Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Toto · 01-24-2011, 02:45 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by GakuseiDon

Quote:

Originally Posted by Toto

Why do you use the words biography and bios interchangably?

I am using "ancient biography", not "biography".

Quote:

Originally Posted by Toto

If ancient bioi were written about non-historical persons, then any resemblance between the gospels and bioi cannot be used to show that Jesus was a historical person.

You cumulative case has not accumulated any positive scores. You can't add six zero's and get a positive number.

* If ancient biographies could be written about real people, AND
* Everyone apparently thought that the Gospels were about real people, AND
* The Gospels were written about people in the recent past,

THEN the cumulative case starts to build strength. Argument by counter-examples ("well, maybe THIS happened instead") is possible, but only if there is data to support them.

What data supports your points?

How do you know that "everyone" apparently thought that the gospels were about real people? Around 180 CE, the proto-orthodox faction of Christians asserted that Jesus was historical (and also supernatural) for theological reasons. That is the only view that has survived, but that doesn't tell us what everybody thought.

And clearly the gospels were not written about people in the recent past - they were written after 70 CE about people who had lived at least 40 years before.

There's just no cumulative case here at all, much less a strong one.

aa5874 · 01-24-2011, 09:49 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by GakuseiDon

Quote:

Originally Posted by Toto

No it's not. There is no cumulative case.

Really? As far as I know, modern scholarship affirms:

The Gospels were a form of ancient biography.
The earliest Christians seemed to believe that the Gospels were written around a real person who was crucified under Pilate.
The earliest Christians all believed in a 'real' Jesus.
There is no record of any Christianity that didn't believe in a Jesus that walked the earth.
Paul seems to indicate that Jesus was a real person who died in Paul's recent past, probably around the time of Pilate.

Naturally, mythicists disagree on one or more points, but still: if all the points above are valid, it builds a strong cumulative case. Overwhelming, in fact.

You have ONLY presented what you BELIEVE. This is NO DIFFERENT to the Nicene Creed.

Everyone should KNOW by now people BELIEVE whatever they want but right now we are looking for the actual credible historical sources that Jesus was just a man.

Just simply state a credible source that can show Jesus was "REAL".

It has ALREADY been shown that the NT is NOT a credible historical source for HJ but a source of MYTH and Fiction.

Look at what "Paul" wrote.

Quote:

Ga 1:1 -12
Paul, an apostle, (not of men, neither by man, but by Jesus Christ, and God the Father, who raised him from the dead...

But I certify you, brethren, that the gospel which was preached of me is not after man. 12For I neither received it of man, neither was I taught it, but by the revelation of Jesus Christ.

1Co 15:17 -
And if Christ be not raised, your faith is vain; ye are yet in your sins.

Look at what Justin Martyr wrote in "Dialogue with Trypho".

Quote:

Now it is evident to all, that in the race of Abraham according to the flesh no one has been born of a virgin, or is said to have been born [of a virgin], save this our Christ.

Look at what Irenaeus wrote.

Quote:

With(1) regard to Christ, the law and the prophets and the
evangelists have proclaimed that He was born of a virgin.....

Look at what Tertullian wrote in "On the Flesh of Christ"

Quote:

...As flesh, however, He is not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of man....

Look at what Hippolytus wrote in "Refutation of All Heresies".

Quote:

...This Logos we know to have received a body from a virgin, and to have remodelled the old man by a new creation...

Look at what Origen wrote in De Prinicipiis.

Quote:

..... Jesus Christ Himself, ....... was incarnate although God, and while made a man remained the God which He was; that He assumed a body like to our own, differing in this respect only, that it was born of a virgin and of the Holy Spirit.......

The OVERWHELMING evidence support MYTH Jesus. Century after Century, writer after writer, from supposed contemporary to so-called historian, Jesus was BELIEVED to be Born of a Virgin.

Jesus was MERELY BELIEVED to have existed just LIKE all the MYTHS of the Competing Christian cults that were BELIEVED to have existed as Gods and Sons of Gods.

But, Origen put an end to ALL the Speculation. Jesus was NOT a Man. Jesus was an IT.

IT WAS BORN OF A VIRGIN and of the HOLY SPIRIT.....

That is IT. That is MYTH!! JESUS CHRIST is IT!!!!.

maryhelena · 01-24-2011, 10:23 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by aa5874

Quote:

Originally Posted by GakuseiDon

Quote:

Originally Posted by Toto

No it's not. There is no cumulative case.

Really? As far as I know, modern scholarship affirms:

The Gospels were a form of ancient biography.
The earliest Christians seemed to believe that the Gospels were written around a real person who was crucified under Pilate.
The earliest Christians all believed in a 'real' Jesus.
There is no record of any Christianity that didn't believe in a Jesus that walked the earth.
Paul seems to indicate that Jesus was a real person who died in Paul's recent past, probably around the time of Pilate.

Naturally, mythicists disagree on one or more points, but still: if all the points above are valid, it builds a strong cumulative case. Overwhelming, in fact.

You have ONLY presented what you BELIEVE. This is NO DIFFERENT to the Nicene Creed.

Everyone should KNOW by now people BELIEVE whatever they want but right now we are looking for the actual credible historical sources that Jesus was just a man.

Just simply state a credible source that can show Jesus was "REAL".

It has ALREADY been shown that the NT is NOT a credible historical source for HJ but a source of MYTH and Fiction.

Look at what "Paul" wrote.

Quote:

Ga 1:1 -12
Paul, an apostle, (not of men, neither by man, but by Jesus Christ, and God the Father, who raised him from the dead...

But I certify you, brethren, that the gospel which was preached of me is not after man. 12For I neither received it of man, neither was I taught it, but by the revelation of Jesus Christ.

1Co 15:17 -
And if Christ be not raised, your faith is vain; ye are yet in your sins.

Look at what Justin Martyr wrote in "Dialogue with Trypho".

Quote:

Now it is evident to all, that in the race of Abraham according to the flesh no one has been born of a virgin, or is said to have been born [of a virgin], save this our Christ.

Look at what Irenaeus wrote.

Quote:

With(1) regard to Christ, the law and the prophets and the
evangelists have proclaimed that He was born of a virgin.....

Look at what Tertullian wrote in "On the Flesh of Christ"

Quote:

...As flesh, however, He is not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of man....

Look at what Hippolytus wrote in "Refutation of All Heresies".

Quote:

...This Logos we know to have received a body from a virgin, and to have remodelled the old man by a new creation...

Look at what Origen wrote in De Prinicipiis.

Quote:

..... Jesus Christ Himself, ....... was incarnate although God, and while made a man remained the God which He was; that He assumed a body like to our own, differing in this respect only, that it was born of a virgin and of the Holy Spirit.......

The OVERWHELMING evidence support MYTH Jesus. Century after Century, writer after writer, from supposed contemporary to so-called historian, Jesus was BELIEVED to be Born of a Virgin.

Jesus was MERELY BELIEVED to have existed just LIKE all the MYTHS of the Competing Christian cults that were BELIEVED to have existed as Gods and Sons of Gods.

But, Origen put an end to ALL the Speculation. Jesus was NOT a Man. Jesus was an IT.

IT WAS BORN OF A VIRGIN and of the HOLY SPIRIT.....

That is IT. That is MYTH!! JESUS CHRIST!!!!.

aa5874 - Sometimes your just priceless!

:thumbs: :clapping: :clapping: : :thumbs:

aa5874 · 01-24-2011, 10:29 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by maryhelena

Quote:

Originally Posted by aa5874

.....But, Origen put an end to ALL the Speculation. Jesus was NOT a Man. Jesus was an IT.

IT WAS BORN OF A VIRGIN and of the HOLY SPIRIT.....

That is IT. That is MYTH!! JESUS CHRIST!!!!.

aa5874 - Sometimes your just priceless!

:thumbs: :clapping: :clapping: : :thumbs:

It is NOT me. I did NOT make anything up. The EVIDENCE of MYTH stares us right in the FACE.

HJ is a worthless waste of time and it was KNOWN for hundreds of years.

maryhelena · 01-24-2011, 11:18 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by aa5874

Quote:

Originally Posted by maryhelena

Quote:

Originally Posted by aa5874

.....But, Origen put an end to ALL the Speculation. Jesus was NOT a Man. Jesus was an IT.

IT WAS BORN OF A VIRGIN and of the HOLY SPIRIT.....

That is IT. That is MYTH!! JESUS CHRIST!!!!.

aa5874 - Sometimes your just priceless!

:thumbs: :clapping: :clapping: : :thumbs:

It is NOT me. I did NOT make anything up. The EVIDENCE of MYTH stares us right in the FACE.

HJ is a worthless waste of time and it was KNOWN for hundreds of years.

That's why I offered you a few accolades - for your persevering in stating the obvious...:wave:

GakuseiDon · 01-25-2011, 12:07 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Kapyong

Quote:

Originally Posted by GakuseiDon

Kapyong, I'm a bit disappointed in that comment. Do you really think that if I argue that docetists thought that a phantom was historical, I am arguing that a phantom was historical? In context of my argument, why do you raise this point?

No - I don't think you argue phantasms are historical.

But saying "no Christian denies a Jesus walked the earth" implies that no Christian believed in Jesus as a spiritual being.

No, as you say, I was pretty clear how I stated it.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Kapyong

But the docetics DID believe in a spiritual being - a phantasm. And we know phantasms are not historical. Even if they believed a phantasm really walked the earth - that is most definitely NOT evidence for a historical Jesus.

This means they supported the MJ theory - they believed in a spiritual Jesus. But by phrasing it the way you did, it makes it sound like the opposite was true.

A phantasm is not a historical Jesus, regardless of what Christians BELIEVED.

It appears that Marcion believed that the docetic Jesus walked the earth in the 15th year of Tiberius, interacted with the disciples, performed miracle, etc. Doesn't this make a phantasm historical, at least according to doceticists?

GakuseiDon · 01-25-2011, 12:10 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Toto

How do you know that "everyone" apparently thought that the gospels were about real people? Around 180 CE, the proto-orthodox faction of Christians asserted that Jesus was historical (and also supernatural) for theological reasons. That is the only view that has survived, but that doesn't tell us what everybody thought.

What else did people think?

Quote:

Originally Posted by Toto

And clearly the gospels were not written about people in the recent past - they were written after 70 CE about people who had lived at least 40 years before.

I'm defining "recent" as within that time period.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Toto

There's just no cumulative case here at all, much less a strong one.

There is a HUGE cumulative case, much better than any other that I've seen proposed. What do you regard as a better explanation?

Toto · 01-25-2011, 12:44 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by GakuseiDon

Quote:

Originally Posted by Toto

How do you know that "everyone" apparently thought that the gospels were about real people? Around 180 CE, the proto-orthodox faction of Christians asserted that Jesus was historical (and also supernatural) for theological reasons. That is the only view that has survived, but that doesn't tell us what everybody thought.

What else did people think?[

Who knows? Probably some of them thought that Jesus was a spirit.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Toto

And clearly the gospels were not written about people in the recent past - they were written after 70 CE about people who had lived at least 40 years before.

I'm defining "recent" as within that time period.

I think that is a gross misuse of the word. After 40 years (or possibly close to 100, depending on your dating) there are no real witnesses left.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Toto

There's just no cumulative case here at all, much less a strong one.

There is a HUGE cumulative case, much better than any other that I've seen proposed. What do you regard as a better explanation?

I don't see the point of continuing this. You keep saying that you cumulative case is huge, but I don't see it, and I don't know anyone else who sees it that way. I haven't read any critical scholarship that supports your idea that this cumulative case is at all impressive.

There are many better explanations. There is no real evidence of Christianity in the first century. The idea that Christianity arose from marginal Jewish communities after the Jewish War, and invented its history, seems most probable, with the fewest anomalies to explain.

dog-on · 01-25-2011, 01:28 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by GakuseiDon

Quote:

Originally Posted by dog-on

Assumed.

No, not assumed. See Dunn:

Since the 1970s, however, the question of the Gospels' genre has come under increasingly close scrutiny, and it has become much clearer that the Gospels are in fact very similar in type to ancient biographies.

Assuming that Mark was not simply a polemic against claimed apostolic succession, a dime novel, or anything else.

Quote:

Really? Which Christians didn't believe that the Gospels were written around a real person?

You must see the problem with this question. That you actually wrote it is pretty funny.

Quote:

Really? Which Christians didn't believe in a 'real' Jesus?

Again, hilarious, but you might wish to think about this one a bit.

Quote:

What Christianity didn't believe in a Jesus that walked the earth?

...

Quote:

So? I'm not saying "dog-on" affirms this.

Quote:

Originally Posted by dog-on

I hope not.

Quote:

It builds a cumulative case based on assumptions, most of which can be reduced to circular arguments.

Start reducing then, using modern scholarship. Start with the first point of Gospels fitting into the category of "ancient biography".

How about you explain to me exactly why you would classify Mark as an ancient biography, since it is your assumption that has been questioned.

GakuseiDon · 01-25-2011, 01:47 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dog-on

Quote:

Originally Posted by GakuseiDon

Which Christians didn't believe that the Gospels were written around a real person?

You must see the problem with this question. That you actually wrote it is pretty funny.

No, I don't. What is the problem with this question?

Quote:

Originally Posted by dog-on

Quote:

Originally Posted by GakuseiDon

Which Christians didn't believe in a 'real' Jesus?

Again, hilarious, but you might wish to think about this one a bit.

Nope, nothing comes to mind. What do you wish to tell me on this question?

Quote:

Originally Posted by dog-on

Quote:

Originally Posted by GakuseiDon

Start reducing then, using modern scholarship. Start with the first point of Gospels fitting into the category of "ancient biography".

How about you explain to me exactly why you would classify Mark as an ancient biography, since it is your assumption that has been questioned.

I'm saying that modern scholarship has moved towards regarding the Gospels as a form of "ancient biography". According to Toto, this even induced a sigh of relief amongst NT scholars. Do you agree that modern scholarship has moved towards this position? That's what I'm claiming here. Is modern scholarship right or wrong?

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

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.