Freethought & Rationalism Archive

maryhelena · 12-27-2009, 12:20 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by aa5874

The HJ is a most SENSELESS proposition.

After having examined the NT and Church writings it is clear to me that the evidence of an HJ position is extremely weak or virtually ZERO.

Some have put forward the notion that Jesus was just an apocalyptic preacher but such a notion cannot be supported by any historical evidence.

It cannot be shown that apocalyptic preachers were ever deified in Jerusalem, that is there is no history of people being deified by Jews even if there were a Jewish KING, like King David, or as a Messiah, like Simon Bar Cocheba.

History will show, based on Josephus, that apocalyptic preachers may been have called madmen and beaten to a pulp. And further, based on Josephus, Jesus would be likely not to have had a single follower or disciple but would be a loner.

And, if we examine the NT, the very teachings of Jesus appear to show some high degree of madness since he taught his disciples that he would be killed and be raised from the dead on the third day.

If Jesus son of Ananus was declared a madman just for saying "Woe unto Jerusalem", it is far more likely that Jesus would have been declareto be utterly insanely mad for teaching people that he would be raised from the dead within 72 hours of his death.

Jesus the son of Ananus, based on Josephus, was not deified and asked to forgive the sins of the Jews and to abandon the Laws of Moses including circumcision before the Fall of the Temple.

Now, based on Josephus, there was a character called John the Baptist who used to baptise people and had a large following, he was executed by Herod, yet he was not deified and worshiped as a God by Jews and asked to forgive the sins of Jews and to abandon the Laws of Moses including circumcision while the Temple was still standing.

The evidence from external sources appear to augment the theory that there was no apocalyptic preacher in Jerusalem who would or could have been deified by Jews.

The Jews have no precedent or tradition of deification and there were far better candidates to deify than an apocalyptic preacher whose words appear to be those of a madman.

Mr 9:31 -

Quote:

For he taught his disciples, and said unto them, The Son of man is delivered into the hands of men, and they shall kill him; and after that he is killed, he shall rise the third day.

It is not true or it is hardly unlikely that a MADMAN was deified in Jerusalem and asked to forgive the sins of the Jews, and to abandon the Laws of Moses including circumcision while the Temple was still standing.

The HJ is a most SENSLESS proposition, and after examining the NT and Church writings the proposition is MADNESS. Jesus the MADMAN, son of Ananus, was not deified.

aa5874

I think the mythicists on this forum understand the point you are seeking to make - that Jesus of Nazareth was not a historical person. When I got to this position myself - some 25 years ago - I was not content with leaving things there - as though that position put a full stop to further inquiry regarding the gospel storyline. Particularly, as this position does not negate the possibility that a historical man, individual, was important, somehow, to the early beginnings of Christianity.

Here is something I wrote in those long gone days.....

New Testament scholarship maintains that the supernatural identity the New Testament doctrines uphold for Jesus is not the identity of a normal human man. Instead of separating these doctrines from the man .......what theologians need to face is the fact that the man represented by these doctrines, Jesus of Nazareth, is not a normal man at all. These doctrines support, or uphold, not a physical man, but a figurative or spiritual man. The 'body' of Jesus was the Incarnation, the Virgin Birth, the bodily resurrection, his spirit was reflected in the miracles.....Behind the New Testament doctrines, theologians see the reality of a normal human man...what they now need to acknowledge is the fact that the normal man they see does not have the 'body' of Jesus of Nazareth....

A similar idea is contained in the views of G.A.Wells:

http://www.infidels.org/library/mode...ls/errant.html

Quote:

Recent work on Q led me to accept that the gospels (unlike the Pauline and the other early epistles) may include traditions about a truly historical itinerant preacher of the early first century.

Likewise, my acceptance of recent Q scholarship means that I am no longer asserting that all the traditions about Jesus in Mark must have evolved after the Pauline period..

My case is that, while some elements in the gospels may have elaborated the career of an actual itinerant Galilean preacher (who was not crucified and certainly not resurrected), the dying and rising Christ of the earliest extant Christian documents cannot be accounted for in this way; and that not until the gospels are these two very different figures fused into one.

aa5874, one can debate with HJ believers untill the cows come home. There is, as they maintain, a probability factor involved - but where they are in error, to my mind, and most probably to Wells, is that they assign this probability factor to Jesus of Nazareth - rather than to the far more rational premise that a particular historical individual was relevant to the development of early Christianity.

So, I'm with you - there is no probability whatsoever that Jesus of Nazareth was historical........but there is a very strong probability that a specific historical individual had some important impact upon early Christian thought. In other words, the NT storyline is not just about a spiritual Christ - the very human, flesh and blood, element is paramount...

mountainman · 12-27-2009, 01:15 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Toto

Quote:

Originally Posted by aa5874

After all this is a discussion board. Someone proposes A and another may propose NOT A

This is a privately run discussion board, and when the moderator decides that the discussion has no social value, the thread can be closed.

If you want to have a discussion, you have to understand the opposing point of view. Your opponents do not claim that there is a source in antiquity that directly describes a merely human historical Jesus. They only claim that a historical Jesus can be inferred with some degree of probability to be the source of the mythical stories about him. This is the argument that you have not touched.

But Toto it seems quite obvious that you are susceptible to the same charge since it seems likely that you are actively supporting your own personal "belief" in this matter that the gospels were written "in good faith" and that the gospels were written "before the 4th century".

(1) Were the gospels written in "good faith"?
(2) Were the gospels written before the 4th century?

Ask Eusebius these questions since he is our only source.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Toto

Undoubtedly some religious documents were forged, but many, including the gospels, were written in good faith well before Christianity became the tool of the Roman Empire.

Has the "Crystal Ball" which you are using to make these fine pronouncements on the history of the gospels been checked by NASA? You dont happen to have any evidence for your "hypothesis" do you? Where did you hear about this hypothesis? In church? From "church-people"? You have simply accepted the belief, you have not established this belief through any form of evidence.

Chaucer · 12-27-2009, 01:20 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by maryhelena

aa5874

I think the mythicists on this forum understand the point you are seeking to make - that Jesus of Nazareth was not a historical person. When I got to this position myself - some 25 years ago - I was not content with leaving things there - as though that position put a full stop to further inquiry regarding the gospel storyline.

But that position does put a full stop to all further thought from mythicist fundies like aa5874. Such perspectives are blatantly ones of blind faith and not of reason. A number of mythicists whom I've encountered on line are the same: pure fundies who proselytize according to a robotoid script generated and guided by blind faith, rather than reason. Such cultists are not rationalists at all.

Rationally,

Chaucer

Larkin31 · 12-27-2009, 01:22 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by aa5874

I am IMMERSED in my arguments, with SOLID support from antiquity, that Jesus of the NT was just a story written to be believed but was non-historical.

since I have been in this thread, you have done nothing but claim this. I am not sure how you mean that you are immersed in your arguments. Can one be immersed in such things?

Larkin31 · 12-27-2009, 01:27 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by aa5874

.... History will show, based on Josephus, that apocalyptic preachers may been have called madmen and beaten to a pulp. And further, based on Josephus, Jesus would be likely not to have had a single follower or disciple but would be a loner.

Start with this (as yet) unsupported claim. Please elaborate. I am curious, and I have Josephus on my shelf here at home.

aa5874 · 12-27-2009, 01:38 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by maryhelena

aa5874, one can debate with HJ believers untill the cows come home. There is, as they maintain, a probability factor involved - but where they are in error, to my mind, and most probably to Wells, is that they assign this probability factor to Jesus of Nazareth - rather than to the far more rational premise that a particular historical individual was relevant to the development of early Christianity.

My argument is that the probability factor is virtually ZERO. Probalility is not based on imagination or belief alone. There must be historical sources to support a probability. HJers have produced belief.

And it is when people BEGIN TO realize that HJers have no evidence, no historical source, just imagination, that they will come home.

It took a long time for GALILEO and Copernicus to get people to come home.

Quote:

Originally Posted by maryhelena

So, I'm with you - there is no probability whatsoever that Jesus of Nazareth was historical........but there is a very strong probability that a specific historical individual had some important impact upon early Christian thought. In other words, the NT storyline is not just about a spiritual Christ - the very human, flesh and blood, element is paramount...

You are NOT really with me unless you can show me the historical source of antiquity which led you to assert that " there is a VERY STRONG probability that a SPECIFIC HISTORICAL individual had some impact upon early Christian thought."

It is not logical to make a claim of VERY STRONG probability yet have nothing to show.

Again, the evidence seems to show that the Jesus story was fabricated NOT from a specific individual but from SPECIFIC writings.

And these are Hebrew Scripture, the Septuagint, and the writings of Josephus.

Now, can you please give me your source for your SPECIFIC individual on whom the Jesus story was based?

Chaucer · 12-27-2009, 01:53 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by aa5874

Quote:

Originally Posted by maryhelena

aa5874, one can debate with HJ believers untill the cows come home. There is, as they maintain, a probability factor involved - but where they are in error, to my mind, and most probably to Wells, is that they assign this probability factor to Jesus of Nazareth - rather than to the far more rational premise that a particular historical individual was relevant to the development of early Christianity.

My argument is that the probability factor is virtually ZERO. Probalility is not based on imagination or belief alone. There must be historical sources to support a probability. HJers have produced belief.

And it is when people BEGIN TO realize that HJers have no evidence, no historical source, just imagination, that they will come home.

It took a long time for GALILEO and Copernicus to get people to come home.

Where-What is home?! Now you're really giving me the creeps. Fundies talk about coming home to the Lord. What are you talking about?!

Chaucer

Larkin31 · 12-27-2009, 02:41 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Larkin31

Quote:

Originally Posted by aa5874

.... History will show, based on Josephus, that apocalyptic preachers may been have called madmen and beaten to a pulp. And further, based on Josephus, Jesus would be likely not to have had a single follower or disciple but would be a loner.

Start with this (as yet) unsupported claim. Please elaborate. I am curious, and I have Josephus on my shelf here at home.

Hello?

aa5874 · 12-27-2009, 03:08 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Larkin31

Quote:

Originally Posted by aa5874

.... History will show, based on Josephus, that apocalyptic preachers may been have called madmen and beaten to a pulp. And further, based on Josephus, Jesus would be likely not to have had a single follower or disciple but would be a loner.

Start with this (as yet) unsupported claim. Please elaborate. I am curious, and I have Josephus on my shelf here at home.

Perhaps you are not familiar with the character in Wars of the Jews called Jesus who was beaten to a pulp and declared a madman for saying "Woe unto Jerusalem."

Wars of the Jews 6.5.3

Quote:

But, what is still more terrible, there was one Jesus, the son of Ananus, a plebeian and a husbandman, who, four years before the war began, and at a time when the city was in very great peace and prosperity, came to that feast whereon it is our custom for every one to make tabernacles to God in the temple, (23) began on a sudden to cry aloud, "A voice from the east, a voice from the west, a voice from the four winds, a voice against Jerusalem and the holy house, a voice against the bridegrooms and the brides, and a voice against this whole people!" This was his cry, as he went about by day and by night, in all the lanes of the city.

However, certain of the most eminent among the populace had great indignation at this dire cry of his, and took up the man, and gave him a great number of severe stripes; yet did not he either say any thing for himself, or any thing peculiar to those that chastised him, but still went on with the same words which he cried before.

Hereupon our rulers, supposing, as the case proved to be, that this was a sort of divine fury in the man, brought him to the Roman procurator, where he was whipped till his bones were laid bare; yet he did not make any supplication for himself, nor shed any tears, but turning his voice to the most lamentable tone possible, at every stroke of the whip his answer was, "Woe, woe to Jerusalem!"

And when Albinus (for he was then our procurator) asked him, Who he was? and whence he came? and why he uttered such words? he made no manner of reply to what he said, but still did not leave off his melancholy ditty, till Albinus took him to be a madman, and dismissed him.

See http://wesley.nnu.edu

And now look at the words of Jesus, the Ghost of God.

Quote:

Mt 23:13 -
But woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! for ye shut up the kingdom of heaven against men: for ye neither go in yourselves, neither suffer ye them that are entering to go in.

Mt 23:14 -
Woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! for ye devour widows' houses, and for a pretence make long prayer: therefore ye shall receive the greater damnation.

Mt 23:15 -
Woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! for ye compass sea and land to make one proselyte, and when he is made, ye make him twofold more the child of hell than yourselves.

Mt 23:16 -
Woe unto you, ye blind guides, which say, Whosoever shall swear by the temple, it is nothing; but whosoever shall swear by the gold of the temple, he is a debtor!

Mt 23:23 -
Woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! for ye pay tithe of mint and anise and cummin, and have omitted the weightier matters of the law, judgment, mercy, and faith: these ought ye to have done, and not to leave the other undone.

Mt 23:25 -
Woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! for ye make clean the outside of the cup and of the platter, but within they are full of extortion and excess.

Mt 23:27 -
Woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! for ye are like unto whited sepulchres, which indeed appear beautiful outward, but are within full of dead men's bones, and of all uncleanness.

Mt 23:29 -
Woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! because ye build the tombs of the prophets, and garnish the sepulchres of the righteous,

It a most SENSELESS proposition to claim that Jesus was an apocalyptic preacher who was deified in Jerusalem and asked to forgive the sins of Jews and abandon the Laws of Moses including circumcision while the Temple was still standing.

Not even King David was deified and he was even called the Christ of God.

Larkin31 · 12-27-2009, 03:17 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by aa5874

Quote:

Originally Posted by Larkin31

Start with this (as yet) unsupported claim. Please elaborate. I am curious, and I have Josephus on my shelf here at home.

Perhaps you are not familiar with the character in Wars of the Jews called Jesus who was beaten to a pulp and declared a madman for saying "Woe unto Jerusalem."

Wars of the Jews 6.5.3

See http://wesley.nnu.edu

And now look at the words of Jesus, the Ghost of God.

Quote:

Mt 23:13 -
But woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! for ye shut up the kingdom of heaven against men: for ye neither go in yourselves, neither suffer ye them that are entering to go in.

Mt 23:14 -
Woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! for ye devour widows' houses, and for a pretence make long prayer: therefore ye shall receive the greater damnation.

Mt 23:15 -
Woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! for ye compass sea and land to make one proselyte, and when he is made, ye make him twofold more the child of hell than yourselves.

Mt 23:16 -
Woe unto you, ye blind guides, which say, Whosoever shall swear by the temple, it is nothing; but whosoever shall swear by the gold of the temple, he is a debtor!

Mt 23:23 -
Woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! for ye pay tithe of mint and anise and cummin, and have omitted the weightier matters of the law, judgment, mercy, and faith: these ought ye to have done, and not to leave the other undone.

Mt 23:25 -
Woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! for ye make clean the outside of the cup and of the platter, but within they are full of extortion and excess.

Mt 23:27 -
Woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! for ye are like unto whited sepulchres, which indeed appear beautiful outward, but are within full of dead men's bones, and of all uncleanness.

Mt 23:29 -
Woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! because ye build the tombs of the prophets, and garnish the sepulchres of the righteous,

It a most SENSELESS proposition to claim that Jesus was an apocalyptic preacher who was deified in Jerusalem and asked to forgive the sins of Jews and abandon the Laws of Moses including circumcision while the Temple was still standing.

Not even King David was deified and he was even called the Christ of God.

Jesus (the Christian one) was flogged, humiliated, and crucified. I don't really see the distinguishing point that you are making. Seems like they did with this Jesus basically the same as the former Jesus after about a week of living in open criticism in the city.

:huh:

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

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.