FRDB Archives

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.


Go Back   FRDB Archives > Archives > Religion (Closed) > Biblical Criticism & History
Welcome, Peter Kirby.
You last visited: Yesterday at 03:12 PM

 
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old 11-28-2005, 10:35 PM   #41
Contributor
 
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: Los Angeles area
Posts: 40,549
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Yahweh
...

But the one thing you were wrong about was in saying I was close-minded. Saying I'm unhappy with the quality of scholarship that claims to make a case for the nonexistence of Jesus means exactly that; after posting on the JREF forum, it turned out that authors like Kersey Graves, Archarya S, Remsburg, Earl Doherty, and some other authors based their cases on bad or outdated scholarship, , , ,
Graves is outdated, Remsburg possibly, but you can't claim that about Doherty.

Quote:
so that case that there was not at least a wisdom sage who or social revolutionary had failed to be properly made.
If I can untangle that sentence, no one claims that there were not multiple wisdom sages and Jewish revolutionaries in the first century. The question is, was there a wisdom teacher who was crucified as a revolutionary and inspired the formation of the Christian religion? We have no evidence of such a person.

Quote:
I dont believe the claims have been substatiated on academically acceptable grounds, so at the very least I wont suggest Christianity is false on the basis of the nonexistence of Jesus (this isnt the same thing as conceding Jesus actually existed).
This is a hard argument, because you then bear the burden of proof that Jesus did not exist, and the evidence is scarse. Most people try to win the argument by throwing the burden of proof on the other side.

Quote:
So, at least based on that, when I read sites about how Christianity is false because Jesus was based on Mithra, I think they miss the point. So I considered the thought experiment in the opening post would be sufficient to bypass all of those claims altogether, and get a better variety of replies and see how others would respond
If you ignore the historical basis of Christianity, which is the crux of the belief for many evangelical Christians, there are still many reasons not to be a Christian, but they generally fall outside the scope of this forum.
Toto is offline  
Old 11-29-2005, 04:43 AM   #42
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: USA
Posts: 562
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by anthrosciguy
A passage which we know was written many years after the fact claims that Paul claims that he saw something... That's not too convincing. My statement "Or is that slim unsupported claim enough to hang a worldview on?" isn't an ad hominem, but a valid question about Christianity and those who do hang their worldview on just that sort of unsupported claim. Whether you do or not I neither know nor care -- but many do.
I assumed it was directed towards me. And it seems that virtually everyone who specializes in the field of New Testament studies DOES find it convincing.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Amaleq13
How do you explain the transition from Paul's, let's say "respectful disagreement" to Mark's "complete fools"?
I think the image of "respectful disagreement" is a misassesment. I think that Paul brings up Peter's earlier "hypocracy" points to the fact that there was still animosity between the two.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kosh
I don't think his position has changed at all!

Fact: nobody witnessed any of it (at least not the ones that "documented it"!)
Fact: it is pure myth, until evidence is presented to prove otherwise.
He has yet to address the issue of Paul's first person claim to have witnessed it, and the fact that essentially all scholars believe such an event to have happened! Reiterating the original thesis is not an argument.
Quote:
Actually, as Crossan points out in "The Birth of Christianity", post mortem "apperances" were a common thing to those people. Nothing miraculous about it, they just believed it happened. A lot.
That doesn;t mean that the ancient mind could not have percieved it to have been a miracle, despite the common nature of the event.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mountain Man
The bible is pure myth. No one writing the bible was an eye witness to any of the jesus related events. Why? I'm not a christian and I could not care less about the bible, what it says or what it's apologists have to say about it. IT'S A MYTH!
These scholars ARE NOT apologists. Besides, that IS ad hominem (http://www.infidels.org/news/atheism/logic.html). If one is an apologist it does not mean that they are wrong. Please address the issue of Paul which I have repeatedly brought up or stop making this claim. Or address ANYthing I say.
Zeichman is offline  
Old 11-29-2005, 05:33 AM   #43
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: oz
Posts: 1,848
Default

Galatians 1.16 in which Paul states that god "was pleased to reveal his son IN me" is interesting.

Note "IN".

Not "TO'', as appears in many versions of this verse but, apparently, should not be considered as valid a translation of the Gk. as "in".

"In" suggests to me, and not being religious I find this difficult to express, some sort of mental conversion, intellectual/emotional decision....whatever.
I suspect that such could occur over a period of time, a growing inner conviction and certainty that ...[insert Paul's beliefs]...is correct, true, THE truth.

But "to'' can be interpreted as a outer vision....the shining light sort of thing as in Acts or perhaps an hallucination.

So what I find interesting, particularly given the lack of consensus as to whether the author of Acts actually had access to the writings of Paul, is why did the author of Acts choose to describe Paul's conversion in terms of an experience, vision, that was also witnessed, with some variations in what they witnessed, by Paul's alleged companions?
An external event compared to what Paul describes an an internal event.

Elsewhere Paul describes his learning about JC as a "revelation" [Gal 1.12]
I have no idea what Gk. this translates but note that a revelation need not necessarily imply an external, able to be seen by others, type event but can, again, be an internal /coming to a decision / ah now I understand type of thing.

Also interesting are some comments that I have read along the way about the decision, by Bible editors, to translate ''en" in this context as "to'' rather than the more usual, valid "in".
Presuming "in" is at least equally, or perhaps more, valid than "to'' why would these editors choose to go with "to"?

So without looking elsewhere, eg 1Cor 15.8, at this stage I would suggest that the above does not constitute a claim by Paul that he saw JC at all.
yalla is offline  
Old 11-29-2005, 05:52 AM   #44
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: Orions Belt
Posts: 3,911
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by yalla
Presuming "in" is at least equally, or perhaps more, valid than "to'' why would these editors choose to go with "to"?
Perhaps they were translating through Gospel colored glasses (if I may paraphrase Doherty!)
Kosh is offline  
Old 11-29-2005, 07:41 AM   #45
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Minnesota, the least controversial state in the le
Posts: 8,446
Default

Forgive me Zeichman, I assumed that you were a "standard christian"--a thing that seems to be a very rare bird in these parts. I have in the past restricted my arguments to the bible, because many christians won't accept non-biblical sources. Now it is my fate to be arguing someone who doesn't accept the bible. (sigh)

I confess that I am not sufficiently learned in early christian writings to argue with you on them, perhaps Sauron would be able to. My point of view is that the dominant form of christianity is the one to be argued against, and my cult based argument is designed for it. It is the dominant form of christianity, because it has the most powerful cult characteristics, so was able to crush the more reasonable christian sects, like the gnostics, and arianists and so forth.

Anyhow, when I saw the title I assumed that the historical Jesus we were assuming to exist was the one described by the Gospels, and his disciples too, who are, of course, quite important to standard christianity. If anyone wishes to argue with me about that, I welcome it. Otherwise, I will bow out.

I stand by my belief, however, that Jesus, if a real person, was nothing more than a cult leader. Proving that the gospels are later additions to earlier church traditions does nothing to contradict that assertion. Indeed, it strengthens it: If the historical Jesus existed, and his religion was completely crushed and obscured by a later, fabricated religion, why should we believe that it is the True religion? A true religion should be able to defeat any challenge, after all.
Sarpedon is offline  
Old 11-29-2005, 08:45 AM   #46
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: Eagle River, Alaska
Posts: 7,816
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Zeichman
I think the image of "respectful disagreement" is a misassesment. I think that Paul brings up Peter's earlier "hypocracy" points to the fact that there was still animosity between the two.
However you would characterize Paul's consideration of the "Pillars", would you not agree that it falls far short of Mark's "complete fools"?

It seems to me that Paul tacitly acknowledges that, even if he did not hold the reputation of the Pillars as significant, he is aware that at least some of his congregation did. Would you agree?
Amaleq13 is offline  
Old 11-29-2005, 10:03 AM   #47
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: Bootjack, CA
Posts: 2,065
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Zeichman
....These scholars ARE NOT apologists. Besides, that IS ad hominem (http://www.infidels.org/news/atheism/logic.html). If one is an apologist it does not mean that they are wrong. Please address the issue of Paul which I have repeatedly brought up or stop making this claim. Or address ANYthing I say.
As I said earlier, but you must have missed: You have no proof of what the person being called "Paul" saw anything. You have no proof it was a hallucination from eating bad bread. You have no proof it was not a Temporal Lobe Epilepsy siesure. It's just an anecdote out of a book of questionable origins that proves nothing. Others have also addressed this problem. This claim of a vision does not prove that the jesus of the NT existed as a god, or even as a person.
Mountain Man is offline  
Old 11-30-2005, 11:29 AM   #48
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: USA
Posts: 562
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Sarpedon
Forgive me Zeichman, I assumed that you were a "standard christian"--a thing that seems to be a very rare bird in these parts. I have in the past restricted my arguments to the bible, because many christians won't accept non-biblical sources. Now it is my fate to be arguing someone who doesn't accept the bible. (sigh)
Not a problem. Being a Neo-Orthodox Christian does have its own baggage which I have to carry.

Quote:
I confess that I am not sufficiently learned in early christian writings to argue with you on them, perhaps Sauron would be able to. My point of view is that the dominant form of christianity is the one to be argued against, and my cult based argument is designed for it. It is the dominant form of christianity, because it has the most powerful cult characteristics, so was able to crush the more reasonable christian sects, like the gnostics, and arianists and so forth.
Fair enough, while this could work well against inerrantists, I don't restrict myself to such readings/criticisms.

Quote:
Anyhow, when I saw the title I assumed that the historical Jesus we were assuming to exist was the one described by the Gospels, and his disciples too, who are, of course, quite important to standard christianity. If anyone wishes to argue with me about that, I welcome it. Otherwise, I will bow out.
I won't disagree with this.
Quote:
I stand by my belief, however, that Jesus, if a real person, was nothing more than a cult leader. Proving that the gospels are later additions to earlier church traditions does nothing to contradict that assertion. Indeed, it strengthens it: If the historical Jesus existed, and his religion was completely crushed and obscured by a later, fabricated religion, why should we believe that it is the True religion? A true religion should be able to defeat any challenge, after all.
What my point is is that Christ-devotion was absent in several forms of early Christianity. A cult founded either by Jesus or his disciples seems to be an implausable explanation for such groups to arise.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Amaleq13
However you would characterize Paul's consideration of the "Pillars", would you not agree that it falls far short of Mark's "complete fools"?
You do have me there.
Quote:
It seems to me that Paul tacitly acknowledges that, even if he did not hold the reputation of the Pillars as significant, he is aware that at least some of his congregation did. Would you agree?
Yes. But I don't believe this is sufficient evidence for labelling early Christianity as the "cult" which has been discussed here and in another thread.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mountain Man
As I said earlier, but you must have missed: You have no proof of what the person being called "Paul" saw anything. You have no proof it was a hallucination from eating bad bread. You have no proof it was not a Temporal Lobe Epilepsy siesure. It's just an anecdote out of a book of questionable origins that proves nothing. Others have also addressed this problem. This claim of a vision does not prove that the jesus of the NT existed as a god, or even as a person.
THe authenticity of Paul's vision is outside the realm of historical inquiry. It is absolutely impossible to prove or disprove whether or not it was a risen Christ, a hallucination or both. How is 1 Corinthians a "books of questionable origins"? Statements like this require backing it up. No scholar contests that epistle's authenticity, nor Phillipians.

Additionally, you're redirecting my original argument against something which I never sought to address. My argument, for the third time, is that not all of the significant events of the New Testament are far removed from Biblical authors, which you claimed in your initial post. Not the straw man which you have set up here. The deity of Jesus was never brought up, nor a Historical Jesus (which I certainly accept, but I know that many here, more educated than I contest, so I won't argue for it). Since it's becoming obvious that you aren't interested in having an actual debate, I'll stop replying to you until you come up with new arguments which address my concern.

And I apologize for getting the thread way off topic.
Zeichman is offline  
Old 11-30-2005, 01:11 PM   #49
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: Eagle River, Alaska
Posts: 7,816
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Zeichman
You do have me there.
Thanks but I really wasn't trying to "get" you.

Quote:
Yes. But I don't believe this is sufficient evidence for labelling early Christianity as the "cult" which has been discussed here and in another thread.
I'm not trying to establish that. I'm just interested in explanations, within the context of the OP assumption, for the transition from Paul's time to Mark's. To have the guys who started the movement go from having a "high reputation" to them being called fools who never understood Jesus and even denied him seems like it needs a good one.

This probably deserves its own thread but thanks for replying.
Amaleq13 is offline  
Old 11-30-2005, 05:36 PM   #50
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: Eagle River, Alaska
Posts: 7,816
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Amaleq13
This probably deserves its own thread but thanks for replying.
On second thought, it might be appropriate after all.

Does the notion that, about 40 years after starting the movement, these men came to be depicted fools who did not actually understand Jesus cast doubt on Christianity?
Amaleq13 is offline  
 

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -8. The time now is 01:30 AM.

Top

This custom BB emulates vBulletin® Version 3.8.2
Copyright ©2000 - 2015, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.