Freethought & Rationalism Archive

aa5874 · 02-21-2009, 04:30 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ben C Smith

Quote:

Originally Posted by aa5874

So, Plutarch was confused about history after all.

Yes, he confused tradition with history, as I said, and he turned both into biography.

He did not confuse the genre of history with the genre of biography, as I said.

Thank you for doing your part to confirm what I said.

Ben.

But he was confused nonetheless. He confused tradition with history and turned them into biography but he did not confuse "genre".

You think Plutarch understood "genre"? What did Plutarch know about "genre"?

Amaleq13 · 02-21-2009, 06:13 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by aa5874

You don't know what you are talking about . Look!

I know that "fiction novels" and "ancient biographies" describe different sorts of texts despite the rather generic similarity upon which you have oddly focused. I know that you do not understand this fact. I also know you have no true intention of understanding, let alone acknowledging your confusion. :wave:

Ben C Smith · 02-21-2009, 06:14 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by aa5874

But he was confused nonetheless. He confused tradition with history and turned them into biography but he did not confuse "genre".

That is right! You are on a roll.

Ben.

fatpie42 · 02-21-2009, 06:25 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by arnoldo

Quote:

Originally Posted by aa5874

Based on your source, in "adoptionism", Jesus was regarded as sinless, this position is contrary to the NT.
For all have sinned, and come short of the glory of God;
Ro 3:23 -

So are you saying that the position of the NT,according to your understanding, is that Jesus was not sinless?

I think the point is, if Paul is referring to all humans, this either means that Jesus wasn't sinless or that Paul considers Jesus to be non-human. In other words, if you want to stick with the 'sinless' theory, you have to admit that Paul does not believe he is describing a human being when he talks about Jesus.

Quote:

Originally Posted by arnoldo

Can you demonstrate how to present a realistic human person who lived over two thousand years ago with historical information?

John the Baptist's life is described in detail by Josephus and is described in a factual way by the gospels too. Thus he is described both by a historian non-follower at the time and by later by other figures who do not consider him of central importance to their religious beliefs. The accounts of John the Baptist are also given more plausibility in that they are internally consistent.

Jesus on the other hand is described in a way which is inconsistent with other accounts of the time, inconsistent with other similarly timed writings (which borrow sections from one another) and sometimes internally inconsistent. The only reasonably contemporary account of Jesus outside of the Bible is written in a way inconsistent with the rest of their writing, thus severely lessening the likelihood that it is genuine. So, as you can see, using just Josephus and the gospels we are given good reason to suppose that John the Baptist was real, but Jesus was not.

Feel free to prove me wrong.

aa5874 · 02-21-2009, 06:56 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Amaleq13

Quote:

Originally Posted by aa5874

You don't know what you are talking about . Look!

I know that "fiction novels" and "ancient biographies" describe different sorts of texts despite the rather generic similarity upon which you have oddly focused. I know that you do not understand this fact. I also know you have no true intention of understanding, let alone acknowledging your confusion. :wave:

You know what I don't understand? You love to make stuff up.

arnoldo · 02-21-2009, 08:49 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by fatpie42

Quote:

Originally Posted by arnoldo

So are you saying that the position of the NT,according to your understanding, is that Jesus was not sinless?

I think the point is, if Paul is referring to all humans, this either means that Jesus wasn't sinless or that Paul considers Jesus to be non-human. In other words, if you want to stick with the 'sinless' theory, you have to admit that Paul does not believe he is describing a human being when he talks about Jesus.

Looks like Paul is describing a human being in the following verse:

Quote:

1 Paul, a servant of Jesus Christ, called to be an apostle, separated unto the gospel of God, 2 (Which he had promised afore by his prophets in the holy scriptures,) 3 Concerning his Son Jesus Christ our Lord, which was made of the seed of David according to the flesh

Quote:

Originally Posted by fatpie42

Quote:

Originally Posted by arnoldo

Can you demonstrate how to present a realistic human person who lived over two thousand years ago with historical information?

John the Baptist's life is described in detail by Josephus and is described in a factual way by the gospels too. Thus he is described both by a historian non-follower at the time and by later by other figures who do not consider him of central importance to their religious beliefs. The accounts of John the Baptist are also given more plausibility in that they are internally consistent. . .

Feel free to prove me wrong.

I agree with you that John the Baptist is a historical person. John the Baptist's cave 'found'

Toto · 02-22-2009, 08:58 PM

The subthread on influence of Platonic ideas on the development of both Jewish-Gnosticism and Christianity as we know it has been split off here, per request.

fatpie42 · 02-24-2009, 06:16 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by arnoldo

Looks like Paul is describing a human being in the following verse:

Quote:

1 Paul, a servant of Jesus Christ, called to be an apostle, separated unto the gospel of God, 2 (Which he had promised afore by his prophets in the holy scriptures,) 3 Concerning his Son Jesus Christ our Lord, which was made of the seed of David according to the flesh

No, it looks like Paul is describing someone who shares the blood of King David. I guess I might be being a little pedantic here. I wouldn't consider a god-man to be a 'human being' per se, but I don't doubt that Paul believes Jesus had a human aspect.

Quote:

Originally Posted by arnoldo

I agree with you that John the Baptist is a historical person. John the Baptist's cave 'found'

Lol! Yeah and Jesus' tomb has been found too hasn't it?

aa5874 · 02-24-2009, 08:03 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by fatpie42

Quote:

Originally Posted by arnoldo

Looks like Paul is describing a human being in the following verse:

No, it looks like Paul is describing someone who shares the blood of King David. I guess I might be being a little pedantic here. I wouldn't consider a god-man to be a 'human being' per se, but I don't doubt that Paul believes Jesus had a human aspect.

The God/man Jesus of the writer Paul is consistent with the God/man of the gospels, however based on the writings of Justin Martyr, I consider the writer Paul to be at least late 2nd century.

And, Justin mentioned an apostle named John who also had "revelations" from Jesus.

This is Jesus to John in his Revelations.

Revelations 22:16 -

Quote:

I Jesus have sent mine angel to testify unto you these things in the churches. I am the root and the offspring of David, and the bright and morning star.

I think this may be where the writer Paul got the information about Jesus as the offspring of David.,

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

02-22-2009, 08:58 PM	#577
Toto Contributor Join Date: Jun 2000 Location: Los Angeles area Posts: 40,549	The subthread on influence of Platonic ideas on the development of both Jewish-Gnosticism and Christianity as we know it has been split off here, per request.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.