Freethought & Rationalism Archive

aa5874 · 04-03-2007, 06:50 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by craigart14

That there was a Jesus is a perfectly ordinary claim. That there was a Christ who performed miracles and raised the dead is impossible.

The product of Jesus and Christ is an impossibilty.

The NT does not seperate them, Jesus is the Christ, Jesus and the Christ is the same person, Jesus was born of the holy ghost and a virgin. According to Matthew 1:18, "Now the birth of Jesus Christ was on this wise,: When as his mother Mary was espoused to Joseph, before they came together, she was found with child of the Holy Ghost."

And in any event, according to the NT, it was Jesus Christ that was born of the holy ghost and the virgin, was baptised, tempted, did miracles, transfigured, resurrected and ascended in one body to the heavens.

To further show that Jesus and Christ is the same figure, this written in Acts 22:6-8, And it came to pass that, as I made my journey, and was come high unto Damascus about noon, suddenly there shone from heaven a great light about me.
And I fell unto the ground, and heard a voice saying unto me, Saul, Saul, why persecutest thou me?

And I answered, Who art thou, Lord? And he said unto me, I am Jesus of Nazareth, whom thou persecutest'.

The Christ with respect to the Jesus, in the NT, is just a title not a separate entity.

There is no Jesus over here and Christ over there. One cannot separate Jesus from the fictitious acts recorded in the NT, which supposedly earned him the title, Jesus the Christ.

J-D · 04-03-2007, 07:17 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Steve Weiss

If there were such a person as a Jesus character that was none of the things the bible claims him to be, why bother ourselves about him? So much debate about a non-entity, a fiction, and an exaggeration. He said, she said. Just reclassify the bible as fiction and move on.

If you really didn't care, and really couldn't be bothered, you wouldn't have posted to this thread.

And for historians, and for people interested in history, it is a natural and reasonable question to ask: how, historically, did Christianity begin? Saying: 'well, not the way the Christian Scriptures describe it, anyway' doesn't answer that legitimate historical question.

J-D · 04-03-2007, 07:19 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Steve Weiss

I have read all that I can stomach of the murder, child abuse, torture and genocide advocated by the Judeo-Christian god. The bible is one of the most perverse doctrines available anywhere, especially since its adherents claim that these heinous acts are endorsed by an all-wise and infallible deity. Dirty doesn't describe the scope of this anti-human, irrational mythology. But you may find human sacrifice and cannibalism to your taste. I emphatically do not.

If you don't want to read the Bible, don't! Why should that stop other people?

J-D · 04-03-2007, 07:22 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Steve Weiss

As far as I can see, Spin (as his name implies) seems to be revising the bible to suit his agenda. Let's focus on the ethical standards advocated in its pages. Please indicate which ones I should ignore, which miracles didn't happen, who wrote what and what it means so that we can all agree that the bible is a wonderful book rich in historical accuracy and full of rationality. Why not just purge the big bad god entirely since, in your view, he is totally irrelevant and anachronistic. Then my confusion will be cleared up and I can get into line with you fundies of bible exegesis.

Why are you asking other people what ethical standards you should follow? Would you listen to them if they did? Can't you figure out your own answers?

And why do you want to 'agree that the bible is a wonderful book rich in historical accuracy and full of rationality'? None of the people you are arguing with on this thread has said anything like that outside your overheated imagination.

J-D · 04-03-2007, 07:47 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by aa5874

When I read the Bible, it appears to be similar to ancient literature now referred to as Greek mythology, and I understand that Greek mythology is all fiction.

Now, if the gods and goddesses of Greek mythology are established as fictitious figures and the Bible contain similar figures, it should be deduced very easily that the deities contained therein are also fictitious, especially when one takes into account that all these dieties have similar characteristics.

This is written in Matthew 1:18, "Now the birth of Jesus Christ was on this wise: When as his mother Mary was espoused to Joseph, before they came together, she was found with child of the Holy Ghost.

In Greek mythology, the fictitious figure Achilles is the son of a King and a sea goddess.

The similarity is striking, the historicity of both are baseless.

I can find very few significant similarities between characters in the Bible and gods and goddesses in Greek mythology.

You've only offered one supposed instance here, and what you have is one character (Achilles) who is the son of a King and a sea goddess, and another who is neither.

If you mean that there are supernatural features in both mythological and biblical accounts, you are correct. But it is not logically possible for supernatural stories to be attributed to incontestably historical individuals, it is a recorded fact that it happens. Hence, the presence in a story of supernatural features is not definitive proof that the characters of the story never existed.

mountainman · 04-03-2007, 07:51 PM

It should be borne in mind that any measure of "historicity"
attributable to a postulated HJ is a measure conducted by
means of a series of objectively defined criteria which, in
the scientific and logical sense, can be applied to any figure
purported to exist at the same epoch in antiquity.

In a separate thread entitled
comparitive historicity (Apollonius of Tyana c.f. Jesus of Nazareth)
is should be apparent that the former figure appears to have
a substantially higher degree of "historicity".

Consequently, any theory of the "Historical Jesus" or indeed
any theory of the "Mythical" or "fictional" Jesus Christ, must
necessarily spend some time on what role the widely published
writings of Apollonius of Tyana, and indeed his popular 3rd
century biography, had on the development of "the purported
historical evolution of christianity".

J-D · 04-03-2007, 08:02 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by aa5874

Your thinking confuses me. Are you claiming that Jesus the Christ is both mythological and historical?

And if that claim is being made, what's so confusing about it? Why can't you conceive of the possibility of mythological stories about historical figures?

J-D · 04-03-2007, 08:03 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mountainman

I have asked spin for a chronology as to when he thinks
the tribe of christians appeared on the planet.

Do I have the right to ask spin for the basis of his arguments
as they refer to chronology in this forum?

Conversely, if others in discussion are aware that spin for example
prefers the traditional chronology (eg: there must have been
some "tribe of christians in the first century"), then may I be
informed.

Perhaps BC&H pundits dont even have to have a chronology?
After all, they have the "literature tradition" to play with.

They either reject the opportunity of commenting on one
of the world's foremost 20th century ancient historians'
assessment of christianity in the 4th century, or totally
misunderstand Momigliano's commentary and thrust.

Other posters in this forum should be aware that there
is a vast difference between the study of "ancient history"
and "biblical history", and this difference has been in the
above sentence quite encapsulated.

Is it reasonable for you to demand from others what you don't produce yourself?

J-D · 04-03-2007, 08:07 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by aa5874

There is another observation I would like to make with respect to the non-historicity of Jesus the Christ. It is noticied that entities that exist in some other form, supernatural or superhuman, or in some other realm, the heavens or hell, before they come to earth to live as an earthly being are generally considered fictional or mythological.

Some people apparently believe that all human beings exist as supernatural 'souls' in some other realm before they live on earth as earthly beings. I consider accounts like that to be fictional or mythological. But I don't therefore consider human beings to be fictional or mythological. You and I really exist, and that fact isn't affected by somebody constructing stories about our supernatural pre-existence.

aa5874 · 04-03-2007, 08:18 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by J-D

Given that there are many different versions, mutually inconsistent, there seem to me to be two logical possibilities: (1) all versions are historically false; (2) one version is historically true and all the others are historically false.

There will be many possibilities, not just two.

1. All versions are historically false
2. One version is historically true and all others are historically false.
3. Some parts of all the versions are historically false and other parts of all the versions are historically true.
4. Some parts of some versions are historically true and all the remaining versions are false.
5. One version is historically true, and some parts of all the remaining versions are true.
6. One version is historically true, and some parts of some versions are true, the remaining versions are false.
7. One version is historically false, and some parts of all the remaning versions are true.

Now, with respect to the non-historicity of Jesus the Christ, there is one fundamental statement, as written in the NT, that confirms mythology and fiction, that eliminates all logical possibilities, Mary, as the author wrote, claimed that Jesus was born without sexual contact and that Jesus is truly the son of a holy Ghost.

Matthew1:18, Now the birth of Jesus Christ was on this wise: When as his mother Mary was espoused to Joseph, before they came together, she was found with child of the Holy Ghost

Luke 1:34-35, "Then said Mary unto the angel, How shall this be, seeing I know not a man?
And the angel answered and said unto her, The Holy Ghost shall come upon thee, and the power of the Highest shall overshadow thee, therefore that holy thing which shall be born of thee shall be called the son of God'.

Those passages are false, no person was ever conceived in that fashion, there was no baby, logically false, never happened. Those passages are outrageous and can only be catergorise as myth or folklore.

The historicity of Jesus the Christ is baseless.

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

04-03-2007, 07:51 PM	#436
mountainman Contributor Join Date: Mar 2006 Location: Falls Creek, Oz. Posts: 11,192	It should be borne in mind that any measure of "historicity" attributable to a postulated HJ is a measure conducted by means of a series of objectively defined criteria which, in the scientific and logical sense, can be applied to any figure purported to exist at the same epoch in antiquity. In a separate thread entitled comparitive historicity (Apollonius of Tyana c.f. Jesus of Nazareth) is should be apparent that the former figure appears to have a substantially higher degree of "historicity". Consequently, any theory of the "Historical Jesus" or indeed any theory of the "Mythical" or "fictional" Jesus Christ, must necessarily spend some time on what role the widely published writings of Apollonius of Tyana, and indeed his popular 3rd century biography, had on the development of "the purported historical evolution of christianity".

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.