Freethought & Rationalism Archive

ApostateAbe · 05-29-2010, 07:24 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by spamandham

Quote:

Originally Posted by ApostateAbe

Anything can be argued, but I think parsimony and all the other evidence should be considered before a conclusion is reached. A slaughter of children by Herod to hunt down the Jewish messiah is a point that is very likely to have been noted by the historians who mentioned Herod, such as Philo and Josephus, but they didn't. Nor do the other gospels mention it, though it would be a compelling biographical point to make of the life of Jesus.

Well, obviously the slaughter of the innocents didn't happen. That's the reasonable conclusion. But it is not the conclusion one would come up with if the standards applied to the death story were also applied to the birth story...and if there were *not* conflicting evidence. Herod was a real dick. He *could* have done something like that, if not for the fact that he didn't.

What did Luke know that you and I don't? Why did he (and the readers of the story and the compilers of the canon) think it was ok to add such ...ehm, bullshit... to his story, and does that tell us something about not only Luke, but also the other 3 canonical Gospel writers and the milieu in which they wrote?

I think the criterion of dissimilarity (aka the criterion of embarrassment) serves both conclusions--the ahistoricity of the slaughter of the innocents and the historicity of the crucifixion.

The gospel of Matthew is the gospel that contains the slaughter of the innocents, not Luke. Do you mean Matthew instead of Luke? I think the presence of the story in the gospel of Matthew is meant primarily to inflate the importance as Jesus, as a rival to the power of Herod, and the messiah of prophecy. And, it seems to reflect enormous contempt for Herod.

aa5874 · 05-29-2010, 07:51 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by avi

Quote:

Originally Posted by aa5874

Jesus was indeed the offspring of the Holy Ghost and was born without a human father sometime around the start of the 1st century..

Matthew 15:22
kai idou gunh cananaia apo twn oriwn ekeinwn exelqousa ekrazen legousa elehson me kurie uioV dauid h qugathr mou kakwV daimonizetai

Matthew 15:22
And behold a woman of Canaan who came out of those coasts, crying out, said to him: Have mercy on me, O Lord, thou son of David: my daughter is grieviously troubled by the devil.

Not "seed" of David. Son of David. Why not? A little one night recreation for the re-created David. If God can raise up Amos and Andy, and all the rest, why not David?

Omnipotence for a god does not translate into regulations restricting his/her power, imposed by mere mortals.

avi

I am not following you.

Are not gMatthew and gLuke stories about an offspring of the Holy Ghost?

Both authors have described the ORIGIN of their main character and how he came into existence and for HUNDREDS of years massive amount of Jesus believers have accepted the ORIGIN of Jesus as true as found in the Synoptics.

Now, there is no story in gMatthew or gLuke about any resurrection of David for a one night stand with Mary.

The author of gLuke did clearly state how HIS Jesus was conceived.

The author of "Harry Potter" is the ONLY person who can give the ORIGIN of "Harry Potter" and it is virtually CAST IN STONE. WITHOUT the author's permission No other person has any authority to revise or change the ORIGIN of "Harry Potter".

Without permission no-one can change the ORIGIN of Jesus as was given in gMatthew or gLuke, both descriptions are CAST in STONE.

It is ONLY necessary to find confirm or reject the veracity of the ORIGIN of Jesus as given by the authors.

So far, I have found that the ORIGIN of JESUS as stated by the authors to be COMPLETELY false or stories of FICTION.

maryhelena · 05-29-2010, 08:42 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ApostateAbe

Quote:

Originally Posted by spamandham

Well, obviously the slaughter of the innocents didn't happen. That's the reasonable conclusion. But it is not the conclusion one would come up with if the standards applied to the death story were also applied to the birth story...and if there were *not* conflicting evidence. Herod was a real dick. He *could* have done something like that, if not for the fact that he didn't.

What did Luke know that you and I don't? Why did he (and the readers of the story and the compilers of the canon) think it was ok to add such ...ehm, bullshit... to his story, and does that tell us something about not only Luke, but also the other 3 canonical Gospel writers and the milieu in which they wrote?

I think the criterion of dissimilarity (aka the criterion of embarrassment) serves both conclusions--the ahistoricity of the slaughter of the innocents and the historicity of the crucifixion.

The gospel of Matthew is the gospel that contains the slaughter of the innocents, not Luke. Do you mean Matthew instead of Luke? I think the presence of the story in the gospel of Matthew is meant primarily to inflate the importance as Jesus, as a rival to the power of Herod, and the messiah of prophecy. And, it seems to reflect enormous contempt for Herod.

The slaughter of the innocents mentioned in gMatthew is most likely an interpretative use of the historical events of 37 bc - the siege of Jerusalem by Herod the Great.

Quote:

Josephus. Antiquities Book 14 ch.16

2. Now the Jews that were enclosed within the walls of the city fought against Herod with great alacrity and zeal (for the whole nation was gathered together); they also gave out many prophecies about the temple, and many things agreeable to the people, as if God would deliver them out of the dangers they were in;.............

............. he made an assault upon the city, and took it by storm; and now all parts were full of those that were slain, by the rage of the Romans at the long duration of the siege, and by the zeal of the Jews that were on Herod's side, who were not willing to leave one of their adversaries alive; so they were murdered continually in the narrow streets and in the houses by crowds, and as they were flying to the temple for shelter, and there was no pity taken of either infants or the aged, nor did they spare so much as the weaker sex; nay, although the king sent about, and besought them to spare the people, yet nobody restrained their hand from slaughter, but, as if they were a company of madmen, they fell upon persons of all ages, without distinction;

Toto · 05-29-2010, 09:03 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by DCHindley

S&H,

I don't think that would be embarassing. "Princes" are often forced into exile once the regent decides they are a threat (or even a potential threat). Look at Herod the great and his sons. This part could originate from family claims, who might even regard it as a badge of legitimacy.

Check into what Julius Africanus said the family of Jesus were claiming about the legitimacy of Herod's rule. They claimed Herod was a bastard child, as his mother was a hostage for a period of time during the wars between the Hasmonean princes Hyrcanus and Alexander, and this "of course" meant she was raped.

After WW2, Chaing Kai Sheck (forgive my poor spelling) drove Mao and the communists across the country into exile. This became legendary and many Chinese thought that this legitimatized the communist claim to rule.

DCH

Just to keep the record straight, you might be talking about the

Long_March, which was part of official Chinese Communist hagiography of Mao's military brilliance. It wasn't exactly exile, and happened before WWII. After WWII, Chiang Kai-shek was driven into "exile" on Taiwan along with his government, where every year they made a toast to "next year in Peking."

But I agree the flight to Egypt is hardly embarrassing.

Solo · 05-29-2010, 09:35 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by DCHindley

After WW2, Chaing Kai Sheck (forgive my poor spelling) drove Mao and the communists across the country into exile. This became legendary and many Chinese thought that this legitimatized the communist claim to rule.

DCH

Chiang Kai Shek's Kuomintang armies drove the Communists across China to exile in Shaanxi, in 1934-35, not after WW2. The story of the retreat is known as The Long March.

Legendary as The Long March became in the People's Republic after 1949, it would have not helped Mao and the CPC one bit to legitimize themselves, if not for the massive Soviet surplus of military equipment in 1945-48 and the wide and brutally prosecuted agrarian reforms for the millions of dispossessed, which combined force drove Chiang's forces off the mainland to Formosa.

Jiri

avi · 05-29-2010, 11:38 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by aa5874

I am not following you.
Are not gMatthew and gLuke stories about an offspring of the Holy Ghost?

If I understand correctly, and perhaps I do not, the Holy Ghost is GOD, as is Jesus.

So, if God wishes to have Mary inseminated and her eggs fertilized, "via the Holy Ghost", then, how is that process different from resurrecting King David, dead for a only a few centuries, for one night of recreation ecstasy.

I don't know of course, what the authors of the myth intended, it just seems to me, that if they had not meant that Jesus was literally the son of King David, then they need not have written, "son of David", since there is no other, logical, reason for writing that phrase. They could have simply repeated, "son of the holy ghost", but they didn't. They wrote son of David, and not just in one small place, as if a scribal error....

Now, this is their fantasy, make believe story, who are we to insist on their story being logical? David's death centuries earlier seems to bother some folks, but, think about it: what's the difference between raising from the dead someone who has been dead for only a couple of days, versus someone who has been dead for a few centuries?

There is no difference, none at all....if the guy can walk on water, and restore vision to the blind, and come back to life from death, then, who are we to criticize the authors for suggesting that David was too old and decrepit to rise again, undertaking a princely voyage from the tomb to the womb and back again.

avi

DCHindley · 05-29-2010, 01:05 PM

Jiri,

Thanks to you and Toto for correcting my error. My wife and I are taking inventory of my late sister-in-law's estate the last few days and didn't have time to Google it. Besides, it was a "shoot from the hip" analogy.

To the point, though. I prefer to leave the value judgements out of the equation when engaging in historical analysis. We only know what is stated in our sources, right or wrong.

DCH

Quote:

Originally Posted by Solo

Quote:

Originally Posted by DCHindley

After WW2, Chaing Kai Sheck (forgive my poor spelling) drove Mao and the communists across the country into exile. This became legendary and many Chinese thought that this legitimatized the communist claim to rule.

DCH

Chiang Kai Shek's Kuomintang armies drove the Communists across China to exile in Shaanxi, in 1934-35, not after WW2. The story of the retreat is known as The Long March.

Legendary as The Long March became in the People's Republic after 1949, it would have not helped Mao and the CPC one bit to legitimize themselves, if not for the massive Soviet surplus of military equipment in 1945-48 and the wide and brutally prosecuted agrarian reforms for the millions of dispossessed, which combined force drove Chiang's forces off the mainland to Formosa.

Jiri

Transient · 05-29-2010, 04:59 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by avi

Quote:

Originally Posted by aa5874

I am not following you.
Are not gMatthew and gLuke stories about an offspring of the Holy Ghost?

If I understand correctly, and perhaps I do not, the Holy Ghost is GOD, as is Jesus.

So, if God wishes to have Mary inseminated and her eggs fertilized, "via the Holy Ghost", then, how is that process different from resurrecting King David, dead for a only a few centuries, for one night of recreation ecstasy.

I don't know of course, what the authors of the myth intended, it just seems to me, that if they had not meant that Jesus was literally the son of King David, then they need not have written, "son of David", since there is no other, logical, reason for writing that phrase. They could have simply repeated, "son of the holy ghost", but they didn't. They wrote son of David, and not just in one small place, as if a scribal error....

Now, this is their fantasy, make believe story, who are we to insist on their story being logical? David's death centuries earlier seems to bother some folks, but, think about it: what's the difference between raising from the dead someone who has been dead for only a couple of days, versus someone who has been dead for a few centuries?

There is no difference, none at all....if the guy can walk on water, and restore vision to the blind, and come back to life from death, then, who are we to criticize the authors for suggesting that David was too old and decrepit to rise again, undertaking a princely voyage from the tomb to the womb and back again.

avi

Why as an old man? The god could just time travel him as a ravishing young prince to the year 0 on a mission to impregnate a young woman. What king could resist such a quest?

aa5874 · 05-29-2010, 11:50 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by avi

Quote:

Originally Posted by aa5874

I am not following you.
Are not gMatthew and gLuke stories about an offspring of the Holy Ghost?

If I understand correctly, and perhaps I do not, the Holy Ghost is GOD, as is Jesus.

So, if God wishes to have Mary inseminated and her eggs fertilized, "via the Holy Ghost", then, how is that process different from resurrecting King David, dead for a only a few centuries, for one night of recreation ecstasy.

I have no intention of fabricating any event, or story about Jesus or invent the activities of GODS, the Holy Ghost, or David.

In the stories of gMatthew and gLuke Jesus was the offspring of the Holy Ghost who was called Son of David, Son of Man, Elias or one of the prophets.

Quote:

Originally Posted by avi

I don't know of course, what the authors of the myth intended, it just seems to me, that if they had not meant that Jesus was literally the son of King David, then they need not have written, "son of David", since there is no other, logical, reason for writing that phrase. They could have simply repeated, "son of the holy ghost", but they didn't. They wrote son of David, and not just in one small place, as if a scribal error....

But, did not the author of gMatthew claim the disciples believed Jesus was a SPIRIT when he was walking on the sea during a storm.

Mt 14:26 -

Quote:

And when the disciples saw him walking on the sea, they were troubled, saying, It is a spirit, and they cried out for fear.

Quote:

Originally Posted by avi

Now, this is their fantasy, make believe story, who are we to insist on their story being logical? David's death centuries earlier seems to bother some folks, but, think about it: what's the difference between raising from the dead someone who has been dead for only a couple of days, versus someone who has been dead for a few centuries?

Why do you insist that David may have been the father of Jesus in an ILLOGICAL story about an entity who was described as the OFFSPRING of the Holy Ghost.

Now I am not aware that an entity called the offspring of the Holy Ghost was actually dead for a couple of days. But, I am aware of a Jesus story where authors of the NT Canon and Church writings did write that Jesus died and rose from the dead on the third day.

Quote:

Originally Posted by avi

There is no difference, none at all....if the guy can walk on water, and restore vision to the blind, and come back to life from death, then, who are we to criticize the authors for suggesting that David was too old and decrepit to rise again, undertaking a princely voyage from the tomb to the womb and back again.

avi

It is NOT my duty to invent stories about Jesus when the author had ALREADY made the ORIGIN of HIS Jesus known very EARLY in his writings.

Look at Matthew 1.18. The author is CLEAR. Jesus was the offspring of the Holy Ghost.

Mt 1:18 -

Quote:

Now the birth of Jesus Christ was on this wise: When as his mother Mary was espoused to Joseph, before they came together, she was found with child of the Holy Ghost.

There is no need to speculate.

JESUS was the child of the Holy Ghost.

spamandham · 05-30-2010, 09:32 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ApostateAbe

I think the presence of the story in the gospel of Matthew is meant primarily to inflate the importance as Jesus, as a rival to the power of Herod, and the messiah of prophecy. And, it seems to reflect enormous contempt for Herod.

I tend to agree.

The primary point being, there is nothing historical about the birth narrative even though it is depicted with real historical figures and purported historical events.

If the absurd and unproven analytical techniques often applied to the death story were applied to the birth story, you'd end up with everything just as it's stated, except for the magic star and God talking to the maggi, and totally miss the real meaning and purpose and assume it's just a puffed up biography instead.

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

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.