Freethought & Rationalism Archive

spamandham · 03-31-2010, 10:14 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ApostateAbe

Similarly, the only common denominator among the sciences and pseudosciences of physics is that the universe exists.

Oh pulllllleeeze. For the sake of argument, let's dispense with anything that isn't mainstream whether it be real science or the art-form known as history. How many mainstream variants are there for general relativity? One.

How many mainstream variants of Jesus stories are there among the mainstream? Thousands, with more proliferating daily.

History is not science. Don't try to pretend that it is. It's closer to cinematography than it is to science.

Quote:

Among critical scholars of the New Testament, they generally agree, for examples, that Jesus was a traveling Jewish preacher from the town of Nazareth in Galilee..

I'm certain you can't support this statement. Why do you keep insisting that your hunches are the same as scholarly consensus?

Quote:

When I said this before, Toto, having researched the subject aboundingly, gave me individual examples of scholars who disagree with each of these points.

Yet you insist they are consensus nonetheless? :huh:

Here's a novel idea. Rather than trying to get others to disprove your statements regarding consensus, how about you provide some positive evidence to back them up.

For example, if you claim that there is consensus that Jesus' dad was a woodworker who's puppet became a real boy, then refer to the scholarly poll or summary journal article that demonstrates this point. Otherwise, you can just claim anything you want as consensus.

I'm inclined to accept what I've heard and read scholars in the field say ad hoc, which is that there is no consensus.

Joan of Bark · 04-03-2010, 09:58 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by aa5874

1. HJers must prove or demonstrate that there was a real man who lived between 0-40 CE and was called Jesus Christ of Nazarerth who was believed to have walked on water, was believed to have transfigured, resurrected and ascended to heaven.

2. HJers must prove or demonstrate that Jesus called Christ of Nazareth was really crucified on a cross and was believed to have died for the remission of sins of the Jews.

HJers already have models before they have any real data for their models.

I am afraid that it must be data first and then models based on the data.

Proof is a word that only has meaning in science, not in social sciences.

The gospels, canonical and otherwise, are evidence (or data if you prefer), not proof, of a HJ. Now you might argue that they're weak evidence, but they are evidence nontheless.

aa5874 · 04-03-2010, 02:49 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Joan of Bark

Quote:

Originally Posted by aa5874

1. HJers must prove or demonstrate that there was a real man who lived between 0-40 CE and was called Jesus Christ of Nazarerth who was believed to have walked on water, was believed to have transfigured, resurrected and ascended to heaven.

2. HJers must prove or demonstrate that Jesus called Christ of Nazareth was really crucified on a cross and was believed to have died for the remission of sins of the Jews.

HJers already have models before they have any real data for their models.

I am afraid that it must be data first and then models based on the data.

Proof is a word that only has meaning in science, not in social sciences.

The gospels, canonical and otherwise, are evidence (or data if you prefer), not proof, of a HJ. Now you might argue that they're weak evidence, but they are evidence nontheless.

It is not true at all that "proof" has only meaning in science. "Proof" is used in the legal system. Evidence is used in court trials to prove guilt or innocence.

And further, the Gospels are not evidence of an HJ, they are evidence of MJ.

I will now use the evidence, THE DATA in the Gospels to PROVE my point that Jesus was MYTHOLOGICAL.

John 1:1-3 -

Quote:

1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.

2 The same was in the beginning with God.

3 All things were made by him; and without him was not any thing made that was made.

Mt 1:18 -

Quote:

Now the birth of Jesus Christ was on this wise: When as his mother Mary was espoused to Joseph, before they came together, she was found with child of the Holy Ghost.

Lu 1:35 -

Quote:

And the angel answered and said unto her, The Holy Ghost shall come upon thee, and the power of the Highest shall overshadow thee: therefore also that holy thing which shall be born of thee shall be called the Son of God.

Matthew 4.5-6

Quote:

5 Then the devil taketh him up into the holy city, and setteth him on a pinnacle of the temple,

6 And saith unto him, If thou be the Son of God, cast thyself down: for it is written, He shall give his angels charge concerning thee: and in their hands they shall bear thee up, lest at any time thou dash thy foot against a stone.

Mt 14:25-26

Quote:

And in the fourth watch of the night Jesus went unto them, walking on the sea.

26 And when the disciples saw him walking on the sea, they were troubled, saying, It is a spirit; and they cried out for fear.

Matthew 17:1-2 -

Quote:

1 And after six days Jesus taketh Peter, James, and John his brother, and bringeth them up into an high mountain apart, 2 And was transfigured before them: and his face did shine as the sun, and his raiment was white as the light.

Mr 16:6 -

Quote:

And he saith unto them, Be not affrighted: Ye seek Jesus of Nazareth, which was crucified: he is risen; he is not here: behold the place where they laid him.

Luke 24:50-51

Quote:

And he led them out as far as to Bethany, and he lifted up his hands, and blessed them

24.And it came to pass, while he blessed them, he was parted from them, and carried up into heaven.

The evidence from the Gospels is "PROOF" OR PROVES within reason that Jesus was a MYTH or some kind of Holy Ghost.

Joan of Bark · 04-04-2010, 08:35 AM

Quote:

"Proof" is used in the legal system. Evidence is used in court trials to prove guilt or innocence.

But in the legal system the context must be considered. It is always prove beyond a reasonable doubt. The proof is never considered absolute. The provision for doubt is always present.

All that those quotes from the gospels indicate is that some aspects of Jesus character were considered supernatural.

And I'll ask you a question I've asked before but you haven't answered: why do so many scholars -- even atheist scholars -- believe in a HJ?

Steven Carr · 04-04-2010, 09:11 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Joan of Bark

All that those quotes from the gospels indicate is that some aspects of Jesus character were considered supernatural.

And I'll ask you a question I've asked before but you haven't answered: why do so many scholars -- even atheist scholars -- believe in a HJ?

Believe in *a* Historical Jesus? Don't they believe in at least 17 Historical Jesus's?

They believe in a historical Jesus because of Galatians 1:19.

Toto · 04-04-2010, 09:55 AM

Getting back to Pullman, his plot is more twisted that it might have first appeared:

Review

Quote:

What Pullman has done is to take the Gospel accounts of Jesus and weave them into a story that runs along the lines of the Gospel narratives, but with one radical innovation. (The book is the latest in a series of retellings of myths, published by Canongate.) He splits the character of Jesus of Nazareth into twin brothers, one named Jesus, the other Christ. Jesus is the lusty healthy baby, born at ease with his physical person; Christ is the sickly child whom his mother favours, and it is he who is found lying in the feeding trough by shepherds and then by the astrologers from the East who have come bearing gifts to the promised “Messiah”.

From here on, the life of Jesus as we have known it is described in prose that skilfully recapitulates the simplicity of the original material, with each twin acting out different parts. Christ, the weaker twin, is the goody-goody who sucks up to his elders by studying holy texts and astounds them with his precocious rabbinical wisdom. Jesus, on the other hand, is the one who learns carpentry from his father and is favoured by the other children. As they reach manhood, their characters polarise: Christ becomes cautious, fanciful and partial to metaphysics, while Jesus is passionate, antinomian and enamoured of the world’s realities.

As the story further unfolds, we witness Christ playing the traditional parts of, first, Satan in the wilderness, when he urges Jesus to provide miracles to help persuade his followers of the imminence of the coming “Kingdom of God” and, finally, the Judas figure who betrays his brother with a fatal kiss. This last is due to the machinations of the sinister “stranger”, also described as an “angel”, who is inserted into the story as the demonic principle behind the distortion of Jesus’s teachings and the founding of the Christian Church.

aa5874 · 04-04-2010, 10:10 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Joan of Bark

Quote:

"Proof" is used in the legal system. Evidence is used in court trials to prove guilt or innocence.

But in the legal system the context must be considered. It is always prove beyond a reasonable doubt. The proof is never considered absolute. The provision for doubt is always present.

But, when did I use the words "ABSOLUTE PROOF"?.

I stated CATEGORICALLY that the evidence in the Gospel is PROOF or PROVES WITHIN REASON that Jesus was a MYTH or some kind of Holy Ghost.

Quote:

Originally Posted by aa5874

...The evidence from the Gospels is "PROOF" OR PROVES within reason that Jesus was a MYTH or some kind of Holy Ghost...

Now, based on the evidence that I have seen in the Canon, and the Church writings I have no reasonable doubt that Jesus was a MYTH or some kind of Ghost, even apologetic sources wrote that Jesus appeared as a Spirit.

Mt 14:26

Quote:

And when the disciples saw him walking on the sea, they were troubled, saying, It is a spirit; and they cried out for fear.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Joan of Bark

All that those quotes from the gospels indicate is that some aspects of Jesus character were considered supernatural.

Well, you must admit that the CONCEPTION or ORIGIN of the Jesus character is FUNDAMENTAL in making a determination of his existence or the nature of his existence.

Matthew 1.18 and Luke 1.35 and John 1, all apologetic evidence, show clearly that the CONCEPTION and ORIGIN of the Jesus character was not through normal human reproduction.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Joan of Bark

And I'll ask you a question I've asked before but you haven't answered: why do so many scholars -- even atheist scholars -- believe in a HJ?

You are the one who need to answer your own question.

And, why do you believe people who have NO EVIDENCE for their position?

I have provided the evidence from apologetic sources of antiquity that CLEARLY shows Jesus was a MYTH or some kind of Holy Ghost, you MUST provide your EVIDENCE for what HJERS believe.

I think it is REASONABLE to DOUBT the opinion of those who have NO EVIDENCE, NO DATA, to support their belief.

Now, why did so much people believe the earth was flat and did not revolve? They had no DATA or refused to accept the Data, even atheists.

avi · 04-05-2010, 11:03 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Joan of Bark

Proof is a word that only has meaning in science, not in social sciences.

Is history part of "social sciences"? Is Psychology part of "social sciences"? Don't both of these disciplines have "proof" of events or explanations of phenomena, universally accepted, based upon evidence? Assassination of Lincoln was a real event. It is not physical science. It is social science or history. It is well documented. There is "proof" that Booth shot Lincoln. When the evidence is overwhelming, whether in physics or sociology or mathematics, then one declares that a proof has been attained.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Joan of Bark

And I'll ask you a question I've asked before but you haven't answered: why do so many scholars -- even atheist scholars -- believe in a HJ?

Hmm.
1. Why did so many "scholars" believe in a flat world, pre Columbus?
2. Why do we care if 1000 morons declare faith in geocentrism? Geocentrism is false, and has always been false, no matter how many academicians throughout history declared to the contrary.
3. I suppose that many "atheist" scholars are students of history who accept as valid the fictional writings called the New Testament. The fact that they consider these works of fiction to be accurate, and true, is not a reason for us to waste bandwidth attempting to explain why the biblical account of the creation of the world is simply nonsense, and why the account claiming virgin birth with a ghost, David, as the father supplying the DNA, is utterly nonsensical, childish, and absurd.
4. Who has awarded the epithet "scholar" to folks who believe in supernatural phenomena?
To me, by definition, a "scholar" is one who investigates, even if only by reading books. The contrary, i.e. the antonym, of scholar is "ignoramus". In my opinion, if no one else's, anyone who believes in supernatural explanations, is an ignoramus, not a scholar.

That does not mean, that those put off by the claims of supernatural accomplishments, are correct by definition, and everyone else wrong. It means simply that our approach, our method, whether with regard to planting vegetables, or designing computers, or studying ancient Greek texts, is to DOUBT everything, to INSIST on evidence, not "expert opinion", and to trust NOTHING which originates with any religious authority--including the writings of supposed "scholars".

avi

No Robots · 04-05-2010, 11:25 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Toto

Getting back to Pullman, his plot is more twisted that it might have first appeared:

Thanks for posting this, Toto. This is still the best place to keep up with news about Christ, and much of that is due to you.

Toto · 05-20-2010, 03:28 PM

An atheist's prayer for the church

Quote:

Originally Posted by Pullman's Jesus

"Lord, if I thought you were listening, I'd pray for this above all: that my church set up in your name should remain poor, and powerless, and modest. That it should wield no authority except that of love. That it should never cast anyone out. That it should own no property and make no laws. That is should not condemn, but only forgive. That it should be not like a palace with marble walls and polished floors, and guards standing at the door, but like a tree with its roots deep in the soil, that shelters every kind of bird and beast and gives blossom in the spring and shade in hot sun and fruit in the season, and in time gives up its good sound wood for the carpenter; but that sheds many thousands of seeds so that new trees can grow in its place. Does the tree say to the sparrow 'Get out, you don't belong here?' Does the tree say to the hungry man 'This fruit is not for you?' Does the tree test the loyalty of the beasts before it allows them into the shade?"

That's sweet, and touching. And unrealistic, like all socialist visions.

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

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.