Freethought & Rationalism Archive

MCalavera · 10-12-2011, 07:12 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by TedM

Quote:

Originally Posted by MCalavera

Luke 1 speaks against you. The last chapter of John also speaks against you.

The whole collective context of the Gospels suggests they were trying to promote Jesus as the Messiah, implying that they were historical testimonies with biases and exaggerations.

The context speaks against you.

You can't just selectively ignore evidence speaking against you. That's not parsimonious.

Exactly. I read it the same way. I read Paul the same way. The folks that want to claim we have allegories and plays instead of theologically embellished histories, have to interpolate away the bits that say the opposite. Maybe they are right, but without strong evidence for those interpolations it looks more like they are pushing their emotionally based agendas instead of using their brains.

It's good to know that some people here do get what I'm trying to say.

mountainman · 10-12-2011, 07:16 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by MCalavera

Quote:

Originally Posted by mountainman

Quote:

Originally Posted by MCalavera

Check the context of his argument.

It's irrelevant whether the author of John lied about some things to do with Jesus.

The point is they all meant their Gospels to be taken historically by the readers.

I don't believe Luke and John (the authors) were trying to mislead their readers into thinking their writings were to be treated as something different from what they claimed they should be treated.

In any other words you believe Luke and John (the authors) were not trying to mislead their readers into thinking their writings were to be treated as something different from what they claimed they should be treated.

Why would they lie about this bit?

Are you seriously asking me this question?
One possibility is that they wrote fiction.

Quote:

Do you have a more parsimonious view?

Have you ever read "The Hobbit" or "Harry Potter"? Do we have any historical evidence for the existence of the authorships of fictional narrative and characters? I have read "The Hobbit" and "The Bible" and prefer the former for fictional stories about ethics.

Nathan Poe · 10-12-2011, 07:18 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by aa5874

Are you serious? In the Synoptics, Jesus was FATHERED by a Ghost.

Please, please, please. I cannot presume that stories about the Child of a Ghost are NOT Ghost stories.

IT was PUBLICLY circulated in antiquity that Jesus was FATHERED by a Ghost and that is NOT a presumption, that is the history of antiquity.

And the most likely explanation is that Jesus was illegitimate and his father was unknown -- which is hinted at in Mark and John, both of which have angry crowds flinging the innuendo in Jesus' face (Mk 6:3 and Jn 8:41).

Needless to say, nobody wants a bastard Messiah, so a father figure needs to be written in. I don't think it's a coincidence that those two Gospels with the accusations -- Mark and John -- just so happen to be the ones that don't have fanciful birth fables complete with a conveniently written in father figure, who vanishes utterly from the story as soon as the birth narratives conclude.

Toto · 10-12-2011, 07:18 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by MCalavera

...

How do you know they just assumed?

Because I've read what they've written, and I've followed this issue. The Jesus Project was set up to remedy this lack, to actually delve into the question of historicity.

Quote:

Do you guys realize what you're implying? That those experts, even the more objective ones, have failed to see what you amateurs can see.

Do you realize how uninformed this comment is - how much you have missed the point? I have based my conclusions on what some of these experts have written.

mountainman · 10-12-2011, 07:20 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by MCalavera

Quote:

Originally Posted by TedM

Quote:

Originally Posted by MCalavera

Luke 1 speaks against you. The last chapter of John also speaks against you.

The whole collective context of the Gospels suggests they were trying to promote Jesus as the Messiah, implying that they were historical testimonies with biases and exaggerations.

The context speaks against you.

You can't just selectively ignore evidence speaking against you. That's not parsimonious.

Exactly. I read it the same way. I read Paul the same way. The folks that want to claim we have allegories and plays instead of theologically embellished histories, have to interpolate away the bits that say the opposite. Maybe they are right, but without strong evidence for those interpolations it looks more like they are pushing their emotionally based agendas instead of using their brains.

It's good to know that some people here do get what I'm trying to say.

You may yet regret saying anything.

Toto · 10-12-2011, 07:25 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by MCalavera

...

He's got a point. It's not so interesting as a question among scholars because there's no counter evidence against his historical existence while there is evidence for his historical Jesus.

Actually, there is no direct evidence. There is only an inference from some indirect evidence.

Quote:

You might as well say everything written about Jesus was forged and made up, but it's not parsimonious.

The current consensus among liberal, non-evangelical scholars is that most of what was written about Jesus is not historically accurate, that at best it represents a "refracted memory" of Jesus. The difference between the mainstream scholarship and mythicism is not as great as you make out.

mountainman · 10-12-2011, 07:40 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Nathan Poe

Needless to say, nobody wants a bastard Messiah ......

The author of the Toledot Yeshu seems to have thought otherwise.

Quote:

Originally Posted by WIKI

Historicity

Due probably to its offensive nature both Jewish and Christian scholars have until recently paid little attention to it.[17]

According to Alan Humm: "There is no scholarly consensus on to what extent the text might be a direct parody of a now lost gospel. H.J. Schonfield argued that it was so closely connected to the Gospel of the Hebrews that he attempted to reconstruct that lost work from the Toledoth."[18]

Scholarly consensus, according to van Voorst, dismisses it as an unreliable source for the historical Jesus: "It may contain a few older traditions from ancient Jewish polemics against Christians, but we learn nothing new or significant from it". Scholars, however, still look for reliable traditions on Jesus in it.[19]

Jane Schaberg contends it lends weight to the theory that Mary conceived Jesus as the result of being raped.[4]

Nathan Poe · 10-12-2011, 07:44 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mountainman

The author of the Toledot Yeshu seems to have thought otherwise.

And you can see all the luck he had trying to get that idea to fly.

Sheshbazzar · 10-12-2011, 07:45 PM

The thing that is certain is that never was any Jebus like the one described by the NT.
And any other Jebus that does not fit the description of Jebus given in the NT, is NOT the Jebus of the NT.

Any other Jebus than described, is not the Jebus of the NT, invalidating all that NT Jebus is about, and makes Christian claims into lies.
An imagined HJ human Jebus is a nothing of no value to anyone.

aa5874 · 10-12-2011, 08:06 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Nathan Poe

Quote:

Originally Posted by aa5874

Are you serious? In the Synoptics, Jesus was FATHERED by a Ghost.

Please, please, please. I cannot presume that stories about the Child of a Ghost are NOT Ghost stories.

IT was PUBLICLY circulated in antiquity that Jesus was FATHERED by a Ghost and that is NOT a presumption, that is the history of antiquity.

And the most likely explanation is that Jesus was illegitimate and his father was unknown -- which is hinted at in Mark and John, both of which have angry crowds flinging the innuendo in Jesus' face (Mk 6:3 and Jn 8:41)...

You assume your own history with imagination and then BOASTS that your imagination is best.

You have NO explanation only imagination.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Nathan Poe

....Needless to say, nobody wants a bastard Messiah, so a father figure needs to be written in. I don't think it's a coincidence that those two Gospels with the accusations -- Mark and John -- just so happen to be the ones that don't have fanciful birth fables complete with a conveniently written in father figure, who vanishes utterly from the story as soon as the birth narratives conclude.

You are just an imaginative inventor. It is irrelevant whether or not gMark or gJohn have birth narratives. All characters in the NT called by the name Jesus Christ are the very same just like all characters called Pilate in the NT are Pontius Pilate Governor of Judea.

It is most absurd and without a shred of logics that all the Gospels MUST contain the very same identical information of Jesus the Ghost Child.

We don't expect different authors to describe any character in all extant history with the same information.

In gMark, Pilate is NOT called Pontius Pilate the Governor so based on your absurdity he MUST be some other person than the Pontius Pilate in gLuke or gMatthew.

In gJohn, there is no FANCIFUL birth narrative but Jesus is elevated to GOD the Creator of heaven and earth. See John 1.

In the NT Canon, Pilate, Herod, Caiaphas, Tiberius, Jesus Christ are the same throughout.

It is NOT expected that in the NT Canon that Jesus would be FATHERED by a Ghost in one gospel and FATHERED by a man in the next.

Jesus was FATHERED by a Ghost in the Canon and Pilate was a Governor.

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

10-12-2011, 07:45 PM	#99
Sheshbazzar Veteran Member Join Date: Sep 2003 Location: On the path of knowledge Posts: 8,889	The thing that is certain is that never was any Jebus like the one described by the NT. And any other Jebus that does not fit the description of Jebus given in the NT, is NOT the Jebus of the NT. Any other Jebus than described, is not the Jebus of the NT, invalidating all that NT Jebus is about, and makes Christian claims into lies. An imagined HJ human Jebus is a nothing of no value to anyone.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.