Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Opinion · 02-27-2009, 08:04 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by aa5874

Well, the mythological Jesus was the offspring of the Holy Ghost. See Matthew 1.18 and Luke 1.35 if you're interested.

Yes. And Alexander was the offspring of Zeus supposedly and he existed. Now whether one believes in that or not is the case. Amakusa Shiro was also supposedly the offspring of God but he existed.

Quote:

You mean with the part where Jesus rose from the dead?

Yup. You don't have to believe in that but on the text of his life. Just like I don't believe in Alexander or Amakusa being sons of God but I know they existed.

Quote:

And you may have used the passages before Josephus and Tacitus, too.

It would appear Josephus did not even use the TF in his own lifetime.

It is shown that Tacitus and Josephus did.

gurugeorge · 02-27-2009, 08:07 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Roger Pearse

The arguments being used are of a kind commonly used to falsify history.

Reference?

Opinion · 02-27-2009, 08:16 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by aa5874

There is really no need for such complex theories to show that Jesus of the NT was a pagan concept.

Just read Matthew 1.18 or Luke 1.35 and then Homer's Achilles or Greek mythology.

The concept where humans mate with gods is pagan or Greek mythology.

There is no such concept in Jewish tradition where humans mate with a God.

Jesus of the NT is a product of paganism or Greek mythology.

I'll have to re-check my Bible later on. But does it state that God mated with Mary?

Toto · 02-27-2009, 09:06 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Wooster

...
Sure, let's talk about what you said here:

...

No, please, let's not. Your moderators would just have to split that off.

This forum is for the discussion of Biblical Criticism and History. We all know that there are people here whose views on general religious questions would be considered bizarre by others, but this is not the place to resolve them.

Thanks for your consideration.

aa5874 · 02-27-2009, 09:15 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Opinion

Quote:

Originally Posted by aa5874

Well, the mythological Jesus was the offspring of the Holy Ghost. See Matthew 1.18 and Luke 1.35 if you're interested.

Yes. And Alexander was the offspring of Zeus supposedly and he existed. Now whether one believes in that or not is the case. Amakusa Shiro was also supposedly the offspring of God but he existed.

It was not the rumor that Amakusa Shiro was the offspring of God that confirmed his existence.

It was not the rumor that Alexander was the offspring of Zeus that made him a figure of history.

You must know why Alexander is regarded as a figure of history.

You don't know?

It is because there is historical evidence for Alexander the Great.

Ahilles was the offspring of a sea-goddess, and there is no historical evidence for Achilles.

Now, you see why Achilles was a myth., all rumors-- no history

This is the very reason Jesus is mythology, all rumors --no history

show_no_mercy · 02-27-2009, 09:33 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Opinion

Quote:

Originally Posted by aa5874

There is really no need for such complex theories to show that Jesus of the NT was a pagan concept.

Just read Matthew 1.18 or Luke 1.35 and then Homer's Achilles or Greek mythology.

The concept where humans mate with gods is pagan or Greek mythology.

There is no such concept in Jewish tradition where humans mate with a God.

Jesus of the NT is a product of paganism or Greek mythology.

I'll have to re-check my Bible later on. But does it state that God mated with Mary?

This is semantics. There's no Jewish tradition of gods impregnating mortals or mortals/gods being the offspring of (a) human(s) parent(s).

arnoldo · 02-27-2009, 10:30 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by LogicandReason

Quote:

Originally Posted by GakuseiDon

1. Paul describes Christ as earthly, in the flesh, which means not spiritual (at least while he was in the flesh).

Romans 1:3 reflects a 'Christology' which taught that the intentional object has at one time (ambiguous) been born and descended from David, This tautology never references the Gospel details or biography. This is because the Gospels develop later, from oral tradition. Historical anchors, like Pilate, Herod and John the Baptist attach to these oral traditions to create a time period unknown to Paul.

If Paul thought that Jesus was a man from Galilee, recently crucified by the Roman authorities, he would never have written Romans 13. Paul never mentions Jesus of Nazareth or death in Jerusalem.

Paul tells you where he gets his myth: Gal 1:11-12. It is all revelation.

Columbia University philosopher John H. Randall Jr., in his book Hellenistic Ways of Deliverance (or via: amazon.co.uk), suggests, “Christianity, in the hands of Saul of Tarsus, the real formulator of Christian theology, and certain other early Christians, notably the author of the Fourth Gospel, became one such incarnation and mystery cult among many other competitors. It became the Jewish rival of the cults of Isis, of the Great Mother (Cybele), of Mithras, and many Gnostic sects. (Pg 105)

Quote:

Originally Posted by GakuseiDon

2. I'm not aware of any Greek concept about a spiritual, non-earthly, dying/rising Savior. Do you have a source for this?

Poor choice of wording on my part...when I used 'Savior' versus gods. The dying/rising (imitating the nature cycle) gods didn't claim to be either the Son of God or to have died for mankind's redemption...those ideas were exclusively Christian (to my knowledge). Philo's 'Logos' or 'Word' has similar cosmology and epistemology to the early Christian beliefs and he is quite known for his midrash of Judaism and Plato.

I'm not saying that Jesus is dependent on dying/rising gods, but I agree with Doherty and G.A. Wells that this was part of the antecedent for this sectarian version of Judaism.

DO YOU BELIEVE THAT JESUS WAS BORN OF A VIRGIN?

Quote:

Originally Posted by LogicandReason

IS THIS MYTH?

No, it's an extaordinary event for which cannot draw an analogy from our experience as Hume describes in the following:

Quote:

Hume (Enquiries, p. 128) gives the following example of an extraordinary event that he thinks could be rendered credible on the basis of testimony.

...suppose, all authors, in all languages, agree, that from the first day of January 1600, there was a total darkness over the whole earth for eight days, suppose that the tradition of this extraordinary event is still strong and lively among the people: that all travelers, who return from foreign countries, bring us accounts of the same tradition, without the least variation or contradiction: it is evident, that our present philosophers, instead of doubting the fact, ought to receive it as certain, and ought to search for the causes whence it might be derived. The decay, corruption, and dissolution of nature, is an event rendered probable by so many analogies, that any phenomenon, which seems to have a tendency towards that catastrophe comes within the reach of human testimony, if that testimony be very extensive and uniform.

In this case not only is the testimony to the alleged event very extensive and uniform, but Hume also thinks it necessary that our past experience does not render the event completely unlikely. He argues that the eight day darkness can be “rendered probable by so many analogies,” assuming it is testified to extensively and uniformly. In such a case Hume assumes that the event is natural and that “we ought to search for the causes.” Hume compares this with another imaginary case (Enquiries, p. 128).

...suppose, that all historians who treat of England, should agree, that, on the first of January 1600, Queen Elizabeth died...and that, after being interred a month, she again appeared, resumed the throne, and governed England for three years: I must confess that I should be surprised at the concurrence of so many odd circumstances, but should not have the least inclination to believe so miraculous event.

Since both events are assumed to be equally well testified to, the reason that Hume thinks the former can be judged credible but not the latter is that in the former case the “event is rendered probable by so many analogies.” One can object and say that this appears to be nothing more than a subjective judgement on the part of Hume. His experience suggests analogies for the former type of event but not the latter. The eight day darkness “sufficiently resembles” events that Hume has experienced, or believes in on the basis of experience, to warrant belief in the eight day darkness given that the event is extraordinarily well attested to. In the latter case Hume can find no analogies to draw upon from experience.
http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/miracles/

arnoldo · 02-27-2009, 10:40 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by aa5874

. . .

This is the very reason Jesus is mythology, all rumors --no history

So you consider the following text "rumours"?

Quote:

The papyrus is written on both sides. The characters in bold style are the ones that can be seen in Papyrus 52.

Gospel of John 18:31-33 (recto)

ΕΙΠΟΝ ΑΥΤΩ ΟΙ ΙΟΥΔΑΙΟΙ ΗΜΙΝ ΟΥΚ ΕΞΕΣΤΙΝ
ΑΠΟΚΤΕΙΝΑΙ OYΔΕΝΑ ΙΝΑ Ο ΛΟΓΟΣ ΤΟΥ ΙΗΣΟΥ
ΠΛΗΡΩΘΗ ΟΝ ΕΙΠΕΝ ΣΕΜΑΙΝΩΝ ΠΟΙΩ ΘΑΝΑΤΩ
ΗΜΕΛΛΕΝ ΑΠΟΘΝΕΣΚΕΙΝ ΕΙΣΗΛΘΕΝ ΟΥΝ ΠΑΛΙΝ
ΕΙΣ ΤΟ ΠΡΑΙΤΩΡΙΟΝ Ο ΠΙΛΑΤΟΣ ΚΑΙ ΕΦΩΝΗΣΕΝ
ΤΟΝ ΙΗΣΟΥΝ ΚΑΙ ΕΙΠΕΝ ΑΥΤΩ ΣΥ ΕΙ ΒΑΣΙΛΕΥΣ
ΤΩΝ ΙΟΥΔΑΙΩN

... said to him the Jews, "To us it is lawful to kill no one," so that the word of Jesus might be fulfilled, which he said signifying by what sort of death he was about to die. He entered again into the Praetorium Pilate and called Jesus and said to him, "Are you king of the Jews? ...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rylands...ry_Papyrus_P52

LogicandReason · 02-27-2009, 11:10 AM

[QUOTE=Opinion;5824591]

Quote:

Originally Posted by LogicandReason

Again, you need to read Josephus yourself. The only Jesus he writes about is the High Priest that was usurped by Menelaus after Antiochus invaded Jerusalem. Josephus does not refer to any Christian 'Jesus.' The scribe how helped Josephus out used the title 'Christ.'

Quote:

Originally Posted by Opinion

Then why does it mention it on the text.

It doesn't. What part of interpolation did you misunderstand? You've not read Josephus have you?

Quote:

Originally Posted by Opinion

There's even another historian later on that quotes is later on but its revealed to be less christian like and more along the lines on what Josephus said.

Benefit us with a source...a name....where and when....

LogicandReason · 02-27-2009, 11:12 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by arnoldo

Quote:

Originally Posted by aa5874

. . .

This is the very reason Jesus is mythology, all rumors --no history

So you consider the following text "rumours"?

Quote:

The papyrus is written on both sides. The characters in bold style are the ones that can be seen in Papyrus 52.

Gospel of John 18:31-33 (recto)

ΕΙΠΟΝ ΑΥΤΩ ΟΙ ΙΟΥΔΑΙΟΙ ΗΜΙΝ ΟΥΚ ΕΞΕΣΤΙΝ
ΑΠΟΚΤΕΙΝΑΙ OYΔΕΝΑ ΙΝΑ Ο ΛΟΓΟΣ ΤΟΥ ΙΗΣΟΥ
ΠΛΗΡΩΘΗ ΟΝ ΕΙΠΕΝ ΣΕΜΑΙΝΩΝ ΠΟΙΩ ΘΑΝΑΤΩ
ΗΜΕΛΛΕΝ ΑΠΟΘΝΕΣΚΕΙΝ ΕΙΣΗΛΘΕΝ ΟΥΝ ΠΑΛΙΝ
ΕΙΣ ΤΟ ΠΡΑΙΤΩΡΙΟΝ Ο ΠΙΛΑΤΟΣ ΚΑΙ ΕΦΩΝΗΣΕΝ
ΤΟΝ ΙΗΣΟΥΝ ΚΑΙ ΕΙΠΕΝ ΑΥΤΩ ΣΥ ΕΙ ΒΑΣΙΛΕΥΣ
ΤΩΝ ΙΟΥΔΑΙΩN

... said to him the Jews, "To us it is lawful to kill no one," so that the word of Jesus might be fulfilled, which he said signifying by what sort of death he was about to die. He entered again into the Praetorium Pilate and called Jesus and said to him, "Are you king of the Jews? ...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rylands...ry_Papyrus_P52

Just because someone transcribed a myth onto paper doesn't grant the validity of said myth. That is not even an argument.

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

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.