Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Yellum Notnef · 03-25-2011, 08:53 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by No Robots

Quote:

Originally Posted by Yellum Notnef

Yeah, as if you're someone I'd turn to for clarity on matters of religion. No offense, but LOL.

Lloyd: Man, You are one pathetic loser. No offense.
Harry: No, none taken.

Ugh.

No Robots · 03-25-2011, 09:15 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Yellum Notnef

Ugh.

And which particular mythicist Christology do you subscribe to, oh inverted one? Or have you not evolved to the point of being able to articulate something so fine?

Yellum Notnef · 03-25-2011, 09:41 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by No Robots

Quote:

Originally Posted by Yellum Notnef

Ugh.

And which particular mythicist do you subscribe to, oh inverted one? Or have you not evolved to the point of being able to articulate something so fine?

I'm much more interested in the psychosis that is Christology rather than any rules of the game. And it is just a game that has no bearing on reality though I understand to you the game has metastasized into the be all and end all of human existence.

THAT is what I find interesting here. I also enjoy shows about hoarders.

No Robots · 03-25-2011, 09:48 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Yellum Notnef

I'm much more interested in the psychosis that is Christology rather than any rules of the game. And it is just a game that has no bearing on reality.

Yeah, it's a lot easier sitting around taking pot shots at others, rather than putting forward your own explanation.

Doug Shaver · 03-25-2011, 09:49 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Chaucer

and they're also a whole lot closer to that time period than people living in 2011.

Obviously, they had to know a lot of stuff that we cannot know. But that does not preclude our ability to know things they did not know.

Being present when an event happens does not by itself render one's beliefs about that event infallible, and being absent does not by itself render one's beliefs, if contrary to the beliefs of those present, invincibly wrong.

maryhelena · 03-25-2011, 09:50 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by No Robots

Quote:

Originally Posted by Yellum Notnef

In a way it's too bad that these daily arguments have to focus on if Jesus was historical or not because the most curious thing here is being overshadowed and not talked about. That is that you and Roger believe Jesus is magical.

Ahem:

Quote:

Originally Posted by GakuseiDon

As I've always said, there is very little evidence for a historical Jesus, so that any well-crafted mythicist argument will probably be enough to topple that idea. But the prima-facie evidence in Paul seems to indicate that Paul believed in a historical Jesus who was crucified in Paul's recent past. Even so, there is still very little that we can say about that Jesus, so in a sense he might as well not have existed. All we have left is the myth.

It seems to me that GakuseiDon is basically a mythicist who is looking for a reasonable Christology.

Indeed, it's just a shame he is so side-tracked by that fantasy sub-lunar realm

Mythicism, ie a position that takes an ahistorical view on the gospel JC storyline, is not bound by such theories. After all, theories come and go - and this sub-lunar theory is just another theory on Paul's ideas - and, as such, should not be used as the measuring stick in a search for early christian origins. It's the gospel storyline, not Paul and his philosophizing, that needs to be dissected on it's own terms. And that of course, requires a strong dose of history - something that Paul shows no interest in. In other words - don't read the gospels into Paul - then don't read Paul into the gospels. Before one can talk about there being some reflection of Paul's ideas in the gospels; before one can talk of some reflection of the gospels in Paul - one has first to identify the nature of each on its own. Otherwise all one can accomplish is forever to be chasing phantoms....

Yellum Notnef · 03-25-2011, 09:53 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by No Robots

Quote:

Originally Posted by Yellum Notnef

I'm much more interested in the psychosis that is Christology rather than any rules of the game. And it is just a game that has no bearing on reality.

Yeah, it's a lot easier sitting around taking pot shots at others, rather than putting forward your own explanation.

Explanations for what? Why you are utterly infatuated by Jesus?

What exactly do you think needs an explanation?

No Robots · 03-25-2011, 10:01 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Yellum Notnef

What exactly do you think needs an explanation?

"But what about you?” he asked. “Who do you say I am?--Mt. 16:15

Yellum Notnef · 03-25-2011, 10:08 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by No Robots

Quote:

Originally Posted by Yellum Notnef

What exactly do you think needs an explanation?

"But what about you?” he asked. “Who do you say I am?--Mt. 16:15

Tesla's nemesis who always beat him to the patent office?

I'm not interested in debating bible versus unless we can then debate Star Trek story lines.

Doug Shaver · 03-25-2011, 10:19 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by GakuseiDon

"Everyone treated the Gospels as being about a historical person" is my claim. And that's true, AFAIK. There is no-one who ever claimed that the Gospels weren't about a historical person.

And we would know about it if anyone had made such a claim? You feel pretty sure about that?

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

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.