Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Juststeve · 05-20-2011, 01:33 PM

No Avi, it will be an impossible sell, and why should anyone even try to convince someone so unreasonable?

Steve

blastula · 05-20-2011, 02:23 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Juststeve

I want to ask the group, does Doug’s thesis that Christianity arose as a result of some guys (Or gals, who knows) writing books of fiction that were mistaken for serious attempts to record real people and events represent a serious strain of myther thought, or can we set that hypotheses aside.

Not at all. The Greeks believed Achilles and Heracles were real people.

Juststeve · 05-20-2011, 02:36 PM

blastula:

You're right. People sometimes mistake fictional characters for historic figures. That's the cornerstone of my argument against the historic George Washington. I'll start the thread after we hash out this Jesus issue.

Steve

blastula · 05-20-2011, 02:47 PM

So you think the evidence for a historical Washington and for a historical Jesus are comparable? Are you intentionally trying to lose all credibility?

Juststeve · 05-20-2011, 02:50 PM

blastula:

No I don't think the evidence for historical Jesus is the same as historical Washington. Your argument however is equally applicable to either, and is dumb in either case.

That people are capable of mistaking fictional for real is no evidence that they did so in either case.

Steve

blastula · 05-20-2011, 02:59 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Juststeve

blastula:

No I don't think the evidence for historical Jesus is the same as historical Washington. Your argument however is equally applicable to either, and is dumb in either case.
Steve

Nonsense. It's only applicable in situations where there is a lack of evidence for historicity.

Quote:

That people are capable of mistaking fictional for real is no evidence that they did so in either case.

Yes, however, you are arguing the converse, that they wouldn't be likely to believe something untrue or say something untrue, as though everyone in history is a competent and careful arbiter of information. Your argument flies against the well known reality of what people commonly believe and say (and also ignores that the vast majority of the time would have no clue whether any of it was true).

blastula · 05-20-2011, 03:09 PM

Juststeve, you need to get over your pose as the reasonable one amongst the unwashed unreasonable masses. Your arguments today are clearly fallacious.

aa5874 · 05-20-2011, 03:43 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by renassault

Quote:

Originally Posted by aa5874

If it is possible that the unknown author of gMark made up his story from Hebrew Scripture then it must be also logical and possible that the unknown authors ALSO used Hebrew Scripture.

But, the unknown authors did WRITE that their Jesus was fulfilled prophecies and we can LOCATE the passages in HEBREW Scripture.

This is insane. All three Synoptics had access to Christian traditions that predated them which also originated from Palestine, INCLUDING Matthew and Luke's infancy narratives (so Bultmann). This is evident from the tradition and wording found in Paul in 1 Cor 10-11, so much that Luke's version of the New Covenant in the Last Supper is verbatim like Paul's.....

If you what say is sane then provide the credible source of antiquity that show the UNKNOWN authors of the Synoptics had access to Christian traditions that originated in Palestine and also show the credible sources that can show there was a Christian tradition in Palestine BEFORE the Fall of the Temple.

Quote:

Originally Posted by renassualt

..Isaiah 7:14 isn't the only Scripture quoted in his Gospel, but what really shows Matthew didn't invent his infancy narrative out of Scripture is the fact that he talks about prophecies fulfilled in Jesus being a Nazarene yet none state that (plainly of course; and Judges 13:5 doesn't count)....

That is your FLAWED opinion. but let us deal with the actual written evidence.

Mt 2:23 -

Quote:

And he came and dwelt in a city called Nazareth, that it might be fulfilled which was spoken by the prophets, He shall be called a Nazarene.

The unknown author did refer to the "words of the PROPHETS.

Hebrew Scripture contains the "words of the PROPHETS".

Quote:

Originally Posted by renassualt

Good speculation, but that's an opinion, not a conclusion. Plus, if it were true, Matthew would have quoted Numbers...

You are one who speculates that the unknown author did NOT use the "words of the Prophets" when the unknown author made reference to the "words of the Prophets" or Hebrew Scripture.

Whenever the unknown author made reference to the "words of the prophets" the same references are found in Hebrew Scripture.

Quote:

Originally Posted by renassualt

...I'm pretty sure that you just quoted the prophecy, and again, nice to know your personal opinion about the origin of MT 1-2.

Nice to know you have a personal opnion about MT 1-2 but you have no credible historical sources from antiquity for your personal opinion.

Quote:

Originally Posted by renassualt

...This is one of the (few) places that scholars would actually agree with you, but, I doubt the Evangelist would make a narrative out of a prophecy which in its historical day did not apply to the Messiah (unlike for example, Daniel 9:27, Is. 53). And as far as its historicity, that would probably require a lot to defend (or attack).

What credible historical source of antiquity can show that the UNKNOWN author of gMatthew was an EVANGELIST? You have no credible historical sources from antiquity for your personal opinions about the UNKNOWN author of gMatthew.

You don't know the MENTAL state of the UNKNOWN author of gMatthew to even suggest that you have knowledge of what the unknown author would have written.

Quote:

Originally Posted by renassualt

..I don't really understand why Mark has to have everything for you to consider it uninvented by the other two Evangelists. It is clear that Mark truncated whatever material he had (e.g. 1:12-13 et al) and the Gospel certainly wasn't meant to contain every early Christian tradition (Papias' 5 volume book being proof enough of that). And as far as the absense of Herod's slaughter, we have a similar absense of the slaughter of infants in Rome recorded by an ancient Roman historian (Cicero I think, but I'm not sure) so that's not evidence of absense.

Your opinion is hopelessly flawed.

Your are claiming that it is ACTUALLY recorded that infants were slaughtered in Rome but that some UNKNOWN author did not mention the DOCUMENTED event.

Well, the killing of the innocent by Herod is NOT documented by any historian at all only the UNKNOWN author of gMatthew and even the UNKNOWN author of gLuke CONTRADICTS gMatthew.

Based on gLuke, the killing of the innocent by Herod in gMatthew was INVENTED by manipulating out of context passages from Hebrew Scripture.

Quote:

A normal birth of a baby does not require the Magi and a STAR, the fleeing to Egypt, the killing of the innocent and prophecy of his birth place.

Quote:

Originally Posted by renassualt

...Indeed, and quite a spectacular way to survive on Jesus' part too, unless, of course, you are the Son of God. You are also forgetting that LK 1-2 has an infancy narrative and this confirms Matthew's virgin birth as well as that he was born in Bethlehem. That alone proves MT did not invent MT 1-2.

Actually the UNKNOWN author of gLuke DISCREDITS the infancy narrative in gMatthew. The unknown author of gLuke made the author of gMatthew a LIAR or that he did NOT KNOW what he was talking about.

In gMatthew, NO-ONE had any idea of when and where Jesus would be born in Bethlehem so Herod SLEW ALL the children that were 2 years and younger.

But, in gLuke, we have a different story. There was a PUBLIC CELEBRATION of angels and The shepherds were TOLD EXACTLY where Jesus was and even the clothes he was wearing. And the shepherds in turn TOLD people what they SAW.

Luke 2.15-

Quote:

15And it came to pass, as the angels were gone away from them into heaven, the shepherds said one to another, Let us now go even unto Bethlehem, and see this thing which is come to pass, which the Lord hath made known unto us.

16And they came with haste, and found Mary and Joseph, and the babe lying in a manger. 17And when they had seen it, they made known abroad the saying which was told them concerning this child.

In gLuke, Herod would NOT have needed to kill any children 2 years and younger.

The evidence in the very Gospels suggests that the infancy naratives are inventions and that the authors were NOT writing about historical events but used the "words of the prophets" to fabricate their Jesus stories.

Doug Shaver · 05-21-2011, 08:34 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Juststeve

but is he really serious about this? Is it really his contention that for more than a thousand years everyone mistook works of fiction to be attempts to set down real events in the life of a real person?

Yes.

You seem to find it highly implausible. Can you explain exactly why? Are you going to claim that no work of fiction was ever regarded, by a substantial number of people, as an attempted work of history?

Kapyong · 05-21-2011, 03:05 PM

Gday,

Quote:

Originally Posted by Juststeve

Matthew and Luke, and I suppose John, recognized Mark as fiction

So,
Matthew Luke and John realised it was fiction merely years or decades later.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Juststeve

Is it really his contention that for more than a thousand years everyone mistook works of fiction to be attempts to set down real events in the life of a real person?

Oh, now you say no-one knew it was fiction for a 1000 years ?

Which is it?

K.

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

05-20-2011, 01:33 PM	#541
Juststeve Senior Member Join Date: Nov 2004 Location: Dallas Texas Posts: 758	No Avi, it will be an impossible sell, and why should anyone even try to convince someone so unreasonable? Steve

05-20-2011, 02:36 PM	#543
Juststeve Senior Member Join Date: Nov 2004 Location: Dallas Texas Posts: 758	blastula: You're right. People sometimes mistake fictional characters for historic figures. That's the cornerstone of my argument against the historic George Washington. I'll start the thread after we hash out this Jesus issue. Steve

05-20-2011, 02:47 PM	#544
blastula Veteran Member Join Date: Apr 2006 Location: USA Posts: 6,070	So you think the evidence for a historical Washington and for a historical Jesus are comparable? Are you intentionally trying to lose all credibility?

05-20-2011, 02:50 PM	#545
Juststeve Senior Member Join Date: Nov 2004 Location: Dallas Texas Posts: 758	blastula: No I don't think the evidence for historical Jesus is the same as historical Washington. Your argument however is equally applicable to either, and is dumb in either case. That people are capable of mistaking fictional for real is no evidence that they did so in either case. Steve

05-20-2011, 03:09 PM	#547
blastula Veteran Member Join Date: Apr 2006 Location: USA Posts: 6,070	Juststeve, you need to get over your pose as the reasonable one amongst the unwashed unreasonable masses. Your arguments today are clearly fallacious.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.