Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Clivedurdle · 05-10-2009, 08:58 AM

http://secsoc.blogspot.com/2006/05/a...-it-again.html

http://www.guardian.co.uk/profile/anneatkins

Enjoy!

Toto · 05-10-2009, 11:33 AM

At last the source of this - a wooly minded Anglican novelist who doesn't understand the concept of the "selfish gene" and manages to read all sorts of modern values back into 1st c. Christianity, as if the Women's Suffrage Movement had not had to fight Christian theologians. But "we know more about him than any other figure of antiquity" is not in the transcript.

her column

aa5874 · 05-10-2009, 02:00 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Doug Shaver

Quote:

Originally Posted by aa5874

Now, it can be said without fear of contradiction that Jesus is the BEST documented MYTH.

If you fear no contradiction on this subject, then you must think yourself infallible.

Go ahead and prove me wrong. Tell me that you think it's possible you could be wrong about Jesus' historicity. I don't believe you will. But I could be wrong about that.

This is just absurd. No-one claims to be infallible by declaring Homer's Achilles, the offspring of sea-goddess, a myth. The offspring of the Holy Ghost of God is no different.

rcscwc · 05-10-2009, 08:12 PM

Lols. Better documented? His year of birth is not known, what to talk date. What documentation is available about his missing 18 years? That when he claimed to be a highly prophecied figure!

Buddha is better documented. Mahavir is better documented. Mahavir's redecessor is better documented about 850 BC. Even Krishna is better documented.

The four could not even put a coherent account of Jesus death. What color was his clothes? How many at the site of cross? What was written on the cross? No two agree.

show_no_mercy · 05-11-2009, 06:01 AM

Quote:

'We have four, entirely consistent, entirely independent, eyewitness accounts, written decades later by people who heard stories from someone who met someone who had a friend who knew Jesus.

"Independent"? Well then why the hell are NT scholars going on about the "synoptic problem"? At the most, you can probably say there are two independent accounts - Mark and John. Matthew and Luke are edited and expanded versions of Mark, and John is highly ahistorical written almost 100 years after Jesus was supposed to have been born. That really only leaves us with Mark.

I really get tired of how Christians always lie for their faith.

Doug Shaver · 05-11-2009, 06:45 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Doug Shaver

Go ahead and prove me wrong. Tell me that you think it's possible you could be wrong about Jesus' historicity. I don't believe you will. But I could be wrong about that.

Quote:

Originally Posted by aa5874

This is just absurd. No-one claims to be infallible by declaring Homer's Achilles, the offspring of sea-goddess, a myth.

It's not what you have declared. It's what you will not declare.

Absurd or not, I was correct in my prediction. You will not say that it's possible you could be wrong about Jesus' historicity. If you effectively deny the possibility of being wrong, then you're claiming infallibility.

spin · 05-11-2009, 10:22 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by show_no_mercy

Quote:

'We have four, entirely consistent, entirely independent, eyewitness accounts, written decades later by people who heard stories from someone who met someone who had a friend who knew Jesus.

"Independent"? Well then why the hell are NT scholars going on about the "synoptic problem"? At the most, you can probably say there are two independent accounts - Mark and John. Matthew and Luke are edited and expanded versions of Mark, and John is highly ahistorical written almost 100 years after Jesus was supposed to have been born. That really only leaves us with Mark.

I really get tired of how Christians always lie for their faith.

Lying? What lying? Believing some possible rubbish which then gets stated as fact doesn't indicate that they are lying. A lie involves intent to deceive. You don't see that. You probably get tired of stuff being foisted through faith on people as the way it is, when you perceive it as rubbish.

The dichotomy of truth and lies isn't accurate, but it is popular.

spin

Toto · 05-11-2009, 10:47 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by show_no_mercy

Quote:

'We have four, entirely consistent, entirely independent, eyewitness accounts, written decades later by people who heard stories from someone who met someone who had a friend who knew Jesus.

"Independent"? Well then why the hell are NT scholars going on about the "synoptic problem"? At the most, you can probably say there are two independent accounts - Mark and John. Matthew and Luke are edited and expanded versions of Mark, and John is highly ahistorical written almost 100 years after Jesus was supposed to have been born. That really only leaves us with Mark.

I really get tired of how Christians always lie for their faith.

Just note that you are quoting the parody of the Christian position, not something that was actually written by a Christian.

Platitude of the Day should be a hint, and the links to Landover Baptist and JesusandMo on the side bar should clinch it.

Not to say that it's not a close parody, or that Poe's law might not apply. . .

rightwing · 05-11-2009, 11:06 AM

Greetings! I read a couple of the posts on/in this thread. Allow me to say that I am a devout believer in Jesus, that he lived and was crucified.
These are pretty well documented facts as most would agree.
The interesting part is the resurrection, or supposed resurrection some would say, and the testimony regarding his appearance(s) afterward.
Here are some interesting facts as stated in the bible.
Upon seeing the empty tomb, Mary turned and saw a man she didn't recognize.. this turned out to be Jesus. What Jesus said to her is most interesting. loosely " woman dont touch me. I have not yet ascended to my father". The question is why did he say this?
an idea I had is that his body lay in death for 3 days while 'He' was elsewhere, and Jesus being of some understandings beyond his contemporaries, knew that Mary may risk exposure to pathogens on him since he was beaten and lanced prior to death. Of course this is all my 'what if' ing but I'd be interested in hearing other ideas about why Jesus said this to Mary.

rightwing · 05-11-2009, 11:10 AM

There is this program that airs occasionally on one of the pbs or etv channels, called 'The Evidence'. Have you seen it. It is most interesting.
This is not what I wanted to say, but check out this program if you see it advertised.

What I wanted to add to my first post is this: If Jesus was not resurrected, what happened to his body? The Romans, faced with the possibility that a Messiah had lived and been crucified would have, pardon the expression, killed for Jesus' body. It was NEVER produced.

05-11-2009, 11:06 AM	#29
rightwing Junior Member Join Date: May 2009 Location: southcentral U.S. Posts: 45	New member, first post Greetings! I read a couple of the posts on/in this thread. Allow me to say that I am a devout believer in Jesus, that he lived and was crucified. These are pretty well documented facts as most would agree. The interesting part is the resurrection, or supposed resurrection some would say, and the testimony regarding his appearance(s) afterward. Here are some interesting facts as stated in the bible. Upon seeing the empty tomb, Mary turned and saw a man she didn't recognize.. this turned out to be Jesus. What Jesus said to her is most interesting. loosely " woman dont touch me. I have not yet ascended to my father". The question is why did he say this? an idea I had is that his body lay in death for 3 days while 'He' was elsewhere, and Jesus being of some understandings beyond his contemporaries, knew that Mary may risk exposure to pathogens on him since he was beaten and lanced prior to death. Of course this is all my 'what if' ing but I'd be interested in hearing other ideas about why Jesus said this to Mary.

05-11-2009, 11:10 AM	#30
rightwing Junior Member Join Date: May 2009 Location: southcentral U.S. Posts: 45	A point well taken There is this program that airs occasionally on one of the pbs or etv channels, called 'The Evidence'. Have you seen it. It is most interesting. This is not what I wanted to say, but check out this program if you see it advertised. What I wanted to add to my first post is this: If Jesus was not resurrected, what happened to his body? The Romans, faced with the possibility that a Messiah had lived and been crucified would have, pardon the expression, killed for Jesus' body. It was NEVER produced.

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

05-10-2009, 08:58 AM	#21
Clivedurdle Contributor Join Date: Mar 2003 Location: London UK Posts: 16,024	http://secsoc.blogspot.com/2006/05/a...-it-again.html http://www.guardian.co.uk/profile/anneatkins Enjoy!

05-10-2009, 11:33 AM	#22
Toto Contributor Join Date: Jun 2000 Location: Los Angeles area Posts: 40,549	At last the source of this - a wooly minded Anglican novelist who doesn't understand the concept of the "selfish gene" and manages to read all sorts of modern values back into 1st c. Christianity, as if the Women's Suffrage Movement had not had to fight Christian theologians. But "we know more about him than any other figure of antiquity" is not in the transcript. her column

05-10-2009, 08:12 PM	#24
rcscwc Banned Join Date: May 2008 Location: New Delhi, India. 011-26142556 Posts: 2,292	Lols. Better documented? His year of birth is not known, what to talk date. What documentation is available about his missing 18 years? That when he claimed to be a highly prophecied figure! Buddha is better documented. Mahavir is better documented. Mahavir's redecessor is better documented about 850 BC. Even Krishna is better documented. The four could not even put a coherent account of Jesus death. What color was his clothes? How many at the site of cross? What was written on the cross? No two agree.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.