Freethought & Rationalism Archive

maryhelena · 03-23-2011, 11:04 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by No Robots

And the author I cite above levels his strongest protest against mythicists. You can read this protest in its entirety here.

No Robots · 03-23-2011, 11:08 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by maryhelena

Historical evidence is where it's at

But isn't it also a question of how the figure is being used? We have traditional Christian religion trying to hold on to its god-man. We have mythicism denying any compelling evidence for the man as a historical personage. And we have Judaism reclaiming him as one of its own greatest exemplars. Contemporary scholarship is definitely on the side of the third option.

maryhelena · 03-23-2011, 11:23 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by No Robots

Quote:

Originally Posted by maryhelena

Historical evidence is where it's at

But isn't it also a question of how the figure is being used? We have traditional Christian religion trying to hold on to its god-man. We have mythicism denying any compelling evidence for the man as a historical personage. And we have Judaism reclaiming him as one of its own greatest exemplars. Contemporary scholarship is definitely on the side of the third option.

There is nothing in mythicism that denies any historical figures being reflected within the gospel storyline. All a mythicist position relates to is the denial that the gospel crucified carpenter, named Jesus, from Nazareth, is a historical person. Apart from that it's open season as to what historical figures, and I go with figures, that the gospel writers found to be relevant for their prophetic and theological interests and interpretations.

Poor Jews - once again having to carry the can for the Christian obsession with a literal gospel JC storyline...:constern01:

maryhelena · 03-23-2011, 11:35 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by PhilosopherJay

Hi Chaucer,

I have a theory that Elizabeth Taylor was Jesus Christ reincarnated. It is quite evident that the writer of Elizabeth's obituary knew this theory.

Quote:

LOS ANGELES – Elizabeth Taylor, the violet-eyed film goddess whose sultry screen persona, stormy personal life and enduring fame and glamour made her one of the last of the classic movie stars and a template for the modern celebrity, died Wednesday at age 79.

She was surrounded by her four children when she died of congestive heart failure at Cedars-Sinai Medical Center, where she had been hospitalized for about six weeks, said publicist Sally Morrison.

"My Mother was an extraordinary woman who lived life to the fullest, with great passion, humor, and love," her son, Michael Wilding, said in a statement.

"We know, quite simply, that the world is a better place for Mom having lived in it. Her legacy will never fade, her spirit will always be with us, and her love will live forever in our hearts."

"We have just lost a Hollywood giant," said Elton John, a longtime friend of Taylor. "More importantly, we have lost an incredible human being."

Taylor was the most blessed and cursed of actresses, the toughest and the most vulnerable. She had extraordinary grace, wealth and voluptuous beauty, and won three Academy Awards, including a special one for her humanitarian work. She was the most loyal of friends and a defender of gays in Hollywood when AIDS was new to the industry and beyond. But she was afflicted by ill health, failed romances (eight marriages, seven husbands) and personal tragedy.

"I think I'm becoming fatalistic," she said in 1989. "Too much has happened in my life for me not to be fatalistic."

Her more than 50 movies included unforgettable portraits of innocence and of decadence, from the children's classic "National Velvet" and the sentimental family comedy "Father of the Bride" to Oscar-winning transgressions in "Who's Afraid of Virginia Woolf?" and "Butterfield 8." The historical epic "Cleopatra" is among Hollywood's greatest on-screen fiascos and a landmark of off-screen monkey business, the meeting ground of Taylor and Richard Burton, the "Brangelina" of their day...
The London-born actress was a star at age 12, a bride and a divorcee at 18, a superstar at 19 and a widow at 26. She was a screen sweetheart and martyr later reviled for stealing Eddie Fisher from Debbie Reynolds, then for dumping Fisher to bed Burton, a relationship of epic passion and turbulence, lasting through two marriages and countless attempted reconciliations.

These expressions all describe or refer to Jesus Christ.

"stormy personal life and enduring fame."
"extraordinary"
"great passion"
"the world is a better place"
"incredible human being"
"legacy will never fade"
"spirit will always be with us"
"love will live forever in our hearts."
"martyr"
"unforgettable"
"personal tragedy"
"epic passion"

If Paul's seven epistles refer to the life of Jesus 12 times, is it not more obvious that this one text refers to Jesus and the gospels 12 times.

Warmly,

Jay Raskin

:applause::hysterical::applause:

Chaucer · 03-23-2011, 02:17 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Toto

Quote:

Originally Posted by Chaucer

Which means, therefore, that you erred in claiming earlier that "The most likely fit is a story about the son of God who was crucified by the Romans and arose from the dead." Plainly, inasmuch as the "extra Biblical sources are about what we would expect from the outside society interpreting what they heard from Christians", that interpretation only accommodates a "human troublemaker who gathered a few followers and finally made enough trouble for himself to be nailed by the Romans, period". It does not accommodate your claim. Thus, my point stands.

Chaucer

No, your point doesn't. Perhaps you misread. The most likely explanation is that Christian invented a story about the son of God being crucified by the Romans, and then extrabiblical sources hearing about this and only picking up that they followed some guy who was crucified by the Romans.

And since therefore the extrabiblical sources only pick up "that they followed some guy who was crucified by the Romans", your notion, as expressed earlier, that the most likely fit to all these documents is "the son of God who was crucified by the Romans and arose from the dead" makes no sense at all. The only aspects that are uniformly consonant with all these documents across the board plainly involve "some guy who was crucified by the Romans", with no additional details. Instead, though, your odd notion of the most "likely fit" is "the son of God who was crucified by the Romans and arose from the dead". But that picture is only found in some sources, not all, and not in all the extrabiblical sources.

For something to be the most "likely fit", it has to include only those aspects that all documents have in common. "[T]he son of God who was crucified by the Romans and arose from the dead" includes some aspects that are not in all the documents. They are not in all the extrabiblical sources. So your claim that the most likely fit is "the son of God who was crucified by the Romans and arose from the dead" is plainly wrong, because that doesn't fit all the extrabiblical sources, and thus the claim that the most "likely fit" is just "some guy who was crucified by the Romans" with no additional details is plainly right.

Logically,

Chaucer

Chaucer · 03-23-2011, 02:26 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by maryhelena

All a mythicist position relates to is the denial that the gospel crucified carpenter, named Jesus, from Nazareth, is a historical person.

igsfly:

igsfly:

Chaucer

aa5874 · 03-23-2011, 02:32 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by maryhelena

There is nothing in mythicism that denies any historical figures being reflected within the gospel storyline...

Myth Jesus was ONLY believed to have existed. The Myth Jesus theory is a denial that Jesus of the NT is based on an actual historical figure.

aa5874 · 03-23-2011, 02:55 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Chaucer

For something to be the most "likely fit", it has to include only those aspects that all documents have in common. "[T]he son of God who was crucified by the Romans and arose from the dead" includes some aspects that are not in all the documents. So your claim that the most likely fit is "the son of God who was crucified by the Romans and arose from the dead" is plainly wrong, and the claim that the most "likely fit" is just "some guy who was crucified by the Romans" with no additional details is plainly right.

Logically,

Chaucer

The Son of God who was crucified by the Romans and arose from the dead is in ALL the Canonical Gospels and is the ACTUAL story of the Gospels.

There is NO story that "some guy was crucified by the Romans" in the Canon.

Mt 16:16 -

Quote:

And Simon Peter answered and said, Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God.

Mr 3:11 -

Quote:

And unclean spirits, when they saw him, fell down before him, and cried, saying, Thou art the Son of God.

Lu 1:35 -

Quote:

And the angel answered and said unto her, The Holy Ghost shall come upon thee, and the power of the Highest shall overshadow thee: therefore also that holy thing which shall be born of thee shall be called the Son of God.

Joh 1:34 -

Quote:

And I saw, and bare record that this is the Son of God.

Joh 6:69 -

Quote:

And we believe and are sure that thou art that Christ, the Son of the living God.

Ac 3:26 -

Quote:

Unto you first God, having raised up his Son Jesus, sent him to bless you, in turning away every one of you from his iniquities.

2Co 1:19 -

Quote:

For the Son of God, Jesus Christ, who was preached among you by us, even by me and Silvanus and Timotheus, was not yea and nay, but in him was yea.

There is NO story in the NT Canon that some guy was crucified by the Romans.

And LOOK.

The Pauline Jesus was NOT a man.

Ga 1:1 -

Quote:

Paul, an apostle, (NOT of men, NEITHER by man, but by Jesus Christ....

blastula · 03-23-2011, 03:21 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mountainman

From what-do-biblical-scholars-make-of-the-resurrection:

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ehrman

Historians, of course, have no difficulty whatsoever speaking about the belief in Jesus’ resurrection, since this is a matter of public record. For it is a historical fact that some of Jesus’ followers came to believe that he had been raised from the dead soon after his execution. (p. 81)

According to Ehrman we may rely upon "the historical fact that some of Jesus’ followers came to believe that he had been raised from the dead soon after his execution".

I would like to ask Ehrman if he thinks that Gandalf the Grey rose out of the pit in Moria after slaying the Balrog, to become Gandalf the White. It is certain that many of Gandalf's followers believed he had risen from death.

Ehrman didn't say he believes Jesus rose from the dead.

Kapyong · 03-23-2011, 03:36 PM

Gday,

Quote:

Originally Posted by Juststeve

Is that really your theory, Toto? That in the absence of a historical Jesus there was one or more Christians who, inspired not by Jesus because he didn't exist, made up a story about a Jesus who was crucified. Why would they do such a thing? Was it in the way of a joke? Perhaps a hoax. Did the Aliens who really built the pyramids put them up to it?

Wow -
you believe it's just as likely for :
* people to write myths or fiction or legends
as it is for :
* Aliens to build the pyramid

Is it news to you that people write fiction, myths and legends?

Why would anyone write about Adam and Eve unless they were historical? Why would anyone write about Hercules, Krishna, Aesculapius, Odysseus, Xenu, James Bond, Harry Potter - unless they were historical?

You seem to be arguing that all stories of mythical God-men are true - why else would anyone write?

In fact - we can see that the stories about Jesus were based on stories in the Jewish scriptures - is this news to you?

Kapyong

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

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.