FRDB Archives

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.


Go Back   FRDB Archives > Archives > Religion (Closed) > Biblical Criticism & History
Welcome, Peter Kirby.
You last visited: Yesterday at 03:12 PM

 
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old 10-14-2010, 12:15 AM   #141
Contributor
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: the fringe of the caribbean
Posts: 18,988
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by spamandham View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by Steve Weiss View Post
Shame that you have no concept of the arbitrary. If no evidence is presented there is no case. A case only becomes possible when some evidence is presented. Nothing should not be given the same status as the evidential. Someday a unicorn may be found, so we can't say that there aren't any. Right.
Evidence is merely evidence. The same evidence that proves innocence also proves guilt, depending on the force of argument applied.
No way. How in the world can the same evidence both prove innocence and also guilt?

Evidence generally helps one or the other or is not relevant.

Quote:
Originally Posted by spamandham
You are arguing that the evidence is best interpreted as fantasy/fiction. I don't disagree with that, but at the same time, why is it invalid to argue that it is best interpreted as highly decorated biography? That's the real question here....which interpretation of the evidence provides better explanatory power?
But, it is agreed even among those who advocate that Jesus was historical that the Jesus character was mythologised. Their problem that there is no other evidence but the mythology.

From the start the MJ theory is well supported but HJ cannot up to this day find any external or internal source to begin their or argument.

The HJ is based on the premise that the extant information about Jesus is NOT credible which is tantamount to admitting in a trial that your main witness has perjured themselves.
aa5874 is offline  
Old 10-14-2010, 12:34 AM   #142
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: On the path of knowledge
Posts: 8,889
Default

Steven, you have thus far only focused your attentions on the final paragraph of my post. Here again is that portion which you passed over.
Quote:
The Jesus Christ god/man as presented within the NT texts is certainly a mythical creation.

IF there ever was an actual flesh and blood 1st century teacher/rabbi that served as the nucleus of the Christian created mythology, he was not that Jesus Christ depicted in the NT, but only a person about which nothing at all can be known with any certainty.

IF by some chance, some actual valid archaeological or documentary evidence ever did turn up that provided indisputable evidence for the existence of this individual, it would still not validate the mythological claims presented within the NT, that individual could never have been the 'Jesus Christ' that is presented within the texts.
IE. there were many 1st century Jewish teachers wearing sandals, with nothing particular to identify one from another, 'he' could have been any one of them, or an amalgamation of many.
Whatever 'he' really was, or was really like, he certainly was NOT that miracle-working character created by the Christian writers.
And thus, if 'he' was NOT born of a virgin, did NOT raise the dead, did NOT ascend into the clouds in the sight of men, then this unknown individual most certainly is NOT THE 'Jesus Christ' of the NT texts nor of the Christian religion.
He could not 'save' or 'help' anyone, nor even so much as save himself from being transformed by the Gospel/church writers into an overdone parody.
I say unequivocally that the Jesus written about in the Christian Cannon and idolised by Christians does not exist, and never has existed.
It behoved me for honesty's sake, upon presenting such critical and negative statements concerning the contents of the Bible, to indicate that in spite of such harsh criticism of the texts, I nonetheless am a devout believer in 'The Name' יהוה, and in that 'Help' and 'Salvation' vouchsafed in that Name.
A 'Name' which I find to have long been besmirched through the means of 'Scripture' so called, and through the 'works' and the words of the Bible's advocates;
Men who have said 'Thus saith The LORD' when יהוה never spoke, but they put their own words into 'his' mouth, so making 'him' and 'his' Holy Name to stink in the eyes of honest and rational men.
My יהוה is not their יהוה, my יהוה reveals their יהוה to be a liar, and not יהוה at all.
Sheshbazzar is offline  
Old 10-14-2010, 12:51 AM   #143
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: seattle, wa
Posts: 9,337
Default

Quote:
It behoved me for honesty's sake, upon presenting such critical and negative statements concerning the contents of the Bible, to indicate that in spite of such harsh criticism of the texts, I nonetheless am a devout believer in 'The Name' יהוה, and in that 'Help' and 'Salvation' vouchsafed in that Name.
I really don't know what to say to this. What this has to do with the thread I don't quite understand but I am glad to hear that you believe in the power of the name. Got to like it when people are 'behoved' by something. Don't hear that often enough.
stephan huller is offline  
Old 10-14-2010, 12:55 AM   #144
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: On the path of knowledge
Posts: 8,889
Default

'Historical Jesus?' what does this have to do with this thread? Perhaps it would help your comprehension if you would be a little less 'selective' as to which small portions of my posts that you choose to address.

summary;

" I do not believe in 'Jesus' Christ, nor that there ever was a man with some other spelling or pronunciation that did those things written in the Christian texts. ........

haShem YHWH is not a man. And that 'YAH-hoshua' of which I write is not a man, never was and never will be. .......

The Jesus Christ god/man as presented within the NT texts is certainly a mythical creation........

I say unequivocally that the Jesus written about in the Christian Cannon and idolised by Christians does not exist, and never has existed. "

All of which directly pertains to the subject of this thread. THERE IS NO SUCH THING AS A 'HISTORICAL JESUS'
Sheshbazzar is offline  
Old 10-14-2010, 06:43 AM   #145
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Dancing
Posts: 9,940
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by stephan huller View Post
And just to make it again clear. Judaism had very little manuscript evidence for the Second Commonwealth period before the discovery of the Qumran scrolls. Very little meaningful information survives to tell us about the shape of the Samaritan religion before Marqe and the manuscript evidence much, much later than that.

Why is there so little information from the first, second and third centuries IN ALL THE PALESTINIAN RELIGIOUS TRADITIONS? Because the Roman state was kicking their ass.
No, that is not the reason.

The reason is that Constantine and Eusebius not only invented Christianity in the 4th century, they also invented Jews and Samaritans in the 4th century as well.

It is so obvious!!!!!

That is why there is an Israeli/Palestinian conflict today. How absurd would the Palestinians be if they knew that Jews had been living in that area 2,000 years ago? The reason they are warring so badly is because the Palestinians knew that no Jewish temple existed in 70 CE to be destroyed... because the Jews were an invention of Constantine c. 330 CE and thus never lived in Palestine.

All references to Jews before 330 CE are 4th century forgeries. It's no coincidence that our earliest manuscripts of Tacitus are from the 11th century!
show_no_mercy is offline  
Old 10-14-2010, 06:53 AM   #146
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: London, UK
Posts: 3,210
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Steve Weiss View Post
Someday a unicorn may be found, so we can't say that there aren't any.
A human being isn't as inherently implausible as a unicorn. A historical Jesus is not inherently unexpectable as a viable origin for the Christian religion, and it's not inherently implausible that he existed but that external evidence for him is missing for one reason or another.

The traditional Jesus would be comparable to a unicorn - i.e inherently implausible given common sense and science - but the historical Jesus isn't.
gurugeorge is offline  
Old 10-14-2010, 09:00 AM   #147
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: On the path of knowledge
Posts: 8,889
Default

Would advocates of a 'Historical Jesus' care to provide us with even one verifiable and provable 'historical' fact about their man Jesus?

From my point of view, the only 'history' that is really 'HISTORY', that can be recovered is a history of the growth of a myth, and the successive stages of the cult that cultivated that myth.
There is nothing that is identifiable as any particular 1st century man isolatable from that contrived corpus of myth. (And even if it there were established beyond any shadow of doubt that there was such a core individual, that person having not done all of the fantastic miracles attributed in the NT....would not, and could not be that 'Jesus Christ' of NT fame, as he never actually did those things reported within the NT.)
Sheshbazzar is offline  
Old 10-14-2010, 09:08 AM   #148
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: Dallas Texas
Posts: 758
Default

Sheshbazzar:

I've followed these threads for the past few weeks and I don't believe anyone has asserted that a man that did everything Jesus is represented as having done in the Greek Testament actually existed. No one on these threads has said that. Who exacly are you arguing with?

Steve
Juststeve is offline  
Old 10-14-2010, 09:21 AM   #149
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: On the path of knowledge
Posts: 8,889
Default

Look at the title of this thread, and then look at in how many places others have repeatedly used the phrase.... 'the historical Jesus'.. every time it is used it implies that there is such a thing as a 'historical Jesus', when in point of fact no such individual has ever been identified, and has absolutely NO verifiable provable history.
The only Jesus Christ known to History is the mythological god/man of the Christian writers religious propaganda text, a phantasmagoria that has never existed in flesh and blood. THERE IS NO SUCH THING AS A 'HISTORICAL JESUS'
Sheshbazzar is offline  
Old 10-14-2010, 09:30 AM   #150
Regular Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Earth
Posts: 320
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Juststeve View Post
There are no contemporaneous accounts of the historical Jesus, therefore he did not exist.


Steve
No! Not that he did not exist, but that the HJ hypothesis doesn't get off the ground. Which means that unless and until reliable evidence of his existence surfaces, he should be presumed missing.

Plus, that no accounts exist is only have the story - the other is that a HJ is not needed to explain the data that we do have today.

No evidence + no need = failed hypothesis.
Zaphod is offline  
 

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -8. The time now is 10:26 AM.

Top

This custom BB emulates vBulletin® Version 3.8.2
Copyright ©2000 - 2015, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.