Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Chris Weimer · 03-27-2006, 06:09 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Spenser

IOW, if you are so sure that Jesus really was a man and walked the Earth then I'd love for you to tell me where he went and what he actually did (for real) and how you differentiate that from the fictions of the Gospels. If you can't come up with much then your case is rather weak.

Can you tell me where my grandfather went and what he did? If not, then I guess he never existed, huh?

Toto · 03-27-2006, 08:04 PM

The Jews at the time of Jesus were part of the Roman Empire, and were exposed to Greco-Roman drama. See the article "Runaway Paul" referenced in this thread

Chris Weimer · 03-27-2006, 08:28 PM

The Paul article is unavailable. Do you have another link?

Philadelphia Lawyer · 03-27-2006, 08:30 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Spenser

IOW, if you are so sure that Jesus really was a man and walked the Earth then I'd love for you to tell me where he went and what he actually did (for real) and how you differentiate that from the fictions of the Gospels. If you can't come up with much then your case is rather weak.[emphasis added]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Chris Weimer

Can you tell me where my grandfather went and what he did? If not, then I guess he never existed, huh?

No, we can't tell you about your grandfather, but you can. And, even if you can't, we know he existed because you exist.

Yours is a very strange argument: My grandfather existed, therefore Jesus existed.

Ted Hoffman · 03-27-2006, 10:08 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Chris Weimer

Please show the text (heck, I'll even allow a translation) where it shows Inanna and Tammuz dying and either resurrecting or being resurrected. It must show that they actually die. Also, please show how this spread to Christianity and influenced the earliest Christian thought. Furthermore, you will need to show how it originated the idea of Jesus, and not merely provided an embellishment later on. Finally, please show how you are certain the earliest Christians held Jesus to be divine.

In Ezekiel 8.14-15 Tammuz worshippers are weeping over the death of Tammuz.
For Inanna, check History Begins at Sumer: Thirty-Nine Firstts in Recorded History by Samuel Noah Kramer, pub 1956, rev 1981, University of Pennsylvania Press. Pages 154-167 have the tale.
About showing that "the earliest Christians held Jesus to be divine", I find the question to be inane and will not answer it. The fact that they worshipped him and wrote books about his being the son of God and his being the meaasiah demonstrate that the early Christians regarded Jesus as a divine being. That you can ask this shows this discussion has lost meaning.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Chris Weimer

While you can argue possibility all you want, I'll take probability as my preferred choice. The bottom line comes down to it - did Christ have live and die in the heavens? No. In fact, he porbably did not. He probably lived and died on earth, which is the easiest and simplest reading of Paul. Anything else can only be inferred after you add in your own prejudices. Christ died in the heavens only after you reach that conclusion. Nothing else supports that suggestion.

I guess you have it all figured out. At this point, I see no point in further squandering my time in this discussion.

Chris Weimer · 03-27-2006, 10:12 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Philadelphia Lawyer

No, we can't tell you about your grandfather, but you can. And, even if you can't, we know he existed because you exist.

That he's my grandfather is beside the point. That you cannot know what he did or where he went is what I was getting at.

Quote:

Yours is a very strange argument: My grandfather existed, therefore Jesus existed.

Hey! Way to beat a strawman! Perhaps we can read the argument in context next time, hrm?

Toto · 03-27-2006, 10:12 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Chris Weimer

The Paul article is unavailable. Do you have another link?

It is no longer available for free. If you are connected with a library that subscribes, you can read it in The Harvard Theological Review, April, 1999 or perhaps at this link: here.

Chris Weimer · 03-27-2006, 10:22 PM

Quote:

Windisch pointed out that, although Paul plays the role of the fool, his performance differs from that of a genuine mimus in one important respect: Paul plays himself, a role that he plays "in bitter earnest."(FN366) Beneath the "mask" Paul remains himself, true to his own convictions. In the first instance, this means that the "self-commendation" that he has been forced to make is an act of unprincipled "boasting."(FN367) In the series of "asides" that punctuate the discourse (2 Cor 11:21b, 23b, 30; 12:1a, 5-6, 11a), Paul lifts the "mask" and shows his face, lest the hearers become so engrossed in the performance that they forget his true attitude.

I'm truly confused how this relates to the subject matter? That Paul may imitate the characteristics of theatre is not nearly the same as Jesus was a play. Moreover, even the paper itself directly contradicts Clivedurdle's theory that Paul was a fool. Instead, it turns out, Paul merely imitated the language but still, in the end, showed up as a genuine person.

And this lends credence to the Jesus Myth how?

Toto · 03-27-2006, 10:40 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Chris Weimer

I'm truly confused how this relates to the subject matter? That Paul may imitate the characteristics of theatre is not nearly the same as Jesus was a play. Moreover, even the paper itself directly contradicts Clivedurdle's theory that Paul was a fool. Instead, it turns out, Paul merely imitated the language but still, in the end, showed up as a genuine person.

And this lends credence to the Jesus Myth how?

Paul was not a fool, (and Clivedurdle did not claim he was one) but he used some of the stage conventions of Greco-Roman drama as rhetorical devices.

The question was whether Jews had a dramatic tradition. This shows that early Christians or Jewish Christians were familiar with stage plays. That's all.

Chris Weimer · 03-27-2006, 10:49 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Toto

Paul was not a fool, (and Clivedurdle did not claim he was one) but he used some of the stage conventions of Greco-Roman drama as rhetorical devices.

The question was whether Jews had a dramatic tradition. This shows that early Christians or Jewish Christians were familiar with stage plays. That's all.

If that was all he meant, then he was arguing a strawman. If you go back 13 posts I quite clearly said that I was not familiar with any plays the Jews wrote, not that they were unfamiliar with Greek stock characters (who, by the way, don't have to necessarily be from a play).

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

03-27-2006, 08:04 PM	#132
Toto Contributor Join Date: Jun 2000 Location: Los Angeles area Posts: 40,549	The Jews at the time of Jesus were part of the Roman Empire, and were exposed to Greco-Roman drama. See the article "Runaway Paul" referenced in this thread

03-27-2006, 08:28 PM	#133
Chris Weimer Veteran Member Join Date: Jun 2004 Location: none Posts: 9,879	The Paul article is unavailable. Do you have another link?

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.