Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Stringbean · 09-19-2011, 04:44 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by aa5874

Quote:

Originally Posted by Toto

There are other possible, even probable explanations. Paul had a vision, and Mark created the back story.

There is NO data to show that Mark created a back story and further "Paul" claimed he was LAST to witness the resurrected myth.

The data for Myth Jesus has been already documented in the Extant Codices. There is no need to invent stories about myth Jesus.

The data for an "historical Jesus" of Nazareth is completely missing so HJers are at a loss from the very start and are engaged in Logical fallacies, absurdities, presumptions,and are using forgeries and admitted unreliable sources for their HJ of Nazareth.

All WE know is that Jesus Christ was described as the Child of a Holy Ghost, the Word that was God in the NT.

Those who know of another Jesus MUST provide their sources of antiquity.

What is the source for HJ of Nazareth?

Is it Matthew 1.18, Luke 1.35, John 1.1, or Galatians 1.1?

If NOT, then HJers need to provide their sources.

The HJ/MJ argument is among the Church and HJers.

The Church claimed Jesus Christ was God Incarnate as found in their Extant Codices and HJers are claiming it is FALSE or that Jesus was just an ordinary man.

Both the Church and HJers are also claiming that "Antiquities of the Jews" is AUTHENTIC the only external source with the name Jesus Christ.

The Church has PRESENTED the Extant Codices and ALL their Church wtitings as EVIDENCE.

HJers come EMPTY-HANDED or use logical fallacies, and absurdities.

HJers assert "absence of evidence is not evidence of absence" but the Church claim they have a WITNESS for their resurrected Jesus. They have "Paul".

The Church have PRESENTED Galatians 1 and 1 Cor.15. where a supposed contemporary AND over 500 people saw the resurrected Jesus.

HJers are at a loss for sources for HJ of Nazareth.

Agree.....

Tommy · 09-19-2011, 05:16 PM

Jesus might have been a myth but I don't think it's productive to argue for it. Theists will just turn round and ask for evidence that Jesus never existed and won't accept arguments from silence. I think it's easier to grant a historical Jesus but point out that the lack of independent corroboration of the wild claims and general indeifference of they who would have been his contemporaries discredits the supernatural aspects.

J-D · 09-19-2011, 05:19 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Stringbean

Quote:

Originally Posted by J-D

Quote:

Originally Posted by Stringbean

That would be kind of hard don't you think? The word "christian" was not invented until some 40 years after his death. It's beyond me how christians can claim a man that never even heard the word "christian" as their founder. Jesus did not found anything

There were authoritarians before the word 'authoritarian' was first invented. There were zealots before the word 'zealot' was first invented. There were radicals before the word 'radical' was first invented. There were inventors before the word 'inventor' was first invented. More likely than not there were Christians before the word 'Christian' was first invented. People more often invent words to describe things which already exist.

That was the answer I thought I would get which is why it don't surprise me any. One thing about religious discussion you can always count on some one will come up with something to make an excuse for something else..Beats the hell out of me....oh well on with the show.

I wasn't making an excuse for anything. I was just pointing out some indisputable facts. If you can't handle them, that's not my problem or my fault.

Stringbean · 09-19-2011, 05:22 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by J-D

Quote:

Originally Posted by Stringbean

That was the answer I thought I would get which is why it don't surprise me any. One thing about religious discussion you can always count on some one will come up with something to make an excuse for something else..Beats the hell out of me....oh well on with the show.

I wasn't making an excuse for anything. I was just pointing out some indisputable facts. If you can't handle them, that's not my problem or my fault.

Really? Hmmmmm...OK.

mountainman · 09-19-2011, 06:21 PM

A very interesting observation.

Quote:

Originally Posted by spin

Quote:

Originally Posted by GakuseiDon

Quote:

Originally Posted by spin

Quote:

Originally Posted by GakuseiDon

So the idea of Gospels as "scripture" was something that only started to appear in the second half of the Second Century.

What then do you think of the two references in 1 Cor 15:3 & 4 to "the scriptures"?

(They are obviously not the Hebrew "scriptures", as Paul has focused his proselytes away from Jewish materials and motivations.)

I've just assumed that Paul has pulled this from the Hebrew scriptures. What is your take?

I just take it as one of the many reasons why the appearances passage in 1 Cor 15 are bogus--from the second half of the second century.

Quote:

Originally Posted by GakuseiDon

1 Cor 15:3 For I delivered unto you first of all that which I also received, how that Christ died for our sins according to the scriptures;
4 And that he was buried, and that he rose again the third day according to the scriptures

mountainman · 09-19-2011, 06:33 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by archibald

2. The David Hume Test. '"A wise man, therefore, proportions his belief to the evidence" (aka 'more unusual explanations require more unusually good evidence').

But what about the Seneca hypothesis?

"Religion is true for the common people, false for the wise, and useful for the ruler"

mountainman · 09-19-2011, 06:46 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Iskander

Christianity started with the man we call Jesus.

The earliest evidence for the Greek new testament reveals not the name of "Jesus" but the nomina sacra abbreviation "J_S" (the same symbol which is used in the Greek LXX for the name of "Joshua". If the Greek New Testament was physically able to be purchaced in a Roman or Athenian or Alexandrian bookshop in the centuries prior to the Constantine Bible, then the meaning of these abbreviated codes, which are systematically proliferated through the Greek text, would not be known to the Greek reader who made the purchace of the Bible.

How would the Greek reader know what these codes meant? There is no explicit legend anywhere. We are left to assume that the personalities in the various churches, who preserved these books, revealed the meanings of these code words to those who might have asked them the meaning of the codes. The earliest evidence indicates that Jesus was purposefully encrypted.

We are dealing with technologically encypted evidence. This is like a secret society. I dont think the answer provided above deals with this issue.

J-D · 09-19-2011, 07:27 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Tommy

Jesus might have been a myth but I don't think it's productive to argue for it. Theists will just turn round and ask for evidence that Jesus never existed and won't accept arguments from silence. I think it's easier to grant a historical Jesus but point out that the lack of independent corroboration of the wild claims and general indeifference of they who would have been his contemporaries discredits the supernatural aspects.

What is 'productive' is context-dependent. When I'm discussing why I am not a religious believer I never bring Jesus into the discussion at all. I am not a Christian (or a Muslim, or a Sikh, or a Baha'i, and so on) because there is no God. I don't need to commit to an answer to the historical question 'How did people come to start telling stories about God?' in order to reject any answer which includes 'Because there is a God'.

But that's no reason why people shouldn't, if they feel like it, discuss the historical question 'How did people come to start telling stories about God?'--or, for that matter, the historical question 'How did people come to start telling stories about Jesus Christ?'

aa5874 · 09-19-2011, 07:54 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Tommy

Jesus might have been a myth but I don't think it's productive to argue for it. Theists will just turn round and ask for evidence that Jesus never existed and won't accept arguments from silence. I think it's easier to grant a historical Jesus but point out that the lack of independent corroboration of the wild claims and general indeifference of they who would have been his contemporaries discredits the supernatural aspects.

The ARGUMENT for the "historical Jesus" of Nazareth was INITIATED by those who DISAGREED with the Jesus of NT Canon.

This is most critical to understand.

HJers are ARGUING against the Church.

MJers are NOT responsible for what is found in the Extant Codices and did NOT write that Jesus was the Child of a Holy Ghost, the Word that was God and the Creator of heaven and earth.

See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historical_Jesus

Quote:

....The term historical Jesus refers to scholarly reconstructions of the 1st-century figure Jesus of Nazareth.[1] These reconstructions are based upon historical methods including critical analysis of gospel texts as the primary source for his biography, along with consideration of the historical and cultural context in which he lived....

The HJ argument is AGAINST the Church and its Writings about Jesus Christ.

HJers have NOTHING but their imagination as evidence.

aa5874 · 09-19-2011, 07:59 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Iskander

Christianity started with the man we call Jesus.

Not at all.

In the very NT, Christianity started with the Holy Ghost. See Acts 2

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

09-19-2011, 05:16 PM	#62
Tommy Regular Member Join Date: Apr 2010 Location: Tasmania Posts: 383	Jesus might have been a myth but I don't think it's productive to argue for it. Theists will just turn round and ask for evidence that Jesus never existed and won't accept arguments from silence. I think it's easier to grant a historical Jesus but point out that the lack of independent corroboration of the wild claims and general indeifference of they who would have been his contemporaries discredits the supernatural aspects.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.