Freethought & Rationalism Archive

ApostateAbe · 05-19-2011, 12:34 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Chaucer

Quote:

Originally Posted by ApostateAbe

On the plus side, that means Bart Ehrman spoke truthfully to me

-- which means that the one here who first made the suggestion on this thread that you were not speaking truthfully owes you and this board an unequivocal apology. Failing that, he is in contempt and in violation of the rules of this board.

He has two choices: He can wait until one of us ascertains which poster it was and then calls him on it publicly, or he can step forward first and apologize now, saving himself a lot of trouble.

His move.

Chaucer

Don't blow up the significance of that. I was the only one who had the news about Ehrman's plan until it was confirmed on Robert Price's show, and there is nothing wrong with maintaining uncertainty about it.

jgoodguy · 05-19-2011, 01:19 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ApostateAbe

Quote:

Originally Posted by Chaucer

Quote:

Originally Posted by ApostateAbe

On the plus side, that means Bart Ehrman spoke truthfully to me

-- which means that the one here who first made the suggestion on this thread that you were not speaking truthfully owes you and this board an unequivocal apology. Failing that, he is in contempt and in violation of the rules of this board.

He has two choices: He can wait until one of us ascertains which poster it was and then calls him on it publicly, or he can step forward first and apologize now, saving himself a lot of trouble.

His move.

Chaucer

Don't blow up the significance of that. I was the only one who had the news about Ehrman's plan until it was confirmed on Robert Price's show, and there is nothing wrong with maintaining uncertainty about it.

It won't be a fact until it is published. At present we know he is interested and has started research.

ApostateAbe · 05-19-2011, 01:35 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jgoodguy

Quote:

Originally Posted by ApostateAbe

Don't blow up the significance of that. I was the only one who had the news about Ehrman's plan until it was confirmed on Robert Price's show, and there is nothing wrong with maintaining uncertainty about it.

It won't be a fact until it is published. At present we know he is interested and has started research.

He has also made a commitment, at least to one of his fans, which is probably worth something.

jgoodguy · 05-19-2011, 02:03 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ApostateAbe

Quote:

Originally Posted by jgoodguy

Quote:

Originally Posted by ApostateAbe

Don't blow up the significance of that. I was the only one who had the news about Ehrman's plan until it was confirmed on Robert Price's show, and there is nothing wrong with maintaining uncertainty about it.

It won't be a fact until it is published. At present we know he is interested and has started research.

He has also made a commitment, at least to one of his fans, which is probably worth something.

I'd equate it to a book about the origins of the American Civil War, it will make a whole lot of folks mad, but it seems no one can resist writing about it.

Kapyong · 05-19-2011, 02:14 PM

Gday,

Quote:

Originally Posted by DCHindley

Quote:

Originally Posted by Kapyong

Gday,

But the JM theory (generally) does NOT say it was "made up from scratch at all" - but this misunderstanding seems to be repeated endlessly.

An important point of the common JM theory is that the Gospels are derived from the Tanakh, and to a lesser extent pagan writings too.

Even AcharyaS's crackpottery insists Jesus was created from solar mythology.

The Jesus myth was not "made up from scratch", "made from whole cloth".

K.

If I were to hear the Jesus myth was "made up from scratch" I would think of a cook making a pie (or whatever) from ingredients at hand. So sure, there were dying and raised gods and other myths resembling aspects of the Jesus myth lying at hand, but they were myths about Attis, or Osirus, or Dionysus, not about Jesus.

Why would someone use those ingredients to fashion a "Jesus the divine Son of God coming to earth to die by execution on a criminal's cross in order to vicariously take away the sins of the world IF you believe it, but NOT if you don't believe it" myth? Why THAT myth?

Well,
"myths about Attis, or Osirus, or Dionysus"
is the matrix for AcharyaS's crazy crackpottery about Jesus.

That is NOT what the mainstream MJ theory says.

Instead - the Jesus story was based on the scriptures of the Tanakh, a Jewish story in a Jewish milieu for a largely Jewish culture.

The Jesus story was lifted from the Psalms and Isaiah etc. A.Mark creates a new story based on well-known episodes and themes.

Quote:

Originally Posted by DCHindley

They might as well have erected a potter's brickbat and worshipped it. A brickbat can be fixed in a standing position, and folks have worshipped things standing in an upright fashion, so it is obvious that they stuck a brickbat in the ground and worshipped it. Anyone who can't see this plain as day is a complete moron! (Just to give it a bit of BC&H flavor).

Jewish critics claimed Jesus DID worship a brickbat (I guess that's why you said that? :-)

Quote:

Originally Posted by DCHindley

It still seems to be more reasonable to think of a real person ...
DCH

I don't agree with that opinion.

K.

Kapyong · 05-19-2011, 02:18 PM

Gday,

Quote:

Originally Posted by stephan huller

The truth is that I have never understood who the 'they' are in the conspiracy to create a completely ahistorical event in 26 CE.

Pardon?
WHAT 'conspiracy' ?
Who said there was a 'conspiracy' ?

Did you accidentally post in the wrong thread?
Doherty doesn't argue any conspiracy.
I don't argue any conspiracy.
The MJ theory is not about a conspiracy (except for some crazies like AcharyaS or Atwill.)

I get sick and tired of this crap - dismissing arguments you don't like by tarring them as a 'conspiracy theory'.

Grrr...

K.

Juststeve · 05-19-2011, 02:50 PM

Kapy:

Mark made up a story from scripture is a possible explanation for Mark but what then do we do with the rest of the Gospels? Matthew and Luke followed Mark pretty closely but were not involved in a conspiracy with him. Does that mean that Matthew and Luke failed to recognize the fictional quality of Mark, a quality only gleaned by modern mythers. It seems that in following the general outline of Mark Chronology Matthew and Luke either took Mark to be writing a history, or had joined him in promoting a fraud. Which do you think it was?

Steve

blastula · 05-19-2011, 04:21 PM

stephan huller, go to snopes.com and you can see all the things people routinely believe today that are verifiably false, and not because they have good evidence for it, but because it's something they heard and/or because they sincerely misconstrued whatever evidence they had and then formed a false belief. Some cases may start out as an intentional lie but others are borne out of simple, poor critical thinking, the same kind of thinking that gets people to believe in gods, ghosts, alien visitations and faked moon landings.

mountainman · 05-19-2011, 05:22 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by stephan huller

Yet if Irenaeus were likened to a road map, he could get you to New York but not 5th Ave or Times Square

If Irenaeus were likened to a road map, then there is a very real possibility that "Christian academics" are hopelessly lost in a fairytale land called "In-Eusebian-Rhetoric-We-Trust".

mountainman · 05-19-2011, 05:26 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Kapyong

The MJ theory is not about a conspiracy (except for some crazies like AcharyaS or Atwill.)

The MJ theory lets the FJ theory in the door. You cant have it both ways. Fiction via pious forgery is a valid subset of myth.

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

05-19-2011, 02:50 PM	#517
Juststeve Senior Member Join Date: Nov 2004 Location: Dallas Texas Posts: 758	Kapy: Mark made up a story from scripture is a possible explanation for Mark but what then do we do with the rest of the Gospels? Matthew and Luke followed Mark pretty closely but were not involved in a conspiracy with him. Does that mean that Matthew and Luke failed to recognize the fictional quality of Mark, a quality only gleaned by modern mythers. It seems that in following the general outline of Mark Chronology Matthew and Luke either took Mark to be writing a history, or had joined him in promoting a fraud. Which do you think it was? Steve

05-19-2011, 04:21 PM	#518
blastula Veteran Member Join Date: Apr 2006 Location: USA Posts: 6,070	stephan huller, go to snopes.com and you can see all the things people routinely believe today that are verifiably false, and not because they have good evidence for it, but because it's something they heard and/or because they sincerely misconstrued whatever evidence they had and then formed a false belief. Some cases may start out as an intentional lie but others are borne out of simple, poor critical thinking, the same kind of thinking that gets people to believe in gods, ghosts, alien visitations and faked moon landings.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.