Freethought & Rationalism Archive

TedM · 10-31-2008, 08:20 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by aa5874

Quote:

Originally Posted by TedM

I totally agree. Yet, I still find the "against the grain" material to be worhty of thinking about. If it is all made up, it still seems like the authors would have had a good reason to make everything up, and I'm hard-pressed to find one for several things related to JTB...

I would ask, what would be your explanation for having Jesus baptized by John when Jesus was supposedly sinless, there is no scriptural support (that I know of) for the idea that he was a sinner until baptism, and for the use of baptism by Jesus' disciples and throughout the early Christian church when the JTB crowd appears to have been unaccepting of Jesus?

Do you find those claims to be unworthy of even thinking about?

I thought about this first.

Mark 1.1

I don't think the John the Baptist story, as described, where John baptised a God is credible. I have rejected the author.

You might as well throw out the vast majority of all writings which contain real history too, along with these. In other words, your approach--if applied uniformally--guarantees that are make mistakes, but you don't really care.

Quote:

You don't know what is evidence? It is simply NOT imagination.

Against the grain analysis is considered a valid form of analysis. We aren't in a courtroom, aa.

Quote:

I read sources external of the NT. Today, I had a look at Tatian's "Diatesseron" and I found some more evidence to support my position.

Happy hunting. You might be in a zoo, though.

aa5874 · 10-31-2008, 09:04 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by TedM

Quote:

Originally Posted by aa5874

I thought about this first.

Mark 1.1

I don't think the John the Baptist story, as described, where John baptised a God is credible. I have rejected the author.

You might as well throw out the vast majority of all writings which contain real history too, along with these. In other words, your approach--if applied uniformally--guarantees that are make mistakes, but you don't really care.

So, if we throw away the vast majority of writings which contain real history, only then would Jesus become a figure of history?

We must throw away real history, we must throw away Josephus, Tacitus, Suetonius, Philo, Pliny, Julian, throw away all the evidence and then Jesus would become history.

Quote:

Originally Posted by TedM

Against the grain analysis is considered a valid form of analysis. We aren't in a courtroom, aa.

And I am not living in the 1st century where plausibilty rivals the truth.

Quote:

I read sources external of the NT. Today, I had a look at Tatian's "Diatesseron" and I found some more evidence to support my position.

Quote:

Originally Posted by TedM[/quote

Happy hunting. You might be in a zoo, though.

I think I know the "code words" for "fiction" in the NT and the early Church writings.

Once you break the code, it's a piece of cake.

TedM · 11-01-2008, 05:38 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by aa5874

Quote:

Originally Posted by Tedm

You might as well throw out the vast majority of all writings which contain real history too, along with these. In other words, your approach--if applied uniformally--guarantees that are make mistakes, but you don't really care.

So, if we throw away the vast majority of writings which contain real history, only then would Jesus become a figure of history?

We must throw away real history, we must throw away Josephus, Tacitus, Suetonius, Philo, Pliny, Julian, throw away all the evidence and then Jesus would become history.

I don't see how your question logically follows what I wrote. It seems to have missed my point. What I'm saying is that I would bet that Josephus, Tacitus, Suetonius, Philo, Pliny, and Julian ALL could be deemed not credible according to your standards, because if their writings contain outlandish things--miraculous events, then everything they wrote too must be discarded as inventions and fiction. So, throw them away too. When you're done, you'll have almost no history left in the recordings of mankind.

Quote:

Once you break the code, it's a piece of cake.

Really? Then it should be easy for you to give dozens of examples of code that shows that the GJOHN was writing fiction and knew it. How about sharing just 3?

ted

aa5874 · 11-01-2008, 09:10 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by TedM

Quote:

Originally Posted by aa5874

So, if we throw away the vast majority of writings which contain real history, only then would Jesus become a figure of history?

We must throw away real history, we must throw away Josephus, Tacitus, Suetonius, Philo, Pliny, Julian, throw away all the evidence and then Jesus would become history.

I don't see how your question logically follows what I wrote. It seems to have missed my point. What I'm saying is that I would bet that Josephus, Tacitus, Suetonius, Philo, Pliny, and Julian ALL could be deemed not credible according to your standards, because if their writings contain outlandish things--miraculous events, then everything they wrote too must be discarded as inventions and fiction. So, throw them away too. When you're done, you'll have almost no history left in the recordings of mankind.

Why did not Josephus, Tacitus, Suetonius, Philo and ALL write outlandish things about Jesus?

They ALL wrote outlandish things about others. They wrote outlandish things about mythical Gods, outlandish things about events at the Temple, outlandish things about the Caesars but they ALL forgot to write outlandish things about Jesus.

Jesus was so unlucky. He was the offspring of the Holy Ghost, he raised the dead, he used spit to make people see, he transfigured, He ROSE from the dead and ascended through the clouds, in a most outlandish fashion, and everybody forgot. Josephus forgot. Some-one had to insert the "TF".

Quote:

Originally Posted by TedM

Happy hunting. You might be in a zoo, though.

Quote:

Originally Posted by aa5874

I think I know the "code words" for "fiction" in the NT and the early Church writings.

Once you break the code, it's a piece of cake.

Quote:

Originally Posted by TedM

Really? Then it should be easy for you to give dozens of examples of code that shows that the GJOHN was writing fiction and knew it. How about sharing just 3?

ted

I wiil give one example. The entire NT.

TedM · 11-01-2008, 02:20 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by aa5874

Quote:

Originally Posted by TedM

I don't see how your question logically follows what I wrote. It seems to have missed my point. What I'm saying is that I would bet that Josephus, Tacitus, Suetonius, Philo, Pliny, and Julian ALL could be deemed not credible according to your standards, because if their writings contain outlandish things--miraculous events, then everything they wrote too must be discarded as inventions and fiction. So, throw them away too. When you're done, you'll have almost no history left in the recordings of mankind.

Why did not Josephus, Tacitus, Suetonius, Philo and ALL write outlandish things about Jesus?

They ALL wrote outlandish things about others. They wrote outlandish things about mythical Gods, outlandish things about events at the Temple, outlandish things about the Caesars but they ALL forgot to write outlandish things about Jesus.

Jesus was so unlucky. He was the offspring of the Holy Ghost, he raised the dead, he used spit to make people see, he transfigured, He ROSE from the dead and ascended through the clouds, in a most outlandish fashion, and everybody forgot. Josephus forgot. Some-one had to insert the "TF".

Quote:

Originally Posted by TedM

Really? Then it should be easy for you to give dozens of examples of code that shows that the GJOHN was writing fiction and knew it. How about sharing just 3?

ted

I wiil give one example. The entire NT.

It is now abundantly clear that you aren't even trying to have a discussion. Both of your answers demonstrate an unwillingness to back up what you say with even an ounce of logical support. They also lend support to my suggestion earlier that you are agenda-driven and not rational-driven.

I'm now joining the group of individuals here--both historicists and mythists--who refuse to communicate with you anymore. As long as this is your mode of operation, I resolve to never respond to you again.

Have a good life,

ted

aa5874 · 11-01-2008, 02:52 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by TedM

Quote:

Originally Posted by aa5874

Why did not Josephus, Tacitus, Suetonius, Philo and ALL write outlandish things about Jesus?

They ALL wrote outlandish things about others. They wrote outlandish things about mythical Gods, outlandish things about events at the Temple, outlandish things about the Caesars but they ALL forgot to write outlandish things about Jesus.

Jesus was so unlucky. He was the offspring of the Holy Ghost, he raised the dead, he used spit to make people see, he transfigured, He ROSE from the dead and ascended through the clouds, in a most outlandish fashion, and everybody forgot. Josephus forgot. Some-one had to insert the "TF".

I wiil give one example. The entire NT.

It is now abundantly clear that you aren't even trying to have a discussion. Both of your answers demonstrate an unwillingness to back up what you say with even an ounce of logical support. They also lend support to my suggestion earlier that you are agenda-driven and not rational-driven.

I'm now joining the group of individuals here--both historicists and mythists--who refuse to communicate with you anymore. As long as this is your mode of operation, I resolve to never respond to you again.

Have a good life,

ted

I will ALWAYS, and have resolved, to respond to those who wish to use their imagination as history and plausibility as facts.

And your response is a little outlandish. I sense some deep frustation.

Sorry that I had to reject the JTB story as found in the NT, it is just too outrageous and implausible for me to accept.

Chili · 11-02-2008, 08:50 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by aa5874

I will ALWAYS, and have resolved, to respond to those who wish to use their imagination as history and plausibility as facts.

And your response is a little outlandish. I sense some deep frustation.

Sorry that I had to reject the JTB story as found in the NT, it is just too outrageous and implausible for me to accept.

Well don't reject it and it is outrageous and implausible from a literal point of view so that we would look for a different meaning behind the words. It is like a painting with words wherein the words form the image that should be prior to us by nature so that we can relate to it, (or maybe just give it our best shot from a lyrical perspective provided that we do not claim to know, as Albrecht Duhrer did in "Melancholia." http://www.math.umd.edu/~atma/durer.html

Notice Elizabeth and baby John with the quiet waters on the back ground. Just fabulous.

Thank you Toto, and looking at it again you can see 'shepherds on the run' with shape of that 'block of wood.' Hillarious and bold.

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

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.