Freethought & Rationalism Archive

steve_bnk · 12-18-2009, 05:08 AM

The anti-HJ folks are exhibiting a form of dogmatic extremism. Any acknowlededgement of the possiblty of an HJ appears to lend credence to the Christians.

dog-on · 12-18-2009, 05:14 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by steve_bnk

The anti-HJ folks are exhibiting a form of dogmatic extremism. Any acknowlededgement of the possiblty of an HJ appears to lend credence to the Christians.

I don't see how an acknowledgement of a possibility of an HJ lends any credence to the Christians.

Can you explain?

Solo · 12-18-2009, 05:26 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dog-on

If the gospel stories are in any way historical, why does Paul completely ignore the ministry of Jesus when making arguments, that would seem to be be easily answered by simply envoking Jesus' earthly ministry?

Paul himself confirms that he ignores the earthly ministry of Jesus : 1 Cr 2:2 For I decided to know nothing among you except Jesus Christ and him crucified.

The reasons for that should be obvious: he disagreed with what Jesus preached (i.e. kingdom on earth) and what those who knew him continued to preach in his name.

Against their Jesus eschatology, he postulated one with Jesus as the risen Lord, who talked to Paul and those who agreed with his tenets, in their ecstasies.

Quote:

Why is the best answer not that Paul was simply unaware of any earthly ministry of Jesus?

Why isn't the best answer simply that Paul was unaware of any earthly ministry of Jesus ? (if that's what you want to ask) I would say simply because it isn't.

The later gospels assert there was a historical ministry of Jesus and that Jesus was killed for it. I have no reason to argue with that. It seems probable. From that perspective I interpret Paul's silence as stemming from a disagreement over what Jesus actually taught or was remembered as teaching. He only agreed with the Nazarene following of Jesus on one substantial point: he believed like them that Jesus was 'from God'; he was sent. Unlike them he believed Jesus was sent to fulfil the law by transgressing it, to show through Paul's mission in Jesus' post-mortem that faith and holy living were superior to law.

Quote:

What is the "good evidence that Paul regards Jesus as a historical figure, not a mythical or mystical one", upon which "almost all readers of Paul" make an assumption?

Doesn't Paul claim to have received his gospel via revelation and through the scriptures and not from any man, or by any man?

Quote:

Is the best argument one that assumes that Jesus actually appeared to Paul in an apparition? Really?

No it isn't. Jesus is not seen by Paul as a historical figure. Paul's crew seeing the Lord is described in
2 Cr 3:18: And we all, with unveiled face, beholding the glory of the Lord, are being changed into his likeness from one degree of glory to another; for this comes from the Lord who is the Spirit. He personifies the photic and synaesthetic phenomena he and his fellow ecstatics experience during the peaks of nervous excitement, and calls them the Lord Jesus Christ. From them he speculates on a human conduct that would match the grandeur that attaches to their visionary experience.

Jiri

Quote:

Probably?

Is probably not, therefore also possible?

Are we sure that the only explanation for gospel references to details about Palestine being so plentiful and "mostly accurate" are that they must have been written before 100AD? Really?

This does not prove nonexistence, but it really doesn't do much for existence either.

How many pagan and Jews questioned the existence of any gods around the year 100?

dog-on · 12-18-2009, 06:05 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Solo

Quote:

Originally Posted by dog-on

If the gospel stories are in any way historical, why does Paul completely ignore the ministry of Jesus when making arguments, that would seem to be be easily answered by simply envoking Jesus' earthly ministry?

Paul himself confirms that he ignores the earthly ministry of Jesus : 1 Cr 2:2 For I decided to know nothing among you except Jesus Christ and him crucified.

Does this actually mean what you want it to mean?

Quote:

The reasons for that should be obvious: he disagreed with what Jesus preached (i.e. kingdom on earth) and what those who knew him continued to preach in his name.

Against their Jesus eschatology, he postulated one with Jesus as the risen Lord, who talked to Paul and those who agreed with his tenets, in their ecstasies.

Perhaps, but I don't see where this definitely needs an actual historical figure. Paul could simply be disagreeing with other flavors of soter cults, who themselves may also have had a revealed founder.

Of course,I favor a position that the texts have been significantly edited, though not very well, to de-Marcionize Paul and thus the friction between Paul and the Gospels.

Quote:

Why isn't the best answer simply that Paul was unaware of any earthly ministry of Jesus ? (if that's what you want to ask) I would say simply because it isn't.

The later gospels assert there was a historical ministry of Jesus and that Jesus was killed for it. I have no reason to argue with that. It seems probable. From that perspective I interpret Paul's silence as stemming from a disagreement over what Jesus actually taught or was remembered as teaching. He only agreed with the Nazarene following of Jesus on one substantial point: he believed like them that Jesus was 'from God'; he was sent. Unlike them he believed Jesus was sent to fulfil the law by transgressing it, to show through Paul's mission in Jesus' post-mortem that faith and holy living were superior to law.

The gospels say that Jesus died because it was God's plan for Jesus to die.

Quote:

No it isn't. Jesus is not seen by Paul as a historical figure. Paul's crew seeing the Lord is described in
2 Cr 3:18: And we all, with unveiled face, beholding the glory of the Lord, are being changed into his likeness from one degree of glory to another; for this comes from the Lord who is the Spirit. He personifies the photic and synaesthetic phenomena he and his fellow ecstatics experience during the peaks of nervous excitement, and calls them the Lord Jesus Christ. From them he speculates on a human conduct that would match the grandeur that attaches to their visionary experience.

Jiri

Well, I agree. Jesus is not seen by Paul as a historical figure.

Thanks.

spin · 12-18-2009, 07:06 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dog-on

Quote:

Originally Posted by Solo

Paul himself confirms that he ignores the earthly ministry of Jesus : 1 Cr 2:2 For I decided to know nothing among you except Jesus Christ and him crucified.

Does this actually mean what you want it to mean?

No, but he's been torturing it to make it say what he wants.

Quote:

Originally Posted by dog-on

Jesus is not seen by Paul as a historical figure.

That's as meaningful as saying that Jesus is not seen by Paul as an alpha male.

Paul didn't see anyone as a historical figure: the notion was not available to him, for you'd need an established discipline of history for such a notion. He may, or may not, have seen that Jesus was a real person though.

spin

dog-on · 12-18-2009, 07:18 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by spin

Quote:

Originally Posted by dog-on

Does this actually mean what you want it to mean?

No, but he's been torturing it to make it say what he wants.

Quote:

Originally Posted by dog-on

Jesus is not seen by Paul as a historical figure.

That's as meaningful as saying that Jesus is not seen by Paul as an alpha male.

Paul didn't see anyone as a historical figure: the notion was not available to him, for you'd need an established discipline of history for such a notion. He may, or may not, have seen that Jesus was a real person though.

spin

True, or at least he may have thought that Jesus' ghostly incarnation was real.

(My response there was simply a play on Jiri's comment saying the same thing.)

Toto · 12-18-2009, 09:12 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by GakuseiDon

Quote:

Originally Posted by Toto

Christopher Price is an evangelical Christian and an apologist who used to post here under the handle Layman, until he realized that he wasn't about to convert anyone.
...
Layman (Chris Price) is in fact a Christian apologist, not a disinterested scholar of history.

Can you point to any posts in this forum where Layman tried to convert people to Christianity? I don't remember reading one post where he did. Do you have any evidence for this?

Do you know the definition of an apologist? It is someone who defends the faith. Virtually everything Layman posted here was devoted to defending the truth of Christianity, with the ultimate aim of converting people or keeping Christians who visited here from losing their faith. Layman spoke of being a missionary at one time, and that is what missionaries do, because they read their bibles to call on them to convert others. They also may genuinely not want people to go to hell.

I understand there are some Christians who have decided that it's not cool to try to convert people, and besides, it usually doesn't work and is just annoying. Layman was not one of those.

Quote:

I agree. Evidence has to be primary. If there is no evidence, then it is natural to ask about motives.

And where there is evidence, you have to look at how ideology influences the interpretation of evidence.

Jeffrey Gibson · 12-18-2009, 09:47 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dog-on

Quote:
* Sixth, Wells and others seem to have advanced the nonhistoricity hypothesis not for objective reasons, but for highly tendentious, anti-religious purposes. It has been a weapon of those who oppose the Christian faith in almost any form, from radical Deists, to Freethought advocates, to radical secular humanists and activist atheists like Madalyn Murray O'Hair. They have correctly assumed that to prove this hypothesis would sound the death knell of Christianity as we know it, but the theory remains unproven.
Ad Hom...

How so? These are claims about what certain persons have done, not about the nature or character of any of the persons mentioned. Moreover, is there anything here regarding the claims about what the persons mentioned have done that is factually disputable?

Jeffrey

Solo · 12-18-2009, 10:42 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by spin

Quote:

Originally Posted by dog-on

Does this actually mean what you want it to mean?

No, but he's been torturing it to make it say what he wants.

spin, your analysis of the verse is completely useless. I have nothing more to add to what I have told you already. You are as pure as drivel snow, as the idiot said.

Jiri

ApostateAbe · 12-18-2009, 10:54 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Steven Carr

Quote:

Originally Posted by ApostateAbe

I wouldn't say that the evidence from Mara bar Serapion is evidence for the existence of Jesus (the date of the writing is ambiguous and it is a testimony only to the existence of the Christian myth about Jesus) but there is little doubt that the "wise king," who the Jews killed, was a reference to Jesus. If there was another relevant philosophical Jewish "king" that the Jews killed before the diaspora, then there would be significant doubt.

So the Jews killed Jesus?

And non-Christians then praised his 'laws', , regarded him as the King of the Jews, and compared him to Socrates and Pythagoras?

Yes, or at least one non-Christian did so.

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

12-18-2009, 05:08 AM	#71
steve_bnk Contributor Join Date: Sep 2008 Location: Seattle Posts: 27,602	The anti-HJ folks are exhibiting a form of dogmatic extremism. Any acknowlededgement of the possiblty of an HJ appears to lend credence to the Christians.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.