Freethought & Rationalism Archive

outhouse · 03-21-2012, 11:07 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by la70119

Quote:

Ehrman: "...the evidence of the historical Jesus does not in the least depend exclusively on whether this, that, or the other Gospel story is historically accurate. It is based on other considerations, which I set out in the earlier chapters, including the witness of Paul and the speeches of Acts, which long predate the Gospels." p. 190

How does he know?

Acts is FICTION.

Paul is a LIAR and a FRAUD.

When mainstream scholarship figure that out, expect the whole search for HJ to collapse like a house of cards.

Christianity, on the other hand, can go on indefinitely with only a MJ. On the other hand, a proven HJ will absolutely DESTROY Christianity.

You cannot disprove something without the information to do so.

there is not enough information at hand to disprove a HJ.

as it stands HJ is not going anywhere soon and remains a historical charactor in mainstream scholarships.

Steven Carr · 03-21-2012, 11:54 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by hjalti

Quote:

Originally Posted by Steven Carr

Quote:

Originally Posted by ApostateAbe

Sorry, what is it about Romans 13 that needs an explanation?

So commentaries on Romans skip over that chapter with the words 'This chapter needs no explanation.'?

Steven Carr, his question was perfectly valid, let me rephrase it for you: What in Romans 13 is problematic if we assume that the author believed in a historical Jesus?

What is problematic about the Romans stripping, mocking, flogging and crucifying the Son of God?

Have you seen 'The Passion of the Christ'? Every time the Romans whipped Jesus, with blood spurting from the wounds, you could see him muttering under his breath, 'God's agents, sent to punish wrongdoers. They hold no terror for the innocent.'

In Aramaic, of course.

ApostateAbe · 03-21-2012, 12:37 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by EarlDoherty

I have suggestion for Abe. Instead of demanding a review from Steven Carr, why don’t you read Ehrman’s book and give us a positive review of your own? Demonstrate how he has made a case to support your claim that belief in an HJ is “a powerful historical conclusion,” or how the evidence is “strongly conclusive.” Surely with your vast reading in this field, on both sides of the issue, you could give us an insightful summary of the overwhelming positive and scholarly case which Ehrman presents. That way, we would all know that you are indeed familiar with the quality and integrity of the arguments in favor of an HJ, and along the way, that you, like Ehrman himself we have no doubt, have taken into account and rebutted the major mythicist arguments and how they are easily revealed to be empty, fallacious and fraudulent.

(We might request that you leave off any praise of or appeal to Ehrman's tawdry attacks on the integrity and motivations of mythicists themselves, except that I know that such things constitute a major element of your own 'case' against us.)

I was planning on reading and reviewing Ehrman's book (I ordered a paper copy--I am not one for e-books), though I can't guarantee that my review will come in good time (I am in grad school for another field). I have never claimed nor implied that I have special qualifications or vast reading. The arguments concerning historical evidence are far more relevant for probabilities concerning history than are modern personalities.

My own case for the historical Jesus is expressed in these past threads, if you are curious. I would expect that there would be a lot of overlap with Bart Ehrman's case.

aa5874 · 03-21-2012, 02:30 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by outhouse

You cannot disprove something without the information to do so.

there is not enough information at hand to disprove a HJ.

as it stands HJ is not going anywhere soon and remains a historical charactor in mainstream scholarships.

There is NO credible information to disprove the claim that Jesus of the NT was ONLY BELIEVED to have existed.

Now, Do you understand there is on-going A QUEST for an Historical Jesus--a human Jesus WITH a human father?

Do you understand why there is a QUEST for an Historical Jesus--a human Jesus WITH a human father??

Well, the NT is about a Jesus of Faith--a Divine Jesus--a Myth Jesus.

Matthew 1.18-20 is CAST in stone.

Jesus was the Child of a Holy Ghost in the Myth Fables called Gospels!!

Galatians 4.29 is CAST in Stone.

Galatians 4:29 NKJV
But, as he who was born according to the flesh then persecuted him who was born according to the Spirit, even so it is now.

Jesus was BORN according to the Spirit.

Robert Wahler · 03-21-2012, 09:22 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by la70119

Quote:

Ehrman: "...the evidence of the historical Jesus does not in the least depend exclusively on whether this, that, or the other Gospel story is historically accurate. It is based on other considerations, which I set out in the earlier chapters, including the witness of Paul and the speeches of Acts, which long predate the Gospels." p. 190

How does he know?

Acts is FICTION.

Paul is a LIAR and a FRAUD.

When mainstream scholarship figure that out, expect the whole search for HJ to collapse like a house of cards.

Christianity, on the other hand, can go on indefinitely with only a MJ. On the other hand, a proven HJ will absolutely DESTROY Christianity.

Not necessarily. But you're right about Acts and Paul. The HJ was mythologized. I don't see why this is so difficult to propose. :banghead: I am willing to consider that James could be 'Jesus', a good case might be made for it, and I would love to explore that with knowledgeable persons. John the Baptist was Jesus Christ's Master, and Christ was James' Master, or John James' if there was no Jesus. There are always Masters in the world. I have met two: Maharaj Charan Singh and Baba Gurinder Singh Dhillon, Radha Soami Satsang Beas. There is an online website you can google.

outhouse · 03-21-2012, 10:03 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by aa5874

Quote:

Originally Posted by outhouse

You cannot disprove something without the information to do so.

there is not enough information at hand to disprove a HJ.

as it stands HJ is not going anywhere soon and remains a historical charactor in mainstream scholarships.

There is NO credible information to disprove the claim that Jesus of the NT was ONLY BELIEVED to have existed.

Now, Do you understand there is on-going A QUEST for an Historical Jesus--a human Jesus WITH a human father?

Do you understand why there is a QUEST for an Historical Jesus--a human Jesus WITH a human father??

Well, the NT is about a Jesus of Faith--a Divine Jesus--a Myth Jesus.

Matthew 1.18-20 is CAST in stone.

Jesus was the Child of a Holy Ghost in the Myth Fables called Gospels!!

Galatians 4.29 is CAST in Stone.

Galatians 4:29 NKJV
But, as he who was born according to the flesh then persecuted him who was born according to the Spirit, even so it is now.

Jesus was BORN according to the Spirit.

<edit>

ancient hellenistic roman men wrote mythically about mortal men all the time. you fail epically to refute common knowledge

aa5874 · 03-21-2012, 11:13 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by outhouse

Quote:

Originally Posted by aa5874

Quote:

Originally Posted by outhouse

You cannot disprove something without the information to do so.

there is not enough information at hand to disprove a HJ.

as it stands HJ is not going anywhere soon and remains a historical charactor in mainstream scholarships.

There is NO credible information to disprove the claim that Jesus of the NT was ONLY BELIEVED to have existed.

Now, Do you understand there is on-going A QUEST for an Historical Jesus--a human Jesus WITH a human father?

Do you understand why there is a QUEST for an Historical Jesus--a human Jesus WITH a human father??

Well, the NT is about a Jesus of Faith--a Divine Jesus--a Myth Jesus.

Matthew 1.18-20 is CAST in stone.

Jesus was the Child of a Holy Ghost in the Myth Fables called Gospels!!

Galatians 4.29 is CAST in Stone.

Galatians 4:29 NKJV
But, as he who was born according to the flesh then persecuted him who was born according to the Spirit, even so it is now.

Jesus was BORN according to the Spirit.

<edit>

ancient hellenistic roman men wrote mythically about mortal men all the time. you fail epically to refute common knowledge

People learn by REPETITION.<edit>Now repeat this.

There is NO credible source of antiquity that described Jesus as MORTAL.

There is NO credible source of antiquity that provided any evidence that Jesus had a human father.

Romulus and Remus were HUMAN brothers BORN of the SAME WOMAN but are considered MYTHOLOGICAL. See Plutarch's Romulus.

Ancient Greeks and Romans BELIEVED their GODS and Sons of Gods did ACTUALLY exist and accepted Jesus as an historical God born of a Holy Ghost, God Incarnate, the Creator.

You seem to be IGNORANT of the Fact that the Greeks and Romans who ACCEPTED Jesus as GOD Believed in HUNDREDS of MYTH MORTALS--NON-EXISTING MORTALS.

See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of...igures#Mortals

Robert Wahler · 03-21-2012, 11:22 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by outhouse

<edit>

ancient hellenistic roman men wrote mythically about mortal men all the time. you fail epically to refute common knowledge

Re: virgin birth of Matthew 1:18-20: Hebrew Matthew has Joseph as Jesus' father, at 1:16, before the orthodox redactors took it out in the received Greek.

aa5874 · 03-21-2012, 11:45 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Robert Wahler

...Re: virgin birth of Matthew 1:18-20: Hebrew Matthew has Joseph as Jesus' father, at 1:16, before the orthodox redactors took it out in the received Greek.

Your story is UNSUBSTANTIATED. We have enough INVENTED stories.

This is NOT an IMAGINATION contest. You MUST provide a source or show that Jesus did FIRST exist and that it was known that Christians worshiped a Man as a God even though there are NO records that the Jesus cult did such a thing.

A MORTAL MAN has NO ability to SAVE Mankind from Sin NOT EVEN THE deified Emperors of Rome.

The ROMAN EMPERORS WERE DEIFIED YET it is NOT claimed that the Deified Emperors were SACRIFICED or Died for the SINS of Mankind.

ONLY GODS can FORGIVE SINS.

NT Jesus was GOD not deified man.

NT JESUS FORGAVE SINS.

Mark 2:7 KJV

Quote:

Why doth this man thus speak blasphemies? who can forgive sins but God only?

GakuseiDon · 03-22-2012, 03:59 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by GakuseiDon

All, I've emailed Richard Carrier on whether his views of Earl Doherty's Second Century apologists have changed or not. I've sent him a link to this thread. If he responds, and he is okay for me to do so, I will update this thread.

Richard Carrier has responded, which I appreciate. Though he didn't say not to quote his response, since he didn't give me explicit permission I won't quote the whole email. But I don't think he'll mind me quoting the relevant part (the rest was about his upcoming book, which was interesting). Carrier wrote:

"I have not looked into this any further since I last called it an unnecessary flight of fancy. That's not to say he's necessarily wrong, I just consider it a waste of time for me at present to investigate it, since it's not necessary to the core thesis of ahistoricity. I think we need to get mainstream scholars taking that core thesis seriously *first*, before we start exploring such questions as how far the ahistoricist view extended into extant documents."

As I responded back to him, I disagree about it being a waste of time. Doherty himself links the unexpected general silence amongst the Second Century apologists with the First Century epistle writers, and I agree the similarities are too strong to be ignored. Doherty thinks the link reflects a common lack of historical Jesus. I think the link is related to how high-context cultures communicated. If Doherty's analysis is wrong about the Second Century silence, then I think that will impact how we should examine the First Century silences. But that's an argument for another day.

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

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.