FRDB Archives

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.


Go Back   FRDB Archives > Archives > Religion (Closed) > Biblical Criticism & History
Welcome, Peter Kirby.
You last visited: Today at 03:12 PM

 
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old 05-14-2013, 04:34 AM   #161
Contributor
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: London UK
Posts: 16,024
Default

Mountainman, I wonder if your ideas are too early? Maybe around 380 is the key date, Constantine is a player on the way?
Clivedurdle is offline  
Old 05-14-2013, 08:09 AM   #162
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: Alberta, Canada
Posts: 927
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Clivedurdle View Post
Quote:
And there are mythicists who think that a historical Jesus could be a better argument against Christianity, such as Richard Carrier
I can't make sense of the above, unless "a historical Jesus" should read "a mythical Jesus".
There is no typo here. I remember Carrier saying just that. I think Carrier wanted to say that a "non-Christian" historical Jesus (the nobody Jesus), if accepted as such, would be a better argument against Christianity rather than a mythical Jesus, much more unlikely to be accepted and a lot more difficult to prove (as being the starting point of Christianity).

Cordially, Bernard
Bernard Muller is offline  
Old 05-14-2013, 08:38 AM   #163
Contributor
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: the fringe of the caribbean
Posts: 18,988
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Bernard Muller View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by Clivedurdle View Post
Quote:
And there are mythicists who think that a historical Jesus could be a better argument against Christianity, such as Richard Carrier
I can't make sense of the above, unless "a historical Jesus" should read "a mythical Jesus".
There is no typo here. I remember Carrier saying just that. I think Carrier wanted to say that a "non-Christian" historical Jesus (the nobody Jesus), if accepted as such, would be a better argument against Christianity rather than a mythical Jesus, much more unlikely to be accepted and a lot more difficult to prove (as being the starting point of Christianity).

Cordially, Bernard
Whatever you think Carrier said or wanted to say is really irrelevant since HJers have not and cannot prove that there was an historical Jesus.

It is a fact that there has been an on-going QUEST for an historical Jesus for hundreds of years.

It is also a fact that the Quest for an historical Jesus was initiated because the Jesus of the NT is NOT historical.

The Jesus of the NT is a Jesus of FAITH--a Jesus of Mythology.

We know EXACTLY who Jesus was in the NT--the Son of a God born of a Ghost who walked on the sea of Galilee before he Transfigured and was Raised from the dead.

If Jesus of Nazareth was NOT a Resurrecting Transfiguring Sea Water Walker born of a Ghost then the NT is a product of Fiction.

Effectively, the NT is either a Compilation of Mythology or a Product of Fiction.

It is virtually impossible to prove there was an historical Jesus from a compilation of Mythology or Products of Fiction.

Essentially, the Quest for an historical Jesus will be consistently fruitless since those on the Quest for their Jesus cannot identify who he really was and when he actually lived.
aa5874 is offline  
Old 05-14-2013, 01:43 PM   #164
Contributor
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Falls Creek, Oz.
Posts: 11,192
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Clivedurdle View Post
Mountainman, I wonder if your ideas are too early? Maybe around 380 is the key date, Constantine is a player on the way?
Hi Clive, I think that it is possible that the Constantinian revolution was focussed on "Jesus Chrestos" and that this was altered after his rule to "Jesus Christos". The existence and the dating of the Nag Hammadi Codices suggest that there was something happening in the religious sector of the empire under Constantine (and then his sons).

When Ammianus refers to the "plain and simple religion of the Christians (or Chrestians)" he may be referring to them thinking that they were "THE GOOD GUYS".



εὐδαιμονία | eudaimonia
mountainman is offline  
Old 05-14-2013, 01:57 PM   #165
Contributor
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: London UK
Posts: 16,024
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by mountainman View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by Clivedurdle View Post
Mountainman, I wonder if your ideas are too early? Maybe around 380 is the key date, Constantine is a player on the way?
Hi Clive, I think that it is possible that the Constantinian revolution was focussed on "Jesus Chrestos" and that this was altered after his rule to "Jesus Christos". The existence and the dating of the Nag Hammadi Codices suggest that there was something happening in the religious sector of the empire under Constantine (and then his sons).

When Ammianus refers to the "plain and simple religion of the Christians (or Chrestians)" he may be referring to them thinking that they were "THE GOOD GUYS".



εὐδαιμονία | eudaimonia
Good or perfect?

Quote:
The goal of a Cathar was to become perfect.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Albigensian_Crusade
Clivedurdle is offline  
Old 05-14-2013, 05:06 PM   #166
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: Alberta, Canada
Posts: 927
Default

Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Clivedurdle View Post
Quote:
Quote:
Toto: And there are mythicists who think that a historical Jesus could be a better argument against Christianity, such as Richard Carrier
I can't make sense of the above, unless "a historical Jesus" should read "a mythical Jesus".
BM: There is no typo here. I remember Carrier saying just that. I think Carrier wanted to say that a "non-Christian" historical Jesus (the nobody Jesus), if accepted as such, would be a better argument against Christianity rather than a mythical Jesus, much more unlikely to be accepted and a lot more difficult to prove (as being the starting of Christianity).
Carrier's declaration is here, between 6:10 and 7:50.

Cordially, Bernard
Bernard Muller is offline  
Old 05-14-2013, 08:57 PM   #167
Contributor
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Falls Creek, Oz.
Posts: 11,192
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Clivedurdle View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by mountainman View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by Clivedurdle View Post
Mountainman, I wonder if your ideas are too early? Maybe around 380 is the key date, Constantine is a player on the way?
Hi Clive, I think that it is possible that the Constantinian revolution was focussed on "Jesus Chrestos" and that this was altered after his rule to "Jesus Christos". The existence and the dating of the Nag Hammadi Codices suggest that there was something happening in the religious sector of the empire under Constantine (and then his sons).

When Ammianus refers to the "plain and simple religion of the Christians (or Chrestians)" he may be referring to them thinking that they were "THE GOOD GUYS".
Good or perfect?

χρηστός

Quote:
useful, good of its kind, serviceable
Because the orthodox and the heretics both used the "nomina sacra" forms for "Chrestos" or "Christos" the two terms do not seem to be explicated and differentiated in the ancient sources. We have all seen scribal attempts in the 15th century to alter Chrest-variants to Christ-variants. [Tacitus].




Quote:
The goal of a Cathar was to become perfect.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Albigensian_Crusade

Quote:
The Albigensian Crusade or Cathar Crusade (1209–1229) was a 20-year military campaign initiated by Pope Innocent III to eliminate Catharism in Languedoc, in the south of France.

More church butchery.

The imperial coinage of Christian persecutions was struck in the 4th century.





εὐδαιμονία | eudaimonia
mountainman is offline  
 

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -8. The time now is 03:26 PM.

Top

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