Freethought & Rationalism ArchiveThe archives are read only. |
08-09-2003, 01:18 AM | #91 | |
Banned
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: Dallas, Texas, USA
Posts: 1,734
|
Quote:
As though you would know! You are lucky I'm a christian. I'm nasty enough as is. :banghead: |
|
08-09-2003, 01:23 AM | #92 | |
Banned
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: Dallas, Texas, USA
Posts: 1,734
|
Re: Re: ahahahahaahhah
Quote:
ahahahaahahah, yea that's where all the examples of Jesus stories that differe those 11 points from before the fourth century are too. |
|
08-09-2003, 01:57 AM | #93 | |
Veteran Member
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: the reliquary of Ockham's razor
Posts: 4,035
|
Re: Re: Re: ahahahahaahhah
Quote:
best, Peter Kirby |
|
08-09-2003, 02:38 AM | #94 | |
Veteran Member
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: ""
Posts: 3,863
|
Quote:
At the very least, Pauls writings are not consistent as far as the HJ and MJ are concerned. Sometimes he talks of a being that can lead one to think he is talking of a HJ (born of woman) and Davidic descent. But these can and have been explained satisfactorily. The reason behind these, per Doherty, and which is also clear from Pauls writings is because he was basing his pronouncements on (a) Scriptural sources [prophecies] and (b) Revelation. Pauls pronouncements per HJ would have more force if Paul based his sources on actual eyewinesses to Jesus' life. But Paul does not. Even when he feels compelled to defend his claims, he does not seek any support from eyewitnesses. He only challenges the faith of his audience. Now, the questions are these: can the OT be relied upon to tell us the history that took place in the 1st Century? Two, can Pauls info based on revelation be regarded as historical in content? The question, IOW, to Layan and others is this: Where did Paul get his info concerning the so-called historical Jesus? - per the epistolary writings anyway. Can it be considered to be historically reliable? Is it based on historical sources? We have: (1) Analogies of saviours dying and resurrecting on the thirs day (like Inanna descended from heaven, past earth down to hell, she died and was resurrected by her father - just like Jesus. (2) These saviour figures had mothers - like Semele Dionysus mother. Paul shown no indication that he even knew of Mary - Jesus, mother. "Born of woman" indicated the channel through which Christ appeared. "Woman" is not Mary. To Layman: An analogy does not have to fit 100%. Thats why its an analogy. Almost all aspects of Jesus' life and death were borrowed from ancient cultures and interwoven through literary borrowings and midrash to make up the full story per the gospels. A MJ offers the best explanation for the preponderant silence concerning a HJ in the earliest christian sources. Outside the Gospels, NO early source points unequiviocaly to a HJ. All references are either weak, vague, inconclusive, or interpolated. Those are the facts on the ground. |
|
08-09-2003, 03:15 AM | #95 |
Veteran Member
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: ""
Posts: 3,863
|
It is important to remember that even if Doherty does not provide an example of a mythical being that was believed to have human descent, which he would do purely for the purposes of making Layman happy, it means absolutely nothing with regard to the strength of Dohertys thesis. Failure to obtain such an example cannot weaken his thesis.
Let me tell you why: 1. Because its tangential and therefore not central to his thesis 2. There is no historical evidence that Jesus actually was a descendant of David. To prove Jesus was a descendant of David, one would first prove that Jesus existed. Only then can one trace his lineage. What are the historical sources that we can rely on to trace Jesus' lineage? Whether or not Paul believed Jesus was a descendant of David is onely useful assuming that Jesus did indeed descend from that lienage. But if Paul was wrong, that further proves he based his belief on a supposed messianic prophecy. So, was Jesus a descendant of David? Which texts talk of Jesus' birth and conception? Problems in Defining Jesus familial Lineage 1. One would have to first declare the Gosels as ahistoric because they state Jesus was born from divine conception. But if one accepts virgin births, then one can rely on the gospels. And I doubt anyone here does that (do you Layman and Metacrock?). If one does not rely on the Gospels, one would have to go outside the Gospels. There is no HJ outside the Gospels . 2. If one accepts the story of Jesus but rejects the virgin birth and the resurrection, one would have to explain which methodology they use to separate fact from myth. One who accepts the gospel story would also have to explain the parallels one finds when examining the passion narrative and Philo's Against Flaccus and other literary sources. This would involve refuting arguments put forth in Harold Leidners The Fabrication of Christ Myth, and Robert Prices Of Myth and Men among others - not to mention Dohertys book, which to date no one has marshalled enough evidence to challenge it. 3. One would also have to set straight the synoptic problem and tell us which is the primary source for the gospels. Then determine it's historicity. 4. Either way, the mythicist will laugh all the way. Now, excuse me while I laugh: Mwaaahha hahahahahahahaa eehehehehehe <wipes away tears> |
08-09-2003, 03:25 AM | #96 |
Banned
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: USA
Posts: 3,794
|
Again, I ask, has Doherty responded to Layman's e-mail to him?
I mean . . . he did send one . . . did he not? --J.D. |
08-09-2003, 04:06 AM | #97 | |
Veteran Member
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: ""
Posts: 3,863
|
Quote:
|
|
08-09-2003, 05:09 AM | #98 |
Banned
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: USA
Posts: 3,794
|
Just to clarify, Doherty's e-mail was posted in order that he may be contacted to clarify the question regarding his work.
Since reams of bandwidth have been expended considering what he meant and what evidence he had, I had thought that anyone with a question would have taken the opportunity to e-mail him and save everyone a lot of bother. This was, of course, a logical assumption at the time. . . . --J.D. |
08-09-2003, 08:58 AM | #99 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: Alberta, Canada
Posts: 927
|
Quote:
Romans8:3 Darby "For what the law could not do, in that it was **weak through the flesh**, God, having sent his own Son, in likeness of **flesh of sin**, and for sin, has **condemned sin in the flesh**, Romans9:4-5a Darby "who are **Israelites** ... of whom are the fathers and **from whom, according to the flesh, Christ came** ..." Romans15:8 Darby "For I say that **Jesus Christ became a minister of [the] circumcision [JEWS, my note]** for [the] truth of God, to confirm the promises of the fathers;" Hebrews2:14 Darby "Since therefore **the children partake of blood and flesh, he [Jesus, my note] also, in like manner, took part in the same**," Galatians3:16 Darby "But to "Abraham" were the promises addressed, and **to his seed**: he does not say, And to seeds, as of many; but as of one, And to thy seed; **which is Christ**." Next, a seed of Abraham is a human person, that is one of the recipients of the letter: Galatians3:29 Darby "but if *ye* [are] of Christ, then **ye are Abraham's seed**, heirs according to promise." Galatians4:4b-5a Darby "God sent forth his Son, **come of woman**, come **under law** [as a Jew, my note], that he might redeem **those under law** [Jews, my note]" I challenge any myther to come up with explanations. Best regards, Bernard |
|
08-09-2003, 09:26 AM | #100 | ||
Veteran Member
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: Los Angeles, CA
Posts: 2,635
|
Re: Re: Re: Re: THREAD UPDATE
Quote:
Quote:
|
||
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
|