Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Jayhawker Soule · 08-12-2007, 04:38 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by aa5874

Quote:

Originally Posted by Chris Weimer

Except his brother.

There is no credible extra-biblical or non-apologetic writings which confirms that Jesus was not a myth, ...

But your comfort with that assertion is solely a function of your reliance on the words 'credible' and 'confirms'. It's a self-serving, faith based statement. Furthermore, if you do not systematically apply the same criteria to all other historical figures, it strikes me as a wholly disingenuous one.

Jayhawker Soule · 08-12-2007, 04:43 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by angelo atheist

Quote:

Originally Posted by ConsequentAtheist

Followers of whom? So they, too, were taken in by the myth? It seems to me that your mythicism has a crack in it ...

There are no cracks that I'm aware of. He met followers, no eye witnesses. Where the followers obtained their information of this Jesus myth, I claim, comes from the ancient Mystery Religions.

So a Jerusalem sect of Torah observant Jews in Jerusalem based itself on a 'Mystery Religions' inspired myth roughly 2 decades in the making? Perhaps we should call it a mythette ...

Doug Shaver · 08-12-2007, 06:44 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by aa5874

You do not know that there was a Paul in the first place.

That depends on how you define "know." If a belief has to be infallible to count as knowledge, then none of us knows anything.

In any case, I don't claim to know anything about Paul. I just believe some things about him. I believe that he wrote some of the letters attributed to him, and I think my belief is well justified.

Quote:

Originally Posted by aa5874

Acts is regarded as fiction

Acts is irrelevant to what I believe about Paul.

aa5874 · 08-12-2007, 10:49 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Doug Shaver

Quote:

Originally Posted by aa5874

You do not know that there was a Paul in the first place.

That depends on how you define "know." If a belief has to be infallible to count as knowledge, then none of us knows anything.

In any case, I don't claim to know anything about Paul. I just believe some things about him. I believe that he wrote some of the letters attributed to him, and I think my belief is well justified.

Quote:

Originally Posted by aa5874

Acts is regarded as fiction

Acts is irrelevant to what I believe about Paul.

Acts is not irrelevant at all in my assessment of the so-called Saul/Paul. I must and am obliged to peruse and take into account all relevant information available to make any consideration with regards to Saul/Paul.

Your statements are extremely troubling. I find it very difficult to understand how you 'justify your belief' while at the same ignore relevant information about the one you believe.

aa5874 · 08-12-2007, 10:56 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ConsequentAtheist

Quote:

Originally Posted by aa5874

There is no credible extra-biblical or non-apologetic writings which confirms that Jesus was not a myth, ...

But your comfort with that assertion is solely a function of your reliance on the words 'credible' and 'confirms'. It's a self-serving, faith based statement. Furthermore, if you do not systematically apply the same criteria to all other historical figures, it strikes me as a wholly disingenuous one.

I used the same criteria to assess that Apollo and Jupiter were mythical figures.

angelo · 08-13-2007, 04:49 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ConsequentAtheist

Quote:

Originally Posted by angelo atheist

There are no cracks that I'm aware of. He met followers, no eye witnesses. Where the followers obtained their information of this Jesus myth, I claim, comes from the ancient Mystery Religions.

So a Jerusalem sect of Torah observant Jews in Jerusalem based itself on a 'Mystery Religions' inspired myth roughly 2 decades in the making? Perhaps we should call it a mythette ...

I suggest you visit the site I posted.

angelo · 08-13-2007, 04:58 AM

The sect of Torah observers were influenced by Paul who himself was converted when he had his breakdown, and saw visions and heard voices.
[schizophrenic?] Not forgetting, Paul was the real founder of christianity.

Doug Shaver · 08-13-2007, 06:52 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by aa5874

I must and am obliged to peruse and take into account all relevant information available to make any consideration with regards to Saul/Paul.

Me, too.

All the relevant information available to me leads me to believe that Acts is a work of fiction and hence of no use as a source of historical data -- about Paul or about anyone else.

aa5874 · 08-13-2007, 10:30 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Doug Shaver

Quote:

Originally Posted by aa5874

I must and am obliged to peruse and take into account all relevant information available to make any consideration with regards to Saul/Paul.

Me, too.

All the relevant information available to me leads me to believe that Acts is a work of fiction and hence of no use as a source of historical data -- about Paul or about anyone else.

Well, if you regard Acts as fiction, then which Paul are you refering to, the author of Timothy or the author of Galations?

Gamera · 08-13-2007, 01:21 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by angelo atheist

Quote:

Originally Posted by Chris Weimer

Is there a particular reason why you've singled out the Jesus story?

Here is a list of Pagan Writers who wrote at or within a century of the time that Jesus is said to have lived;Arrian, Petronius, Seneca, Dion Pruseus, Pliny the Elder, Appian Juvenal, Theon of Smyrna, Martial Plutarch, Apollonius, Pausanias, V. Flaccus, Floras Lucius, Quintilian, Favorinus, Lucanus, Damis Silius Italicus, Aulus Gellius, Statius, Ptolemy, Dio Chrysostom, Hermogeons, Lysias, Valerius Maximus. And I'm sure I left some out. Not one of these Pagan writers refers to Jesus. Yet their writings are enough to fill a library. The only Roman writers to mention anything of interest are Pliny, Suetonius and Tacitus, who were writing at the beginning of the second century. Up to one hundred years after the supposed events took place. You have to admit that is more than enough time for a myth to evolve.

I fail to see how this is probative of your apparent point.

Whether Jesus is mythic in nature or is historical, there is no reason to believe that the origins of Christianity in the first half of the 1st century would be of any interest to any of these pagan writers.

Why would they bother to note the punishment of a minor criminal in a backwater of the Empire?

What we do know is that once Christianity is mentioned, the historicity of Jesus is either explicitly asserted or presumed. There is no mention of a mythicist sect of Christianity by any author, Christian or nonChristian.

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

08-13-2007, 04:58 AM	#117
angelo Veteran Member Join Date: Jun 2007 Location: Australia Posts: 5,706	The sect of Torah observers were influenced by Paul who himself was converted when he had his breakdown, and saw visions and heard voices. [schizophrenic?] Not forgetting, Paul was the real founder of christianity.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.