Freethought & Rationalism ArchiveThe archives are read only. |
02-15-2009, 03:19 PM | #431 | |||||||||||||||||||||
Veteran Member
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: MidWest
Posts: 1,894
|
Quote:
Maybe other messiah claimants (or other religious inciters) did get this treatment, just their message didn’t preserve past their execution because they didn’t bother with the whole martyrdom angle. Maybe people who were claiming to be the messiah or any other religious figure were stoned in regularity back then, they just couldn’t get Jesus to blasphemy enough to turn the people against him. Or maybe the reason they got him and didn’t get the others like that was because he was letting them take him down. Luke 13:34 "O Jerusalem, Jerusalem, the city that kills the prophets and stones those sent to her!” Quote:
Quote:
If Jesus does something too criminal then he doesn’t look like a martyr, like strapping a bomb to your chest and blowing a bunch of innocent people up, kind of defeats the purpose. Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
I don’t know about the kingdom of god being a good example because of its multiple uses. Coming in the future is a historical belief about the future history. Now you can also use it as the kingdom is understood ideologically like Zion but it will still be occurring in history not a myth/story. The beliefs about eternal life and sin aren’t part of mythological world view but about how they understand the physical world. Eternal life is considered the intended state of man and death is because we are in a fallen state having imitated the ways of those who came before us. Jesus’ resurrection and claim to give eternal life to those who believe on him is a way around the wages of sin, which is death. There is nothing mythological, it’s an actual plan to achieve eternal life. Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
How does the mythical origin explain the die-hard following? Quote:
Yes I’m bias towards the Protestants in political understanding but more along the lines of the Catholics in philosophical understanding of Christ. Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Are you trying to say Jesus is now an urban legend like 9/11 conspiracy theories? Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
|
|||||||||||||||||||||
02-15-2009, 03:24 PM | #432 | ||
Veteran Member
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: MidWest
Posts: 1,894
|
Quote:
"Reverse fighting", I will try to remember to call it that and see how that works. Quote:
|
||
02-15-2009, 03:57 PM | #433 | ||
Contributor
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: the fringe of the caribbean
Posts: 18,988
|
Quote:
Now, look at the passage and you will see it is you who refuse to accept that the authors wrote ridiculous things about Jesus and his spit Mark 8:22-26 - Quote:
All the ridiculous stories about Jesus, the offspring of the Holy Ghost, are in the NT, the church writings and the non-canonised. And you believe Jesus, the offspring of the Holy Ghost, did some of them. You believe that Jesus, born without sexual union, did exist. |
||
02-15-2009, 04:05 PM | #434 |
Veteran Member
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: MidWest
Posts: 1,894
|
|
02-15-2009, 04:12 PM | #435 | |
Veteran Member
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: Britain
Posts: 5,259
|
Quote:
Using spit is just a more extravagant (and yes hygienic) form of the sort of faith healing we see in figures like Benny Hinn today. That Jesus acts like you'd expect a magician to act during the period may not prove that Jesus was based on a historical person, but it certainly doesn't count against that idea. I thought you were on a better line of argument when you said that such actions were out of character for a messiah. You seem to be taking this argument in a distinctly less convincing direction now though. |
|
02-15-2009, 04:50 PM | #436 | |||||
Veteran Member
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: Britain
Posts: 5,259
|
Quote:
http://www.livius.org/men-mh/messiah...aimants09.html Quote:
Your argument for the historical Jesus relies on the idea that Jesus was a man-god being a later addition, so what are the high priests supposed to be so upset about? Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
I fail to see how a historical origin explains it any better. The main tenet we see in the writings about Jesus is not his death, but his resurrection. If you seriously don't think of this as mythological, then are you suggesting that the die hard following is because someone really came back from the dead? It's a common interpretation by Biblical scholars. I'm seriously getting bored now. I thought this debate was going to reveal something I didn't know already, but all I'm discovering his how little you know about this subject. |
|||||
02-15-2009, 05:25 PM | #437 | ||||||||
Veteran Member
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: MidWest
Posts: 1,894
|
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
|
||||||||
02-15-2009, 05:45 PM | #438 | ||
Contributor
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: the fringe of the caribbean
Posts: 18,988
|
Quote:
Are you claiming that anything in the NT that appears to be plausible is an historical event? For Jesus to be regarded as historical there must be credible historical evidence of Jesus external of apologetic sources which no-one has been able to find. In any fiction story there are events that may appear plausible. |
||
02-15-2009, 05:58 PM | #439 | |
Contributor
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: the fringe of the caribbean
Posts: 18,988
|
Quote:
You need historical evidence to support an historical Jesus. It is absurd to claim Jesus had an historical core and yet cannot show the evidence for it. The evidence, the written statements of the NT, church writers and non-canonised writings all support a mythical creature. And there are only forgeries about Jesus found in Josephus where it is claimed he rose from the dead. Jesus, the offspring of the Holy Ghost, has a mythical core. |
|
02-15-2009, 07:02 PM | #440 | |||||||
Veteran Member
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: Britain
Posts: 5,259
|
Quote:
As I said before, my view is that Jesus is mythical and the huge amount of evidence in favour of this view makes it fairly uncontroversial. I know there's always the possibility that Jesus is based on a historical figure, but without evidence for it, why propose it? Quote:
Quote:
It's widely accepted and a quick look at wikipedia shows why: Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
You claimed earlier that Bultmann believes there is a historical core. Bultmann never says anything of the sort. He consoles fellow Christian readers with his assertion that he is not ruling out Jesus' historicity, but failing to rule it out isn't the same as ruling it in. Quote:
Yes, but your response to this interpretation appeared to completely ignore the way the concept of 'the devil' developed. The idea of the devil being identified with evil political figures had not developed yet. The devil in the NT is a being who is employed by God to test mankind. The idea of the devil as pure evil had not yet developed. |
|||||||
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
|