Freethought & Rationalism Archive

darstec · 05-26-2007, 03:19 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Zeichman

Burton Mack, iirc, is non-religious, and I think I remember reading that Fredriksen was Jewish, though I could be wrong. William Arnal is an atheist.

Fredriksen was a Roman Catholic who converted to Judaism. She brings all the Christian baggage with her. Burton Mack is Christian , more aptly a Presbyterian minister. He thus carries the Christian baggage with him. And Vermes was a Catholic priest. And thus also carries a lot of Christian baggage with him.

jjramsey · 05-26-2007, 06:02 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by darstec

Christian simply means oiled one, and even oiled thing. Do a word search and you will find the word christos applied to more than just the Joshua character.

As Peter Kirby wrote a while back:

Quote:

The simple fact is, there is no good evidence that anyone, anywhere was ever referred to as "Christ," with the exception of course of Jesus himself. One searches the extant Jewish literature in vain to find some example of a messianic pretender who had actually been called "Christ" by anyone. Jesus was unique in being called "Christ," and so it is not surprising that this term is only used when identifying Jesus.

Doug Shaver · 05-26-2007, 07:01 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by gurugeorge

you still have the problem that most Christians today believe in in the divine God-man.

That doesn't mean there can't be a minority of Christians who believe otherwise. And it doesn't mean that we non-Christians have any good reason to say that the minority are not really Christians.

Amaleq13 · 05-26-2007, 08:27 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Zeichman

Burton Mack has varied from accepting the historicity of the crucifixion to agnostic about its authenticity. I doubt that anyone else considered "mainstream" would place it in doubt.

Is he the one who has suggested Paul introduced the idea? I knew there was a scholar making that claim but I couldn't recall the name.

Does a single voice from the "mainstream" really constitute dispute? Not IMO.

Clouseau · 05-26-2007, 09:19 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Doug Shaver

That doesn't mean there can't be a minority of Christians who believe otherwise. And it doesn't mean that we non-Christians have any good reason to say that the minority are not really Christians.

Isn't that perhaps deciding on the truth by label, rather than actuality? The Christian position from the Protestant pov is that unless Jesus was both perfect God and susceptible, vulnerable man, mankind cannot be saved. It is the belief that people are saved by the perfection of Christ that distinguishes Protestantism from all other beliefs, which are either than man saves himself, or that he does not need saving. It is this particular belief that brought and brings Protestants into conflict with all others, sometimes with violence, so it surely does not do to ignore it.

Biff the unclean · 05-26-2007, 04:16 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jjramsey

Peter Kirby[/URL] wrote a while back:

Peter seems to have missed the demigod Christna (spelling changed in the late 1800's to Krishna) who had a healthy sized following in Rome during the time of Jesus. The Greeks had picked up Christna (the anointed one) during Alexander's invasion of the East. The leader of them in Rome was called Apollonius of Tyana.

darstec · 05-26-2007, 04:17 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jjramsey

As Peter Kirby wrote a while back:

Kirby is wrong. But I forgive him as he is only a neophyte college kid. I doubt he ever tried an actual word search for Christos, but instead took somebody else's word for it. Otherwise even a casual glance would show Daniel 9:25 and 9:26 refer to a Christos, not to mention over 10 other times in the Old Testament. And that does not even count the two references in Acts that do not refer to Jesus.

wordy · 05-27-2007, 05:14 AM

I have not read the whole thread so if you already have addressed this guy I apology.

Quote:

IN his recent book, Joseph Atwill's "Caesar's Messiah" (Uylesses Press 2005), a rather well researched and persuasive case is made that the origins of the jesus myth arose during the Flavian dynasty, based loosely on the military exploits of Titus over the Judean Maccabeans, in conjunction with the improbable "court historian" Flavius Josephus. This former jewish resistance leader cum adopted Roman, actually prophesied Vespasian's ascent to rule as Emperor. Titus (39-81CE) was sent "by the father", Vespasian (whose other son was Domitian), to establish control in the region, after Vespasian's return from the campaign to Rome to succeed Nero as Emperor (69-79CE). They were instrumental in crushing the very costly "Great Jewish revolt", destroying their temple (70CE)... finally ending at Masada (66-73 CE).

THE myth of a peace-loving messiah was concocted as post-war propaganda ("Evangelion" meaning the "good news of military victory", or "gospel" in English) to prevent further uprisings of violence-prone jews, and usurp the messianic passions of their Torah. Josephus' "War of the Jews" (written at the time of the gospels), provided the quasi-historical context for the interwoven narrative of the gospels, which Atwell contends was largely written by Flavian Dynasty intellectuals during 69-96CE... which is exactly the time most scholars agree they were written. The "Flavian New Testatment" was crafted so that not only was Caesar's authority respected, Roman centurions characterized as "devout" and "righteous" (Acts 10: 2,22), and as having "such great faith even [beyond that which jesus found] in Israel "(Lk7:9), and that subjugation to authority and paying tribute was condoned (Romans 13: 2-6)... but the new teachings were conveniently led by an utterly pacifist "turn the other cheek" messiah, whose "kingdom" was "not of this earth".

I got it from here. "Did Jesus even Existed" and one of the participants gave his view referring to that book above.
http://community.discovery.com/eve/f...2181954478/p/2

poste 03-06-07 by spin-no-za is that March 06 2007?

I find that view rather convincing.

Doug Shaver · 05-27-2007, 07:08 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Clouseau

Isn't that perhaps deciding on the truth by label, rather than actuality?

No. It is just a denial of essentialism.

aa5874 · 05-27-2007, 07:53 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by gurugeorge

The only scholarly consensus is that there was a guy named Jesus (or something else) who inspired the Christian church. There is no scholarly consensus that it makes any difference at all whether you believe that this person existed or not.
There is also no scholarly consensus about what the guy named Jesus said or what he wanted you to do.[/i]

But how was this scholarly census derived? What historical facts were used to compile such a figure? It makes no sense to me to claim that Jesus was not a god-man but declare him a man by guess work. I need to see the factual basis for the so-called conensus.

I have read thousands of posts and have read writings from contemporary historians and have found nothing to support an historical Jesus.

It should be noted that all findings, factual or not, or hypotheses, valid or not, will be held by the minority until accepted by 'mainsteam', the majority. And, that the words 'mainsteam' or 'scholarly majority' really amounts to very little, without any factual basis for their position.

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

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.