Freethought & Rationalism Archive

dog-on · 04-07-2009, 01:04 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Steven Carr

Here's another one.

Argue that Paul would walk into synagogues, tell the Jews present that their God was a recently executed criminal that they should all worship, and would then immediately be stoned to death as a blaspheming idolator.

Clearly Paul wasn't immediately stoned to death when he told Jews that they should worship a recently executed criminal because he was their God.

Probably because he never actually spoke to a Jew.

Roger Pearse · 04-07-2009, 01:33 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Keith&Co.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Switch89

It is perfectly reasonable to suppose that Jesus existed but that not too many people cared about his message.

Really? That bit about the zombie saints spending the weekend in the cemetary, then walking through the town seems, to me, like something that many people would have cared about, commented upon, written back to headquarters for reinforcements or priests to deal with the necromancers that have shown their powers.

It does seem to me that absence of evidence is, by definition, evidence of absence. The only problem comes when people offer it as conclusive, done deal, end of the argument proof of absence.
I mean, if the zombies never walked as described in the gospel, then no mention whatsoever of the fact by any contemporary would fit nicely into our evaluation of the event. If someone wants the described miracles of the text to be classified as 'historical,' then they also need to explain why no one was impressed enough by the miracle, or the miracle worker, to write it down.
There may be perfectly rational explanations for the silence, sure.
But until they're offered, we can't really debate them.

This reflects an unstated presumption about available sources.

All the best,

Roger Pearse

dog-on · 04-07-2009, 01:49 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Roger Pearse

Quote:

Originally Posted by Keith&Co.

Really? That bit about the zombie saints spending the weekend in the cemetary, then walking through the town seems, to me, like something that many people would have cared about, commented upon, written back to headquarters for reinforcements or priests to deal with the necromancers that have shown their powers.

It does seem to me that absence of evidence is, by definition, evidence of absence. The only problem comes when people offer it as conclusive, done deal, end of the argument proof of absence.
I mean, if the zombies never walked as described in the gospel, then no mention whatsoever of the fact by any contemporary would fit nicely into our evaluation of the event. If someone wants the described miracles of the text to be classified as 'historical,' then they also need to explain why no one was impressed enough by the miracle, or the miracle worker, to write it down.
There may be perfectly rational explanations for the silence, sure.
But until they're offered, we can't really debate them.

This reflects an unstated presumption about available sources.

All the best,

Roger Pearse

So you are confident that there is a copy of "JC, The True Story" buried somewhere in the sands. A contemporaneous work that was missed by all the early fathers.

Is this what you mean?

Doug Shaver · 04-07-2009, 07:20 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Switch89

The fact that no contemporary of Jesus wrote about him is not at all surprising.

Maybe not, but the fact that none of his alleged followers had anything to say about his life or ministry until a century later is very surprising.

Keith&Co. · 04-07-2009, 07:28 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Roger Pearse

This reflects an unstated presumption about available sources.

And you are free, even encouraged, to lay out this presumption and show the errors inherent that cause me to find the lack of evidence more compelling than the testimony of one gospel.
Or you can just reject anything that does not lead to the conclusion you champion and make remarks about the motivations of anyone using methodology that doesn't cooperate with your ideology.

No Robots · 04-07-2009, 07:47 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dog-on

Probably because he never actually spoke to a Jew.

Why would you think so? Is it because you think that Christ was actually a Saxon antisemite? See The Aryan Jesus.

dog-on · 04-07-2009, 07:49 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by No Robots

Quote:

Originally Posted by dog-on

Probably because he never actually spoke to a Jew.

Why would you think so? Is it because you think that Christ was actually a Saxon antisemite? See The Aryan Jesus.

No. I think that Paul's Christ is a cosmic figure.

And, I do not think that Paul was a Jew.

And I think that Christianity is basically a rejection of Judaism.

etc...

No Robots · 04-07-2009, 07:51 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Doug Shaver

Maybe not, but the fact that none of his alleged followers had anything to say about his life or ministry until a century later is very surprising.

Well, then, I am afraid you might be quite surprised that other historical figures are in the same situation. Take Alexander the Great, for example:

Yet no contemporary narrative account of [Alexander the Great's] career exists, and what is generally reckoned to be the most persuasive of those that do survive was written by Arrian, a Greek from Asia Minor, well over four centuries after Alexander's premature death, aged thirty-two, at Babylon in 323 BC. This situation makes the search for the 'real' Alexander almost impossibly difficult.

For this reason, and because Alexander soon passed from the territory of factual history proper to the plane of myth and legend (thanks, not least, to his own self-propagandising efforts), the search for him has been likened to that for the historical-Jesus. Much was written about both men, but practically nothing contemporary has survived, and very little indeed without a severely prejudiced axe to grind.--"Alexander the Great: hunting for a new past? Paul Cartledge goes in search of the elusive personality of the world's greatest hero". History Today 01-JUL-04

Roger Pearse · 04-07-2009, 07:53 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Keith&Co.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Roger Pearse

This reflects an unstated presumption about available sources.

And you are free, even encouraged, to lay out this presumption and show the errors inherent that cause me to find the lack of evidence more compelling than the testimony of one gospel.

And you are free to acquire the education necessary to do this yourself.

Quote:

Or you can just reject anything that does not lead to the conclusion you champion and make remarks about the motivations of anyone using methodology that doesn't cooperate with your ideology.

Right back at you.

No Robots · 04-07-2009, 07:56 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dog-on

And, I do not think that Paul was a Jew.

And I think that Christianity is basically a rejection of Judaism.

So, another demonstration of what Robert Young (Colonial Desire: Hybridity in Theory, Culture, and Race, p. 85) calls, "the ultimate Western fantasy - that Christ had not, in fact, been a Jew."

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

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.