Freethought & Rationalism Archive

No Robots · 04-03-2012, 03:40 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by aa5874

So, HJers are really the ones who are attempting to destroy the Faith and have blamed everyone else but themselves.

Well, some HJers, as anti-religious atheists, are in fact deliberately trying to destroy the faith; and are ticked at MJers for trying to prop up the dying faith.

MrMacSon · 04-03-2012, 03:46 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by maryhelena

"... the possibility that a historically crucified figure was relevant to the gospel writers."

There are many possibilities, including a historically non-crucified figure being primary, with crucifiction (sic) being added to embellish a formative story.

Quote:

Originally Posted by maryhelena

A spirit figure crucified in a spiritual realm was never, is never, going to dislodge the assumption that the gospel JC was a historical figure.

Yes it could! It probably has! You confirm that is possible when you then say ...

Quote:

the gospel pseudo-historical JC story sought to root christian spirituality within a specific historical context

Quote:

Originally Posted by GakuseiDon

One thing that Doherty stresses in his book is "how can all these things be thought by the early Christians, like Paul, about a human being in such a short amount of time?"

It may not have been a short time. We have been corralled to believe it all happened in the early 1st C AD/CE, but it is possible the stories were present before than and were being developed and embellished over a long time.
.
.

aa5874 · 04-03-2012, 04:01 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by No Robots

Quote:

Originally Posted by aa5874

So, HJers are really the ones who are attempting to destroy the Faith and have blamed everyone else but themselves.

Well, some HJers, as anti-religious atheists, are in fact deliberately trying to destroy the faith, and are ticked at MJers for trying to prop up the dying faith.

Tell that to Ehrman. He does NOT know he is destroying the faith he once accepted and is now claiming MJers have an agenda.

Ehrman must or most likely knows that if Jesus was human with a human father and a Sinner like all other men that the Christian faith is a LIE without hope for all mankind.

An Historical Jesus, a human Jesus, signifies Deception and Lies.

HJers most likely know their Jesus is NOT from Bible God or the words of the prophets but use the very Bible, considered the Word of God as part of the history of their Jesus.

HJ may be the anti-Christ of the Jews and of the Christian Faith.

Again, The QUEST for the historical Jesus was INITIATED WITHOUT MJers. Those who are LOOKING for their Jesus have already admitted the NT is about a non-historical Jesus, a Divine Jesus, a Jesus of Faith.

HJers should should STOP their propaganda about MJers and accept that if an Historical Jesus is actually found any time soon that the SALVATION story will become OBSOLETE.

An historical Jesus died for his OWN sins.

Please just go look for your historical Jesus you may be lucky.

maryhelena · 04-03-2012, 04:15 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by MrMacSon

Quote:

Originally Posted by maryhelena

"... the possibility that a historically crucified figure was relevant to the gospel writers."

There are many possibilities, including a historically non-crucified figure being primary, with crucifiction (sic) being added to embellish a formative story.

Indeed, my position on Antigonus is that he is the model for the JC crucifixion part of the JC story. George Wells has a position where his Galilean preacher figure is not crucified. My position is that the lives of two historical figures have been fused together to create the gospel JC figure. One historical figure crucified and the other historical figure lived to old age and died a natural death.

Quote:

Originally Posted by maryhelena

A spirit figure crucified in a spiritual realm was never, is never, going to dislodge the assumption that the gospel JC was a historical figure.

Yes it could! It probably has! You confirm that is possible when you then say ...

Quote:

the gospel pseudo-historical JC story sought to root christian spirituality within a specific historical context

I'm afraid I don't get your point here....

The historicist assumption is a historical crucified gospel JC. That assumption cannot be sidelined by offering a spiritual christ figure crucified in a spiritual realm. One approach is to suggest that the crucified historical figure the historicists are seeking is one from a different time than that of Pilate. The time of Pilate is the memorial, the remembrance of that earlier crucified historical figure.

A 70 year memorial for Antigonus in Luke's gospel. And a 100 year memorial of Antigonus in Josephus.

Antigonus, the last King and High Priest of the Jews, bound to a cross, flogged and slain in 37 b.c.	100 year Anniversary of the killing of Antigonus, 63 c.e.
High Priests, 37/36 b.c, appointed by Herod the Great	High Priests, 62/63 c.e, appointed by Agrippa II
Ananelus 37/36 b.c. (removed)	Joseph Cabi ben Simon, (removed)
Aristobulus III drowned, (plot of Herod the Great) brother of Mariamne I. (37/36 b.c.)	Ananus ben Ananus, (removed) 3 month rule, James stoned, brother of JC.
Ananelus (restored) 36-30 b.c.	Jesus, son of Damneus, made High Priest.

MrMacSon · 04-03-2012, 04:54 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by maryhelena

Indeed, my position on Antigonus is that he is the model for the JC crucifixion part of the JC story. George Wells has a position where his Galilean preacher figure is not crucified. My position is that the lives of two historical figures have been fused together to create the gospel JC figure. One historical figure crucified and the other historical figure lived to old age and died a natural death.

Yes, many think the biblical Jesus is a fusion. It is nice to see a meaty proposition about that ie. on with a real name in a real time-frame.

Quote:

Originally Posted by maryhelena

The historicist assumption is a historical crucified gospel JC. That assumption cannot be sidelined by offering a spiritual christ figure crucified in a spiritual realm.

I was essentially referring to the confusion of the various scenarios by the adding of a "spiritual" dimension.

Quote:

One approach is to suggest that the crucified historical figure the historicists are seeking is one from a different time than that of Pilate. The time of Pilate is the memorial, the remembrance of that earlier crucified historical figure.

A 70 year memorial for Antigonus in Luke's gospel. And a 100 year memorial of Antigonus in Josephus.

Antigonus, the last King and High Priest of the Jews, bound to a cross, flogged and slain in 37 b.c.	100 year Anniversary of the killing of Antigonus, 63 c.e.
High Priests, 37/36 b.c, appointed by Herod the Great	High Priests, 62/63 c.e, appointed by Agrippa II
Ananelus 37/36 b.c. (removed)	Joseph Cabi ben Simon, (removed)
Aristobulus III drowned, (plot of Herod the Great) brother of Mariamne I. (37/36 b.c.)	Ananus ben Ananus, (removed) 3 month rule, James stoned, brother of JC.
Ananelus (restored) 36-30 b.c.	Jesus, son of Damneus, made High Priest.

That is interesting.

J-D · 04-03-2012, 05:28 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by aa5874

Quote:

Originally Posted by No Robots

Quote:

Originally Posted by Diogenes the Cynic

One of the ironies of this debate, I think, is that I believe a historical Jesus is much more devastating to Christianity than a mythical one.

Absolutely. And thus the further and greater irony is that it is the mythicists who are keeping traditional Christian religion alive. As long as there is hope that he was just a myth, there is hope that he was not just a man.

So, HJers are really the ones who are attempting to destroy the Faith and have blamed everyone else but themselves.

I have never seen an HJer blame anybody for attempting to destroy the faith and I bet you haven't either.

J-D · 04-03-2012, 05:57 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by maryhelena

The historical figure that was bound to a cross, flogged and slain,

I'm not sure why you say 'the historical figure that ...' rather than 'a historical figure that ...' Wouldn't there have been more than one historical figure this happened to?

Rick Sumner · 04-03-2012, 09:39 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by J-D

So apparently, on your own account (if I've understood it), on one side there's practically the whole historical profession, and on the other side there's Rick Sumner.

Not at all. The history profession sits the discussion out. That's the problem. As Grabbe puts it

In the end, however, one can only agree with the observation that 'the majority of professional historians ... as usual, appear to ignore theoretical issues and would prefer to be left undisturbed to get on with their work while no doubt hoping the postmodernist challenge will eventually go away' (Zagorin 1999: 2). This certainly fits the attitudes of most historians I know in my own university who seem to have little interest in the debates on theory. (Ancient Israel, p 28)

Quote:

Should I pick a side? But how?

Pick the one that's epistemologically sound.

Sent from my A500 using Tapatalk

outhouse · 04-03-2012, 10:04 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by No Robots

Quote:

Originally Posted by aa5874

So, HJers are really the ones who are attempting to destroy the Faith and have blamed everyone else but themselves.

Well, some HJers, as anti-religious atheists, are in fact deliberately trying to destroy the faith; and are ticked at MJers for trying to prop up the dying faith.

that is simply absurd

J-D · 04-03-2012, 10:11 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rick Sumner

Quote:

Originally Posted by J-D

So apparently, on your own account (if I've understood it), on one side there's practically the whole historical profession, and on the other side there's Rick Sumner.

Not at all. The history profession sits the discussion out. That's the problem. As Grabbe puts it

In the end, however, one can only agree with the observation that 'the majority of professional historians ... as usual, appear to ignore theoretical issues and would prefer to be left undisturbed to get on with their work while no doubt hoping the postmodernist challenge will eventually go away' (Zagorin 1999: 2). This certainly fits the attitudes of most historians I know in my own university who seem to have little interest in the debates on theory. (Ancient Israel, p 28)

My guess would be that the majority of professionals in most professional fields have little interest in debates on theoretical issues of the kind referred to. I'm not sure if there's justification for singling history and historians out from other fields and their practitioners.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rick Sumner

Quote:

Should I pick a side? But how?

Pick the one that's epistemologically sound.

I don't think I have enough information to make that judgement.

View Poll Results: Check off everything you would need to see to say a guy was a "Historical Jesus."
God	1	2.63%
Resurrection	3	7.89%
Healed miraculously and drove out real demons	3	7.89%
Was a conventional (non-supernatural) faith healer and exorcist, but did not do miracles	13	34.21%
Performed nature miracles such as walking on water	3	7.89%
Was born of a virgin	2	5.26%
Said all or most of what is attributed to him in the Gospels	4	10.53%
Said at least some of what is attributed to him in the Gospels	21	55.26%
Believed himself to be God	2	5.26%
Believed himself to be the Messiah	5	13.16%
Was believed by his followers to be God	1	2.63%
Was believed by his followers to be the Messiah	16	42.11%
Was involved in some kind of attack on the Temple	9	23.68%
Was crucified	27	71.05%
Was from Nazareth	8	21.05%
Was from Galilee	12	31.58%
Had 12 disciples	3	7.89%
Had some disciples, not necessarily 12	25	65.79%
Raised the dead	2	5.26%
Was believed by his disciples to still be alive somehow after the crucifixion.	17	44.74%
Multiple Choice Poll. Voters: 38. You may not vote on this poll

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

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.