Freethought & Rationalism Archive

aa5874 · 09-19-2010, 11:38 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by gurugeorge

Quote:

Originally Posted by GakuseiDon

Yes, I realise that Acharya S is the black sheep of the mythicist family, But black sheep are the family's problem. I tell you what, split of the comments in this thread about Acharya, and I will continue this in that thread. I'm sure there is much more admiration for Acharya amongst mythicists than you suspect.

But you've been here long enough to know that there's not much here.

OTOH, she's not all bad. It's always worth having people like her around (and people here like mountainman and aa5874) because it's generally good to have extreme positions staked out and defended so that we have a clear view of the total field of possibility....

Again, why are you always making mis-leading statements about me.

I detest such.

A person who has produced supporting evidence for his position that the MJ theory is FAR SUPERIOR to HJ CANNOT be extreme.

Is it NOT your position that Jesus was a MYTH? What is extreme about your position? Nothing.

I have the very same position.

Please state EXACTLY what is extreme about showing the written statements from antiquity that depict Jesus as the offspring of the Holy Ghost, the Creator of heaven and EARTH, walking on water, transfiguring, resurrecting and ascending through clouds?

The EXTREMIST are HJers who claim JESUS was a MAN, but was the OFFSPRING of the Holy Ghost, RAISED from the dead, ascended to HEAVEN and can REMIT the sins of ALL Mankind WITHOUT ONE single piece of corroborative external evidence or written statement from antiquity.

You know the extremists. They support a Supernatural /Mythological Jesus yet claim that Jesus was figure of history who was RAISED from the dead.

Please EXPOSE the real extremists. They say Jesus was an actual God and also an actual man.

Quote:

Originally Posted by gurugeorge

..Also, Price says she's cleaned up her academic act somewhat - and that's a good enough recommendation for me not to reject her totally (I may get round to reading her latest books at some time)...

Now, whether one agrees with the opinion of a writer has very little bearing on the fact that the statement in gMatthew 2.23 CANNOT be confirmed when Hebrew Scripture is examined.

There are NO prophets and NOT even a single prophet in Hebrew Scripture who mentioned the CITY of Nazareth. ZERO.

Ferryman to the Dead · 09-19-2010, 12:22 PM

Its no secret that the NT writers drew most of their knowledge and writing from the OT and in most cases they expounded upon the OT authors comments in order to hype the Christian God man. Its like, say, decorating a Christmas tree, the more ornaments you add the more the tree comes to life same with the Jesus story. The more descriptive references they could tag on the Christian God man the more real he became.

The Judges reference and the Matt reference are just one of many. Which makes the statement that they wrote what they imagined and not what they saw even more damning.

Chili · 09-19-2010, 08:45 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sheshbazzar

See how simple and logical all of it is when explained.

. . . well that is what Nazareth is all about and it has city status only because it is the home of Mary that contains the dowry of Joseph, here in the particular and in the universal contains our dowry as well since 'the woman' in every Jew is from Nazareth, who so becomes a Nazarite by nature to get to know the depth width and breadth of the Lord his God.

In the end it means that eternal life belongs to the mythology in the transformation of Jerusalem (or Rome for NT people).

spin · 09-20-2010, 02:21 AM

I guess Juststeve has departed the scene, finding he had nothing more to say in this thread.

What do we do when the next person comes along trying to peddle the same old same old reheats?

spin

avi · 09-20-2010, 05:10 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by spin

What do we do when the next person comes along trying to peddle the same old same old reheats?

Yes, you are right of course, however, there is a silver lining to this dreary, and repetitive, thread:

The return of Sheshbazaar to the forum!
hurrah.

His worth is approximately equal, I would argue, to 10,000 (silver talents?) dreary, repetitive threads....

avi

dizzy · 09-20-2010, 05:22 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by spin

I guess Juststeve has departed the scene, finding he had nothing more to say in this thread.

That's just what he wants you to think. When you least expect it he'll jump from the shadows and correct your spelling. Then who will be laughing?

Sheshbazzar · 09-20-2010, 06:04 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by avi

Quote:

Originally Posted by spin

What do we do when the next person comes along trying to peddle the same old same old reheats?

Yes, you are right of course, however, there is a silver lining to this dreary, and repetitive, thread:

The return of Sheshbazaar to the forum!
hurrah.

His worth is approximately equal, I would argue, to 10,000 (silver talents?) dreary, repetitive threads....

avi

Golly gee! I am blushing here avi :blush:
I have been absent due to a heavy travel and work schedule, and will not be able to participate with any regularity for at least a couple of more weeks.

Shesh

Chili · 09-20-2010, 06:33 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Chili

Quote:

Originally Posted by GakuseiDon

Fair enough, though I was referring to "Old Testament's so-called 'prophecies' about Jesus" which I wrote and you responded to back on page 4.

Well then, as per the OP: where do you think the 'Nazareth' came from in the 'Jesus of Nazareth' in the Gospels? Or references connecting Jesus to Capernaum or Galilee?

Nazareth is the little 'city of God' inside the mind of a Jew out of which the inner child is to be born. In the Gospels this Jew was Joseph and the woman was called Mary who was from this 'big little city' of God.

Capernaum was the comfort zone of the ego identity unto which this child was born that so created the conflict in the mind Joseph [here], now in Galilee as the place where this liberation movement takes place and is thus what the Gospels are all about. It so is where religion is purported to find its own end in our journey to Jerusalem-on-high in Israel, which for Catholics is Rome in the Church Triumphant.

. . . and for clarification let me add that Galilee is the Church Suffering and prior to that it is called the Church Militant which so is also prior to the Gospels. Hence, no bibles for Catholics with at best a Cathechism for safe keeping and perhaps to keep the wolves away.

Doug Shaver · 09-20-2010, 07:08 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by GakuseiDon

Well then, as per the OP: where do you think the 'Nazareth' came from in the 'Jesus of Nazareth' in the Gospels? Or references connecting Jesus to Capernaum or Galilee?

I haven't done the research it would take to form a solid opinion, but the notion that it arose out of some confusion with "Nazarite" or something like it looks mighty plausible to me.

I just don't worry about it. Out of all the things the gospel authors say about Jesus, their claim that he grew up in Nazareth strikes me as among the least problematic. Skeptics who make a big deal of it are, in my judgment, seriously wasting their time -- especially if they think it's an argument against his historicity. On that issue, Nazareth is absolutely a non-starter as far as I'm concerned.

spamandham · 09-20-2010, 07:38 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Doug Shaver

Nope. Here's how it works, using for an example the bit about Judas getting 30 pieces of silver for betraying Jesus.

On the historicist assumption, the author of Matthew's gospel thinks Judas really betrayed Jesus and really got 30 pieces of silver for doing so. He scrounges through the scriptures for something that can be construed as a prophecy of that event. He finds it in Zechariah (but misattributes it to Jeremiah, presumably because he didn't always have the scriptures right at hand and was working from memory at that moment).

On the mythicist assumption, Matthew started out by scrounging the scriptures for ideas of what to include in his fictional account of a misunderstood messiah. He thinks he remembers reading something in Jeremiah (though it was actually Zechariah) about somebody being thought worth 30 pieces of silver and the money going for something having something to do with a potter's field, and he thinks to himself, "OK, that could be interpreted as a prophecy, and if Judas does such-and-such, that will fulfill the prophecy."

Can we agree that it's very unlikely Judas really betrayed Jesus and received 30 pieces of silver for doing so?

If we agree that aspect of the story is purely literary, then why 30 pieces of silver? It isn't that someone scoured the Jewish scriptures looking for 30 pieces of silver to match a story he was familiar with, it's that 30 pieces of silver was already a well known theme at the time, and so it was worked into the gospel story.

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

09-19-2010, 12:22 PM	#172
Ferryman to the Dead Junior Member Join Date: Sep 2010 Location: Southern US Posts: 51	Its no secret that the NT writers drew most of their knowledge and writing from the OT and in most cases they expounded upon the OT authors comments in order to hype the Christian God man. Its like, say, decorating a Christmas tree, the more ornaments you add the more the tree comes to life same with the Jesus story. The more descriptive references they could tag on the Christian God man the more real he became. The Judges reference and the Matt reference are just one of many. Which makes the statement that they wrote what they imagined and not what they saw even more damning.

09-20-2010, 02:21 AM	#174
spin Contributor Join Date: Mar 2002 Location: nowhere Posts: 15,747	I guess Juststeve has departed the scene, finding he had nothing more to say in this thread. What do we do when the next person comes along trying to peddle the same old same old reheats? spin

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.