misunderstanding then. I was assuming HJ simply meant there was some real dude named Jesus at some time. ...

This is in fact what most people mean by the historical Jesus. aa5874 is arguing from his own unique definitions.

But, you have failed to show that I am using "my own unique definitions".

Your statement is blatantly erroneous and you must know what you are claiming cannot be supported.

Why are you continuously doing this?

Please, I beg of you, do not mis-represent me.

Chaucer · 11-05-2009, 09:59 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by aa5874

Quote:

Originally Posted by Toto

This is in fact what most people mean by the historical Jesus. aa5874 is arguing from his own unique definitions.

But, you have failed to show that I am using "my own unique definitions".

You have failed to show you aren't.

Quote:

Originally Posted by aa5874

Your statement is blatantly erroneous and you must know what you are claiming cannot be supported.

It's your statement that's blatantly erroneous and you must know what you are claiming cannot be supported.

Quote:

Originally Posted by aa5874

Why are you continuously doing this?

So why are you continuously doing this?

aa5874 · 11-06-2009, 07:16 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Chaucer

Quote:

Originally Posted by aa5874

But, you have failed to show that I am using "my own unique definitions".

You have failed to show you aren't.

Your response is senseless.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Chaucer

It's your statement that's blatantly erroneous and you must know what you are claiming cannot be supported.

Another senseless response.

Quote:

Originally Posted by aa5874

Why are you continuously doing this?

Quote:

Originally Posted by Chaucer

So why are you continuously doing this?

Your response is very pathetic.

Now, this is my position. The HJ is a most senseless proposition.

The authors of the Gospels claimed Jesus TAUGHT his disciples that he would be killed and be raised on the third day.

This teaching of Jesus would have been highly irrational, absolute stupidity, if he was human, since he would have been deemed to be a fraudster within 72 hours of his death, and his organisation would collapse and effectively be destroyed.

It should be noted that in the Gospels, after Jesus was arrested the disciples fled and were in hiding. The situation was changed after the senseless and implausible post-resurrection visit from Jesus where, through some miracle he walked through the walls or roof of a building that was shut tight.

Without the post-resurrection visit, Jesus would have destroyed himself and his organisation.

The writer called Paul, a supposed contemporary of Jesus, claimed he was NOT the apostle of MAN or by MEN but by JESUS CHRISTwho was raised from the dead.

It is most obvious that the Pauline writer considered that JESUS WAS NOT A MAN.

The HJ is a most SENSELESS proposition.

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

11-05-2009, 01:59 PM	#21
lintrap Senior Member Join Date: Oct 2009 Location: Vancouver, Wa Posts: 864	I agree

11-05-2009, 03:01 PM	#23
lintrap Senior Member Join Date: Oct 2009 Location: Vancouver, Wa Posts: 864	It might be because I am part-retarded or because I only glance at this when I am sure my boss isn't looking, but I am agreeing that Jesus is fake right?

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.