Freethought & Rationalism Archive

J-D · 10-27-2011, 11:06 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by aa5874

Quote:

Originally Posted by J-D

...If any work which contains even one supernatural reference is therefore to be regarded as a work of fiction and not historical, then, for example, Suetonius’s The Twelve Caesars (De Vita Caesarum) should be regarded as a work of fiction, since it contains many references to supernatural events which could not possibly have literally taken place as described. But Suetonius’s The Twelve Caesars is not generally regarded as a work of fiction just because it incorporates reference to supernatural events. It is generally regarded as a historical work. aa5874 has cited it more than once as such. There are a number of works from antiquity which contain references to supernatural events which could not possibly have taken place and which are nevertheless generally regarded as historical works and not fictional ones. So you are applying a standard which is not generally accepted and may be peculiarly alone....

Whatever is in other writings of antiquity MUST analysed and assessed INDEPENDENTLY and the findings CANNOT be transferred to the Gospels.

It is WHOLLY absurd to even suggest that because Suetonius' "Twelve Caesars" are considered to be historical that the Canonical Gospels should be or are likely to be historical accounts of Jesus.

It would be absurd to make that specific suggestion, which is why I did not do so.

J-D · 10-27-2011, 11:08 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mountainman

Quote:

Originally Posted by J-D

I have expressed no view one way or the other about its value, asserting only the fact of its existence, which I gather you don't dispute.

The common denominator is evidence such as Codex Vaticanus and Codex Sinaticus. These things cannot be disputed. The object is to explain the history of these items of evidence.

That may be your object, but it's not my object.

Quote:

Originally Posted by mountainman

One pathway assumes an historical Jesus while another alternative pathway assumes there was not. The former pathway is being explored by those who use the HJ postulate while the latter pathway is being used by those who use the antithesis of the HJ postulate.

It seems to me that a better approach would be not to start with either assumption.

J-D · 10-27-2011, 11:11 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sheshbazzar

Quote:

Originally Posted by J-D

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sheshbazzar

Quote:

Originally Posted by J-D

Quote:

Originally Posted by jakejonesiv

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sheshbazzar

Quote:

Originally Posted by J-D

I'm not hanging any sort of hat on anything. All I'm saying is that although some of the statements in the canonical Gospels using the name Jesus cannot possibly be literally accurate reports of events that actually took place, other of the statements in the canonical Gospels using
the name Jesus might or might not be literally accurate reports of events that actually took place.

And around and around the merry-go-round it goes.
Which? Well something in there might be.
What? I really don't have any idea, but something in there could be.
Where? whatever happens to strike my fancy. (but I'm not willing to defend it)

And thus comes another thousand posts.

icardfacepalm:

Exactly!!

It is a sad spectacle to watch Historists shrink Jesus to any degree necessary in order to not give up the idea entirely. If Jesus started out as a Rottweiler, what are we down to now? One of those pathetic little dogs that shake and tremble if their owners set them down? Yeah, historical Jesus, we ought to call him Peanut.

I don't know whether you're referring to me, but if you are, I'd like to know if there's anything in what I've actually said that makes you refer to me as a 'historicist'.

On the other hand, if you're not referring to me, then obviously your strictures don't apply to what I've actually said, which still stands.

J-D as long as you hold onto your present, 'Jebus' mentioned- 'might or might not be an accurate account of actual events' position you will continue to be regarded as one attempting to defend some minute level of historical reality to NT Jebus character.

Whether you are able to understand the fact or not, whatever level of wavering, reservations, or uncertainty you might express regarding these few verses, no matter how small, automatically places you firmly into that 'historicist' camp.

You may not like that. But the MJ position is uncompromising; If Jebus was mythical then mythical is ALL that he was, or ever could be.
There is no room in the MJ position for any tiny little 'real' Jebus that 'might or might not' be alluded to in snippets of text here and there.

Either he was a living breathing person who walked the earth and actually interacted with people, or he was not. There is no half-way in betweens, or in one hundredth of the texts.
He was or he wasn't...... MJs exclusively conclude that he was not and never was a living, walking, talking, breathing -human being- EVER.

If that conclusion is not acceptable to you, then you are of the 'historicist' camp, like it or not, deny it or not.

I am happy to defend the things I have actually said, whatever label you choose to apply to them or to me.

But it is unfair and discourteous to attribute to me positions I have never taken just because you have chosen to apply labels in a way that lumps me in the same category as other people who have taken those other positions, even though I have not.

You defend it and you are in that catagory. that simple.

You have not explained what you mean in this context by 'it'.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sheshbazzar

The 'label' is only an indicator of a particular position that is held, not demeaning or any judgement against that position.

Myth or not a myth, Jebus is either one or the other, it cannot be both. One is either entirely in support of the Myth position or one is not. simple.

Nothing unfair or being discourteous about it. It is only your own choice that places you on which side of that dividing fence you most definately are.

As far as I can tell, on the question you are referring to I have not taken a position one way or the other.

J-D · 10-27-2011, 11:14 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by aa5874

Quote:

Originally Posted by J-D

....You have stated the facts in a confusing format. They are more clearly stated in a different format, for example as follows.

1. It is a fact that there are statements in (some of) the Gospels saying that Jesus was conceived by a spirit.

2. It is a fact that there are statements in (one of) the Gospels saying that Satan and Jesus were together on the pinnacle of the Jewish Temple.

3. It is a fact that there are statements in (some of) the Gospels saying that Jesus walked on the sea.

4. It is a fact that there are statements in (some of) the Gospels referring to the so-called transfiguration of Jesus.

5. It is a fact that there are statements in the Gospels saying that Jesus died and then returned to life.

6. It is a fact that there are statements in the Gospels referring to the so-called ascension of Jesus.

It is also a fact that none of those statements can be literally accurate reports of events that actually took place....

1.Myth Fables are NOT historically reliable sources.

2. Myth fables may contain events that cannot be literally accurate.

3. If Jesus was NOT a Child of a Ghost, God, the Creator of heaven and earth, that WALKED on water, TRANSFIGURED, Resurrected and Ascended then the N T Cannot be trusted for the history of Jesus.

4. Myth Fables Cannot be trusted for the history of real events of the past.

5. Jesus of the NT has NO reliable historical sources.

6. Myth characters have NO reliable historical sources.

The MYTH Jesus theory cannot be DEFEATED.

Quote:

Originally Posted by J-D

....None of this changes the fact that 'the myth Jesus theory' is an extraordinarily stupid name for a theory that says only that not all the statements in the canonical Gospels using the name Jesus are historically true, and if what you mean by 'the myth Jesus theory' is something more specific than that you have never explained what.

Your assertion is exceptionally absurd and HIGHLY ILLOGICAL.

The DESCRIPTION of Jesus MUST FIRST be found WRITTEN in sources of antiquity and MUST NOT be IMAGINED or PRESUMED.

We would NOT have known that Jesus was DESCRIBED as a Child of Ghost unless it was DOCUMENTED.

We would NOT have known that it was claimed Jesus WALKED on the sea unless it was DOCUMENTED.

We would NOT have known that it was said Jesus TRANSFIGURED, RESURRECTED and ASCENDED unless it was documented.

These DOCUMENTED Claims of antiquity SUPPORT the MYTH Jesus theory.

A theory NEEDS DATA.

The MYTH FABLES about Jesus SUPPORT MYTHOLOGY.

The MYTH Jesus theory cannot be defeated when Jesus of the NT was FATHERED by a Ghost.

Jesus was a MYTH if the NT is true. If the NT is NOT true then it cannot be trusted .

You have not explained what you mean in this context by the terms 'myth fables', 'historically reliable sources', 'Myth Jesus theory', 'data', or 'mythology'.

I am not clear on whether you are taking the position that any document which is not entirely true has no value as evidence at all, but that position (whether or not it is yours) is a mistaken one.

aa5874 · 10-27-2011, 11:45 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by J-D

Quote:

Originally Posted by aa5874

....It is WHOLLY absurd to even suggest that because Suetonius' "Twelve Caesars" are considered to be historical that the Canonical Gospels should be or are likely to be historical accounts of Jesus.

It would be absurd to make that specific suggestion, which is why I did not do so.

Please EXPLAIN the standard that should be APPLIED to the Canonised NT.

Quote:

Originally Posted by J-D

.....There are a number of works from antiquity which contain references to supernatural events which could not possibly have taken place and which are nevertheless generally regarded as historical works and not fictional ones. So you are applying a standard which is not generally accepted and may be peculiarly alone...

aa5874 · 10-28-2011, 07:07 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by J-D

Quote:

Originally Posted by aa5874

Quote:

Originally Posted by J-D

....You have stated the facts in a confusing format. They are more clearly stated in a different format, for example as follows.

1. It is a fact that there are statements in (some of) the Gospels saying that Jesus was conceived by a spirit.

2. It is a fact that there are statements in (one of) the Gospels saying that Satan and Jesus were together on the pinnacle of the Jewish Temple.

3. It is a fact that there are statements in (some of) the Gospels saying that Jesus walked on the sea.

4. It is a fact that there are statements in (some of) the Gospels referring to the so-called transfiguration of Jesus.

5. It is a fact that there are statements in the Gospels saying that Jesus died and then returned to life.

6. It is a fact that there are statements in the Gospels referring to the so-called ascension of Jesus.

It is also a fact that none of those statements can be literally accurate reports of events that actually took place....

1.Myth Fables are NOT historically reliable sources.

2. Myth fables may contain events that cannot be literally accurate.

3. If Jesus was NOT a Child of a Ghost, God, the Creator of heaven and earth, that WALKED on water, TRANSFIGURED, Resurrected and Ascended then the N T Cannot be trusted for the history of Jesus.

4. Myth Fables Cannot be trusted for the history of real events of the past.

5. Jesus of the NT has NO reliable historical sources.

6. Myth characters have NO reliable historical sources.

The MYTH Jesus theory cannot be DEFEATED.

Quote:

Originally Posted by J-D

....None of this changes the fact that 'the myth Jesus theory' is an extraordinarily stupid name for a theory that says only that not all the statements in the canonical Gospels using the name Jesus are historically true, and if what you mean by 'the myth Jesus theory' is something more specific than that you have never explained what.

Your assertion is exceptionally absurd and HIGHLY ILLOGICAL.

The DESCRIPTION of Jesus MUST FIRST be found WRITTEN in sources of antiquity and MUST NOT be IMAGINED or PRESUMED.

We would NOT have known that Jesus was DESCRIBED as a Child of Ghost unless it was DOCUMENTED.

We would NOT have known that it was claimed Jesus WALKED on the sea unless it was DOCUMENTED.

We would NOT have known that it was said Jesus TRANSFIGURED, RESURRECTED and ASCENDED unless it was documented.

These DOCUMENTED Claims of antiquity SUPPORT the MYTH Jesus theory.

A theory NEEDS DATA.

The MYTH FABLES about Jesus SUPPORT MYTHOLOGY.

The MYTH Jesus theory cannot be defeated when Jesus of the NT was FATHERED by a Ghost.

Jesus was a MYTH if the NT is true. If the NT is NOT true then it cannot be trusted .

You have not explained what you mean in this context by the terms 'myth fables', 'historically reliable sources', 'Myth Jesus theory', 'data', or 'mythology'.

I am not clear on whether you are taking the position that any document which is not entirely true has no value as evidence at all, but that position (whether or not it is yours) is a mistaken one.

It is clear that your arguments are meaningless since you have been arguing without FIRST establishing the meaning of the terms 'myth fables', 'historically reliable sources', 'Myth Jesus theory', 'data', or 'mythology'.

You have reached the END.

The Myth Jesus theory cannot ever be defeated once the Gospels are introduced as EVIDENCE.

HJers USE the NT to claim HJ was from Nazareth but it was a Child of Ghost that lived iN Nazareth.

J-D · 10-28-2011, 01:00 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by tanya

Quote:

Originally Posted by Kapyong

Well, pardon me again - but I still don't think you have got it.

Earl argues MJ DID have foreskin, hair and all typical body parts of humans AND gods. But they were spiritual parts rather than NON-existent parts.

Earl's MJ's Paul's Jesus DID have spiritual foreskin,
Earl's MJ's Paul's Jesus DID have spiritual hair,
Earl's MJ's Paul's Jesus DID have spiritual body parts.
AND - Jesus DID take on 'flesh'.

Your representation of MJ simply does not match Earl's popular theory.

Hi Kapyong!!

Thanks for your message.
Yes, many folks, including relatives, have often mentioned that "You haven't got it", and I don't include "getting it", or "getting any", here, in that category of rebukes.

I apologize to you and Earl, for submitting a thought to the forum which conflicts with Earl's popular theory. My own theory, ideas, notions, and suppositions, have thus far evaded anyone's published domain, including those famous books by Earl. The advantage of being out in left field, so to write, is the absence of harrassment by would be suitors. I can honestly write, that I have thus far, not been troubled by anyone ringing me at inopportune moments, for any purpose.

Quote:

Originally Posted by J-D

There are a number of works from antiquity which contain references to supernatural events which could not possibly have taken place and which are nevertheless generally regarded as historical works and not fictional ones. So you are applying a standard which is not generally accepted and may be peculiarly alone.

Thanks J-D, no disrespect intended here, but, "peculiarly alone" is not really a newsworthy item, among the handful of analyses of my life, received thus far. I am not writing on this forum to gain friends, influence enemies, or make my fortune. I am simply expressing an opinion. It may be utterly nonsensical to everyone else. Personally, it seems reasonable to me.

Quote:

Originally Posted by J-D

if you don’t know whether the character of John the Baptist was real or fictional, how do you know whether the character of Jesus was real or fictional?

JtB is not presented by the Gospels, at least, as having possessed supernatural capability, therefore, he could have been a real person. I lack knowledge and understanding of Jewish ritual, so I cannot evaluate the logic behind immersing folks in the River Jordan. In my simplistic outlook, JtB's existence has no more relationship to the mythical character Jesus of Nazareth, than Pontius Pilate or Herod, two other historical figures, mentioned in the Gospels.

Quote:

Originally Posted by J-D

But you acknowledge the possibility of historical characters appearing in fictional works. Would you say that the character of Alexander is historical or fictional? Would you say that he had DNA? Why or why not?

Historical, DNA yes, Alexandria, Egypt (among many other places bearing his name)

Quote:

Originally Posted by J-D

Do you have any basis for excluding the possibility that there lived at one time a real person with DNA in whose life there occurred some events which literally corresponded with some (but not all) of the statements using the name Jesus found in the canonical Gospels? Indeed, do you definitely exclude that as a possibility, or do you accept that it may be true? Why or why not?

"literally corresponded": if that included walking on water, then, NO.

Quote:

Originally Posted by J-D

None of this changes the fact that 'the myth Jesus theory' is an extraordinarily stupid name for a theory that says only that not all the statements in the canonical Gospels using the name Jesus are historically true, and if what you mean by 'the myth Jesus theory' is something more specific than that you have never explained what.

'the myth Jesus theory', in my view, is not terribly difficult to comprehend:

Jesus was a fictitious character in a fable.

That wasn't too difficult, was it? Have you a suggestion for a different name, that could be understood by simpletons like me? I like MJ because I can understand what it means!

Thanks again, for your rejoinders, J-D. Always a pleasure to encounter.

It has not been established that what you mean by 'myth Jesus theory' is the same as what aa5874 means by 'myth Jesus theory'.

You accept that Alexander the Great is a historical character despite the fact that supernatural stories have been told about him. If you admit the possibility of historical characters having supernatural stories told about them, then you have not so far stated any grounds for excluding the possibility that Jesus is one such.

J-D · 10-28-2011, 01:06 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by aa5874

Quote:

Originally Posted by J-D

Quote:

Originally Posted by aa5874

Quote:

Originally Posted by J-D

....You have stated the facts in a confusing format. They are more clearly stated in a different format, for example as follows.

1. It is a fact that there are statements in (some of) the Gospels saying that Jesus was conceived by a spirit.

2. It is a fact that there are statements in (one of) the Gospels saying that Satan and Jesus were together on the pinnacle of the Jewish Temple.

3. It is a fact that there are statements in (some of) the Gospels saying that Jesus walked on the sea.

4. It is a fact that there are statements in (some of) the Gospels referring to the so-called transfiguration of Jesus.

5. It is a fact that there are statements in the Gospels saying that Jesus died and then returned to life.

6. It is a fact that there are statements in the Gospels referring to the so-called ascension of Jesus.

It is also a fact that none of those statements can be literally accurate reports of events that actually took place....

1.Myth Fables are NOT historically reliable sources.

2. Myth fables may contain events that cannot be literally accurate.

3. If Jesus was NOT a Child of a Ghost, God, the Creator of heaven and earth, that WALKED on water, TRANSFIGURED, Resurrected and Ascended then the N T Cannot be trusted for the history of Jesus.

4. Myth Fables Cannot be trusted for the history of real events of the past.

5. Jesus of the NT has NO reliable historical sources.

6. Myth characters have NO reliable historical sources.

The MYTH Jesus theory cannot be DEFEATED.

Quote:

Originally Posted by J-D

....None of this changes the fact that 'the myth Jesus theory' is an extraordinarily stupid name for a theory that says only that not all the statements in the canonical Gospels using the name Jesus are historically true, and if what you mean by 'the myth Jesus theory' is something more specific than that you have never explained what.

Your assertion is exceptionally absurd and HIGHLY ILLOGICAL.

The DESCRIPTION of Jesus MUST FIRST be found WRITTEN in sources of antiquity and MUST NOT be IMAGINED or PRESUMED.

We would NOT have known that Jesus was DESCRIBED as a Child of Ghost unless it was DOCUMENTED.

We would NOT have known that it was claimed Jesus WALKED on the sea unless it was DOCUMENTED.

We would NOT have known that it was said Jesus TRANSFIGURED, RESURRECTED and ASCENDED unless it was documented.

These DOCUMENTED Claims of antiquity SUPPORT the MYTH Jesus theory.

A theory NEEDS DATA.

The MYTH FABLES about Jesus SUPPORT MYTHOLOGY.

The MYTH Jesus theory cannot be defeated when Jesus of the NT was FATHERED by a Ghost.

Jesus was a MYTH if the NT is true. If the NT is NOT true then it cannot be trusted .

You have not explained what you mean in this context by the terms 'myth fables', 'historically reliable sources', 'Myth Jesus theory', 'data', or 'mythology'.

I am not clear on whether you are taking the position that any document which is not entirely true has no value as evidence at all, but that position (whether or not it is yours) is a mistaken one.

It is clear that your arguments are meaningless since you have been arguing without FIRST establishing the meaning of the terms 'myth fables', 'historically reliable sources', 'Myth Jesus theory', 'data', or 'mythology'.

You have reached the END.

The Myth Jesus theory cannot ever be defeated once the Gospels are introduced as EVIDENCE.

HJers USE the NT to claim HJ was from Nazareth but it was a Child of Ghost that lived iN Nazareth.

It is clear that your arguments are meaningless since you have been arguing without first establishing the meaning of any of your terms, including 'myth fables', 'historically reliable sources', 'Myth Jesus theory', 'data', 'mythology', 'evidence', 'HJers', and 'HJ'.

You have reached the end.

J-D · 10-28-2011, 07:09 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sheshbazzar

Quote:

Originally Posted by J-D

I am not soldiering, here or anywhere else, nor am I living my life in the middle of a war.

Not a soldier eh? Then a civilian if you will. You say.
Man, whether you recognize it or not, you are in the middle of a war zone, the battle lines are drawn, and the war has long since commenced..

Quote:

Originally Posted by J-D

Nobody is waging war on me or trying to kill me.

So you think. Those of both sides, who are on the lines know better.

Quote:

Originally Posted by J-D

I eat and sleep in my own home

In one sense yes, and in another sense no. You walk in the ways of the world and eat yourself full on the polluted leaven of the world, swallowing it down.
You swallow down of the mingled wine of the daughters of fornication, and drunk and in stupor you do not discern where you are.
Sleep...ah yes, as it is written; 'a little sleep, a little slumber, a little folding of the hands to sleep......'

Quote:

Originally Posted by J-D

...and am safe there.

Thus many others before you had thought, until the night their door was stove in, and their lives forfeited.

But it can be seen, that you desire to not see, nor to know the manner of, nor the goings forth of these things.

Sleep on now, and take your rest;

The sentinels are in their watches upon every hill, the watchword has gone forth amongst them.
They do not sleep, nor close their eyes, but throughout this long night, slay the the children of the Ephraimites at the passages, one by one;
Every Gileadite sword sharp and shiny, has been baptized in blood, prepared against The Day of Battle and War.
Fold your hands together and sleep.

Sheshbazzar The Hebrew
.

You can repeat the assertion that I am in the middle of a war zone as often as you like, but merely repeating the bare assertion without supplying any evidence to support it does not add merit to it. I remain unpersuaded.

Sheshbazzar · 10-28-2011, 07:20 PM

'a little sleep, a little slumber, a little folding of the hands to sleep......' Sleep on now, and take your rest;
For the morrow, it comes quickly.

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

10-28-2011, 07:20 PM	#20
Sheshbazzar Veteran Member Join Date: Sep 2003 Location: On the path of knowledge Posts: 8,889	'a little sleep, a little slumber, a little folding of the hands to sleep......' Sleep on now, and take your rest; For the morrow, it comes quickly.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.