Freethought & Rationalism Archive

aa5874 · 03-23-2007, 10:13 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by spamandham

Perhaps I'm just foolish to think I can take the summarized results of the extensive effort the historians and archaeologists have produced, and draw my own conclusions from it. :huh:

But isn't that what happens in real life situations? I have been a juror in criminal cases, I had to listen to all the 'experts' and witnesses and then made my decision on what is presented. I should not make a decision on what is possible or plausible but on the information that has been laid out in the case.

So it is with my decision on the non-historicity of Jesus the Christ, the NT, as written or presented, is clearly fictional, on the other hand, there is no credible extra-biblical corroboration of Jesus the Christ in the first century. I must uphold the non-HJ position until further evidence is unearthed.

Johann_Kaspar · 03-24-2007, 10:30 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by aa5874

there is no credible extra-biblical corroboration of Jesus the Christ in the first century.

And quite wrong. You are very stubborn. I told you that there is one to consider. Obviously you refuse to see it. Maybe it is more confortable for you to live with you wrong certitudes...

aa5874 · 03-24-2007, 11:07 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Johann_Kaspar

And quite wrong. You are very stubborn. I told you that there is one to consider. Obviously you refuse to see it. Maybe it is more confortable for you to live with you wrong certitudes...

Just post your extra-biblical information about Jesus the Christ so everyone can see it. What have you got?

spamandham · 03-24-2007, 07:05 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by aa5874

Just post your extra-biblical information about Jesus the Christ so everyone can see it. What have you got?

My guess is you're looking for something both credible and of evidentiary nature. So if, for exmample, he pulls out Josephus, in his mind that probably satisfies your demand since it is 1st century corroboration. I'm guessing that in your mind it won't, because even if the paragraph in question were ligitimate, it would be compatible with the Jesus-as-fiction premise, and so it doesn't help us. It isn't even necessary to go into how much of that paragraph, if any, is authentic.

jakejonesiv · 03-25-2007, 02:25 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by spamandham

...and it's still missing!

For those of us who discount the resurrection as obvious bullshit, where is the body? Is it really reasonable that it could have been lost to time, when Jesus was supposedly this charismatic cult figure with several followers, and the cult has been continuous ever since? You mean, the followers just didn't care and didn't bother to visit the tomb? Why is his childhood home unknown as well, by the same reasoning. Why does he have no writings, or personal artifacts that anyone knew about in early writings.

Some possible resolutions to this:

- his body was burned at Gehhena as was common for traitors, and his delusional followers (a small group rather than the BS multitudes the gospels claim) invented the whole burial and resurrection story to explain away the missing body. The same thing happened to his family members and his disciples. That's why no-one knows where any of these bodies are. Plus, the Romans gathered up everything that people might consider a relic and bulldozed his home. now if the James ossuary proves authentic...well that would be interesting indeed!

- he had only a few followers, and the movement only became big long after they were dead. Several charlatans began hocking multiple grave sites, and since no-one could tell which one was real, they forgot about all of them. The same thing happened with his childhood home and the bodies of his relatives and his disciples and all his personal belongings that might be considered relics.

- there was no HJ, or if there is a historical prototype for Jesus, he lived much earlier and was not the charismatic cult figure crucified by Pilate as is generally agreed.

According to Joe Atwill, the women got lost in the dark and went to Lazarus' tomb by mistake, finding the grave clothes of Lazarus.

Jake Jones IV

aa5874 · 03-25-2007, 10:21 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jakejonesiv

According to Joe Atwill, the women got lost in the dark and went to Lazarus' tomb by mistake, finding the grave clothes of Lazarus.

Jake Jones IV

Why would women go back to a sealed tomb under guard when they had no idea that Jesus would have resurrected himself?

The body was already buried, as the manner of the Jews is to bury, (John 19:40) and, 'For as yet they knew not the scripture, that he must rise again from the dead".( John 20:9)

Did the women just happened to be at the right place at the right time, or is it that the 'dead', perhaps according to Jewish folklore, only rise at dawn?

Johann_Kaspar · 03-25-2007, 02:42 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by aa5874

Just post your extra-biblical information about Jesus the Christ so everyone can see it. What have you got?

Unable to do your homeworks

What can I do if you refuse to consider the reference I gave you? Someone doing such a claim should have looked BY HIMSELF at all the available texts. You failed. Too bad. It is not serious at all.

And as you can't understand French...

Johann_Kaspar · 03-25-2007, 02:48 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by aa5874

Jesus the Christ

And why do you use this xian Greek denomination? xians never undertood the meaning of the gospel and never will be... Why are you walking in their very steps only to take the opposite (this is true versus this is not true)

It seems that it is difficult for some people to get rid of this xian mentality.

aa5874 · 03-25-2007, 03:12 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Johann_Kaspar

Unable to do your homeworks

What can I do if you refuse to consider the reference I gave you? Someone doing such a claim should have looked BY HIMSELF at all the available texts. You failed. Too bad. It is not serious at all.

And as you can't understand French...

Just post your extra-biblical information about Jesus the Christ, in any language. There may be people on this forum that can translate to English.
Je ne comprends pas votre probleme.

J-D · 03-25-2007, 06:15 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by spamandham

When attempting to reconstruct ancient people/events from scant or credulous records, H3 is always the proper position. We are arguing what is more parsimonious, not what has been proved. The level of certainy we can hope to achieve will doubtfully ever rise to the level of "proved" or "disproved". So, it seems we both agree H3 is the right position out of these three options.

I've been thinking this over, and I think you've misunderstood the point.

If H were the statement: 'It is possible to extract reliable historical information about a historical Saint Nicholas from The Night Before Christmas', then H3 ('The truth or falsehood of H is an open question') would not be the proper position. The proper position would be H2: 'H has been proved false (disproved/refuted).' We know that it is impossible to extract reliable historical information about a historical Saint Nicholas from The Night before Christmas. So there are cases where H2 is the proper position. However, I have seen no convincing argument that H2 is the proper position when H is the statement: 'It is possible to extract reliable historical information about a historical Jesus from the Gospel accounts.' You certainly haven't produced one. It may be that the Gospel accounts are in the same category (in this sense) as The Night Before Christmas, but no demonstration of this has been provided.

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

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.