Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Elijah · 11-13-2008, 04:55 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by eheffa

Your position that the "real historical" Jesus was merely some simple peasant with delusions of grandeur and that any notions of him being more than this is some sort of "cartoon-like" distorition is not rational or reasonable. If the real HJ was no more than an unremarkable Galilean peasant, there is no reason to concern ourselves over his existence. There would be perhaps thousand of such peasants over the course of Palestinian History. You make him into a non-entity for which historicity means nothing. On the other hand the orthodox teachings of Christians & the Church at large have always maintained that this God-Man was in reality far more than some simple peasant. They claim that the HJ said & did all those things recorded so faithfully for us in the NT Gospels because he was God Incarnate breaking into history for all the world to see. (This is not the story of some anonymous unremarkable peasant.)

I still think of him as the messiah and the pimp of all pimps but he is described as being a peasant and not a person of note during his lifetime.

Quote:

Is there any evidence that such a man, even in some schematic or diminished sense ever lived during the time of Pontius Pilate? Why should we expect there to be any specific evidence for such a man? Because if he were even half asvremarkable as we are supposed to believe he was, he would have had to be noticed by some contemporaries.

Who are his contemporaries that should have mentioned him in their writings? If we don’t believe in the magical aspects what happened that was worth writing about?

Quote:

How is it that this Man-God Jesus person and his first century followers fail to be noticed by the true historians of the era? To read the gospels, one would have thought that this Jesus Messiah was the talk of the town; what with the crowds cheering his triumphal entry parade, his public humiliation before the Sanhedrin & Pontius Pilate. One would think that his public execution on the holiest holiday of the Jewish calendar & the resulting omens of earthquakes, the darkened earth, the dead brought to life & walking the streets of Jerusalem etc. might have caught even the most cynical & jaded observer's notice.

How many real historians’ writings from that era and region have preserved? And why would the real historian concern himself with an executed peasant? Again why should you expect recordings of events that aren’t possible like the dead walking the streets?

Quote:

According to the Book of Acts, after Jesus' public ascension into the sky, his followers supposedly turned the Jewish religious landscape upside down as their dynamic spirit-filled movement gathered momentum. The mass conversions were happening on a grand scale & provoking a strong backlash from the Jewish establishment. Roman authorities were being appealed to in order to quash this disruptive cult. All this was happening prior to the fall of Jerusalem, but somehow Josephus & others failed to notice any of this.

Notice what? What did Jesus’ immediate followers do of historical value? Preachers draw crowds and gain followers all the time but what is the historical aspect that you think should have been recorded and preserved?

Quote:

Josephus & Philo pay attention to much smaller details & many less compelling characters in their histories & somehow fail to even notice the existence of this very public messiah figure. ( The Testimonium Flavium cannot be used as evidence as it is almost certainly an interpolation.) It just doesn't make any sense that these historians would not have noticed the existence of this messiah figure & his supposedly vigorous & disruptive followers - unless of course the Gospel accounts are post-hoc legend.

What writings of Philo are you referencing? The guy had the effect on contemporary history like a David Koresh and the only historian that should mention him (that I know of) has a note there, obviously an interpolation but something there prevents it from being good evidence against a historical origin. Of course most of the Gospel accounts should be considered post hoc legend IMO.

Quote:

In this case, the absence of evidence is a strong indicator of absence. The evidence of contemporaneous ignorance of Jesus is best explained by a mythical Jesus invented later by his fabricating followers.

How much evidence are we looking at? How much contemporary history is he missing from that he should be in?

His followers invented him or just the tales surrounding him?

Elijah · 11-13-2008, 05:01 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by aa5874

I have always maintained that cartoon-like characters, just like Jesus of the NT, are fiction.

Regardless of if you consider it fiction or history, when reading it you should consider the political and philosophical aspect of the time. Your understanding of Christianity seems only fit for a cartoon, not reasonable conversation.

aa5874 · 11-13-2008, 05:34 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Elijah

Quote:

Originally Posted by aa5874

I have always maintained that cartoon-like characters, just like Jesus of the NT, are fiction.

Regardless of if you consider it fiction or history, when reading it you should consider the political and philosophical aspect of the time. Your understanding of Christianity seems only fit for a cartoon, not reasonable conversation.

Again, you are the one who claimed the cartoon character called Jesus lived. Read, your own post.

You live in a dream world where your cartoon characters come to life.

I do not deal with cartoon characters.

This is the evidence presented of your cartoon character found in Acts of the Apostles, as he was going through the clouds.

Acts 1.9-11

Quote:

And when He [Jesus] had spoken these things, while they beheld, He was taken up, and a cloud receive Him out of their sight.

And while they looked stedfastly toward heaven as He went up, behold two men stood by them in white apparel,

Which also said, Ye men of Galilee, why stand ye gazing up into heaven? this same Jesus, which was taken up from you into heaven, shall so come in like manner AS ye have seen Him go into heaven.

Behold, your cartoon man and the men in white apparel.

Elijah · 11-13-2008, 05:47 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by aa5874

I do not deal with cartoon characters.

No, but you interpret scripture as if it was such is the point I am trying to make.

spamandham · 11-13-2008, 05:59 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Elijah

I still think of him as the messiah and the pimp of all pimps but he is described as being a peasant and not a person of note during his lifetime.

The earliest records do not describe him as a peasant. Paul makes no mention of Jesus' social stature at all.

The 'peasant Jesus' idea makes no sense. If his contemporaries were impressed enough with him to form a religious movement, why were they not impressed enough to write something down about him?

The 'peasant Jesus' idea is a much greater stretch than even the most contorted of mythicist positions.

spamandham · 11-13-2008, 06:02 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Elijah

Quote:

Originally Posted by aa5874

I do not deal with cartoon characters.

No, but you interpret scripture as if it was such is the point I am trying to make.

aa's interpretation is in line with the majority of Christians. If you think a different interpretation makes more sense, present it, and explain.

Elijah · 11-13-2008, 06:03 PM

What reason do you see to believe he had (if historical) another status in his life? What social status do you think he should have been considered?

Elijah · 11-13-2008, 06:08 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by spamandham

aa's interpretation is in line with the majority of Christians. If you think a different interpretation makes more sense, present it, and explain.

I think you're making assumptions on aa's interpretation like you make assumptions on what the majority of Christians think. Unless he's an alt of yours.

aa5874 · 11-13-2008, 07:52 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by spamandham

Quote:

Originally Posted by Elijah

No, but you interpret scripture as if it was such is the point I am trying to make.

aa's interpretation is in line with the majority of Christians. If you think a different interpretation makes more sense, present it, and explain.

Please, you do not know what you are saying. I consider Jesus to a fictitious character, a pack of lies or a myth. Christians do not consider Jesus to be fiction, lies or myth.

Christians present Jesus as a character that lived during the days of Tiberius, and so does Elijah.

I INTERPRET the NT and the church writings as fiction, false, erroneous, mis-leading, implausible and mythichal.

Christians and Elijah INTERPRET the NT and church writings as facts, history and true, even sometimes to the point of marytyrdom.

Elijah and Christians claim the cartoon-like character called Jesus do/did exist.

I only present the evidence as stated in the NT and church writings, and the evidence matches those of myths like Achilles.

Amaleq13 · 11-13-2008, 09:00 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Elijah

Yes I understand that it is problematic and subjective depending on the reason used but that doesn’t negate a first.

No, you clearly don't understand.

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

11-13-2008, 06:03 PM	#157
Elijah Veteran Member Join Date: Mar 2005 Location: MidWest Posts: 1,894	What reason do you see to believe he had (if historical) another status in his life? What social status do you think he should have been considered?

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.