Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Amaleq13 · 05-28-2008, 10:50 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by aa5874

The primary sources all claim Jesus was a God.

You quoted three passages that claim him to be the son of god. On what basis do you conclude this requires him to have been a god as well?

With regard to the quote from John, on what basis do you conclude the author meant they were identical rather than simply in agreement?

Or do you not realize the phrase "are one" can mean both?

dog-on · 05-29-2008, 12:19 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Amaleq13

Quote:

Originally Posted by dog-on

The truly aggravating thing, imo, is the "cherry picking" of sources.

And you know that they are cherry picking because you have access to the primary sources.

QED

Every hotel room I have ever visited does...

Quote:

So in the end, exactly what is the importance of "using primary sources" when it comes to this specific discussion.

I'm not sure it does except in terms of a counter argument since it appears to have been brought up specifically in defense of certain scholars who, IIUC, do not believe Jesus was historical. At least some of those identified scholars have been discovered to have misrepresented what the primary sources actually say or demonstrated ignorance of what they say. Fans of the works of such scholars tend to take exception to having their "primary sources" shown to be inadequate or poorly researched. It is embarrassing to learn that the conclusion one embraces has such a poor foundation.

Whether you agree with them or not, scholars who accept or assume Jesus to have been a figure in history do tend to consistently reference their primary sources. It makes no sense to suggest that their opponents should not be held to at least the same standard.

I would hope that everyone here is intelligent enough to recognize that lowering the standards of scholarship is a bad idea that can only lead to more false conclusions being accepted as true.

I am not contesting the fact that there are some "less than accurate" sourcing being done by some...

I am just tired of the other side using, what I consider to be, the "primary source" canard. Which is just such based on the selective way in which certain individuals chose to use these "primary sources".

The OP asked, "Why do historians believe that Jesus was historical?";

Don't you think that cherry picking works of the NT to create a "normal Joe" Jesus Christ, is doing anything other than "lowering the standards of scholarship"?

The only JC I am familiar with is the guy in the fiction refered to as the NT. He is as historical as Harry Potter...

Do you have some other "primary" evidence that I may be unaware of?

dog-on · 05-29-2008, 12:21 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Zeichman

Quote:

Originally Posted by aa5874

There are NO primary sources for Jesus as only human.

The so-called early Christian writers have declared that the Jesus of the NT was a God, and this includes the Jesus of gMark and the "Pauls".

Why back up anything that is said, when you can just assert it without evidence?

...and long have we waited for such "evidence"...

dog-on · 05-29-2008, 12:22 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Toto

Quote:

Originally Posted by dog-on

or the writer got the story from the same place Achilles Tatius did...

It seems more likely that the author of John took that miracle from the Dionysos legend. Dionysos changed three vats of water to wine, and did it overnight, out of the sight of the general public. Jesus changed twice as many, and did his miracle instantly in plain sight. It would be puzzling for Dionysos to copy Jesus' miracle, but downgrade it.

Agreed. Thanks, Toto.

aa5874 · 05-29-2008, 06:40 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Amaleq13

Quote:

Originally Posted by aa5874

The primary sources all claim Jesus was a God.

You quoted three passages that claim him to be the son of god. On what basis do you conclude this requires him to have been a god as well?

With regard to the quote from John, on what basis do you conclude the author meant they were identical rather than simply in agreement?

Or do you not realize the phrase "are one" can mean both?

John 1.1-3&14

Quote:

In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.

The same was in the beginning with God.

All things were made by him, and without him was not anything made that was made.

And the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us, (and we beheld his glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father), full of grace and truth.

John 1.332-34

Quote:

And John bare record, saying, I saw the Spirit descending from heaven like a dove, and it abode upon him.

And I knew him not: but he that sent me to baptize with water, the same said unto me, Upon whom thou shalt see the Spirit descending, and remaining on him, the same is he which baptizeth with the Holy Ghost.

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

John 10.30

Quote:

I and my Father are one.

Jesus is God, according to the author of John, and still God's Son.

Amaleq13 · 05-29-2008, 07:46 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dog-on

I am just tired of the other side using, what I consider to be, the "primary source" canard. Which is just such based on the selective way in which certain individuals chose to use these "primary sources".

How can you be tired of someone asking what the actual evidence really says? Especially when we've seen so many examples of false and misleading claims about that evidence?

Quote:

Don't you think that cherry picking works of the NT to create a "normal Joe" Jesus Christ, is doing anything other than "lowering the standards of scholarship"?

Not at all given a legitimate and transparent methodology to the "picking". There is a HUGE difference between that and completely avoiding or misrepresenting the evidence. And, if you think mythicists aren't just as selective in their use of the NT, you aren't paying attention.

Amaleq13 · 05-29-2008, 07:54 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Amaleq13

You quoted three passages that claim him to be the son of god. On what basis do you conclude this requires him to have been a god as well?

Quote:

Originally Posted by aa5874

John 1.332-34

Repeating yourself does not provide the basis for your conclusion. You have no basis except what you assume the English translation means, do you?

Quote:

Originally Posted by Amaleq13

With regard to the quote from John, on what basis do you conclude the author meant they were identical rather than simply in agreement?

Quote:

Originally Posted by aa5874

John 1.1-3&14

What are you doing with all the passages throughout all four stories that clearly and explicitly depict Jesus and God as separate entities? Just ignoring them?

aa5874 · 05-29-2008, 08:30 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Amaleq13

You quoted three passages that claim him to be the son of god. On what basis do you conclude this requires him to have been a god as well?

Quote:

Originally Posted by Amaleq

Repeating yourself does not provide the basis for your conclusion. You have no basis except what you assume the English translation means, do you?

I didn't realise that.

You make some strange assumptions.

Quote:

Originally Posted by aa5874

John 1.1-3&14

Quote:

Originally Posted by Amaleq

What are you doing with all the passages throughout all four stories that clearly and explicitly depict Jesus and God as separate entities? Just ignoring them?

I did not do anything to the passages. I just repeated them.

John 10.30 I and my Father are one.

andrewcriddle · 05-29-2008, 12:43 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Zeichman

I know P66 has it, which dates to the same era. I'm pretty sure that's in p75 as well.

Nestle-Aland cites both P66 and P75 for variant readings in this pericope.

Andrew Criddle

Amaleq13 · 05-29-2008, 05:38 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by aa5874

Quote:

Originally Posted by Amaleq13

You quoted three passages that claim him to be the son of god. On what basis do you conclude this requires him to have been a god as well?

I didn't realise that.

You make some strange assumptions.

I asked you a question. I neither stated something for you to "realise" nor did I make any "strange assumptions". Why can't you just answer the question?

Quote:

Originally Posted by Amaleq

What are you doing with all the passages throughout all four stories that clearly and explicitly depict Jesus and God as separate entities? Just ignoring them?

Quote:

I did not do anything to the passages. I just repeated them.

Yes, I can see that all you've done is repeat yourself but I'm asking you about all the other passages. Are you just ignoring them?

Quote:

John 10.30 I and my Father are one.

I asked this before but you refused to answer it. How do you know this doesn't mean that they are in agreement rather than a single entity?

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

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.