Freethought & Rationalism Archive

ApostateAbe · 12-26-2009, 08:39 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by avi

Quote:

Originally Posted by Apostate Abe

My explicit aim is to understand, and my second aim is to pass on that understanding to other people.

In one respect, Abe, we are similar, and that is this: we lack a proper base, a proper grounding, in the fundamentals, i.e. literacy in Greek.

In my opinion, without rigorous competence in Greek, one cannot hope to teach that understanding (of the new testament) to others.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Apostate Abe

There are clues within the Christian gospels that I take to indicate historicity of Jesus,...

as there are clues within Iliad to suggest some aspects of historicity regarding the siege of a city in Turkey called Troy. Perhaps there was a real person called Achilles, who was a great warrior. The notion that there may well have been some underlying elements of historical reality, perhaps contributed to the nearly three millenia duration of successful publishing of the fictional Iliad.

The question then becomes this: why are we so successful in detecting mythical traits described so vividly within the text of Iliad, and so unsuccessful in exposing the same mythical character of the Gospels-->which share, with Iliad, a common language, and a common tradition--based upon oral legend, with grotesquely obvious aspects of flimflam (twaddle) in both Greek texts?

The OP focused on crucifixion, an historical remedy for social unrest employed with success by the Romans. There are, then, certainly elements of historical veracity associated with the four gospels. Do those elements outweigh the equally evident myths inserted throughout the texts, as if clues by the authors, alerting the perceptive reader, to understand that one is reading a novel, not a biography?

avi

I know nothing of The Iliad, so I can't answer your first question. The theory that the gospel narratives were intended to be novels, I think, is very unlikely, because the gospels do not contain a lot of adventurism or drama as in The Odyssey or (presumably) The Iliad, but it does contain plenty of moral and scriptural sermonizing, boring and obnoxious to anyone who doesn't adhere to Christianity.

You ask if historical elements "outweigh" the evidence myths. I don't take it as a matter of competing weights, because there is obviously no limit to how ridiculously mythical the account can become, and the historical elements stand independent of the miracle stories. For example, the origin of Jesus as from Nazareth in Galilee I take to be a historical element, because it is contrary to Christian motivation (they wanted Bethlehem to be the hometown of Jesus). This historical element is not affected by the account of Matthew and Luke that Jesus was born in Bethlehem, except that it serves to reveal Christian motivation.

ApostateAbe · 12-26-2009, 08:42 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by spin

Quote:

Originally Posted by ApostateAbe

If it is alright by you, you don't have to split up my post into many different parts. Just choose a point that is important to you and talk about that. I want to give your arguments full attention and not waste too much time on what is irrelevant.

You know the obvious response to that is: if you only want me not to waste too much time on what is irrelevant, why not just write the relevant stuff and then I won't have any irrelevant stuff to response to?

OK, never mind.

Quote:

Originally Posted by spin

Quote:

Originally Posted by ApostateAbe

My explicit aim is to understand, and my second aim is to pass on that understanding to other people. I do have a lot of emotional baggage about the Christian religion, and a lot of what I do and how I think has the subconscious desire to do away with the religion, despite my value of emotional neutrality.

We all have baggage, as you know. Again, as you know, often the baggage is not visible to us. When it is visible, one has the chance of dealing with it.

spin

Yes, absolutely.

aa5874 · 12-26-2009, 09:53 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ApostateAbe

.... For example, the origin of Jesus as from Nazareth in Galilee I take to be a historical element, because it is contrary to Christian motivation (they wanted Bethlehem to be the hometown of Jesus). This historical element is not affected by the account of Matthew and Luke that Jesus was born in Bethlehem, except that it serves to reveal Christian motivation.

That is a most absurd and illogical way to confirm that Jesus did exist and went to Nazareth.

You simply believe Jesus did exist and just simply assume he went to live in Nazareth because the Bible says so.

You FIRST need a credible external source that can show that Jesus did exist and secondly you need to provide a source external of the Bible that can show Jesus was indeed born in Bethlehem.

In gMatthew, no one knew that Jesus was even born in Bethlehem, except the Magis and the angel, that is why Herod had to kill all the young children.

In gMatthew, Jesus was described as the offspring of the Holy Ghost and a Virgin.

You cannot use the NT as your source for a man called Jesus. The NT is the history book about the Holy Ghost of God.

The NT is the MANUAL for the MYTH, the MULTIPLE-ATTESTED BIOGRAPHY of the Holy Ghost of God.

The Holy Ghost of God was born in Bethlehem, went to Egypt and then to the CITY of Nazareth in gMatthew.

In gLuke, the Holy Ghost of God was born in Bethlehem after his mother left Nazareth for a census with Josephus with child of the Holy Ghost.

If you want to discuss a man called Jesus get your own history book of the man, the NT is not about a man it is about the Holy Ghost of God.

Look at Matthew 1:18-22

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.........for that which is conceived in her is of the Holy Ghost. 21 And she shall bring forth a son, and thou shalt call his name JESUS

Please, take note. In the NT every time you see the word JESUS think HOLY GHOST.

Clivedurdle · 12-26-2009, 10:21 AM

Quote:

The sole basis of our beliefs is the Bible, God’s infallible written Word, the 66 books of the Old and New Testaments. We believe that it was uniquely, verbally and fully inspired by the Holy Spirit, and that it was written without error (inerrant) in the original manuscripts. It is the supreme and final authority in all matters on which it speaks.

http://campuscrusadeforchrist.com/ab...ement-of-faith

There are no errors!

spamandham · 12-26-2009, 09:52 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ApostateAbe

I think maybe we can at least agree that, if there are sufficiently many parts within the New Testament that are better explained by a historical Jesus than with Christian invention, then the historical Jesus theory is more likely than the mythical Jesus theory, regardless of the miracle stories.

I agree with this. In fact, it is not the miracle stories that lead me to the position of "most likely allegorical myth", instead, it's the passion itself that leads me to that. It seems so obviously derived form Jewish expectations, that were it to actually be true, the alignment with the Jewish scriptures would itself be nothing short of miraculous.

ApostateAbe · 12-26-2009, 10:04 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by spamandham

Quote:

Originally Posted by ApostateAbe

I think maybe we can at least agree that, if there are sufficiently many parts within the New Testament that are better explained by a historical Jesus than with Christian invention, then the historical Jesus theory is more likely than the mythical Jesus theory, regardless of the miracle stories.

I agree with this. In fact, it is not the miracle stories that lead me to the position of "most likely allegorical myth", instead, it's the passion itself that leads me to that. It seems so obviously derived form Jewish expectations, that were it to actually be true, the alignment with the Jewish scriptures would itself be nothing short of miraculous.

I am glad that we agree on that.

aa5874 · 12-26-2009, 11:29 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ApostateAbe

Quote:

Originally Posted by spamandham

I agree with this. In fact, it is not the miracle stories that lead me to the position of "most likely allegorical myth", instead, it's the passion itself that leads me to that. It seems so obviously derived form Jewish expectations, that were it to actually be true, the alignment with the Jewish scriptures would itself be nothing short of miraculous.

I am glad that we agree on that.

Well, once you agree that the crucifixion was "most likely allegorical myth" then your argument to support the HJ has vaporised.

Once the conception, the temptation, the supposed miracles, the transfiguration, crucifixion, resurrection and ascension were non-historical then you can kiss the HJ good-bye.

The life of Jesus was just an "allergorical myth".

Steven Carr · 12-27-2009, 01:56 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ApostateAbe

OK, cool, what is your source for the information on the historical last supper?

What historical Last Supper? The one where Jesus , not knowing he was going to be betrayed, told the cult how to obtain access to his body after his death?

I am pretty certain that if people read a story of a cult founder telling his followers how to conjure up his body during a ritualistic meal, then they would not be so quick to claim it is all history.

Unless the cult was Christianity, of course.

Steven Carr · 12-27-2009, 01:58 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ApostateAbe

For example, the origin of Jesus as from Nazareth in Galilee I take to be a historical element, because it is contrary to Christian motivation (they wanted Bethlehem to be the hometown of Jesus).

Did Christians want the infant Jesus to kill people?

Presumably not, which I imagine must imply that those stories about the infant Jesus killing people must be true.

ApostateAbe · 12-27-2009, 07:31 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Steven Carr

Quote:

Originally Posted by ApostateAbe

For example, the origin of Jesus as from Nazareth in Galilee I take to be a historical element, because it is contrary to Christian motivation (they wanted Bethlehem to be the hometown of Jesus).

Did Christians want the infant Jesus to kill people?

Presumably not, which I imagine must imply that those stories about the infant Jesus killing people must be true.

I don't know what you are referring to, sorry.

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

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.