Freethought & Rationalism Archive

aa5874 · 10-21-2011, 05:49 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by archibald

Quote:

Originally Posted by jakejonesiv

I am loving that Historical Holy Ghost and Angel Gabriel. History or fantasy? You tell me.

Jake

Fantasy, obviously. But that isn't the question. The question is whether someone believed it to be true, or alternatively believed the core elements to be true and the additions merely plausible elaborations. On that count, the phenomenon of belief in divine and supernatral occurances and characters is so thoroughly commonplace amongst the religious of all shades and varieties, and their writings, throughout the entire course of recorded history, right up to the prsent day, that it's easier to think the gospels writers fitted into that pattern. There is, in fact, no good reason to think otherwize. To prefer that these guys did not themselves subscribe to the material they were presenting and their explanations is to apply a postmodern sensibility and project it backwards onto them, it seems to me.

It is you who is projecting BACKWARDS.

There was NO NEED for Jesus to have ACTUALLY EXISTED to believe he did exist.

There was NO NEED for Apollo to have actually EXISTED to believe Apollo did exist.

There was NO NEED for the God of the Jews to have actually existed to BELIEVE the God of the Jews did exist.

There was NO NEED for SATAN to have actually EXISTED to BELIEVE that SATAN did exist.

There was NO NEED for Gabriel the Angel to have ACTUALLY EXISTED to BELIEVE the angel Gabriel did Exist.

There was NO NEED for Marcion's PHANTOM to have ACTUALLY existed to BELIEVE the PHANTOM did exist.

There was NO NEED for a GHOST CHILD to have ACTUALLY existed to BELIEVE A Ghost Child did exist.

Jesus was a Ghost Child, a PHANTOM, in the Gospels PRECISELY because ONLY BELIEF was NEEDED.

Even today, right now, HJers DO NOT know if HJ of Nazareth did actually exist but THEY BELIEVE SO.

BELIEF does NOT require any historical evidence.

Chili · 10-21-2011, 08:02 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by aa5874

Quote:

Originally Posted by archibald

Quote:

Originally Posted by jakejonesiv

I am loving that Historical Holy Ghost and Angel Gabriel. History or fantasy? You tell me.

Jake

Fantasy, obviously. But that isn't the question. The question is whether someone believed it to be true, or alternatively believed the core elements to be true and the additions merely plausible elaborations. On that count, the phenomenon of belief in divine and supernatral occurances and characters is so thoroughly commonplace amongst the religious of all shades and varieties, and their writings, throughout the entire course of recorded history, right up to the prsent day, that it's easier to think the gospels writers fitted into that pattern. There is, in fact, no good reason to think otherwize. To prefer that these guys did not themselves subscribe to the material they were presenting and their explanations is to apply a postmodern sensibility and project it backwards onto them, it seems to me.

It is you who is projecting BACKWARDS.

There was NO NEED for Jesus to have ACTUALLY EXISTED to believe he did exist.

There was NO NEED for Apollo to have actually EXISTED to believe Apollo did exist.

There was NO NEED for the God of the Jews to have actually existed to BELIEVE the God of the Jews did exist.

There was NO NEED for SATAN to have actually EXISTED to BELIEVE that SATAN did exist.

There was NO NEED for Gabriel the Angel to have ACTUALLY EXISTED to BELIEVE the angel Gabriel did Exist.

There was NO NEED for Marcion's PHANTOM to have ACTUALLY existed to BELIEVE the PHANTOM did exist.

There was NO NEED for a GHOST CHILD to have ACTUALLY existed to BELIEVE A Ghost Child did exist.

Jesus was a Ghost Child, a PHANTOM, in the Gospels PRECISELY because ONLY BELIEF was NEEDED.

Even today, right now, HJers DO NOT know if HJ of Nazareth did actually exist but THEY BELIEVE SO.

BELIEF does NOT require any historical evidence.

True, but whatever exists in the imagination must exist in reality as well and since the world you/we live in is a illusion because there is beauty beyond truth and truth beyond beauty all of the above existed in a world beyond ours for all that we see and say about us (including you) are atrributes that really do not touch you and not even your body is you and not even is yours if you are nore than the sum total of your attributes including your body since eternity is also home in you and that certainl is beyond you..

andrewcriddle · 10-22-2011, 01:47 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Vorkosigan

Is Luke claiming to be a witness here, or just testifying that her faith is unusually insightful from the moment she started believing:

3. It seemed good to me also, having had perfect understanding of all things from the very first, to write unto thee in order, most excellent Theophilus,

....because if it is the former, then Luke is a damned liar, and the answer is (1).

Vorkosigan

This is the AV translation which is probably wrong here. Modern translations tend to say something like having traced the course of all things accurately from the first. See Luke 1-3 for different renderings and comments such as:

Quote:

Having had perfect understanding (παρηκολουθηκότι)

Incorrect. The verb means to follow closely, and hence to trace accurately. See 2 Timothy 3:10, where Rev. reads thou didst follow for thou hast fully known. Rev. renders here having traced the course. The word occurs frequently in medical writings, and sometimes, as here, with ἀκριβῶς, accurately. Tynd., having searched out diligently.

Andrew Criddle

aa5874 · 10-22-2011, 09:55 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by andrewcriddle

...This is the AV translation which is probably wrong here. Modern translations tend to say something like having traced the course of all things accurately from the first. See Luke 1-3 for different renderings and comments such as:

Quote:

Having had perfect understanding (παρηκολουθηκότι).....

Well, after "having traced the course of all things accurately from the first" the author of gLuke MATCHED gMatthew and stated that Jesus was FATHERED by a Holy Ghost, was ON the Pinnacle of the Temple with Satan, Walked on the Sea, TRANSFIGURED, Resurrected and Appeared to his disciples.

Surely the author of gLuke is making an ACCURATE account of WHAT was BELIEVED and NOT actual historical events.

The Synoptics MATCH BELIEF.

The Synoptics do NOT MATCH any extant non-apologetic historical accounts of Jesus and his disciples.

Philo, Josephus, Tacitus, Suetonius and Pliny the younger do NOT MATCH the Synoptics. They WROTE Nothing either of BELIEF or History of Jesus and the disciples.

Chili · 10-22-2011, 06:19 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by aa5874

[ Well, after "having traced the course of all things accurately from the first" the author of gLuke MATCHED gMatthew and stated that Jesus was FATHERED by a Holy Ghost, was ON the Pinnacle of the Temple with Satan, Walked on the Sea, TRANSFIGURED, Resurrected and Appeared to his disciples.

Surely the author of gLuke is making an ACCURATE account of WHAT was BELIEVED and NOT actual historical events.

The Synoptics MATCH BELIEF.

Big difference between perfect understanding and belief and in Matthew Mary got raped and the angles were Lucifer and Michael = big difference.

TedM · 10-24-2011, 08:45 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by archibald

Yes. Or stories. Maybe even stories which had been circulating before Mark. Maybe even more than one version of a story about someone feeding a crowd of hungry people. If you're writing an entirely OT-based allegory, why would you repeat that element twice?

Good question. I didn't see any answers.

dog-on · 10-24-2011, 08:56 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by TedM

Quote:

Originally Posted by archibald

Yes. Or stories. Maybe even stories which had been circulating before Mark. Maybe even more than one version of a story about someone feeding a crowd of hungry people. If you're writing an entirely OT-based allegory, why would you repeat that element twice?

Good question. I didn't see any answers.

Perhaps who, exactly, was being fed in each of these scenes may be relevant.

aa5874 · 10-24-2011, 10:17 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by TedM

Quote:

Originally Posted by archibald

Yes. Or stories. Maybe even stories which had been circulating before Mark. Maybe even more than one version of a story about someone feeding a crowd of hungry people. If you're writing an entirely OT-based allegory, why would you repeat that element twice?

Good question. I didn't see any answers.

Are you implying that Jesus did feed 5000 people with a few fishes and bread and then perform the very same miracle with another 4000 at some later time?

The feeding of the 5000 and 4000 are CONFIRMATION that the Synoptics were NOT historical accounts but were about what people BELIEVED.

jakejonesiv · 10-24-2011, 11:22 AM

Quote:

The feeding of the 5000 and 4000 are CONFIRMATION ... about what people BELIEVED.

Could you be anymore vague? What "people?"
How do you know what "they" believed? All you have is what you assume they believed.

Jake

aa5874 · 10-24-2011, 03:27 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jakejonesiv

Quote:

The feeding of the 5000 and 4000 are CONFIRMATION ... about what people BELIEVED.

Could you be anymore vague? What "people?"
How do you know what "they" believed? All you have is what you assume they believed.

Jake

The Gospels, gMatthew, gMark, gLuke, gJohn are Version of Myth Fables that people of antiquity BELIEVED just as Plutarch's "Romulus" is a version of the Myth Fable about Romulus and Remus that was BELIEVED.

Examine Plutarch's "Romulus".

Quote:

But the story which is most BELIEVED and has the greatest number of vouchers was first published, in its chief particulars, amongst the Greeks by Diocles of Peparethus, whom Fabius Pictor also follows in most points. Here again there are variations, but in general outline it runs thus....

Examine Luke 1.1

Quote:

1 Forasmuch as many have taken in hand to set forth in order a declaration of those things which are most surely BELIEVED among us.........It seemed good to me also.......... to write unto thee in order, most excellent Theophilus...

The claim that Jesus fed 5000 and 4000 men which produced 19 BASKETS full of fragments from a few loaves of bread and fishes are stories that were BELIEVED and could NOT be historical accounts.

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

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.