Freethought & Rationalism Archive

J-D · 09-20-2011, 01:05 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by archibald

Quote:

Originally Posted by J-D

If you think you can generate a fruitful discussion without ever saying in sufficiently plain language what the question is that you want to discuss, I think you're woefully mistaken. But it's your choice, of course.

No, J-D. I have said it in plain english. It's just not the question you appear to want it to be. It's a general question, which only makes the basic distinction between MJ and HJ. Or if you prefer, NEP (non-existent person, whether fictional, legendary or mythical) and EP (existent person). I've already said that I accept the limitations of that, because I'm more interested in the general investigative methods, criteria and standards used no matter what the specific scenarios. It doesn't of course rule out someone citing particular HJ scenarios or particular MJ ones, or saying (as has already been done) that there is a spectrum involved, and indeed probably you could split NEP and EP into various sub-categories on such a spectrum, with 10% factually accurate EP near one end and 90% factually accurate EP near the other. Or should I say, likely factually accurate, as far as can be estimated? :]

It seems to me that you would prefer if I said something like HJ scenario A1 is more likely than MJ scenario A2. Fair enough, but that is not the parameter I want to use. If you want to do a thread on that basis, you need to go and do one, and I can see why you would want to, honestly I can, because I've already said I take your point. Though it seems to me there are a different set of limitations to that in its own way. Not least that if there are, say, half a dozen basic MJ scenario variants and half a dozen HJ scenario variants, then you would need to do 36 threads to compare the HJs to the MJs, and my maths is not up to calculating how many more you would need to be able to also compare the MJs against each other and the HJs against each other.

Might I suggest a general thread where we discuss methods of comparison generally?

Whoops. That's what I am trying to do. :]

Nope. Wrong. Completely wrong. Sorry. I wasn't saying anything about lack of definition for the explanans. I was saying something about lack of definition for the explanandum.

You said that you wanted to discuss explanations for 'the appearance of the Jesus character in the extant texts'.

That's too vague to be worth discussing. But if you want to pursue it just the same, that's your business.

J-D · 09-20-2011, 01:10 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by aa5874

Quote:

Originally Posted by Iskander

...That Christianity started with the man Jesus is an explanation for the existence of Christianity. I know of no other explanation. Paul and the rest of it all is part of the Christian explanation....

You really don't know what you are talking about. You have ZERO sources of antiquity to support your UNSUBSTANTIATED claims .

Why are you posting here if you don't know that there are OTHER explanations that is supported by WRITTEN statements of antiquity and NOT imagination?

"Paul" of the NT is NOT an explanation for the start of Christianity.

In the NT, "Paul" NEVER made such an explanation, in fact, "Paul" claimed he PERSECUTED the Christian Faith which ELIMINATES "Paul" by his own words that he is an explanation for the start of Christianity. See Galatians 1

"Paul" was NOT the FIRST to preach Christ.

Secondly, "Paul" claimed there were already WRITTEN sources with the claim that Jesus died for the Sins of mankind, was buried and raised on the THIRD day. See 1 Cor.15

"Paul" was also NOT the first written source about Christianity.

Thirdly, "Paul" claimed he was the LAST in a LIST of over 500 people to SEE the resurrected Jesus. See 1 Cor.15

"Paul" was also NOT the First to SEE the resurrected Jesus.

In the NT, "Paul" was LAST and the LEAST among the apostles.

There IS ZERO sources of that can show "Paul" started Christianity.

Again, if you would CONSULT the actual written statements in the NT, you would see that Christianity was STARTED by the HOLY GHOST on the DAY of PENTECOST long AFTER Jesus Christ was DEAD, resurrected and ascended.

Jesus Christ was NOT around when Christianity started

That is the EXPLANATION of the CHURCH in its CANONIZED Acts of the Apostles.

Acts 2: -

Quote:

1 And when the day of Pentecost was fully come, they were all with one accord in one place...... And they were all filled with the Holy Ghost, and began to speak with other tongues, as the Spirit gave them utterance.......... and the same day there were added unto them about three thousand souls.....

Jesus Christ was NOT the START of Christianity.

People were FIRST called Christians when Jesus in the NT had ALREADY VANISHED from the face of the earth.

Ac 11:26 -

Quote:

And when he had found him, he brought him unto Antioch. And it came to pass, that a whole year they assembled themselves with the church, and taught much people. And the disciples were called Christians first in Antioch.

Jesus Christ did NOT START Christianity and he was NOT a man in the same books. Jesus Christ was described as the Child of a Ghost.

And further, to show that Jesus Christ did NOT start Christianity, in the very NT, on the day Jesus Christ died, PETER denied that he ever KNEW Jesus or was associated with him and the Jews REJECTED Jesus as Christ after he publicly declared for the VERY FIRST TIME to the Jews that he was Christ.

We are NOW dealing with the WRITTEN TRANSCRIPTS not with IMAGINATION.

If you have NO SOURCES for your UNSUBSTANTIATED claim that Christianity started with a man call Jesus then I don't want to hear your unsubstantiated rhetoric.

Please, get SOURCES, GET DATA from antiquity.

Jesus Christ was UNKNOWN to the Jews. Jesus Christ in the NT did NOT even tell his disciples he was Christ it was PETER who told Jesus.

Matthew 16

Quote:

And Simon Peter answered and said, Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God. 17 And Jesus answered and said unto him, Blessed art thou, Simon Barjona, for flesh and blood hath not revealed it unto thee, but my Father which is in heaven...

In the NT, Jesus did NOT even tell his OWN disciples he was Christ.

It was PETER.

You have no reliable historical sources to support your unsubstantiated claims. Please, get some reliable historical sources.

aa5874 · 09-20-2011, 01:36 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by J-D

Quote:

Originally Posted by aa5874

Quote:

Originally Posted by J-D

Quote:

Originally Posted by aa5874

Quote:

Originally Posted by Iskander

Christianity started with the man we call Jesus.

Not at all.

In the very NT, Christianity started with the Holy Ghost. See Acts 2

That's not a historically reliable source.

Who claimed Acts is historically reliable?

If it's not a historically reliable source, why are you referring to it?

How can one know what is in Acts of the Apostles if it is NOT FIRST read?

You are a NUISANCE.

Whether or NOT Acts of the Apostles is credible it contains WRITTEN STATEMENTS and it does NOT state Jesus Christ started Christianity.

People who claim Jesus was the START of Christianity have ZERO sources for their claims.

aa5874 · 09-20-2011, 01:42 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Iskander

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sheshbazzar

Quote:

Originally Posted by Iskander

There exists an explanation for the existence of Christianity and this explanation exists whether or not one is a Christian.

The explanation has nothing to do with being a Christian. It is the same explanation for everyone.

Agan, what you are promoting is only 'an' explanation.
That one being the old propaganda 'explanation' presented by, and so long promoted by Christianity.

It is an error to imply that this particular 'explanation' is either accepted by or believed by all.
This 'explanation' exists, but its mere existence is no indication that it is a true or at all accurate 'explanation'.
It is NOT a explanation that is employed or endorsed by all.
I, and many others, have found it to be a invalid 'explanation', one that is sorely lacking both in its depth of explanitory power, and in its credibility.
[If the alleged 'historical' JC 'figure' did not DO what is attributed to him, that imagined -unknown nobody who really did nothing- alleged individual is NOT the JC that is described within the NTs fictional texts.]

Whereas the naturalistic explanation recognises the literary and cultural evolvement of a legendary annointed 'Joshua' 'type figure'. A King, Priest, and Redeemer sucessor to Moses that would lead the people into 'The Promised Land' defeat all enemies, and rule over the Gentiles.
The 'Joshua' legends and midrashic tales provided the genesis of the NT texts, No flesh and blood person was ever needed, or ever existed.

I am not promoting anything.

That Jesus is an explanation for the existence of Christianity is what I am saying.

I am inviting the learned audience to provide another explanation for the existence of Christianity and I am doing this out of respect for the intellectual prowess of this forum and their presumed ability to satisfy legitimate human curiosity.

You should discard the unnecessary body armour and put on the thinking hat instead.

Well if you were NOT promoting propaganda then you would have PROVIDED the Sources of antiquity that support "your explanation".

All you keep saying is "Jesus is an explanation".

In the NT, Jesus Christ was a Child of a Ghost, the Word that was God and the Creator of heaven and earth.

The ACTUAL written statements FOUND in the EXTANT CODICES show that BELIEF in MYTHOLOGY is the EXPLANATION for Christianity just like other Religions.

In ACTS 2, It was AFTER the disciples were FILLED with a Ghost that they STARTED to Preach about Jesus when he had ALREADY VANISHED from the face of the earth and Peter had DENIED ever knowing Jesus Christ.

Iskander · 09-20-2011, 01:52 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by aa5874

Quote:

Originally Posted by Iskander

I am not promoting anything.

That Jesus is an explanation for the existence of Christianity is what I am saying.

I am inviting the learned audience to provide another explanation for the existence of Christianity and I am doing this out of respect for the intellectual prowess of this forum and their presumed ability to satisfy legitimate human curiosity.

You should discard the unnecessary body armour and put on the thinking hat instead.

Well if you were NOT promoting propaganda then you would have PROVIDED the Sources of antiquity that support "your explanation".

All you keep saying is "Jesus is an explanation".

In the NT, Jesus Christ was a Child of a Ghost, the Word that was God and the Creator of heaven and earth.

The ACTUAL written statements FOUND in the EXTANT CODICES show that BELIEF in MYTHOLOGY is the EXPLANATION for Christianity just like other Religions.

In ACTS 2, It was AFTER the disciples were FILLED with a Ghost that they STARTED to Preach about Jesus when he had ALREADY VANISHED from the face of the earth and Peter had DENIED ever knowing Jesus Christ.

aa5874

I have invited an explanation for the existence of Christianity.

I will, however, try to make my position clear to you:
Let me state plainly that I accept that Jesus was a real historical person. In my opinion , the difficulties arising from the denial of his existence, still voraciously maintained in small circles of traditionalist ‘ dogmatists ‘, far exceed those deriving from its acceptance

Roger Pearse · 09-20-2011, 02:05 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dog-on

Quote:

Originally Posted by Roger Pearse

Much the most likely explanation.

If all we had of Christianity was a stray mention in a single 5th century text, we would still tend to posit a single charismatic individual founder.

All the best,

Roger Pearse

Correct, in fact it is beyond any reasonable doubt that someone "founded" what we call Christianity.

The question, as always, is who.

This ought to remind us of the people who set out to prove that the Francis Bacon who wrote Shakespeare was not the one we all know but another otherwise unknown man of the same name.

All the best,

Roger Pearse

aa5874 · 09-20-2011, 02:08 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Iskander

aa5874

I have invited an explanation for the existence of Christianity.

I will, however, try to make my position clear to you:
Let me state plainly that I accept that Jesus was a real historical person. In my opinion , the difficulties arising from the denial of his existence, still voraciously maintained in small circles of traditionalist ‘ dogmatists ‘, far exceed those deriving from its acceptance

Your position explains NOTHING.

Billions of people BELIEVE Jesus was God Incarnate and the Word that was GOD based on the BIBLE.

Billions of people BELIEVE the NT Canon that Jesus was the Child of a Ghost.

What is YOUR position BASED on?

What CREDIBLE source of antiquity EXPLAINS your position?

And please, do not even attempt to play the numbers game, here.

Atheists have very LITTLE regards for QUANTITY.

Atheism was DERIVED by QUALITY of evidence.

What QUALITY sources do you have for your EXPLANATIONS about Jesus?

J-D · 09-20-2011, 02:15 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by aa5874

Quote:

Originally Posted by J-D

Quote:

Originally Posted by aa5874

Quote:

Originally Posted by J-D

Quote:

Originally Posted by aa5874

Quote:

Originally Posted by Iskander

Christianity started with the man we call Jesus.

Not at all.

In the very NT, Christianity started with the Holy Ghost. See Acts 2

That's not a historically reliable source.

Who claimed Acts is historically reliable?

If it's not a historically reliable source, why are you referring to it?

How can one know what is in Acts of the Apostles if it is NOT FIRST read?

If it not a historically reliable source, what difference does it make what is in it?

Quote:

Originally Posted by aa5874

You are a NUISANCE.

You are a bigger nuisance.

Quote:

Originally Posted by aa5874

Whether or NOT Acts of the Apostles is credible it contains WRITTEN STATEMENTS and it does NOT state Jesus Christ started Christianity.

People who claim Jesus was the START of Christianity have ZERO sources for their claims.

You have zero credible sources for your claims.

archibald · 09-20-2011, 02:17 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Toto

What I meant to write was that in the absence of evidence, historians leave the question of historicity as undecided. They don't construct scenarios where the existence is "probable" based on their subjective evaluation of the situation.

Quite honestly Toto, and no offense meant, but I don't think I can continue to debate this with you. It's as if we're speaking different languages.

I'm going to be straight with you and say that there are times when you seem like one of the most thoroughly rational, intelligent, evidenced-based, impartial people in this forum and others where your stance is so steeped in looking at things a certain skewed way that there seems little point in even talking to you. And the latter times are winning. I think I could find something in each of your replies to me in this thread which just plain doesn't make any sense, and the above paragraph is a perfect example. It's no more accurate or relevant than the first version. It is in fact, nonsense. Can you, for example, give me one example of a supposed person for whom there is an absence of evidence? No. Perhaps you meant an absence of a certain type of evidence? Well, in that case, what is your actual point? Historians generally do accept that Jesus was more likely to have existed than not. Why they do this might be a point of discussion. But the point is they most surely DO construct their views on the basis of probability, and despite what you say, they appear to do so by applying the same objective criteria as for any other person from ancient history. I am no authority on the academic study of ancient history, but this is my clear impression from having discussed the topic many times. Whether historians generally are right to come to this conclusion or not is another matter. They may be wrong.

I could also disagree with almost everything else you say. Not least because what you see as the shortcomings in Jesus' case are not shortcomings at all, by the standards of ancient historical evidence. Have you any idea how many figures we would have to consider likely not to have existed if we restricted ourselves to those who appeared to have left writings?

And your 'clear evidence from the gospels' has immediately turned to......pure speculation. It's incredible. I'm not saying you're wrong, not by any means, but if you have gone so far that you see 'pure speculation' as 'clear evidence'......

I think you and I should just agree to disagree. Quite possibly you find me as impossible to relate to as I do you. I wouldn't be surprised. It must be just a communication failure between us. I see only loggerheads.

Iskander · 09-20-2011, 02:17 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by aa5874

Quote:

Originally Posted by Iskander

aa5874

I have invited an explanation for the existence of Christianity.

I will, however, try to make my position clear to you:
Let me state plainly that I accept that Jesus was a real historical person. In my opinion , the difficulties arising from the denial of his existence, still voraciously maintained in small circles of traditionalist ‘ dogmatists ‘, far exceed those deriving from its acceptance

Your position explains NOTHING.

Billions of people BELIEVE Jesus was God Incarnate and the Word that was GOD based on the BIBLE.

Billions of people BELIEVE the NT Canon that Jesus was the Child of a Ghost.

What is YOUR position BASED on?

What CREDIBLE source of antiquity EXPLAINS your position?

And please, do not even attempt to play the numbers game, here.

Atheists have very LITTLE regards for QUANTITY.

Atheism was DERIVED by QUALITY of evidence.

What QUALITY sources do you have for your EXPLANATIONS about Jesus?

As in:

Christianity exists
Islam exists

Mohamed is an explanation for the existence of Islam
Jesus is an explanation for the existence of Christianity

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

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.