Freethought & Rationalism Archive

aeebee50 · 07-03-2011, 07:29 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Yellum Notnef

Quote:

Originally Posted by aeebee50

I was looking for something celestial.

Yes, the Hubble telescope got a picture of Jesus' house. It's a split level ranch with an in-ground swimming pool in the backyard.

Thanks, I love to go swimming.

Yellum Notnef · 07-03-2011, 07:31 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by aeebee50

Quote:

Originally Posted by Yellum Notnef

Yes, the Hubble telescope got a picture of Jesus' house. It's a split level ranch with an in-ground swimming pool in the backyard.

Thanks, I love to go swimming.

There's also the all you can eat ice cream buffet. All you can eat!

aeebee50 · 07-03-2011, 09:04 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Yellum Notnef

Quote:

Originally Posted by aeebee50

Thanks, I love to go swimming.

There's also the all you can eat ice cream buffet. All you can eat!

I hope it is sugar free.

I really do not need a pool to fly through the universe.
http://www.purechristiangraphicdesig...ven-look-like/
It is going to be great. Thanks for making me think of Heaven.:angel:

jgoodguy · 07-03-2011, 10:36 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by PhilosopherJay

Hi Jgoodguy,

The analogy is not dependent on there being historical grounds or beliefs that Zeus built or was responsible for the Altar at Pergamon. Rather it is dependent on there being no historical evidence or a belief in it.

I was trying to make the point that fictional characters in text are not responsible for the text, in the same way that Zeus is not responsible for the temples dedicated to him, although the people who built the temples and the millions of people who made sacrifices near the temples believed it. There were plenty of Zeus scholars in those days who knew everything about Zeus and was sure of his historical existence too.

The Mythological interpolator/s were only the early Christians who connected up earlier text with later texts in ways that made sense to them. They meant to impress the people of their own time. I am sure they were not intending to mislead or trick the people of our time.

I like the idea of the EJ. We may say that this EJ is 2% of the Gospel Jesus and the other 98% is myth. The problem is proving this ephemeral Jesus or proving him necessary for the MJ.

Warmly,

Jay Raskin

I like the EJ too. Lets say the EJ exists and is not necessary for either the Gospel or the Mythical Jesus. I'd compare the EJ to Christianity much like the appendix to a human. Both were involved in the evolution of the larger entity but the original function was lost. Proof of precedence or antecedence is difficult however. My view point is that the most likely was a Jewish guy and a Jewish cult that somehow was used as a starting point or was an attribute of a group that merged into Christianity but lost the Jewishness early on.

I like the vision of hordes of Historical Zeus scholars, but I think the reality was that temples were built to obtain blessings of the Gods rather than an expression of belief. Many were supported by public funds and provided meals and parties? at festivals for the common person. One of the reasons that Christianity won was that the ownership of the Roman Temples just passed from Zeus and company to Christ and company.

Quote:

Originally Posted by jgoodguy

Quote:

Originally Posted by PhilosopherJay

I'm having trouble inserting a picture.
You can just go http://jayraskin.wordpress.com/2011/...l-jesus-found/ if the picture isn't inserted.

This is my representation of the Temple of the Historical Jesus that scholars who believe in an Historical Jesus worship at.

Its four pillars are:

1. Galatians and few references to Jesus in Paul's Epistles.
2. A few sentences in Acts that seem to match Paul's Epistles.
3. A few paragraphs in Justin, Irenaeus, Papias and a few other Church Fathers.
4. the Testimonium Flavianum

If the scholars ever step outside of the temple they will see that 99% of the evidence is for a mythological Jesus and these columns are easily accounted for as the work of early Christians communities. There is no real evidence that somebody named Jesus built the temple. In the same way, there is no evidence that Zeus built the Great Altar at Pergamon, no matter how many people believe it or make money from it.

I unaware of any historical theory that asserts that Zeus built the Great Altar. Kindly provide a reference. Also provide some references to HJers asserting that Jesus went around building temples. Otherwise your analogy sounds defective.

I want to see the plans for the Temple dedicated to the Mythical Interpolator, whose devotees seem to think the MI existed. The MI's alleged exploits sometimes appear to exceed that of the Gospel Jesus in that the MI of ancient time modified text so that future JMers could see the evidence of his works and know the hidden truth while those outside of the MI Gnosticism appeal unschooled and doltish.

The case that HJers seem to argue is that the plain text indicates a belief in a HJ by the early Christians. It may or may not be a leap of faith to an actual HJ, but I see leaps of faith to impeach the plain text by the JMers. In any case, the most likely HJ had apparently no influence on the dominate orthodox Christianity other than his name leaving me to ponder the actual effective difference between the HJ and JM.

Lets call this HJ of little influence, the Ephemeral Jesus. The EJ existed only a short time and at best left only his name to a movement that was based on Greek mystical religion beliefs. I am unsure why a 800 page book would be needed to swat the EJ. A much shorter version comparing and contrasting the Jewish culture and religious beliefs of the EJ's alleged time on earth with the Greek mystical religion beliefs and demonstrating that the orthodox Christianity that morphed into the modern one had no substantial relationship to the EJ would suffice.

Then again I am reading a 1000 page book on the Historical James, brother of Jesus so who can account for tastes in big books. Granted there is a inference that a Historical James had a Historical Jesus as a brother, but to put my JM cousins at ease, I am also reading the Steven Brust Vlad Taltos series to keep my perspective of the difference between fiction and reality.

aa5874 · 07-03-2011, 11:22 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by andrewcriddle

Quote:

Originally Posted by avi

Put another way: Any document presenting supposed eye-witness testimony confirming supernatural conduct by ordinary persons, is by definition not a member of the historical category, but rather, the religious, asking readers of such literature to accept all irrational information contained within the document, on faith. Authors of historical documents neither demand, nor expect, faith from readers of their texts. Therefore, no, Andrew, the gospels cannot be regarded as historical tracts. At best, they represent anecdotal evidence of the mythical character of JC. (anecdotal, because we know nothing about the authorship or dates of publication of the four gospels.)

avi

Hi Avi

In the case of Paul Bunyan the newspaper accounts were not intended to be taken seriously and the tall-stories are an indication of this.

Are you arguing a/ that the miracles in Mark indicate that Mark was not intended to be taken literally ? or b/ that the reported miracles inevitably destroy Mark's credibility as a serious historian ?

If you mean a/ then IMO you are applying modern genre conventions to an ancient text where they do not apply. If you mean b/ then you are rejecting the credibility of a great deal of ancient and medieval history.

Andrew Criddle

You are engaged in a FALSE dichotomy, logical fallacies by implying that by rejecting events in gMark that one is also rejecting "the credibility of a great deal of ancient and medieval history".

You ought to know better than that. You should know that such an implication is highly erroneous and irregular.

The credibility of another ancient writer is NOT directly related to any event about Jesus in gMark.

The credibility of gMark is a separate and independent inquiry.

The rejection of any event in Plutarch's "Romulus" cannot alter the credibility of Suetonius' "Lives of the Twelve Caesars".

You should know that the credibility of an ancient writer can be confirmed by artifacts, historical sites and archaeological findings.

The credibility of any ancient writer requires a separate and independent inquiry and the results cannot be transferred to another ancient writer.

johnnyv · 07-03-2011, 12:44 PM

I don't get this. That image is a drawing. I can draw a picture which would support the flying spaghetti monster theory, but it still wouldn't prove anything, or provide anything of value. The drawing and the source web-page is entirely devoid of any useful information.

jgoodguy · 07-03-2011, 01:18 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by andrewcriddle

Quote:

Originally Posted by avi

Put another way: Any document presenting supposed eye-witness testimony confirming supernatural conduct by ordinary persons, is by definition not a member of the historical category, but rather, the religious, asking readers of such literature to accept all irrational information contained within the document, on faith. Authors of historical documents neither demand, nor expect, faith from readers of their texts. Therefore, no, Andrew, the gospels cannot be regarded as historical tracts. At best, they represent anecdotal evidence of the mythical character of JC. (anecdotal, because we know nothing about the authorship or dates of publication of the four gospels.)

avi

Hi Avi

In the case of Paul Bunyan the newspaper accounts were not intended to be taken seriously and the tall-stories are an indication of this.

Are you arguing a/ that the miracles in Mark indicate that Mark was not intended to be taken literally ? or b/ that the reported miracles inevitably destroy Mark's credibility as a serious historian ?

If you mean a/ then IMO you are applying modern genre conventions to an ancient text where they do not apply. If you mean b/ then you are rejecting the credibility of a great deal of ancient and medieval history.

Andrew Criddle

There was a Historic Paul Bunyan(HPB)

Quote:

everal authors, including James Stevens and D. Laurence Rogers, have traced the tales to the exploits of French-Canadian lumberjack Fabian "Saginaw Joe" Fournier, 1845–1875. Fournier worked for the H. M. Loud Company in the Grayling, Michigan area, 1865–1875, where MacGillivray later worked and apparently picked up the stories.

These tales were picked up by an advertising type

Quote:

The character was first documented in the work of U.S. journalist James MacGillivray in 1910. In 1916, as part of an advertising campaign for a logging company, advertisement writer William Laughead reworked the old logging tales into that of a giant lumberjack and gave birth to the modern Paul Bunyan legend, thereby making Paul Bunyan a fakelore character.

I expect any day to see a Mythical Paul Bunyan(MPB) movement which incorporates Platonism, Neoplatonism, and Stoicism into some tale about Higher and lower Quebecs, the LXX and celestial beings.

avi · 07-03-2011, 01:27 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jgoodguy

Thus all of Josephus's writings are religious in nature because they contain eyewitness accounts of supernatural events.

a. I have never read Josephus, systematically, from start to finish;

b. In the few extracts which I perused, quite a while ago, now, I thought of him as an orthodox Jew, or perhaps even a rabbi, so, yes, I would not be surprised, if I did sit down and read him from beginning to end, to learn that he repeats some of the nonsense from the old testament....

c. So far as I am aware, none of Josephus' writings remain extant, today. All that we possess, are mutilated copies of copies of copies, recopied by Christian scribes many times over......

Let me repeat myself, since you do not seem to grasp the point:

Books which describe eye witness accounts of fictional behaviour, are not histories, but fiction.

We have witnessed MANY articles, and perhaps even some books, and possibly even including photographs, of both extraterrestrial spacecraft, and the Loch Ness monster.

I am sure that many of those articles and books contain pages and pages of accurate statements, for example, there is a city in New Mexico, where someone claimed to have interacted with aliens from outer space, and I am certain that there is a very deep fresh water lake, somewhere in Scotland....

The fact that SOME components of a fictional story are accurate, honest, and truthful, does not change the fundamental character of the report/book/article: It is a work of fiction, because it describes imaginary creatures.

The gospels and Paul's epistles are examples of such fiction. I believe that Josephus' writing has been so badly mutilated during the past two millenia, that we cannot accept it is anything at all....

avi

avi · 07-03-2011, 01:36 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jgoodguy

There was a Historic Paul Bunyan(HPB)

Wrong.

Paul Bunyan was a mythical creature, quite possibly based on stories of heroic deeds of real flesh and blood lumberjacks.

There was NO Paul Bunyan, as he has been described, in all the existing accounts, i.e. gargantuan in size, standing as tall as the tallest treetops.

I understand your metaphor, seeking to correlate one fable with another, suggesting the possibility of an historic JC, based upon some precursor, Jewish, a rabbi, etc....

As there were genuine lumberjacks, so too, there were genuine itinerant rabbis wandering about, speaking out against Roman occupation, etc....

Maybe some of them were hung, or crucified, or just had their heads chopped off. That doesn't change the fact, that the gospels, and Paul's letters represent works of fiction.

avi

jgoodguy · 07-03-2011, 01:57 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by avi

Quote:

Originally Posted by jgoodguy

Thus all of Josephus's writings are religious in nature because they contain eyewitness accounts of supernatural events.

a. I have never read Josephus, systematically, from start to finish;

b. In the few extracts which I perused, quite a while ago, now, I thought of him as an orthodox Jew, or perhaps even a rabbi, so, yes, I would not be surprised, if I did sit down and read him from beginning to end, to learn that he repeats some of the nonsense from the old testament....

c. So far as I am aware, none of Josephus' writings remain extant, today. All that we possess, are mutilated copies of copies of copies, recopied by Christian scribes many times over......

Let me repeat myself, since you do not seem to grasp the point:

Books which describe eye witness accounts of fictional behaviour, are not histories, but fiction.

We have witnessed MANY articles, and perhaps even some books, and possibly even including photographs, of both extraterrestrial spacecraft, and the Loch Ness monster.

I am sure that many of those articles and books contain pages and pages of accurate statements, for example, there is a city in New Mexico, where someone claimed to have interacted with aliens from outer space, and I am certain that there is a very deep fresh water lake, somewhere in Scotland....

The fact that SOME components of a fictional story are accurate, honest, and truthful, does not change the fundamental character of the report/book/article: It is a work of fiction, because it describes imaginary creatures.

The gospels and Paul's epistles are examples of such fiction. I believe that Josephus' writing has been so badly mutilated during the past two millenia, that we cannot accept it is anything at all....

avi

Quote:

Books which describe eye witness accounts of fictional behaviour, are not histories, but fiction.

from the wiki:

Quote:

Fiction is any form of narrative which deals, in part or in whole, with events that are not factual, but rather, imaginary and invented by its author(s). Although fiction often describes a major branch of literary work, it is also applied to theatrical, cinematic, and musical work. In contrast to non-fiction, which deals exclusively in factual events (e.g.: biographies, histories).

By your assertion, and the standard definition of fiction, kindly list any ancient work that is purported to be historical that deals exclusively in factual events.

Josephus is out by your definition, the gospels and most if not all Christian writings.

That will make history classes short. A single statement: Christianity is fiction will suffice. You my have also wiped out most ancient history. We'll see what ancient histories you regard as entirely non fiction.

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

07-03-2011, 12:44 PM	#26
johnnyv Senior Member Join Date: Aug 2007 Location: Oslo, Norway Posts: 744	I don't get this. That image is a drawing. I can draw a picture which would support the flying spaghetti monster theory, but it still wouldn't prove anything, or provide anything of value. The drawing and the source web-page is entirely devoid of any useful information.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.