Freethought & Rationalism Archive

mountainman · 04-23-2013, 02:45 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by stephan huller

Yeah like the controversial hypothesis that what goes up must come down.

Space probes refute such an hypothesis.

Quote:

Just keep working on it Pete. One day you will finally topple the walls of Christianity. Keep working at it.

The evidence and its objective assessment alone will one day topple the fiction of Jesus. I would really like to read Ammianus's obituary to Constantine, or Julian's three books against the Christians.

εὐδαιμονία | eudaimonia

Stringbean · 04-23-2013, 02:48 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Adam

Two surprises to me: Pretty good video by Carrier, Good review by outhouse. Carrier basically accepts Earl Doherty and works with the epistles of Paul and explains how Paul could have been basing his sublunar Jesus upon Scripture, private revelation, and Philo.

So that got me interested in whether he had a case in his other video, Why the Gospels are Myth. Like our Vorkosigan (Michael Turton) he diagrams the triads and chiasms in Matthew (not Mark) as proof the gospels are literary inventions. Whatever. But in any case Carrier has nothing here that in any way lessens the import of the SOURCES of the gospels that I have been presenting here in my many threads in FRDB. There must be other explanations for what I see as evidence for seven written eyewitness records underlying the gospels, but I have not seen anything from the atheist perspective that tries to explain it away.

Quote:

There must be other explanations for what I see as evidence for seven written eyewitness records underlying the gospels, but I have not seen anything from the atheist perspective that tries to explain it away

And what eyewitnesses are those? Curious if you spit out the ones I assume your going to, let's see?

Horatio Parker · 04-23-2013, 02:49 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by outhouse

Quote:

Originally Posted by Horatio Parker

There's more to it than the question of how Jesus is perceived. There's the drama of the crucifixion with these entities, Jesus and demons interacting. That suggests time and place. In that context, "celestial" makes sense.

Really?

The crucifixion as written was a very human event lacking Jesus and demons interacting.

According to RC, that story came later.

All I'm saying is that "celestial" is a better fit for his argument.

Horatio Parker · 04-23-2013, 02:51 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jdboy

The only thing i don't get is that satan and the demons kill jesus not knowing who he is.

But in the bible it's jesus tormenting the demons and the demons know who he is.

I thought that what they didn't know was that killing him would result in eternal life.

outhouse · 04-23-2013, 03:21 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Horatio Parker

Quote:

Originally Posted by outhouse

Really?

The crucifixion as written was a very human event lacking Jesus and demons interacting.

According to RC, that story came later.

And he doesnt do any justice explaining it as a later addition. because he cant.

The best we know is the Passion narrative was compiled in Gmark and may have been from a written source.

jdboy · 04-23-2013, 03:59 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Horatio Parker

Quote:

Originally Posted by jdboy

The only thing i don't get is that satan and the demons kill jesus not knowing who he is.

But in the bible it's jesus tormenting the demons and the demons know who he is.

I thought that what they didn't know was that killing him would result in eternal life.

I think you're right. So they killed him to maintain their power over death. And this is in line with why the Pharisees wanted him dead. Jesus raises Lazarus and the Pharisees plot to kill him.

Toto · 04-23-2013, 04:21 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jdboy

The only thing i don't get is that satan and the demons kill jesus not knowing who he is.

But in the bible it's jesus tormenting the demons and the demons know who he is.

In Paul's epistles, he refers to the archons having killed Jesus because they did not recognize who he was.

In the later gospels, the demons who possessed the Gadara swine recognized Jesus.

These are two very separate things.

outhouse · 04-23-2013, 04:58 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Toto

Quote:

Originally Posted by jdboy

The only thing i don't get is that satan and the demons kill jesus not knowing who he is.

But in the bible it's jesus tormenting the demons and the demons know who he is.

In Paul's epistles, he refers to the archons having killed Jesus because they did not recognize who he was.

.

Wasnt this in a transcendental context?

Toto · 04-23-2013, 05:03 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by outhouse

Quote:

Originally Posted by Toto

In Paul's epistles, he refers to the archons having killed Jesus because they did not recognize who he was.

.

Wasnt this in a transcendental context?

What do you mean by this?

Adam · 04-23-2013, 05:18 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Stringbean

Quote:

Originally Posted by Adam

But in any case Carrier has nothing here that in any way lessens the import of the SOURCES of the gospels that I have been presenting here in my many threads in FRDB. There must be other explanations for what I see as evidence for seven written eyewitness records underlying the gospels, but I have not seen anything from the atheist perspective that tries to explain it away.

Quote:

There must be other explanations for what I see as evidence for seven written eyewitness records underlying the gospels, but I have not seen anything from the atheist perspective that tries to explain it away

And what eyewitnesses are those? Curious if you spit out the ones I assume your going to, let's see?

I recall that you posted in 2011, Stringbean, to my thread on Gospel Eyewitnesses. Did you read far enough to realize that I was not talking about any of the four canonical gospels being written by an eyewitness? I do hold that gJohn's primary editing was done by the Apostle John, but including eyewitness sources by Nicodemus, Andrew, and John Mark. John Mark wrote the Passion Narrative that was also incorporated into the Synoptics. Q1 was written by the Apostle Matthew, the parts of gMark that were copied into Luke after Proto-Luke was composed were written by Peter (meaning his scribe), and the portions of Luke ch 3 to 24 that are unique to gLuke were written by Simon Barsabbas. None of the final editors of the Synoptics were written by eyewitnesses, nor was the final Redactor of gJohn an eyewitness. He added the final verses, John 21:18-24 and much else in shorter insertions.

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

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.