Freethought & Rationalism Archive

spin · 05-25-2012, 07:16 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by la70119

Quote:

Originally Posted by spin

mm dismisses palaeographic dating out of hand, so you'd need dated texts from Oxyrhynchus, such as administrative letters, though there aren't any to my knowledge that are early testimony to christianity. However, I served him up the house church in Dura-Europos and the gospel harmony found in the city, so he contorts and denies and forgets and repeats the initial erroneous claim. Don't bother any further. It's a swamp of ever more complicated conspiracy.

More's the pity, because he could get a heck of a lot more mileage exploiting these anamolies and whatnot in the documents if he realised that Christianity was a heterodox phenomenon, i.e., several different religious groups all claiming an origin from some Yeshuah from Galilee, before Constantine basically made one of the factions the State Religion, displacing the Imperial Cult of the Caesars.

He's just too committed. :constern01:

sotto voce · 05-25-2012, 07:20 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by spin

Quote:

Originally Posted by sotto voce

Quote:

Originally Posted by spin

Quote:

Originally Posted by sotto voce

Quote:

Originally Posted by spin

Quote:

Originally Posted by sotto voce

But those who maintain that Christians have such a thing as apostolic succession have one very hard time convincing anyone that they are not reluctant theists. Because merely to claim apostolic succession is virtually a criminal act.

Quote:

I'm sorry

Really? So which person do you know who has apostolic succession? We know there's no God, yet we know who his representatives are.

Why not just read what people say to you

Oh, I do.

You don't show any consistent evidence of having done so.

Quote:

Originally Posted by sotto voce

But how often do you write anything worth reading?

When you post more than your usual sniping and nastiness, I try to respond more substantively, as I did here. Was that "either evasive bullshit or juvenile insults"?

Quote:

Originally Posted by sotto voce

It's either evasive bullshit or juvenile insults. Get real.

Once again you have twisted out of communication. You complained about my use of the notion of apostolic succession and you still haven't communicated your grievance.

Next time you troll, I'll simply report the incident.

So there's no pope. At last.

James The Least · 05-25-2012, 07:40 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by No Robots

Quote:

Originally Posted by James The Least

So, still no sign of (Christian) Theologians of the 19th Century acknowledging the Jewishness of Jesus.

You're right about that, now that you have specified "Christian" theologians. But what is remarkable is that they are doing everything possible to avoid the subject. After the Holocaust, there does seem to be a change. Vigilance, however, is required in this area. And the best way to be vigilant is to constantly bring to people's attention the work that has been done by Jewish scholars, and particularly the work of Constantin Brunner.

It should have been obvious from my first post, in context, that I was asking for Christian theologians.

James The Least · 05-25-2012, 07:43 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by sotto voce

Quote:

Originally Posted by James The Least

Quote:

Originally Posted by No Robots

It is true that Christian theologians tried to avoid the Jewishness of Christ and the New Testament.

Thanks. My point exactly.

So, still no sign of (Christian) Theologians of the 19th Century acknowledging the Jewishness of Jesus.

What incredible drivel. The whole basis of the Messianic claim in every century is that it is through Judah.

If skepticism is fallen to this, it's on its last legs!

That would still put Skepticism one leg up on Messianism.

Speaking of drivel, what's your defense of this?

"That these calamities of the Jews, who were our Savior's murderers, were to be the greatest that had ever been since the beginning of the world, our Savior had directly foretold." (William Whiston, 1736 translation of the Jewish Wars)

aa5874 · 05-25-2012, 08:23 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by James The Least

That would still put Skepticism one leg up on Messianism.

Speaking of drivel, what's your defense of this?

"That these calamities of the Jews, who were our Savior's murderers, were to be the greatest that had ever been since the beginning of the world, our Savior had directly foretold." (William Whiston, 1736 translation of the Jewish Wars)

People who support an historical Jesus seem to live in a DREAM world.

They IMAGINE their Jesus was Great.

But, they ignore the written Statements in the short-ending gMark.

Every event with Jesus in gMark is either Fiction or Implausible--from the Baptism to the resurrection.

And these are the Last words of Peter in the short-ending gMark.

Mark 14

Quote:

71 But he began to call down curses on himself, and to swear: I know not this man of whom you speak.

When the short-ending gMark was written Jesus was NOT known to be great--Jesus was known as a REJECT.

No Robots · 05-25-2012, 08:25 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by James The Least

It should have been obvious from my first post, in context, that I was asking for Christian theologians.

Oh, believe me, it was quite obvious. And it should be obvious that I wanted to bring to everyone's attention the contributions of pre-Holocaust Jewish scholars on the subject of the historical Christ, and that I wanted to make it clear that the silence of Christian theologians on this subject is actually a response to the work of these Jewish scholars. It was an attempt to kill their work through silence. This seems to be something that you and others here wish to perpetuate.

James The Least · 05-25-2012, 08:47 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by No Robots

Quote:

Originally Posted by James The Least

It should have been obvious from my first post, in context, that I was asking for Christian theologians.

Oh, believe me, it was quite obvious. And it should be obvious that I wanted to bring to everyone's attention the contributions of pre-Holocaust Jewish scholars on the subject of the historical Christ, and that I wanted to make it clear that the silence of Christian theologians on this subject is actually a response to the work of these Jewish scholars. It was an attempt to kill their work through silence. This seems to be something that you and others here wish to perpetuate.

Er, no -- you seem to have some difficulty following my messages, since I stated quite clearly on page 1 of this thread that "Christianity" is just a Gentile rip-off of Judaism, and has been from Day 1. That should be obvious by now, but without a supposedly authentic Jewish core, Christianity starts looking awfully close to just another Greek mystery religion. Pointing out the silence of Christian theologians to the "Jewishness of Jesus" prior to 1945 demonstrates how subjective and shallow their field of study actually is, hardly the monolith of objective historicism that Ehrman et al. claim for it. The influx of Jewish commentators in recent decades have been a significant corrective to what had been a field hopelessly mired in apologetics.

spin · 05-25-2012, 09:06 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by sotto voce

Quote:

Originally Posted by spin

Quote:

Originally Posted by sotto voce

Quote:

Originally Posted by spin

Quote:

Originally Posted by sotto voce

Quote:

Originally Posted by spin

Quote:

Originally Posted by sotto voce

But those who maintain that Christians have such a thing as apostolic succession have one very hard time convincing anyone that they are not reluctant theists. Because merely to claim apostolic succession is virtually a criminal act.

Quote:

I'm sorry

Really? So which person do you know who has apostolic succession? We know there's no God, yet we know who his representatives are.

Why not just read what people say to you

Oh, I do.

You don't show any consistent evidence of having done so.

Quote:

Originally Posted by sotto voce

But how often do you write anything worth reading?

When you post more than your usual sniping and nastiness, I try to respond more substantively, as I did here. Was that "either evasive bullshit or juvenile insults"?

You didn't answer this question, nor respond usefully to the post referred to.

Quote:

Originally Posted by sotto voce

Quote:

Originally Posted by spin

Quote:

Originally Posted by sotto voce

It's either evasive bullshit or juvenile insults. Get real.

Once again you have twisted out of communication. You complained about my use of the notion of apostolic succession and you still haven't communicated your grievance.

Next time you troll, I'll simply report the incident.

So there's no pope. At last.

That's the best you can do?! You just won't behave reasonably and it would seem you don't want to communicate.

Of course there's a pope. You continue with what appears to be anti-catholic bigotry. I don't care about catholicism, just your bigotry, for it's not just regarding catholicism, but the Jews as well. Your comments regarding atheism and agnosticism have no acceptable reasoning to them. You don't seem to be trying at the moment.

sotto voce · 05-25-2012, 09:10 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by spin

Of course there's a pope.

But no God. :constern01:

spin · 05-25-2012, 09:23 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by sotto voce

Quote:

Originally Posted by spin

Of course there's a pope.

But no God. :constern01:

Agnosticism still hasn't registered with you.

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

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.