Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Amaleq13 · 07-09-2008, 08:37 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jjramsey

I think gstafleu means that FBI, rather than the MJ, is known to exist.

Yes, he is attempting to "smuggle" the MJ in without holding it to the same standard as the HJ.

Amaleq13 · 07-09-2008, 08:42 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by gstafleu

That would be correct if both HJ and MJ only used FBI in their explanations (presumably in a slightly different fashion, each from the other). But the thing is, HJ throws in an extra element: the HJ.

A Mythical Jesus is just as much an "extra element" and just as much in need of support.

Quote:

And for that element there is scarce evidence.

Just as with a mythical Jesus. Just as there is scarce evidence that unambiguously points to an historical figure, there is scarce evidence that unambiguously points to the earliest Christians believing in a purely mythical character or purely spiritual character or whichever particular brand of MJ you prefer.

Quote:

MJ isn't the thing "known to exist," FBI is.

Exactly. So why pretend that it is somehow superior to the HJ?

dog-on · 07-09-2008, 08:49 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jeffrey Gibson

Quote:

Originally Posted by dog-on

MJ has the ability to accept the Jesus as portrayed in the writings, as is.

Leaving aside the matters that the MJ thesis has to assert the existence of "facts" not in evidence or attested to by first century authors (sub lunar fleshy realm?) in order to have the ability to "accept"(?) the Jesus as portrayed in the NT "as is", and that its proponents frequently engage in eisegesis or in the applea to "interpolation" in order to get NT texts to say what is consistent with the MJ hypothesis, the hidden assumption in your claim is that you understand the writings "as is".

Forgive my bluntness, but I have yet to see anything from you that warrants this conclusion. In fact, it's just the opposite. And since, so far as is apparent, you have the same qualifications as the aaa man vis a vis NT texts, I have no reason to think that you possess the knowledge that is requisite to do so.

Jeffrey

Come on. I have no problem saying that the early writers simply made it up. I really don't need to make excuses for them, to try to save their integrity.

Arguing for interpolation, etc. is a fun diversion, but really doesn't matter one way or the other in the grand scheme. None of it is provable.

MJ exists just fine without making any changes, at all, to the NT. In fact, there is no better evidence for MJ...

Can this really be said for HJ? I think not.

BTW:

It really doesn't matter what the text specifically says. Unless you can point out where, in the Greek, the text says something to the effect that all the impossible occurances are just make believe and that the real Jesus did not really do such things, we are looking at a fictitious tale.

To my knowledge, the text says no such thing.

dog-on · 07-09-2008, 08:51 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jeffrey Gibson

Quote:

Originally Posted by dog-on

Paul is writing about what he imagined (revelation), God/JC had to say. I do not recall Paul every claiming that he had actually, physically

, met Jesus Christ.

I do not recall that Tacitus or Suetonius ever claimed that they had met Augustus or Claudius or Caligula or Nero. Nor Aristotle Socrates. Nor Philostratus Apollonius. So what?

Jeffrey

Are you serious?

Did Tacticus or Suetonius claim that they received their knowledge of these figures through revelation?

:wave:

aa5874 · 07-09-2008, 08:55 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dog-on

MJ has the ability to accept the Jesus as portrayed in the writings, as is.

HJ portrays someone not portrayed in the writings.

Doesn't matter whether the NT writers viewed Jesus as human, or not.

So, in effect HJers have rejected the EVIDENCE of Jesus of the NT and have proceeded to fabricate their own.

dog-on · 07-09-2008, 08:56 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by aa5874

Quote:

Originally Posted by dog-on

MJ has the ability to accept the Jesus as portrayed in the writings, as is.

HJ portrays someone not portrayed in the writings.

Doesn't matter whether the NT writers viewed Jesus as human, or not.

So, in effect HJers have rejected the EVIDENCE of Jesus of the NT and have proceeded to fabricate their own.

That about sums it up, imo...

Amaleq13 · 07-09-2008, 08:57 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by gstafleu

In order to topple MJ, HJ has to explain something MJ cannot explain, or explain it significantly better.

IMO, the crucifixion is one such data point but only after one obtains sufficient background knowledge on the social/political/religious implications associated with it. See Hengel's Crucifixion in the Ancient World and the Folly of the Message of the Cross, for example.

Either we are dealing with entirely understandable efforts to reconcile massive cognitive dissonance (ie utterly humiliating defeat of a beloved leader) or a deliberate choice of the most humiliating and repugnant death available for purely theological reasons and despite the obvious inherent problems for obtaining converts.

Given that the notion is obviously forced onto Hebrew Scripture rather than extracted from it, I find the latter to be more of a stretch than the former.

I don't, however, think this is sufficient to "topple" the opposing view.

gstafleu · 07-09-2008, 08:57 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jeffrey Gibson

Quote:

Originally Posted by gstafleu

But here's the thing: as long as MJ makes about as much sense as HJ, MJ has the advantage because it only uses a known mechanism.

But the question is on what basis the MJ makes sense. If it's obtained by having to multiply doubtful hypothesis and by distorting/misreading/ eisegeting the NT evidence it appeals to, what sort of sense is this?

Certainly, but if MJ did that, it would in fact not make much sense. The question thus is: what data do we have that MJ can only explain in that unsatisfactory manner?

Gerard Stafleu

dog-on · 07-09-2008, 08:58 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Amaleq13

Quote:

Originally Posted by gstafleu

In order to topple MJ, HJ has to explain something MJ cannot explain, or explain it significantly better.

IMO, the crucifixion is one such data point but only after one obtains sufficient background knowledge on the social/political/religious implications associated with it. See Hengel's Crucifixion in the Ancient World and the Folly of the Message of the Cross, for example.

Either we are dealing with entirely understandable efforts to reconcile massive cognitive dissonance (ie utterly humiliating defeat of a beloved leader) or a deliberate choice of the most humiliating and repugnant death available for purely theological reasons and despite the obvious inherent problems for obtaining converts.

Given that the notion is obviously forced onto Hebrew Scripture rather than extracted from it, I find the latter to be more of a stretch than the former.

I don't, however, think this is sufficient to "topple" the opposing view.

Couldn't it simply have made for a more powerful finale?

Jeffrey Gibson · 07-09-2008, 08:59 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dog-on

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jeffrey Gibson

Leaving aside the matters that the MJ thesis has to assert the existence of "facts" not in evidence or attested to by first century authors (sub lunar fleshy realm?) in order to have the ability to "accept"(?) the Jesus as portrayed in the NT "as is", and that its proponents frequently engage in eisegesis or in the applea to "interpolation" in order to get NT texts to say what is consistent with the MJ hypothesis, the hidden assumption in your claim is that you understand the writings "as is".

Forgive my bluntness, but I have yet to see anything from you that warrants this conclusion. In fact, it's just the opposite. And since, so far as is apparent, you have the same qualifications as the aaa man vis a vis NT texts, I have no reason to think that you possess the knowledge that is requisite to do so.

Jeffrey

Come on. I have no problem saying that the early writers simply made it up. I really don't need to make excuses for them, to try to save their integrity.

Arguing for interpolation, etc. is a fun diversion, but really doesn't matter one way or the other in the grand scheme. None of it is provable.

MJ exists just fine without making any changes, at all, to the NT. In fact, there is no better evidence for MJ...

Can this really be said for HJ? I think not.

BTW:

It really doesn't matter what the text specifically says. Unless you can point out where, in the Greek, the text says something to the effect that all the impossible occurances are just make believe and that the real Jesus did not really do such things, we are looking at a fictitious tale.

To my knowledge, the text says no such thing.

But the question -- which you've absolutely avoided answering in the above -- is: what is the extent and basis of your "knowledge".

I ask again, what is the nature and extent of your grounding in NT studies and in Greek?

Why should anyone here accept your claims that you do indeed understand what the NT writers write and that you actually know what the texts "as is" say?

Jeffrey

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

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.