Freethought & Rationalism Archive

J-D · 06-03-2012, 11:54 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by spin

Quote:

Originally Posted by J-D

The participants here seem to think they know what's going on. I think they're mistaken.

Sadly though, as you are one of the participants here, you must consequently think that you are mistaken as well.

The difference is that they think that they know what they're talking about, whereas I know that I don't know what they're talking about.

aa5874 · 06-03-2012, 11:55 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Joan of Bark

.... you only answered one of the four questions I put to you.

Which four questions???

Quote:

Originally Posted by aa5874

When were ALL the other Gospels written???

Quote:

Originally Posted by Joan of Bark

..Mid-2nd century and later?

You don't KNOW when all the other Gospels were written and yet you asked me if I ignored them.

Something is just radically wrong with your line of questioning.

Based on the DATED New Testament manuscripts the earliest Canonised Jesus stories were NOT 1st century and STILL THOSE SAME early stories were virtually IDENTICAL.

This shows or suggest the Jesus story STARTED WITHOUT a human Jesus and the sources were NOT contempory with his supposed life.

Quote:

Originally Posted by aa5874

As soon as people here are challenged they throw tantrums.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Joan of Bark

...Pot ... kettle.

I HOPE YOU REALIZE that you have IMPLIED that you throw tantrums when you are challenged. You should try NOT to accuse other people of throwing tantrums because you do so. You must accept responsibility for your own actions.

Quote:

Originally Posted by aa5874

I write in CAPITAL LETTERS and RED when people who shoul know better repeat unsubstantiated claims about Jesus, the disciples and Paul.

People here accuse fundamentlists of believing the Bible yet they do the very same thing and call themselvies atheists and Historians.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Joan of Bark

No, we believe aspects of the gospels are true.

Fundamentalists and Christians ALSO BELIEVE Aspects of the gospels, but HJers are in a Far Worse position. They REJECT many stories about Jesus in the Bible and accept by FAITH whatever pleases their arguments.

Quote:

Originally Posted by aa5874

Now, anyone that can read the short-ending, the long-ending gMark and gMatthew can see that they are virtually identical and that a REAL human Jesus was NOT required.

Even if Jesus did exist he could NOT have walked on water or transfigured.

It is unheard of that three authors could have written the very same story word-for-word and chronoloy from the Baptism of John to the Empty Tomb independently.

And what is even most fascinating is that the stories about Jesus that do NOT agree are TOTAL Fiction.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Joan of Bark

And how does gJohn match up to the synoptics?

I have already answered you. The stories that are NOT consistent with and different to gMark are TOTAL Fiction.

1. in gJohn, Jesus was in the beginning and was God the Creator.

Is not that Total fiction???

I do NOT need to continue since gJohn's Jesus is TOTAL FICTION.

The Jesus story in gMark is total fiction and did NOT REQUIRE A HUMAN JESUS and the earliest Jesus stories are virtually identical to gMark which also suggest that the ealiest stories are indeed Myth Fables.

No matter which way you look at the Canonised Jesus stories they are TOTAL FICTION and IMPLAUSIBLE.

Sheshbazzar · 06-04-2012, 01:20 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by J-D

Quote:

Originally Posted by spin

Quote:

Originally Posted by J-D

The participants here seem to think they know what's going on. I think they're mistaken.

Sadly though, as you are one of the participants here, you must consequently think that you are mistaken as well.

The difference is that they think that they know what they're talking about, whereas I know that I don't know what they're talking about.

Which "if I am in the same class as the average person, so what?" Indicates that you don't know what you are talking about. That's what.

Toto · 06-04-2012, 01:31 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by J-D

Quote:

Originally Posted by Toto

Maybe you had to have been through this discussion before to see why it does make the divide.

Maybe? Maybe it's being immersed in the discussion that has misled you and you need to step back from it and reconsider.I take it, then, that you when you defined 'historicist' as 'somebody who believes that Christianity originated around a real historic person in the first century', you did not intend that to include everybody who believes that Christianity originated around a real historic Paul in the first century. If so, this is another instance where the words you chose did not clearly capture your intended meaning.

Now you're just being difficult. You are not quoting my words - you are quoting a summary that leaves out the important details.

Quote:

Trying to get a clear understanding of somebody's meaning may seem like a weird game to you, but to me it seems neither weird nor a game.If you have three summaries of a complicated historical theory which all have different meanings, then either there's something wrong with your understanding of the theory or there's something wrong with your summarising.

Or you are misinterpreting the summaries.

Quote:

I know that I don't understand the underlying issue. But every time I try to get people to explain it to me, I find no agreement on the answer. I think that's legitimate ground for suspicion

So don't try to get anyone to explain it to you. Read some books. Try Charlotte Allen's The Human Christ if you can find a copy. Read Earl Doherty's Jesus Puzzle.

The reason this does not seem clear to you is, I think, that there is an underlying religious dispute that is always out in the open.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Toto

But you might have to read a few books to have enough background knowledge to make sense of it.The participants here all seem to understand why they disagree, and it's not because any terms are unclear. It has to do with how history is done and how we judge what happened in the past.

The participants here seem to think they know what's going on. I think they're mistaken.

The feeling is mutual then.

Joan of Bark · 06-04-2012, 04:40 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by aa5874

Quote:

Originally Posted by Joan of Bark

.... you only answered one of the four questions I put to you.

Which four questions???

Why do you use CAPITAL LETTERS (you answered this one) sarcasm and multiple ???. To be condescending?

And the big one. Why aren't you posting your infallible argument on a Christian website? Or, for that matter, why don't you send them to the scholars who believe in the HJ? Shouldn't they be your target audience? (And no, I'm not being sarcastic here. I'd really like to know).

Quote:

Originally Posted by aa5874

Based on the DATED New Testament manuscripts the earliest Canonised Jesus stories were NOT 1st century and STILL THOSE SAME early stories were virtually IDENTICAL.

You mean you don't believe the dated manuscripts are based on first-century originals? Who else believes that?

Quote:

Originally Posted by aa5874

I HOPE YOU REALIZE that you have IMPLIED that you throw tantrums when you are challenged. You should try NOT to accuse other people of throwing tantrums because you do so. You must accept responsibility for your own actions.

Yeah, I should have been clearer there. I'm contending that you throw tantrums. I don't.

Quote:

Originally Posted by aa5874

Fundamentalists and Christians ALSO BELIEVE Aspects of the gospels, but HJers are in a Far Worse position. They REJECT many stories about Jesus in the Bible and accept by FAITH whatever pleases their arguments.

Oh, yeah, anyone who disagrees with you must be basing his or her arguments on faith. (Oops, looks like your sarcasm is rubbing off on me).

Y'know, I should have known better than to stick my nose into this silly debate. It's been going on for years and will probably continue to do so. I'm bowing out. I've seen the arguments for the HJ, and they're a hell of a sight better than you give them credit for. But if it makes you feel better to think you've won, be my guest.

J-D · 06-04-2012, 06:11 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by aa5874

You should try NOT to accuse other people of throwing tantrums because you do so. You must accept responsibility for your own actions.

You should try not to accuse other people of throwing tantrums because you do so. You must accept responsibility for your own actions.

J-D · 06-04-2012, 06:17 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Toto

Quote:

Originally Posted by J-D

Quote:

Originally Posted by Toto

Maybe you had to have been through this discussion before to see why it does make the divide.

Maybe? Maybe it's being immersed in the discussion that has misled you and you need to step back from it and reconsider.I take it, then, that you when you defined 'historicist' as 'somebody who believes that Christianity originated around a real historic person in the first century', you did not intend that to include everybody who believes that Christianity originated around a real historic Paul in the first century. If so, this is another instance where the words you chose did not clearly capture your intended meaning.

Now you're just being difficult. You are not quoting my words - you are quoting a summary that leaves out the important details.

Which are the details you consider to be important?

Quote:

Originally Posted by Toto

Quote:

Trying to get a clear understanding of somebody's meaning may seem like a weird game to you, but to me it seems neither weird nor a game.If you have three summaries of a complicated historical theory which all have different meanings, then either there's something wrong with your understanding of the theory or there's something wrong with your summarising.

Or you are misinterpreting the summaries.

If you think my interpretation of your meaning is wrong, then please set me straight.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Toto

Quote:

I know that I don't understand the underlying issue. But every time I try to get people to explain it to me, I find no agreement on the answer. I think that's legitimate ground for suspicion

So don't try to get anyone to explain it to you. Read some books. Try Charlotte Allen's The Human Christ if you can find a copy. Read Earl Doherty's Jesus Puzzle.

The reason this does not seem clear to you is, I think, that there is an underlying religious dispute that is always out in the open.

I don't see, out in the open, a clear agreement about the meaning of the topic of disagreement. Charlotte Allen may be clear about what she means; Earl Doherty may be clear about what he means; other writers may be clear about what they mean. But posters here do not display agreement on a clear meaning for the term 'historical Jesus', whether one that corresponds to what's found in the work of Charlotte Allen and Earl Doherty or not.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Toto

Quote:

Originally Posted by Toto

But you might have to read a few books to have enough background knowledge to make sense of it.The participants here all seem to understand why they disagree, and it's not because any terms are unclear. It has to do with how history is done and how we judge what happened in the past.

The participants here seem to think they know what's going on. I think they're mistaken.

The feeling is mutual then.

The positions are not equivalent. I never said I understood what's being discussed here. I know that I don't. When nobody else can explain it to me clearly, I don't see what other conclusion is open for me to draw.

spin · 06-04-2012, 07:44 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by J-D

If you think my interpretation of your meaning is wrong, then please set me straight.

By your own admission you don't feel the need to pay others the same courtesy. You've indicated that you are happy to point out others' errors and leave it at that.

("I don't point out errors because I'm obligated to, I point out errors because I want to." and "If you are asking 'what should somebody who has pointed out an error do next?', then my answer is that somebody who has pointed out an error is under no general automatic obligation to follow that up in any particular way.")

gurugeorge · 06-04-2012, 09:44 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by J-D

Quote:

Originally Posted by gurugeorge

Quote:

Originally Posted by J-D

You acknowledge the imprecision, but you say that the discussion is clear enough despite that imprecision. The discussion doesn't look clear enough to me. It looks hopelessly confused.

I wouldn't say the discussion is clear, but it remains focussed enough.

I don't see how a discussion can be focussed if it isn't clear. If it isn't clear, how do you know whether it's focussed on anything?

Quote:

Originally Posted by gurugeorge

If we were writing dissertations, then of course it would be necessary to define terms, but it's not necessary in most discussions here, where most of the usual suspects key participants have been at this for quite some time.

I just thought of another way of putting it that might satisfy you. Any "historical Jesus" is a hypothetical explanans for the existence of Christianity. Therefore the definition of "human Jesus" will vary with the hypothesis, with the method used of "extracting" him from the text, etc., etc. But the root idea is clear enough: the idea of a man, living roughly around that time, around whose life and/or doings the mythical Jesus we know and love was somehow, and to some degree, formed.

If you intend to define 'historical Jesus' as 'any explanation for the existence of Christianity', then the only way to deny that there is a historical Jesus is to deny that there is any explanation for the existence of Christianity, and it's impossible to distinguish between explanations for the existence of Christianity which include a historical Jesus and those which don't. I don't think that's what you meant, and even if it is, I'm sure it's not what other posters here mean.

For someone who's apparently priding himself on his clarity of thought and coming here with the pretense of sorting all us muddled clowns out, you're not very big on reading comprehension are you? "Any explanation for the existence of Christianity" is not the same as "a hypothetical explanans for the existence of Christianity"

"HJ" is one of many possible hypothetical explanations of Christianity - that is, that (rather than being sheerly made up for any number of possible reasons, or based on a visionary Jesus entity, or any number of other possible hypothetical explanations of Christianity) it was started by a human being called Jesus, whose biography shared some (variable, depending on particular HJ hypothesis) element with the gospel Jesus, and who's biography can be extracted somehow from the mythical Jesus texts we have.

But also, there are many possible "historical Jesuses" (who might be possible explanations of Christianity).

No more precise definition is needed, since the term just refers (through common usage here and elsewhere) to a generic quality of the type of historical person we are looking for.

To have a more precise definition at the outset would be to prejudice the inquiry towards one of the many possible "historical Jesuses".

Funnily enough, your misquoting of me is of a piece with your misquoting of Toto above:-

Quote:

Christianity either started with a historical leader (referred to as Jesus) or with someone having a vision of that savior. Option A is the historicist option, option B is mythicism.

And once again, the terms in which you have stated the two positions don't clearly reflect the supposed disagreement, since in the terms in which you have expressed them they are not necessarily opposed to each other. It is not impossible for both of the statements 'Christianity started with a historical leader' and 'Christianity started with somebody having a vision of a saviour' to be true. The words you have chosen are not well-chosen for the purpose of characterising a major divide.

Here, you completely ignore Toto's "referred to as Jesus" and "that savior".

People who live in sloppy glass thinking houses shouldn't throw stones.

Adam · 06-04-2012, 10:58 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sheshbazzar

There are many identifiable variations of textual branches, some with quite significant theological differences.
What we ended up with in the so called 'Received Text' is really only a compromised composite 'pick and choose' text that does not accurately convey the actual reading of any particular early exemplar. A line from this example, and a line from that, and the third from another source, all kind of smooshed together and then misrepresented by Orthodox Christianity as being the authentic writing of a 'Matthew' , 'Mark', 'Luke' or 'John' when really none of it ever identifiably originated with any such source....
Earlier, shorter versions such as you propose to have once existed are purely hypothetical, and no such imagined texts have ever been recovered.

What now, back not just to Fundamentalism, but the 'Received Text'? All the better to obfuscate centuries of scholarly textual criticism in addition? No, the Received Text has nothing to do with even with Fundamentalism. So you're basically giving up the battle to explain how the sources came together, taking on faith that miracles were so essential to the texts that they could not have been written without them, even though I have shown that they were? You're so dead-set on MJ that you're willing to let HJ exist only in the divine form in the canonical gospels?

The larger issue remains that no one else has attempted a substantive reply to me except spin before I launched The Gospel According to the Atheists. So many MJ here continue in blind faith without any evidence or case to make? The HJ here are willing to accept a Jesus basically equivalent to the Bible Jesus, but without the miracles?

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

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.