Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Diogenes the Cynic · 05-30-2012, 06:25 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mountainman

Quote:

Originally Posted by Diogenes the Cynic

I see no reason any of those writers would have mentioned Jesus, or even heard of him. He would have been a nobody in his time, the crucifixion a non-event, the cult in his name one more obscure Jewish sect among many. HJ did not become historically significant until Constantine.

If you take this line of reasoning how do you discount the possibility that many elements of the Jesus story were not modified by well known events in the 3rd century, such as the rise of the Persian Holy Man Mani, the spread of his apostles and the growth of his churches (monasteries) in the Roman Empire, the canon of Manichaean Books, and epistles of Mani to his Apostles, the public crucifixion of Mani, the persecution and death of his apostles and their followers, by the Persians and then the Romans (in the east under Diocletian).

If as you say the HJ did not become historically significant until Constantine what guarantee can one make over what was and was not imported into the Jesus story from events in the 3rd century for example. Also check the recent discussion of the "Historia Augusta"

I don't think you can guarantee anything about him, but the only thing that needed to make him HJ is that the original Jerusalem church revered a real person named Jesus who was crucified. For that matter, even if they revered a real person who wasn't crucified (or if he wasn't named Jesus), it will still be a real person at the root of Christian origins.

Logical · 05-30-2012, 06:29 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mandelbrot

Quote:

Originally Posted by Logical

The idea that the earthly Jesus story was invented seems implausible because it's hard to imagine the process of one generation believing in a celestial Jesus to a generation believing in an earthly one.

You are aware that this is an argument from incredulity aren't you?

No it's not. You're saying one father believed Jesus wasn't an earthly being, and his kids taught their kids that Jesus was an earthly being. And a whole generation of Christians did that, not just one father. They all agreed one day that Jesus was a historical man, and passed that on to their kids, after they used to believe otherwise.

Diogenes the Cynic · 05-30-2012, 06:30 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mountainman

Quote:

Originally Posted by Diogenes the Cynic

I would at least need some clear, unambiguous evidence that anyone in the first century thought that Jesus never walked the earth.

The Letters of John report such explicit and even widespread antichristian belief, but were the Letters of John authored in the 1st century?

You're talking about Docetic beliefs? Even the Gnostics thought Jesus walked the earth, interacted with it, talked to people, was crucified by people and appeared to be flesh. They just thought he was made out of spirit, not that he didn't walk the earth.

stephan huller · 05-30-2012, 07:38 PM

Yes when I was young I actually thought vanilla wasn't a flavor. I thought 'vanilla' meant plain. Amazing.

Grog · 05-30-2012, 07:44 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Diogenes the Cynic

Quote:

Originally Posted by mountainman

If you take this line of reasoning how do you discount the possibility that many elements of the Jesus story were not modified by well known events in the 3rd century, such as the rise of the Persian Holy Man Mani, the spread of his apostles and the growth of his churches (monasteries) in the Roman Empire, the canon of Manichaean Books, and epistles of Mani to his Apostles, the public crucifixion of Mani, the persecution and death of his apostles and their followers, by the Persians and then the Romans (in the east under Diocletian).

If as you say the HJ did not become historically significant until Constantine what guarantee can one make over what was and was not imported into the Jesus story from events in the 3rd century for example. Also check the recent discussion of the "Historia Augusta"

I don't think you can guarantee anything about him, but the only thing that needed to make him HJ is that the original Jerusalem church revered a real person named Jesus who was crucified. For that matter, even if they revered a real person who wasn't crucified (or if he wasn't named Jesus), it will still be a real person at the root of Christian origins.

Or roots of Christian origins. Are you claiming that all this Christian tradition comes from the same root? If not, then maybe there's more than one person at the root? This person at the root of Christian origins need not have been:

--named Jesus
--crucified (at all, let alone under Pilate)
--I presume hailing from Nazareth is not a criteria
--certainly not the son of Mary, right?
--isn't responsible for the teachings in the Gospels (correct me if I am being presumptuous, but it seems to follow)

What is left? This broadens what could be considered "Jesus the founder of Christianty" to almost anything. I'm pretty sure I could fit my own so-called mythicist views within this.

Grog · 05-30-2012, 07:57 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by stephan huller

Chocolate really isn't more truthful than vanilla (although one could develop an argue why it is that more people might like chocolate).

More people like vanilla, it's not even close.

http://www.foodchannel.com/articles/...cream-flavors/

Logical · 05-30-2012, 08:16 PM

Seems like Muhammad is more likely to be a historical figure than Jesus.

Historicity of Muhammad

aa5874 · 05-30-2012, 08:19 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Diogenes the Cynic

I would at least need some clear, unambiguous evidence that anyone in the first century thought that Jesus never walked the earth.

That does NOT mean Jesus did exist. People of antiquity believed all sorts of things about Gods and their Sons.

Do you expect the same people of antiquity who claimed Romulus and Remus walked in Rome and also claimed Perseus was born of a virgin to present unambiguous evidence against Jesus the Son of a Holy Ghost born of a virgin???

People of antiquity MUST have Believed the Angel Gabriel WALKED in the City of Nazareth and Believed Satan was on the Jewish Temple with Jesus.

aa5874 · 05-30-2012, 08:24 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Diogenes the Cynic

You're talking about Docetic beliefs? Even the Gnostics thought Jesus walked the earth, interacted with it, talked to people, was crucified by people and appeared to be flesh. They just thought he was made out of spirit, not that he didn't walk the earth.

People of antiquity thought Adam, Eve, Cain, Abel and the Talking Serpent WALKED the earth.

outhouse · 05-30-2012, 08:28 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Logical

Seems like Muhammad is more likely to be a historical figure than Jesus.

Historicity of Muhammad

someone had to walk in that cave and copy a arab version lol

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

05-30-2012, 07:38 PM	#214
stephan huller Veteran Member Join Date: Jun 2010 Location: seattle, wa Posts: 9,337	Yes when I was young I actually thought vanilla wasn't a flavor. I thought 'vanilla' meant plain. Amazing.

05-30-2012, 08:16 PM	#217
Logical Senior Member Join Date: Oct 2003 Location: USA Posts: 802	Seems like Muhammad is more likely to be a historical figure than Jesus. Historicity of Muhammad

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.