Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Geetarmoore · 05-26-2006, 06:17 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by The Bishop

The Gospels can't be relied on because they aren't attested early enough, but lets bolster the theory by referencing Q, a document which was never attested at all.

This isn't Doherty's standpoint at all. He doesn't say that the Gospels can't be relied upon because they aren't attested to early enough. He says that the fact that they AREN'T attested to early, tells us that the Gospel tradition was a slowly forming movement.

The question of Multi-layered Q is legitimate. If this represents maybe the first writings about Jesus, one wouldn't expect the document to eventually evolve a history.

Quote:

Originally Posted by The Bishop

Paul obviously saw Jesus in a vision - so all the apostles must have seen Jesus in a vision.

What did the other Apostles write? We know Paul exists from his writings. How do we know that the apostles existed? Acts? Please!

Quote:

Originally Posted by The Bishop

Brother doesn't mean brother the way you think from reading the plain text at that one point, it can only mean what it means every single other time it's used.

This is the only thing that the HJ can put forward that I can't come up with an answer for. This is the 'Jesus of the gaps'....

Quote:

Originally Posted by The Bishop

Jesus wasn't real because we can rely on 1 Timothy (a late-written Pastoral epistle) that describes him in not-real terms. On the other hand, we can't rely on 2 Timothy (another late-written Pastoral epistle) that does describe him as real because obviously it was written when the myth of a historical Jesus got going. In other words, 2 Timothy is decried for reasons that can be used, but aren't, to dismiss 1 Timothy.

From memory, only 2 likely interpolations needed to be made to 2 Timothy to create a historical Jesus within that book. It is not clear that, as of it's date (100-125) the Gospel tradition was in full swing.

Sparrow · 05-26-2006, 06:39 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by No Robots

I just think it silly that naturalists demand proof for miracles that they know cannot occur.

For at some of us, the demand is there not so the other party can show the proof, but so the other party can realize there is none.

Quote:

Originally Posted by No Robots

Look, if there were no Jesus I would be looking at someone else's insights to help guide my way through life, the fiery torments of which are quite sufficient, if only temporary. Epictetus wouldn't be a bad choice, actually. But it really is for me a question of choosing the best of the best. Once you strip away the religious mumbo-jumbo, what Christ provides is a reproducible method for living. Of course, according to Karl Jaspers, this is precisely what he doesn't do. But that's all a very long story, well outside the bounds of Cliff's Notes.

Why restrict yourself to just one person's insights. Even if you do, how do you choose amongst them? How is that different from secular humanism?

Clivedurdle · 05-26-2006, 06:40 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by The Bishop

Clive, what on earth has any of this to do with the subject? You've moved substantially away from apostolic testimony into how a religion survives and propagates. Nobody is denying the imaginary nature of the Jesus who is worshipped (except the Christians, of course).

So what exactly is the problem with it all being imaginary?

Clivedurdle · 05-26-2006, 06:45 AM

Quote:

Paul obviously saw Jesus in a vision - so all the apostles must have seen Jesus in a vision

Paul admits that! He states they and the five hundred saw the resurrected Christ!

Sparrow · 05-26-2006, 06:50 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Geetarmoore

This is only one of the things that needs to be explained, of a huge list of problems.

-Why does Paul not know of the life of Christ?
-Why does Mark not know of the Q sayings, if they were attributed to Jesus?
-Why does Mark pull large parts of his Gospel - the MOST IMPORTANT PARTS directly from the OT, instead of relying on his actual account?
-Why do Luke and Matthew need to 'copy' another eyewitness' version of events?
-Why does Luke disagree with Matthew in regards to Q information context? Genealogy?
-Why does Q appear to be multi-layered?
-Why does no one write about a synoptic Gospel until 35 years after the first one is supposedly written?
-Why does John rewrite not only the Gospel story, but re-casts Jesus himself into a new persona?
-Why do second century apologists (with the exception of Justin Martyr) not have anything to say about a fleshy Jesus?
-What is the Didache, and who believes it is consistent with an earthly Jesus?
-Why did Marcion hold the view of Jesus that he did?

That is the core problem with the HJ case; It requires excuse after excuse to clear up why the documents we have appear as they do, as well as when they do.

If there was a true leader to this cult, who really spoke the things attributed to him, there is NO WAY the story would be as disjointed and appear as jagged as it is.

These are all good questions. I was just trying for a simple and concise question to sum up my, ahem, turning point in the HJ-MJ continuum. It seems that Bishop would agree with me that regardless of whether there actually was a Jesus, the religion we know today is based on BS. Perhaps another way to put it:
If there was a true leader to this cult, who really spoke the things attributed to him, and was also the human manifestation of a triune god with the powers of omniscience, omnipotence and omnibenevolence, there is NO WAY the story would be as disjointed and appear as jagged as it is.

No Robots · 05-26-2006, 08:16 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sparrow

For at some of us, the demand is there not so the other party can show the proof, but so the other party can realize there is none.

Now, why would you want to go and do a thing like that? Why not let people lead their lives as they see fit? Surely the clear-sighted have the ability to manoeuvre around the blind?

Quote:

Why restrict yourself to just one person's insights.

I don't.

Quote:

Even if you do, how do you choose amongst them?

Skill, ingenuity, and experience.

Quote:

How is that different from secular humanism?

It isn't.

Quote:

Originally Posted by post tenebras lux

If the church didn't consider the writings of some pagan roman to be important enough to copy it would not be too surprising if nobody bothered to make copies of his documents.

The notes of Epictetus' student, Arrian, were preserved, which is how we know about his master's teachings. The point is that Epictetus may never have actually written anything.

Amaleq13 · 05-26-2006, 08:41 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by The Bishop

Paul obviously saw Jesus in a vision - so all the apostles must have seen Jesus in a vision.

This is incorrectly stated. Paul obviously saw Jesus in a vision and he does not differentiate between his experience and that of the other apostles.

Quote:

If Jesus was historical, exactly what is it that the mass hysteria is supposed to explain?

The alleged appearances of the risen Christ.

Sparrow · 05-26-2006, 08:43 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by No Robots

Now, why would you want to go and do a thing like that? Why not let people lead their lives as they see fit? Surely the clear-sighted have the ability to manoeuvre around the blind?

I will if they will. I really couldn't care less until they want their religious customs enacted into law or want to replace actual knowledge in schools with their biblical fantasy or want to use their divine revelation to hurt or kill innocent people.

No Robots · 05-26-2006, 08:51 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sparrow

I will if they will. I really couldn't care less until they want their religious customs enacted into law or want to replace actual knowledge in schools with their biblical fantasy or want to use their divine revelation to hurt or kill innocent people.

My main interest is in halting this war between the blind and the clear-sighted. Each group must realize that the other is here to stay, and that it is impossible to force an individual from one to the other. There really are two species of humans, and if we don't learn to co-exist we are doomed to continue this crippling war. I say let the blind have their schools and their laws. But let us also have our schools and our laws.

Didymus · 05-26-2006, 12:05 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by The Bishop

Actually you were the one who originally called it "analysis". What happened was, I said I found Doherty inconsistent, you asked for examples, and I provided them. Then you laughed at my "analysis", when all I'd claimed to do was explain why I find them inconsistent. Of course you don't find them inconsistent, but that wasn't the question.

You most certainly did NOT "explain why you found them inconsistent." Nor did you specify what was fallacious, or what you meant by cherry picking.

Quote:

Your idea of "showing respect" is agreeing with everything Doherty says.

That is patently false, as my previous posts clearly show. (Not only is that a false accusation, it is an improper one. I strongly suggest that you inform yourself about the ethics of debate.)

Quote:

I've shown him the respect of reading his work and carefully following the logic, such as it is.

You have not demonstrated as much.

Here once again, you accuse him of illogic, but don't bother to explain what you mean.

All you did was copy a couple of Doherty's paragraphs and claim that they're fallacious and inconsistent. What you did NOT do is explain how and why you think they are fallacious and inconsistent. And then you have the audacity to deride others on the forum with sarcasm - "...obviously you guys are all Gnostic Christians!" - when we don't respond with cheers and affirmations! What I don't understand is how you can fail to understand that that is unacceptable.

Quote:

I've shown you the respect I was hoping to receive by not dismissively laughing at what you've posted as a result of my having moved the goal posts.

Quote:

I didn't "foist" anything, I was asked for something and at 3am I provided what I could. I hoped for reasonable discussion so that I could expand on what I started with.

The "3am" excuse doesn't hold water. You never explained the fallacies and inconsistencies of those paragraphs.

Quote:

As to showing Doherty disrespect by claiming he makes fallacious arguments, as the author of a public domain work, I don't think that's disrespectful. He is subject to criticism, and I'm sure he's open to it.

But you didn't provide any! You seem not to understand that on a forum that attempts to deal with complex issues in a serious way, simply throwing rocks (Fallacious! Illogical! Cherry picking!) doesn't cut it. And that sort of attack certainly doesn't constitute "criticism."

Quote:

I am open to criticism, and I've received it, but that's not quite the same thing as being dismissed. I still haven't seen anything substantial in refutation of the points I made, simply your assertion that I'm wrong, and a blatant appeal to authority.

Points? You didn't make any points to be refuted! And that, Bishop, is exactly the point.

You are attempting to defend the indefensible. See Matthew 7.6. I will waste no more time arguing with you.:banghead:

Didymus

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

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.