Freethought & Rationalism Archive

arnoldo · 02-27-2009, 06:30 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Roger Pearse

Quote:

Originally Posted by show_no_mercy

So if the age of a texts correlates with its historicity, you must be either a Hindu or a Buddhist, since texts from both of those religions predate the gospels by hundreds of years.

Let's see what we have here. The argument is that Jesus is a myth, and no such person ever existed. . .

Then who was Julian arguing then in the following text?

Quote:

Now since the Galilaeans say that, though they are different from the Jews, they are still, precisely speaking, Israelites in accordance with their prophets, and that they obey Moses above all and the prophets who in Judaea succeeded him, let us see in what respect they chiefly agree with those prophets. And let us begin with the teaching of Moses, who himself also, as they claim, foretold the birth of |395 Jesus that was to be. Moses, then, not once or twice or thrice but very many times says that men ought to honour one God only, and in fact names him the Highest; but that they ought to honour any other god he nowhere says. He speaks of angels and lords and moreover of several gods, but from these he chooses out the first and does not assume any god as second, either like or unlike him, such as you have invented. And if among you perchance you possess a single utterance of Moses with respect to this, you are bound to produce it. For the words "A prophet shall the Lord your God raise up unto you of your brethren, like unto me; to him shall ye hearken," 88 were certainly not said of the son of Mary. And even though, to please you, one should concede that they were said of him, Moses says that the prophet will be like him and not like God, a prophet like himself and bom of men, not of a god. And the words " The sceptre shall not depart from Judah, nor a leader from his loins," 89 were most certainly not said of the son of Mary, but of the royal house of David, which, you observe, came to an end with King Zedekiah. And certainly the Scripture can be interpreted in two ways when it says "until there comes what is reserved for him "; but you have wrongly interpreted it "until he comes for whom it is reserved." 90 But it is very clear that not one of these sayings relates to Jesus; for he is not even from Judah. How could he be when according to you he was not born of Joseph but of the Holy Spirit? For though in your genealogies you trace Joseph back to Judah, you could not invent |397 even this plausibly. For Matthew and Luke are refuted by the fact that they disagree concerning his genealogy.91 However, as I intend to examine closely into the truth of this matter in my Second Book, I leave it till then.92 But granted that he really is "a sceptre from Judah," then he is not "God born of God," as you are in the habit of saying, nor is it true that "All things were made by him; and without him was not any thing made." 93 But, say you, we are told in the Book of Numbers also : "There shall arise a star out of Jacob, and a man out of Israel." 94 It is certainly clear that this relates to David and to his descendants; for David was a son of Jesse.
http://www.ccel.org/p/pearse/morefat...ans_1_text.htm

Is the next "myth" going to be that christians did not exist in the first century?

aa5874 · 02-27-2009, 06:34 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sheshbazzar

[
While there certainly might have been some oral or written materials that were being drawn upon, the actual composition into a third person narrative, complete with details of the precise words and actions of people living decades before, and where the author(s) were not present, requires one of two things;
Either the author(s) improvised the narrative details as the composition required. OR, the narrative was produced by a miracle.

The problem for me with the Jesus stories are not really the details of the precise words and actions of people decades before or the time difference between the supposed life of Jesus and his biography.

The fundamental problem is that certain critical details of the supposed Jesus is missing.

I have in front of me an autobiography that covers at least 50 years. There are biographies that cover the entire life of people who died ,written long after they have died.

It is really not unusual to have information that appears to be precise in details but written long after the events.

Now, the most critical information missing from the Jesus stories is a precise date of the crucifixion and death.

It is inconceivable that any person who was an actual follower of Jesus could have forgotten that date and that a person who wrote about Jesus would not have written in their story the precise date of the crucifixion and death of Jesus.

No close associate of Jim Jones or David Koresh could have forgotten the day they died and if these associates wrote about the lives of Jim Jones or David Koresh would have omitted precise details of the day they died.

According to the author of Luke, John the Baptist began his preacing in the fifteenth year of the reign of Tiberius. See gLuke 3.1.

Now, there are hundreds of writings about the supposed Jesus. Jesus, it is claimed, predicted his death, according to the stories Jesus did die.

And not one writer in the whole of antiquity did ever writer that Jesus was crucified on a given day, in a certain month in a specific year of the reign of Tiberius.

They wrote he died around the ninth hour, but they forgot to write the day, month and year.

The reader is left to assume Jesus was crucified in the month of Nissan, but the specific year is missing.

All the NT writers of antiquity forgot.

Not even the author of Luke who claimed "to have perfect understanding of all things from the very first". See Luke 1.

Sheshbazzar · 02-27-2009, 07:24 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by arnoldo

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sheshbazzar

In this case I don't think that even the author(s) actually believed it, after all it is a -story- a composition coming from the author(s) pen.
While there certainly might have been some oral or written materials that were being drawn upon, the actual composition into a third person narrative, complete with details of the precise words and actions of people living decades before, and where the author(s) were not present, requires one of two things;
Either the author(s) improvised the narrative details as the composition required. OR, the narrative was produced by a miracle.
Perhaps JC came back yet again and dictated the narrative word for word?

Not quite, but your on the right track

Quote:

John 14:26
26 But the Comforter, which is the Holy Ghost, whom the Father will send in my name, he shall teach you all things, and bring all things to your remembrance, whatsoever I have said unto you.

You are claiming then, that these writers were "remembering" a story that Jesus himself had dictated to them word for word?

Note that the narrative-story- is presented in the Third-Person, that is as it would be reported by a bystander, not by a participant.

"Then Jesus turned..."
"Then Jesus said unto them..."
"Then they said onto him...."
"Then when Jesus came he found......"
Written in the Third-person, it is not an account of what "I" said.. thus and thus", or "I turned...", "I went....", or "I came.."

Then again neither are the words of the -story- presented in the Second-Person, as they would be if it were the disciples doing the reporting of what they had heard or done, it is not an account of what "We" said...", "We went...."
So it is not the participants in the story that are doing this "calling to remembrance" it is some totally unidentified -anonymous- "outsider(s)"
One might wonder why they would want to keep their own identities anonymous? Ashamed of what they were up to?

This would certainly be a peculiar way for Jesus to have recited to the writers the words and the events of his life.

Thus these anonymous writers, when they finally got around to writing down the Gospels, some time 30 to 100 years after the alleged events, IF they actually did it from perfect "remembrance", it could have only been performed by a miracle.
And boy, did they get around, they were present to listen in on the private conversations of the priests and Pharisees, they were there overhearing Jesus' prayers in the garden of Gethsemane while all of his disciples were asleep, they were present to overhear his trial before The Sanhedrin, they were in the Judgment hall listening to every word of Pilate, even at the foot of the cross listening in on his final words to his mother, and on and on.
Hell, they were even on the -inside of Herod's head- eavesdropping on his private thoughts. (oops, that's in "Luke")
All easy to do when one is making up a story, but far-fetched in any other instance.

The written evidence amply indicates that it was originally a fictional story rather than a historical account.

Sheshbazzar · 02-27-2009, 07:48 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by aa5874

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sheshbazzar

[
While there certainly might have been some oral or written materials that were being drawn upon, the actual composition into a third person narrative, complete with details of the precise words and actions of people living decades before, and where the author(s) were not present, requires one of two things;
Either the author(s) improvised the narrative details as the composition required. OR, the narrative was produced by a miracle.

The problem for me with the Jesus stories are not really the details of the precise words and actions of people decades before or the time difference between the supposed life of Jesus and his biography.

The fundamental problem is that certain critical details of the supposed Jesus is missing.

I have in front of me an autobiography that covers at least 50 years. There are biographies that cover the entire life of people who died ,written long after they have died.

It is really not unusual to have information that appears to be precise in details but written long after the events.

Now, the most critical information missing from the Jesus stories is a precise date of the crucifixion and death.

It is inconceivable that any person who was an actual follower of Jesus could have forgotten that date and that a person who wrote about Jesus would not have written in their story the precise date of the crucifixion and death of Jesus.

No close associate of Jim Jones or David Koresh could have forgotten the day they died and if these associates wrote about the lives of Jim Jones or David Koresh would have omitted precise details of the day they died.

According to the author of Luke, John the Baptist began his preacing in the fifteenth year of the reign of Tiberius. See gLuke 3.1.

Now, there are hundreds of writings about the supposed Jesus. Jesus, it is claimed, predicted his death, according to the stories Jesus did die.

And not one writer in the whole of antiquity did ever writer that Jesus was crucified on a given day, in a certain month in a specific year of the reign of Tiberius.

They wrote he died around the ninth hour, but they forgot to write the day, month and year.

The reader is left to assume Jesus was crucified in the month of Nissan, but the specific year is missing.

All the NT writers of antiquity forgot.

Not even the author of Luke who claimed "to have perfect understanding of all things from the very first". See Luke 1.

I agree with you, its just that The Holey story has -so many- holes in it, that it is hard to include them all in a single post.

Opinion · 02-27-2009, 08:46 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by aa5874

Quote:

Originally Posted by Opinion

Yes. And Alexander was the offspring of Zeus supposedly and he existed. Now whether one believes in that or not is the case. Amakusa Shiro was also supposedly the offspring of God but he existed.

It was not the rumor that Amakusa Shiro was the offspring of God that confirmed his existence.

It was not the rumor that Alexander was the offspring of Zeus that made him a figure of history.

You must know why Alexander is regarded as a figure of history.

You don't know?

It is because there is historical evidence for Alexander the Great.

Ahilles was the offspring of a sea-goddess, and there is no historical evidence for Achilles.

Now, you see why Achilles was a myth., all rumors-- no history

This is the very reason Jesus is mythology, all rumors --no history

Joshephus and Tacitus and all the NT doesn't make it seem like rumors but history like the Bible has shown even with the old testament.

Opinion · 02-27-2009, 08:48 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by show_no_mercy

Quote:

Originally Posted by Opinion

I'll have to re-check my Bible later on. But does it state that God mated with Mary?

This is semantics. There's no Jewish tradition of gods impregnating mortals or mortals/gods being the offspring of (a) human(s) parent(s).

Last I checked God used his power to give Abraham a son in the old testament which is part of Jewish tradition IIRC.

aa5874 · 02-27-2009, 09:55 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Opinion

Quote:

Originally Posted by aa5874

This is the very reason Jesus is mythology, all rumors --no history

Joshephus and Tacitus and all the NT doesn't make it seem like rumors but history like the Bible has shown even with the old testament.

Look in the "TF" and you will see that Jesus Christ rose from the dead on the third day. That piece of mythology is written in Antiquities of the Jews 18.3.3.

But you may tell me in Antiquities 20.9.1 that Jesus had a brother, however in the NT it was claimed that he already had a mother and his father was the Holy Ghost of God. See Matthew 1.18 and Luke 1.35.

Jesus looks like mythology.

And the word Jesus is not anywhere in Tacitus.

There is no history, or I should say, no good-history of Jesus and the creature was described as a myth.

Jesus is one of them myths.

arnoldo · 02-27-2009, 10:10 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by aa5874

. . . Jesus is one of them myths.

Is Peter and Paul also one of them myths?

Quote:

A SELLV BENEMBERE
NTI QVI VICXIT ANNV
SEX MESIS OCTO DIES
XXIII

TRANSLATION: For Asellus, well deserving, who lived 6 years, 8 months and 23 days.
IMAGERY: portrait of Peter (Chi-Rho and PETRVS at right) and portrait of Paul (PAV/LVS at right) at left.
http://www.usask.ca/antiquities/bene...atacombs3.html

aa5874 · 02-27-2009, 10:50 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by arnoldo

Quote:

Originally Posted by aa5874

. . . Jesus is one of them myths.

Is Peter and Paul also one of them myths?

Quote:

A SELLV BENEMBERE
NTI QVI VICXIT ANNV
SEX MESIS OCTO DIES
XXIII

TRANSLATION: For Asellus, well deserving, who lived 6 years, 8 months and 23 days.
IMAGERY: portrait of Peter (Chi-Rho and PETRVS at right) and portrait of Paul (PAV/LVS at right) at left.
http://www.usask.ca/antiquities/bene...atacombs3.html

You must display the century that this artifact was dated. Where is the date?

It should be obvious that people of antiquity believed in myths. During the 2nd century, there were multiple mythical Gods to believe in, Zeus, Aplollo, Serapis and Jesus being some of them.

See "Discourse with the Greeks" by Justin Martyr and Tatian to see some of these quite believeable Gods.

And, you have inscription of the date of someone who lived 6 years, eight monts and 23 days.

How many years, months and days did Peter and Paul live? You would have known if they weren't myths.

LogicandReason · 02-28-2009, 04:08 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by arnoldo

Quote:

Originally Posted by Roger Pearse

Let's see what we have here. The argument is that Jesus is a myth, and no such person ever existed. . .

Then who was Julian arguing then in the following text?

Quote:

Now since the Galilaeans say that, though they are different from the Jews, they are still, precisely speaking, Israelites in accordance with their prophets, and that they obey Moses above all and the prophets who in Judaea succeeded him, let us see in what respect they chiefly agree with those prophets. And let us begin with the teaching of Moses, who himself also, as they claim, foretold the birth of |395 Jesus that was to be. Moses, then, not once or twice or thrice but very many times says that men ought to honour one God only, and in fact names him the Highest; but that they ought to honour any other god he nowhere says. He speaks of angels and lords and moreover of several gods, but from these he chooses out the first and does not assume any god as second, either like or unlike him, such as you have invented. And if among you perchance you possess a single utterance of Moses with respect to this, you are bound to produce it. For the words "A prophet shall the Lord your God raise up unto you of your brethren, like unto me; to him shall ye hearken," 88 were certainly not said of the son of Mary. And even though, to please you, one should concede that they were said of him, Moses says that the prophet will be like him and not like God, a prophet like himself and bom of men, not of a god. And the words " The sceptre shall not depart from Judah, nor a leader from his loins," 89 were most certainly not said of the son of Mary, but of the royal house of David, which, you observe, came to an end with King Zedekiah. And certainly the Scripture can be interpreted in two ways when it says "until there comes what is reserved for him "; but you have wrongly interpreted it "until he comes for whom it is reserved." 90 But it is very clear that not one of these sayings relates to Jesus; for he is not even from Judah. How could he be when according to you he was not born of Joseph but of the Holy Spirit? For though in your genealogies you trace Joseph back to Judah, you could not invent |397 even this plausibly. For Matthew and Luke are refuted by the fact that they disagree concerning his genealogy.91 However, as I intend to examine closely into the truth of this matter in my Second Book, I leave it till then.92 But granted that he really is "a sceptre from Judah," then he is not "God born of God," as you are in the habit of saying, nor is it true that "All things were made by him; and without him was not any thing made." 93 But, say you, we are told in the Book of Numbers also : "There shall arise a star out of Jacob, and a man out of Israel." 94 It is certainly clear that this relates to David and to his descendants; for David was a son of Jesse.
http://www.ccel.org/p/pearse/morefat...ans_1_text.htm

Is the next "myth" going to be that christians did not exist in the first century?

A non Sequirur

We know that people who believed in William Tell existed and that William Tell, like Jesus, was a legend.

Look up John Frum. We know that people believed in him and, like Jesus, he was a legend.

People believing in gods does not prove existence or historicity.

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

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.