Freethought & Rationalism Archive

aa5874 · 10-13-2011, 07:14 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by MCalavera

...Atheos, I can tell you're fairly neutral and really want to be convinced, but I don't have the qualifications needed to convince anyone here. Wait for Bart Ehrman's upcoming book and see if his arguments are valid...

This is like telling people "Jesus is coming soon". Bart Ehrman will NOT be able to provide any credible sources for an historical Jesus.

Bart Ehrman cannot out perform Celsus who utterly failed to provide any historical evidence that Jesus was a mam.

Over 1800 years ago Celsus could NOT present any credible historical evidence to show that Jesus was just a man when he ARGUED AGAINST those who claimed Jesus was FATHERED by a Ghost.

Celsus did NOT use Josephus, Tacitus or Pliny at all based on "Against Celsus" by Origen to ARGUE that Jesus was a man.

Quote:

Originally Posted by MCalavera

...The Gospels and the Epistles must be treated as evidence. It'd be ridiculous not to do so. But it doesn't mean we must take every word in them as Gospel truth (pun intended). However, it does mean we should refer to them as part of the evidence. That's how historians operate....

The Gospels and the Epistles are treated as historical EVIDENCE of the BELIEFS of antiquity.

The Gospels and the Epistles CONFIRM that people of antiquity BELIEVED Ghost stories.

gurugeorge · 10-14-2011, 04:06 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by MCalavera

Nothing will convince you, so no point in arguing with you and others here.

LOL, projection much? Nevertheless, was fun having you :wave:

DCHindley · 10-14-2011, 04:32 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by MCalavera

Ok, since I'm leaving this forum soon (personal reasons), this should be my last post: ...

Have to go now. Nice being here.

But we never really discussed Parsley, Shick Razors, etc. in the MJ/HJ hypothesis!

Pity ...

DCH

Atheos · 10-15-2011, 04:42 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by MCalavera

Quote:

Originally Posted by Atheos

I'm still unimpressed with this insistence that interpreting the available evidence in favor of a historical Jesus is somehow more "parsimonious" than interpreting it in favor of the mythicist view.

All we have are stories. We have no actual evidence that the individual in question existed. No birth record, no letters to or from, no historical documentation written by a disinterested third party, etc.

There is abundant evidence and reason to believe that these stories developed via oral tradition for several decades before anyone began writing any of it down. In the process the story absorbed elements of Greek and Jewish traditions.

At this point any assumption made that the story is entirely mythical is completely offset by any assumption made that elements of the story are not mythical. Both are entirely plausible and fit with the available evidence.

And once we strip the story of its mythical elements to arrive at a plausible historical core we're left with an itinerant preacher who managed to influence a few people with his words, said some controversial things and may have ended up in the slammer after vandalizing the temple.

Big whoop. This story probably describes the lives of hundreds of eccentric preacher types of the period.

Either way the extraordinary man presented in the stories never existed. In other news King Arthur probably didn't pull Excalibur out of a stone either.

Ok, since I'm leaving this forum soon (personal reasons), this should be my last post:

Atheos, I can tell you're fairly neutral and really want to be convinced, but I don't have the qualifications needed to convince anyone here. Wait for Bart Ehrman's upcoming book and see if his arguments are valid.

You're still looking at the Gospels as if they're like Greek myths or Arthurian myths or whatever. It's not. Different aim and motive. Myths are usually for good story telling or to explain certain things in nature. The Gospels were written to promote Jesus as the Messiah.

Yes, there's evidence it all started orally, but no evidence that the aim was different at first.

The Gospels and the Epistles must be treated as evidence. It'd be ridiculous not to do so. But it doesn't mean we must take every word in them as Gospel truth (pun intended). However, it does mean we should refer to them as part of the evidence. That's how historians operate.

Doug Shaver, you're too biased. Nothing will convince you, so no point in arguing with you and others here.

Have to go now. Nice being here.

Lively discussion while it lasted. Since I get the last word I'll take advantage of it and point out a couple of flaws in your reasoning:

Quote:

You're still looking at the Gospels as if they're like Greek myths or Arthurian myths or whatever. It's not. Different aim and motive. Myths are usually for good story telling or to explain certain things in nature. The Gospels were written to promote Jesus as the Messiah.

This is not by any means certain. These stories may well have started off as orally transmitted "campfire stories" and eventually gelled into more of a cohesive unit. It is internally evident that the varying authors of the extant gospels had different fundamental intentions in mind as well. GJohn, for example is much more interested in promoting Jesus as "God" (the creator of the world without whom nothing was made, the light of the world, the word of god incarnate). To take such a narrow-minded position on such an issue as "Why were these things written by all these people" is to invite an unwarranted conclusion.

Quote:

Yes, there's evidence it all started orally, but no evidence that the aim was different at first.

And of course there's no evidence that the aim wasn't different at first, as I described above.

Quote:

The Gospels and the Epistles must be treated as evidence. It'd be ridiculous not to do so. But it doesn't mean we must take every word in them as Gospel truth (pun intended). However, it does mean we should refer to them as part of the evidence. That's how historians operate.

Only problem is in this case we have to refer to them as all of the evidence. It's not very compelling evidence because all of it is tainted with mythical elements, extraordinary claims and downright historically demonstrable falsehoods.

Like I say, there may have been a historical character buried underneath all that baggage, but what of it? I see no reason to take such a position. I'm skeptical (pun intended) that Ehrman is going to reveal the smoking gun that settles the issue, but we'll see. Perhaps he's had the holy grail in his possession all this time.

aa5874 · 10-15-2011, 06:44 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Atheos

....Like I say, there may have been a historical character buried underneath all that baggage, but what of it? I see no reason to take such a position. I'm skeptical (pun intended) that Ehrman is going to reveal the smoking gun that settles the issue, but we'll see. Perhaps he's had the holy grail in his possession all this time.

Ehrman has ZERO evidence for an historical Jesus of Nazareth.

People who believe Jesus existed whether as God or man are always expecting to see some evidence of his existence but since CELSUS, over 1800 years ago, all evidence of an historical Jesus could NOT be FOUND.

In "Against Celsus" attributed to Origen, Celsus UTTERLY failed to EMPLOY a single credible piece of evidence to PROVE Jesus was a Man when he argued AGAINST the claim by Christians that Jesus was FATHERED by a Holy Ghost.

I am sorry, Ehrman cannot bring back Jesus he was NEVER here in the first place.

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

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.