Freethought & Rationalism Archive

aa5874 · 03-25-2011, 05:40 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by judge

Quote:

Originally Posted by mountainman

Is it a huge task to argue that Gandalf was an earthly, everyday man? Earl appears to be examining the structure of the myth behind the "mass-produced history". .

Pete you have completely missed the point. Completely. I'm not arguing for an historical Jesus . I don't care whether there was or was not .
What I am saying is that Paul writes about an ordinary everyday man .
Let that soak in and re read my post please.

But, your statement is BLATANTLY ERRONEOUS.

The Pauline writings are about the GOD'S OWN SON, Jesus Christ.

Examine Galatians 1.1 -

Quote:

Paul, an apostle, (NOT of men, NEITHER by man, but by Jesus Christ....

Ro 8:3 & 32 -

Quote:

For what the law could not do, in that it was weak through the flesh, God sending his OWN Son in the likeness of sinful flesh, and for sin, condemned sin in the flesh:

He that spared not his OWN Son, but delivered him up for us all, how shall he not with him also freely give us all things?...

The Pauline Jesus was God's OWN Son and was NOT a Man.

You will NOT EVER find that the Pauline Jesus had a human father in any Epistle under the name of "Paul". The Pauline Jesus is NO different to MYTH characters of the Greeks and Romans who were thought to have human mothers or fathers but were MYTHS.

GakuseiDon · 03-25-2011, 05:41 AM

Avi: Yes, at least one reference in Josephus appears to be genuine.

aa5874 · 03-25-2011, 05:55 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by GakuseiDon

Avi: Yes, at least one reference in Josephus appears to be genuine.

Your statement APPEARS to be ERRONEOUS.

Based on Origen's "Commentary on Matthew" X.17, "Against Celsus" 1.47 and 2.13 it was KNOWN for HUNDREDS of years, at least 1600 years, that "Antiquities of the Jews" 18.3.3 and 20.9.1 were NOT genuine and have been MANIPULATED.

Based on Origen, words of Josephus have VANISHED from "Antiquities of the Jews" 20.9.1.

Yellum Notnef · 03-25-2011, 06:59 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by GakuseiDon

Quote:

Originally Posted by Roger Pearse

I'm amazed at your patience with this nonsense, but well said.

:blush: I'm a weak man. Weak I say! I kept telling myself that it's time to go onto other things, but they keep dragging me back in... But thanks for the kind words, Roger.

Nobody is dragging you anywhere. You're here arguing everyday because you're a Jesus fanatic.

In a way it's too bad that these daily arguments have to focus on if Jesus was historical or not because the most curious thing here is being overshadowed and not talked about. That is that you and Roger believe Jesus is magical.

Steven Carr · 03-25-2011, 07:07 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Chaucer

Quote:

Originally Posted by Steven Carr

Quote:

Originally Posted by Chaucer

Which takes away nothing from the plain fact that Jesus was a Jew born and bred, and what we have here is a Jew executed by Romans and not by his own people, as you left-handedly appear to imply, whatever your disclaimers.

1 Thessalonians 2:14 ' You suffered from your own people the same things those churches suffered from the Jews who killed the Lord Jesus and the prophets and also drove us out.'

And what I was referencing in my remarks were extrabiblical sources and what they give us. You're citing here a biblical source instead.

Apples and oranges.

Chaucer

You mean the extra-Biblical sources do not confirm the Bible?

Frank · 03-25-2011, 07:42 AM

I think even Christopher Hitchens, at one time, spoke against the idea that Jesus (the man) is purely mythic.

No Robots · 03-25-2011, 07:58 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Yellum Notnef

In a way it's too bad that these daily arguments have to focus on if Jesus was historical or not because the most curious thing here is being overshadowed and not talked about. That is that you and Roger believe Jesus is magical.

Ahem:

Quote:

Originally Posted by GakuseiDon

As I've always said, there is very little evidence for a historical Jesus, so that any well-crafted mythicist argument will probably be enough to topple that idea. But the prima-facie evidence in Paul seems to indicate that Paul believed in a historical Jesus who was crucified in Paul's recent past. Even so, there is still very little that we can say about that Jesus, so in a sense he might as well not have existed. All we have left is the myth.

It seems to me that GakuseiDon is basically a mythicist who is looking for a reasonable Christology.

Toto · 03-25-2011, 08:22 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by GakuseiDon

...

"Everyone treated the Gospels as being about a historical person" is my claim. And that's true, AFAIK. There is no-one who ever claimed that the Gospels weren't about a historical person.

Talk about moving goalposts around.

Your claim is that since everyone we know about in the second century and beyond thought that Jesus was historical, that therefore he [probably] was historical? Ned Ludd shows that it is entirely possible that a person regarded as historical is not, and you have declined to produce any evidence that there is any probability that a mythical sounding person regarded as historical is in fact historical.

In addition, anyone who claimed that the gospels were not about a historical person took an unorthodox position and their opinions have not survived. I would argue that Marcion probably did not regard Jesus as "historical" in any meaningful sense. His works only survive in the quotes from his opponents. Earl has identified a few other early Christian writers who do not seem to have a firm grip on the idea that Jesus was historical.

Quote:

Surely you have read how ancient authors didn't mind moving things around, making up speeches, even events, about someone considered historical. Here is Papias:

Mark having become the interpreter of Peter, wrote down accurately whatsoever he remembered. It was not, however, in exact order that he related the sayings or deeds of Christ. For he neither heard the Lord nor accompanied Him.

So how Matthew and Luke treated Mark is not inconsistent with them treating the Gospel of Mark as being about a historical person.

The Mark described by Papias does not resemble the gospel of Mark. The treatment of Mark by Matthew and Luke resembles a literary rewrite, rather than their use of that gospel as a historical source.

Quote:

Luke starts off with:

<snip prologue>
It might be that Luke was writing fiction, but he seemed to be trying to pass it off as fact. Why?

Luke was primarily motivated to counter the Marcion heresy, as Joseph Tyson as demonstrated.

Quote:

....
The references to Caesar and Aretas are good indicators. The reference to Caesar knocks out the First Century BCE Aretas, leaving the Aretas who ruled in the first half of the First Century. 1 Clement talks about Peter and Paul as being martyrs of "our generation" IIRC. No need for Acts. Any reason why that isn't suggestive of a First Century Paul?

? There is no reference to Caesar in Paul, and the reference to Aretas is in the context of a tall tail that was probably based on the Hebrew Scriptures and not on any real event. On 1 Clement

The account of the deaths of Peter and Paul in chap. 5 is not that of an eye-witness. The presbyters installed by the apostles have died (44:2), and a second ecclesiastical generation has passed (44:3). The church at Rome is called "ancient" (47:6); and the emissaries from Rome are said to have lived "blamelessly" as Christians "from youth to old age" (63:3). Thus the epistle cannot have been written before the last decades of the 1st century.

Quote:

Yes you would. "First-fruits", etc. Read my review where I use Ben C Smith's references. Remember, this is a cumulative case. Give me a better explanation for all those references and show me why it is a better explanation.

I think we went down this road before. You are cumulating 0's to get 100.

Quote:

Yes, the man who came from the Israelites, was the descendant of David, descendant of Abraham. Can you name any other non-earthly person who had earthly descendants? If we found in some ancient text that X was a descendant of Y (where Y was someone they thought were historical), would we reasonably conclude that they thought X was historical also?

Lots of mythical people are regarded as having human descendents, from Romulus and Remus to Ameratsu. But then you reverse the question and say that since David was historical, Jesus must have been? On the contrary, descent from Abraham and David was derived from the creative reading of the Hebrew Scriptures as a requirement for the Christ.

Quote:

What's the probability that they were forged? Give me a figure, and tell me how you arrived at that.

I suspect the probability is close to 100%, but I would settle for 50%. Over 50% of the epistles in the NT are forged, and this doesn't count the obvious forgeries that were kept out of the canon. Christians were always ready to forge documents when convenient

Quote:

...
What are some of the reasons why Christians told Tacitus that? If Mark and the other Gospel writers knew they were writing fiction, then why would Christians be telling Tacitus that Christ was crucified under Pilate? And where did those Christians get the idea that Christ was crucified under Pilate? From Paul? From the Gospels?

The idea that Christ was crucified under Pilate was an item of faith for Christians.

Quote:

....

Let's see how your case looks:
1. Paul, writing at some unspecified time, wrote about a spiritual Jesus but didn't set his crucifixion at any time.
2. The Gospel writers, writing towards the end of the First Century, also wrote about a crucified Jew called Jesus who was crucified under Pilate. But they knew they weren't writing history. Mark wrote ? CE, and Matthew and Luke wrote ? CE. Luke appeared to be trying to pass off his fiction as fact.
3. Around 110 CE, Christians were telling Tacitus that they believed in a Christ who was crucified under Pilate. They can only have got that from the Gospels, I presume? Tacitus calls Christianity a 'pernicious superstition'. But maybe Christians put this in later, so maybe it was a forgery.

The gospels were written after 70 CE, late enough to make them dubious sources of history, early enough to be a source for the Christian origin story to reach Tacitus. Tacitus does not need to be a forgery for this theory to work, and Doherty argued against that here

There's nothing impossible or improbable here. I think this is more likely than your cumulative case because there is no evidence of Christianity before the Jewish War, and that war is the most likely impetus for the development of a new religion.

Yellum Notnef · 03-25-2011, 08:41 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by No Robots

Quote:

Originally Posted by Yellum Notnef

In a way it's too bad that these daily arguments have to focus on if Jesus was historical or not because the most curious thing here is being overshadowed and not talked about. That is that you and Roger believe Jesus is magical.

Ahem:

Quote:

Originally Posted by GakuseiDon

As I've always said, there is very little evidence for a historical Jesus, so that any well-crafted mythicist argument will probably be enough to topple that idea. But the prima-facie evidence in Paul seems to indicate that Paul believed in a historical Jesus who was crucified in Paul's recent past. Even so, there is still very little that we can say about that Jesus, so in a sense he might as well not have existed. All we have left is the myth.

It seems to me that GakuseiDon is basically a mythicist who is looking for a reasonable Christology.

Yeah, as if you're someone I'd turn to for clarity on matters of religion. No offense, but LOL.

No Robots · 03-25-2011, 08:46 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Yellum Notnef

Yeah, as if you're someone I'd turn to for clarity on matters of religion. No offense, but LOL.

Lloyd: Man, You are one pathetic loser. No offense.
Harry: No, none taken.

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

03-25-2011, 05:41 AM	#292
GakuseiDon Veteran Member Join Date: Apr 2003 Location: Australia Posts: 5,714	Avi: Yes, at least one reference in Josephus appears to be genuine.

03-25-2011, 07:42 AM	#296
Frank Veteran Member Join Date: Mar 2010 Location: New York Posts: 2,977	I think even Christopher Hitchens, at one time, spoke against the idea that Jesus (the man) is purely mythic.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.