Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Solitary Man · 01-28-2008, 01:49 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Toto

There was some discussion about whether the ancients really thought in terms of non-existence, but that was not very conclusive.

Are you kidding me? If it wasn't conclusive to you, then you must have had your eyes elsewhere.

Quote:

And we have talked about your unsupported claims of an ideological agenda before. They do not add to your argument.

Yes, we've discussed it, but you can't shake off the trailing stench of creationisticism.

angelo · 01-28-2008, 02:21 AM

For what it's worth, I have in front of me a book that claims The story of Jesus is a Pagan Myth predating the N/T by thousands of years.
There was a poster some pages ago who used Ockam's Razor for a belief in Jesus.
The opposite is the case. Shave away the magic, the contradictions, lack of any 'historical' evidence, and you are left with nothing.
No, the chance of his existence is zilch.

mountainman · 01-28-2008, 02:30 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by reniaa

Quote:

The relational integrity of the NT is savagely impaired
by the archaeological evidence]

I would argue this statement what archaeology is available completely backs up the nt (pontious pilate stone, herod the great info, the sanhedrin leaders of the time, inc common practises between roman and jews at the time, even the consensus of jews at jesus's birth has been confirmed) unless you argue lack of evidence is proof which personally I find is a flawed viewpoint as archaeology isn't an exact science, but useful when using it against the bible, as what archaeology evidence is available does tend to back up both the ot and nt leaving skeptic's arguing the lack of proof arguement on remaining issues to make their points.

Hey reniaa,

If you are going to argue archaeological citations
which in your opinion give support to the NT story
for the period 000 to 300 then what are your best
5 or 10 citations?

Alternatively, at this index I have listed over
60 references to epigraphic and papyri "evidence"
for "early christian origins".

Which bits of evidence do you have a warm fuzzy
feeling about the most? The Pilate "evidence"?
Please provide a link.

Best wishes,

Pete Brown

pob14 · 01-28-2008, 06:40 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by makerowner

I voted maybe. I don't think there's enough evidence to say 'yes', but I also don't think that any other theory put forward so far explains the evidence better. He was probably a preacher/exorcist/faith healer in the early 1st century who antagonized the Jewish authorities and may have associated with rebel movements and was executed as a "rabble-rouser".

I agree entirely with this position, except that I voted "yes." Maybe this is why the other polls have been "nuanced."

No Robots · 01-28-2008, 08:11 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Toto

This sounds like an argument against the Talmud and Livy.

No. It is an attempt to draw attention to the utterly different conditions which prevail in oral societies.

Quote:

Except that I don't think that the Talmud was meant to be taken as history

No? Why not? What is it then?

aa5874 · 01-28-2008, 08:12 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Antipope Innocent II

No-one was a Jesus Myther until very, very recently. Which is odd, considering what a powerful argument the idea that he never existed would have been in the hands of Christianity's enemies.

Before you embrace the fundamentalism of the JM position you might want to ponder why no-one ever said he didn't exist back then. Strange, no? :huh:

These statements appear to be completely erroneous. According to Justin Martyr in First Apology 26, Marcion of Pontus, claimed the Jesus of NT to be a myth, in the middle of the 2nd century.

Also, Irenaeus in "Against Heretics" did mention people like Valentinus who did not believe that the person called Jesus Christ of the NT was ever human.

No Robots · 01-28-2008, 09:27 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by aa5874

According to Justin Martyr in First Apology 26, Marcion of Pontus, claimed the Jesus of NT to be a myth, in the middle of the 2nd century.

Here is 1 Apol. 26 where it describes Marcion:

And there is Marcion, a man of Pontus, who is even at this day alive, and teaching his disciples to believe in some other god greater than the Creator. And he, by the aid of the devils, has caused many of every nation to speak blasphemies, and to deny that God is the maker of this universe, and to assert that some other being, greater than He, has done greater works.

Nothing about Jesus being a myth here.

Quote:

Also, Irenaeus in "Against Heretics" did mention people like Valentinus who did not believe that the person called Jesus Christ of the NT was ever human.

Please cite any source for Valentinus as mythicist. Irenaeus does not seem to do so.

aa5874 · 01-28-2008, 10:24 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by aa5874

According to Justin Martyr in First Apology 26, Marcion of Pontus, claimed the Jesus of NT to be a myth, in the middle of the 2nd century.

Quote:

Originally Posted by No Robots

Here is 1 Apol. 26 where it describes Marcion:

And there is Marcion, a man of Pontus, who is even at this day alive, and teaching his disciples to believe in some other god greater than the Creator. And he, by the aid of the devils, has caused many of every nation to speak blasphemies, and to deny that God is the maker of this universe, and to assert that some other being, greater than He, has done greater works.

Nothing about Jesus being a myth here.

You seem not to have read much about Macion's Jesus called the phantom.

This is Justin Martyr in First Apology 58

Quote:

And as we said before, the devils put forward Marcion of Pontus, who is now even teaching men to deny that God is the maker of all things in heaven and on earth, and that the Christ predicted by the prophets is his Son and preaches another god besides the creator of all, and likewise another son.

Essentially the Jesus of the NT is myth or fiction.

Quote:

Also, Irenaeus in "Against Heretics" did mention people like Valentinus who did not believe that the person called Jesus Christ of the NT was ever human.

Quote:

Originally Posted by No Robots

Please cite any source for Valentinus as mythicist. Irenaeus does not seem to do so.

"Against Heresies" 1.2.5 partially entitled ".....The Production of Jesus"

Quote:

After this substance had been placed outside of the Pleroma of the AEons, and its mother restored to her proper conjuction, they tell us that that Monogenes, acting in accordance with the prudent fore-thought of the Father, gave origin to another conjugal pair, namely Christ and the Holy Spirit,( lest any of the Aeons should fall into a calamity to that of Sophia)....

Valentinus, agian, believed that the Jesus of the NT was myth or fiction and produced a Christ as the son of Monogenes, some kind of substance outside the Pleroma of AEons, not the son of Mary.
,

Toto · 01-28-2008, 10:27 AM

It depends on whether the Docetists were mythicists. They believed that Jesus was a phantom; from our modern materialist point of view, the historicist posters here claim that they thought Jesus appeared to be present, but was in essence a phantom, so that they have to be counted as believing in a historical Jesus, or at least trying to explain a historical figure.

I am undecided. Freke and Gandy are sure that the Docetists were early mythicists. Doherty thinks that they were a transitional stage between mythicism and a belief in a historical Jesus.

No Robots · 01-28-2008, 10:50 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by aa5874

"Against Heresies" 1.2.5 partially entitled ".....The Production of Jesus"

Quote:

After this substance had been placed outside of the Pleroma of the AEons, and its mother restored to her proper conjuction, they tell us that that Monogenes, acting in accordance with the prudent fore-thought of the Father, gave origin to another conjugal pair, namely Christ and the Holy Spirit,( lest any of the Aeons should fall into a calamity to that of Sophia)....

Irenaeus continues:

Then, out of gratitude for the great benefit which had been conferred on them, the whole Pleroma of the Æons, with one design and desire, and with the concurrence of Christ and the Holy Spirit, their Father also setting the seal of His approval on their conduct, brought together whatever each one had in himself of the greatest beauty and preciousness; and uniting all these contributions so as skilfully to blend the whole, they produced, to the honour and glory of Bythus, a being of most perfect beauty, the very star of the Pleroma, and the perfect fruit [of it], namely Jesus. Him they also speak of under the name of Saviour, and Christ, and patronymically, Logos, and Everything, because He was formed from the contributions of all. And then we are told that, by way of honour, angels of the same nature as Himself were simultaneously produced, to act as His body-guard.

Irenaeus clearly makes a distinction here between the heavenly Christ and the earthly Jesus, and certainly he doesn't construe the latter as mythical. Indeed, in the following chapter, Irenaeus describes Valentinian exegesis of well-known events in the Savior's earthly life.

Quote:

Valentinus, agian, believed that the Jesus of the NT was myth or fiction and produced a Christ as the son of Monogenes, some kind of substance outside the Pleroma of AEons, not the son of Mary.

As we see in the passage from Irenaeus that I quoted above, it is Jesus who is the product of the heavenly beings, including of the heavenly Christ. This is congruent with orthodox Christianity, which asserts that Christ was conceived through the Holy Spirit.

View Poll Results: Was Jesus ever an actual human being?
Yes	45	20.93%
No	78	36.28%
Maybe	84	39.07%
Other	8	3.72%
Voters: 215. You may not vote on this poll

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

01-28-2008, 02:21 AM	#132
angelo Veteran Member Join Date: Jun 2007 Location: Australia Posts: 5,706	For what it's worth, I have in front of me a book that claims The story of Jesus is a Pagan Myth predating the N/T by thousands of years. There was a poster some pages ago who used Ockam's Razor for a belief in Jesus. The opposite is the case. Shave away the magic, the contradictions, lack of any 'historical' evidence, and you are left with nothing. No, the chance of his existence is zilch.

01-28-2008, 10:27 AM	#139
Toto Contributor Join Date: Jun 2000 Location: Los Angeles area Posts: 40,549	It depends on whether the Docetists were mythicists. They believed that Jesus was a phantom; from our modern materialist point of view, the historicist posters here claim that they thought Jesus appeared to be present, but was in essence a phantom, so that they have to be counted as believing in a historical Jesus, or at least trying to explain a historical figure. I am undecided. Freke and Gandy are sure that the Docetists were early mythicists. Doherty thinks that they were a transitional stage between mythicism and a belief in a historical Jesus.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.