Freethought & Rationalism Archive

aa5874 · 03-01-2010, 05:44 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ApostateAbe

..The historicists, of course, have their own large set of disagreements, but they seem to be relatively united on a handful of essential points of early Christianity. They seem to tend to agree that:

Jesus was from the town of Nazareth
Jesus was baptized by John the Baptist
Jesus was the leader of a small Jewish religious group
Jesus was a traveler
Jesus was an orator
Jesus was crucified in Jerusalem under the order of Pontius Pilate
The followers of Jesus led the group soon afterward
Paul evangelized to non-Jews, who were more likely to accept the message
Paul wrote about seven extant letters to fellow Christians
The synoptic gospels were written by Greek Christians in the first century.

But, you sound like people who use the Bible as an historical source for Gods.

It must be noted that Jesus was described as the son of a God.

It is very easy for some to agree that God created the heavens and the earth because it says so in the Bible.

It is just as easy for some people to agree that Jesus, the son of the very God, was from Nazareth because it is in the Bible.

Now, if you were to ask these people of their corroborative source for their belief that the Bible is true about anything they will show you another part of the very same Bible.

Now Matthew 1.18-20, Luke 1.34-35, Mark 16.6 and John 20.18 are in the Bible, at least historicist can agree that if Jesus was from Nazareth, was baptized by John the Baptist and was crucified that he was also the offspring of the Holy Ghost and was raised from the dead.

ApostateAbe · 03-01-2010, 06:05 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by EarlDoherty

Quote:

Originally Posted by Abe

They seem to tend to agree that:

* Jesus was from the town of Nazareth
* Jesus was baptized by John the Baptist
* Jesus was the leader of a small Jewish religious group
* Jesus was a traveler
* Jesus was an orator
* Jesus was crucified in Jerusalem under the order of Pontius Pilate
* The followers of Jesus led the group soon afterward
* Paul evangelized to non-Jews, who were more likely to accept the message
* Paul wrote about seven extant letters to fellow Christians
* The synoptic gospels were written by Greek Christians in the first century.

The last three points have nothing to say about whether Jesus existed or not. And is it not curious that the first seven, which do relate to him, are found entirely and exclusively within the Gospels and Acts. Outside of those minority of inbred documents, not a single one of those points can be supported in any Christian document, canonical or otherwise, of the first century, nor in many of the second.

The "agreement" amounts to no more than accepting the elements of a story (constructed out of scripture) found first in the Gospel of Mark and copied and reworked by three later writers (and their editors). No corroboration for the elements of that story can be found outside the story itself, until later generations came to encounter and accept that story as history.

That in the face of this situation (along with much else) NT scholarship can declare no doubt in the historicity of Jesus and the Gospel events indicates that it is not unbiased historiography that is being practised. April DeConnick is only the latest to point out what IS being practised, and it is only a matter of time before more and more scholars from within academia itself will be adding their voices to the same realization and dissatisfaction with it. Mythicism is the track of the future, Abe, and I'd invite you to get on board the train.

Earl Doherty

OK, great, all of that is another debate entirely, or maybe five different debates, but at least it seems you now understand the meaning of what I said before about the disunity of mythicists.

EarlDoherty · 03-01-2010, 10:41 PM

"Disunity" is a loaded and prejudicial word. Would you equally agree that there is "disunity" among historicists, since none of them can come to common conclusions about the nature and identity of the historical Jesus? And if disunity among mythicists should lead one to reject the viability of the concept of no historical Jesus, why doesn't the disunity of historicists lead one to reject the viability of the concept of an historical Jesus?

Variety of interpretation or detail does not in itself disprove a theory, as you seem to want to claim.

Earl Doherty

Steven Carr · 03-01-2010, 11:37 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ApostateAbe

They seem to tend to agree that:

Jesus was from the town of Nazareth
Jesus was baptized by John the Baptist

Of course, the proof that Jesus was baptized by John the Baptist is that the event was erased from the Gospel of John.

The logic is that the baptism was not mentioned, so it must have happened, because clearly 'John' was too embarrassed by it to mention it.

Mainstream Biblical history is one of the few academic disciplines which prove something happened by finding sources which never say it happened.

And the proof that Jesus was from Nazareth is that no Jewish source mentions Nazareth, so who would make up a town that nobody had heard of, and put their hero as appearing from Nowhere?

Who would have their hero come from an obscure No Name town?

By the same token, there really was a Man with No Name, as played by Clint Eastwood....

ApostateAbe · 03-02-2010, 08:05 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by EarlDoherty

"Disunity" is a loaded and prejudicial word. Would you equally agree that there is "disunity" among historicists, since none of them can come to common conclusions about the nature and identity of the historical Jesus? And if disunity among mythicists should lead one to reject the viability of the concept of no historical Jesus, why doesn't the disunity of historicists lead one to reject the viability of the concept of an historical Jesus?

Variety of interpretation or detail does not in itself disprove a theory, as you seem to want to claim.

Earl Doherty

You don't seem to be taking me at my word. I am sorry I used a loaded term. What word should I use? Divided? Factionalized? How about diverse? I think diverse works. I am not claiming that diversity of MJ advocates discredits the whole camp or their claims. I am only claiming that it is a little silly to accuse me of not understanding the mythicist case since there is no "the mythicist case."

aa5874 · 03-02-2010, 09:17 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ApostateAbe

[.... I am only claiming that it is a little silly to accuse me of not understanding the mythicist case since there is no "the mythicist case."

The mythicist case is based on written texts found in the NT.

And since you claim not to understand I will show you the passages again.

You may think that there is no mythicist case when you don't understand. It is imperative that you understand the mythicist case.

These passages are found in the Canon are some of what the mythicist case is based on.

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.

Mt 1:20 -

Quote:

But while he thought on these things, behold, the angel of the Lord appeared unto him in a dream, saying, Joseph, thou son of David, fear not to take unto thee Mary thy wife: for that which is conceived in her is of the Holy Ghost.

Jesus described as the offspring of the Holy Ghost.

Luke 1.34-35

Quote:

34 Then said Mary unto the angel, How shall this be, seeing I know not a man?

35 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.

Again another source that Jesus was the offspring of the Holy Ghost.

John 1.1-3 &1

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..........And the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us, (and we beheld his glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father,) full of grace and truth.

This source claimed Jesus was the Creator and was equal to God.

Acts 1.9-11

Quote:

9 And when he had spoken these things, while they beheld, he was taken up; and a cloud received him out of their sight.

10 And while they looked stedfastly toward heaven as he went up, behold, two men stood by them in white apparel;

11 Which also said, Ye men of Galilee, why stand ye gazing up into heaven? this same Jesus, which is taken up from you into heaven, shall so come in like manner as ye have seen him go into heaven.

This source has information that Jesus went from earth to heaven through a cloud.

Galatians 1.1

Quote:

Paul, an apostle, (not of men, neither by man, but by Jesus Christ, and God the Father, who raised him from the dead..)

Colossians 1.12-17

Quote:

12 Giving thanks unto the Father, which hath made us meet to be partakers of the inheritance of the saints in light:

13 Who hath delivered us from the power of darkness, and hath translated us into the kingdom of his dear Son:

14 In whom we have redemption through his blood, even the forgiveness of sins:

15 Who is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of every creature:

16 For by him were all things created, that are in heaven, and that are in earth, visible and invisible, whether they be thrones, or dominions, or principalities, or powers: all things were created by him, and for him:

17 And he is before all things, and by him all things consist.

This source again has information that Jesus was not a man and was indeed the Creator of heaven and earth.

Revelatians 22.16

Quote:

16 I Jesus have sent mine angel to testify unto you these things in the churches. I am the root and the offspring of David, and the bright and morning star.

This source source claimed Jesus, while in heaven, sent his angels to tell people that he was the root and offspring of David.

You must now agree that the mythicist have a very good case. Jesus of the NT was clearly described in a MYTHOLOGICAL fashion all over the Canon.

Now, I understand the case for the HJ is based on imagination since there is no external credible sources that can show an HJ. I think that HJers are using the very sources that clearly describe MJ.

If HJ is not based on your imagination please show the historical sources of antiquity that help to show that Jesus Christ was just a man.

No Robots · 03-02-2010, 03:38 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ApostateAbe

You don't seem to be taking me at my word. I am sorry I used a loaded term. What word should I use? Divided? Factionalized? How about diverse? I think diverse works. I am not claiming that diversity of MJ advocates discredits the whole camp or their claims. I am only claiming that it is a little silly to accuse me of not understanding the mythicist case since there is no "the mythicist case."

Heh. It seems there are more mythical Jesi than historical Jesi.

ApostateAbe · 03-02-2010, 05:24 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by No Robots

Quote:

Originally Posted by ApostateAbe

You don't seem to be taking me at my word. I am sorry I used a loaded term. What word should I use? Divided? Factionalized? How about diverse? I think diverse works. I am not claiming that diversity of MJ advocates discredits the whole camp or their claims. I am only claiming that it is a little silly to accuse me of not understanding the mythicist case since there is no "the mythicist case."

Heh. It seems there are more mythical Jesi than historical Jesi.

I am pretty sure that there are far more historical Jesuses, at least as many as there are ideologies of every sort. In this forum, you will find a lot more mythical Jesuses.

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

03-01-2010, 10:41 PM	#123
EarlDoherty Veteran Member Join Date: Oct 2005 Location: Ontario, Canada Posts: 1,435	"Disunity" is a loaded and prejudicial word. Would you equally agree that there is "disunity" among historicists, since none of them can come to common conclusions about the nature and identity of the historical Jesus? And if disunity among mythicists should lead one to reject the viability of the concept of no historical Jesus, why doesn't the disunity of historicists lead one to reject the viability of the concept of an historical Jesus? Variety of interpretation or detail does not in itself disprove a theory, as you seem to want to claim. Earl Doherty

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.