Freethought & Rationalism Archive

J-D · 09-21-2011, 05:51 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by aa5874

Quote:

Originally Posted by J-D

Quote:

Originally Posted by aa5874

The Church and its writers are in effect claiming that the Jesus story did NOT need an historical Jesus.

They nowhere make any such claim.

You don't know what you are talking about. You have NO reliable sources to support your assertion.

In "Against Heresies" the "historical Jesus" was LISTED as Heresy.

See "Against Heresies" 1. for a LIST of HERETICAL teachings.

Nowhere in Against Heresies 1 does it say 'the Jesus story did not need a historical Jesus'.

J-D · 09-21-2011, 06:34 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by aa5874

Quote:

Originally Posted by archibald

....Second, aa5874's oft repeated claim that because Jesus was (his choice of phrase, not mine) described as mythical therein has very little bearing on whether there was or was not a grain of sand at the centre of the oyster, that is to say that the gospels embellished an historical character rather than a non-historical one.....

Please, do not mis-represent my position. This is the problem that I have with HJers. You appear to be DELIBERATELY making a BLATANT error about my position.

I DETEST when you mis-represent me. I am NOT playing any games with HJers.

This is MY POSITION.

HJERS have ZERO sources of antiquity to support their HJ of Nazareth and are ENGAGED in logical fallacies, absurdities, circular and strawman arguments, KNOWN forgeries and unreliable sources.

Please, refer to this POST at all times so that you won't forget my position.

You have no reliable sources to support your position.

aa5874 · 09-21-2011, 06:40 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by J-D

Quote:

Originally Posted by aa5874

Quote:

Originally Posted by J-D

Quote:

Originally Posted by aa5874

The Church and its writers are in effect claiming that the Jesus story did NOT need an historical Jesus.

They nowhere make any such claim.

You don't know what you are talking about. You have NO reliable sources to support your assertion.

In "Against Heresies" the "historical Jesus" was LISTED as Heresy.

See "Against Heresies" 1. for a LIST of HERETICAL teachings.

Nowhere in Against Heresies 1 does it say 'the Jesus story did not need a historical Jesus'.

I DETEST mis-representations of my post.

Quote:

Originally Posted by aa5874

..... "The Church and its writers are in effect claiming that the Jesus story did NOT need an historical Jesus"......

aa5874 · 09-21-2011, 06:54 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by J-D

Quote:

Originally Posted by gurugeorge

Quote:

Originally Posted by J-D

I didn't say that every such claim is a deliberate fraud. I asked, about a particular instance, whether it was the product of fraud or hallucination, a question which I notice you did not attempt to answer.

I did - I think Mormonism was initially a product of visions, then subsequently of fraud. You are aware that the Smiths were occultists? It often happens that people sincerely believe their own shit, but will indulge in fraud when it comes to public tests (such as the plates). Cognitive dissonance, but what they hey, we all have it sometimes.

Quote:

I don't see how you can be sure that all such claims are the product of hallucination and none of fraud.

You can't be sure the other way either, but in view of the fact that visions, mystical experiences, are fairly common, and in view of the fact that there are plausible non-pathological explanations for such phenomena (as well as sometimes pathological ones) and in view of the fact that nearly every mother******g religion or religious movement or cult on Earth has some sort of claimed visionary or mystical experience at its beginnings, fraud need not be the default explanation, even for rationalists.

Check out William James.

Hallucinations are fairly common, but so are frauds. I did not say that fraud should be a default explanation, but I see no reason why hallucination should be a default explanation.

The Pauline writer claimed to be a WITNESS of the resurrected Jesus NOT an hallucinator.

1Co 15:15 -

Quote:

Yea, and we are found false witnesses of God, because we have testified of God that he raised up Christ: whom he raised not up, if so be that the dead rise not....

The Pauline writer was a FALSE WITNESS because the DEAD RISE NOT.

mountainman · 09-21-2011, 07:01 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by stephan huller

Indeed most of the discussion on this subject fail to take into account that ALL the early discussions of the gospel are deeply involved in allegory and symbolism. No one took the story literally. As such it is difficult to believe in the 'facts' when none of the early commentators felt constrained by them.

The "Will to Believe" was strong in past centuries, driven like a storm cloud from the various authorities whom no self-respecting person would dare to openly and publically doubt. There were good reasons for this in the early centuries of the church. I am just reading "AD 381" (or via: amazon.co.uk) by Charles Freeman. Quite an eye opener.

Many notable MORE RECENT search expeditions mounted for the historical jesus met with failure. Times change. Other hypotheses, other than the "Historical Jesus Postulate" are free to be investigated and explored in the field of ancient history. Perhaps the cause for this state of affairs is that the HJ postulate is not necessarily at the foundation of the more likely overall explanation for "Christian Origens".

n.b. The last word is spelt correctly. There are two Origens in the 3rd century. Please see the WIKI disambiguation page. Thankyou.

mountainman · 09-21-2011, 07:18 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by aa5874

Quote:

Originally Posted by J-D

Hallucinations are fairly common, but so are frauds. I did not say that fraud should be a default explanation, but I see no reason why hallucination should be a default explanation.

The Pauline writer claimed to be a WITNESS of the resurrected Jesus NOT an hallucinator.

1Co 15:15 -

Quote:

Yea, and we are found false witnesses of God, because we have testified of God that he raised up Christ: whom he raised not up, if so be that the dead rise not....

The Pauline writer was a FALSE WITNESS because the DEAD RISE NOT.

Is it parsimonious that fraud should be included as one of the explanations to be investigated? Wow. Surely the churches in control of the Gospels and Paul have operated legitimately since the very universal beginning, haven't they? It doesn't say in the bible that its authors were criminals does it?

When readers are ready for the worse case scenario to be outlined and sketched just let me know. Until then please carry on.

mountainman · 09-21-2011, 07:30 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by archibald

Quote:

Originally Posted by maryhelena

archibald - looking through a prophetic lens will not get one to history. It is history that has the potential for laying bare the historical canvas from which that prophetic lens has taken it's gospel JC story/picture.

What I like about you and george, maryhelena, is your willingness to allow that it seems unlikely that Jesus was ever thought of by any group of followers (or indeed any group in ancient times) as having not existed.

(1) Who was the docetic heretic who wrote that despite how hard he looked at the ground under which Jesus was walking he never managed to see any footprints?

(2) Why did the author of the Letter of John warn about the antichristians who would not confess that Jesus had appeared in the flesh?

(3) Why does the anathema clause appended to the earliest Nicaean Creeds clearly cite the words of Arius of Alexandria:

There was time when He was not.
Before He was born He was not.
He was made out of nothing existing.
He is/was from another subsistence/substance.
He is subject to alteration or change.

Quote:

This fits well with all the evidence we do have, certainly better than all the convoluted speculation required in order to have him first considered non-existent, then made existent within what appears to have been a relatively short space of time, and subsequently all the varied amounts of covering up that that would be needed.

Then you must be prepared to deal with the counter evidence, such as the three items I have referred to above.

Quote:

And I do again stress 'likely' and I say again that it is not a mathematical likelihood, but one arrived at by the best, though inherently imperfect reasoning methods available. And I am not saying 'vastly more likely' or 'the alternative is a non-starter'.

Nothing is certain. We all should know that by now.

The purpose of discussion is to exchange ideas.

aa5874 · 09-21-2011, 07:36 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mountainman

Quote:

Originally Posted by aa5874

Quote:

Originally Posted by J-D

Hallucinations are fairly common, but so are frauds. I did not say that fraud should be a default explanation, but I see no reason why hallucination should be a default explanation.

The Pauline writer claimed to be a WITNESS of the resurrected Jesus NOT an hallucinator.

1Co 15:15 -

Quote:

Yea, and we are found false witnesses of God, because we have testified of God that he raised up Christ: whom he raised not up, if so be that the dead rise not....

The Pauline writer was a FALSE WITNESS because the DEAD RISE NOT.

Is it parsimonious that fraud should be included as one of the explanations to be investigated? Wow. Surely the churches in control of the Gospels and Paul have operated legitimately since the very universal beginning, haven't they? It doesn't say in the bible that its authors were criminals does it?

When readers are ready for the worse case scenario to be outlined and sketched just let me know. Until then please carry on.

If the Pauline writer went to Jerusalem as an Hallucinator and NOT as a claimed WITNESS of the resurrected Jesus then what authority would he have had over the apostles BEFORE him?

The Pauline writings are NOT about Hallucinations but that "Paul" WITNESSED Jesus after he was RAISED from the dead on the THIRD day and that the WITNESSED resurrected Jesus did give "Paul" his gospel by revelation.

But, the dead rise NOT on the THIRD day.

"Paul" is FOUND to be a LIAR.

J-D · 09-21-2011, 07:44 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by aa5874

Quote:

Originally Posted by J-D

Quote:

Originally Posted by aa5874

Quote:

Originally Posted by J-D

Quote:

Originally Posted by aa5874

The Church and its writers are in effect claiming that the Jesus story did NOT need an historical Jesus.

They nowhere make any such claim.

You don't know what you are talking about. You have NO reliable sources to support your assertion.

In "Against Heresies" the "historical Jesus" was LISTED as Heresy.

See "Against Heresies" 1. for a LIST of HERETICAL teachings.

Nowhere in Against Heresies 1 does it say 'the Jesus story did not need a historical Jesus'.

I DETEST mis-representations of my post.

Quote:

Originally Posted by aa5874

..... "The Church and its writers are in effect claiming that the Jesus story did NOT need an historical Jesus"......

They nowhere make any such claim; not in Against Heresies 1 and not anywhere else.

I detest misrepresentations of my posts.

J-D · 09-21-2011, 07:46 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by aa5874

Quote:

Originally Posted by J-D

Quote:

Originally Posted by gurugeorge

Quote:

Originally Posted by J-D

I didn't say that every such claim is a deliberate fraud. I asked, about a particular instance, whether it was the product of fraud or hallucination, a question which I notice you did not attempt to answer.

I did - I think Mormonism was initially a product of visions, then subsequently of fraud. You are aware that the Smiths were occultists? It often happens that people sincerely believe their own shit, but will indulge in fraud when it comes to public tests (such as the plates). Cognitive dissonance, but what they hey, we all have it sometimes.

Quote:

I don't see how you can be sure that all such claims are the product of hallucination and none of fraud.

You can't be sure the other way either, but in view of the fact that visions, mystical experiences, are fairly common, and in view of the fact that there are plausible non-pathological explanations for such phenomena (as well as sometimes pathological ones) and in view of the fact that nearly every mother******g religion or religious movement or cult on Earth has some sort of claimed visionary or mystical experience at its beginnings, fraud need not be the default explanation, even for rationalists.

Check out William James.

Hallucinations are fairly common, but so are frauds. I did not say that fraud should be a default explanation, but I see no reason why hallucination should be a default explanation.

The Pauline writer claimed to be a WITNESS of the resurrected Jesus NOT an hallucinator.

1Co 15:15 -

Quote:

Yea, and we are found false witnesses of God, because we have testified of God that he raised up Christ: whom he raised not up, if so be that the dead rise not....

The Pauline writer was a FALSE WITNESS because the DEAD RISE NOT.

I agree with those statements, but I don't see how they are supposed to relate to the post of mine to which you were responding.

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

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.