Freethought & Rationalism Archive

stephan huller · 05-30-2012, 10:09 PM

More on the walking God in Deuteromony:

Quote:

your God who walks before you (Deuteronomy 1:30)

who walks before you on [your] way (Deuteronomy 1:33)

your God is the one who walks with you, to fight (Deuteronomy 20:4)

your God is the one who walks with you. He will not fail (Deuteronomy 31:6)

The LORD is the one who walks ahead (Deuteronomy 31:8)

This is not an insignificant observation for Clement applies the walking passages to the follow passages in the Gospel with Jesus (= Jesus is one and the same being, the same lessons apply)

Toto · 05-30-2012, 10:19 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Will Wiley

Quote:

Originally Posted by Toto

Relics, souvenirs, pictures, monuments are normally a part of social groups.

Can you supply some evidence for this?

Look around you. Look at the importance of relics in Christianity.

Quote:

Why would Paul think that there was a historical Jesus, but show no interest in any place he visited, the site where he rose from the dead, etc? Why would Paul show such disrespect for people who actually knew Jesus?

An argument from personal incredulity

I don't think so - looking for locations or things connected to famous people is normal behavior. You just have no explanation for why these early Christians were different from every other social group.

Quote:

How do you know none did?

We have no record of anyone looking for any locations or relics, and we know that when the Empress Helena went to look for them, she had to search diligently (and was probably fed a lot of false information.)

Quote:

There's no good answer.

How did you decide that?

I haven't heard a good answer, and I notice a lot of historicists trying to pretend that the question is just silly.

outhouse · 05-30-2012, 11:02 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by spin

Quote:

Originally Posted by outhouse

what a little over 30 years after his death, legends of a man start surfacing unlike any other mythical charactor.

How many other mythological characters have you sampled, outhouse, to be able to say "unlike"? Answer: none. You just made it up.

The emperor Julian described the start of christianity as appealing to the lowest classes and spread amongst them. You haven't contributed anything more.

"Gosh, an embarrassing death"? Dionysus had a rather embarrassing death. Osiris was hacked to pieces. How many others died embarrassing deaths? This is a silly argument. Looking at a religion from an outsider perspective doesn't help understand them. Paul's Jesus had to die as a payment for others' sins. Crucifixion was a cruel death to display the price paid for salvation.

Quote:

Originally Posted by outhouse

all in a time when people could easily say, HEY!!! I was at passover in the temple and remember that, or deny it.

Yeah, well, given that Paul's religion was spread in Anatolia and Greece, people who had actually been to Jerusalem were very few and far between. People who had been at the time reputed for the death of Jesus are simply improbable. Besides with the Jewish War too many people were displaced so believing that someone could come along and falsify Jesus is vain.

You want to keep giving good positive rebuttles like this, i'll listen all day long and do the homework involved to back my position.

I actually studied a few different mythical deities from jesus time when I was following a stance from MJ. But what im not getting from anyone here is a deity that was simular that was 100% mythical in nature. made up? good call on your part but not competely. you are correct that im not educated as much as i'd like in mythical deities

emperor Julian's view is correct as it gets. That doesnt negate why romans would worship a peasant jew founded on OT mythology.

Quote:

Paul's Jesus had to die as a payment for others' sins. Crucifixion was a cruel death to display the price paid for salvation.

excellent point

but its describing a very human death for a semi peaceful zealot peasant, exact for the time period.

mythology added after a death? or created mythology by paul? or was paul parrotting a movement already within gentiles?

Quote:

Yeah, well, given that Paul's religion was spread in Anatolia and Greece, people who had actually been to Jerusalem were very few and far between. People who had been at the time reputed for the death of Jesus are simply improbable. Besides with the Jewish War too many people were displaced so believing that someone could come along and falsify Jesus is vain.

I dont tie the gospels to pauls movement, but yes that makes sense.

and granted the movement was not from its geographic location or culture for that matter.

would you see the scribes and or redactors or unknown authors of paul's forged epistles, setting themselves up for that kind of embarrassment creating a mortal man so close to events that could falsify such a important movement for those involved with a end of the world doom and gloom type of cult? its possible I suppose.

Will Wiley · 05-30-2012, 11:08 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Toto

Quote:

Originally Posted by Will Wiley

Can you supply some evidence for this?

Look around you. Look at the importance of relics in Christianity.

You have changed your argument now. I asked for evidence for your original assertion. That a miniority of christians today regard relics as important is not a good reason to believe early ones did.

Quote:

I don't think so - looking for locations or things connected to famous people is normal behavior. You just have no explanation for why these early Christians were different from every other social group.

You still haven't supplied evidence for you assertion about social groups. So you're not presenting a rational argument yet.

Quote:

We have no record of anyone looking for any locations or relics, and we know that when the Empress Helena went to look for them, she had to search diligently (and was probably fed a lot of false information.)

Ok that is an argument from silence, and this doesn't support your assertion.

Quote:

How did you decide that?

I haven't heard a good answer, and I notice a lot of historicists trying to pretend that the question is just silly.

Ok.

aa5874 · 05-30-2012, 11:15 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Toto

......We have no record of anyone looking for any locations or relics, and we know that when the Empress Helena went to look for them, she had to search diligently (and was probably fed a lot of false information.)....

What!!!! Toto you can't be serious!!! You ought to know that Origen claimed the CAVE where Jesus was born was SHOWN in Bethlehem.

Against Celsus 1.51

Quote:

....in conformity with the narrative in the Gospel regarding His birth, there is shown at Bethlehem the cave where He was born, and the manger in the cave where He was wrapped in swaddling-clothes.

And this sight is greatly talked of in surrounding places, even among the enemies of the faith, it being said that in this cave was born that Jesus who is worshipped and reverenced by the Christians....

Based on Apologetic sources the birthplace of Jesus was KNOWN to Christians and their Enemies before Helena.

Toto · 05-30-2012, 11:31 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Will Wiley

Quote:

Originally Posted by Toto

Look around you. Look at the importance of relics in Christianity.

You have changed your argument now. I asked for evidence for your original assertion. That a miniority of christians today regard relics as important is not a good reason to believe early ones did.

I thought you were asking for evidence that normal humans are devoted to relics or places associated with famous men.

Do you think that human nature changed suddenly, so only early Christians were somehow different?

Quote:

You still haven't supplied evidence for you assertion about social groups. So you're not presenting a rational argument yet.

I appeal to common experience. What has your experience been?

Quote:

Ok that is an argument from silence, and this doesn't support your assertion

.

Arguments from silence are not necessarily bad.

Will Wiley · 05-30-2012, 11:37 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by EarlDoherty

This is mind-boggling. What depths of convolution, double-think, twisted reasoning, totally unsupportable invention based on nothing but wishful thinking, is required these days to cling to some historical figure of less substance than a fog in the morning! Why do you do it? Why is mythicism so much more unthinkable and undesirable, desperately to be rejected no matter what, than this will-o-the-wisp which requires such contortions and compromises of logic and scholarly integrity?

I've never gotten an answer.

Earl Doherty

I'm not surprised. Your question is a thinly veiled personal attack.

Will Wiley · 05-30-2012, 11:42 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Toto

Quote:

Originally Posted by Will Wiley

You have changed your argument now. I asked for evidence for your original assertion. That a miniority of christians today regard relics as important is not a good reason to believe early ones did.

I thought you were asking for evidence that normal humans are devoted to relics or places associated with famous men.

Do you think that human nature changed suddenly, so only early Christians were somehow different?

Different to whom? You appear not to have any specific examples, just an assertion, so I see no reason to follow your belief.

Quote:

I appeal to common experience. What has your experience been?

Ok, if you dont have any facts to back up your belief I'm happy to drop it.

Quote:

Ok that is an argument from silence, and this doesn't support your assertion

.

Arguments from silence are not necessarily bad.

It is not that arguments from silence are necessarily bad but that your one didn't support your assertion.

Toto · 05-31-2012, 12:12 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Will Wiley

Quote:

Originally Posted by Toto

I thought you were asking for evidence that normal humans are devoted to relics or places associated with famous men.

Do you think that human nature changed suddenly, so only early Christians were somehow different?

Different to whom? You appear not to have any specific examples, just an assertion, so I see no reason to follow your belief.

Ok, if you dont have any facts to back up your belief I'm happy to drop ,it.

I have a lot of facts, but not the time to write them up, and you seem to be determined to reject everything I say. And I feel no need to try to convince you of anything. So I won't pursue it (unless I get a grant.)

Kapyong · 05-31-2012, 01:20 AM

Gday,

Quote:

Originally Posted by stephan huller

Quote:

I see no reason any of those writers would have mentioned Jesus, or even heard of him.

I don't understand the way mythers present this argument. If person X met an alien from outer space he would certainly have written about his encounter but his encounter was nevertheless with a non-person.

Well, Paul did, and so did 1 John apparently, so did some Gnostics.

Quote:

Originally Posted by stephan huller

I think mythers have to decide whether they are arguing for the irrationality of Christianity or the fact that the apostle(s) really claimed to have met an extraterrestrial.

I think early Christianity is quite irrational - the docetics seemed to believe in an extra-terrestrial Jesus, Paul met a phantom, 1 John had a mystic experience.

Quote:

Originally Posted by stephan huller

Even a supernatural encounter would have generated some contemporary notoriety.

They did just that - supernatural encounters lead to Christianity - but it took a while for the stories to spread.

Quote:

Originally Posted by stephan huller

It seems to me that mythers want to argue that Christianity 'duped' the world into believing Jesus was a historical person. This is a compound argument involving two premises (a) that Christianity duped people and that (b) Jesus was not a person. Read together the argument seems to imply that Christianity never happened. Nevertheless we should really be arguing for just (b). It's impossible to prove that a historical event 'never happened.' It's a bad argumentative tactic. Like a country deciding to invade another country without a plan.

I don't think it was a conspiracy to 'dupe' anyone - I think that the story of G.Mark was based on Paul and the Tanakh, but was written as fictional or allegorical literature - then later it was mistakenly seen as true.

Kapyong

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

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.