Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Chaucer · 07-23-2009, 01:31 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by show_no_mercy

Quote:

Originally Posted by Chaucer

Because Jesus was the only local who got to acquire that term?

So you're trying to say that Jesus was the only "local" (whatever that means) to have been called "the anointed one"?

Of that period, yes.

Quote:

Originally Posted by show_no_mercy

The entire point of the LXX was so that it could be spread to a wider audience. The Jews stopped using it officially at the beginning of the 2nd century because Christians had hijacked it.

So you admit that they did use it before that -- Ah Ha! ;-)

Quote:

Originally Posted by show_no_mercy

Quote:

Originally Posted by Chaucer

So how do you account for the fact that the first decade of the second century finds a Roman like Tacitus using the term "Christ" in -- at best -- a noncommittal way, if not downright hostile?

Because he's repeating the term used by Christians.

And so is Josephus -- as everyone else was when it came to James's disreputable sibling -- without any implication of reverence.

Chaucer

Chaucer · 07-23-2009, 01:47 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Steven Carr

Quote:

Originally Posted by Chaucer

I already have and you're willfully ignoring it because it's against your "religion": Josephus: Antiq. 20. It does not confirm Jesus as a Lord and Savior and it does not confirm Jesus as a son of God. But it does confirm Jesus as a historic and human bloke who was popularly called "Christ" by some.

Chaucer

I wonder why Paul in Romans 10 thought Jews had never heard of Jesus , apart from Christians sent to preach about him.

I wonder if Bart Ehrman will answer that inquiry for you.

In fact, I wonder if you'll share whatever Bart Ehrman might tell you on this.

BTW, there's an MP3 of a Bart Ehrman interview where he addresses the historicity angle. His remarks are at 26:50 - 42:00 and 46:00 - 53:30:

http://media.libsyn.com/media/infide...C/a%3E%3C/p%3E

To go to the pertinent minutes in this hour-long interview, drop this link --

http://media.libsyn.com/media/infide...art_ehrman.mp3

-- into a Winamp ap, and then you should be able to move over to the two sections by using the minute/second readout provided.

Chaucer

judge · 07-23-2009, 02:01 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by spin

Quote:

Originally Posted by judge

I did not take anyones side. I did not say there was or was not sufficient evidence for an historical Jesus. Try again.
I am just a bit wary of you when you claim to see the truth and claim your opponents don't because they are not being honest.

You really belong in a church (or a cult) saying that.

Sorry, my understanding was that anyone calling themselves a christian is of the opinion that their Jesus was in this world at a specific point in history.

spin

I dont call myself a christian.
Secondly , yet again you did not read what I wrote. I said I did not take sides WRT to whether there was sufficient evidence.
Nice deflection though...

judge · 07-23-2009, 02:12 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Toto

Quote:

Originally Posted by Chaucer

Thank you. I sometimes wonder if some people here really value atheism as much as mythicism! Hence, your prior reference to a cult mentality seems occasionally apt.

Best,

Chaucer

The OP contained more than a jibe. It contained defamation and a rather unseemly emotional meltdown.

I dont agree. Calling the OP an "emotional meltdown" is ludicrous

Quote:

Claiming that everyone who disagrees with you is afflicted with a cult mentality is a bit silly.

Where did this come from?

I did not claim this.

Quote:

This forum has been debating the evidence on this question from a variety of viewpoints for years. There is no cult leader and nothing to be gained.

Did I say there was a cult leader?
I gave spin a backhander...Im sure he can handle it. It would be sad state of affairs if he could not handle what he dishes out.

spin · 07-23-2009, 02:17 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by judge

Quote:

Originally Posted by spin

Sorry, my understanding was that anyone calling themselves a christian is of the opinion that their Jesus was in this world at a specific point in history.

spin

I dont call myself a christian.
Secondly , yet again you did nor read what I wrote. I said I did not take sides WRT to whether there was sufficient evidence.
Nice deflection though...

Yet, without taking sides, you believe a Jesus existed!

If nothing else I seem to be able to temporarily increase your vocabulary. But you need to look it up. You're an inveterate deflector.

And maybe you don't admit to being a christian, but you have taken christian positions quite regularly here. Stop walking like a lame duck, if you don't want to be considered one.

spin

judge · 07-23-2009, 02:28 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by spin

And maybe you don't admit to being a christian, but you have taken christian positions quite regularly here.

spin

Maybe if you go back to 2003, but that is 6 years ago. quite a long time ago.

What by the way is wrong with palying devils advocate?
It has certainly been interesting on occasion to flesh things out here by doing so. One can become aware of how very weak some of the so called "sceptic" apologetics really are.

My thoughts and beliefs have changed and are changing still. I just dont find I need to embrace all the nonsense I encounter here, particularly from troo believers!

Steven Carr · 07-23-2009, 02:35 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Chaucer

Quote:

Originally Posted by Steven Carr

I wonder why Paul in Romans 10 thought Jews had never heard of Jesus , apart from Christians sent to preach about him.

I wonder if Bart Ehrman will answer that inquiry for you.

In fact, I wonder if you'll share whatever Bart Ehrman might tell you on this.

I'm not sure of the etiquette of doing that.

I only asked Professor Ehrman because commentaries just do not address these rather obvious questions.

I think I shall coin the phrase 'historicist-disconnect' for this phenomenon of reading Romans and never wondering where the Jesus went.

I can see this phrase becoming a leading buzz-word in Biblical studies in the next decade.

judge · 07-23-2009, 02:43 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by bacht

which questionable things are repeated as if true?

See the OP. I think Achyra S was criticised there (before being removed).
After two centuries we have Achyra S and Zeitgeist the movie at the forefront of the JM movement.
Something is very wrong.

Quote:

are you really afraid of the broader social consequences of the mythicist perspective? why?

No I am not afraid.

Quote:

What is amazing is the reception the OP got here, on a forum supposedly dedicated to freethinking and rationalism.

do you think Chaucer presented his case openly and respectfully, in the best spirit of disinterested debate?

Yes, he just didn't realise how extremely sensitive the locals are.

Kapyong · 07-23-2009, 02:44 PM

Gday,

Quote:

Originally Posted by Chaucer

It comes primarily from a highly developed scholarly and secular assessment that has converged in academe around a concept of a real rabbi, Jesus of Nazareth, who lived during the early part of the first century c.e

Secular?
The vast majority of Jesus Historicists are faithful believers with jobs in Christian institutions whose careers and reputation depend on Jesus.

K.

spin · 07-23-2009, 02:54 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by judge

Quote:

Originally Posted by spin

And maybe you don't admit to being a christian, but you have taken christian positions quite regularly here.

Maybe if you go back to 2003, but that is 6 years ago. quite a long time ago.

When was the last time you repeated that daft Aramaic priority scam?

Quote:

Originally Posted by judge

My thoughts and beliefs have changed and are changing still. I just dont find I need to embrace all the nonsense I encounter here, particularly from troo believers!

You've already got enough nonsense of your own, I guess. But then, you still hang around... sucking up nonsense.

A nonsense masochist.

spin

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

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.