Freethought & Rationalism Archive

J-D · 10-27-2011, 04:18 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sheshbazzar

Quote:

Originally Posted by J-D

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sheshbazzar

Quote:

Originally Posted by J-D

I'm not hanging any sort of hat on anything. All I'm saying is that although some of the statements in the canonical Gospels using the name Jesus cannot possibly be literally accurate reports of events that actually took place, other of the statements in the canonical Gospels using the name Jesus might or might not be literally accurate reports of events that actually took place.

And around and around the merry-go-round it goes.
Which? Well something in there might be.
What? I really don't have any idea, but something in there could be.
Where? whatever happens to strike my fancy. (but I'm not willing to defend it)

And thus comes another thousand posts.

icardfacepalm:

That is an indefensible misrepresentation of my position. I have already given you specific examples of the kind of statements I'm referring to, and you have not yet given adequate grounds for the conclusion that those statements cannot possibly be literally accurate reports of events that actually took place; if you do not want to deal with specific examples, that's not my fault.

Excuse moi, But what do you think this was?
Specific example #1.

Quote:

On what basis do you believe Matt 9:14

'Then came to him the disciples of John, saying, Why do we and the Pharisees fast oft, but thy disciples fast not?'

represents a accurate report of an event that actually took place?

Your wah wah simply evaded any discussion of the actual specific text.

Specific Example #2.

Quote:

J-D
Example 2;

Quote:

'And it came to pass in those days, that Jesus came from Nazareth of Galilee, and was baptized of John in Jordan.' (Mark 1:9)

Do you also accept Mark 1:10-11 as being an equally historical event???

You have stated;

Quote:

Originally Posted by J-D

I see no basis for deciding one way or the other. As far as I can see, it’s an open question. If you know of some basis for deciding the question, please STATE IT.

To which I replied;

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sheshbazzar

The obviously fictional context that these 'selected' verses occur within is indicative a no higher degree of accuracy, or probability of actuality than that of the surrounding verses and totality of the obviously fictional narrative contexts that they they are part and parcel of.
Thus I find there is a valid basis and rationale on which to reject them as 'being accurate reports of events that actually took place'.
They are simply minor bit parts of a totally fictional religious narrative about fictional events that in actuality never occurred.
There never was a historical JC. The Gospel stories in total are pure fabrication. And these flyspecks do nothing to redeem them.

THAT IS MY STATED basis for deciding with regards to the question.

It is thus quite disingenuous of you to attempt to imply that I am the one here that does 'not want to deal with specific examples'
When you are the one that immediately turns wishy-washy when it comes to actually discussing the probabilities of any of these specific text as being (or not being) an accurate report.

Or that I have failed to, and 'have not yet given adequate grounds for the conclusion that those statements cannot possibly be literally accurate reports of events that actually took place;'
When I have most clearly and concisely stated that these isolated verses are of no better quality, and of no greater validity than that of any of the surrounding ridiculous texts.
(Obviously you can always continue to hide behind the old 'not adequate' dodge no matter how much rebuttal is supplied. I believe others here can also discern when this is the case.)

As the contexts these verse snippets are presented in cannot be possible, there is no valid reason to elevate these isolated snippets of verse to some imagined but unsupportable position of being of some better value, or 'historical' significance than the rest of the religious horse-shit that they are embedded within.
To wit; The content of Mark 1:10-11 effectively cancels out any view of Mark 1:9 as being any accurate accounting of any real historical event, it simply becomes part and parcel of an entire line of similar religious horse-shit.

.

You are not giving reasons for conclusions about specific statements based on the actual content of those specific statements (your conclusion about Matthew 9:14 is not based on the content of Matthew 9:14; your conclusion about Mark 1:9 is not based on the content of Mark 1:9): you are stating blanket general conclusions about all the contents of a document on the basis of characteristics of some parts of those documents. As I said before: the fact that some of the statements in the canonical gospels using the name Jesus cannot possibly be literally accurate reports of events that actually occurred is not enough to establish the conclusion that not a single one of the statements in the canonical gospels using the name Jesus is a literally accurate report of an event that actually occurred.

aa5874 · 10-27-2011, 06:30 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by J-D

Quote:

Originally Posted by aa5874

Quote:

Originally Posted by J-D

......All I'm saying is that although some of the statements in the canonical Gospels using the name Jesus cannot possibly be literally accurate reports of events that actually took place, other of the statements in the canonical Gospels using
the name Jesus might or might not be literally accurate reports of events that actually took place. If you have an adequate basis for concluding definitely that none of the statements in the canonical Gospels using the name Jesus are literally accurate reports of events that actually took place, you have not yet revealed it.

Your statement has ZERO NEGATIVE effect on the MYTH Jesus theory.

If Jesus was MYTH than then the NT is compatible with MYTHOLOGY, that is , there are details about Jesus that cannot be historical accurate.

The MYTH Jesus theory can ONLY be defeated if all the things said about Jesus were historically true.

If what you mean by 'the myth Jesus theory' is 'the theory that not all the things said about Jesus were historically true', then I am not trying to defeat it, because to me, as I have said as plainly as I can, that much is obviously true: but I must say that if that's what you mean, then you have made an extraordinarily stupid choice of name for the theory.

You DON'T understand the difference between FACTS and a THEORY.

A THEORY is BASED on FACTS.

1. It is a FACT that Jesus was FATHERED by a Ghost in the Gospels

2. It is a FACT that SATAN and Jesus were together on the PINNACLE of the Jewish Temple in the Gospels.

3. It is a FACT that Jesus WALKED on the sea in the Gospels.

4. It is a FACT that Jesus TRANSFIGURED in the Gospels.

5. It is a FACT that Jesus Resurrected in the Gospels.

6. It is a FACT that Jesus ASCENDED in the Gospels.

Those events are ACTUALLY documented in the Gospels.

The MYTH Jesus theory is SUPPORTED by the the WRITTEN STATEMENTS, the TESTIMONY in the Gospels.

The MYTH JESUS THEORY CANNOT EVER BE DEFEATED based on the FACT that Jesus was ACTUALLY described as the CHILD of a Ghost, God and the Creator in the Gospels.

1. It was NOT extra-ordinarily stupid to theorize that SATAN is MYTH in the Gospels.

2. It was NOT extra-ordinarily stupid to theorize that the angel Gabriel was MYTH in the Gospels.

3. It was NOT extra-ordinarily stupid to theorize that Plutrach's Romulus was Myth.

The MYTH JESUS theory wil be UNDEFEATED FOREVER once we use the EXTANT TESTIMONY of the Gospels.

It is DOCUMENTED in the Gospels that Jesus was FATHERED by a GHOST.

J-D · 10-27-2011, 06:10 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jakejonesiv

Quote:

Originally Posted by J-D

As I have said several times, some of the statements in the canonical Gospels using the name Jesus cannot possibly be literally accurate reports of events that actually took place. I do not see how that is an adequate basis for concluding that none of the statements in the canonical Gospels using the name Jesus are literally accurate reports of events that actually took place, because the presence in a document of some false statements does not automatically prove that all the statements in the document are false, so to me the question remains open.

OMG! Here is the Jesus of the Gaps theory again. Well, it doesn't work for God and it doesn't work for jesus.

I’m not sure what you mean by ‘it doesn’t work’: if you mean that what I wrote is not true, you have given no reason for thinking so.

aa5874 · 10-27-2011, 08:34 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Kapyong

Gday,

Quote:

Originally Posted by aa5874

Quote:

Originally Posted by Kapyong

..What a great pity after all these years that you STILL have NO IDEA that Earl's Jesus, the one I champion over and over right here, was a REAL SPIRITUAL being[/b]...

What absurdity!!!! There is NO such thing as REAL Myth. Myth is Fiction. There is NO such thing as a REAL spirit.

Rank idiocy.
I didn't say Jesus was a "REAL spirit".
That's why no-one here bothers with your stupid posts.
If only you could read and comprehend English.

After all these years, you still have no idea what Earl's JM theory is all about.

K.

But what a total contradiction!!! You ACTUALLY READ and responded to my post and then assert that no one does.

But, what is even more bizarre, you blatantly DENY what you wrote.

You did STATE that Earl's Jesus, the one I champion over and over right here, was a REAL SPIRITUAL being..

You are the champion of Contradictions.

Please, tell me who BELIEVED in FAKE Spiritual beings? You are SMART and Champion of REAL SPIRITUAL BEINGS.

Soon, you will be telling me that Jesus was crucified in the SUB -LUNAR with diagrams of the location of REAL SPIRITUAL beings.

J-D · 10-27-2011, 09:04 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by aa5874

Quote:

Originally Posted by J-D

Quote:

Originally Posted by aa5874

Quote:

Originally Posted by J-D

......All I'm saying is that although some of the statements in the canonical Gospels using the name Jesus cannot possibly be literally accurate reports of events that actually took place, other of the statements in the canonical Gospels using
the name Jesus might or might not be literally accurate reports of events that actually took place. If you have an adequate basis for concluding definitely that none of the statements in the canonical Gospels using the name Jesus are literally accurate reports of events that actually took place, you have not yet revealed it.

Your statement has ZERO NEGATIVE effect on the MYTH Jesus theory.

If Jesus was MYTH than then the NT is compatible with MYTHOLOGY, that is , there are details about Jesus that cannot be historical accurate.

The MYTH Jesus theory can ONLY be defeated if all the things said about Jesus were historically true.

If what you mean by 'the myth Jesus theory' is 'the theory that not all the things said about Jesus were historically true', then I am not trying to defeat it, because to me, as I have said as plainly as I can, that much is obviously true: but I must say that if that's what you mean, then you have made an extraordinarily stupid choice of name for the theory.

You DON'T understand the difference between FACTS and a THEORY.

A THEORY is BASED on FACTS.

1. It is a FACT that Jesus was FATHERED by a Ghost in the Gospels

2. It is a FACT that SATAN and Jesus were together on the PINNACLE of the Jewish Temple in the Gospels.

3. It is a FACT that Jesus WALKED on the sea in the Gospels.

4. It is a FACT that Jesus TRANSFIGURED in the Gospels.

5. It is a FACT that Jesus Resurrected in the Gospels.

6. It is a FACT that Jesus ASCENDED in the Gospels.

Those events are ACTUALLY documented in the Gospels.

The MYTH Jesus theory is SUPPORTED by the the WRITTEN STATEMENTS, the TESTIMONY in the Gospels.

The MYTH JESUS THEORY CANNOT EVER BE DEFEATED based on the FACT that Jesus was ACTUALLY described as the CHILD of a Ghost, God and the Creator in the Gospels.

1. It was NOT extra-ordinarily stupid to theorize that SATAN is MYTH in the Gospels.

2. It was NOT extra-ordinarily stupid to theorize that the angel Gabriel was MYTH in the Gospels.

3. It was NOT extra-ordinarily stupid to theorize that Plutrach's Romulus was Myth.

The MYTH JESUS theory wil be UNDEFEATED FOREVER once we use the EXTANT TESTIMONY of the Gospels.

It is DOCUMENTED in the Gospels that Jesus was FATHERED by a GHOST.

You have stated the facts in a confusing format. They are more clearly stated in a different format, for example as follows.

1. It is a fact that there are statements in (some of) the Gospels saying that Jesus was conceived by a spirit.

2. It is a fact that there are statements in (one of) the Gospels saying that Satan and Jesus were together on the pinnacle of the Jewish Temple.

3. It is a fact that there are statements in (some of) the Gospels saying that Jesus walked on the sea.

4. It is a fact that there are statements in (some of) the Gospels referring to the so-called transfiguration of Jesus.

5. It is a fact that there are statements in the Gospels saying that Jesus died and then returned to life.

6. It is a fact that there are statements in the Gospels referring to the so-called ascension of Jesus.

It is also a fact that none of those statements can be literally accurate reports of events that actually took place.

None of this changes the fact that 'the myth Jesus theory' is an extraordinarily stupid name for a theory that says only that not all the statements in the canonical Gospels using the name Jesus are historically true, and if what you mean by 'the myth Jesus theory' is something more specific than that you have never explained what.

J-D · 10-27-2011, 09:09 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sheshbazzar

Quote:

Originally Posted by jakejonesiv

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sheshbazzar

Quote:

Originally Posted by J-D

I'm not hanging any sort of hat on anything. All I'm saying is that although some of the statements in the canonical Gospels using the name Jesus cannot possibly be literally accurate reports of events that actually took place, other of the statements in the canonical Gospels using
the name Jesus might or might not be literally accurate reports of events that actually took place.

And around and around the merry-go-round it goes.
Which? Well something in there might be.
What? I really don't have any idea, but something in there could be.
Where? whatever happens to strike my fancy. (but I'm not willing to defend it)

And thus comes another thousand posts.

icardfacepalm:

Exactly!!

It is a sad spectacle to watch Historists shrink Jesus to any degree necessary in order to not give up the idea entirely. If Jesus started out as a Rottweiler, what are we down to now? One of those pathetic little dogs that shake and tremble if their owners set them down? Yeah, historical Jesus, we ought to call him Peanut.

J-D in choosing to cling to a few isolated Gospel verses as 'could be', 'maybe', 'possibly's' while willing to dismiss that by far greater majority of the texts, as well as displaying an utter disregard to considering both context and content of these accompanying texts and how they influence and affect the interpretation of those few salvaged snippets has made a complete joke of there actually being any historical figure behind the texts.
His entire version of the Gospels 'might or might not have beens' would fit nicely onto a single sheet of foolscap. Some NT that is.
I say; Let him wear it, whenever, wherever, and however he wishes, as his silly hat suits him just fine.

You have not demonstrated that those portions of the Gospel text which cannot possibly be historically true constitute 'by far the greater majority', nor have you shown any basis for your estimates of how much would be left if such material were excluded.

However, as far as I know you may be right in your estimation (as being of little value) of the material which might or might not be literally accurate reports of events which actually took place. I have expressed no view one way or the other about its value, asserting only the fact of its existence, which I gather you don't dispute.

J-D · 10-27-2011, 09:24 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sheshbazzar

Quote:

Originally Posted by J-D

Quote:

Originally Posted by jakejonesiv

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sheshbazzar

Quote:

Originally Posted by J-D

I'm not hanging any sort of hat on anything. All I'm saying is that although some of the statements in the canonical Gospels using the name Jesus cannot possibly be literally accurate reports of events that actually took place, other of the statements in the canonical Gospels using
the name Jesus might or might not be literally accurate reports of events that actually took place.

And around and around the merry-go-round it goes.
Which? Well something in there might be.
What? I really don't have any idea, but something in there could be.
Where? whatever happens to strike my fancy. (but I'm not willing to defend it)

And thus comes another thousand posts.

icardfacepalm:

Exactly!!

It is a sad spectacle to watch Historists shrink Jesus to any degree necessary in order to not give up the idea entirely. If Jesus started out as a Rottweiler, what are we down to now? One of those pathetic little dogs that shake and tremble if their owners set them down? Yeah, historical Jesus, we ought to call him Peanut.

I don't know whether you're referring to me, but if you are, I'd like to know if there's anything in what I've actually said that makes you refer to me as a 'historicist'.

On the other hand, if you're not referring to me, then obviously your strictures don't apply to what I've actually said, which still stands.

J-D as long as you hold onto your present, 'Jebus' mentioned- 'might or might not be an accurate account of actual events' position you will continue to be regarded as one attempting to defend some minute level of historical reality to NT Jebus character.

Whether you are able to understand the fact or not, whatever level of wavering, reservations, or uncertainty you might express regarding these few verses, no matter how small, automatically places you firmly into that 'historicist' camp.

You may not like that. But the MJ position is uncompromising; If Jebus was mythical then mythical is ALL that he was, or ever could be.
There is no room in the MJ position for any tiny little 'real' Jebus that 'might or might not' be alluded to in snippets of text here and there.

Either he was a living breathing person who walked the earth and actually interacted with people, or he was not. There is no half-way in betweens, or in one hundredth of the texts.
He was or he wasn't...... MJs exclusively conclude that he was not and never was a living, walking, talking, breathing -human being- EVER.

If that conclusion is not acceptable to you, then you are of the 'historicist' camp, like it or not, deny it or not.

I am happy to defend the things I have actually said, whatever label you choose to apply to them or to me.

But it is unfair and discourteous to attribute to me positions I have never taken just because you have chosen to apply labels in a way that lumps me in the same category as other people who have taken those other positions, even though I have not.

mountainman · 10-27-2011, 09:30 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by J-D

I have expressed no view one way or the other about its value, asserting only the fact of its existence, which I gather you don't dispute.

The common denominator is evidence such as Codex Vaticanus and Codex Sinaticus. These things cannot be disputed. The object is to explain the history of these items of evidence. One pathway assumes an historical Jesus while another alternative pathway assumes there was not. The former pathway is being explored by those who use the HJ postulate while the latter pathway is being used by those who use the antithesis of the HJ postulate.

J-D · 10-27-2011, 09:58 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by aa5874

Again, once we DON'T know if anything in the NT is true with regard to Jesus then the HJ theory CANNOT be ADVANCED.

There is NO Credible source of antiquity for HJ of Nazareth.

It was a Child of a Ghost, God the Creator of heaven and earth that was BORN in Bethlehem and LIVED in Nazareth.

One cannot argue about history of an ASSUMED HJ WITHOUT a credible source.

The difference between HJ and MJ is that we have MULTIPLE sources with WRITTEN EVIDENCE that claim Jesus was a Child of a Ghost and those very sources DO NOT ever claim he was Fathered by a man.

If Jesus was NOT the Child of a Ghost, was NOT with Satan, a Myth character, on the Jewish Temple, did NOT instantly heal INCURABLE diseases, did NOT walk on water, did NOT Transfigure, Resurrect and Ascend then the NT cannot be TRUSTED.

Jesus of the NT did NOT exist as described.

The MYTH Jesus theory CANNOT ever be DEFEATED using the Extant NT Canon as evidence.

You have not explained what you mean, in this context, by the terms 'HJ theory', 'credible source', 'HJ of Nazareth', 'Jesus of the NT', or 'the Myth Jesus theory'.

aa5874 · 10-27-2011, 10:44 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by J-D

....You have stated the facts in a confusing format. They are more clearly stated in a different format, for example as follows.

1. It is a fact that there are statements in (some of) the Gospels saying that Jesus was conceived by a spirit.

2. It is a fact that there are statements in (one of) the Gospels saying that Satan and Jesus were together on the pinnacle of the Jewish Temple.

3. It is a fact that there are statements in (some of) the Gospels saying that Jesus walked on the sea.

4. It is a fact that there are statements in (some of) the Gospels referring to the so-called transfiguration of Jesus.

5. It is a fact that there are statements in the Gospels saying that Jesus died and then returned to life.

6. It is a fact that there are statements in the Gospels referring to the so-called ascension of Jesus.

It is also a fact that none of those statements can be literally accurate reports of events that actually took place....

1.Myth Fables are NOT historically reliable sources.

2. Myth fables may contain events that cannot be literally accurate.

3. If Jesus was NOT a Child of a Ghost, God, the Creator of heaven and earth, that WALKED on water, TRANSFIGURED, Resurrected and Ascended then the N T Cannot be trusted for the history of Jesus.

4. Myth Fables Cannot be trusted for the history of real events of the past.

5. Jesus of the NT has NO reliable historical sources.

6. Myth characters have NO reliable historical sources.

The MYTH Jesus theory cannot be DEFEATED.

Quote:

Originally Posted by J-D

....None of this changes the fact that 'the myth Jesus theory' is an extraordinarily stupid name for a theory that says only that not all the statements in the canonical Gospels using the name Jesus are historically true, and if what you mean by 'the myth Jesus theory' is something more specific than that you have never explained what.

Your assertion is exceptionally absurd and HIGHLY ILLOGICAL.

The DESCRIPTION of Jesus MUST FIRST be found WRITTEN in sources of antiquity and MUST NOT be IMAGINED or PRESUMED.

We would NOT have known that Jesus was DESCRIBED as a Child of Ghost unless it was DOCUMENTED.

We would NOT have known that it was claimed Jesus WALKED on the sea unless it was DOCUMENTED.

We would NOT have known that it was said Jesus TRANSFIGURED, RESURRECTED and ASCENDED unless it was documented.

These DOCUMENTED Claims of antiquity SUPPORT the MYTH Jesus theory.

A theory NEEDS DATA.

The MYTH FABLES about Jesus SUPPORT MYTHOLOGY.

The MYTH Jesus theory cannot be defeated when Jesus of the NT was FATHERED by a Ghost.

Jesus was a MYTH if the NT is true. If the NT is NOT true then it cannot be trusted .

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

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.