Freethought & Rationalism Archive

PJLazy · 09-22-2012, 07:24 PM

Also, I would be able to respect a "mostly" mythical Jesus argument. I will readily admit I have very little evidence to refute that.

aa5874 · 09-22-2012, 08:17 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by PJLazy

I agree that Josephus is hugely problematic, but it is problematic to both sides...

This is most amazing. You claimed Josephus was a Credible Source but now admit that Josephus is 'hugely problematic'.

No, No!!! This is NOT right.

You knew in advance that you had no Credible sources your Jesus and gave the impression that you did. WHY???

In fact everything you said about your Jesus turned out to be erroneous.

The Jews were NOT deceived by your Jesus. No such person ever existed.

Your Jesus did NOT preach in Judea. No such person existed.

Your Jesus is a Modern Myth produced from ancient Myth Fables called Gospels.

PJLazy · 09-22-2012, 08:34 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by aa5874

Quote:

Originally Posted by PJLazy

I agree that Josephus is hugely problematic, but it is problematic to both sides...

This is most amazing. You claimed Josephus was a Credible Source but now admit that Josephus is 'hugely problematic'.

No, No!!! This is NOT right.

You knew in advance that you had no Credible sources your Jesus and gave the impression that you did. WHY???

In fact everything you said about your Jesus turned out to be erroneous.

The Jews were NOT deceived by your Jesus. No such person ever existed.

Your Jesus did NOT preach in Judea. No such person existed.

Your Jesus is a Modern Myth produced from ancient Myth Fables called Gospels.

I'm glad my comment is "most amazing"...I always love to set new standards. Credible and problematic are two different things and I explained why they both apply. But it is a nuanced argument so you'll have to go back and read it again.

Btw, have you answered my four questions yet?

aa5874 · 09-22-2012, 11:04 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by PJLazy

I'm glad my comment is "most amazing"...I always love to set new standards. Credible and problematic are two different things and I explained why they both apply. But it is a nuanced argument so you'll have to go back and read it again.

Btw, have you answered my four questions yet?

Please, I am extremely serious. You knowingly made claims about your Jesus that you knew were erroneous.

You knew that Josephus was "Highly Problematic" yet in cavalier manner claimed it was credible.

You must understand that this discussion is not to be taken lightly.

You knew that all four so-called answers were "Highly Problematic".

The HJ argument is based on "Highly Problematic" sources and is an extreme weak position--far weaker than the fundamentalist's argument for inerrancy.

HJers are Demanding that Admitted Fiction Sources and Myth Fables be accepted for the history of their Jesus.

No way!!! We are not living in the 4th century under Constantine. This is the 21st century.

Myth Fables called Gospel can never ever be history.

Now, we know that you really had NO answer for your Jesus.

Either you admit your error or continue on your "highly problematic" path to nowhere.

It is a fact that Jesus was described as the Son of a Ghost and believed to be the Son of a Ghost for hundreds of years and it was Publicly documented and circulated in the Roman Empire.

It was NOT a secret.

The Romans accepted and believed Jesus was a God when the Jesus cult was made official in the Roman Empire.

There is NO history anywhere that the Jesus cult of Christians worshiped a known man as a God.

MrMacSon · 09-23-2012, 03:43 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ApostateAbe

Quote:

Originally Posted by MrMacSon

Appealing to what ancient Christians believed *when*? during 80-100AD/CE? During the 2nd century (101-200AD/CE?) 250-300AD/CE?

One thing that explains those beliefs is that they lived in the Messianic Age ...

At least you admit 'the gospels are unreliable'!!

A merely-mythical Jesus is more plausible as the basis for the NT stories, even if there were preachers or messiahs called Jesus in those times.

Great points, MrMacSon. I think the gospels were written in the late first century, but that doesn't matter. Do you count the gospels as evidence of what Christians believed at the time [whenever you think the gospels were written]? I know there is only one sensible answer to this question, but I am trying to probe just how deeply the disagreements are rooted.

I believe the gospels 'evolved' over many years - over many generations - as they were modified, translated, re-translated, and copied & recopied.

I think it is possible (and 50/50 probable) some of the gospel stories started as much as 100-300 yrs BC/BCE, and were base on the Old Testament prophecies (The Torah was rewritten ~300 yrs BC and this was a time of great discussion about beliefs of the times).

The Christians that believed that the gospel stories were true are unlikely to have been privy to the evolution of the stories over many previous and subsequent generations.

tanya · 09-23-2012, 04:26 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ApostateAbe

I think the gospels were written in the late first century,...

And, someone else thinks that they were composed early in the first century, and someone else thinks that they were created in the second century, and others imagine an even later date.

Thinking is good.

Evidence is better.

Where's your evidence that points to a "late first century" date of composition?

ApostateAbe · 09-23-2012, 10:20 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by tanya

Quote:

Originally Posted by ApostateAbe

I think the gospels were written in the late first century,...

And, someone else thinks that they were composed early in the first century, and someone else thinks that they were created in the second century, and others imagine an even later date.

Thinking is good.

Evidence is better.

Where's your evidence that points to a "late first century" date of composition?

The synoptic gospels each twice quote Jesus as saying that his listeners would not die before the apocalypse, which gives a maximum date of about 90 CE. The synoptic gospels quote Jesus as predicting that every stone of the temple would be thrown down, which gives a minimum date of 70 CE. I would give the gospel of John a minimum date of 90 CE based on its excuse of the failed apocalyptic deadline, and the maximum date I am not so sure about.

ApostateAbe · 09-23-2012, 10:22 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by MrMacSon

Quote:

Originally Posted by ApostateAbe

Great points, MrMacSon. I think the gospels were written in the late first century, but that doesn't matter. Do you count the gospels as evidence of what Christians believed at the time [whenever you think the gospels were written]? I know there is only one sensible answer to this question, but I am trying to probe just how deeply the disagreements are rooted.

I believe the gospels 'evolved' over many years - over many generations - as they were modified, translated, re-translated, and copied & recopied.

I think it is possible (and 50/50 probable) some of the gospel stories started as much as 100-300 yrs BC/BCE, and were base on the Old Testament prophecies (The Torah was rewritten ~300 yrs BC and this was a time of great discussion about beliefs of the times).

The Christians that believed that the gospel stories were true are unlikely to have been privy to the evolution of the stories over many previous and subsequent generations.

OK, cool. Would you treat the gospels as evidence that the gospels evolved over many generations?

MrMacSon · 09-23-2012, 03:02 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ApostateAbe

OK, cool. Would you treat the gospels as evidence that the gospels evolved over many generations?

The synoptic gospels and similar apocryphyl/gnostic gospels, especially the Gospel according to Thomas, are evidence of various versions of stories about Jesus*, as are the variations in the first Bibles from later versions - Codex Sinaiticus & Codex Vaticanus.

The Catholic Encylopedia tells us the stories took a long time to "reach its final term" -

Quote:

The formation of the New Testament canon (A.D. 100-220)

The idea of a complete and clear-cut canon of the New Testament existing from the beginning, that is from Apostolic times, has no foundation in history. The Canon of the New Testament, like that of the Old, is the result of a development, of a process at once stimulated by disputes with doubters, both within and without the Church, and retarded by certain obscurities and natural hesitations, and which did not reach its final term until the dogmatic definition of the Tridentine Council.

http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/03274a.htm

See also the sections headed ...

The period of discussion (A.D. 220-367)
. & .
The period of fixation (A.D. 367-405)

Of course the Catholic Encylopedia is 'sanitized' to favor the alleged veracity of the stories ...

* add - see http://douthat.blogs.nytimes.com/201...us-conspiracy/

Quote:

The Jesus Conspiracy
It’s been six years since National Geographic revealed, amid much fanfare and discussion, the existence of a heretofore-unknown document that seemed to retell the New Testament narrative from the point of view of Judas Iscariot. That experience should have been a cautionary tale about the intersection of Biblical archaeology and media sensationalism: The first wave of coverage suggested that the document painted Judas as a misunderstood hero who was “only obeying his master’s wishes when he betrayed Jesus with a kiss,” but the evidence soon mounted that this sensationalistic claim relied on dubious translation decisions, and that the Judas in the fragmentary gospel might well actually be the embodiment of a Gnostic “king of demons” rather than Jesus’s most loyal friend.

That article goes on to refer to "the very American desire to refashion Jesus of Nazareth in our own image" - there was probably also a very real desire by early-Christians to refashion Jesus in their own image ...

MrMacSon · 09-23-2012, 03:09 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ApostateAbe

Quote:

Originally Posted by tanya

And, someone else thinks that they were composed early in the first century, and someone else thinks that they were created in the second century, and others imagine an even later date.

Thinking is good ... Evidence is better.

Where's your evidence that points to a "late first century" date of composition?

The synoptic gospels each twice quote Jesus as saying that his listeners would not die before the apocalypse, which gives a maximum date of about 90 CE. The synoptic gospels quote Jesus as predicting that every stone of the temple would be thrown down, which gives a minimum date of 70 CE. I would give the gospel of John a minimum date of 90 CE based on its excuse of the failed apocalyptic deadline, and the maximum date I am not so sure about.

Those stories could have been written after those events and retro-fitted into stories set in times leading up to them, much as the fictitious characters Jack Dawson & Rose DeWitt Bukater (played by Leonardo DiCaprio & Kate Winslet, respectively) have been fitted latterly into a dramatized version of the Titanic story.

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

09-22-2012, 07:24 PM	#81
PJLazy Junior Member Join Date: Oct 2011 Location: California Posts: 66	Also, I would be able to respect a "mostly" mythical Jesus argument. I will readily admit I have very little evidence to refute that.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.