Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Elijah · 01-26-2009, 04:13 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Toto

But since you don't have enough background in myth or history or historical theories, you can't identify a coherent theory.

Did I miss one? Do you think a coherent theory has been presented that I missed?

Toto · 01-26-2009, 04:14 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Elijah

Quote:

Originally Posted by Toto

But since you don't have enough background in myth or history or historical theories, you can't identify a coherent theory.

Did I miss one? Do you think a coherent theory has been presented that I missed?

Yes.

Elijah · 01-26-2009, 04:17 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Toto

Quote:

Originally Posted by Elijah

Did I miss one? Do you think a coherent theory has been presented that I missed?

Yes.

Which one?

Toto · 01-26-2009, 04:22 PM

There have been many.

Read post #150.

If you have any more questions, reread post #150.

If you don't have a high school degree, keep studying.

Elijah · 01-26-2009, 04:32 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Toto

There have been many.

Read post #150.

If you have any more questions, reread post #150.

If you don't have a high school degree, keep studying.

Nice cop out.

aa5874 · 01-26-2009, 05:23 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Elijah

Quote:

Originally Posted by aa5874

There is no evidence for an historical core.

There is evidence. The oral tradition alone is evidence. There is no reliable unbiased evidence is what you mean to say.

Who told you that there was an oral tradition? You cannot even locate your oral evidence. It was revealed to you?

Quote:

Originally Posted by Elijah

He wasn’t thought of as a god but a messiah. Do you understand the difference?

Please, read Mark 1.1 [quote] The beginning of the gospel of Jesus Christ, the Son of God.

He was thought of as a God.
And what did suicide man do to be thought of as a messiah in Judaea?

Quote:

Originally Posted by Elijah

The language and legend surrounding him gets confused by people who are unfamiliar with a messiah concept and are only familiar with pagan myths type tales. How many people and when it got popular to believe in the god/man version like you do is debatable because you have to show that the writer isn’t speaking with philosophical terms and speaking strictly supernatural crap.

You mean even the people who did not like Jesus and those who executed him got confused.

Why would a dead man confuse the Jews, up to 133 CE, the Jews still expected a messiah, and they called Simon bar Kokchba the messiah.

Now, it is you who are confused, suicide man did not do anything like Simon to be thought of as a messiah. Messiah do not just committ suicide, they actually kill their enemies. A Jewish messiah would pray to his God for help to kill Romans or any of their enemies.

Suicide man is a waste of time.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Elijah

Do you have any idea what Peter believed about Jesus or if he even understood him? I don’t. Jews don’t worship men as gods would be why the Jews rejected him and the gentiles received him. Understanding why Jesus put himself as the image of god requires you to understand some philosophical concepts of the time especially about god being incomprehensible.

In the NT, the offspring of the Holy Ghost had thousands of followers.

And how can show that the oral tradition was not figurative or supernatural crap?

Quote:

Originally Posted by Elijah

He would if he had studied Greek philosophy some and understood God beyond what the casual Jew did. Jesus and Paul represent a time when Greek thought was amalgamating with Jewish thought.

So, how come Philo did not say a single word about the Logos with respect to Jesus?

Quote:

Originally Posted by Elijah

Why cite Origen? Didn’t Eusebius just make him up when he made up the church history?

Why tell me about oral tradition? Can you cite oral tradition?

Quote:

Originally Posted by Elijah

You should have caught on to this by now but… it doesn’t matter how he is presented it matters how he originated.

So, tell us how he was originated. You must know.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Elijah

I’m not biased against religion. I’m rational in my understanding of it. I’m not trying to destroy it, I’m trying to understand it.

If you claim Jesus was a suicidal man that was confused for a God, you must understand that you are trying to destroy the religion of the Church. Please read the post-Nicene creed.

Elijah · 01-26-2009, 05:52 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by aa5874

Who told you that there was an oral tradition? You cannot even locate your oral evidence. It was revealed to you?

No dude I was told, that’s what makes it an oral tradition. Just like how you first heard of him. People’s understanding of Christ usually isn’t found from within the bible but on the oral tradition that has spread in his name.

Quote:

Please, read Mark 1.1
He was thought of as a God.

From wiki on Son of God

Quote:

In Judaism the term "son of God" was sometimes used of the expected Jewish mashiach figure.

Quote:

It is used to denote a human judge or ruler (Psalm 82:6, "children of the Most High"; in many passages "gods" and "judges" can seem to be equations). In a more specialized sense, "son of God" is a title applied only to the real king over Israel (II Samuel 7: 14, with reference to King David and those of his descendants who carried on his dynasty; comp. Psalm 89:27, 28).

Quote:

In Judaism the term "son of God" was used of the expected "Jewish mashiach" figure.[8] Psalm 2 addresses someone as both God's messiah (anointed king) and God's son.

You are understanding the term as a pagan myth not a Jewish concept.

Quote:

And what did suicide man do to be thought of as a messiah in Judaea?

He got others to imitate his sacrifice to spread his message.

Quote:

You mean even the people who did not like Jesus and those who executed him got confused.
Why would a dead man confuse the Jews, up to 133 CE, the Jews still expected a messiah, and they called Simon bar Kokchba the messiah.
Now, it is you who are confused, suicide man did not do anything like Simon to be thought of as a messiah. Messiah do not just committ suicide, they actually kill their enemies. A Jewish messiah would pray to his God for help to kill Romans or any of their enemies.

Jesus’ messiah concept worked because there was no actual Messiah to kill and destroy the rebellion. It was an ideological rebellion centered on self-sacrifice so that anytime a Christian was killed it helped spread the message.

Quote:

In the NT, the offspring of the Holy Ghost had thousands of followers.
And how can show that the oral tradition was not figurative or supernatural crap?
Why tell me about oral tradition? Can you cite oral tradition?

Oral tradition can’t show anything with to any certainty nor can the origin be examined because it’s obviously oral. Oral tradition is just a piece of evidence. Not a good one nor unbiased but when you say there is no evidence that is incorrect, there is no reliable or unbiased evidence.

Quote:

So, how come Philo did not say a single word about the Logos with respect to Jesus?

Did he know about him? In what paper do you think he should have mentioned him if he did? I don’t know if he would be that concerned with a guy getting crucified who was familiar with a very very very common concept that he was also writing on.

Quote:

So, tell us how he was originated. You must know.

A guy who sacrificed his life told his followers to do the same and it helped spread the conviction in that message.

Toto · 01-26-2009, 06:08 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Elijah

Quote:

Originally Posted by aa5874

Who told you that there was an oral tradition? You cannot even locate your oral evidence. It was revealed to you?

No dude I was told, that’s what makes it an oral tradition. Just like how you first heard of him. People’s understanding of Christ usually isn’t found from within the bible but on the oral tradition that has spread in his name.

I wasn't going to reply to you, but this is beyond the pale. You are abusing this board when you spout this sort of assertion.

There is no evidence of an early oral tradition about Jesus. There are scholars who have hypothesized that there were oral traditions that were embodied in the gospels as a way of explaining why they were written several generation after the presumed events but still might contain some historial information. But this is just a hypothesis, not evidence.

Quote:

... A guy who sacrificed his life told his followers to do the same and it helped spread the conviction in that message.

Where did Jesus tell his followers to sacrifice their lives? (Answer: he didn't. He told them to eat bread, drink wine, share their goods, and not worry about how to make a living, and a few other things.) If his sacrifice was the atoning sacrifice needed, why should anyone else need to sacrifice themselves? And why didn't the movement die out if everyone sacrificed their lives? Think about it.

A few centuries later, the early church elevated "martyrdom" as a testimony to Jesus, and this seems to have attracted a few people who admired that sort of devotion. But there is no real evidence of any such martyrdom around the time of Jesus.

Elijah · 01-26-2009, 06:21 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Toto

I wasn't going to reply to you, but this is beyond the pale. You are abusing this board when you spout this sort of assertion.
There is no evidence of an early oral tradition about Jesus. There are scholars who have hypothesized that there were oral traditions that were embodied in the gospels as a way of explaining why they were written several generation after the presumed events but still might contain some historial information. But this is just a hypothesis, not evidence.

The oral tradition origin may be a hypothesis but the fact that there is an oral tradition now is the evidence I’m talking about. Not trying to prove anything with it just pointing out that there is evidence regardless how reliable the evidence is. Tracking?

Quote:

Where did Jesus tell his followers to sacrifice their lives? (Answer: he didn't. He told them to eat bread, drink wine, share their goods, and not worry about how to make a living, and a few other things.) If his sacrifice was the atoning sacrifice needed, why should anyone else need to sacrifice themselves? And why didn't the movement die out if everyone sacrificed their lives? Think about it.

Quote:

Mark 8:35 For whoever would save his life will lose it, but whoever loses his life for my sake and the gospel's will save it.

Matt 16:24-28 Then Jesus told his disciples, "If anyone would come after me, let him deny himself and take up his cross and follow me. For whoever would save his life will lose it, but whoever loses his life for my sake will find it.

John 12:25 Whoever loves his life loses it, and whoever hates his life in this world will keep it for eternal life.

John 13:38 "Will you lay down your life for me?

John 15:13 Greater love has no one than this, that someone lays down his life for his friends. You are my friends if you do what I command you. No longer do I call you servants,for the servant does not know what his master is doing; but I have called you friends, for all that I have heard from my Father I have made known to you.

Quote:

A few centuries later, the early church elevated "martyrdom" as a testimony to Jesus, and this seems to have attracted a few people who admired that sort of devotion. But there is no real evidence of any such martyrdom around the time of Jesus.

No real evidence but a real good explanation for how faith in him spread the way it did.

Toto · 01-26-2009, 06:25 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Elijah

Quote:

Originally Posted by Toto

I wasn't going to reply to you, but this is beyond the pale. You are abusing this board when you spout this sort of assertion.
There is no evidence of an early oral tradition about Jesus. There are scholars who have hypothesized that there were oral traditions that were embodied in the gospels as a way of explaining why they were written several generation after the presumed events but still might contain some historial information. But this is just a hypothesis, not evidence.

The oral tradition origin may be a hypothesis but the fact that there is an oral tradition now is the evidence I’m talking about. Not trying to prove anything with it just pointing out that there is evidence regardless how reliable the evidence is. Tracking?
....

There is no evidence - it is not that the evidence is not reliable - there is no evidence. What does "Tracking" mean?

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

01-26-2009, 04:22 PM	#154
Toto Contributor Join Date: Jun 2000 Location: Los Angeles area Posts: 40,549	There have been many. Read post #150. If you have any more questions, reread post #150. If you don't have a high school degree, keep studying.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.