Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Toto · 10-03-2011, 06:26 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by archibald

..

But the word sceptics is incorrect. There are a lot, possibly even a majority (it's debateable, but what polls I've seen suggest that it's not even a majority of atheists) of sceptics who disbelieve a lot of what is in the texts, but don't go all the way to mythicist. You have a false dichotomy there.

By skeptic, I meant someone who is skeptical of the existence of Jesus, not everyone who claims to be a skeptic.

Quote:

.... If you think my recollection of that citation for the History prof is possibly inaccurate, think again, or put your money where your mouth is. If you make it worth my while, I'll make the effort to hunt it down for confirmation. It was quite a while ago, and I am no longer a member of ratskep. We can exchange details by PM, and I will wager you £50 that I am not incorrect. The reason I feel so sure is that I clearly remember asking Tim O'Neill to recite it on a subsequent thread to the one in which he first cited it. And he cited it again. If you doubt me, take the bet.

No thanks. It is possible that some tenured history professor made some comment that could be interpreted as comparing the search for the historical Jesus to the search for Alexander. I think I even have some vague memory of that quote. But it wasn't because the physical evidence of their existence is at all comparable. Most of the people engaged in the search for the historical Jesus, as we have found, are not concerned with historicity. They assume that the question of the historicity of Jesus has been solved.

MCalavera · 10-03-2011, 06:40 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Vorkosigan

We have three accounts of an interaction with JBap, all late and dependent on literary and fiction conventions, and more importantly, on each other.

But they are some of the earliest sources for Jesus. They are better evidence than your speculations.

Quote:

There is only one known source for the tale, Mark; Luke and Matt all depend on him. All other early Christian tale making either contradicts or ignores this tale; in Acts the tale is clearly denied.

Ignorance, ok. But what contradiction and what denial? Are we reading the same texts?

Quote:

What we have is just one source, then. Does any other source from that period give us this tale?

We have three of the earliest sources agreeing with each other. Do we have a source from that time period denying/contradicting this account? No!

Quote:

In other words, the "evidence" is pretty clear that the writer of Mark made up this interaction to suit some theological or narrative purpose of his own....

No, it's not pretty clear. And it's not "evidence". That's just you confusing your speculations for "evidence".

Quote:

I don't have any ad hoc hypothesis, I go with what the data analyzed by reliable methodology says -- "evidence" being data worked over by a methodology.

I think you need to fix that methodology of yours then.

Quote:

Methodology says that the data we have is questionable, that multiple sources conflict, that the Gospel writers are ardent liars and fiction creators. The Paulines, which predate the Gospels, do not know this story.

Do we see a conflict with regards to the baptism of Jesus Christ? I don't think so.

And you're just speculating that the Paulines didn't know. You don't know if what you're speculating is true. That's what you call one ad hoc hypothesis.

Quote:

I did answer your question by pointing out its assumptive and invalid nature. it was not "they" who made up the story, but the author of Mark.

So why did the author of Mark make up such an embarrassing account for his Messiah?

Quote:

There were numerous Christianities in the first three centuries of the Church, so there is no reason to point to "they" making up stuff, with your default position of Christian Whig history as its background, but rather try to see what the author could have meant when he made the choices he did.

And this is where you speculations come into play, right?

Why don't you just keep things simple instead? There is no need to complicate things for the sake of doing so.

Quote:

Why that writer chose to invent the tale of Jesus' baptism is not difficult to speculate about, but we'll likely never know.

That's exactly my point. Mythicists don't have a good explanation for why the author of Mark, or any of the other early Christians, would make up such an account.

Quote:

His gospel is heavily dependent on Paul and on the notion of Baptism, and his Christology appears to be Adoptionist.

What does Mark 1 say about John's baptism? It says that it's a baptism of repentance!

Quote:

He's working within the literary conventions of the historical romances that he builds his tale out of. He dragged in a historical figure known to be a famous baptizer to baptize Jesus.

Interesting how you admit John the Baptist was a historical figure.

Quote:

Not only are later authors clearly unhappy with this tale, but Acts totally denies it ever happened. It seems likely that it never occurred.

Or that it occurred and, therefore, the later authors weren't content with it.

Your interpretation of the passage you quoted from Acts is ridiculous by the way. Do you know the difference between "denial" and "ignorance"?

Quote:

Exactly. So clearly whoever invented it wasn't thinking of it as a baptism of repentence, but rather another kind of baptism into something else, as in the Didache, which I recall is not a baptism of repentence. Note that in Mark Jesus is not specifically said to have been baptized for remission of sins. Rather, the key point of the baptism is that it makes Jesus a son of god, as Paul avers in Romans. Jesus could be anyone; which is, I suspect, the whole point of Jesus in Mark.

Re-read Mark 1 again. It says "baptism of repentance". Your speculations are just wrong.

aa5874 · 10-03-2011, 06:42 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by MCalavera

Quote:

Originally Posted by aa5874

HJ of Nazareth is MADNESS.

It's MADNESS, I say. MADNESS. MADNESS. MADNESS.

WHY? WHY? WHY? WHY? WHY? WHY?

Why should HJ of Nazareth make sense? If HJ of Nazareth made sense then they would NOT have claimed Jesus Christ of the NT was born in Bethlehem.

Why, why, why should HJ of Nazareth make sense????

Why was it embarrassing for an ordinary man to be baptized by a BAPTIZER of ordinary men when ordinary men were DELIGHTED and HUMBLED to be baptized by John the Baptizer???/

Why, Why, Why???

Why would "Paul", who did NOT worship the CREATED, ONLY the CREATOR, worship an ordinary sinner man as a God who was crucified????

Why, why, why????

Why would "Paul" preach ALL OVER the Roman Empire the BLASPHEMY that an ordinary sinner was the END of the LAW and had a name above every name in HEAVEN and EARTH and could REMIT the sins of all mankind????

Why, Why, Why????

HJers have NO answer. HJers have MORE questions.

I will tell you why?

HJ of Nazareth is a MYTH just like his FATHER Jesus Christ.

HJ of Nazareth was BORN of the LIES, FICTION, EMBELLISHMENTS and MYTH of Jesus Christ.

MJ is the FATHER of HJ. Their biography are similar and HJ came later just like a son would do. The son normally looks like the father.

HJ looks a lot like MJ based on the records.

MCalavera · 10-03-2011, 06:44 PM

By the way, about that Acts passage you quoted, they weren't ignorant of John's baptism being a baptism of repentance. They were ignorant about the Holy Spirit. Read it again please.

MCalavera · 10-03-2011, 06:44 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by aa5874

Quote:

Originally Posted by MCalavera

It's MADNESS, I say. MADNESS. MADNESS. MADNESS.

WHY? WHY? WHY? WHY? WHY? WHY?

Why should HJ of Nazareth make sense? If HJ of Nazareth made sense then they would NOT have claimed Jesus Christ of the NT was born in Bethlehem.

Why, why, why should HJ of Nazareth make sense????

Why was it embarrassing for an ordinary man to be baptized by a BAPTIZER of ordinary men when ordinary men were DELIGHTED and HUMBLED to be baptized by John the Baptizer???/

Why, Why, Why???

Why would "Paul", who did NOT worship the CREATED, ONLY the CREATOR, worship an ordinary sinner man as a God who was crucified????

Why, why, why????

Why would "Paul" preach ALL OVER the Roman Empire the BLASPHEMY that an ordinary sinner was the END of the LAW and had a name above every name in HEAVEN and EARTH and could REMIT the sins of all mankind????

Why, Why, Why????

HJers have NO answer. HJers have MORE questions.

I will tell you why?

HJ of Nazareth is a MYTH just like his FATHER Jesus Christ.

HJ of Nazareth was BORN of the LIES, FICTION, EMBELLISHMENTS and MYTH of Jesus Christ.

MJ is the FATHER of HJ. Their biography are similar and HJ came later just like a son would do. The son normally looks like the father.

HJ looks a lot like MJ based on the records.

Wow, ok, now you really lost it.

aa5874 · 10-03-2011, 06:48 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by MCalavera

By the way, about that Acts passage you quoted, they weren't ignorant of John's baptism being a baptism of repentance. They were ignorant about the Holy Spirit. Read it again please.

Once you use gJohn as evidence then you have eliminated HJ of Nazareth.

The Jesus of gJohn was GOD and the Creator of heaven and earth. See John 1

Just go find a history book for HJ of Nazareth.

You are NOT allowed to use Ghost stories for history.

This is the 21st century.

Away with Ghost stories!!!!

MCalavera · 10-03-2011, 08:23 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by aa5874

Quote:

Originally Posted by MCalavera

By the way, about that Acts passage you quoted, they weren't ignorant of John's baptism being a baptism of repentance. They were ignorant about the Holy Spirit. Read it again please.

Once you use gJohn as evidence then you have eliminated HJ of Nazareth.

The Jesus of gJohn was GOD and the Creator of heaven and earth. See John 1

Just go find a history book for HJ of Nazareth.

You are NOT allowed to use Ghost stories for history.

This is the 21st century.

Away with Ghost stories!!!!

lol, John the Baptist, not the Apostle.

LOL

aa5874 · 10-03-2011, 09:06 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by MCalavera

Quote:

Originally Posted by aa5874

Quote:

Originally Posted by MCalavera

By the way, about that Acts passage you quoted, they weren't ignorant of John's baptism being a baptism of repentance. They were ignorant about the Holy Spirit. Read it again please.

Once you use gJohn as evidence then you have eliminated HJ of Nazareth.

The Jesus of gJohn was GOD and the Creator of heaven and earth. See John 1

Just go find a history book for HJ of Nazareth.

You are NOT allowed to use Ghost stories for history.

This is the 21st century.

Away with Ghost stories!!!!

lol, John the Baptist, not the Apostle.

LOL

Well, don't even try to use the Ghost stories in gMatthew, gMark, gLuke, gJohn, Acts of the Apostles, the Pauline Epistles, the Pastorals, the Non-Pauline epistles and Revelation for HJ of Nazareth.

You have been notified.

I don't deal with Ghost stories for historical purposes.

Ghost stories are for MYTH Jesus.

You have NO sources for HJ of Nazareth. NOTHING.

MCalavera · 10-03-2011, 10:00 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by aa5874

Well, don't even try to use the Ghost stories in gMatthew, gMark, gLuke, gJohn, Acts of the Apostles, the Pauline Epistles, the Pastorals, the Non-Pauline epistles and Revelation for HJ of Nazareth.

You have been notified.

I don't deal with Ghost stories for historical purposes.

Ghost stories are for MYTH Jesus.

You have NO sources for HJ of Nazareth. NOTHING.

No big deal. You're not so special that I should care about what you want.

aa5874 · 10-03-2011, 10:52 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by MCalavera

Quote:

Originally Posted by aa5874

Well, don't even try to use the Ghost stories in gMatthew, gMark, gLuke, gJohn, Acts of the Apostles, the Pauline Epistles, the Pastorals, the Non-Pauline epistles and Revelation for HJ of Nazareth.

You have been notified.

I don't deal with Ghost stories for historical purposes.

Ghost stories are for MYTH Jesus.

You have NO sources for HJ of Nazareth. NOTHING.

No big deal. You're not so special that I should care about what you want.

Once you have NO source for HJ of Nazareth then you are DOOMED. You will NOT get anywhere on BC&H when you have NOTHING but Ghost stories.

You have been notified.

No more ghost stories for HJ of Nazareth.

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

10-03-2011, 06:44 PM	#434
MCalavera Regular Member Join Date: Jan 2011 Location: Melbourne, Victoria, Australia Posts: 314	By the way, about that Acts passage you quoted, they weren't ignorant of John's baptism being a baptism of repentance. They were ignorant about the Holy Spirit. Read it again please.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.