Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Juststeve · 01-28-2011, 06:52 AM

Toto:

Thank you for your cite to Turton. An interesting read and some things I had not considered.

Steve

Toto · 01-28-2011, 08:06 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Juststeve

Doug:

You had difficulty parsing the logic of my last comment because it was truncated by an editor who was offended by the idea expressed. For a Free Thought Forum there is a lot of dogma being enforced.

This is not a matter of "dogma." We do not allow insults and inflammatory comments.

Quote:

When you speak of NT scholars who think the Gospels contain essentially no historical evidence it is important to recognize that essentially no evidence is not no evidence. I can't think of any major scholar, mythers aside, who does not regard the crucifixion as historically established. I think it obvious that to have an historical crucifixion you need an historical guy to crucify.

Steve

You have it backwards. There were many historical crucifixions. The question is whether Jesus was crucified.

Do you know why these major scholars think that the crucifixion is historically established? There is no evidence, but these scholars consider crucifixion embarrassing and can't think of a reason for early Christians to invent a crucified savior. The "certainty" of the crucifixion is based on these scholars failure of imagination. See the blog post Crossan’s absolute certainty in the historicity of Christ Crucified

angelo · 01-29-2011, 02:46 AM

The hero of H J'rs Bart Ehrman also says that only the gospels can be used as a source if one wants to study the H J. " If we want to know about the life of the historical Jesus, we are more or less restricted to using the four gospels. These are not disinterested accounts by eyewitnesses, however. These are books written decades after the fact by authors who had heard stories about Jesus from the oral tradition, stories that had been altered and even made up over time. " Quoted from page 151 of Ehrman's book Jesus Interrupted.
But Ehrman and his ilk take it for granted that H J is fact. Most or all such scholars grew up with the christian story. They would have done so even sub-consciously as children, been told the stories from a teacher or parents or a priest at Sunday school.
People like Crossan, Marcus Borg, Spong or Karen Armstrong are not atheists, but liberal modernist christians.

Doug Shaver · 01-29-2011, 06:47 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Juststeve

When you speak of NT scholars who think the Gospels contain essentially no historical evidence . . . .

I did not speak of that. I spoke of NT scholars who "have concluded that the gospels contain essentially zero historical fact." Documents do not contain evidence. Documents are evidence. The question is: What are they evidence of?

Quote:

Originally Posted by Juststeve

I can't think of any major scholar, mythers aside, who does not regard the crucifixion as historically established.

Yes, of course. But what establishes it? Exactly why is practically everybody so convinced? "Everybody believes it" doesn't prove a thing, not even if the everybody in question has a dozen PhD's.

I don't have supporting data handy, but I am under the impression that a growing fraction of NT scholars think the only reliable historical fact recorded in the gospels is "Jesus was crucified by Pilate." And at any rate, I'm pretty sure that if you were to poll all NT scholars to find out how much of the gospel stories they agree is factual, "Jesus was crucified by Pilate" is very probably all you'd get. It seems mighty improbable to me that if they were writing about a real person, there would be more to the story than that , that we could be sure of.

aa5874 · 01-29-2011, 08:22 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Juststeve

Bacht:

You and I just see Mark differently. What I see in a series of somewhat disjointed episode from the life of a guy he calls Jesus. Jesus went there, then he did this, then he said something to someone, then he went somewhere, etc. To me it reads like a collection of things the author heard about some guy named Jesus put together in a very loose order. As you may know the traditional Christian view is that Mark recorded things he heard Peter say but in no particular order. I would not argue that myself but it seems entirely plausible that the author of Mark heard this stuff somewhere, from someone....

But, you are ONLY CONSTANTLY contradicting yourself.

You KNOW that the Gospels tells US NOTHING about whether Jesus existed or not.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Juststeve

...That Gospel writers made preposterous claims about Jesus tells us nothing about whether he existed....

When will you end your fallacious arguments?

Do you NOT realize that you have DRIVEN the FINAL NAILS in the HJ coffin.

You said the MAGIC words.

HJ has NO basis whatsoever.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Juststeve

...That Gospel writers made preposterous claims about Jesus tells us nothing about whether he existed....

Doug Shaver · 01-30-2011, 06:38 AM

Erratum

The last line in my previous post should have read:

It seems mighty improbable to me that if they were writing about a real person, there would be no more to the story than that, that we could be sure of. [Adding omitted no.]

angelo · 01-31-2011, 03:25 AM

If the gospelers were writing about a real person, why didn't the christians seek out his place of birth, his place of execution, his tomb and these places be venerated ? After all, the Pauline writings are claimed to be around 50-55 CE and Mark, around 65-70CE, early enough for some memories of his followers who some would still be alive then know anything about them.

avi · 01-31-2011, 05:14 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by angelo atheist

If the gospelers were writing about a real person, why didn't the christians seek out his place of birth, his place of execution, his tomb and these places be venerated ? After all, the Pauline writings are claimed to be around 50-55 CE and Mark, around 65-70CE, early enough for some memories of his followers who some would still be alive then know anything about them.

Alternatively, perhaps folks living in the second century, when the gospels and Paul's epistles were written, knew that there were no eyewitnesses, so, skipped over the details of JC's biography, to focus the reader's attention on superstition, with a carrot and stick approach: paradise versus eternal damnation.

Anyone protesting that the king had no clothes, would be immediately recognized as someone not in tune with the mumbo-jumbo, and either cast out, or executed, as a heretic, pagan, or heathen.

avi

aa5874 · 01-31-2011, 05:39 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by avi

Quote:

Originally Posted by angelo atheist

If the gospelers were writing about a real person, why didn't the christians seek out his place of birth, his place of execution, his tomb and these places be venerated ? After all, the Pauline writings are claimed to be around 50-55 CE and Mark, around 65-70CE, early enough for some memories of his followers who some would still be alive then know anything about them.

Alternatively, perhaps folks living in the second century, when the gospels and Paul's epistles were written, knew that there were no eyewitnesses, so, skipped over the details of JC's biography, to focus the reader's attention on superstition, with a carrot and stick approach: paradise versus eternal damnation.

The "biography" of JC was NOT skipped over. It is documented in the NT and Church writings.

"On the Flesh of Christ"

Quote:

...Now, that we may give a simpler answer, it was not fit that the Son of God should be born of a human father's seed, lest, if He were wholly the Son of a man, He should fail to be also the Son of God, and have nothing more than "a Solomon" or "a Jonas," — as Ebion thought we ought to believe concerning Him.

In order, therefore, that He who was already the Son of God— of God the Father's seed, that is to say, the Spirit— might also be the Son of man, He only wanted to assume flesh, of the flesh of man without the seed of a man; for the seed of a man was unnecessary for One who had the seed of God.

As, then, before His birth of the virgin, He was able to have God for His Father without a human mother, so likewise, after He was born of the virgin, He was able to have a woman for His mother without a human father. He is thus man with God, in short, since He is man's flesh with God's Spirit — flesh (I say) without seed from man, Spirit with seed from God....

I know of no other character whose very FLESH was the subject of an Inquiry and consumed an ENTIRE book.

Kapyong · 02-01-2011, 12:13 PM

Gday,

Quote:

Originally Posted by aa5874

I know of no other character whose very FLESH was the subject of an Inquiry and consumed an ENTIRE book.

Why would someone write such a book?
Because many Christians DENIED Jesus came in the flesh.

Arguing AGAINST an HJ.

K.

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

01-28-2011, 06:52 AM	#551
Juststeve Senior Member Join Date: Nov 2004 Location: Dallas Texas Posts: 758	Toto: Thank you for your cite to Turton. An interesting read and some things I had not considered. Steve

01-29-2011, 02:46 AM	#553
angelo Veteran Member Join Date: Jun 2007 Location: Australia Posts: 5,706	The hero of H J'rs Bart Ehrman also says that only the gospels can be used as a source if one wants to study the H J. " If we want to know about the life of the historical Jesus, we are more or less restricted to using the four gospels. These are not disinterested accounts by eyewitnesses, however. These are books written decades after the fact by authors who had heard stories about Jesus from the oral tradition, stories that had been altered and even made up over time. " Quoted from page 151 of Ehrman's book Jesus Interrupted. But Ehrman and his ilk take it for granted that H J is fact. Most or all such scholars grew up with the christian story. They would have done so even sub-consciously as children, been told the stories from a teacher or parents or a priest at Sunday school. People like Crossan, Marcus Borg, Spong or Karen Armstrong are not atheists, but liberal modernist christians.

01-30-2011, 06:38 AM	#556
Doug Shaver Veteran Member Join Date: Sep 2005 Location: San Bernardino, Calif. Posts: 5,435	Erratum The last line in my previous post should have read: It seems mighty improbable to me that if they were writing about a real person, there would be no more to the story than that, that we could be sure of. [Adding omitted no.]

01-31-2011, 03:25 AM	#557
angelo Veteran Member Join Date: Jun 2007 Location: Australia Posts: 5,706	If the gospelers were writing about a real person, why didn't the christians seek out his place of birth, his place of execution, his tomb and these places be venerated ? After all, the Pauline writings are claimed to be around 50-55 CE and Mark, around 65-70CE, early enough for some memories of his followers who some would still be alive then know anything about them.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.