Freethought & Rationalism Archive

LogicandReason · 02-27-2009, 11:13 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by arnoldo

Quote:

Originally Posted by LogicandReason

Romans 1:3 reflects a 'Christology' which taught that the intentional object has at one time (ambiguous) been born and descended from David, This tautology never references the Gospel details or biography. This is because the Gospels develop later, from oral tradition. Historical anchors, like Pilate, Herod and John the Baptist attach to these oral traditions to create a time period unknown to Paul.

If Paul thought that Jesus was a man from Galilee, recently crucified by the Roman authorities, he would never have written Romans 13. Paul never mentions Jesus of Nazareth or death in Jerusalem.

Paul tells you where he gets his myth: Gal 1:11-12. It is all revelation.

Columbia University philosopher John H. Randall Jr., in his book Hellenistic Ways of Deliverance (or via: amazon.co.uk), suggests, “Christianity, in the hands of Saul of Tarsus, the real formulator of Christian theology, and certain other early Christians, notably the author of the Fourth Gospel, became one such incarnation and mystery cult among many other competitors. It became the Jewish rival of the cults of Isis, of the Great Mother (Cybele), of Mithras, and many Gnostic sects. (Pg 105)

Poor choice of wording on my part...when I used 'Savior' versus gods. The dying/rising (imitating the nature cycle) gods didn't claim to be either the Son of God or to have died for mankind's redemption...those ideas were exclusively Christian (to my knowledge). Philo's 'Logos' or 'Word' has similar cosmology and epistemology to the early Christian beliefs and he is quite known for his midrash of Judaism and Plato.

I'm not saying that Jesus is dependent on dying/rising gods, but I agree with Doherty and G.A. Wells that this was part of the antecedent for this sectarian version of Judaism.

DO YOU BELIEVE THAT JESUS WAS BORN OF A VIRGIN?

No, it's an extaordinary event for which cannot draw an analogy from our experience as Hume describes in the following:

Quote:

Hume (Enquiries, p. 128) gives the following example of an extraordinary event that he thinks could be rendered credible on the basis of testimony.

...suppose, all authors, in all languages, agree, that from the first day of January 1600, there was a total darkness over the whole earth for eight days, suppose that the tradition of this extraordinary event is still strong and lively among the people: that all travelers, who return from foreign countries, bring us accounts of the same tradition, without the least variation or contradiction: it is evident, that our present philosophers, instead of doubting the fact, ought to receive it as certain, and ought to search for the causes whence it might be derived. The decay, corruption, and dissolution of nature, is an event rendered probable by so many analogies, that any phenomenon, which seems to have a tendency towards that catastrophe comes within the reach of human testimony, if that testimony be very extensive and uniform.

In this case not only is the testimony to the alleged event very extensive and uniform, but Hume also thinks it necessary that our past experience does not render the event completely unlikely. He argues that the eight day darkness can be “rendered probable by so many analogies,” assuming it is testified to extensively and uniformly. In such a case Hume assumes that the event is natural and that “we ought to search for the causes.” Hume compares this with another imaginary case (Enquiries, p. 128).

...suppose, that all historians who treat of England, should agree, that, on the first of January 1600, Queen Elizabeth died...and that, after being interred a month, she again appeared, resumed the throne, and governed England for three years: I must confess that I should be surprised at the concurrence of so many odd circumstances, but should not have the least inclination to believe so miraculous event.

Since both events are assumed to be equally well testified to, the reason that Hume thinks the former can be judged credible but not the latter is that in the former case the “event is rendered probable by so many analogies.” One can object and say that this appears to be nothing more than a subjective judgement on the part of Hume. His experience suggests analogies for the former type of event but not the latter. The eight day darkness “sufficiently resembles” events that Hume has experienced, or believes in on the basis of experience, to warrant belief in the eight day darkness given that the event is extraordinarily well attested to. In the latter case Hume can find no analogies to draw upon from experience.
http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/miracles/

Because the epistemology of said myth is 'a priori,' not 'a posteriori.'

arnoldo · 02-27-2009, 12:08 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by LogicandReason

Quote:

Originally Posted by GakuseiDon

1. Paul describes Christ as earthly, in the flesh, which means not spiritual (at least while he was in the flesh).

Romans 1:3 reflects a 'Christology' which taught that the intentional object has at one time (ambiguous) been born and descended from David, This tautology never references the Gospel details or biography. This is because the Gospels develop later, from oral tradition. Historical anchors, like Pilate, Herod and John the Baptist attach to these oral traditions to create a time period unknown to Paul.

If Paul thought that Jesus was a man from Galilee, recently crucified by the Roman authorities, he would never have written Romans 13. Paul never mentions Jesus of Nazareth or death in Jerusalem.

Paul tells you where he gets his myth: Gal 1:11-12. It is all revelation. . . .

So did Paul also have the following revelations to get his "myth"?

Quote:

The Non - Silence of Paul

The whole idea that Jesus did not exist started with the fact that Paul does not say very much about his life or ministry. It is instructive to first find out what he did say so here is a list. You can read the relevent snippet biblical text by holding your mouse over the red scripture references.

Jesus was born in human fashion, as a Jew, and had a ministry to the Jews. (Galations 4:4)
Jesus was referred to as "Son of God". (1 Cor. 1:9)
Jesus was a direct descendent of King David. (Romans 1:3)
Jesus prayed to God using the term "abba". (Galations 4:6)
Jesus expressly forbid divorce. (1 Cor. 7:10)
Jesus taught that "preachers" should be paid for their preaching. (1 Cor. 9:14)
Jesus taught about the end-time. (1 Thess. 4:15)
Paul refers to Peter by the name Cephas (rock), which was the name Jesus gave to him. (1 Cor. 3:22)
Jesus had a brother named James. (Galations 1:19)
Jesus initiated the Lord's supper and referred to the bread and the cup. (1 Cor. 11:23-25)
Jesus was betrayed on the night of the Lord's Supper. (1 Cor. 11:23-25)
Jesus' death was related to the Passover Celebration. (1 Cor. 5:7)
The death of Jesus was at the hands of earthly rulers. (1 Cor. 2:8)
Jesus underwent abuse and humiliation. (Romans 15:3)
Jewish authorities were involved with Jesus' death. (1 Thess. 2:14-16)
Jesus died by crucifixion. (2 Cor. 13:4 et al)
Jesus was physically buried. (1 Cor. 15:4)

http://www.bede.org.uk/jesusmyth.htm

Roger Pearse · 02-27-2009, 12:27 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by LogicandReason

It doesn't. What part of interpolation did you misunderstand? You've not read Josephus have you?

I hope this isn't a statement that the references to Jesus in Josephus are interpolations. We've been through this before in this forum.

All the best,

Roger Pearse

aa5874 · 02-27-2009, 12:48 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by arnoldo

Quote:

Originally Posted by aa5874

. . .

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

So you consider the following text "rumours"?

Quote:

The papyrus is written on both sides. The characters in bold style are the ones that can be seen in Papyrus 52.

Gospel of John 18:31-33 (recto)

ΕΙΠΟΝ ΑΥΤΩ ΟΙ ΙΟΥΔΑΙΟΙ ΗΜΙΝ ΟΥΚ ΕΞΕΣΤΙΝ
ΑΠΟΚΤΕΙΝΑΙ OYΔΕΝΑ ΙΝΑ Ο ΛΟΓΟΣ ΤΟΥ ΙΗΣΟΥ
ΠΛΗΡΩΘΗ ΟΝ ΕΙΠΕΝ ΣΕΜΑΙΝΩΝ ΠΟΙΩ ΘΑΝΑΤΩ
ΗΜΕΛΛΕΝ ΑΠΟΘΝΕΣΚΕΙΝ ΕΙΣΗΛΘΕΝ ΟΥΝ ΠΑΛΙΝ
ΕΙΣ ΤΟ ΠΡΑΙΤΩΡΙΟΝ Ο ΠΙΛΑΤΟΣ ΚΑΙ ΕΦΩΝΗΣΕΝ
ΤΟΝ ΙΗΣΟΥΝ ΚΑΙ ΕΙΠΕΝ ΑΥΤΩ ΣΥ ΕΙ ΒΑΣΙΛΕΥΣ
ΤΩΝ ΙΟΥΔΑΙΩN

... said to him the Jews, "To us it is lawful to kill no one," so that the word of Jesus might be fulfilled, which he said signifying by what sort of death he was about to die. He entered again into the Praetorium Pilate and called Jesus and said to him, "Are you king of the Jews? ...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rylands...ry_Papyrus_P52

Is it your view that a rumor cannot be written?

Now, please give the proposed dating of papyrus 52.

Sheshbazzar · 02-27-2009, 12:54 PM

Wouldn't matter if it was actually written in 38 CE, it would still be only a mythical third-person narrative story.

show_no_mercy · 02-27-2009, 01:22 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by arnoldo

Quote:

Originally Posted by aa5874

. . .

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

So you consider the following text "rumours"?http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rylands...ry_Papyrus_P52

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.

Roger Pearse · 02-27-2009, 01:41 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by show_no_mercy

Quote:

Originally Posted by arnoldo

So you consider the following text "rumours"?http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rylands...ry_Papyrus_P52

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. A papyrus fragment of an physical copy of an account of him, the fragment dating from less than a century after he died, is produced. The inference -- not stated -- is that anyone arguing that people of that period did not believe in the man Jesus has got to live with physical evidence of an account from the period which states clearly that he existed. This isn't a very direct argument, and not ideal because insinuated rather than laid out, but it certainly does constrain the mythicist argument somewhat, although in an unstated way.

The response is that if the age of a text -- not the physical copy, but referring to the original date of composition -- is proof of historicity, then anyone advancing this argument (which no-one did) must become a Hindu or Buddhist.

Um. I can only imagine that the latter response was a stock response, uttered without considering what the argument being made was, as it doesn't relate to it at all, and involves constructing a strawman argument that I have never heard made in order to argue for a conclusion that the author doesn't hold.

Is this thread of any real value to anyone any more?

All the best,

Roger Pearse

LogicandReason · 02-27-2009, 04:15 PM

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. A papyrus fragment of an physical copy of an account of him, the fragment dating from less than a century after he died, is produced.

Meaning only that the author believed what he wrote was truth; proving nothing. Many wrote about Zeus.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Roger Pearse

The inference -- not stated -- is that anyone arguing that people of that period did not believe in the man Jesus has got to live with physical evidence of an account from the period which states clearly that he existed.

If this were so we would not be having this debate. But as John 3:16 states, the key to salvation is belief. The inference is that John had no solid proof. Belief in a real person would not be such a task...why so much emphasis on belief then in the 3rd chapter of John?

Quote:

Originally Posted by Roger Pearse

Um. I can only imagine that the latter response was a stock response, uttered without considering what the argument being made was, as it doesn't relate to it at all, and involves constructing a strawman argument that I have never heard made in order to argue for a conclusion that the author doesn't hold.

Were you sipping the cough medicine when you constructed the above 'statement?'

Quote:

Originally Posted by Roger Pearse

Is this thread of any real value to anyone any more?

This 'thread' defines you Roger...it gives you meaning. You've dedicated much time defending metaphysical events that were 'reported' when people thought sickness was brought on by 'sin' (opps...you might still hold that opinion). The people who wrote about these legends you champion were completely ignorant as to microbiology, most physics, and cosmology...they feared death and wrote tales to feel better about themselves. It's amazing they still have vestiges, like yourself, that can share their 'vision.' This 'thread' will be your motivator forever Roger as the 'truth' about the mythical aspects of the NT will eventually fade away. See Norway and Sweden and see the future of the world...

Quote:

Originally Posted by Roger Pearse

All the best,

Roger Pearse

I must say I always enjoy your English charm.

Sheshbazzar · 02-27-2009, 05:06 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by LogicandReason

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. A papyrus fragment of an physical copy of an account of him, the fragment dating from less than a century after he died, is produced.

Meaning only that the author believed what he wrote was truth; proving nothing. Many wrote about Zeus.

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?
The author(s) might have believed that the story they were setting down on paper was true in a general way, but would have had to be insane to believe that their every word was exactly what was said, and exactly how events happened.

9-1-1 was a true event, but who could write a third person narrative about it today, complete with accurately recounted conversations between those persons who died there? Even the survivors only remember snippets of what they experienced that day. A third person narrative produced today would need to be very creative, barring the use of a working time machine.
And that was only one days events, whereas "John" purportedly gives exact accounts of conversations, and even simple acts like walking from one village to another, spread over years of time.
The story, to be true to the degree that Christianity claims, needs its very composition to have been facilitated by means of miraculous intervention.

arnoldo · 02-27-2009, 06:07 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sheshbazzar

Quote:

Originally Posted by LogicandReason

Meaning only that the author believed what he wrote was truth; proving nothing. Many wrote about Zeus.

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.

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

02-27-2009, 12:54 PM	#275
Sheshbazzar Veteran Member Join Date: Sep 2003 Location: On the path of knowledge Posts: 8,889	Wouldn't matter if it was actually written in 38 CE, it would still be only a mythical third-person narrative story.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.