Freethought & Rationalism Archive

aa5874 · 01-15-2007, 10:05 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by No Robots

If you yell, "Fire!" in a crowded movie theatre when there is no fire, you are committing a grave offense to the public welfare. Mythicists are doing similar mischief by saying Christ never lived.

Your analogy is a fallacy. Your are using scare tactics to suppress investigation into the historicity of Jesus the Christ.

According to the NT, it is Jesus the Christ who claimed that there is fire to burn all unbelievers.
Matthew 25:41, 'Then shall he say also unto them on the left hand, Depart from me, ye cursed, into everlasting fire, prepared for the devil and his angels'.
Mark 9:45, 'And if thy hand offend, cut it off:it is better for thee to enter into life maimed, than having two hands to go into hell, into the fire that shall never be quenched'.

If you have no evidence to support historicity of your Jesus, then he will be regarded as a myth.

jakejonesiv · 01-15-2007, 10:24 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Camio

I read this article, and I wondered why Charles Guignebert's demolition of the JM theories in his Jesus was not included. One could retort that it is short (6 pages) and partially outdated, but so was the case for some of the theories ED criticized in the mentionned article. Furhermore, I think Guignebert's refutation lists very interesting questions that the JM theories seem to have quite a hard time with.

Just wondering...:huh:

J.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Toto

...
eta: could you summarize this demolition?

Quote:

Originally Posted by Camio

I will try to translate the main part of it for next week (I tried an online translator, the result was horrible...). I truly think it is worth taking a look at.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Toto

The book has been translated into English.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Camio

Yes, I am well aware of that, but I strongly doubt you can find the passage I am refering to online for free.

You criticized Earl Doherty for not mentioning Charles Guignebert's supposed "demolition of the JM theories."

But you can't translate the text yourself, can't find an English translation, and can't give a summary of the main points.

If you think Guignebert's case is so strong, why do you need an extra week before you can even comment on it??

Jake Jones IV

Camio · 01-15-2007, 11:23 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jakejonesiv

You criticized Earl Doherty for not mentioning Charles Guignebert's supposed "demolition of the JM theories."

But you can't translate the text yourself, can't find an English translation, and can't give a summary of the main points.

If you think Guignebert's case is so strong, why do you need an extra week before you can even comment on it??

Jake Jones IV

Please calm down:

1. I didn't criticize ED, I just wondered why he didn't respond to Guignebert's refutation. I am pretty sure he had some valid reasons for that.

2. I never said Guignebert's case is strong, I just wanted to point out it is a "classic" refutation. Being 70 years old, no doubt there are much more efficient refutations available today based on modern scholarship.

3. I have other things to do than translate Guignebert's text in life. Luckily, I had more sparetime than I previously thought today.

4. For the rest, see this thread.

Why this overreaction?

Johann_Kaspar · 01-15-2007, 03:27 PM

To begin with:

Quote:

Originally Posted by CG

PART I
THE LIFE OF JESUS

CHAPTER I
THE HISTORICAL EXISTENCE OF JESUS 1

I
THE PROBLEM

THE poverty and uncertainty of our information about
Jesus long ago gave rise to the question, of first import-
ance to us here, whether this person, of whom we know prac-
tically nothing, ever really existed, or whether that which
claims to be the record of his life is anything more than a tissue
of myths, allegories, and symbols. The controversy was started
at the end of the eighteenth century by some of the French
philosophes, notably Dupuis and Volney, and has continued
ever since, alternately raging furiously and lapsing into periods
of quiescence. It is evident that if the personality and influ-
ence of Jesus disappear from history, the birth of Christianity
has still to be explained, and it is to this task that those who
deny his historicity have applied themselves, with a confidence
only equalled by the variety of their theories and the flimsiness
of their arguments. Popular opinion, always susceptible to
novelty, and entirely indifferent to the cautious reservations
of scientific exegesis, impressed by their air of conclusiveness

The rest is a catalogue of unproven assertions and ad populum arguments. No refutation at all, even if the mythicists of that time were the first trying to make sense of the emptiness of HJ evidence. CG despices mythicists.

Baidarka · 01-15-2007, 07:55 PM

The Jesus of the NT did not exist, men are not born of virgins, they can not walk on water, and they do not cast out demons or magically cure the blind and the lame. Even if there was a Rabbi Jesus that the story was based on the magical Jesus of the NT is the only one that maters and he did not exist. Magical beings do not exist. God does not impregnate human women and father children.
God/men are imaginary beings. The Jesus of the NT is a god/man therefore he is imaginary.

Johann_Kaspar · 01-16-2007, 01:16 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Baidarka

The Jesus of the NT did not exist, men are not born of virgins, they can not walk on water, . ...

He could not walk on water, but he could walk on the sea.

Mt 11:15 He that hath ears to hear, let him hear.

Johann_Kaspar · 02-01-2007, 02:03 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Johann_Kaspar

He could not walk on water, but he could walk on the sea.

Mt 11:15 He that hath ears to hear, let him hear.

No taker? Everybody is thinking that it is a miracle or a fantasy? Come on! No ears?

Or nobody understood that he could walk on the sea? xian make very poor scholars..., they did not undesrtand, they have no ears to hear, but what about infidels?

Should I be disappointed?

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

01-15-2007, 07:55 PM	#95
Baidarka Senior Member Join Date: May 2002 Location: NYC Posts: 590	The Jesus of the NT did not exist, men are not born of virgins, they can not walk on water, and they do not cast out demons or magically cure the blind and the lame. Even if there was a Rabbi Jesus that the story was based on the magical Jesus of the NT is the only one that maters and he did not exist. Magical beings do not exist. God does not impregnate human women and father children. God/men are imaginary beings. The Jesus of the NT is a god/man therefore he is imaginary.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.