Freethought & Rationalism Archive

spin · 04-03-2007, 04:22 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by praxeus

Nope, Matthew testifies with Mark, you have to read with more depth.
When Matthew gets to the actually crafty attempt to trick Jesus
he shows the Herodian-Pharisee alignment.

Matthew 22:15-18
Then went the Pharisees,
and took counsel how they might entangle him in his talk.
And they sent out unto him their disciples with the Herodians,
saying, Master, we know that thou art true,
and teachest the way of God in truth,
neither carest thou for any man:
for thou regardest not the person of men.
Tell us therefore, What thinkest thou?
Is it lawful to give tribute unto Caesar, or not?
But Jesus perceived their wickedness, and said,
Why tempt ye me, ye hypocrites?

The whole argument of incredulity is very flimsy.
Folks make alliances every day with their political opponents
.. that is the nature of .. politics.

This is typical of your posting. You can't talk about the topic so you change the subject and act as though you are saying something relevant.

We were looking at Mk 3:6 and the reaction of the other synoptics that used it. So, when I say, "The writers of Matt (12:14) and Luke (6:11) obviously agree: they left out the reference to the Herodians found in Mk 3:6." why do you gormlessly have to contradict when what you talk about has nothing to do with Mk 3:6 or its parallels in Matt and Luke which I'm sure you realise don't mention "Herodians"? It's only because there is at least a reference to Herodians in Matt. Well, whoopee-doo. Now can you get back to the subject of Mk 3:6 and note that there isn't?

(The phenomenon in which something is left in when elsewhere it has been out is called "fatigue".)

[ETA: More correct would be that "[t]he phenomenon in which something is [not changed] when elsewhere it has been [changed] is called "fatigue".]

spin

Chris Weimer · 04-03-2007, 04:27 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by spin

The phenomenon in which something is left in when elsewhere it has been out is called "fatigue".

Let's not even get started on fatigue. I'm sure the poor guy is confused enough as it is.

aa5874 · 04-03-2007, 04:54 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by sharrock

Just something I read, and am throwing into the melting pot, my level of expertise is such that I couldn't argue either way...

"When Plinius Caecilius was sent to Bithynia-Pontus in 110 or 111 AD, he came into contact with the early Christians, and the letters to emperor Traianus in which he speaks of these encounters and his subsequent actions are regarded as the first airtight mention of early Christianity, the one that all scholars can agree on."

One must always bear in mind that, according to Irenaeus in Against Heresies, there were followers of many versions of Christ. These versions of Christ were conceptualised long before the canonisation of the NT.

The word 'Christian' does not inherently signify the same group or those of the same doctrine with respect to the post-nicene period.

J-D · 04-03-2007, 05:09 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by aa5874

You need to relax and compose yourself.

All I know is that the virgin birth of Jesus, as described in the NT, is fiction, no-one is the son of a ghost. And in order for Jesus to be a real person, Mary must have had contact with some male semen. Mary's statement about being a virgin, as written in Luke, is therefore false.

The burial of the body of Jesus the Christ as written in the NT is fiction, the body was placed in a sealed tomb under guard and it vanished, however, the resurrection was given as the reason for the disappearance, this is blatant fiction.

Now all the writers of the NT are unknown, I know nothing about them other than they wrote fiction.

I enjoy answering your questions.

Suppose somebody said: Macaulay wrote fiction; therefore everything Macaulay wrote is fiction. Or: Asimov wrote fiction; therefore everything Asimov wrote is fiction.

Would you be able to detect the logical flaw?

J-D · 04-03-2007, 05:11 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by aa5874

To illustrate one of the many concepts or doctrines of the non-historical Christ that was prevalent in the 2nd century, I will show an excerpt from 'Against Heresies' book 1 ch XXIV section 2- the doctrines of Saturninus and Balisides, it reads as follows:

Now, was this the original doctrine or concept of Jesus the Christ and was later re-worked to produce the virgin birth conception? Who or what is Jesus the Christ and what exactly is a follower of Christ?

I don't know what the original version was. Neither do you. You keep insisting that you do, but you can't back it up.

J-D · 04-03-2007, 05:42 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Steve Weiss

The stories that you mention in a vague sort of way do nothing to contradict my point that incidential references to historic, or allegedly historic, people and events does not lend credibility to the religious project known as the bible. The bible is largely a tribal mythology that contends that there is a special relationship of certain peoples with their deity, and that certain miraclulous events happened that verify the existence of this god and its chosen people Your mention of tangential groups and events that do not figure in these tall tales in any essential way are irrelevant. As I said, any novel does the same thing. I think that you are well aware of the legends and fables that I am referring to, but you choose to evade the issue.

Please deal with the main characters and theme of this fantasy book, not those characters that are playing a cameo role.

If somebody asserts that the Bible is largely fictitious, then the demonstration of the presence in it of historically accurate material will not refute that assertion. But if somebody asserts that the Bible is wholly ficititious, then the demonstration of the presence in it of historically accurate material will refute that assertion.

aa5874 · 04-03-2007, 05:43 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by J-D

I don't know what the original version was. Neither do you. You keep insisting that you do, but you can't back it up.

The pre-existence, the virgin birth, the baptism, the miraculous acts, the transfiguration, the resurrection and the ascension of Jesus the Christ, as written in the NT, are all consistent with acts of mythological figures.

See, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zeus

J-D · 04-03-2007, 05:44 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Steve Weiss

And the true stories central to the religious theme of the bible that you find to be credible are?

Did spin defend the religious theme of the Bible? I don't remember that.

J-D · 04-03-2007, 05:46 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Craigart14

That there was a Jesus is a perfectly ordinary claim. That there was a Christ who performed miracles and raised the dead is impossible.

So it would seem to me. Yet some people seem to think that by refuting the second they automatically refute the first.

J-D · 04-03-2007, 05:48 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by aa5874

This is another version of Jesus the Christ in Against Heresies by Irenaeus in the 2nd century.
Book 1 ch XXVI section 1-2: The doctrines of Cerinthus, the Ebionites and Nicolaitanes.

As one reads Against Heresies, it becomes clearer that Jesus the Christ and his Father are all folklore, and that Jesus the Christ is whatever persons imagined him to be.

Given that there are many different versions, mutually inconsistent, there seem to me to be two logical possibilities: (1) all versions are historically false; (2) one version is historically true and all the others are historically false.

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

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.