Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Steven Carr · 08-01-2002, 04:01 AM

BEDE
'Anyway, your first post about the darkness, like Intensity's on the feedings and pigs, is one long strawman. We are talking about the historical Jesus not miracle claims. Hence you post is irrelevant and you know it.'

No it isn't. You claimed that the situation of Hannibal was similar to Jesus-myth claims, and triumphantly pointed out that Carthiginan sources had been burned. This means it is not analogous at all.

But if you claim the miracles have nothing to do with the historical Jesus, then you can say that talking about miracle claims is irrelevant.

You also claim 'spirit of the son is the risen Christ who is the same person as Jesus who says "Abba'

This is a joke. You lambast me for putting forward 'strawmen' by conflating Gospel miracle claims with the historical Jesus , and then you conflate the resurrected Christ with the historical Jesus!

Secondly, do you want to claim that the risen Christ is the Spirit?

Thirdly, there is still nothing whatever in your new interpretation which lets you get away with your webb site having Paul confirm that Jesus prayed to God. Even your new rationalisation does not have Jesus praying!

A translation of 'betrayal' is , of course, begging the question. Paul shows no knowledge of a betrayal and uses the same word elsewhere exclusively to describe it as God handing over Jesus.

You write 'Third, the rulers of this age are clearly earthly as crucifying people can't be done by spirits.' More begging the question. Doherty makes the case that Paul regarded this crucifixion as happening in another world. And Paul quite clearly states that the powers of the age are supernatural (he uses astrological terms sometimes)

Steven Carr · 08-01-2002, 04:17 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Bede:
<strong>Lost Number,

Thanks you for your kind words but I'd rather not be called Beady. Bede was the first English historian, a great scholar and a fine saint which is why I have taken his name. Not sure how he'd react to Beady...

I am a History graduate student at the University of London so not quite a professional yet.

In fact, typical sceptical tactics is to work away at one tiny part of an argument and declare victory if they can show alternative possible interpretations. They ignore the big picture.
[/URL]</strong>

Part of the big picture can be found at
<a href="http://pages.ca.inter.net/~oblio/siltop20.htm" target="_blank">http://pages.ca.inter.net/~oblio/siltop20.htm</a>

The Lost Number · 08-02-2002, 02:04 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Steven Carr:
What is there to love about Bede's proof (using Christ myth standards) that Hannibal did not exist?

Bede writes 'In fact, although there is plenty of writing about Hannibal, none of it is contemporary and there is no archaeological evidence for him at all (not surprising given the Romans razed the city from whence he came). Furthermore he is not mentioned in any Carthaginian sources - incredible given he was supposed to be their greatest leader (there are no Carthaginian sources as the Romans burnt their city down)! '

How is this analogous?

We do have sources , such as Pliny the Elder and Philo of Alexandria, who should have spotted things like a 3 hour eclipse at the crucifixion.

It would only be analogous if Bede could show that Philo's works had been burned.

I am neither a Christian nor a theist, so I don't believe in a/ny diety/ies performing any form of miraculous acts. I believe such accounts are fabricated, including those certain stories about Jesus. I stated all of this (in so many words) when addressing Bede. So, I'm not sure why you bring it up. My opinion would clearly be that the 3 hour "darkness" was fictional (however AFAICT, there is a bit of evidence from archeo/astronomy that some sort of relatively minor eclipse took place around that time, in 29 A.D. I believe). However, this does not at all invalidate the idea that a non-supernatural, purely human historical Jesus existed.

Quote:

Bede writes 'as long we can invent a motive for fabrication we can assume that fabrication exists.' Bede is presumably implying that Christ-mythers just invent the idea that stories about Jesus have been fabricated, and it is wrong to assume that fabrication exists.

Yes, Bede is implying that. And s/he is right - Christ-mythers just come up with any "fabrication", outrageous conspiracy theory-type idea to "explain" away evidence that Jesus existed, and yes, it is wrong to assume that fabrication exists when there is no good reason for it, as is the case with many (though by no means all) of the Christ-mythers absolute and unchanging, baseless claims of it's prevelance.

Quote:

So Bede thinks there has been no fabrication about Jesus! Perhaps I could point him to the Infancy Gospels, the Gospel of Truth, etc etc.

We can certainly assume that fabrication about Jesus exists. In fact, Christians agree with Christ-mythers that Christians fabricated stories about Jesus.

So Bede's analogies are the usual desperate straw-men arguments, by somebody who cannot give us a methodology to tell us what is fact and what is fiction in the Gospels.

Of course Bede is incorrect - fabrications about Jesus clearly exist in some form. The miracle claims about Jesus are incomprehensibly unreliable & physically impossible, and the philosophical/moral claims are logically impossible (meaning that it would be logically impossible for a diety such as Jesus to do some of the things that he did). Christ mythers are right about that. However, they assume that there has been nothing at all but fabrications about Jesus, which they are also incorrect in stating.

Quote:

Bede would have a better analogy if he could find a fanatical supporter of Hannibal, writing 15-30 years after his death, who wants to tell people about Hannibal ,as a matter of life and death urgency, but never gives any details of what Hannibal did. An easy task for Bede.

And what if he made certain claims about Hannibal that he, in his state of mad devotion and praise, would clearly never fabricate because it would either be a considerable waste of time and resources to do so, or would negatively affect his cause? What if there were independent evidence for the existence of this person being preached about? These "what ifs" are at the very least highly likely to be true in the case of Jesus.

08-02-2002, 03:26 AM

Lost Number,

Steven was just being an idiot when he claimed I said there is no fabrication about Jesus. I did not and have not made any such claim. I am perfectly happy to admit that parts of the canonical New Testament are mythical let alone the apocryphal writings. But, as you rightly say, the Christ mythers believe that everything about Jesus is fabrication, an unjustifiable claim.

Yours

Bede (who's a bloke)

<a href="http://www.bede.org.uk" target="_blank">Bede's Library - faith and reason</a>

Vorkosigan · 08-02-2002, 03:49 AM

....the Christ mythers believe that everything about Jesus is fabrication, an unjustifiable claim.

....and believers think Jesus rose from the dead. At least we're not in violation of natural law....

As for "unjustifiable:"

Crossan:
"I do not think, after two hundred years of experimentation, that there is any way, acceptable in public discourse or scholarly debate, by which you can go directly into the great mound of the Jesus tradition and separate out the historical Jesus layer from all later strata."

Vorkosigan

08-02-2002, 04:19 AM

It's a shame then that Crossan wasted so much time writing a long book doing exactly what he claims is impossible. And just because Crossan says something doesn't make it true. Bultmann was as wrong in his own time.

Anyway, I wrote a long essay explaining methodology and theory in HJ studies. Nothing is set in stone but neither is it all worthless. Sander's list of definite facts remains pretty definite and key's into much of Crossan's "The Historical Jesus". That Crossan lost the plot later doesn't detract from the value of his earlier work.

Besides, you have shown a propensity to believe anti-Christian mythology such as the Pius XII Nazi legend, priests hunting cats etc with much less evidence than we have for Jesus's cricifixion under Pilate. Your scepticism is selective to say the least.

Yours

Bede

<a href="http://www.bede.org.uk" target="_blank">Bede's Library - faith and reason</a>

atrahasis · 08-02-2002, 05:43 AM

Lost Digit
Yes, Bede is implying that. And s/he is right - Christ-mythers just come up with any "fabrication", outrageous conspiracy theory-type idea to "explain" away evidence that Jesus existed
Please provide some evidence for this outrageous accusation, otherwise, retract the statement.

and yes, it is wrong to assume that fabrication exists when there is no good reason for it, as is the case with many (though by no means all) of the Christ-mythers absolute and unchanging, baseless claims of it's prevelance.
Give a clear example of a case where a christ-myther is claiming that fabrication exists, where there is none and explain why the atheists claim it is fabricated.
If you can not, apologise.

Of course Bede is incorrect - fabrications about Jesus clearly exist in some form
Like which one?

Bede
Steven was just being an idiot when he claimed I said there is no fabrication about Jesus
Do you always have a problem suppressing the senseless impulse to call people who have different views from yours as idiots?
What kind of picture are you trying to project when you abuse people like this?

the Christ mythers believe that everything about Jesus is fabrication, an unjustifiable claim.
Christ mythers do NO such thing. Misrepresenting the views of christ mythers will not help anyone here. You are promulgating ignorance about issues. How do you know what Christ mythers believe? Is there a particular site you visit? A book? Or are you just making blanket generalizations?

[ August 02, 2002: Message edited by: Black Moses ]</p>

Vinnie · 08-02-2002, 08:06 AM

Since it came up, lets not forget the apparent geography error in Mark 5.

Quote:

There is a major geographical problem in Mark's location of the scen wheree the pigs can run down the embankment and drown in the sea. Geresa is a site over thirty miles from the Sea of Galilee, and the alternative reading Gadara is no real help since that is about six miles from the sea.
Brown, p.134 n.17 Intro to NT

Vinnie

Vinnie · 08-02-2002, 08:40 AM

Quote:

Give a clear example of a case where a christ-myther is claiming that fabrication exists,

Here ya go:
<a href="http://www.geocities.com/ilgwamh/brotherofthelord.html" target="_blank">http://www.geocities.com/ilgwamh/brotherofthelord.html</a>

Vinnie

Ted Hoffman · 08-02-2002, 09:37 AM

Ilgwamh,
Thanks for that excellent link. It has a very strong argument for the historicity of James the brother of Jesus.
About James, the reference in Antiquities 20 has been questioned by me included. What I would like to know is, are you familiar with the arguments "mythers" raise against the authenticity of Antiquities 20? If so, what are the weaknesses of those arguments?
Are you also familiar with Pauls meaning of the word "brother"?
Are you also aware that the fact that a passage or phrase appears in the writings of a particular writer does NOT in itself mean that that writer wrote that phrase/ passage himself?

Are you aware that there are christian scholars who agree that Antiquities 18 got interpolated?

Is the fact that christ mythers dispute the authenticity of some passages enough to make the claim that "the Christ mythers believe that everything about Jesus is fabrication"?

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

08-01-2002, 04:01 AM	#31
Steven Carr Veteran Member Join Date: Jul 2001 Location: England Posts: 5,629	BEDE 'Anyway, your first post about the darkness, like Intensity's on the feedings and pigs, is one long strawman. We are talking about the historical Jesus not miracle claims. Hence you post is irrelevant and you know it.' No it isn't. You claimed that the situation of Hannibal was similar to Jesus-myth claims, and triumphantly pointed out that Carthiginan sources had been burned. This means it is not analogous at all. But if you claim the miracles have nothing to do with the historical Jesus, then you can say that talking about miracle claims is irrelevant. You also claim 'spirit of the son is the risen Christ who is the same person as Jesus who says "Abba' This is a joke. You lambast me for putting forward 'strawmen' by conflating Gospel miracle claims with the historical Jesus , and then you conflate the resurrected Christ with the historical Jesus! Secondly, do you want to claim that the risen Christ is the Spirit? Thirdly, there is still nothing whatever in your new interpretation which lets you get away with your webb site having Paul confirm that Jesus prayed to God. Even your new rationalisation does not have Jesus praying! A translation of 'betrayal' is , of course, begging the question. Paul shows no knowledge of a betrayal and uses the same word elsewhere exclusively to describe it as God handing over Jesus. You write 'Third, the rulers of this age are clearly earthly as crucifying people can't be done by spirits.' More begging the question. Doherty makes the case that Paul regarded this crucifixion as happening in another world. And Paul quite clearly states that the powers of the age are supernatural (he uses astrological terms sometimes)

08-02-2002, 03:26 AM	#34
Bede Guest Posts: n/a	Lost Number, Steven was just being an idiot when he claimed I said there is no fabrication about Jesus. I did not and have not made any such claim. I am perfectly happy to admit that parts of the canonical New Testament are mythical let alone the apocryphal writings. But, as you rightly say, the Christ mythers believe that everything about Jesus is fabrication, an unjustifiable claim. Yours Bede (who's a bloke) <a href="http://www.bede.org.uk" target="_blank">Bede's Library - faith and reason</a>

08-02-2002, 03:49 AM	#35
Vorkosigan Contributor Join Date: Jan 2001 Location: Barrayar Posts: 11,866	....the Christ mythers believe that everything about Jesus is fabrication, an unjustifiable claim. ....and believers think Jesus rose from the dead. At least we're not in violation of natural law.... As for "unjustifiable:" Crossan: "I do not think, after two hundred years of experimentation, that there is any way, acceptable in public discourse or scholarly debate, by which you can go directly into the great mound of the Jesus tradition and separate out the historical Jesus layer from all later strata." Vorkosigan

08-02-2002, 04:19 AM	#36
Bede Guest Posts: n/a	It's a shame then that Crossan wasted so much time writing a long book doing exactly what he claims is impossible. And just because Crossan says something doesn't make it true. Bultmann was as wrong in his own time. Anyway, I wrote a long essay explaining methodology and theory in HJ studies. Nothing is set in stone but neither is it all worthless. Sander's list of definite facts remains pretty definite and key's into much of Crossan's "The Historical Jesus". That Crossan lost the plot later doesn't detract from the value of his earlier work. Besides, you have shown a propensity to believe anti-Christian mythology such as the Pius XII Nazi legend, priests hunting cats etc with much less evidence than we have for Jesus's cricifixion under Pilate. Your scepticism is selective to say the least. Yours Bede <a href="http://www.bede.org.uk" target="_blank">Bede's Library - faith and reason</a>

08-02-2002, 05:43 AM	#37
atrahasis Regular Member Join Date: Mar 2002 Location: South of Sahara Posts: 216	Lost Digit Yes, Bede is implying that. And s/he is right - Christ-mythers just come up with any "fabrication", outrageous conspiracy theory-type idea to "explain" away evidence that Jesus existed Please provide some evidence for this outrageous accusation, otherwise, retract the statement. and yes, it is wrong to assume that fabrication exists when there is no good reason for it, as is the case with many (though by no means all) of the Christ-mythers absolute and unchanging, baseless claims of it's prevelance. Give a clear example of a case where a christ-myther is claiming that fabrication exists, where there is none and explain why the atheists claim it is fabricated. If you can not, apologise. Of course Bede is incorrect - fabrications about Jesus clearly exist in some form Like which one? Bede Steven was just being an idiot when he claimed I said there is no fabrication about Jesus Do you always have a problem suppressing the senseless impulse to call people who have different views from yours as idiots? What kind of picture are you trying to project when you abuse people like this? the Christ mythers believe that everything about Jesus is fabrication, an unjustifiable claim. Christ mythers do NO such thing. Misrepresenting the views of christ mythers will not help anyone here. You are promulgating ignorance about issues. How do you know what Christ mythers believe? Is there a particular site you visit? A book? Or are you just making blanket generalizations? [ August 02, 2002: Message edited by: Black Moses ]</p>

08-02-2002, 09:37 AM	#40
Ted Hoffman Veteran Member Join Date: Feb 2001 Location: "" Posts: 3,863	Ilgwamh, Thanks for that excellent link. It has a very strong argument for the historicity of James the brother of Jesus. About James, the reference in Antiquities 20 has been questioned by me included. What I would like to know is, are you familiar with the arguments "mythers" raise against the authenticity of Antiquities 20? If so, what are the weaknesses of those arguments? Are you also familiar with Pauls meaning of the word "brother"? Are you also aware that the fact that a passage or phrase appears in the writings of a particular writer does NOT in itself mean that that writer wrote that phrase/ passage himself? Are you aware that there are christian scholars who agree that Antiquities 18 got interpolated? Is the fact that christ mythers dispute the authenticity of some passages enough to make the claim that "the Christ mythers believe that everything about Jesus is fabrication"?

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.