The Dagda

Sorry about Jesus.

Apolgists are funny let's face it, their creationist lite.

Steven Carr

You could look at Josephus Antiquities and then at Luke/Acts and see just how much the anonymous author of Luke/Acts seemed to use from Josephus, despite his deliberate policy of concealing and covering up his sources from his readers.

neilgodfrey

Yup, and the posters who make a flourish of "good attitudes" get the thumbs up while those who reply matter of factly without the flourish are candidates for being deemed negative in some sense (and "bad attitudes" have been imputed in some such cases.) At least that is the case from page 5 on. Or is it a question of ignoring or delaying anyone who strikes at the unexamined fundamental assumptions underlying the approach to sources?

The pattern is becoming clear the longer this thread lasts.

Neil

GakuseiDon

You wrote "But we know ancients did think it [the Jesus story] was a myth." There is not one line in any extant literature that suggests that anyone thought the Jesus story was a myth. So how on earth can your comment be correct?

I fail to see the relevance to your statement "But we know ancients did think it was a myth." What are you arguing, exactly?

ercatli

No, I'm happy to call it quits. I just felt like I was being examined without understanding what viewpoint you were coming from.

I am answering so many people, that I tend to forget who said what back a few posts. But I think I recall that you were expressing a fair bit of scepticism about knowing anything from history, or at least NT history. I think scepticism is an easy view to hold about what someone else believes, but harder to maintain consistently, so I thought it fair to see what you believe.

bacht

Uh huh. And all the believers over the last two millenia are now in heaven or waiting for resurrection, while God plans the final destruction of heaven and earth? This is a rational set of beliefs?

There is not now nor has there ever been evidence for the supernatural. There is not now nor has there ever been proof for life after death. These are things that people want to be true, but that doesn't make them true.

I'm not citing chapter and verse with you because 1) I'm not an expert 2) you don't seem to acknowledge those here who are 3) these topics have been discussed extensively on this forum, all you have to do is search.

Keep in mind that a lot of us were true believers at one time. We know the teachings, we know the church experience, we're not speaking about alien things. "Born again" Christianity was central in my life as a young man and I was quite serious about it. Leaving all that behind was sad but necessary.

My advice would be to read the wisdom books like Proverbs and Ecclesiastes, these are actually useful for navigating life in this world. The world to come is a long-shot, a gamble based on wishful thinking.

Amaleq13

You give that impression every time you've indulged in hasty generalization to grant historical credibility where there is no actual evidence for it.

And you've "several times" misused their findings by making the logically fallacious argument of hasty generalization from them. Don't try to shift the criticism from your misuse of their work to their work. Evidence that the 7 pools in Bethesda actually existed but had been covered over and, presumably, forgotten by the time our version of John was completed serves only to support an early source for that specific claim. Attempts to extend that conclusion to other, unrelated portions of the story are clearly logically flawed. Repeating those attempts after your error has been pointed out does your credibility no good.


Miracles, by definition, violate the way things normally happen. Claims contrary to the way things normally happen require substantial support to be considered credible. It is entirely reasonable to reject any such claims which lack that supporting evidence.

That is because it is a statement of faith rather than fact.

This continues to be a false claim you simply cannot substantiate. What scholars have actually shown is that it is incredibly difficult to obtain any reliable history from this collection of stories and that very little, if any, of what can be confirmed is directly relevant to the portions Christians consider to be the most theologically significant.

You've really made nothing more clear except your faith since you've continued to make the same fallacious arguments throughout. :huh:

Steven Carr

Galatians 4

Now Hagar stands for Mount Sinai in Arabia and corresponds to the present city of Jerusalem, because she is in slavery with her children. But the Jerusalem that is above is free, and she is our mother.

Why did Paul think there was a Jerusalem above us? Surely everybody knew Jerusalem was on earth.

Hebrews 9

Hebrews 9
When Christ came as high priest of the good things that are already here, he went through the greater and more perfect tabernacle that is not man-made, that is to say, not a part of this creation.

Of course, there is not one extant line that suggests that Jesus was not on Earth.

Merely extant lines claiming Jesus was in a place that was not part of this creation.

'It was necessary, then, for the copies of the heavenly things to be purified with these sacrifices, but the heavenly things themselves with better sacrifices than these.'

How did the blood of Jesus get into Heaven, when everybody knew Jesus blood had been shed on earth?

neilgodfrey

I do not "believe" anything regarding the origins of Christianity. I do not think we have enough evidence or understanding of the evidence we do have to come to a clear solution yet.

The reasons I do not think it is possible to "believe" in a historical Jesus are contained in the questions I posed to you -- and that I have also posed to myself. I know no way of answering them in a way that supports historicity; in many cases they do directly count against historicity.

But you are avoiding these questions, and that is, I think, not being intellectually honest in your handling of the debate. (In the interests of friendliness, as per your title, I do say this in a friendly manner.)

I do not "believe" Jesus began as a mythical character. (I have said several times that my real interest is in explaining the origins of Christianity from the available evidence, whether that points to a "second Adam" or something more nebulous.) Though the arguments against historicity (couched in my questions that you have chosen to avoid) would seem to make that a default position.

Your initial challenge was for us to give you reasons why you should change your beliefs. I have given you questions to consider towards that end, questions that hit at the very foundations of your beliefs, but you have avoided them and appear to be blaming me for not having a coherent alternative hypothesis.

I have told you all I "believe" in posts #165, 210 and 213. Anything else is fluctuating hypotheses and tentative explorations on my part.

This is a disappointing response in a friendly discussion.

Are you sure you are prepared to face the possible initial trauma and unknown future that could result IF, through truly honest enquiry, you really do find reason to change your beliefs?

Neil

ercatli

Just in passing, yes.