Freethought & Rationalism Archive

J-D · 11-08-2011, 08:20 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Toto

There is a certain logic to aa5874's madness (or is it vice versa?) Once Jesus has been identified as a phantom in any part of the gospels, all other mentions of him are thereby supernatural.

Well, no. That's not logical. That's the point.

aa5874 · 11-08-2011, 08:29 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sheshbazzar

Quote:

Originally Posted by aa5874

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sheshbazzar

Quote:

And Jesus went into Jerusalem and into the temple. So when He had looked around at all things, as the hour was already late, He went out to Bethany with the twelve. (Mark 11:11)

Based on your own understanding aa, Please SHOW us why this statement and event cannot be a historically accurate account.

I really don't know how I can show that a PHANTOM was in Jerusalem and in the Jewish Temple.

But you are not being asked to show that Jebus was in Jerusalem and in the Jewish Temple.
You are being asked to SHOW that Jebus WAS NOT in Jerusalem and in the Jewish Temple.
And to DEMONSTRATE why -this- particular verse CANNOT BE a literally accurate report of an event, involving real people, that actually took place.

Unless you can SHOW that this event COULD NOT have happened, and that it CANNOT be an accurate report of an actual event involving real people,
J-D's point that a situation or event MIGHT BE a literally accurate report of an event that actually took place, stands and is vindicated.
.

I have already answered you. I don't know how I can show that a character described as PHANTOM could be anywhere.

You simply cannot isolate a verse in the NT and FAIL to take the description of Jesus into account.

Who was Jesus in gMark? How was he described? What are his characteristics? These are EXTREMELY pertinent questions in any analysis of Jesus in gMark.

Jesus was a PHANTOM so I will not attempt to make any claims of history unless there are external corroborative sources.

The fundamental problem with the Jesus character in gMark is that there are statements about the character that CANNOT POSSIBLY be historically accurate.

The Jesus character in gMark cannot be historical as described.

Sheshbazzar · 11-08-2011, 08:29 PM

Keep in mind, it is accepted by most Biblical scholars, that the miracle and supernatural elements were latter pious embellishments and additions to 'enhance' the reputation of a real Teacher.
It really is not smart to play stupid.

aa5874 · 11-08-2011, 08:36 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sheshbazzar

Keep in mind, it is accepted by most Biblical scholars, that the miracle and supernatural elements were latter pious embellishments and additions to 'enhance' the reputation of a real Teacher.
It really is not smart to play stupid.

Are implying that there are NO STUPID Biblical Scholars?

Some Biblical Scholars may have argued that Jesus was raised from the dead.

It is NOT really smart to play with me.

I deal with the written evidence from antiquity because there are lots of stupid Biblical Scholars.

I have been led astray by stupid Biblical Scholars so now I ONLY present the written evidence.

Sheshbazzar · 11-08-2011, 08:37 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by aa5874

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sheshbazzar

Quote:

Originally Posted by aa5874

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sheshbazzar

Quote:

And Jesus went into Jerusalem and into the temple. So when He had looked around at all things, as the hour was already late, He went out to Bethany with the twelve. (Mark 11:11)

Based on your own understanding aa, Please SHOW us why this statement and event cannot be a historically accurate account.

I really don't know how I can show that a PHANTOM was in Jerusalem and in the Jewish Temple.

But you are not being asked to show that Jebus was in Jerusalem and in the Jewish Temple.
You are being asked to SHOW that Jebus WAS NOT in Jerusalem and in the Jewish Temple.
And to DEMONSTRATE why -this- particular verse CANNOT BE a literally accurate report of an event, involving real people, that actually took place.

Unless you can SHOW that this event COULD NOT have happened, and that it CANNOT be an accurate report of an actual event involving real people,
J-D's point that a situation or event MIGHT BE a literally accurate report of an event that actually took place, stands and is vindicated.
.

I have already answered you. I don't know how I can show that a character described as PHANTOM could be anywhere.

You simply cannot isolate a verse in the NT and FAIL to take the description of Jesus into account.

Who was Jesus in gMark? How was he described? What are his characteristics? These are EXTREMELY pertinent questions in any analysis of Jesus in gMark.

Jesus was a PHANTOM so I will not attempt to make any claims of history unless there are external corroborative sources.

The fundamental problem with the Jesus character in gMark is that there are statements about the character that CANNOT POSSIBLY be historically accurate.

The Jesus character in gMark cannot be historical as described.

Only because so much myth was added to his reputation.
The description of Jesus as given is taken into account. As he is described is no indication of how he actually was.

No doubt you would be 'described' in some fashion other than what you would desire to be. Would that make such descriptions valid?

You have not sucessfully refuted the possibilty that;

Quote:

Jesus went into Jerusalem and into the temple. So when He had looked around at all things, as the hour was already late, He went out to Bethany with the twelve. (Mark 11:11)

MIGHT BE a literally accurate report of an event that actually took place.
Until you do J-D's point stands, and is vindicated.

J-D · 11-08-2011, 08:41 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by aa5874

Quote:

Originally Posted by Toto

There is a certain logic to aa5874's madness (or is it vice versa?) Once Jesus has been identified as a phantom in any part of the gospels, all other mentions of him are thereby supernatural...

Come on, Toto.

Once Pilate in gMark is IDENTIFIED AS A Governor of Judea during the reign of Tiberius then he is a GOVERNOR of Judea in ALL BOOKS of ALL ANTIQUITY.

Not only the NT, but every book that merely mentions Pilate.

Come on, Toto.

I am amazed at how illogical you can be.

The logic works differently depending on whether the starting point is a description of something that really existed or a description of something that never really existed.

If there really was a Pilate who was Governor of Judea, then it's possible for there to be references to the same Pilate which don't happen to mention that he was Governor of Judea, and any references to that particular Pilate are references to a Governor of Judea whether they happen to mention that fact or not.

By the same logic, if there really was a Jesus who was a phantom, then it's possible for there to be references to the same Jesus which don't happen to mention that he was a phantom, and any references to that particular Jesus are references to a phantom whether they happen to mention that fact or not.

However, if there never really was a Jesus who was a phantom, but there are (inaccurate) references to a Jesus who was a phantom, it does not necessarily follow that all references to 'Jesus' are references to a phantom: unlike in the earlier case, they cannot be references to the particular Jesus who was a phantom, because there was no particular Jesus who was a phantom.

If there really was a Pilate who was Governor of Judea, and I see a reference in a text using the name 'Pilate', then it does make sense to ask 'is that the particular Pilate who was Governor of Judea, as opposed to some other Pilate', because there really was a particular Pilate who was Governor of Judea.

But if there never really was a Jesus who was a phantom, and I see a reference in a text using the name 'Jesus', then it does not make sense to ask 'is that the particular Jesus who was a phantom, as opposed to some other Jesus', because there was never any particular Jesus who was a phantom.

That's the way the logic works.

aa5874 · 11-08-2011, 08:42 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sheshbazzar

....Unless you can SHOW that this event COULD NOT have happened, and that it CANNOT be an accurate report of an actual event involving real people,
J-D's point that a situation or event MIGHT BE a literally accurate report of an event that actually took place, stands and is vindicated..

How can J-D be vindicated when the event might NOT have happened?

If NOTHING really happened in the NT the belief something might have happened is IRRELEVANT.

J-D · 11-08-2011, 08:45 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by aa5874

Quote:

Originally Posted by Toto

aa5874 - Are you claiming that the gospels are an exercise in logic?

Answer your own question. You may not even know the answer yourself.

Characters in the NT MUST be IDENTIFIED and corroborated BEFORE they can be ACCEPTED as historical.

I CANNOT use gMark to corroborate a character described as a Phantom in the very same book.

The IDENTITY or description of Jesus is FIXED in gMark just like the character called Pilate.

The IDENTITY of Pilate in the NT DOES NOT change from verse to verse and from book to book and the very same applies to ALL Characters.

In the NT, SATAN is the Devil, the God of the Jews is God , King Herod the Great is King , the angel Gabriel is an Angel, Tiberius is Emperor.

Jesus is a PHANTOM in gMark, Matthew, Luke and John, the Pauline writings, and the Entire NT.

Toto, I am really amazed how illogical you can be.

Characters in the NT MUST be IDENTIFIED as described.

Only people and things that exist have an identity. It's not possible for there to be a person or thing that has an identity without existing. The only way the identity of Jesus can be fixed is if there really is, or was, such a Jesus. If not, then there is no identity of that Jesus and so that identity can't be fixed. That's the way the logic works.

J-D · 11-08-2011, 08:46 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by aa5874

You simply cannot isolate a verse in the NT and FAIL to take the description of Jesus into account.

Yes you can. There's no reason why not.

Sheshbazzar · 11-08-2011, 08:47 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by aa5874

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sheshbazzar

Keep in mind, it is accepted by most Biblical scholars, that the miracle and supernatural elements were latter pious embellishments and additions to 'enhance' the reputation of a real Teacher.
It really is not smart to play stupid.

Are implying that there are NO STUPID Biblical Scholars?

Quote:

Some Biblical Scholars may have argued that Jesus was raised from the dead.

It is NOT really smart to play with me.

I deal with the written evidence from antiquity because there are lots of stupid Biblical Scholars.

I have been led astray by stupid Biblical Scholars so now I ONLY present the written evidence.

And if the written evidence is stupid...
You might reach some ****** conclusions.

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

11-08-2011, 08:29 PM	#343
Sheshbazzar Veteran Member Join Date: Sep 2003 Location: On the path of knowledge Posts: 8,889	Keep in mind, it is accepted by most Biblical scholars, that the miracle and supernatural elements were latter pious embellishments and additions to 'enhance' the reputation of a real Teacher. It really is not smart to play stupid.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.