FRDB Archives

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.


Go Back   FRDB Archives > Archives > Religion (Closed) > Biblical Criticism & History
Welcome, Peter Kirby.
You last visited: Yesterday at 03:12 PM

 
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old 04-30-2012, 06:59 PM   #51
Regular Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2012
Location: USA
Posts: 393
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by outhouse View Post
the thing we do have, is a clear track record of how ancient hebrews created their mythology.
I wouldn't say our understanding of ancient Hebrew creation myth is "clear," though perhaps we can draw general inferences. But that's irrelevant to the historic Jesus issue anyway since the Jesus mythology shows no signs of being created by Jews, but rather non-Jews and anti-Jews like Mark attempting to write new prophecies by imitating the masters.
James The Least is offline  
Old 04-30-2012, 07:01 PM   #52
Regular Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2012
Location: USA
Posts: 393
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by outhouse View Post
I havnt seen a a myther yet produce a replacement hypothesis for why romans deified a peasant, when they have a track record of only deifying emporers ect ect.
Because the peasant only existed in their minds, as a theological construct.
James The Least is offline  
Old 04-30-2012, 07:02 PM   #53
Regular Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2012
Location: USA
Posts: 393
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ktotwf View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by outhouse View Post

sure there is


romans would never deify a poor, peasant, hybrid tax zealot, teacher/healer

but they did

What most people don't seem to get is that he was deified specifically because he was such a stark reversal of the "lordly" type. He appealed to the downtrodden, the masses. He was "our" guy! That is the point!
Exactly. A "spiritual" king who existed in heaven and answered your prayers can never disappoint you, unlike earthly kings.
James The Least is offline  
Old 04-30-2012, 07:06 PM   #54
Contributor
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: the fringe of the caribbean
Posts: 18,988
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by spin View Post
Paul never met a Jesus....
So, did he NOT get the name Jesus from someone else??

Once you admit that Paul never met Jesus then there are TWO fundamental ways he could have gotten the name Jesus and information about the character.

Either orally or by written sources.

The least likely way to obtain the history and name of Jesus is by revelation from the resurrected.

The notion that the supposed Paul KNEW more about Jesus by revelation than his own supposed apostles is rather absurd if Jesus did live.

If Jesus did live and had Apostles then the Apostles would have KNOWN more about Jesus than the supposed Paul.

If Jesus did NOT exist then the Pauline writers could NOT have known anything about Jesus by revelation.

Remarkably, whether or not Jesus existed, Paul could NOT have known about Jesus by revelation.

Revelation is not known to be a credible source for biographies.
aa5874 is offline  
Old 04-30-2012, 07:10 PM   #55
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Mornington Peninsula
Posts: 1,306
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by James The Least View Post
Does Ehrman even mention Thompson in his new book?
Pg18
Quote:
Thompson is trained in biblical studies, but does not have degrees in NT or early Christianity.
Pg204-206 a more detailed appraisel of his ideas - generally dismissive.
Pg342, 348 & 357 cites Messiah Myth
youngalexander is offline  
Old 04-30-2012, 07:33 PM   #56
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Location: Auburn ca
Posts: 4,269
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by James The Least View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by outhouse View Post
I havnt seen a a myther yet produce a replacement hypothesis for why romans deified a peasant, when they have a track record of only deifying emporers ect ect.
Because the peasant only existed in their minds, as a theological construct.
heres where all mythers fail, WHY?



why use a jewish peasant as a roman god?
outhouse is offline  
Old 04-30-2012, 07:39 PM   #57
Contributor
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: the fringe of the caribbean
Posts: 18,988
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by outhouse View Post

heres where all mythers fail, WHY?



why use a jewish peasant as a roman god?
You have Exposed the dilemma for the HJ theory.

It is most absurd that a DEAD jewish peasant was worshiped as a Roman God.

The Gospels are about the Son of God, the Word that was God, NOT a dead jewish peasant.
aa5874 is offline  
Old 04-30-2012, 07:44 PM   #58
Regular Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2012
Location: USA
Posts: 393
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by youngalexander View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by James The Least View Post
Does Ehrman even mention Thompson in his new book?
Pg18
Quote:
Thompson is trained in biblical studies, but does not have degrees in NT or early Christianity.
Pg204-206 a more detailed appraisel of his ideas - generally dismissive.
Pg342, 348 & 357 cites Messiah Myth
Thanks. I hadn't heard him mentioned much in relation to DJE as the other prominent mythicists. Thompson seems to avoid the Internet, which is yet another sign of his superior intellect.
James The Least is offline  
Old 04-30-2012, 07:51 PM   #59
Regular Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2012
Location: USA
Posts: 393
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by outhouse View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by James The Least View Post

Because the peasant only existed in their minds, as a theological construct.
heres where all mythers fail, WHY?

why use a jewish peasant as a roman god?

They wanted something that the Jews had and they didn't: monotheism. Not just that, but a venerated and ancient monotheism. Not only that, but priceless intellectual property in the form of ancient scriptures and prophecies that went back to the creation of the world.

Jesus's financial status was irrelevant to this emerging theology. He was sent by God as a prophet, wasn't recognized as one by the Jews (as prophesied), and was killed by them on Passover (also as prophesied). The only people who acknowledged him as the Messiah was -- surprise! -- the Gentiles. Shocking, huh?
James The Least is offline  
Old 04-30-2012, 07:59 PM   #60
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: South Pacific
Posts: 559
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by aa5874 View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by spin View Post
Paul never met a Jesus....
So, did he NOT get the name Jesus from someone else??

Once you admit that Paul never met Jesus then there are TWO fundamental ways he could have gotten the name Jesus and information about the character.

Either orally or by written sources ....
or, the Pauline content could have been borrowed and altered to align with the canonical gospel stories as they were being written, collated, or re-written.

or, the Pauline content could have been written fully to align with the canonical stores
MrMacSon is offline  
 

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -8. The time now is 02:54 PM.

Top

This custom BB emulates vBulletin® Version 3.8.2
Copyright ©2000 - 2015, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.