Freethought & Rationalism Archive

gurugeorge · 11-13-2009, 03:34 AM

Toto recently encapsulated the "consensus" as this, and it seems to be the case: the consensus tells us that he existed, but there's no consensus on who he was.

To claim that an entity exists, but not to know what specific kind of entity it was - isn't that just a nonsense?

IOW, how can the consensus that something existed be valid until there's a consensus as to what it was? Identification surely comes before existential claim?

dog-on · 11-13-2009, 03:39 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by gurugeorge

Toto recently encapsulated the "consensus" as this, and it seems to be the case: the consensus tells us that he existed, but there's no consensus on who he was.

To claim that an entity exists, but not to know what specific kind of entity it was - isn't that just a nonsense?

IOW, how can the consensus that something existed be valid until there's a consensus as to what it was? Identification surely comes before existential claim?

To be fair, I guess that the consensus actually would be that a Jewish guy existed.

gurugeorge · 11-13-2009, 04:09 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dog-on

Quote:

Originally Posted by gurugeorge

Toto recently encapsulated the "consensus" as this, and it seems to be the case: the consensus tells us that he existed, but there's no consensus on who he was.

To claim that an entity exists, but not to know what specific kind of entity it was - isn't that just a nonsense?

IOW, how can the consensus that something existed be valid until there's a consensus as to what it was? Identification surely comes before existential claim?

To be fair, I guess that the consensus actually would be that a Jewish guy existed.

A pretty safe bet, considering lots of Jewish guys existed at the time

dog-on · 11-13-2009, 04:14 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by gurugeorge

Quote:

Originally Posted by dog-on

To be fair, I guess that the consensus actually would be that a Jewish guy existed.

A pretty safe bet, considering lots of Jewish guys existed at the time

Now all we have to do is narrow the field, a bit...

aa5874 · 11-13-2009, 05:16 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by gurugeorge

Toto recently encapsulated the "consensus" as this, and it seems to be the case: the consensus tells us that he existed, but there's no consensus on who he was.

To claim that an entity exists, but not to know what specific kind of entity it was - isn't that just a nonsense?

IOW, how can the consensus that something existed be valid until there's a consensus as to what it was? Identification surely comes before existential claim?

In other words the consensus is rather senseless, baseless. It was derived from nothing but imagination.

This must be the consensus. "We imagine Jesus existed, therefore he did".

Clivedurdle · 11-13-2009, 06:16 AM

Did Lloyd Webber have the answer?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Bn7exBrCiUI

(Jesus Christ Superstar - just a man)

aa5874 · 11-13-2009, 08:06 AM

The historical Jesus is analogous to a mirage.. He appears real from a distant but every step you take towards the HJ does not get you any closer.

Marcion was right. Jesus only looked real and he was not of the God of the Jews.

The Church may have to apologise to Marcion just as they did to Galileo.

Marcion was right since the 2nd century. Jesus was a mirage, a phantom.

dog-on · 11-13-2009, 08:11 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Clivedurdle

Did Lloyd Webber have the answer?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Bn7exBrCiUI

(Jesus Christ Superstar - just a man)

You mean the Gospel According to St. Andrew, of course. :notworthy:

ApostateAbe · 11-13-2009, 08:17 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by gurugeorge

Toto recently encapsulated the "consensus" as this, and it seems to be the case: the consensus tells us that he existed, but there's no consensus on who he was.

To claim that an entity exists, but not to know what specific kind of entity it was - isn't that just a nonsense?

IOW, how can the consensus that something existed be valid until there's a consensus as to what it was? Identification surely comes before existential claim?

Jesus was apparently a traveling Jewish religious leader in the first century, who had at least 12 disciples including Peter, who came into conflict with the Jewish religious establishment and the Pharisees, and who was executed in Jerusalem by Pontius Pilate. Do you know any respected New Testament scholar who disagrees with any of those elements?

dog-on · 11-13-2009, 08:22 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ApostateAbe

Quote:

Originally Posted by gurugeorge

Toto recently encapsulated the "consensus" as this, and it seems to be the case: the consensus tells us that he existed, but there's no consensus on who he was.

To claim that an entity exists, but not to know what specific kind of entity it was - isn't that just a nonsense?

IOW, how can the consensus that something existed be valid until there's a consensus as to what it was? Identification surely comes before existential claim?

Jesus was apparently a traveling Jewish religious leader in the first century, who had at least 12 disciples including Peter, who came into conflict with the Jewish religious establishment and the Pharisees, and who was executed in Jerusalem by Pontius Pilate. Do you know any respected New Testament scholar who disagrees with any of those elements?

Depends on who one deems as respected, I suppose.

11-13-2009, 03:34 AM	#1
gurugeorge Veteran Member Join Date: Apr 2004 Location: London, UK Posts: 3,210	He existed - but we don't know who he was! Toto recently encapsulated the "consensus" as this, and it seems to be the case: the consensus tells us that he existed, but there's no consensus on who he was. To claim that an entity exists, but not to know what specific kind of entity it was - isn't that just a nonsense? IOW, how can the consensus that something existed be valid until there's a consensus as to what it was? Identification surely comes before existential claim?

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

11-13-2009, 06:16 AM	#6
Clivedurdle Contributor Join Date: Mar 2003 Location: London UK Posts: 16,024	Did Lloyd Webber have the answer? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Bn7exBrCiUI (Jesus Christ Superstar - just a man)

11-13-2009, 08:06 AM	#7
aa5874 Contributor Join Date: Feb 2006 Location: the fringe of the caribbean Posts: 18,988	The historical Jesus is analogous to a mirage.. He appears real from a distant but every step you take towards the HJ does not get you any closer. Marcion was right. Jesus only looked real and he was not of the God of the Jews. The Church may have to apologise to Marcion just as they did to Galileo. Marcion was right since the 2nd century. Jesus was a mirage, a phantom.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.