Freethought & Rationalism Archive

vsop44 · 06-17-2005, 07:21 AM

There is absolutely no proof whatsoever that the Jesus of the gospels existed. the few attempts to give him any credibility as an historic figure have been proven fake . The link below is very convincing about proving its point .

http://www.infidels.org/library/hist...ally_live.html

Clivedurdle · 06-17-2005, 08:08 AM

Quote:

Biblical scholarship has established the fact that the Gospel of Mark is the oldest of the four. The chief reasons for this conclusion are that this Gospel is shorter, simpler, and more natural, than any of the other three. It is shown that the Gospels of Matthew and Luke were enlarged from the Gospel of Mark. The Gospel of Mark knows nothing of the virgin birth, of the Sermon on the Mount, of the Lord's prayer, or of other important facts of the supposed life of Christ. These features were added by Matthew and Luke.

(From link above.)

Doesn't this cause a problem for the mythical position?

We have an alleged progression from historical to mythological, which contradicts a progression from myth to history.

Could Mark be a later attempt to demythologise and pare down to alleged history? Do we have external evidence of dates?

Toto · 06-17-2005, 09:35 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Clivedurdle

(From link above.)

Doesn't this cause a problem for the mythical position?

We have an alleged progression from historical to mythological, which contradicts a progression from myth to history.

Could Mark be a later attempt to demythologise and pare down to alleged history? Do we have external evidence of dates?

This would be a problem for the mythicist position if Mark were the earliest mention of Jesus, and if Mark were not so clearly a literary invention.

As it is, Christian literature before Mark celebrates a spiritual, mystic Christ. It takes 40-120 years before the historical details are added to this spiritual Christ.

Once aMark does this first bit of historicizing, other gospel writers continue to add details.

Clivedurdle · 06-17-2005, 12:23 PM

Do we have some kind of bounce then? Mythic, aMark making a human, then a return to myth and magic?

Is it just that aMark was not into magic as much as the others?

Toto · 06-17-2005, 12:36 PM

The Jesus of the later gospels exhibits "high Christology." But he is never mythical. He has supernatural powers here on earth.

The Jesus of Paul, however, has no record of a life on earth, other than vague references to being born and crucified.

Amaleq13 · 06-17-2005, 02:15 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Clivedurdle

Is it just that aMark was not into magic as much as the others?

I think one could argue that the authors of the subsequent revisions of Mark's original story felt he depicted Jesus as too human and/or not divine enough.

andrewcriddle · 06-18-2005, 09:18 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Wallener

The quote you posted starts with the poisoning of Socrates and moves backwards to the burning of Pythagoras. The ordering of Socrates -> Pythagoras -> "Wise King" is in fact stated three distinct times in the passage you offered. Your argument would seem to support the even-earlier date of Josiah...

You're right on that and I was badly wrong.

The main problem with Josiah is still that he doesn't seem to have been persecuted or killed or anything by his fellow Jews.

Andrew Criddle

Wallener · 06-18-2005, 11:07 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by andrewcriddle

The main problem with Josiah is still that he doesn't seem to have been persecuted or killed or anything by his fellow Jews.

I agree, that is the weakest part of it. That said, it involves one reach/mistake instead of the multiples required by other theories. It occurs to me, though, that the writer may not have been taking about Judah at all, but Israel. That would back things up 50-100 years and there is all kinds of evidence of internecine murder and mayhem in the Northern Kingdom end times.

What we really need are some definitevely-8th century BCE manuscripts.

andrewcriddle · 06-18-2005, 12:00 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Wallener

I agree, that is the weakest part of it. That said, it involves one reach/mistake instead of the multiples required by other theories. It occurs to me, though, that the writer may not have been taking about Judah at all, but Israel. That would back things up 50-100 years and there is all kinds of evidence of internecine murder and mayhem in the Northern Kingdom end times.

What we really need are some definitevely-8th century BCE manuscripts.

Amon the father of Josiah was killed by his fellow Jews 2 Kings 21:23.

But Amon doesn't qualify in other ways. (There's no hint of him as wise or promulgating good laws.)

Andrew Criddle

Wallener · 06-18-2005, 12:53 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by andrewcriddle

Amon the father of Josiah was killed by his fellow Jews 2 Kings 21:23.

Yes, I had pointed that out earlier. It's also quite possible the author of the passage simply made an Off By One (generation) mistake.

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

06-17-2005, 07:21 AM	#41
vsop44 Veteran Member Join Date: May 2005 Location: On an icefloe off the atlantic coast of Canada Posts: 1,095	There is absolutely no proof whatsoever that the Jesus of the gospels existed. the few attempts to give him any credibility as an historic figure have been proven fake . The link below is very convincing about proving its point . http://www.infidels.org/library/hist...ally_live.html

06-17-2005, 12:23 PM	#44
Clivedurdle Contributor Join Date: Mar 2003 Location: London UK Posts: 16,024	Do we have some kind of bounce then? Mythic, aMark making a human, then a return to myth and magic? Is it just that aMark was not into magic as much as the others?

06-17-2005, 12:36 PM	#45
Toto Contributor Join Date: Jun 2000 Location: Los Angeles area Posts: 40,549	The Jesus of the later gospels exhibits "high Christology." But he is never mythical. He has supernatural powers here on earth. The Jesus of Paul, however, has no record of a life on earth, other than vague references to being born and crucified.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.