Freethought & Rationalism Archive

dongiovanni1976x · 08-03-2006, 11:41 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Chris Weimer

Can anyone hear double standard being whispered in aa's post?

Whispered is putting it mildly...

dongiovanni1976x · 08-03-2006, 11:42 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dongiovanni1976x

What are the minimalist conditions necessary, in your opinion, for a person in antiquity to be considered "more likely historical" than not?

Quote:

Originally Posted by achristianbeliever

I've tried to ask this question more than once. I hope you get a better response.

I noticed that a few posts back and thought it desperately needed to be addressed, so I thought I'd throw it out there again.

Aeron · 08-03-2006, 12:03 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Chris Weimer

Same with Alexander, right? I mean, no one would believe that Alexander son of Zeus the Greatest God conquered all of history, right?

Does anyone here believe that? Or does anyone here worship zeus? People have throughout history been sure that their god was the "correct" one, and all the fables surrounding their myth were true. The fact that all of them have fallen out of favor indicates that religion and gods are neither permanent nor objective, and certainly not "true."

I am also guessing that if the entirety of our information about alexander came from those that followed him, he would be a god figure now also.

Or perhaps i didnt get your sarcasm, im not sure

Chris Weimer · 08-03-2006, 12:27 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Aeron

Does anyone here believe that? Or does anyone here worship zeus? People have throughout history been sure that their god was the "correct" one, and all the fables surrounding their myth were true. The fact that all of them have fallen out of favor indicates that religion and gods are neither permanent nor objective, and certainly not "true."

Ad populum fallacy.

Quote:

I am also guessing that if the entirety of our information about alexander came from those that followed him, he would be a god figure now also.

He was then too. As was Augustus, as was the Emporer of Japan just over 60 years ago.

Quote:

Or perhaps i didnt get your sarcasm, im not sure

My point was that just because someone called Jesus a god does not mean that Jesus did not exist.

dongiovanni1976x · 08-03-2006, 12:33 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Chris Weimer

My point was that just because someone called Jesus a god does not mean that Jesus did not exist.

Can't we all at least agree on this one fact?

Aeron · 08-03-2006, 12:52 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dongiovanni1976x

Can't we all at least agree on this one fact?

i was actually about to say we can agree on that :-)

I am actually a bit lost in this HJ versus MJ stuff - I have read up on a bit over the past year or so, and i keep coming back to one question:

Is it in agreement among HJ'ers that "jesus" necessarily is the son of god? Or can you be an HJer and just think that jesus was a local teacher whose reputation far exceeded his actual life?

Chris Weimer · 08-03-2006, 12:59 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Aeron

Is it in agreement among HJ'ers that "jesus" necessarily is the son of god? Or can you be an HJer and just think that jesus was a local teacher whose reputation far exceeded his actual life?

The latter. It's kind of hard to be an atheist HJer if Jesus is the son of some god.

dongiovanni1976x · 08-03-2006, 01:41 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Aeron

Is it in agreement among HJ'ers that "jesus" necessarily is the son of god? Or can you be an HJer and just think that jesus was a local teacher whose reputation far exceeded his actual life?

The latter. The problem I have seen in these arguments between HJer's and MJer's has been that some people think it has to be ALL or NOTHING (i.e. the Bible is completely true or completely false).
Nothing is really that black and white...

aa5874 · 08-03-2006, 03:49 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Chris Weimer

How do you know the extra-biblical information isn't fictitious? Do you use the Bible?

How do you know that your extra-biblical information is?

Quote:

According to Marcion, Jesus was not totally mythical, but a godbeing who descended to earth and actually existed. Marcion thought that Jesus Christ actually walked the earth. Nevermind that he was decades later than the gospels, and even longer than Paul, who was even after the James crew.

Macion's Jesus Christ was something like Superman. By the way, does Superman still have his day job, remember Superman actually was employed in the United States of America?

Quote:

Did you actually read the ancient texts about Marcion, or merely an article in Wikipedia? I'm betting on the latter.

Are you a better source than Wikipedia? I don't read Greek, I know a little Latin and no Hebrew, can I see your translation of ancient texts about Marcion in English?

Quote:

So far you've shown nothing to prove this assertion except the rewording of some article which distorts the historical truth. You still have nothing.

I have already told you, I can find no verifiable evidence to support the historicity of Jesus Christ, so I regard him as fiction. I still have nothing, true, well said.

aa5874 · 08-03-2006, 04:14 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dongiovanni1976x

The latter. The problem I have seen in these arguments between HJer's and MJer's has been that some people think it has to be ALL or NOTHING (i.e. the Bible is completely true or completely false).
Nothing is really that black and white...

You have created your own problems, you seem to be able to know what other people think. This thread is not about 'All or Nothing' it is about MJ not accepted by professional historians, not whether the Bible is completely true or completely false.

I say MJ, what do you say? And stop worrying about what other people think.

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

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.