Freethought & Rationalism Archive

No Robots · 03-06-2006, 09:55 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by No Robots

I'll answer for our mythicist friends:

Those guys who wrote the Gospels where so tricky that they made everything they wrote look stupid and incompetent in order to suck us in competely.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Toto

Please ignore No Robots' unhelpful comments.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Toto

I think that the gospel writers were more creative than you give them credit for.

Well, did I predict your answer or didn't I?

Toto · 03-06-2006, 11:04 PM

No you didn't. I hope you can see the difference between literary creativity and a deliberate attempt to "suck people in" by appearing stupid.

Doug Shaver · 03-07-2006, 07:28 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by WCH

That Jesus didn't actually fulfill prophesies proves that he cannot have been the Messiah

True. However . . . that early Christians believed that he fulfilled prophecies proves that they believed he was the messiah.

Quote:

Originally Posted by WCH

but what it does show is that the stories about him probably weren't completely fabricated.

I don't see why. All that was required was for (1) the storyteller to claim that the events in the story fulfilled prophecies and (2) some people to think that the storyteller knew what he was talking about.

Jack the Bodiless · 03-07-2006, 08:06 AM

I remain agnostic on the mythicist issue. However, it's fairly clear that some of the messianic prophecies couldn't have been fulfilled by a fictional Jesus because their fulfilment would have been obvious to all (e.g. the messiah was supposed to be a great military leader, yet any claim that Jesus "rallied the Jews and drove the Romans into the sea" would be laughed at).

IIRC, Jesus rode into Jerusalem on a donkey to "fulfil a messianic prophecy". So there's one example of a possibly-invented "prophecy fulfilment".

No Robots · 03-07-2006, 08:11 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Toto

I hope you can see the difference between literary creativity and a deliberate attempt to "suck people in" by appearing stupid.

I think I now have a better understanding of your position. Thank you. You seem to be saying that the Gospels were never intended by their authors to be taken for factual truth. Is that it?

jjramsey · 03-07-2006, 08:17 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Doug Shaver

I don't see why. All that was required was for (1) the storyteller to claim that the events in the story fulfilled prophecies and (2) some people to think that the storyteller knew what he was talking about.

If the storyteller is making up a story, he has a lot more freedom in making his story fit the prophecy. Why then make the story a poor fit?

jakejonesiv · 03-07-2006, 08:54 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jjramsey

If the storyteller is making up a story, he has a lot more freedom in making his story fit the prophecy. Why then make the story a poor fit?

Most of the events in the alleged life of Jesus were created by allegorical interpretations of the Septuagint. There is an element of magical thinking, a loosening of associations that is typical of religous fervor.

Jake Jones

No Robots · 03-07-2006, 09:04 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jakejonesiv

There is an element of magical thinking, a loosening of associations that is typical of religous fervor.

That's quite the theory you've got there. Any sources to back it up? Does it apply to the loose associations posited by mythicists?

jjramsey · 03-07-2006, 09:08 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jakejonesiv

Most of the events in the alleged life of Jesus were created by allegorical interpretations of the Septuagint. There is an element of magical thinking, a loosening of associations that is typical of religous fervor.

This doesn't solve the problem. If what you write is true, then one should see clearer and more consistent echoes of the Septuagint. If the purported associations are that loose, then why should we not conclude that these associations are in the mind of the one arguing for the assertions, rather than from the Gospel author?

Diogenes the Cynic · 03-07-2006, 09:13 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jjramsey

This doesn't solve the problem. If what you write is true, then one should see clearer and more consistent echoes of the Septuagint. If the purported associations are that loose, then why should we not conclude that these associations are in the mind of the one arguing for the assertions, rather than from the Gospel author?

Because they often use direct quotations from the LXX or explicitly proclaim it as fulfilled prophecy. See especially Matthew.

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

03-06-2006, 11:04 PM	#12
Toto Contributor Join Date: Jun 2000 Location: Los Angeles area Posts: 40,549	No you didn't. I hope you can see the difference between literary creativity and a deliberate attempt to "suck people in" by appearing stupid.

03-07-2006, 08:06 AM	#14
Jack the Bodiless Veteran Member Join Date: Feb 2001 Location: UK Posts: 5,815	I remain agnostic on the mythicist issue. However, it's fairly clear that some of the messianic prophecies couldn't have been fulfilled by a fictional Jesus because their fulfilment would have been obvious to all (e.g. the messiah was supposed to be a great military leader, yet any claim that Jesus "rallied the Jews and drove the Romans into the sea" would be laughed at). IIRC, Jesus rode into Jerusalem on a donkey to "fulfil a messianic prophecy". So there's one example of a possibly-invented "prophecy fulfilment".

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.