Freethought & Rationalism Archive

aa5874 · 01-26-2008, 07:24 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by schilling.klaus

Those faith assumptions prevent AA from seeing that that there's no such thing as a failed prediction in either the canonical or earlier the gnostic gospels.
The catholic gospels are prophecies after the fact, the gnostic gospels understand the enfd of the world and the coming kingdom metaphysically.
Faith is for believing things without sufficient reason.

this includes the believings of AA and any other embarrassmentalist

Klaus Schilling

Does AA refer to ApostateAbe or aa5874?

ApostateAbe · 01-26-2008, 07:43 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by aa5874

Quote:

Originally Posted by ApostateAbe

Every historical character we know today has been warped by myth a little or a lot.

I mean there appears to be no real major difference between Achilles and Jesus of Nazareth, both seem to be myths warped by "history".

Please be more specific. How did "history" warp the characters?

Quote:

Originally Posted by aa5874

And they hold these beliefs without evidence, the definition of "faith".

Quote:

Originally Posted by ApostateAbe

I put a lot of weight on Jesus' failed prediction of the coming of the Son of Man and the end of the world. It conflicts with the interests of the gospel writers, and it is therefore likely to have been original to Jesus. Therefore, the gospels are not entirely fiction. I don't advocate a faith-based approach. Faith is for believing things without sufficient reason.

You use internal inconsistencies and contradictions to corroborate the history of Jesus of Nazareth, instead of external credible sources.
Your approach to the belief Jesus existed is completely flawed, you assumed that Jesus made a prediction before you showed that Jesus actually existed and then you use the failure of the assumed prediction as proof of the existence of Jesus. But, you had already assumed Jesus existed in order to claim he made the prediction.

Your approach is circular and erroneous.

I see nothing circular. I do not start with the assumption that the original Jesus made the prediction. I start with the observation that the synoptic gospels contain the character of Jesus predicting the end of the world and the coming of the Son of Man within the generation of his listeners. Then I find the best explanation. The most obvious explanation was that Jesus was a real doomsday cult leader not unlike other doomsday cult leaders, who made a prediction he knew would not be fulfilled, and it came at no cost to him, but it made his religion the target of ridicule starting 60 years after his death, and it was a cause of internal division. The theories that Jesus started as a myth I think would have to explain the failed prophecy as a very bad invention, a prediction that would have failed upon or very soon after the writing of it. If you still think this is circular, go ahead and explain why. If you have other issues with this argument, I suggest you do so in this other thread, which contains all the details:

http://iidb.infidels.org/vbb/showthread.php?t=195018

ApostateAbe · 01-26-2008, 07:59 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by schilling.klaus

Quote:

Originally Posted by ApostateAbe

Those who believe in a historical Jesus normally believe that some elements of the New Testament narrative are original to the words of Jesus. I put a lot of weight on Jesus' failed prediction of the coming of the Son of Man and the end of the world.

there's no such thing as a failed prediction in the gospels

no, it doesn't conflict in any way

that's as absurd as it can get

ApostateAbe's approach is totally faith based.
It's based on the faith that the Roman Catholic church is not the kingdom of god on earth,
and on the faith in positivism.

Those faith assumptions prevent AA from seeing that that there's no such thing as a failed prediction in either the canonical or earlier the gnostic gospels.
The catholic gospels are prophecies after the fact, the gnostic gospels understand the enfd of the world and the coming kingdom metaphysically.

Quote:

Faith is for believing things without sufficient reason.

this includes the believings of AA and any other embarrassmentalist

Klaus Schilling

Schilling, how did you come to the conclusion that there are no failed prophecies in the gospels?

schilling.klaus · 01-26-2008, 07:59 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by aa5874

Does AA refer to ApostateAbe or aa5874?

the former

Klaus Schilling

aa5874 · 01-26-2008, 12:28 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by aa5874

Your approach is circular and erroneous.

Quote:

Originally Posted by ApostateAbe

I see nothing circular. I do not start with the assumption that the original Jesus made the prediction. I start with the observation that the synoptic gospels contain the character of Jesus predicting the end of the world and the coming of the Son of Man within the generation of his listeners. Then I find the best explanation.

1.Who really made this so-called prediction, Jesus or the author?

2.When was this so-called prediction written for the first time?

3. When did an audience first learn of this so-called prediction?

4. What year did Jesus of Nazareth exist?

5. When did Jesus actually start a religion?

Quote:

Originally Posted by ApostateAbe

The most obvious explanation was that Jesus was a real doomsday cult leader not unlike other doomsday cult leaders, who made a prediction he knew would not be fulfilled, and it came at no cost to him, but it made his religion the target of ridicule starting 60 years after his death, and it was a cause of internal division.

It should be obvious now that your reasonnig is circular. The authors claimed Jesus made a prediction, the prediction was false, so Jesus existed because the prediction did not come true. Circular!

ApostateAbe · 01-26-2008, 12:42 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by aa5874

Quote:

Originally Posted by aa5874

Your approach is circular and erroneous.

1.Who really made this so-called prediction, Jesus or the author?

2.When was this so-called prediction written for the first time?

3. When did an audience first learn of this so-called prediction?

4. What year did Jesus of Nazareth exist?

5. When did Jesus actually start a religion?

Quote:

Originally Posted by ApostateAbe

The most obvious explanation was that Jesus was a real doomsday cult leader not unlike other doomsday cult leaders, who made a prediction he knew would not be fulfilled, and it came at no cost to him, but it made his religion the target of ridicule starting 60 years after his death, and it was a cause of internal division.

It should be obvious now that your reasonnig is circular. The authors claimed Jesus made a prediction, the prediction was false, so Jesus existed because the prediction did not come true. Circular!

It would not seem circular if you considered the last half of my post. I said,

"The theories that Jesus started as a myth I think would have to explain the failed prophecy as a very bad invention, a prediction that would have failed upon or very soon after the writing of it."

One explanation for the failed prophecy told in the gospels is better than the other explanations. It is not circular reasoning. I start with an observation, I weigh the proposed explanations, and I infer a conclusion. Circular reasoning is putting the conclusion as a premise. I don't have the conclusion that Jesus started as a human as the premise.

1.Who really made this so-called prediction, Jesus or the author? Jesus.

2.When was this so-called prediction written for the first time? It may have been written earlier, but the gospel of Mark is the earliest extant text that contains the failed prophecy, and it is dated to be around 50 CE.

3. When did an audience first learn of this so-called prediction? When Jesus spoke it, probably around 30 CE.

4. What year did Jesus of Nazareth exist? The early first century CE.

5. When did Jesus actually start a religion? The early first century CE.

Antipope Innocent II · 01-26-2008, 12:43 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Spanky

I voted no. To me, the gospel accounts and the writings of Paul fit more under the "myth" category than it does the "history" category.

It's interesting that lots of the people are voting "No" on the grounds that the Jesus of the gospels didn't exist. That's not what the question asked. Pay attention people.

Quote:

Originally Posted by spin

The total lack of historical sources for the Jesus of the gospels makes getting more definite impossible. But something started christianity. It coulda bin Jesus.

I just agreed with every word in a post by spin. Now that's a miracle.

Amaleq13 · 01-26-2008, 12:45 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by aa5874

1.Who really made this so-called prediction, Jesus or the author?

2.When was this so-called prediction written for the first time?

3. When did an audience first learn of this so-called prediction?

4. What year did Jesus of Nazareth exist?

5. When did Jesus actually start a religion?

These questions are neither relevant to the argument you are allegedly opposing nor do they serve to establish, in any way, that the argument you are opposing is circular.

They suggest, instead, that you do not understand the argument.

Quote:

It should be obvious now that your reasonnig is circular.

What is obvious is your misunderstanding of what constitutes circular reasoning.

Quote:

The authors claimed Jesus made a prediction, the prediction was false, so Jesus existed because the prediction did not come true.

You aren't accurately describing the reasoning involved. You aren't even accurately describing circular reasoning.

Why do you think the authors of what you consider to be pure fiction place an apparently failed prophecy in the mouth of Jesus?

Toto · 01-26-2008, 12:51 PM

This is the problem with the question, and this is why Doherty frames it as a question of whether Christianity started with a human founder.

If you will accept any person of the era, whatever lack of correspondence with the gospels, as the "historical Jesus," it is fairly easy to say that such a person probably existed. But this reduces the question to an insignificant one. The more interesting question is how did Christianity start? With a charismatic, self-sacrificing individual? With a borderline psychotic individual? Or with a spiritual myth preached by diaspora Jews who represented the nation of Isreal crushed by the Roman Empire? Or something else?

I am not voting in this poll.

schilling.klaus · 01-26-2008, 01:30 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by aa5874

1.Who really made this so-called prediction, Jesus or the author?

the author

Quote:

2.When was this so-called prediction written for the first time?

in its historising form after the war of Shimeon Bar Kohbah,
in its mystic allegorical form earlier

Quote:

3. When did an audience first learn of this so-called prediction?

after the defeat of bar Kohbah

Quote:

4. What year did Jesus of Nazareth exist?

never

[quit]
5. When did Jesus actually start a religion?
[/quit]

never

Quote:

It should be obvious now that your reasonnig is circular. The authors claimed Jesus made a prediction, the prediction was false, so Jesus existed because the prediction did not come true. Circular!

it wasn't false, as the parousia came, i.e. the Roman Catholic church,
but it's written after the fact

Klaus Schilling

View Poll Results: Was Jesus ever an actual human being?
Yes	45	20.93%
No	78	36.28%
Maybe	84	39.07%
Other	8	3.72%
Voters: 215. You may not vote on this poll

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

01-26-2008, 12:51 PM	#69
Toto Contributor Join Date: Jun 2000 Location: Los Angeles area Posts: 40,549	This is the problem with the question, and this is why Doherty frames it as a question of whether Christianity started with a human founder. If you will accept any person of the era, whatever lack of correspondence with the gospels, as the "historical Jesus," it is fairly easy to say that such a person probably existed. But this reduces the question to an insignificant one. The more interesting question is how did Christianity start? With a charismatic, self-sacrificing individual? With a borderline psychotic individual? Or with a spiritual myth preached by diaspora Jews who represented the nation of Isreal crushed by the Roman Empire? Or something else? I am not voting in this poll.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.