Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Chili · 12-27-2010, 08:19 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Chili

Quote:

Originally Posted by ApostateAbe;6638200Not sure if it is numerology but just reading the clock as a reminder of salvation for Catholics. Each number will have its own story and yes, that includes Easter at the number 10 where we are complete as God in one mind. Then in 11 we walk side by side with God and in 12 we have our second death and thus is where eternity ends.[/QUOTE

Thanks. Where eternity ends? Are you speaking figuratively there?

Fair question in that eternity has no end as ('in being') the continuity of infinity which itself has no beginning apart from eternity which so ends with the second death to remain as infinite, which then is how the finite is transformed to make the infinite known.

If the above was not true hell would also be infinite and would not end with the second death and thus darkness be real and heaven remain a figment of the imagination and not more than just that.

The upshot here is that hell does end with the second death and they just get buried to end all suffering while in eternity we just leave our good works behind (reduced from Rev.14:13).

Please note that in my paradigm:
the temporal has a beginning and an end
eternity has a beginning but no end
infinity has no beginning and no end.

So for the finite to become infinite it must become eternal first to make known the essence of the infinite. Hence we are infinite only in the essence of our existence as created before we were called into being and subsequently must 'remain' in the essence that we are as we are.

ApostateAbe · 12-27-2010, 03:44 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Chili

Quote:

Originally Posted by Chili

Fair question in that eternity has no end as ('in being') the continuity of infinity which itself has no beginning apart from eternity which so ends with the second death to remain as infinite, which then is how the finite is transformed to make the infinite known.

If the above was not true hell would also be infinite and would not end with the second death and thus darkness be real and heaven remain a figment of the imagination and not more than just that.

The upshot here is that hell does end with the second death and they just get buried to end all suffering while in eternity we just leave our good works behind (reduced from Rev.14:13).

Please note that in my paradigm:
the temporal has a beginning and an end
eternity has a beginning but no end
infinity has no beginning and no end.

So for the finite to become infinite it must become eternal first to make known the essence of the infinite. Hence we are infinite only in the essence of our existence as created before we were called into being and subsequently must 'remain' in the essence that we are as we are.

OK, thanks. I don't get it, but I am guessing that there are very few people who do. Narrow is the path, after all.

aa5874 · 12-27-2010, 10:20 PM

ApostateAbe has done the UNTHINKABLE.

ApostateAbe has PROVED beyond all reasonable doubt that a PLAUSIBLE non-historical story of Jesus can be FABRICATED from the BIBLE WITHOUT any external credible corroborative historical source.

ApostateAbe USED NT Scripture about Jesus which are Copies of Copies of Copies from unknown sources and have invented a PLAUSIBLE story which he VEHEMENTLY ARGUES could NOT have been done in Antiquity.

It has been argued that the Jesus story was INVENTED from Hebrew Scripture without an human Jesus and HJers disagree but ApostateAbe has SHOWN that it CERTAINLY is possible and can be DONE with EASE.

A PLAUSIBLE STORY of Jesus can INDEED be INVENTED using ONLY the BIBLE and one's IMAGINATION.

But, this was ALREADY done over 1600 years ago.

Examine the words of the author of gMatthew.

Mt 26:56 -

Quote:

But all this was done, that the scriptures of the prophets might be fulfilled.....

The JESUS story was just an INVENTION from Hebrew Scripture just as ApostateAbe's INVENTED Gospel has demonstrated.

sschlichter · 12-29-2010, 01:08 PM

I have not been around for 4 months and this thread is still around? I cannot say that I recognize the content at all.

ApostateAbe · 12-29-2010, 01:55 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by sschlichter

I have not been around for 4 months and this thread is still around? I cannot say that I recognize the content at all.

I have not been around for four months, either (grad school). I gave this thread a bump for Christmas.

rlogan · 12-30-2010, 04:22 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ApostateAbe

Quote:

Originally Posted by DNAReplicator

Abe…

You have listed 36 referenced best guesses about the origins of Christianity. While it’s a fun read, my inner statistician got thinking….

Personally, I’m somewhat sceptical of the provenance and reliability of early Christian texts and histories. However your best guesses appear reasonable and mainstream. So for the sake of argument, I will be generous and assume that there 50% chance of each referenced best guess being correct. If so, then there would be a little over one chance in 100 billion that the whole gospel was true.

OK – fair enough you might think – but I don’t need all of my guesses to be correct to have a 'reasonably accurate narrative'…..

If we take (for the sake of argument) a benchmark that three quarters, or 27 of your guesses need to be correct for the narrative to be considered reasonably accurate. The chance of this, if each guess has a 50% chance of being correct is about one in five hundred.

So basically, I think there is less than a one in five hundred chance that it is even a 'reasonably accurate narrative'. Sorry.

Actually, I take 1 in 500 odds to be exceptionally generous. I am developing a gospel narrative that I hope will become the shortest long shot. I put that phrase in bold because it is cool. I should copyright it, because I have the principle in mind all the time when thinking about Biblical history. The shortest long shot will be the theory that is unlikely, but still much more likely than all of the alternatives with equal specifics, including the miraculous Jesus of conservative Christians and the merely mythical or fictional Jesuses popular among us.

From a formal statistics approach the right tool is found in the model selection criteria literature.

For the layman it is best phrased "argument from best explanation".

In short, you see how your argument does when it has to stand alongside the explaining already done by some alternative hypothesis.

In this case, all of the significant features of Jesus are found in the Hebrew Bible, and more than half of it lifted directly out of Isaiah.

The model selection criteria is to see how much explaining your model does, apart from what is already explained by someone quote-mining the Hebrew Bible.

Jesus is heralded by JBapt eating those yummy locusts in the wilderness. Born in Bethlehem. He shall be a Nazarite or whichever spelling the Septuagint had. He has to come out of egypt, and by golly we have the slaughter of the Innocents in the HB regarding Moses so here it is again explaining why Jesus comes out of Egypt, after escaping that. He shall come from Judea, etc. etc.

The most heavily copy/paste job is the whole last-supper through resurrection of course with Isaiah furnishing the whole script.

Given how much is explained through the quote-mining of the HB, how much does your model explain on top of that? It doesn't add anything.

Another way of putting this is that the odds of being explained nearly 100% by coincidental correlations with the HB passages are zero. That is in fact the route the apologists take to "prove" Jesus is the savior. It is statistically impossible for him to have fulfulled so many prophecies. More than a thousand fulfilled prophecies by some whack-os.

For my life history, none of it is in the HB. 100% of it is found in my birth certificate, phone numbers, mailing addresses, medical records, school records, marriage certificates, etc.

In view of the "explaining" the HB does for my life - none - every last bit of the other 100% is found in the alternative hypothesis that I am an ordinary citizen whose life can be constructed from public non-biblical documents.

Statistically it is more complicated where you have to switch the roles of the null and the alternative hypothesis and run the test both ways: does the HB add anything on top of what explaining your hypothesis does. And the answer is yes, of course it does. You cut out a lot.

Most people approach this by saying they want their explanation to compete against nothing. Look how much explaining my model does.

But it is much tougher and a real statistical test to go up against a competing model to see if yours is more powerful in terms of the relative amount of explaining it does.

In the real statistical world sometimes you cannot discriminate between models. They are a dead heat or each does well enough so that one cannot be rejected in the presence of the other.

But this one isn't such a case. Jesus' life came wholesale from the HB.

Warm new years' greetings.

ApostateAbe · 12-30-2010, 09:20 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by rlogan

Quote:

Originally Posted by ApostateAbe

Actually, I take 1 in 500 odds to be exceptionally generous. I am developing a gospel narrative that I hope will become the shortest long shot. I put that phrase in bold because it is cool. I should copyright it, because I have the principle in mind all the time when thinking about Biblical history. The shortest long shot will be the theory that is unlikely, but still much more likely than all of the alternatives with equal specifics, including the miraculous Jesus of conservative Christians and the merely mythical or fictional Jesuses popular among us.

From a formal statistics approach the right tool is found in the model selection criteria literature.

For the layman it is best phrased "argument from best explanation".

In short, you see how your argument does when it has to stand alongside the explaining already done by some alternative hypothesis.

In this case, all of the significant features of Jesus are found in the Hebrew Bible, and more than half of it lifted directly out of Isaiah.

The model selection criteria is to see how much explaining your model does, apart from what is already explained by someone quote-mining the Hebrew Bible.

Jesus is heralded by JBapt eating those yummy locusts in the wilderness. Born in Bethlehem. He shall be a Nazarite or whichever spelling the Septuagint had. He has to come out of egypt, and by golly we have the slaughter of the Innocents in the HB regarding Moses so here it is again explaining why Jesus comes out of Egypt, after escaping that. He shall come from Judea, etc. etc.

The most heavily copy/paste job is the whole last-supper through resurrection of course with Isaiah furnishing the whole script.

Given how much is explained through the quote-mining of the HB, how much does your model explain on top of that? It doesn't add anything.

Another way of putting this is that the odds of being explained nearly 100% by coincidental correlations with the HB passages are zero. That is in fact the route the apologists take to "prove" Jesus is the savior. It is statistically impossible for him to have fulfulled so many prophecies. More than a thousand fulfilled prophecies by some whack-os.

For my life history, none of it is in the HB. 100% of it is found in my birth certificate, phone numbers, mailing addresses, medical records, school records, marriage certificates, etc.

In view of the "explaining" the HB does for my life - none - every last bit of the other 100% is found in the alternative hypothesis that I am an ordinary citizen whose life can be constructed from public non-biblical documents.

Statistically it is more complicated where you have to switch the roles of the null and the alternative hypothesis and run the test both ways: does the HB add anything on top of what explaining your hypothesis does. And the answer is yes, of course it does. You cut out a lot.

Most people approach this by saying they want their explanation to compete against nothing. Look how much explaining my model does.

But it is much tougher and a real statistical test to go up against a competing model to see if yours is more powerful in terms of the relative amount of explaining it does.

In the real statistical world sometimes you cannot discriminate between models. They are a dead heat or each does well enough so that one cannot be rejected in the presence of the other.

But this one isn't such a case. Jesus' life came wholesale from the HB.

Warm new years' greetings.

OK, thanks, I am not so familiar with that theory. What do you think is the clearest example of a part of the story of Jesus being lifted from the Hebrew Bible?

aa5874 · 12-30-2010, 09:26 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by rlogan

...... Jesus' life came wholesale from the HB.

And it is actually stated in John 1.

Quote:

1In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. .......And the Word was made flesh.....

Quote:

Isa 38:4 -
Then came the word of the LORD to Isaiah.....

Jer 1:11 -
Moreover the word of the LORD came unto me, saying, Jeremiah...

Eze 1:3 -
The word of the LORD came expressly unto Ezekiel the priest

Hosea 1:1 -
The word of the LORD that came unto Hosea....

Joel 1:1 -
The word of the LORD that came to Joel.......

Amos 7.16 Now therefore hear thou the word of the LORD

Jonah 1:1
Now the word of the LORD came unto Jonah....

Micah 1:1 -
The word of the LORD that came to Micah

Zep 1:1 -
The word of the LORD which came unto Zephaniah

Haggai 1:3 -
Then came the word of the LORD by Haggai the prophet....

Zec 1:1 -
In the eighth month..... came the word of the LORD unto Zechariah,

Mal 1:1 -
The burden of the word of the LORD to Israel by Malachi.

And now gMatthew

Quote:

Mt 1:22 - ...Now all this was done, that it might be fulfilled which was spoken of the Lord by the prophet.....

Mt 21:4 - ... All this was done, that it might be fulfilled which was spoken by the prophet.....

Mt 26:56 - .. But all this was done, that the scriptures of the prophets might be fulfilled...

Jesus of the NT was completely THEOLOGICAL.

The ARGUMENT from BEST EXPLANATION supports a non-historical Jesus.

The BEST EXPLANATION is that Jesus was fabricated for THEOLOGICAL purposes so that the WORD of the LORD through the prophets, through Hebrew Scripture, would become "flesh".

rlogan · 01-02-2011, 02:13 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ApostateAbe

OK, thanks, I am not so familiar with that theory. What do you think is the clearest example of a part of the story of Jesus being lifted from the Hebrew Bible?

Matthew tries the hardest to "validate" Jesus through Hebrew Bible prophecies, but Mark is the earliest and it is clear there that the whole "suffering servant" parts of Isaiah are the main thrust of the whole religious theory behind Christ Crucified. Isaiah 53.

Over the years here we have had extensive discussions of this topic and a lot of ancillary discussion about how the crucifixion is a mistranslation found in the Septuigint which would be "like a lion at my hands and feet" in Hebrew not pierced hands and feet. Likewise the "virgin" in the Septuigint is "young girl" in the Hebrew, and Nazareth is actually naza-something else in the original Hebrew. I prefer Nazorean meaning a child dedicated into religious service whereas a far more weighty opinion is spin's and he has written extensively on that here.

But the upshot of it is that the Greek Septuagint can be seen as the version of scripture being used to quote mine or midrash for the Christ.

I see aa5874 gave a whole slew of examples, but there are more and if one googled "prophecies fulfilled by Jesus" one can find apologetic sources with endless examples.

Cheers and happy new year.

ApostateAbe · 05-17-2011, 07:38 PM

UPDATE:

I have shifted my position a little on this narrative since I first wrote this, as I hope to be shifting my position evermore toward the truth as I learn more. Someone convinced me that Jesus really was buried in a tomb, since Jews apparently had a practice of burying crucifixion victims before nightfall, and evidence is found in a skeleton in a 1st-century tomb of Jerusalem, of someone who had nail holes in his feet. I haven't yet decided how to rewrite that part of the narrative in light of this.

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

12-29-2010, 01:08 PM	#214
sschlichter Veteran Member Join Date: May 2008 Location: Metro Detroit, MI Posts: 3,201	I have not been around for 4 months and this thread is still around? I cannot say that I recognize the content at all.

05-17-2011, 07:38 PM	#220
ApostateAbe Contributor Join Date: Sep 2002 Location: MT Posts: 10,656	UPDATE: I have shifted my position a little on this narrative since I first wrote this, as I hope to be shifting my position evermore toward the truth as I learn more. Someone convinced me that Jesus really was buried in a tomb, since Jews apparently had a practice of burying crucifixion victims before nightfall, and evidence is found in a skeleton in a 1st-century tomb of Jerusalem, of someone who had nail holes in his feet. I haven't yet decided how to rewrite that part of the narrative in light of this.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.