Freethought & Rationalism Archive

arnoldo · 02-19-2009, 09:49 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by aa5874

If these statements are applied to the Jesus story, then the implausible conception of Jesus through the Holy Ghost is part of the biography of Jesus. . .

Can you briefly expand why, in your opinion, the conception of Jesus through the Holy Ghost is implausible? In contrast, is the idea of modern day humans and chimps speciating from a common ancestor plausible?

arnoldo · 02-19-2009, 10:30 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Elijah

Quote:

Originally Posted by aa5874

You seem not to realise that it was the church writers and the authors of the NT who presented Jesus of mythical origin.
Look at Justin Martyr with his presentation in "First Apology" where he compares the "biography" of Jesus to the mythical sons of Jupiter.
Justin Martyr clearly presented a biography of Jesus similar to the mythical sons of Jupiter. Justin did not ever claim that Jesus was born naturally.

He is trying to argue that nothing they believe is any sillier then what they believe about their gods. There is a point to what he is saying and it isn’t that Jesus is mythical in origin like their gods are thought to be.

Good point.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Elijah

Quote:

Originally Posted by aa5874

Now look at Tertullian on the "Flesh of Christ" 1.
And in chapter 2 of "On The flesh of Christ" it is says this.
It was the authors of the NT and the church writers who presented a biography of a myth called Jesus and the mythicists are ALL agreed.

Jesus having a supernatural body doesn’t support a mythical origin it just supports them not having a modern understanding of physics/biology. Jesus and flesh is an issue when the flesh/material world is seen as evil /corrupt by a portion of the religious thinkers of the time.

The gnostic were also fixated on this issue and not surprisingly certain sects developed in the late first century, such as the Ebionites.

fatpie42 · 02-19-2009, 10:57 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by No Robots

Quote:

Originally Posted by fatpie42

Unless it is to strongly distance him from ascetic groups like, say, the 'Nazarenes'?

The Nazarenes are generally understood to be the early Jewish-Christians in Palestine. There is no doubt that there was a tendency among them to maintain strict adhesion to rigid legalism. We see this tension throughout the NT. Even within the Gospels, Christ's cavalier attitude toward convention scandalized even his closest followers.

I think you might be overestimating how radical Jesus' views were. Sure, they are posed as radical in the gospels, but then you'd expect as much.

If Nazarene is just another term for Christian, why does Paul deny claims that he is a Nazarene?
http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=acts%2024

aa5874 · 02-20-2009, 04:29 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by arnoldo

Quote:

Originally Posted by aa5874

If these statements are applied to the Jesus story, then the implausible conception of Jesus through the Holy Ghost is part of the biography of Jesus. . .

Can you briefly expand why, in your opinion, the conception of Jesus through the Holy Ghost is implausible? In contrast, is the idea of modern day humans and chimps speciating from a common ancestor plausible?

If you think Jesus speciated from the Holy Ghost, then present your evidence.

I am NOT an Holy Ghost biologist.

You may be one.

arnoldo · 02-20-2009, 05:28 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by aa5874

Quote:

Originally Posted by arnoldo

Can you briefly expand why, in your opinion, the conception of Jesus through the Holy Ghost is implausible? In contrast, is the idea of modern day humans and chimps speciating from a common ancestor plausible?

If you think Jesus speciated from the Holy Ghost, then present your evidence.

I am NOT an Holy Ghost biologist.

You may be one.

Would you agree with the Ebionites who believed that Jesus was conceived by normal biological processes (as the source indicates below)?

Quote:

Jesus

The majority of Church Fathers agree that the Ebionites rejected many of the central Christian views of Jesus such as the pre-existence, divinity, virgin birth, atoning death, and physical resurrection of Jesus.[3] The Ebionites are described as emphasizing the oneness of God and the humanity of Jesus as the biological son of both Mary and Joseph, who by virtue of his righteousness, was chosen by God to be the messianic "prophet like Moses" (foretold in Deuteronomy 18:14–22) when he was anointed with the holy spirit at his baptism.[16][52]

3. ^ a b c A.F.J. Klijn & G.J. Reinink (1973). Patristic Evidence for Jewish-Christian Sects. Brill. ISBN 9004037632.
52.^ a b c Tabor, James D.. "Ancient Judaism: Nazarenes and Ebionites". Retrieved on 2006-09-31.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ebionites

Or is your argument that Jesus never existed in any way, shape or form in the first place?

Solo · 02-20-2009, 05:32 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by spin

Quote:

Originally Posted by No Robots

Oh yeah, and on the question of Christ's eating habits, let us not forget:

The Son of man came eating and drinking, and they say: Behold a man that is a glutton and a wine drinker, a friend of publicans and sinners.--Mt 11:19

Hard to imagine a guy being accused of symbolic over-indulgence.

Problem is that one usually made grossly ridiculous statements about opponents about eating habits, about sexual promiscuity, about suspicious financial dealings, about acts with cigars. Some ancient bishop I remember was framed by a hired prostitute. The wicked wiles...

This sort of stuff usually gets shelved as non-starter material, because you cannot test the claims. Either there was a Jesus who was a glutton or perhaps some Jew was stretching the truth for effect or someone was just putting nasty accusations in the mouths of the nasty Jews or....

spin

Oh, don't you just love to talk through your hat, spin ! Alas, there are some issues here other than your tripes:

Quote:

Isa 22:13 But see, there is joy and revelry, slaughtering of cattle and killing of sheep, eating of meat and drinking of wine! "Let us eat and drink," you say, "for tomorrow we die!"

1 Cr 15:32 If I fought wild beasts in Ephesus for merely human reasons, what have I gained? If the dead are not raised, "Let us eat and drink, for tomorrow we die."

Mk 2:18-19 Now John's disciples and the Pharisees were fasting. Some people came and asked Jesus, "How is it that John's disciples and the disciples of the Pharisees are fasting, but yours are not?" Jesus answered, "How can the guests of the bridegroom fast while he is with them? They cannot, so long as they have him with them.

Jiri

No Robots · 02-20-2009, 07:57 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by fatpie42

If Nazarene is just another term for Christian, why does Paul deny claims that he is a Nazarene?
http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=acts%2024

Non-Christian Jews called the Christians Nazarenes. Paul responds to the charge of being a ringleader of the Nazarene sect by saying:

However, I admit that I worship the God of our fathers as a follower of the Way, which they call a sect.

So, Nazarene was an epithet applied to Christians by their opponents, whereas the Christians called themselves followers of the Way.

Amaleq13 · 02-20-2009, 08:46 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by aa5874

This is highly illogical and contradictory.

No, that is incorrect. The two statements say the same thing in different ways. They do not contradict.

Quote:

1....."the implausible bits are part of the biography."

2...."plausibilty is not one of the requirements for ancient biography."

IOW,

1. Ancient biographies contain implausible bits.

2. Plausibility is not a defining characteristic (ie requirement) of ancient biography.

Quote:

If these statements are applied to the Jesus story, then the implausible conception of Jesus through the Holy Ghost is part of the biography of Jesus,...

Correct. Kind of self-evident, really. :huh:

Quote:

...and the plausible crucifixion is not a requirement and may be discarded.

No. The two statements neither require nor suggest that anything should be "discarded".

You seem to be confusing identifying a text as an ancient biography with identifying what portions of a text are historical. Those are two completely different efforts.

aa5874 · 02-20-2009, 09:49 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Amaleq13

Quote:

Originally Posted by aa5874

This is highly illogical and contradictory.

No, that is incorrect. The two statements say the same thing in different ways. They do not contradict.

If what you say is true, then Ben C Smith still believes implausibilty is history.

Elijah · 02-20-2009, 11:40 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by arnoldo

Quote:

Originally Posted by Elijah

Jesus having a supernatural body doesn’t support a mythical origin it just supports them not having a modern understanding of physics/biology. Jesus and flesh is an issue when the flesh/material world is seen as evil /corrupt by a portion of the religious thinkers of the time.

The gnostic were also fixated on this issue and not surprisingly certain sects developed in the late first century, such as the Ebionites.

Thanks again!

Yea, it was the Gnostics in the Nag that introduced me to Plato's dualism and it's many variations and influences. I'm surprised how few people here see or discuss the platonic influence in Christianity and the surrounding times. I feel it wasn't the Greek myths that they were amalgamating but the Greek philosophy. I may be one of the few that do though.

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

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.