Freethought & Rationalism Archive

J-D · 11-06-2011, 01:16 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by aa5874

Quote:

Originally Posted by J-D

There is nothing new in any of those posts. Everything in them is things you have posted before, repeatedly. It wasn't enough to make out your case before and it isn't now. Repetition adds no weight. You can protract the thread with repetition as much as you like, but it's a pure waste of time and space, contributing nothing of value to the discussion.

Your claims appears to be FALSE. You have NOT found one single fault with my posts at all. You have even ADMITTED that some statements in the Canon CANNOT be historically accurate.

You DON'T even realise that ALL the TIME you were SUPPORTING me.

1. You ADMITTED that the Canon contain statements that CANNOT be historically accurate.

2. In ALL your POSTS, You have UTTERLY FAILED to show that anything about Jesus in gMark is historically accurate.

You DON'T even understand that you have DONE EXACTLY what I wanted you to DO.[

You HAVE ZERO SOURCES for HJ. You have NOTHING but NOISE.

That is WHAT you have SHOWN for ALL YOUR POSTS.

That is EXACTLY what I WANTED you to do. EXPOSE that HJ is without SUPPORT or Corroboration from sources of antiquity.

And further, in gMark the so-called Miracles of Jesus were IMPLAUSIBLE and fiction.

1. The Baptism story is IMPLAUSIBLE.

2. The Temptation by the Satan is IMPLAUSIBLE.

3. The Cursing of the Fig tree is IMPLAUSIBLE.

4. The Calming of the sea-storm is IMPLAUSIBLE.

5. The Raising of the dead is IMPLAUSIBLE.

6. The Trial of Jesus is IMPLAUSIBLE.

7. The INSTANT healing of the blind, deaf and dumb is IMPLAUSIBLE.

8. The feeding of the five and four thousand is IMPLAUSIBLE.

9. The claim that Jesus would BAPTIZE with Holy Ghost is IMPLAUSIBLE.

10. The Claim that Jesus resurrected is IMPLAUSIBLE.

The MYTH JESUS theory is WELL supported by gMark.

gMark is the Perfect HJ argument killer since there are statements in gMark about Jesus that are TOTAL FICTION and it is NOT known that any event about Jesus in gMark is historical.

Without any credible sources for an historical Jesus then HJ must be ABANDONED. No question about HJ can be answered.

J-D, you can't do history with SILENCE and IMAGINATION.

But on the other hand, gMark's Jesus was an OBSOLETE ABSOLUTE PHANTOM. IT WALKED on sea-water and Transfigured. Mark 6.48-49 and 9.2.

And yet again, all of this is material you have posted before, repeatedly. It wasn't enough to make out your case before and it isn't now. Repetition adds no weight. You can protract the thread with repetition as much as you like, but it's a pure waste of time and space, contributing nothing of value to the discussion.

tanya · 11-06-2011, 05:14 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by J-D

Insofar as that is the question at issue, you have not succeeded in making a case for your position on it, and neither has anybody else.

Thank you J-D. I welcome your corrections to my carelessly worded posts.

I did pose a couple of questions, earlier, on post 232, which you ignored, perhaps intentionally, but if not, I repeat them here, in the hope of learning of your reason for considering these points irrelevant.

Quote:

Originally Posted by tanya

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sheshbazzar

_The content of Mark 1:1 -or any other portion of the NT- has no bearing at all on the question of the initial existence of a flesh and blood charismatic preacher._

...
We can, I suppose, from a mere mathematical perspective, continue, sentence by sentence, through Mark, and each time, as the verse was spoken or written, return to your sentence, above, inserting that particular verse, replacing Mark 1:1 with Mark n:n, and obtain the same clarity of expression, the same pure logic, and the same end result:

Mark, according to this logic, "has no bearing at all on the question of the initial existence...etc..."

In other words, Sheshbazzar, your sentence above, repudiates, definitively, the contention that one can cite n quantity of verses of Mark, to illustrate the fact that Jesus was a mythical character, not an historical individual.

Let us pursue your logic one step further, ok?

Let us then inquire, since Mark cannot, by your analysis, offer any useful information on the mythical character of Jesus of Nazareth, whether or not there is some other text which does bear "on the question of the initial existence...etc"?

Now we visualize the first logical conundrum: if Mark "has no bearing ...etc", then on which aspect of the Jesus story is Mark relevant?

Further, if Mark "has no bearing...etc", then why should any other gospel, have "any bearing...etc"? By the same logic, why shouldn't Paul's letters and all the rest of the New Testament be thown on the garbage dump?

How can we cite Mark, in support of the idea, on the one hand, that this text accurately depicts an historical character, (either a direct depiction of Jesus of Nazareth himself, or an indirect depiction of someone like Jesus of Nazareth) but then deny that the same text "...has any bearing...etc")

How does one go about filtering out the mythical elements of the portrayal? Was the baby born of a teenager out of wedlock, fathered not by her betrothed, but by a ghost? If Jesus didn't walk on water, how was he able to save the boatsmen?

How does one decide which aspects of Mark accurately reflect an historical narrative, and which aspects are pure fiction?

Why can one not write, just as logically, as your quote, above, "The content of Mark 1:1 demonstrates to the unbiased observer, that this is a work of fiction."

aa5874 · 11-06-2011, 08:05 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by J-D

......And yet again, all of this is material you have posted before, repeatedly. It wasn't enough to make out your case before and it isn't now. Repetition adds no weight. You can protract the thread with repetition as much as you like, but it's a pure waste of time and space, contributing nothing of value to the discussion.

Since you are ALLOWED to REPEAT your FALLACIOUS statements OVER and OVER then I MUST REPEAT what I have established in gMark and EXPOSE the fact <edit>and that you have UTTERLY failed to show that any event about Jesus in gMark is historically accurate.

ALL you have CONFIRMED repeatedly is that statements in the Canon CANNOT be Historically accurate.

Myth Fables are NOT historically accurate.

I MUST be ALLOWED to EXPOSE YOUR REPEATED FALLACIES by SHOWING the WRITTEN EVIDENCE in gMark.

1. In gMark 6.48-49, the Jesus character WALKED on the SEA.

2. In gMark 9.2, the Jesus character Transfigured.

3 In gMark 1, the Baptism event is Implausible.

4. In gMark 1, The Temptation by the Satan is Implausible.

5. In gMark 1, the event with the man with the unclean spirit is Implausible.

6. In gMark 2, the event with the man with Palsy is Impausible.

7. In gMark 3, the event with the man with the withered hand is Implausible.

8. In gMark 4, the event where Jesus Calmed a sea-storm is Implausible.

9. In gMark 5, the event with the demons and PIGS is Implausible.

10. In gMark 5, the event with the woman with the ISSUE of blood is Implausible.

11. In gMark 5, the raising of the dead girl is Implausible.

12. In gMark 6, the feeding of the 5 thousand men is Implausible.

13. In gMark 7, the Instant healing of the deaf is Implausible.

14. In gMark 8, the feeding of the 4 thousand men is Implausible.

15. In gMark 9, the event with the Dumb boy is Implausible.

16. In gMark 10, the event with the Blind Man is Implausible.

17. In gMark 16, the claim of the resurrection is Implausible.

gMark CANNOT be an historical source of the character called Jesus as found written in the Extant Codices.

gMark described Jesus as a PHANTOM whose deeds were IMPLAUSIBLE.

gMark SUPPORTS the Myth Jesus theory.

gMark is the PERFECT HJ argument KILLER.

Sheshbazzar · 11-06-2011, 10:30 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by tanya

Quote:

Originally Posted by J-D

Insofar as that is the question at issue, you have not succeeded in making a case for your position on it, and neither has anybody else.

Thank you J-D. I welcome your corrections to my carelessly worded posts.

I did pose a couple of questions, earlier, on post 232, which you ignored, perhaps intentionally, but if not, I repeat them here, in the hope of learning of your reason for considering these points irrelevant.

Quote:

Originally Posted by tanya

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sheshbazzar

_The content of Mark 1:1 -or any other portion of the NT- has no bearing at all on the question of the initial existence of a flesh and blood charismatic preacher._

...
We can, I suppose, from a mere mathematical perspective, continue, sentence by sentence, through Mark, and each time, as the verse was spoken or written, return to your sentence, above, inserting that particular verse, replacing Mark 1:1 with Mark n:n, and obtain the same clarity of expression, the same pure logic, and the same end result:

Mark, according to this logic, "has no bearing at all on the question of the initial existence...etc..."

In other words, Sheshbazzar, your sentence above, repudiates, definitively, the contention that one can cite n quantity of verses of Mark, to illustrate the fact that Jesus was a mythical character, not an historical individual.

Let us pursue your logic one step further, ok?

Let us then inquire, since Mark cannot, by your analysis, offer any useful information on the mythical character of Jesus of Nazareth, whether or not there is some other text which does bear "on the question of the initial existence...etc"?

Now we visualize the first logical conundrum: if Mark "has no bearing ...etc", then on which aspect of the Jesus story is Mark relevant?

Further, if Mark "has no bearing...etc", then why should any other gospel, have "any bearing...etc"? By the same logic, why shouldn't Paul's letters and all the rest of the New Testament be thrown on the garbage dump?

How can we cite Mark, in support of the idea, on the one hand, that this text accurately depicts an historical character, (either a direct depiction of Jesus of Nazareth himself, or an indirect depiction of someone like Jesus of Nazareth) but then deny that the same text "...has any bearing...etc")

How does one go about filtering out the mythical elements of the portrayal? Was the baby born of a teenager out of wedlock, fathered not by her betrothed, but by a ghost? If Jesus didn't walk on water, how was he able to save the boatsmen?

How does one decide which aspects of Mark accurately reflect an historical narrative, and which aspects are pure fiction?

Why can one not write, just as logically, as your quote, above, "The content of Mark 1:1 demonstrates to the unbiased observer, that this is a work of fiction."

One can write.......anything.

My argument was in response to aa's constant misrepresentation of on what basis HJers reject the MJ hypothesis.
I was pointing out that the HJ position is not actually founded on those 'ghost' and 'miracle' claims that aa delights in monotonously repeating over and over in caps and in glaring red letters in post_ after post_ after post_ in thread_ after thread_ after thread.

I have already stated, perhaps hundreds of times now, that I regard ALL of the contents and claims of the New Testament writings as being TOTALLY fictional and TOTALLY untrustworthy.
I don't put any stock in any of these tall-tales, or in the reasoning ability of people who are silly enough to buy into, or to seriously attempt to employ this known to be FABRICATED and UNTRUSTWORTHY, FICTIONAL horse-pucky in their attempts to 're-construct 'history'.

Quote:

Further, if Mark "has no bearing...etc", then why should any other gospel, have "any bearing...etc"? By the same logic, why shouldn't Paul's letters and all the rest of the New Testament be thrown on the garbage dump?

While the NT writings are interesting cultural artifacts, they are not history, but theological propaganda productions, and very little that is any actual trustworthy history can be derived from them.
Nothing at all wrong with studying and discussing the content of the books of 'the Bible' as literary works, and as a window on the thoughts, practices, and the evolving theological concepts of the ancient ages in their particular geographical area and cultural milieu, but neither the Bible's 'Old' nor the 'New' 'Testaments' can be trusted as being accurate impartial recordings of history or historical events, or be reasonably employed as infallible instructional guidebooks to questions of modern ethics or the sciences.

None of these ancient texts, (nor the Bhagavad Gita, the I Ching, The Book of The Dead, -nor even The Book of Mormon for that matter) need ever be "thrown on the garbage dump" (unless one has been ensnared and trapped into one of the many 'mind-control' cults that demand a literal reading and acceptance- then- one would be well advised to toss whatever texts they might be that are being used to imprison and enslave their mind "on the garbage dump" so as to free themselves from any such enslavement.) but onward;
As literature these texts and their various interpretational traditions and 'schools', all comprise important, significant components of mankind's religious and literary heritage. Whose contents are invaluable and vital to obtaining any knowledge, understanding, or grasp of those succeeding social movements, institutions, and conflicts that have brought us to our present age, and the ongoing interests, influences and 'politics' that these forces still have upon all of our daily lives.

.

J-D · 11-06-2011, 11:43 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by tanya

Quote:

Originally Posted by J-D

Insofar as that is the question at issue, you have not succeeded in making a case for your position on it, and neither has anybody else.

Thank you J-D. I welcome your corrections to my carelessly worded posts.

I don't know why you make remarks like that. Perhaps you are unaware that they reflect unfavourably on you.

Quote:

Originally Posted by tanya

I did pose a couple of questions, earlier, on post 232, which you ignored, perhaps intentionally, but if not, I repeat them here, in the hope of learning of your reason for considering these points irrelevant.

I did not 'ignore' your questions, and I resent the characteristic misrepresentation. Your questions in that post were directed to Sheshbazzar. They may perhaps have been relevant to the position Sheshbazzar has taken; there was no sign that they were (or even that they were considered by you to be) relevant to anything I had said.

However, since you now insist, I will attempt to answer your questions for myself as far as is possible.

My answers, as it turns out, are basically recapitulations of what I have already posted. Perhaps you weren't paying attention to me before?

Quote:

Originally Posted by tanya

Quote:

Originally Posted by tanya

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sheshbazzar

_The content of Mark 1:1 -or any other portion of the NT- has no bearing at all on the question of the initial existence of a flesh and blood charismatic preacher._

...
We can, I suppose, from a mere mathematical perspective, continue, sentence by sentence, through Mark, and each time, as the verse was spoken or written, return to your sentence, above, inserting that particular verse, replacing Mark 1:1 with Mark n:n, and obtain the same clarity of expression, the same pure logic, and the same end result:

Mark, according to this logic, "has no bearing at all on the question of the initial existence...etc..."

In other words, Sheshbazzar, your sentence above, repudiates, definitively, the contention that one can cite n quantity of verses of Mark, to illustrate the fact that Jesus was a mythical character, not an historical individual.

Let us pursue your logic one step further, ok?

Let us then inquire, since Mark cannot, by your analysis, offer any useful information on the mythical character of Jesus of Nazareth, whether or not there is some other text which does bear "on the question of the initial existence...etc"?

Now we visualize the first logical conundrum: if Mark "has no bearing ...etc", then on which aspect of the Jesus story is Mark relevant?

Further, if Mark "has no bearing...etc", then why should any other gospel, have "any bearing...etc"? By the same logic, why shouldn't Paul's letters and all the rest of the New Testament be thown on the garbage dump?

How can we cite Mark, in support of the idea, on the one hand, that this text accurately depicts an historical character, (either a direct depiction of Jesus of Nazareth himself, or an indirect depiction of someone like Jesus of Nazareth) but then deny that the same text "...has any bearing...etc")

How does one go about filtering out the mythical elements of the portrayal? Was the baby born of a teenager out of wedlock, fathered not by her betrothed, but by a ghost? If Jesus didn't walk on water, how was he able to save the boatsmen?

How does one decide which aspects of Mark accurately reflect an historical narrative, and which aspects are pure fiction?

Why can one not write, just as logically, as your quote, above, "The content of Mark 1:1 demonstrates to the unbiased observer, that this is a work of fiction."

Your questions begin by assuming that Sheshbazzar's earlier statement is correct. I do not make that assumption. In my view, the discussion so far has not yet settled the question of what relevance, if any, Mark has, or what issues it may have bearing on, and so that question remains open. The same applies in relation to the other canonical writings.

I am satisfied--and nobody seems to dispute it in this discussion--that we can eliminate the possibility that the supernatural elements of the story are literally accurate reports of events that actually took place, although this is not literally the same thing as saying they are myths in a strict literal sense of that word.

So far as the non-supernatural parts of the story go, I have seen nothing posted in this discussion so far that provide a solid basis for making any decision about them, and so the question remains open.

On this principle, stories of conception by a spirit (which are not, as it happens, found in Mark, so the scope of the discussion is apparently extended beyond that) and of walking on water cannot be literally accurate reports of events that actually took place. For the non-supernatural elements of the stories, the questions remain unsettled.

J-D · 11-06-2011, 11:45 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by aa5874

Quote:

Originally Posted by J-D

......And yet again, all of this is material you have posted before, repeatedly. It wasn't enough to make out your case before and it isn't now. Repetition adds no weight. You can protract the thread with repetition as much as you like, but it's a pure waste of time and space, contributing nothing of value to the discussion.

Since you are ALLOWED to REPEAT your FALLACIOUS statements OVER and OVER then I MUST REPEAT what I have established in gMark and EXPOSE the fact <edit>and that you have UTTERLY failed to show that any event about Jesus in gMark is historically accurate.

ALL you have CONFIRMED repeatedly is that statements in the Canon CANNOT be Historically accurate.

Myth Fables are NOT historically accurate.

I MUST be ALLOWED to EXPOSE YOUR REPEATED FALLACIES by SHOWING the WRITTEN EVIDENCE in gMark.

1. In gMark 6.48-49, the Jesus character WALKED on the SEA.

2. In gMark 9.2, the Jesus character Transfigured.

3 In gMark 1, the Baptism event is Implausible.

4. In gMark 1, The Temptation by the Satan is Implausible.

5. In gMark 1, the event with the man with the unclean spirit is Implausible.

6. In gMark 2, the event with the man with Palsy is Impausible.

7. In gMark 3, the event with the man with the withered hand is Implausible.

8. In gMark 4, the event where Jesus Calmed a sea-storm is Implausible.

9. In gMark 5, the event with the demons and PIGS is Implausible.

10. In gMark 5, the event with the woman with the ISSUE of blood is Implausible.

11. In gMark 5, the raising of the dead girl is Implausible.

12. In gMark 6, the feeding of the 5 thousand men is Implausible.

13. In gMark 7, the Instant healing of the deaf is Implausible.

14. In gMark 8, the feeding of the 4 thousand men is Implausible.

15. In gMark 9, the event with the Dumb boy is Implausible.

16. In gMark 10, the event with the Blind Man is Implausible.

17. In gMark 16, the claim of the resurrection is Implausible.

gMark CANNOT be an historical source of the character called Jesus as found written in the Extant Codices.

gMark described Jesus as a PHANTOM whose deeds were IMPLAUSIBLE.

gMark SUPPORTS the Myth Jesus theory.

gMark is the PERFECT HJ argument KILLER.

You do understand that there's a difference between the meanings of 'some' and 'all', don't you?

J-D · 11-06-2011, 11:47 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sheshbazzar

One can write.......anything.

...

I have already stated, perhaps hundreds of times now, that I regard ALL of the contents and claims of the New Testament writings as being TOTALLY fictional and TOTALLY untrustworthy.

...

One can state ... anything. Even hundreds of times.

aa5874 · 11-06-2011, 01:06 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sheshbazzar

My argument was in response to aa's constant misrepresentation of on what basis HJers reject the MJ hypothesis...

Your claim is FALLACIOUS. I have NOT mis-represented the HJ theory

The HJ theory is that there was an HJ of Nazareth.

You are MIS-REPRESENTING ME.

I have REPEATEDLY stated that gMark SUPPORTS the Myth Jesus theory and that there are ZERO sources for HJ of Nazareth.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sheeshbazzar

...I was pointing out that the HJ position is not actually founded on those 'ghost' and 'miracle' claims that aa delights in monotonously repeating over and over in caps and in glaring red letters in post_ after post_ after post_ in thread_ after thread_ after thread.

You seem INCAPABLE of understanding that I am presenting written evidence in gMark that support the Myth Jesus theory.

HJers have repeated over and over and over that there was an HJ of Nazareth but CANNOT produce any written evidence for their claims.

Adam · 11-06-2011, 02:21 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by J-D

I am satisfied--and nobody seems to dispute it in this discussion--that we can eliminate the possibility that the supernatural elements of the story are literally accurate reports of events that actually took place, although this is not literally the same thing as saying they are myths in a strict literal sense of that word.

You've smoked me out. My one-liner compliment to you in #259 did not draw out this bigger issue.
You have never posted on my two main threads, but I would think that you are aware that I have a continuing thread (up to my #230 just posted) in "Gospel Eyewitnesses" that would seem to imply just by its title that I am a believer in supernatural occurrences being accurately (though not inerrantly) stated in the four gospels. In addition for incidental scholarly grounding for my thesis I am in process of transciption here in my thread my article "Significance of John". Those anyone reading this post can readily find here on FRDB, and I link therein to four of my articles here:
http://megasociety.org/noesis/181.htm#Common
I have never presupposed miracles can or cannot occur. Empirical evidence seems solid that supernatural events occur, or at least what looks like supernatural events.
I am not at all surprised, of course, that atheists do not believe that any supernatural events occurred in the Bible. What does surprise is that I have not seen anyone here dispute the MJ theory by stating that the HJ theory could be affirmed by drawing upon paranormal activity. That is, could not the supposedly supernatural events in the gospels be paranormal instead? Extraterrestrial visitors with advanced scientific powers might have brought about many "miraculous" events. Nor do I see anyone suggesting that psychic powers as in ESP could greatly increase the number of events in the gospels that could have happened to Jesus. It would seem that the MJ school would need to be refuting all these possibilities as well, and that the HJ school could be strengthening its case accordingly.
Whenever I have speculated about what atheists believe, I have tended to assume that they would believe in ETs or ESP as ways of dismissing what tradition or common credulousness claims as miracles. You guys surprise me with your absolute certainty combined with absolute skepticism.

aa5874 · 11-06-2011, 02:44 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Adam

I have never presupposed miracles can or cannot occur. Empirical evidence seems solid that supernatural events occur, or at least what looks like supernatural events....

Away with your BS. There is ZERO Empirical evidence that Jesus could walk on sea-water, transfigure and feed NINE THOUSAND men with a few bread and fish and still collect TWELVE baskets of left-overs as stated in gMark.

I say away with your BS.

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

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.