Freethought & Rationalism Archive

aa5874 · 01-13-2012, 02:37 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by maryhelena

No more than I would pay for a picture of this fake event....zero.....And, No, before you ask - I don't believe everything I read......

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Beheadi...hn_the_Baptist

You believe John the Baptist was beheaded? Josephus did not say John the Baptist was beheaded.

The people who claimed John the Baptist was beheaded are the same people with the FAKE crucifixion story.

Horatio Parker · 01-13-2012, 02:57 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Toto

A new book has been announced and can be preordered on Amazom:

Thank you Toto for starting a thread.

Horatio Parker · 01-13-2012, 03:02 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by maryhelena

Bottom line is that the real issue is not the claimed historicity for the gospel JC (and there is no other....) but the origin and development of the gospel JC storyboard. If the gospel JC historicists are willing to change track - then perhaps time for the ahistoricist/mythicists also. Too much time is being spent upon the question of historicity verse non-historicity - while Rome continues to burn.....

Who knows, maybe they'll rediscover spirituality. And all those professional apologists...what are they to do?

Adam · 01-13-2012, 09:41 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by stephan huller

Quote:

See particularly my posts #526 and 534

I would be extraordinarily happy if I could wipe the memory of that God-awful thread from my memory. One of the low points in this forum the way you didn't listen to anything anyone said and kept a thread that should have died at post #50 all the way into the extremities.

What's extraordinary is how much I did listen to many of you and how none of you listened to me.

maryhelena · 01-13-2012, 10:00 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Horatio Parker

Quote:

Originally Posted by maryhelena

Bottom line is that the real issue is not the claimed historicity for the gospel JC (and there is no other....) but the origin and development of the gospel JC storyboard. If the gospel JC historicists are willing to change track - then perhaps time for the ahistoricist/mythicists also. Too much time is being spent upon the question of historicity verse non-historicity - while Rome continues to burn.....

Who knows, maybe they'll rediscover spirituality. And all those professional apologists...what are they to do?

Professional apologists - no longer able to claim a historical 'sanction' for their gospel JC (and there is no other....)they will have to rely much more on the strength of their faith based sedatives....

However, perhaps those who can be weaned away from a literal interpretation of the gospel texts might find some insights, and a way forward, from the words of Albert Schweitzer, written over 100 years ago.

Quote:

Page 400. The Quest of the Historical Jesus: Albert Schweitzer. (original German edition 1906)

Seen from a purely logical viewpoint, whether Jesus existed or did not exist must always remain hypothetical ............Modern Christianity must always reckon with the possibility of having to abandon the historical figure of Jesus. Hence it must not artificially increase his importance by referring all theological knowledge to him and developing a ‘christocentric’ religion: the Lord may always be a mere element in ‘religion’, but he should never be considered its foundation.

To put it differently: religion must avail itself of a metaphysic, that is, a basic view of the nature and significance of being which is entirely independent of history and of knowledge transmitted from the past, and which can be recreated afresh at every moment and in every religious subject. If it does not possess this direct and inalienable quality, then it is a slave to history and must live in a spirit of bondage, perpetually vulnerable and perpetually threatened.

The Quest for the Historical Jesus (or via: amazon.co.uk)

tanya · 01-14-2012, 03:29 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by sotto voce

One cannot identify and evaluate Jesus properly without a detailed study of the Old Testament, that never gave any indication that Moses' laws were permanent. Indeed, it foretold the very opposite. It is therefore hardly credible to suppose that Judaism is the biblical norm, i.e. the true religion of Jehovah, when the books of canonical prophets made this indication, and when it is observed that 'Judaism' has been without Promised Land as originally constituted for 1900 years, and there is no future possibility of establishing it.

Sorry to disagree with you and No_Robots on this point, but, within the acknowledged constraint of my very limited grasp of the essence of judaism, I must deny your assertion that the jesus portrayed in the new testament is derived from that famous earlier religion.

Do the jews drink human blood, and eat human flesh? These are attributes of greek mythological creatures, not various semitic peoples who refused to use the same vessel for both (cooked) animal flesh and animal milk.

To answer your question: NONSENSE. YES, the old testament definitely proclaimed that Moses' laws were permanent, else, why would they be carved in stone?

:constern01:

sotto voce · 01-14-2012, 04:39 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by tanya

Quote:

Originally Posted by sotto voce

One cannot identify and evaluate Jesus properly without a detailed study of the Old Testament, that never gave any indication that Moses' laws were permanent. Indeed, it foretold the very opposite. It is therefore hardly credible to suppose that Judaism is the biblical norm, i.e. the true religion of Jehovah, when the books of canonical prophets made this indication, and when it is observed that 'Judaism' has been without Promised Land as originally constituted for 1900 years, and there is no future possibility of establishing it.

Sorry to disagree with you and No_Robots on this point, but, within the acknowledged constraint of my very limited grasp of the essence of judaism, I must deny your assertion that the jesus portrayed in the new testament is derived from that famous earlier religion.

Quote:

Do the jews drink human blood, and eat human flesh?

What is the power rating of Jesus, the light of the world?

No Robots · 01-14-2012, 06:57 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by tanya

Do the jews drink human blood, and eat human flesh?

In the course of the Jewish Passover eve service, then, whether at the conclusion of the supper (the practice which has carried the day) or at its commencement (as according to some Talmudic practice at least), a piece of unleavened bread is taken as the Messiah by the company. The traditional designation of this fragment is Aphiquoman.

--"He That Cometh" / David Daube, p. 4.

----

The comparison between red wine and blood was common in the Old Testament (Gen. 49.11; Deut. 32.14; Isa. 63.3, 6), further Ecclus 39.26; 50.15; I Macc. 6.34; Rev. 14.20; b. Sanh. 70a, etc.

We have therefore a double simile of Jesus here. Jesus made the broken bread a simile of the fate of his body, the blood of the grapes a simile of his outpoured blood.

--The Eucharistic words of Jesus / Joachim Jeremias, p. 224.

mountainman · 01-14-2012, 07:21 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Steven Carr

http://ntweblog.blogspot.com/2012/01...piot-tomb.html ..........

It is almost as though the methods used by historians were rejected by students of religious history who then developed criteria suitable for their religion.

One core criteria of the historical method - that any given source may be forged or corrupt - is obviously not appropriate for those who have faith in their religious source books.

Horatio Parker · 01-14-2012, 08:45 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by maryhelena

Quote:

Page 400. The Quest of the Historical Jesus: Albert Schweitzer. (original German edition 1906)

Seen from a purely logical viewpoint, whether Jesus existed or did not exist must always remain hypothetical ............Modern Christianity must always reckon with the possibility of having to abandon the historical figure of Jesus. Hence it must not artificially increase his importance by referring all theological knowledge to him and developing a ‘christocentric’ religion: the Lord may always be a mere element in ‘religion’, but he should never be considered its foundation.

To put it differently: religion must avail itself of a metaphysic, that is, a basic view of the nature and significance of being which is entirely independent of history and of knowledge transmitted from the past, and which can be recreated afresh at every moment and in every religious subject. If it does not possess this direct and inalienable quality, then it is a slave to history and must live in a spirit of bondage, perpetually vulnerable and perpetually threatened.

The Quest for the Historical Jesus (or via: amazon.co.uk)

Great quote, thanks. Gonna remember that one...

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

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.