Freethought & Rationalism Archive

J-D · 10-27-2011, 06:29 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mountainman

Quote:

Originally Posted by J-D

Quote:

Originally Posted by Toto

Paul didn't meet Jesus in the flesh.

I am curious to know what makes you confident of that conclusion. I see no sure basis for deciding the question one way or the other.

Didn't Bilbo Baggins meet Gandalf in the flesh on a hilltop far far away in Lothrolien? It alludes to such a meeting, just after Gandalf the Grey was resurrected to become Gandalf the White. But I am curious to know what makes people confident of such a conclusion. I personally, having reflected on the matter for several seconds, see no sure basis for deciding the question one way or the other.

As I have already said several times, some of the statements in the canonical books of Tolkien, such as "The Hobbit" and "Lord of the Rings" using the name Bilbo Baggins cannot possibly be literally accurate reports of events that actually took place. I do not see how that is an adequate basis for concluding that none of the statements in "The Hobbit" and "Lord of the Rings" using the name Bilbo Baggins are literally accurate reports of events that actually took place, because the presence in a document of some false statements does not automatically prove that all the statements in the document are false, so to me the question remains open.

HA-HA-HA-HA-HA-HA-HA! AH-HA-HA-HA-HA-HA!

Pure classic comedy gold!

Sorry, I mean, pure classic comedy lead!

You know, you really couldn’t have chosen a worse analogy for your purposes. Christopher Tolkien has collected and published, in excruciating detail, every scrap of manuscript written by his father during the composition of his works about ‘Middle-Earth’, and the cumulative record shows clearly how that process of composition worked and how no part of it involved the confirmation of any details from any source material except the elder Tolkien’s own imagination. The thoroughly documented record shows clearly who the sole composer of the text was and that not one sentence of it was intended by that sole author to be a literally accurate report of an event that actually took place.

If the process of composition of the canonical New Testament were documented with the same obsessive thoroughness, it would provide an equally secure basis for drawing equally definite conclusions. But it wasn’t.

mountainman · 10-27-2011, 06:38 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by J-D

Quote:

Originally Posted by mountainman

Quote:

Originally Posted by J-D

Quote:

Originally Posted by Toto

Paul didn't meet Jesus in the flesh.

I am curious to know what makes you confident of that conclusion. I see no sure basis for deciding the question one way or the other.

Didn't Bilbo Baggins meet Gandalf in the flesh on a hilltop far far away in Lothrolien? It alludes to such a meeting, just after Gandalf the Grey was resurrected to become Gandalf the White. But I am curious to know what makes people confident of such a conclusion. I personally, having reflected on the matter for several seconds, see no sure basis for deciding the question one way or the other.

As I have already said several times, some of the statements in the canonical books of Tolkien, such as "The Hobbit" and "Lord of the Rings" using the name Bilbo Baggins cannot possibly be literally accurate reports of events that actually took place. I do not see how that is an adequate basis for concluding that none of the statements in "The Hobbit" and "Lord of the Rings" using the name Bilbo Baggins are literally accurate reports of events that actually took place, because the presence in a document of some false statements does not automatically prove that all the statements in the document are false, so to me the question remains open.

HA-HA-HA-HA-HA-HA-HA! AH-HA-HA-HA-HA-HA!

Pure classic comedy gold!

Sorry, I mean, pure classic comedy lead!

You know, you really couldn’t have chosen a worse analogy for your purposes. Christopher Tolkien has collected and published, in excruciating detail, every scrap of manuscript written by his father during the composition of his works about ‘Middle-Earth’, and the cumulative record shows clearly how that process of composition worked and how no part of it involved the confirmation of any details from any source material except the elder Tolkien’s own imagination. The thoroughly documented record shows clearly who the sole composer of the text was and that not one sentence of it was intended by that sole author to be a literally accurate report of an event that actually took place.

If the process of composition of the canonical New Testament were documented with the same obsessive thoroughness, it would provide an equally secure basis for drawing equally definite conclusions. But it wasn’t.

Tolkien Took twleve years to research and author "The Lord of the Rings" which is about the same length of time Eusebius Took to research and author, between 312 and 324 CE according to the assessment of modern scholarship, all there is to know or all there will ever be to know about, the "History of the Christian Church" before the Nicaean Victory Celebrations commenced in 325 CE.

Who's scholarship and story-telling ability is superior? Did Bilbo Baggins meet the resurrected Gandalf the White "in the flesh" upon some lofty star-studded hill beneath the heavens of middle-earth is not a trivial question for those with an open mind concerned about the historical truth and the history of "Christian Origens".

Did Eusebius get royalties?

He certainly collected all the scraps of writing by his "father" Pamphilus, and Pamphilus's "father" Origen the Christian (not Origen the Pagan). You should read some of them, perhaps starting with Rufinus's Epilogue to "Pamphilus the Martyr's Apology for Origen", otherwise known as "the Book Concerning the Adulteration of the Works of Origen.".

aa5874 · 10-27-2011, 06:39 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by J-D

...If any work which contains even one supernatural reference is therefore to be regarded as a work of fiction and not historical, then, for example, Suetonius’s The Twelve Caesars (De Vita Caesarum) should be regarded as a work of fiction, since it contains many references to supernatural events which could not possibly have literally taken place as described. But Suetonius’s The Twelve Caesars is not generally regarded as a work of fiction just because it incorporates reference to supernatural events. It is generally regarded as a historical work. aa5874 has cited it more than once as such. There are a number of works from antiquity which contain references to supernatural events which could not possibly have taken place and which are nevertheless generally regarded as historical works and not fictional ones. So you are applying a standard which is not generally accepted and may be peculiarly alone....

Whatever is in other writings of antiquity MUST analysed and assessed INDEPENDENTLY and the findings CANNOT be transferred to the Gospels.

It is WHOLLY absurd to even suggest that because Suetonius' "Twelve Caesars" are considered to be historical that the Canonical Gospels should be or are likely to be historical accounts of Jesus.

The Canonised Gospels CANNOT be an historical account of Jesus because he was described as a Child of a Ghost, God and the Creator of heaven.

No ATTEMPT can be found in ALL the NT to name a human father of Jesus. It is the REVERSE. After a supposed INVESTIGATION, the author of gLuke explained the MYTH Conception.

In the writings of Suetonius HUMAN FATHERS were named for the Emperors.

And further, the writings of Suetonius were NOT ISOLATED and then accepted as historical. The Caesars of Suetonius were CORROBORATED to have LIVED.

It is historically ACCURATE that there were characters called Julius Caesar to Domitian.

There is ZERO source for HJ of Nazareth.

HJ of Nazareth and the TWELVE disciples CANNOT be corroborated at all.

The MYTH theory CANNOT be defeated.

1. Jesus was described as a Child of a Ghost.

2. Jesus ACTED as a Ghost.

3. There is ZERO corroboration from non-apologetic sources for the character called Jesus Christ.

Only HJ cannot be advance without any credible DATA.

The MYTH Jesus is based on DOCUMENTED FACTS.

Kapyong · 10-27-2011, 06:48 PM

Gday all,

Quote:

Originally Posted by J-D

The thoroughly documented record shows clearly who the sole composer of the text was and that not one sentence of it was intended by that sole author to be a literally accurate report of an event that actually took place.

Yah.

But here's an odd tid-bit - in the preface somehwere, I recall Tolkien implying it WAS based on real manuscripts and real events long ago.

As an inquiring 12 year old, that really stuck out like a sore thumb back then. But now I see it as an authorial convention that helped to cement the work as 'myth', not 'fiction'.

K.

Sheshbazzar · 10-27-2011, 09:36 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Kapyong

Gday,

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sheshbazzar

Oh I don't doubt that 'Paul' (or all those writers pretending to be 'Paul') believed in 'spiritual' beings (as hundreds of millions superstitious Christians claim they still do)

That they may be sincere in their belief in the existence of such non-corporeal entities, and manage to convince themselves these invisible beings are actually communicating with them does nothing at all to make these imaginary spiritual entities any part of the real world. Never has, never will.
Zombie Jebus and his troop of zany -spiritual- and invisible characters only exist within the infected and demented minds of the religionists, not in any reality.

Indeed.
So WHO claimed that spiritual beings really existed?

Yes, WHO ever was it that suggested any such a thing?
Who Who Who?

Quote:

Originally Posted by Kapyong Post #136

I already made it crystal clear I WAS REFFERING TO A REAL SPIRITUAL BEING - I SAID SO multiple times. I have also said so many dozens of times over the past few years here.

hmmm.:constern01:

Quote:

Originally Posted by Kapyong

Why do you repeat this point ?
Does anyone here claim heavenly beings really existed ?

Not unless it has been you yourself here. If anyone can make any sense out of your posts.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Kapyong

Who do you think you are arguing with?

I -was- arguing with J-D. I have no idea what you have been drinking, puffing, or huffing that generated your off the wall commentary.

Sheshbazzar · 10-27-2011, 09:45 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by J-D

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sheshbazzar

Quote:

Originally Posted by J-D

Quote:

Originally Posted by jakejonesiv

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sheshbazzar

Quote:

Originally Posted by J-D

I'm not hanging any sort of hat on anything. All I'm saying is that although some of the statements in the canonical Gospels using the name Jesus cannot possibly be literally accurate reports of events that actually took place, other of the statements in the canonical Gospels using
the name Jesus might or might not be literally accurate reports of events that actually took place.

And around and around the merry-go-round it goes.
Which? Well something in there might be.
What? I really don't have any idea, but something in there could be.
Where? whatever happens to strike my fancy. (but I'm not willing to defend it)

And thus comes another thousand posts.

icardfacepalm:

Exactly!!

It is a sad spectacle to watch Historists shrink Jesus to any degree necessary in order to not give up the idea entirely. If Jesus started out as a Rottweiler, what are we down to now? One of those pathetic little dogs that shake and tremble if their owners set them down? Yeah, historical Jesus, we ought to call him Peanut.

I don't know whether you're referring to me, but if you are, I'd like to know if there's anything in what I've actually said that makes you refer to me as a 'historicist'.

On the other hand, if you're not referring to me, then obviously your strictures don't apply to what I've actually said, which still stands.

J-D as long as you hold onto your present, 'Jebus' mentioned- 'might or might not be an accurate account of actual events' position you will continue to be regarded as one attempting to defend some minute level of historical reality to NT Jebus character.

Whether you are able to understand the fact or not, whatever level of wavering, reservations, or uncertainty you might express regarding these few verses, no matter how small, automatically places you firmly into that 'historicist' camp.

You may not like that. But the MJ position is uncompromising; If Jebus was mythical then mythical is ALL that he was, or ever could be.
There is no room in the MJ position for any tiny little 'real' Jebus that 'might or might not' be alluded to in snippets of text here and there.

Either he was a living breathing person who walked the earth and actually interacted with people, or he was not. There is no half-way in betweens, or in one hundredth of the texts.
He was or he wasn't...... MJs exclusively conclude that he was not and never was a living, walking, talking, breathing -human being- EVER.

If that conclusion is not acceptable to you, then you are of the 'historicist' camp, like it or not, deny it or not.

I am happy to defend the things I have actually said, whatever label you choose to apply to them or to me.

But it is unfair and discourteous to attribute to me positions I have never taken just because you have chosen to apply labels in a way that lumps me in the same category as other people who have taken those other positions, even though I have not.

You defend it and you are in that catagory. that simple. The 'label' is only an indicator of a particular position that is held, not demeaning or any judgement against that position.

Myth or not a myth, Jebus is either one or the other, it cannot be both. One is either entirely in support of the Myth position or one is not. simple.

Nothing unfair or being discourteous about it. It is only your own choice that places you on which side of that dividing fence you most definately are.

.

J-D · 10-27-2011, 09:59 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mountainman

At the end of the day the historical arguments (and evidence) must be for or against the integrity of "the wonderful story of history" by Big E.

There's no 'must' about it.

J-D · 10-27-2011, 10:01 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mountainman

Quote:

Originally Posted by J-D

Quote:

Originally Posted by mountainman

Quote:

Originally Posted by J-D

Quote:

Originally Posted by Toto

Paul didn't meet Jesus in the flesh.

I am curious to know what makes you confident of that conclusion. I see no sure basis for deciding the question one way or the other.

Didn't Bilbo Baggins meet Gandalf in the flesh on a hilltop far far away in Lothrolien? It alludes to such a meeting, just after Gandalf the Grey was resurrected to become Gandalf the White. But I am curious to know what makes people confident of such a conclusion. I personally, having reflected on the matter for several seconds, see no sure basis for deciding the question one way or the other.

As I have already said several times, some of the statements in the canonical books of Tolkien, such as "The Hobbit" and "Lord of the Rings" using the name Bilbo Baggins cannot possibly be literally accurate reports of events that actually took place. I do not see how that is an adequate basis for concluding that none of the statements in "The Hobbit" and "Lord of the Rings" using the name Bilbo Baggins are literally accurate reports of events that actually took place, because the presence in a document of some false statements does not automatically prove that all the statements in the document are false, so to me the question remains open.

HA-HA-HA-HA-HA-HA-HA! AH-HA-HA-HA-HA-HA!

Pure classic comedy gold!

Sorry, I mean, pure classic comedy lead!

You know, you really couldn’t have chosen a worse analogy for your purposes. Christopher Tolkien has collected and published, in excruciating detail, every scrap of manuscript written by his father during the composition of his works about ‘Middle-Earth’, and the cumulative record shows clearly how that process of composition worked and how no part of it involved the confirmation of any details from any source material except the elder Tolkien’s own imagination. The thoroughly documented record shows clearly who the sole composer of the text was and that not one sentence of it was intended by that sole author to be a literally accurate report of an event that actually took place.

If the process of composition of the canonical New Testament were documented with the same obsessive thoroughness, it would provide an equally secure basis for drawing equally definite conclusions. But it wasn’t.

Tolkien Took twleve years to research and author "The Lord of the Rings" which is about the same length of time Eusebius Took to research and author, between 312 and 324 CE according to the assessment of modern scholarship, all there is to know or all there will ever be to know about, the "History of the Christian Church" before the Nicaean Victory Celebrations commenced in 325 CE.

Who's scholarship and story-telling ability is superior? Did Bilbo Baggins meet the resurrected Gandalf the White "in the flesh" upon some lofty star-studded hill beneath the heavens of middle-earth is not a trivial question for those with an open mind concerned about the historical truth and the history of "Christian Origens".

Did Eusebius get royalties?

He certainly collected all the scraps of writing by his "father" Pamphilus, and Pamphilus's "father" Origen the Christian (not Origen the Pagan). You should read some of them, perhaps starting with Rufinus's Epilogue to "Pamphilus the Martyr's Apology for Origen", otherwise known as "the Book Concerning the Adulteration of the Works of Origen.".

My conclusions about what Tolkien did are based on extensive explicit documentation of his activities in detail.

Your conclusions about what Eusebius did are not.

mountainman · 10-27-2011, 10:46 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by J-D

Quote:

Originally Posted by mountainman

At the end of the day the historical arguments (and evidence) must be for or against the integrity of "the wonderful story of history" by Big E.

There's no 'must' about it.

You may well be under-estimating the pivotal role of Eusebius.
Let's see ..... How do you interpret the following ....

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bishop Lightfoot

None ventured to go over the same ground again,
but left him sole possessor of the field
which he held by right of discovery and of conquest.
The most bitter of his theological adversaries
were forced to confess their obligations to him,
and to speak of his work with respect.

It is only necessary to reflect for a moment
what a blank would be left in our knowledge
of this most important chapter in all human history,
if the narrative of Eusebius were blotted out,
and we shall appreciate the enormous debt
of gratitude which we owe to him.

The little light which glimmered over the earliest
history of Christianity in medieval times
came ultimately from Eusebius alone,
coloured and distorted in its passage
through various media.

-- J.B. Lightfoot, Eusebius of Caesarea, (article. pp. 324-5),
Dictionary of Christian Biography: Literature, Sects and Doctrines,
ed. by William Smith and Henry Wace, Vol II.

Kapyong · 10-27-2011, 10:49 PM

Gday,

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sheshbazzar

Quote:

Originally Posted by Kapyong

Gday,
Indeed.
So WHO claimed that spiritual beings really existed?

Yes, WHO ever was it that suggested any such a thing?
Who Who Who?
hmmm.:constern01:

Quote:

Originally Posted by Kapyong

I already made it crystal clear I WAS REFERING TO A REAL SPIRITUAL BEING - I SAID SO multiple times. I have also said so many dozens of times over the past few years here.

Oh get off the grass please !
I was clarifying what is was REFERING to - a "real spiritual being" according to Paul.

But I'm not arguing that the spiritual being Jesus actually existed as Paul seemed to believe. Who knows what it actually was - but to Paul it was real. I'm arguing what Paul believed, not what I believe.

Seriously, do you think that sentence you quoted actually means that I believe what Paul believed?

I'm simply pointing out that Paul's Jesus was very real to HIM. It was not "make believe", it was not "made up" "out of thin air".

(What do I actually believe Paul's spiritual Jesus, that was real to Paul, really was? Dunno for sure.)

K.

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

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.