Freethought & Rationalism Archive

aa5874 · 10-24-2011, 07:41 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by archibald

....A figure like this, a god who had descended to earth, about whose early life very little is known until the time of his supposed preaching, who didn't write anything himself, who performed miracles, who appeared in visions and in the flesh to his followers after his death.

Do you know which divine human I am describing above?

I'll give you a clue. He's so bloomin' recent, he appears in photographs, and yet people still wrote that sort of fluffy crap about him.

Point being, this is exactly the sort of fruity crap we would expect from devotees.

Your clueless mumbo-jumbo is not evidence of an historical Jesus. You have ALREADY admitted that you think AGNOSTICISM is the best option.

You MUST present actual credible sources for HJ and stop wasting time.

The Gospels MUST be unreliable sources since they contain information about Jesus that CANNOT be historically accurate.

In the Gospels, Jesus was a PHANTOM.

In the Gospels, Jesus WALKED on the sea and Transfigured.

The SPECIFIC GRAVITY and BIOLOGY of the human body does NOT allow for sea-water walking and transfigurations.

In the Gospels:

1. Herod the Great was KING.

2. Tiberius was Emperor.

3. Pilate was Governor.

4. Caiaphas was high Priest.

5. Satan was the DEVIL.

6. Gabriel was an angel.

7. God was the God of the Jews.

8. Jesus was the Child of a Ghost, a SEA-WATER walker and one who Transfigured.

In the Gospels, Jesus was a PHANTOM.

Iskander · 10-24-2011, 07:45 AM

The phrase “son of god” in the Hebrew Bible does not mean what the Greeks readers decided it must mean.

In the Greek culture Zeus becomes a swan and copulates with Leda, from this mating the stunning Helen of Troy, the daughter of the god, was born

This is one artistic interpretation:

That's Greek but it is not Jewish

dog-on · 10-24-2011, 07:50 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Iskander

The phrase “son of god” in the Hebrew Bible does not mean what the Greeks readers decided it must mean.

In the Greek culture Zeus becomes a swan and copulates with Leda, from this mating the stunning Helen of Troy, the daughter of the god, was born

This is one artistic interpretation:

That's Greek but it is not Jewish

Indeed and that is why Christianity is such an hilarious theology. Greeks (read Romans) misinterpreting Hebrew writings.

Iskander · 10-24-2011, 08:04 AM

Christian theology is Greek. The Greek Testament is just that : Zeus, Hera the wife of god = Roman Catholic Church, and so forth.

The Greeks created a glorious civilization with all that, pity that the Greek Testament was taken over by the imperial Romans and their successor the Vatican Emperor. So much blood has been shed to bring back the Athenian Republic.

dog-on · 10-24-2011, 08:21 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Iskander

Christian theology is Greek. The Greek Testament is just that : Zeus, Hera the wife of god = Roman Catholic Church, and so forth.

The Greeks created a glorious civilization with all that, pity that the Greek Testament was taken over by the imperial Romans and their successor the Vatican Emperor. So much blood has been shed to bring back the Athenian Republic.

The Romans were nothing if not excellent using "found" objects, I suppose.

tanya · 10-24-2011, 09:11 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by archibald

Mutually exclusive? Contradictory? You think?

yes

Quote:

Originally Posted by archibald

A figure like this, a god who had descended to earth in the form of a man, about whose early life very little is known or described until the time of his supposed preaching, who didn't write anything himself, who performed numerous miracles, who appeared in visions and in the flesh to his followers after his death. Does this really strike you as all that unusual?

yes.

Quote:

Do you know which divine human I am describing above?

no, sorry to be so dull...

Quote:

Originally Posted by archibald

Point being, this is exactly the sort of fruity garbage we would expect (and usually get) from religious devotees throughout history. It's devotees not believing in the existence of a recent religious leader/prophet that is a rarity. Mark appears to be close (within 30 years). Paul even closer. Those referred to by Paul as being before him closer still. I am not assuming anything about these indicators, just that they are the indicators in the extant ancient texts, and within an historically short distance, apparently.

No idea why you write:
"...by Paul as being before him closer still."
you have some evidence of that?

Quote:

Originally Posted by archibald

This is not meant to be conclusive. It's simply a comparison between what is common in descriptions and what is unusual. Whatever about the veracity or otherwize of the apparently early indicators, though they are without doubt a feature of the stories, my main point is that there does not, at any rate, appear to be any grounds for puzzlement over the sort of human-divine combo described in Mark 1:1, since it could easily refer to someone believed to have actually lived and died recently.

Before, I was lost.

Now, I am atop the north pole in a blizzard without gps.

"...it could easily refer to someone believed to have actually lived..."
YES.

It sure could, Archibald.

You are correct. IT COULD have referred to someone believed to have actually lived.

I cannot refute that notion.

But, Archibald, the thesis of this thread, if I have not misunderstood it, is:
HJ as more likely overall explanation,

NOT

Jesus could have been someone believed to have actually lived.

problem: "believed", now we must evaluate Mark's motive in writing, and of course, we have no way of doing so;

problem: "actually lived", we can obtain precisely the same result, by rewriting the interpretation of Mark 1:1 as follows:

"believed to have actually been a fictional character", without changing the meaning of even one line of the accompanying text found in Mark.

We have no data, Archibald.

Can't you see that?

We have no evidence, outside of Mark (and the other apologetic literature) that Jesus "actually lived".

There is no problem with your BELIEF that Jesus actually lived, but that's all it is, a belief, unaccompanied by external data, verifying this belief.

Therefore, in answer to your question, NO, HJ is not the more likely overall explanation, for there is no data in support of this hypothesis, that Jesus of Nazareth was a genuine human being, rather than a fictional character from a story.

On the contrary, all the gospels, including Mark, are filled up with evidence of the mythical character of Jesus.

Toto · 10-24-2011, 09:17 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Iskander

...
This is one artistic interpretation:

http://www.zeinalov.com/photos/bronze/leda_01.jpg

That's Greek but it is not Jewish

That's not Greek, it is a modern Russian erotic bronze scupture.

Is this a sign that this thread is winding down?

Iskander · 10-24-2011, 09:19 AM

The thought behind it is Greek, my pedantic friend.

Toto · 10-24-2011, 09:29 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by archibald

Quote:

Originally Posted by Toto

You can see that Julian's point is that Jesus and Paul were insignificant, the sort of religious charlatans who would be happy to delude maidservants and slaves and women. He says that none of the well know writers of the time even mentioned them.

Tacitus was a well known writer. What do you conclude from this?

arnoldo proposed the well known story from Tacitus as an answer to Julian. If arnoldo is correct, it would appear that Julian had not read this section of Tacitus, which makes it highly improbable that the section of Tacitus was available to Julian.

Now this is all a matter of probability and interpretation, hardly proof, but it is the sort of intertextual evidence that scholars consider.

I conclude from this, as any reasonable and objective person would, that whatever Julian's particular point was, 'writers of the time' clearly refers to 'a certain time', the reign of two emperors. It's in the Text. Later writers don't come into it, nor is there any reason for them to.

Then you disagree with arnoldo that this passage would be an answer to Julian's question?

I did originally note that it was possible that Julian would have considered Tacitus a later writer, not contemporary. But before you rely on that, consider that

Tacitus (AD 56 – AD 117) was much closer to the events than Julius, AND did write about the period in which Jesus is believed to have lived.

The surviving portions of his two major works—the Annals and the Histories—examine the reigns of the Roman Emperors Tiberius, Claudius, Nero and those who reigned in the Year of the Four Emperors. These two works span the history of the Roman Empire from the death of Augustus in AD 14 to (presumably) the death of emperor Domitian in AD 96. There are enormous lacunae in the surviving texts, including one four books long in the Annals.

The volume of Tacitus' Annals that covers Palestine around the year 30 is part of the missing material.

Quote:

It seems I am not going to have to apologise. You are way off beam. Not surprising, given the skew of your arguments generally.

I knew you would find some reason not to. Can you at least admit that you initially mischaracterised my summary of Julian?

Quote:

Moreover this:

Quote:

Originally Posted by Toto

It is exactly the sort of evidence that historians use to try to reconstruct early texts - when the text is quoted by authors.

.....is erroneous and rationally meaningless, unless the 'missing' text is quoted by authors. So far, you haven't confirmed.

So you are not aware that historians do use arguments from silence where that silence would be expected?

aa5874 · 10-24-2011, 10:14 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by tanya

We have no data, Archibald.

Can't you see that?

We have no evidence, outside of Mark (and the other apologetic literature) that Jesus "actually lived".

There is no problem with your BELIEF that Jesus actually lived, but that's all it is, a belief, unaccompanied by external data, verifying this belief.

Therefore, in answer to your question, NO, HJ is not the more likely overall explanation, for there is no data in support of this hypothesis, that Jesus of Nazareth was a genuine human being, rather than a fictional character from a story.

On the contrary, all the gospels, including Mark, are filled up with evidence of the mythical character of Jesus....

That is the PRECISE point.

There is NO credible data for an "historical Jesus".

HJers are arguing from SILENCE.

We have DATA for Myth Jesus.

MJers are NOT arguing from silence.

The EXTANT Codices were KNOWN by the Public in antiquity.

Jesus of Nazareth in the Gospels was the Child of a Ghost, that WALKED on the sea, Transfigured, Resurrected and Ascended and it was PUBLISHED PUBLICLY and accepted in antiquity.

Jesus was a PHANTOM and it was PUBLISHED in EXTANT Codices of antiquity.

The disciples did BELIEVE Jesus was a SPIRIT when they saw him WALKING on the sea in the Gospels.

Mark 6

Quote:

.....about the fourth watch of the night he cometh unto them, walking upon the sea, and would have passed by them. 49 But when they saw him walking upon the sea, they supposed it had been a spirit, and cried out: 50 For they all saw him, and were troubled. And immediately he talked with them, and saith unto them, Be of good cheer, it is I; be not afraid.

Matthew 14

Quote:

25 And in the fourth watch of the night Jesus went unto them, walking on the sea.

26 And when the disciples saw him walking on the sea, they were troubled, saying, It is a spirit and they cried out for fear. 27 But straightway Jesus spake unto them, saying, Be of good cheer, it is I, be not afraid...

We have the DATA for MYTH JESUS.

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

10-24-2011, 07:45 AM	#962
Iskander Veteran Member Join Date: Nov 2005 Location: United Kingdom Posts: 3,619	The phrase “son of god” in the Hebrew Bible does not mean what the Greeks readers decided it must mean. In the Greek culture Zeus becomes a swan and copulates with Leda, from this mating the stunning Helen of Troy, the daughter of the god, was born This is one artistic interpretation: That's Greek but it is not Jewish

10-24-2011, 08:04 AM	#964
Iskander Veteran Member Join Date: Nov 2005 Location: United Kingdom Posts: 3,619	Christian theology is Greek. The Greek Testament is just that : Zeus, Hera the wife of god = Roman Catholic Church, and so forth. The Greeks created a glorious civilization with all that, pity that the Greek Testament was taken over by the imperial Romans and their successor the Vatican Emperor. So much blood has been shed to bring back the Athenian Republic.

10-24-2011, 09:19 AM	#968
Iskander Veteran Member Join Date: Nov 2005 Location: United Kingdom Posts: 3,619	The thought behind it is Greek, my pedantic friend.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.