Freethought & Rationalism Archive

sschlichter · 07-09-2009, 10:03 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by bacht

Quote:

Originally Posted by Diogenes the Cynic

Attacking the Temple wasn't extremely rational or ordered, especially during Passover.

Will you steal, murder, commit adultery, swear falsely, burn incense to Ba'al, and go after other gods that you have not known, and then come and stand before me in this house, which is called by my name, and say, `We are delivered!' -- only to go on doing all these abominations?
Has this house, which is called by my name, become a den of robbers in your eyes? Behold, I myself have seen it, says the LORD. [Jeremiah 7.9-11]

Jesus was created from scripture.

by whom?

bacht · 07-09-2009, 10:27 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by sschlichter

Quote:

Originally Posted by bacht

Will you steal, murder, commit adultery, swear falsely, burn incense to Ba'al, and go after other gods that you have not known, and then come and stand before me in this house, which is called by my name, and say, `We are delivered!' -- only to go on doing all these abominations?
Has this house, which is called by my name, become a den of robbers in your eyes? Behold, I myself have seen it, says the LORD. [Jeremiah 7.9-11]

Jesus was created from scripture.

by whom?

Unknown, but I would guess Alexandrian or Syrian Jews had a Christ movement sometime before the end of the 1st C. The Jesus of the gospels seems later, reflecting the "passing of the torch" from Jews to gentiles, maybe after the bar-Kochba revolt.

It may be that gentiles cooked up the whole thing, I don't discount the possibility that Jews had nothing to do with it [total amateur speculation, I'm not a historian or academic]

renassault · 07-09-2009, 11:14 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by show_no_mercy

Paul's letters tell us that there wasn't just "one" gospel being preached. In battling this other (not just "other", but "ετερος") gospel, Paul claims that his gospel is directly from The Man himself, and not from any human being. As opposed to those other gospels being preached. So Paul most certainly could have changed the Christianity in his churches, just as others changed the Christianity he originally preached in his churches.

The other gospel being preached was the one by the Judaizers. He wasn't talking about other forms of Christianity.

Quote:

We really have no idea what was being preached by the apostles to the Jews, we only have what was being preached by the apostle to the Gentiles.

In Romans he expresses his wish to visit Jerusalem once again, so even if that were the case (which it is not, e.g. Hebrews, the Gospels, etc.) it doesn't matter.

renassault · 07-09-2009, 11:24 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Amaleq13

Wow, that is one horribly convoluted sentence!!

I'm not surprised, sometimes when I read my stuff that I've written too fast I wonder if anyone could have even gotten the point hah.

Quote:

There is nothing "wildly speculative" about noting the problematic absence of an empty tomb tradition in Paul or your inability to offer a credible alternative explanation. The notion that such a symbol of the resurrection would not have been used by Paul is simply absurd on its face.

The thing is, as I've pointed out, it wasn't a symbol of the Resurrection back then. The symbol of the Resurrection was the, much more logical proof, testimony of living witnesses having seen the risen Christ.

Quote:

There is nothing "wildly speculative" about noting the dubious nature of the sudden appearance of the amazingly convenient and unlikely character of Joseph A.

Oh but there is, especially since he has no reason to have been mentioned anywhere else. If he had an episode with Jesus like, for instance, Zaccheus did, and this incident being recorded in, say, the Gospel of John, then I'd see your point. And even that isn't conclusive. A point of authenticity is the way the Gospels briefly introduce Joseph of Arimathea (e.g.: 'who had himself become a disciple of Jesus').

Quote:

There is nothing "wildly speculative" about noting only one of four versions includes the rather crucial detail of guards at the tomb. In fact, none even seem to leave room in the story for them!!

It's wildly speculative to claim that this means the Evangelist must have forged it.

Quote:

Multiple independent lines of argument lead to the same rational doubt. This continues to hold true despite your repeated straw men and rhetorical characterizations (eg "wildly speculative"). Denying the rational basis for doubt only emphasizes the absence of rational thought involved in your position.

This would be true, unless, as it is in this case, the basis for doubt isn't rational at all. I certainly wouldn't expect one of the atheists here to point it out.

Quote:

What can I say to such blatant foolishness? The symbol of the resurrection has no theological significance? It isn't central, it only serves as proof of the central belief of Christianity? :rolling:

It became a symbol much later.

Quote:

What lengths won't the faithful go to in order to retain their belief?

The thing is, the faithful don't need to go to any lengths as can be demonstrated from the ridiculous arguments posted not only here, but about the mythic Jesus in general.

Quote:

If you want an example where a character who wouldn't be of such a nature, then you have Nicodemus, who certainly serves more than just a discussion with Jesus about rebirth; he is part of the Sanhedrin and votes not to execute him, and is present at the burial.

You offer another "secret Sanhedrin disciple" who is only mentioned in one version as support? This remarkable man should also be taken with a grain of salt by any rational reader.

But Nicodemus plays many key roles in Jesus' ministry, and is an example of what you're looking for in Joseph of Arimathea. Yet, all this proves is that Joseph of Arimathea had no important role prior to recovering Jesus' body from the cross.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Baalazel

Quote:

Originally Posted by renassault

It probably wasn't Roman guards but Herodian soldiers/temple guards. I think Richard Carrier makes this point too. But what penalty of death threat would not be enough to make you run away from this? You would think you're receiving the death if you stay anyway and such a supernatural phenomena might be deemed as a much better excuse than staying and presumably dying. The guards apparently went and told the priests soon after this happened, and when the women arrived there at dawn the guards were there. The women did notice the stone was rolled away, they wondered who would roll it away before they noticed that as per the Gospels.

The emphasis above is mine.

None of the four accounts of the resurrection mention the return of the guards. You are wrong about this. The question is still "where were the quards on Sunday morning?"

My mistake. I meant 'weren't there'. The guards were long gone to the chief priests by Sunday morning

renassault · 07-09-2009, 11:25 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Net2004

Quote:

No literature we have really needed to mention it.

i'll use this line and claim that there was no point for matthew to mention that the deciples stole the body, because according to mat, the story was widely known, all the way up to his day. This indicates that the audience was already familiar with such a story so there was no need for mat to mention such a story.

Matthew was talking about Jews who talked about it in Judea. His audience was likely Gentiles and didn't know about it.

bacht · 07-09-2009, 11:45 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Diogenes the Cynic

Quote:

Originally Posted by bacht

Will you steal, murder, commit adultery, swear falsely, burn incense to Ba'al, and go after other gods that you have not known, and then come and stand before me in this house, which is called by my name, and say, `We are delivered!' -- only to go on doing all these abominations?
Has this house, which is called by my name, become a den of robbers in your eyes? Behold, I myself have seen it, says the LORD. [Jeremiah 7.9-11]

Jesus was created from scripture.

The Passion narratives were, but that doesn't mean Jesus was, or that there wasn't a Temple incident. GJohn has an independent account. I think it's entirely possible that Mark went searching through the LXX to find an post hoc explanation for why Jesus went bonkers at the Temple.

Maybe, or maybe Mark used the incident as a plot device to explain the hero's arrest and execution. The epistles speak of the "rulers of this age" being the culprits, the heavenly archons.

The whole NT circus can be explained without assuming a real person at the core, there doesn't seem to be a smoking gun either way.

Diogenes the Cynic · 07-09-2009, 11:46 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by sschlichter

Quote:

Originally Posted by lpetrich

Crucifixion was a Roman punishment, and the Roman authorities often left bodies on crosses as an advertisement of how nobody seriously pisses them off and lives.

So if JC had been crucified, his body would likely have been left on the cross, or else tossed in a common grave.

Think of it -- why would a serious criminal and troublemaker be buried in a TOMB???

Why not leave his body out for the vultures and stray dogs?

because someone of means asked for his body and buried it in a tomb.

This is not a request that would have been granted.

show_no_mercy · 07-09-2009, 12:23 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by renassault

Quote:

Originally Posted by show_no_mercy

Paul's letters tell us that there wasn't just "one" gospel being preached. In battling this other (not just "other", but "ετερος") gospel, Paul claims that his gospel is directly from The Man himself, and not from any human being. As opposed to those other gospels being preached. So Paul most certainly could have changed the Christianity in his churches, just as others changed the Christianity he originally preached in his churches.

The other gospel being preached was the one by the Judaizers. He wasn't talking about other forms of Christianity.

So "Judaizers" aren't Christians? Says who?

I mean, if "Judaizers" aren't Christians, then Marcion must be the truest Christian of them all.

sschlichter · 07-09-2009, 01:02 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Diogenes the Cynic

Quote:

Originally Posted by sschlichter

because someone of means asked for his body and buried it in a tomb.

This is not a request that would have been granted.

So, in trying to convince others of a story that is already stretching to the imagination, the author included this impossible granting of an inconsequential request. Isn't this a little counter-productive? Why can't we assume some sort of motive in the story regardless of what you think the motive is?

or are you suggesting that the immediate audience would not have known that the request would never be granted but you can know this beyond a doubt 2000 years later?

renassault · 07-09-2009, 01:07 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Diogenes the Cynic

Quote:

Originally Posted by sschlichter

because someone of means asked for his body and buried it in a tomb.

This is not a request that would have been granted.

As the ossuary of a crucified Jew shows, that's not true.

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

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.