Freethought & Rationalism Archive

aa5874 · 10-02-2011, 08:29 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by MCalavera

Quote:

Originally Posted by Stringbean

Better read your post agian dude. Your the one that mentioned it.

I know, but your argument is that it never existed in Jesus' days. So why did they have a fictional town be the hometown for their supposed Messiah?...

Well, I have some QUESTIONS for you.

Why did they have a FICTIONAL father, the Holy Ghost, for their Messiah?

Why did they have a FICTIONAL Temptation for their Messiah with Satan on the Pinnacle of the Jewish Temple?

Why did they have a FICTIONAL Jesus for their Messiah?

Why did they have a FICTIONAL episode for their Messiah when they claimed he WALKED on the SEA?

Why, Why, Why, Why?????

Why did they have a FICTIONAL Transfiguration for their Messiah?

Why did they have a FICTIONAL Resurrection for their Messiah?

Why did they have FICTIONAL post-resurrection events for their Messiah?

Why did they have the FICTIONAL account that their Messiah ate FISH when he was supposed to be dead?

Why did they have the FICTIONAL account of the Ascension for their Messiah???

Why, Why, Why, Why, Why?????

BECAUSE THEIR MESSIAH WAS FICTION.

Quote:

Originally Posted by MCalavera

.....Man, you're using very similar tactics to what aa5874 is using. Please address my arguments as stated or just don't reply.

Here it is again: From the mythicist point of view, why did the early Christians make up an account about the supposed Messiah being baptized ... and by someone supposedly lesser than him?

You believe this was made up, right?.....

You BELIEVE it is HISTORY, right?

But from an HJers point of view the baptism story is FICTION, right?

Jesus was an ORDINARY SINNER man, right?

The ORDINARY SINNER man Jesus was lesser than John, right?

When John baptised the ordinary sinner man Jesus there was NO Holy Ghost like a dove, right?

The story of a SINLESS MESSIAH baptised by John is FICTION, right?

There was NO TALKING CLOUD, right?

Why did they have a FICTIONAL account of their SINLESS Messiah?

Why, Why, Why, Why?????

BECAUSE, THEIR MESSIAH WAS FICTION, RIGHT!!!!!

Quote:

There is not one single piece of archaeological, forensic or documentary evidence that shows Jesus was ever alive.

Quote:

Originally Posted by MCalavera

..That's pure bullshit talk.

Well, you have INADVERTENTLY confirmed that there is only " pure bullshit talk" for YOUR JESUS of history (bullshit talk).

You were given an opportunity to PUBLICLY present evidence for YOUR historical Jesus and instead only presented "PURE BULLSHIT TALK".

But, Why, Why, Why, Why have you only presented PURE BULLSHIT TALK for Jesus?

BECAUSE YOUR Jesus of history is "PURE BULLSHIT TALK"

The NT is PURE BULLSHIT TALK about Jesus the Ghost Child but you BELIEVE PARTS OF IT.

archibald · 10-02-2011, 09:59 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Doug Shaver

Quote:

Originally Posted by archibald

I think what Mcalavera is suggesting is that these items are slightly more easily explained when seen as based on actual events than, say, allegory or myth.

So say historicists, but they need to prove it. It isn't so just because they say it is so.

Doug, for about the hundreth time, proof isn't even an option, for either side. I can't believe you don't grasp that after so long.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Doug Shaver

[

Quote:

Originally Posted by archibald

but if you were making up a messiah from scratch, would you put in that sometimes his healing didn't work?

Some of us mythicists don't assume that anybody was "making up a messiah from scratch."

Made up Messiah from someone who didn't exist. Using other known sources. Whatever. I'm not sure what you're objecting to. It's as if it isn't obvious by now that I (and almost every other intelligent person I know of) accepts that the OT was likely 'raided' for various reasons.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Doug Shaver

[

Quote:

Originally Posted by archibald

It seems to be there from the very earliest accounts, possibly even before Paul, who, unless the dating is all wrong, was pretty bloody close in time.

To argue that Paul was close in time to the crucifixion is to assume the historicity of the gospel Jesus. Paul himself gives no clue as to when his Jesus was crucified.

Paul expected something to happen at almost any moment, 'like a thief in the night'. In fact, it might have already started.

My opinion is that it seems reasonable to think that 'something' must have happened to trigger this eschatological expectation.

For Doherty, it was a crucifixion in an upper realm.

For Gurugeorge it was people coming to believe that a crucifixion had happened, in the region, sans an actual crucified person.

Me, I prefer the option that something actually happened.

I know it's not the only possibility, it's just the one I'm more persuaded by, overall.

aa5874 · 10-02-2011, 10:22 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by archibald

...Doug, for about the hundreth time, proof isn't even an option, for either side. I can't believe you don't grasp that after so long....

If you can't prove anything for YOUR JESUS how in the world can you show that HJ is the most likely explanation?

It is your position that is IRRATIONAL.

NO PROOF has ever been offered for MYTH CHARACTERS.

MYTHS are characters with NO PROOF of existence and Jesus Christ is PRECISELY MYTH.

NO ONE will ever offer proof for MYTHS.

NO-ONE will offer proof for Jesus of the NT.

NO-ONE will offer proof for the "historical Jesus of Nazareth"

BOTH are MYTHS.

maryhelena · 10-02-2011, 10:40 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Doug Shaver

Paul himself gives no clue as to when his Jesus was crucified.

Depends upon how one is reading 'Paul'...

'Paul' says he escaped from Damascus while Damascus was under the rule of Aretas. The rule of King Aretas III over Damascus ended around 63/62 b.c. Sometime around the time of the siege of Jerusalem by Pompey.

While 'Paul's escape from Damascus is most likely based upon the escape of the spies over the walls of Jericho - the time slot that this story is set is relevant for 'Paul's JC story.

Historically, what happened after the siege of Jerusalem by Pompey is that Antigonus was taken prisoner to Rome. He eventually escaped - and is later bound to a cross, crucified, flogged and beheaded, by Marc Antony in 37 b.c.

That history, the history of Antigonus, is all that 'Paul' needs for his theological musings. A flesh and blood Jew, a King (although not from the line of David) that was executed at the hands of the Romans. The twist in the tail is that 'Paul' changes the context - from an earthly crucifixion to a spiritual crucifixion. If there is a natural, earthly, body, there is also a spiritual, heavenly, body. Physical crucifixions have no value - heavenly, spiritual/intellectual 'crucifixion's have value.

'Paul's story does not need the gospel JC figure. Why was that figure created? The usual mythicist reply is along the lines of historizing 'Paul's JC figure. But that theory does not need Pilate. It does not need the Pilate time frame - 19/26/36 c.e. That is the issue that mythicists need to have answers for - and as now, I've not seen any...

(just as a side note - although the author of Hebrews is unknown - the reference to Melchizedek as a model, the first non Judean King and Priest of Salem (in the storyline) - finds it's historical counterpart in the last King and High Priest of the Jews, Antigonus...)

Kapyong · 10-02-2011, 02:30 PM

Gday,

Quote:

Originally Posted by MCalavera

You believe this was made up, right?

There we go again -

Either it's true history, or it's all made up - therefore Jesus existed.

Quote:

Originally Posted by MCalavera

Quote:

There is not one single piece of archaeological, forensic or documentary evidence that shows Jesus was ever alive.

That's pure bullshit talk.

But yet you cannot actually provide any such "archaeological, forensic or documentary evidence that shows Jesus was ever alive"

Why is that ?

K.

Kapyong · 10-02-2011, 02:35 PM

Gday,

Quote:

Originally Posted by archibald

but if you were making up a messiah from scratch,

They were NOT "making up a messiah from scratch".

But no matter how many times this is pointed out to you, you are totally unable to grasp this simple point.

Why is that?

K.

aa5874 · 10-02-2011, 03:00 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Kapyong

Gday,

Quote:

Originally Posted by archibald

but if you were making up a messiah from scratch,

They were NOT "making up a messiah from scratch".

But no matter how many times this is pointed out to you, you are totally unable to grasp this simple point.

Why is that?

K.

Well, how is it HJers can make up HJ of Nazareth the REBEL from SCRATCH??

Are HJers the only people who can make up characters from SCRATCH?

HJ of Nazareth, the REBEL, was made up from NOTHING after they SCRATCHED the Ghost Child of Nazareth FROM the Gospel story.

Jesus of the NT was BORN in Bethlehem but it is claimed HJ was born in NAZARETH by WHOLE CLOTH.

NO source of antiquity support an HJ that was born in Nazareth.

HJ of NAZARETH is a WHOLE CLOTH INVENTION WITHOUT A SHRED OF CORROBORATION.

Where is the SOURCE for HJ of Nazareth?

Once there are NO sources then HJ of Nazareth was a WHOLE CLOTH INVENTION.

Stringbean · 10-02-2011, 03:25 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by maryhelena

Quote:

Originally Posted by Doug Shaver

Paul himself gives no clue as to when his Jesus was crucified.

Depends upon how one is reading 'Paul'...

'Paul' says he escaped from Damascus while Damascus was under the rule of Aretas. The rule of King Aretas III over Damascus ended around 63/62 b.c. Sometime around the time of the siege of Jerusalem by Pompey.

While 'Paul's escape from Damascus is most likely based upon the escape of the spies over the walls of Jericho - the time slot that this story is set is relevant for 'Paul's JC story.

Historically, what happened after the siege of Jerusalem by Pompey is that Antigonus was taken prisoner to Rome. He eventually escaped - and is later bound to a cross, crucified, flogged and beheaded, by Marc Antony in 37 b.c.

That history, the history of Antigonus, is all that 'Paul' needs for his theological musings. A flesh and blood Jew, a King (although not from the line of David) that was executed at the hands of the Romans. The twist in the tail is that 'Paul' changes the context - from an earthly crucifixion to a spiritual crucifixion. If there is a natural, earthly, body, there is also a spiritual, heavenly, body. Physical crucifixions have no value - heavenly, spiritual/intellectual 'crucifixion's have value.

'Paul's story does not need the gospel JC figure. Why was that figure created? The usual mythicist reply is along the lines of historizing 'Paul's JC figure. But that theory does not need Pilate. It does not need the Pilate time frame - 19/26/36 c.e. That is the issue that mythicists need to have answers for - and as now, I've not seen any...

(just as a side note - although the author of Hebrews is unknown - the reference to Melchizedek as a model, the first non Judean King and Priest of Salem (in the storyline) - finds it's historical counterpart in the last King and High Priest of the Jews, Antigonus...)

Quote:

'Paul's story does not need the gospel JC figure. Why was that figure created? The usual mythicist reply is along the lines of historizing 'Paul's JC figure. But that theory does not need Pilate. It does not need the Pilate time frame - 19/26/36 c.e. That is the issue that mythicists need to have answers for - and as now, I've not seen any...

Encylopedia Biblica states:

Quote:

"It is true that the picture of Paul drawn by later times differs utterly in more or fewer of its details from the original. Legend as made itself master of his person. The simple truth has been mixed up with invention; Paul has become the hero of an admiring band of the more highly developed Christians."

Quote:

The usual mythicist reply is along the lines of historizing 'Paul's JC figure.

And what figure is that? Paul's idea of a jesus was a vision on Damascus road.

Quote:

But that theory does not need Pilate. It does not need the Pilate time frame - 19/26/36 c.e.

Why? Was it not Pilate that strung him up on that stick?

Quote:

'Paul's story does not need the gospel JC figure.

Why?

maryhelena · 10-02-2011, 04:03 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Stringbean

Quote:

Originally Posted by maryhelena

Depends upon how one is reading 'Paul'...

'Paul' says he escaped from Damascus while Damascus was under the rule of Aretas. The rule of King Aretas III over Damascus ended around 63/62 b.c. Sometime around the time of the siege of Jerusalem by Pompey.

While 'Paul's escape from Damascus is most likely based upon the escape of the spies over the walls of Jericho - the time slot that this story is set is relevant for 'Paul's JC story.

Historically, what happened after the siege of Jerusalem by Pompey is that Antigonus was taken prisoner to Rome. He eventually escaped - and is later bound to a cross, crucified, flogged and beheaded, by Marc Antony in 37 b.c.

That history, the history of Antigonus, is all that 'Paul' needs for his theological musings. A flesh and blood Jew, a King (although not from the line of David) that was executed at the hands of the Romans. The twist in the tail is that 'Paul' changes the context - from an earthly crucifixion to a spiritual crucifixion. If there is a natural, earthly, body, there is also a spiritual, heavenly, body. Physical crucifixions have no value - heavenly, spiritual/intellectual 'crucifixion's have value.

'Paul's story does not need the gospel JC figure. Why was that figure created? The usual mythicist reply is along the lines of historizing 'Paul's JC figure. But that theory does not need Pilate. It does not need the Pilate time frame - 19/26/36 c.e. That is the issue that mythicists need to have answers for - and as now, I've not seen any...

(just as a side note - although the author of Hebrews is unknown - the reference to Melchizedek as a model, the first non Judean King and Priest of Salem (in the storyline) - finds it's historical counterpart in the last King and High Priest of the Jews, Antigonus...)

Encylopedia Biblica states:

And what figure is that? Paul's idea of a jesus was a vision on Damascus road.

So, a vision - however interpreted - does not rule out that the focus of that vision, JC, did not have a a real human existence (ie in the storyline). People have visions, dreams, about people they know - nothing unusual about that....

Quote:

Why? Was it not Pilate that strung him up on that stick?

That's the gospel JC story - not 'Paul's' story (the authorship of 1 Tim being disputed).

Quote:

'Paul's story does not need the gospel JC figure.

Why?

All 'Paul' needs is a crucified figure - a flesh and blood historical crucified figure that he can use as the natural, the physical, parallel to his heavenly/spiritual figure. 'Paul's' story is about death and resurrection - he has not sought to complicate his story with details of any human life. The focus, the emphasis, is on death and resurrection, ie rebirth and salvation. The identity, the historical identity of any crucified figure that 'Paul' might have had in mind is irrelevant. No biography, no exact dating. Not necessary for 'Paul's purposes.

Of course, if we are interested in understanding the origins of early christian history - then, yes, we would like the historical details - but for 'Paul's' theological storyline, historical details are not relevant. 'Paul's' crucified JC could have been any one of many crucified people.

Quote:

Page 112/113

...the Jesus of the early epistles is not the Jesus of the gospels. The ministry of the latter may well be modelled on the career of an itinerant Galilean preacher of the early first century’ the former derives largely from early Christian interpretations of Jewish Wisdom figures with some influences from redeemer figures of pagan mystery religions.
Mark’s gospel fuses the two Jesus figures into one.

The Jesus Myth. G.Wells (or via: amazon.co.uk)

my bolding

Stringbean · 10-02-2011, 04:20 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by maryhelena

Quote:

Originally Posted by Stringbean

Encylopedia Biblica states:

And what figure is that? Paul's idea of a jesus was a vision on Damascus road.

So, a vision - however interpreted - does not rule out that the focus of that vision, JC, did not have a a real human existence (ie in the storyline). People have visions, dreams, about people they know - nothing unusual about that....

That's the gospel JC story - not 'Paul's' story (the authorship of 1 Tim being disputed).

Quote:

Why?

All 'Paul' needs is a crucified figure - a flesh and blood historical crucified figure that he can use as the natural, the physical, parallel to his heavenly/spiritual figure. 'Paul's' story is about death and resurrection - he has not sought to complicate his story with details of any human life. The focus, the emphasis, is on death and resurrection, ie rebirth and salvation. The identity, the historical identity of any crucified figure that 'Paul' might have had in mind is irrelevant. No biography, no exact dating. Not necessary for 'Paul's purposes.

Of course, if we are interested in understanding the origins of early christian history - then, yes, we would like the historical details - but for 'Paul's' theological storyline, historical details are not relevant. 'Paul's' crucified JC could have been any one of many crucified people.

Quote:

Paul's' crucified JC could have been any one of many crucified people.

True.

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

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.