Freethought & Rationalism Archive

aa5874 · 02-21-2009, 04:04 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by figuer

Quote:

Originally Posted by aa5874

You have no reliable evidence for your Jesus, yet you appear to be certain that Jesus was not a myth

Do you lack reading comprehension? I don't have a Jesus. My position, very clearly expressed in previous posts, is not that Jesus was not a myth, my position is that it is possible that there was a historical person named Jesus, who was mythified by his followers.

You display no capacity to carry a bona fide rational discussion. There is no reason for you to object to my non committed position except ideological fanaticism or crass intellectual incapacity (or both as is becoming apparent).

Consider yourself ignored hence on.

Look at your position clealy laid out from the previous post.

Quote:

Originally Posted by aa5874

Look at your committment now. It is fixed and locked forever.

1. The evidence is not reliable but it is possible Jesus existed.
2. The evidence is reliable so it is possible Jesus existed.

Historical evidence maintains your position. It is infinitely fixed and locked.

And, I expected you to run away long ago.

Keep your ear-muffs on. You must not hear this. Your position is fixed and locked. The reliability of evidence is irrelevant to you.

arnoldo · 02-21-2009, 04:04 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Toto

Gamaliel is a legendary Jewish Pharisee. I don't know that there is any independent confirmation of his existence, but what difference would it make if he were fictional? None to me.

If Gamaliel was a fictional character it would disprove the validity of the Book of Acts.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Toto

Theudas and Judas of Galilee were written about in Josephus, who appears to be Luke's source for this passage.

It could be, but what difference would that make?

Quote:

I have not done enough research to come to a conclusion on whether Luke used Josephus' Antiquities, which would demand a date after 93 CE. Marcion had a form of the Gospel of Luke from which he derived his Gospel of the Lord, which sets an upper bound of around 130 CE. A date for Luke-Acts in the 90s of the first century or first decade of the second would account for all the evidence, including the alleged use of Josephus and the apparent authorship by a sometime companion of Paul. If Luke did not use the Antiquities of Josephus, a date in the 80s is permissible.
http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/acts.html

Quote:

Originally Posted by Toto

These are three characters in standard history, with no supernatural or legendary aspects to them, and no religions that depend on their existence.

Given that Josephus writes that Theudas claimed to have the ability to divide the Jordan river should Theudas be regarded as a historical or mythical figure?

Quote:

1. NOW it came to pass, while Fadus was procurator of Judea, that a certain magician, whose name was Theudas, (9) persuaded a great part of the people to take their effects with them, and follow him to the river Jordan; for he told them he was a prophet, and that he would, by his own command, divide the river, and afford them an easy passage over it; and many were deluded by his words. However, Fadus did not permit them to make any advantage of his wild attempt, but sent a troop of horsemen out against them; who, falling upon them unexpectedly, slew many of them, and took many of them alive. They also took Theudas alive, and cut off his head, and carried it to Jerusalem. This was what befell the Jews in the time of Cuspius Fadus's government.
http://www.ccel.org/j/josephus/works/ant-20.htm

aa5874 · 02-21-2009, 04:22 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by arnoldo

Quote:

Originally Posted by Toto

Gamaliel is a legendary Jewish Pharisee. I don't know that there is any independent confirmation of his existence, but what difference would it make if he were fictional? None to me.

If Gamaliel was a fictional character it would disprove the validity of the Book of Acts.

The word "Gamaliel" does not in any way make Acts of the Apostles valid.

Look at Acts 1.9-

Quote:

And when he had spoken these things, while they beheld, he was taken up; and a cloud received him out of their sight.

"Gamliel" cannot make Acts 1.9 valid.

The word "Gamaliel" gives an indication when Acts of the Apostles may have been written and because the author of Acts used many names, locations and themes found in Antiquities of the Jews, then it is almost a dead-giveaway that Acts of the Apostles was likely written after the Antiquities of the Jews or sometime after 92 CE or thereabouts.

Toto · 02-21-2009, 06:19 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by arnoldo

Quote:

Originally Posted by Toto

Gamaliel is a legendary Jewish Pharisee. I don't know that there is any independent confirmation of his existence, but what difference would it make if he were fictional? None to me.

If Gamaliel was a fictional character it would disprove the validity of the Book of Acts.

There is adequate evidence of that from other sources.

Quote:

...Given that Josephus writes that Theudas claimed to have the ability to divide the Jordan river should Theudas be regarded as a historical or mythical figure?

Quote:

1. NOW it came to pass, while Fadus was procurator of Judea, that a certain magician, whose name was Theudas, (9) persuaded a great part of the people to take their effects with them, and follow him to the river Jordan; for he told them he was a prophet, and that he would, by his own command, divide the river, and afford them an easy passage over it; and many were deluded by his words. However, Fadus did not permit them to make any advantage of his wild attempt, but sent a troop of horsemen out against them; who, falling upon them unexpectedly, slew many of them, and took many of them alive. They also took Theudas alive, and cut off his head, and carried it to Jerusalem. This was what befell the Jews in the time of Cuspius Fadus's government.
http://www.ccel.org/j/josephus/works/ant-20.htm

But Josephus did not report that Theudas actually had the ability to divide the river. There is nothing supernatural about a con artist making an invalid claim and getting people to follow him.

Doug Shaver · 02-22-2009, 06:42 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by aa5874

You want the possibility that Jesus exist be maintained even though there is no historical evidence.

Wrong. There is evidence. It isn't good evidence, but it exists.

aa5874 · 02-22-2009, 06:59 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Doug Shaver

Quote:

Originally Posted by aa5874

You want the possibility that Jesus exist be maintained even though there is no historical evidence.

Wrong. There is evidence. It isn't good evidence, but it exists.

How in the world can "bad" evidence be called evidence. The only evidence is "good" evidence.

This is like calling "perjury" , tampering with evidence or planting evidence, not criminal activity, but evidence.

You are just wasting time.

There are always loads of "no-good" evidence.

There is no evidence for Jesus of the NT because the information found that appears to support historicity is NO GOOD.

Do you understand?

"No Good" evidence is NO evidence.

andrewcriddle · 02-22-2009, 08:11 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Toto

Gamaliel is a legendary Jewish Pharisee. I don't know that there is any independent confirmation of his existence, but what difference would it make if he were fictional? None to me.

The Mishnah refers to a Rabban Gamaliel the Elder represented as a senior rabbi of the generation before the Jewish War.

Andrew Criddle

fatpie42 · 02-22-2009, 08:15 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by figuer

Fiction is likewise found in the Iliad, that doesn't mean some aspects of the story are not based on truth.

So we should all take claim that Achilles was historical very very seriously then? Or can we accept that we only currently know of Achilles as a mythical figure, with no reason to presume he was ever historical?

arnoldo · 02-22-2009, 02:45 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by aa5874

Quote:

Originally Posted by figuer

It was Alexander who was claimed as the offspring of a Holy Ghost (Zeus-Amon), and yet Alexander is considered a real person.

Are you claiming that there is no historical information of Alexander the Great?

And, please show me what source claimed Alexander the Great was the offspring of the Holy Ghost?

Please show me where it is claimed that Alexander the Great had no earthly mother or father.

Quote:

From his conception, his mother, Olympias, maintained that it was not her husband, Philip, who impregnated her, but rather a serpent. This is very interesting because a serpent is closely identified with the god, Zeus Ammon.
http://wso.williams.edu/~junterek/divine.htm

Quote:

Originally Posted by aa5874

The NT claimed Jesus of the NT had no earthly father.

The Ebionites had a gospel which claimed that Jesus had an earthly father.

Quote:

The Ebionites are described as emphasizing the oneness of God and the humanity of Jesus as the biological son of both Mary and Joseph, who by virtue of his righteousness, was chosen by God to be the messianic "prophet like Moses" (foretold in Deuteronomy 18:14–22) when he was anointed with the holy spirit at his baptism)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ebionites

So are you willing to overlook the supernatural qualities attributed to Alexander the Great and consider him a historical person yet unwilling to do the same with Jesus?

mountainman · 02-22-2009, 02:54 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by aa5874

Quote:

Originally Posted by figuer

If Jesus/Christianity actually existed since the time specified in the Bible, we are not referring to an elephant, but to an insignificant ant.

And if Jesus/Christianity did not actually exist at the time specified, we are looking at lies of elephant proportions.

Against the Galileans by Julian Book I

Quote:

It is, I think, expedient to set forth to all mankind the reasons by which I was convinced that the fabrication of the Galilaeans christians is a fiction of men composed by wickedness. Though it has in it nothing divine, by making full use of that part of the soul which loves fable and is childish and foolish, it has induced men to believe that the monstrous tale is truth....

Dear aa5874,

Just a minor quibble, but Julian wrote specifically against the christians, and his term "the fabrication of the Galilaeans" is therefore quite properly translated as "the fabrication of the christians" on the basis that Julian at that time had physically legislated that "christians" be known as "Galilaeans".

Best wishes,

Pete

PS: How do you that strike-out function?

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

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.