Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Chaucer · 10-23-2010, 09:09 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Frankencaster

A summary:

-Moncure D. Conway [1832 - 1907] (Modern Thought)

"The world has been for a long time engaged in writing lives of Jesus... The library of such books has grown since then. But when we come to examine them, one startling fact confronts us: all of these books relate to a personage concerning whom there does not exist a single scrap of contemporary information -- not one! By accepted tradition he was born in the reign of Augustus, the great literary age of the nation of which he was a subject. In the Augustan age historians flourished; poets, orators, critics and travelers abounded. Yet not one mentions the name of Jesus Christ, much less any incident in his life."

-

And the same is true of Hannibal and Boudicca and Arminius. Are they also fictitious?

Double standard anyone?

aa5874 · 10-23-2010, 09:28 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Chaucer

Quote:

Originally Posted by Frankencaster

I lean towards fiction rather than agnosticism.

The Jesus myth fulfilled the need of a niche religious sect of some type to give themselves legitimacy.

It reduces to a 'We are special. We are chosen' and here's 'the proof'. the same theme played out hundreds of times in various human cultures.

Jesus emerges from a cauldron of imaginary tales...from virgin birth to rising from the dead...ascending into heaven and all types of imaginary tales in between.

There's no need for a 'real person' to be a the center of the Jesus myth anymore than there is a need fro a 'real person' to me at the center of the myth of Zeus, Superman, Adam, or thousands of human-like mythological figures.

I studied Latin for 5 years. The Romans were well written. Not a smidgeon of mention of a guy who claimed virgin birth, rec'd gifts from kings, walked on water, etc. This would have been BIG STUFF just as it would be today. The last thing the Romans would have done is executed him...he's be brought back to Rome to perform his tricks for the emperor..

Once and for all, no HJer is suggesting that the real Jesus, a normal human being with nothing magical about him at all, ever "claimed virgin birth, rec'd gifts from kings, walked on water, etc." Consequently, the real HJ would have been of no interest to the Romans as an exhibit. The real HJ is consistently shown in the earliest Syriac fragment of Josephus' Antiq. XVIII and in the only text we have of Jos. Antiq. XX and in the reference in Tacitus and in the reference in the Mishnah and in the non-Biblical Thomas as an obscure and perfectly normal human who merely gained himself a modest notoriety among the locals. That's it, and that's the consiilience of five different references, none of which is in the Bible. No claim here of "virgin birth, rec'd gifts from kings, walked on water, etc." whatsoever. It is absurd for anyone to try and suggest that each and every one of these 5 entirely separate extra-Biblical references to a perfectly normal human can each be coincidentally dismissed for one reason or another.

Chaucer

There is NO credible extra-biblical mention of a Messiah called Jesus of Nazareth. NONE.

Tacitus did not mention Jesus of Nazareth. The word "Jesus" is NOT anywhere in Annals 15.44

No Church writer used Tacitus to claim Jesus had FLESH or was human.

Suetonius did not mention Jesus of Nazareth.

No church writer used Suetonius to claim Jesus had Flesh or was human. The word "Jesus" cannot be found in Suetonius "Lives of Nero, Claudius or Tiberius

No Skeptic in antiquity used Suetonius to claim Jesus was just a man when arguing with Christians who claimed Jesus was a God.

Antiquities of the Jews 18.3.3 and 20.9.1 are forgeries.

The author/s of the forgeries claimed Jesus was seen alive on the third day after he was supposed to be dead and Church writers claimed the sopposed James the apostle was NOT an actual brother of Jesus.

The historical Jesus is dead. Finished.

How long must we go over the same forgeries and rejected material?

Chaucer · 10-23-2010, 09:54 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by aa5874

Quote:

Originally Posted by Chaucer

Once and for all, no HJer is suggesting that the real Jesus, a normal human being with nothing magical about him at all, ever "claimed virgin birth, rec'd gifts from kings, walked on water, etc." Consequently, the real HJ would have been of no interest to the Romans as an exhibit. The real HJ is consistently shown in the earliest Syriac fragment of Josephus' Antiq. XVIII and in the only text we have of Jos. Antiq. XX and in the reference in Tacitus and in the reference in the Mishnah and in the non-Biblical Thomas as an obscure and perfectly normal human who merely gained himself a modest notoriety among the locals. That's it, and that's the consiilience of five different references, none of which is in the Bible. No claim here of "virgin birth, rec'd gifts from kings, walked on water, etc." whatsoever. It is absurd for anyone to try and suggest that each and every one of these 5 entirely separate extra-Biblical references to a perfectly normal human can each be coincidentally dismissed for one reason or another.

Chaucer

There is NO credible extra-biblical mention of a Messiah called Jesus of Nazareth. NONE.

Tacitus did not mention Jesus of Nazareth. The word "Jesus" is NOT anywhere in Annals 15.44

No Church writer used Tacitus to claim Jesus had FLESH or was human.

Suetonius did not mention Jesus of Nazareth.

No church writer used Suetonius to claim Jesus had Flesh or was human. The word "Jesus" cannot be found in Suetonius "Lives of Nero, Claudius or Tiberius

No Skeptic in antiquity used Suetonius to claim Jesus was just a man when arguing with Christians who claimed Jesus was a God.

Antiquities of the Jews 18.3.3 and 20.9.1 are forgeries.

The author/s of the forgeries claimed Jesus was seen alive on the third day after he was supposed to be dead and Church writers claimed the sopposed James the apostle was NOT an actual brother of Jesus.

The historical Jesus is dead. Finished.

How long must we go over the same forgeries and rejected material?

Until people like you start to understand at what point a five-way coincidence becomes too ludicrous to take seriously. You're asking us to credit a five-way coincidence in the face of a blatantly more likely conclusion: the entirely normal human being called Jesus Christ as duly described in each of the 5 separate non-Biblical references is an entirely historical human being with nothing magic about him.

Chaucer

Steve Weiss · 10-23-2010, 10:23 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Doug Shaver

Quote:

Originally Posted by Steve Weiss

In other words, fiction is the default position.

Is that the default position for all narrative writings, or just narrative writings with religious messages?

Truthfulness may not be presumed. Every statement needs to be verified and its veracity subjected to as much testing as possible. In addition, any claims to the miraculous can be dismissed out of hand as a violation of the law of identity and as irrational. There are no holy scriptures, only holy propaganda.

Religionists claim that morality isn't possible based upon objective values and that only a deity can determine right from wrong or make judgments. If the bible is anything to go by, there is no defense for this position because the standards of morality contained in those pages is of the most perverse kind.

Steve Weiss · 10-23-2010, 10:31 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by aa5874

Quote:

Originally Posted by Chaucer

Once and for all, no HJer is suggesting that the real Jesus, a normal human being with nothing magical about him at all, ever "claimed virgin birth, rec'd gifts from kings, walked on water, etc." Consequently, the real HJ would have been of no interest to the Romans as an exhibit. The real HJ is consistently shown in the earliest Syriac fragment of Josephus' Antiq. XVIII and in the only text we have of Jos. Antiq. XX and in the reference in Tacitus and in the reference in the Mishnah and in the non-Biblical Thomas as an obscure and perfectly normal human who merely gained himself a modest notoriety among the locals. That's it, and that's the consiilience of five different references, none of which is in the Bible. No claim here of "virgin birth, rec'd gifts from kings, walked on water, etc." whatsoever. It is absurd for anyone to try and suggest that each and every one of these 5 entirely separate extra-Biblical references to a perfectly normal human can each be coincidentally dismissed for one reason or another.

Chaucer

There is NO credible extra-biblical mention of a Messiah called Jesus of Nazareth. NONE.

Tacitus did not mention Jesus of Nazareth. The word "Jesus" is NOT anywhere in Annals 15.44

No Church writer used Tacitus to claim Jesus had FLESH or was human.

Suetonius did not mention Jesus of Nazareth.

No church writer used Suetonius to claim Jesus had Flesh or was human. The word "Jesus" cannot be found in Suetonius "Lives of Nero, Claudius or Tiberius

No Skeptic in antiquity used Suetonius to claim Jesus was just a man when arguing with Christians who claimed Jesus was a God.

Antiquities of the Jews 18.3.3 and 20.9.1 are forgeries.

The author/s of the forgeries claimed Jesus was seen alive on the third day after he was supposed to be dead and Church writers claimed the sopposed James the apostle was NOT an actual brother of Jesus.

The historical Jesus is dead. Finished.

How long must we go over the same forgeries and rejected material?

Spot on, however, true believers will evade, deny, obfuscate and twist and turn with apologetics because they want their religious magic to be true. They want simple answers to complex problems, and they lack the interest or intelligence to rely upon reason, science and the facts of reality. Believers believe in the primacy of consciousness and that reality is subject to their whims. As long as they persist in that mind-set, nothing that you or anyone could say will alter their belief system, especially when they believe that to do so would condemn them to eternal hell. So, you are right, but ignored.

aa5874 · 10-23-2010, 10:41 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Chaucer

Quote:

Originally Posted by aa5874

There is NO credible extra-biblical mention of a Messiah called Jesus of Nazareth. NONE.

Tacitus did not mention Jesus of Nazareth. The word "Jesus" is NOT anywhere in Annals 15.44

No Church writer used Tacitus to claim Jesus had FLESH or was human.

Suetonius did not mention Jesus of Nazareth.

No church writer used Suetonius to claim Jesus had Flesh or was human. The word "Jesus" cannot be found in Suetonius "Lives of Nero, Claudius or Tiberius

No Skeptic in antiquity used Suetonius to claim Jesus was just a man when arguing with Christians who claimed Jesus was a God.

Antiquities of the Jews 18.3.3 and 20.9.1 are forgeries.

The author/s of the forgeries claimed Jesus was seen alive on the third day after he was supposed to be dead and Church writers claimed the sopposed James the apostle was NOT an actual brother of Jesus.

The historical Jesus is dead. Finished.

How long must we go over the same forgeries and rejected material?

Until people like you start to understand at what point a five-way coincidence becomes too ludicrous to take seriously. You're asking us to credit a five-way coincidence in the face of a blatantly more likely conclusion: the entirely normal human being called Jesus Christ as duly described in each of the 5 separate non-Biblical references is an entirely historical human being with nothing magic about him.

Chaucer

You think forgeries are coincidences.

Antiquities of the Jews 18.3.3 and 20.9.1 appear to have been interpolated around the time of the writing of "Church History" by Eusebius and Annals 15.44 seemed to have been forged sometime AFTER the beginning of the 5th century or after "Sacred History" by Sulpitius Severus.

And, again, it is COMPLETELY erroneous that Jesus is mentioned In FIVE separate non-Biblical references.

There is ONE single source with the name Jesus called Christ and that single source is Antiquities of the Jews 18.3.3 and 20.9.1and they are forgeries.

Not even the Church writers used Antiquities 20.9.1 to claim Jesus had a brother called James in fact, they produce the names of the parents of James to show that James could NO way be the brother of Jesus called Christ.

See the "Fragment 10 by Papias and "De Viris Illustribus" 2 by Jerome.

And in Antiquities of the Jews 18.3.3 Jesus was RAISED from the dead. "Antiquities of the Jews" 18.3.3 is NOT history, it is MYTHOLOGY

Chaucer · 10-23-2010, 11:50 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Steve Weiss

Quote:

Originally Posted by aa5874

There is NO credible extra-biblical mention of a Messiah called Jesus of Nazareth. NONE.

Tacitus did not mention Jesus of Nazareth. The word "Jesus" is NOT anywhere in Annals 15.44

No Church writer used Tacitus to claim Jesus had FLESH or was human.

Suetonius did not mention Jesus of Nazareth.

No church writer used Suetonius to claim Jesus had Flesh or was human. The word "Jesus" cannot be found in Suetonius "Lives of Nero, Claudius or Tiberius

No Skeptic in antiquity used Suetonius to claim Jesus was just a man when arguing with Christians who claimed Jesus was a God.

Antiquities of the Jews 18.3.3 and 20.9.1 are forgeries.

The author/s of the forgeries claimed Jesus was seen alive on the third day after he was supposed to be dead and Church writers claimed the sopposed James the apostle was NOT an actual brother of Jesus.

The historical Jesus is dead. Finished.

How long must we go over the same forgeries and rejected material?

Spot on, however, true believers will evade, deny, obfuscate and twist and turn with apologetics because they want their religious magic to be true.

You're not tangling with fundies here. The HJ-ers here are skeptics. -- Got that? S-k-e-p-t-i-c-s.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Steve Weiss

They want simple answers to complex problems, and they lack the interest or intelligence to rely upon reason, science and the facts of reality. Believers believe in the primacy of consciousness and that reality is subject to their whims. As long as they persist in that mind-set, nothing that you or anyone could say will alter their belief system,

My goodness: You must be looking in the mirror.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Steve Weiss

especially when they believe that to do so would condemn them to eternal hell.

Now look here: You know very well that the HJ-ers you've been tangling with here are s-k-e-p-t-i-c-s. You're deliberately evading what has already been said here by others who are HJ-ers _and_ s-k-e-p-t-i-c-s. I'm sick and tired of this kind of straw-man-ing from you mythers. Enough is enough. Get this through your thick head and get it good: You. Are. Not. Dealing. With. Fundies. Here. And. I. Think. A. Part. Of. You. Really. Knows. That.

Chaucer

Doug Shaver · 10-24-2010, 06:34 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Steve Weiss

In other words, fiction is the default position.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Doug Shaver

Is that the default position for all narrative writings, or just narrative writings with religious messages?

Quote:

Originally Posted by Steve Weiss

Truthfulness may not be presumed.

And I never suggested otherwise.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Steve Weiss

Every statement needs to be verified and its veracity subjected to as much testing as possible.

I'm OK with that, but pending verification, I don't assume falsehood. I withhold judgment.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Steve Weiss

There are no holy scriptures, only holy propaganda.

I don't call anything holy, but I don't regard "scriptures" as implying any judgment. People who believe in them might do so, but I'm not letting them dictate the terms of the debate.

And propaganda is any utterance, spoken or written, intended to influence opinion. Nobody calls it propaganda if they happen to agree with it, but the word itself, like "scripture," is neutral.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Steve Weiss

Religionists claim that morality isn't possible based upon objective values and that only a deity can determine right from wrong or make judgments.

Many of them do. Many do not. Whether they do or not is irrelevant to what we should presuppose about ancient documents.

And speaking of presuppositions, you didn't actually answer my question.

aa5874 · 10-24-2010, 09:20 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Chaucer

Quote:

Originally Posted by Steve Weiss

Spot on, however, true believers will evade, deny, obfuscate and twist and turn with apologetics because they want their religious magic to be true.

You're not tangling with fundies here. The HJ-ers here are skeptics. -- Got that? S-k-e-p-t-i-c-s.

But, as a supposed Skeptic why do BELIEVE the same thing as Jesus BELIEVERS?

Do you not BELIEVE, like Jesus BELIEVERS, that Jesus lived in Nazareth although you have no external credible source that even mentioned that a Messiah called Jesus who lived in Nazareth?

Do you not BELIEVE, like Jesus Believers, that Jesus was crucified, although there is no credible external source for such a BELIEF.

Do you not BELIEVE, like Jesus Believers, the NT contains the history of Jesus?

Do you not DISCREDIT the NT yet depend on it for your BELIEF about Jesus?

Well, are you really a Skeptic, a convenient skeptic, or just a weak and confused Jesus BELIEVER ?

Chaucer · 10-24-2010, 10:20 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by aa5874

Quote:

Originally Posted by Chaucer

You're not tangling with fundies here. The HJ-ers here are skeptics. -- Got that? S-k-e-p-t-i-c-s.

But, as a supposed Skeptic why do BELIEVE the same thing as Jesus BELIEVERS?

HJ-ers don't!

Quote:

Originally Posted by aa5874

Do you not BELIEVE, like Jesus BELIEVERS, that Jesus lived in Nazareth although you have no external credible source that even mentioned that a Messiah called Jesus who lived in Nazareth?

To the best of my knowledge, HJ-ers do.

Quote:

Originally Posted by aa5874

Do you not BELIEVE, like Jesus Believers, that Jesus was crucified, although there is no credible external source for such a BELIEF.

HJ-ers do, and there is a credible external source for J's crucifixion.

Quote:

Originally Posted by aa5874

Do you not BELIEVE, like Jesus Believers, the NT contains the history of Jesus?

HJ-ers don't!

Quote:

Originally Posted by aa5874

Do you not DISCREDIT the NT yet depend on it for your BELIEF about Jesus?

HJ-ers don't!

Chaucer

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

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.