Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Mandelbrot · 05-31-2012, 05:19 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Logical

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mandelbrot

You are aware that this is an argument from incredulity aren't you?

No it's not. You're saying one father believed Jesus wasn't an earthly being, and his kids taught their kids that Jesus was an earthly being. And a whole generation of Christians did that, not just one father. They all agreed one day that Jesus was a historical man, and passed that on to their kids, after they used to believe otherwise.

Actually it is because you are saying you can't see how it's possible. Then again, it's wrong also. Tell me, what generation was the supposed change in? How can you be sure the historization didn't take place over years?

Mandelbrot · 05-31-2012, 05:26 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Will Wiley

Did Paul think that Jesus never walked the earth?

That's correct.

Quote:

Where would we expect to see Jesus's parents mentioned elsewhere?

Any of the absent historical writings from a contemporary.

Quote:

Not having the parents of Jesus mentioned outside the gospels till Irenaeus doesn't, to me, seem that strong an argument for his non existence.

Reread what was written, I never said that was the entire argument.

Quote:

Assuming this is true (and really all we have is an argument from silence) then it may be that these phenomona are just a later part of the religion. There is nothing in the earliest references we have that place importance on these things. Paul doesn't, as an example.

Nice handwave.

Quote:

I don't think I'm quite handwaving them away. Are my questions and points unreasonable?

You just handwaved the last point away and no your questions are not unreasonable. What is unreasonable is the fact that answers are refused for a belief that can only be based on faith (meaning an historical Jesus).

Mandelbrot · 05-31-2012, 05:32 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by aa5874

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mandelbrot

There is Paul but quite a few people refuse to see that. Jesus simply was not historicized until the gospels...

It is completely erroneous that the Gospels historicized Jesus. Please just go and get familiar with the Gospels and stop repeating FLAWED opinion.

In gMark, Jesus was WALKING on water and Transfiguring-- See Mark 6 & 9

In gMatthew, Jesus was Born of a Ghost--See Matthew 1.-20.

In gLuke, Jesus was Born of a Ghost--See Luke 1.26-35

In gJohn, Jesus was the WORD that was God the Creator. See John 1

It is blatant mis-leading information that the Gospels historicized Jesus.

The Gospels did the Complete opposite.

The Gospels SHOW that Jesus was TOTAL MYTH.

Do you know what historicize means? It means to treat or represent as historical.

Now tell us O great and knowledgeable one, do Paul and the gospels agree?

If not, explain how both treat Jesus as a myth because it is common knowledge that Paul did so.

Will Wiley · 05-31-2012, 05:59 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mandelbrot

Nice handwave.

It can't be a handwave as you had no actual evidence to wave away. What I questioned was your leading question laden with unsupported assumptions. I expect people here to back up assertions with evidence.

You merely asked this loaded question full of your own questionable assumptions. "Tell me, why is there no veneration of any Christian site or any Christian relics until well after the 2nd century if there really was a historical Jesus? "

Quote:

I don't think I'm quite handwaving them away. Are my questions and points unreasonable?

You just handwaved the last point away and no your questions are not unreasonable. What is unreasonable is the fact that answers are refused for a belief that can only be based on faith (meaning an historical Jesus).

I have not argued for an historical Jesus, only questioned those who don't believe in such. So you are jumping to conclusions

Grog · 05-31-2012, 06:00 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Will Wiley

Quote:

Originally Posted by EarlDoherty

This is mind-boggling. What depths of convolution, double-think, twisted reasoning, totally unsupportable invention based on nothing but wishful thinking, is required these days to cling to some historical figure of less substance than a fog in the morning! Why do you do it? Why is mythicism so much more unthinkable and undesirable, desperately to be rejected no matter what, than this will-o-the-wisp which requires such contortions and compromises of logic and scholarly integrity?

I've never gotten an answer.

Earl Doherty

I'm not surprised. Your question is a thinly veiled personal attack.

It's not. It is a comment on the poster's position. Do you have a critique of Doherty's argument or just this red herring?

Will Wiley · 05-31-2012, 06:04 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mandelbrot

That's correct.Any of the absent historical writings from a contemporary.

You'll have to be clearer.

Will Wiley · 05-31-2012, 06:06 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Grog

Quote:

Originally Posted by Will Wiley

I'm not surprised. Your question is a thinly veiled personal attack.

It's not.

It is.

Grog · 05-31-2012, 06:19 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by stephan huller

It seems to me that mythers want to argue that Christianity 'duped' the world into believing Jesus was a historical person. This is a compound argument involving two premises (a) that Christianity duped people and that (b) Jesus was not a person. Read together the argument seems to imply that Christianity never happened. Nevertheless we should really be arguing for just (b). It's impossible to prove that a historical event 'never happened.' It's a bad argumentative tactic. Like a country deciding to invade another country without a plan.

I see this in exactly the opposite direction. The new HJers argue that Jesus was just a man, not very influential in his lifetime, somehow incurred the wrath of Rome and was executed. His followers then made up stories ("just started to say" according to Ehrman) that he had risen from the dead, performed miracles in his lifetime, etc. It is the HJers who argue that early Christians duped the world into believing that this man was a God on Earth.

The 'myth' position, which as mountainman points out incorporates a spectrum of beliefs (I would include some that consider themselves to be HJers). What I think most likely is that early Christians earnestly believed in their spiritual, heavenly Jesus, just as modern Christians today do. Just as modern Christians refer to spiritual experiences and revelations so too did the very first "Christians" (you may wish to call this uniformitarianism).

I am not sure if the first stories about the personified Jesus of Nazareth were fiction, pious fairy tale/folklore, outright fraud (I don't think so--where I depart from mm), or actual attempts at biography (of a non-existent person, but it has happened again since then).

Mandelbrot · 05-31-2012, 06:24 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Will Wiley

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mandelbrot

That's correct.Any of the absent historical writings from a contemporary.

You'll have to be clearer.

What part of Any of the absent historical writings from a contemporary isn't clear to you. Tell you what, if you are wasting my time (I am pretty sure you are), don't bother responding.

Grog · 05-31-2012, 06:25 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Will Wiley

Quote:

Originally Posted by Grog

It's not.

It is.

Ok, not much going on there, I see.

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

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.