Freethought & Rationalism Archive

kcdad · 12-10-2009, 06:55 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by aa5874

And was raised from the dead.

According to some but not all

Quote:

According to Valentinus, Jesus had a special digest tract

Ha ha ha ha... too funny

Quote:

But, you seem to suffer from a vision problem. This very verse you quoted make mention of the resurrection.

Yeah...so you point to the resurrection and ignore the "man" part of it in order to make your senseless point ... I look at the entire record and critically analyze it.

Quote:

Your man resurrected. He was a mythical MAN.

Talk about confusion... was he mythical or did he resurrect?

Quote:

The HJ is a most SENSELESS proposition even Jesus said in the NT, "I and my Father are one".

Obviously you do not understand this statement... ok fine. Instead of concluding erroneously about it, just admit you don't understand it.

Quote:

Now, the God of the Jews, the father of Jesus, is no different to any mythical God, so also is his Son. They are ALL one MYTH.

Who are you trying to convince with your rhetoric? Us or yourself?

kcdad · 12-10-2009, 07:01 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by gurugeorge

Quote:

Originally Posted by kcdad

THAT is not his point. We can all agree the character as portrayed in the NT is mythical... much like Obama during the campaign. His argument is that a real person who may existed that these stories are written about is a MOST SENSELESS PROPOSITION.
Historical does not factual or accurate. History is an interpretation of the past and those who lived in it.

No, he's saying that a historical Christ as portrayed in the gospels is a senseless proposition, because that entity is not the kind of entity that can exist (for a rational person with a scientific worldview, at least). That's the first claim.

Secondary to that, he's claiming that, while the idea that there might be a historical person at the root of that evident and obvious myth isn't logically self-contradictory, nobody has yet provided any evidence for such, therefore it is "senseless" too.

1) The accounts of Jesus recorded in The Canon or outside of it make no such claim as to their historicity. The claims come from those who read the accounts. The accounts themselves are dead and static.
2) "isn't logically self-contradictory" ??? Here are a group of stories from different times, different authors, different cultures, in different languages about the same events and the same person... BUT it is logically consistent to think that the events and person are imaginary??????

PUH -LEESE

aa5874 · 12-10-2009, 08:58 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by gurugeorge

Quote:

Originally Posted by kcdad

THAT is not his point. We can all agree the character as portrayed in the NT is mythical... much like Obama during the campaign. His argument is that a real person who may existed that these stories are written about is a MOST SENSELESS PROPOSITION.
Historical does not factual or accurate. History is an interpretation of the past and those who lived in it.

No, he's saying that a historical Christ as portrayed in the gospels is a senseless proposition, because that entity is not the kind of entity that can exist (for a rational person with a scientific worldview, at least). That's the first claim.

Secondary to that, he's claiming that, while the idea that there might be a historical person at the root of that evident and obvious myth isn't logically self-contradictory, nobody has yet provided any evidence for such, therefore it is "senseless" too.

Most would agree with the first part, it's just the second part people don't agree with - albeit for different reasons.

You (presumably) along with other HJ-ers don't agree with it because you think there is good evidence for a historical human being at the root of the myth; others here would disagree because even if we think the evidence so far presented hasn't been good enough to show there was any historical "Jesus Christ" at all (superhero-like entity or historical human being), unlike the first, more traditionally Christian idea (that there was a superhero-like entity living in Palestine at that time called "Jesus Christ"), the second idea (that the myth of said entity arose around a man called "Jesus Christ" at that time) is not senseless, even if (in our opinion) none of the evidence so far has been good enough to make the idea a solid contender to explain the origins of Christianity.

If it were true that the proposition is senseless, then any explanation for the origins of Christianity would have to be senseless unless it were strictly verifiable through the evidence.

But in a situation where we do not know what percentage of evidence has survived, what it's composition is relative to the amount of evidence that could theoretically have survived, that just doesn't make sense.

It would only make sense if we could be assured that all the evidence relative to proving the truth of origins had survived. Then only one origin story would make sense in view of the evidence, and all others would be senseless.

But, for example, the true origins of Christianity may not even be provable at all, because the evidence that might (had it survived) have proved it beyond a doubt, simply hasn't survived.

Well, let me make my position clear.

The HJ, the historical Jesus, is a most SENSELESS proposition.

The HJ proposition is not new so it would be expected that those who propagate the theory would by now have concrete or solid credible sources of antiquity to maintain and consolidate their idea.

No such credible sources of antiquity can be found to support the historical Jesus.

All claims or propositions about Jesus or any matter concerning antiquity must be made using extant or available information or sources of antiquity, if not, a person can claim today that the earth IS really flat but that all the information on the flat earth did not survive.

Now, such a claim that the earth is flat is just ridiculous,, SENSELESS based on extant information, although it may be true that information about the flat earth did not survive.

So, it is equally ridiculous, SENSELESS, to maintain, 24-7, that there was an HJ based on extant sources of antiquity when it can be seen CLEARLY that the extant sources do NOT in any way support an HJ.

There is extant information or sources of antiquity about Jesus, this information fundamentally and overwhelmingly supports a MYTHICAL JESUS, the offspring of the Holy Ghost of God, from conception to ascension.

These are some of the sources that have survived.

1. gMatthew.

2. gMark

3. gLuke

4. gJohn

5. Acts of the Apostles.

6. The Pauline Epistles.

7. The Pastorals.

8. The General Epistles

9. Hebrews

10. Revelations

11. Writings under the name of Ignatius

12. Writings under the name of Clement.

13. Writings under the name of Justin Martyr.

14. Writings under the name of Irenaeus

15.Writings under the name of Tertullian.

There are many more writings from the Church which have survived and they fundamentally and overwhelmingly support the offspring of the Holy Ghost from conception to ascension.

The HJ is a most SENSELESS proposition, it cannot be supported using information that have survived.

The HJ should be abandoned, at least temporarily, until supporting extant information can be found.

gurugeorge · 12-10-2009, 11:13 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by kcdad

Quote:

Originally Posted by gurugeorge

No, he's saying that a historical Christ as portrayed in the gospels is a senseless proposition, because that entity is not the kind of entity that can exist (for a rational person with a scientific worldview, at least). That's the first claim.

Secondary to that, he's claiming that, while the idea that there might be a historical person at the root of that evident and obvious myth isn't logically self-contradictory, nobody has yet provided any evidence for such, therefore it is "senseless" too.

1) The accounts of Jesus recorded in The Canon or outside of it make no such claim as to their historicity. The claims come from those who read the accounts. The accounts themselves are dead and static.
2) "isn't logically self-contradictory" ??? Here are a group of stories from different times, different authors, different cultures, in different languages about the same events and the same person... BUT it is logically consistent to think that the events and person are imaginary??????

PUH -LEESE

You don't yet know that they're about a person. On the face of it, they're about a mythical being.

Texts about a mythical being can have a number of origins, only one of which is "there was a real person at the root of the myth, but people piled a bunch of mythical crap on top of his story". Until you know who wrote them, when they were written, why, etc., you can't, with any confidence extract historical data about a person, an ordinary human being who got mythologised, out of them.

They might be fiction that people came to believe true, a literary joke that ran away with itself, a deliberate con-job, mystical encomiums about an imaginary being, etc.

There is no guarantee whatsoever that the Christ myth we have in the NT is based on a real human being who once lived, called "Joshua the Anointed".

kcdad · 12-11-2009, 06:53 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by gurugeorge

You don't yet know that they're about a person. On the face of it, they're about a mythical being.

Texts about a mythical being can have a number of origins, only one of which is "there was a real person at the root of the myth, but people piled a bunch of mythical crap on top of his story". Until you know who wrote them, when they were written, why, etc., you can't, with any confidence extract historical data about a person, an ordinary human being who got mythologised, out of them.

They might be fiction that people came to believe true, a literary joke that ran away with itself, a deliberate con-job, mystical encomiums about an imaginary being, etc.

There is no guarantee whatsoever that the Christ myth we have in the NT is based on a real human being who once lived, called "Joshua the Anointed".

It is a great conspiracy by the original inhabitants of Atlantis, who came from Theta 9, 75 trillion years ago...
There is no guarantee about ANYTHING in history. You can't even trust your eyes or mind that you are real.

kcdad · 12-11-2009, 06:54 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by aa5874

These are some of the sources that have survived.

...and there are also non Canon sources that echo, confirm and refute those sources you mentioned. (Nag Hammadi for example)

aa5874 · 12-11-2009, 03:20 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by kcdad

Quote:

Originally Posted by aa5874

These are some of the sources that have survived.

...and there are also non Canon sources that echo, confirm and refute those sources you mentioned. (Nag Hammadi for example)

What does the Nag Hammadi have about Jesus of Nazareth, the offspring of the Holy Ghost, born of a virgin without a human father who resurrected and ascended through the CLOUDS?

kcdad · 12-12-2009, 05:28 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by aa5874

Quote:

Originally Posted by kcdad

...and there are also non Canon sources that echo, confirm and refute those sources you mentioned. (Nag Hammadi for example)

What does the Nag Hammadi have about Jesus of Nazareth, the offspring of the Holy Ghost, born of a virgin without a human father who resurrected and ascended through the CLOUDS?

What does that have to do with the man gMark wrote about?

aa5874 · 12-12-2009, 09:18 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by kcdad

Quote:

Originally Posted by aa5874

What does the Nag Hammadi have about Jesus of Nazareth, the offspring of the Holy Ghost, born of a virgin without a human father who resurrected and ascended through the CLOUDS?

What does that have to do with the man gMark wrote about?

Unless you have an unknown copy of gMark, this is the information found in gMark (KJV) about Jesus.

The author of gMark wrote that the disciples thought Jesus was a SPIRIT when he was walking on the water during a storm at sea.

Let us examine the following passage.

Mark 6.47-51

Quote:

47 And when even was come, the ship was in the midst of the sea, and he [Jesus] alone on the land.

48 And he saw them toiling in rowing; for the wind was contrary unto them: and about the fourth watch of the night he cometh unto them, walking upon the sea, and would have passed by them.

49 But when they saw him walking upon the sea, they supposed it had been a spirit, and cried out:

50 For they all saw him, and were troubled. And immediately he talked with them, and saith unto them, Be of good cheer: IT IS I, be not afraid.

51 And he went up unto them into the ship, and the wind ceased: and they were sore amazed in themselves beyond measure, and wondered.

Based on the author of gMark, Jesus identified himself as the water-walker, clearly this is not the action of a man, but of a Supernatural being.

Since you think gMark is about a man, let us now proceed further and examine the transfiguration event as found in gMark.

Mark 9.2-8

Quote:

2 And after six days Jesus taketh with him Peter, and James, and John, and leadeth them up into an high mountain apart by themselves: and he was transfigured before them.

3 And his raiment became shining, exceeding white as snow' so as no fuller on earth can white them.

4 And there appeared unto them Elias with Moses: and they were talking with Jesus.

5 And Peter answered and said to Jesus, Master, it is good for us to be here: and let us make three tabernacles, one for thee, and one for Moses, and one for Elias.

6 For he wist not what to say; for they were sore afraid.

7 And there was a cloud that overshadowed them: and a voice came out of the cloud, saying, This is my beloved Son: hear him.

8 And suddenly, when they had looked round about, they saw no man any more, save Jesus only with themselves.

The transfiguration as found in gMark appears to be a Supernatural event where once dead prophets Moses and Elijah were talking with Jesus and a TALKING-CLOUD identified that Jesus was HIS beloved Son.

And, again since you think that gMark was about a man, let us examine Mark 16, the resurrection.

Mr 16:6 -

Quote:

And he saith unto them, Be not affrighted: Ye seek Jesus of Nazareth, which was crucified: he is risen, he is not here, behold the place where they laid him.

And finally, let us examine what the unclean spirit thought of Jesus as found in the very first chapter of gMark.

Mark 1:23-25 -

Quote:

23 And there was in their synagogue a man with an unclean spirit, and he cried out,

24 Saying, Let us alone; what have we to do with thee, thou Jesus of Nazareth? art thou come to destroy us? I know thee who thou art, the Holy One of God.

25 And Jesus rebuked him, saying, Hold thy peace, and come out of him. 26 And when the unclean spirit had torn him, and cried with a loud voice, he came out of him.

The author of gMark clearly wrote about a Supernatural known in the Spirit world as the HOLY ONE of God, who walked on water, transfigured and resurrected.

The Jesus of gMark was not a man, he was known by CLOUDS

The HJ is a most SENSELESS proposition.

kcdad · 12-12-2009, 10:17 AM

Quote:

aa5874;
The author of gMark wrote that the disciples thought Jesus was a SPIRIT when he was walking on the water during a storm at sea.

You are so easy to refute... "the disciples thought" ... so?

Quote:

Based on the author of gMark, Jesus identified himself as the water-walker, clearly this is not the action of a man, but of a Supernatural being.

a Supernatural being like Peter was when he left the boat and walked to Jesus...

What do you mean Jesus identified himself as the water-walker?

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

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.