Celsus

To all those attacking Vinnie:

I think we should allow Vinnie to finish his essay and have his say. I am quite willing to give him the benefit of the doubt until then, and I'm sure his essay will be interesting and worth the wait. Then we can see whether he has a sound case or otherwise.

Vinnie,

You are in the advantageous position of having seen your critics' arguments well before completion. Don't disappoint Peter or yourself.

Joel

joedad

I don't see it that way, not generally.

Maybe we're just euhemerists.

my emphasis

from this article:
http://www.encyclopedia.com/html/E/Euhemeru.asp

joe

keyser_soze

I SHOULD wait until the essay, but AGAIN....You may apply his statement to any genre INCLUDING religion(please show how this is only a genre thing, then show how it does not apply to christian belief systems after that). The fact that it applies to ALL genres kind of destroys the straw man you placed forward( that froto is the point, when it is only the EXAMPLE he set forth).

keyser_soze

Again, the methodology is the TOPIC in question, that you presented first I might add. We have now gone from Proof of jesus, to a deconstruction of mythological vs. historical. You posited that a particular methodology was valid. This methodology has been disproven by applying it to other works, thereby destroying it's validity as a usable tool. You are defending this tool, and I believe INTENTIONALLY disregarding the intent of the poster, instead making a straw man out of part of his argument. How is that not obfuscating the point?

Peter Kirby

There's no way that Paul could have failed to mention the entry of Jesus into Jerusalem in the extant letters? What's the reason behind that?

Is it your argument that the falsity of the miracle stories justifies the belief that all parts are false?

How do you show that Paul did not think of Jesus as being a human being?

best,
Peter Kirby

Vinnie

Vork didn't even begin to scratch the surface of the methodology. He and the rest you need to first demonstrate what Frodo Baggins has to do with the Jesus described in a host of sources in the firsy century Roman world. For the parallel to be accurate the Gospels must be fiction. Funny how I am accused of assuming what I should argue?

Vinnie

keyser_soze

No, he is not required to show any such thing! He is simply applying the methodology that YOU supplied via argument to prove that with the same framework ANY fictional character with multi author penning, and various ingredients = Historical character! And I again posit, that you can do it not only with the fictional froto baggins, since you seem to have him stuck in your craw for some reason, but you can do the exact same thing with other religions as well. Please demonstrate how the methodology that you proposed to use as proof cannot be used to verify the historocity of another religion's characters.

Why do you insist on trying to derail the point? Please address it, as many of us here are waiting for your defense of the methodology YOU held up.

Vinnie

When did I ever apply that in such a manner. Citation please.

Vinnie

Peter Kirby

This shows that you don't understand the principle. The correct question is: you eat food everyday, so how much evidence do we need that you ate food today? Or, you ate your brother's food twice last week, so how much evidence do we need that you were the perp this week--and how much more evidence would we need to show that it was I who hopped on a plane and stopped by just to eat your brother's breakfast?

Are you saying that extraordinary claims require no more evidence than ordinary ones? That the same strength evidence that shows my dog's name is Bandit could show that I have the power to fly unaided? (which evidence is my say-so)

You forgot the most important part. What story says that Dionysus was born anywhere but on earth?

Wrong. I think that the stories have Dionysus being born on earth to an actual human mother. For your case to hold, you would have to show that Dionysus was not thought to have been born to a human mother and that his birth was not thought to have taken place on earth.

As it is, the reference to being "born of a woman, born under the law" has the meaning that the birth of Jesus is ordinary. To interpret it as meaning that Jesus was not born to a human mother would be special pleading.

So you think Paul was making a prediction about the future?

Can you show that Plato used "born of a woman" meant appearing in a lower sphere? It seems that Plato is invoked not for what he said but rather as a universal antidote to a normal reading of Paul.

Show me the story where it says that the birth of Dionysus did not take place on earth. People today also believe in the heavens, but they don't imagine that everything happens there.

Your belief that Isaiah 7:14 was believed by Paul to be a messianic prophecy is based on no evidence whatsoever.

We are not talking about the historicity of the Old Testament. We are talking about whether Paul thought of Jesus as being a human being. The only thing that matters in this context is whether Paul thought of Abraham as being a human being on earth.

This is practically an admission that Paul accepted that Jesus was a human being, if he was following the Jewish beliefs about the Messiah, which certainly included being a human being.

Have you read Raymond Brown's An Introduction to New Testament Christology? He goes into some detail on how early Christians saw the nature of Christ.

Have you read my essay on the historicity of the empty tomb?

Neither did the Gospel of John. And the Gospel of Mark never mentions the name of the father of Jesus. It means squat when it is obvious that these people thought Jesus had parents.

And we know that everyone who believes in a human Jesus is morally unimpeachable.

If you trace the argument back, this started as a response to your claim that Paul "didnt know anything about a HJ." I have shown the passages where Paul indicates that Jesus was a man. For example, 1 Cor 15:21-22. "For since death came through a human being, the resurrection of the dead came also through a human being. For just as in Adam all die, so too in Christ shall all be brought to life." Do I really need to construct a syllogism to explain why I accept the normal meaning of such words?

So you are engaging in propaganda instead of seeking after the truth?

Platonism doesn't teach that people who refer to a man actually mean something else.

The evidence that it was not disputed is that early Christians fielded many objections but never one that the man Jesus didn't exist.

best,
Peter Kirby

keyser_soze

I direct you to


Where you forwarded said methodology, and then asked them to critique it... They simply applied the methodology to a random fictional character to show you that the methodology was invalid. Unless you are asking us to cite something else that you said of course. But I still stick with my original gut reaction....obfuscation in progress. You are saying that their applying it to another fictitious character doesn't count because it doesn't meet with your approval. That is not the case. Both characters are equally fictitious! Given another thousand years...who knows, maybe there will be a world wide faith in froto baggins, the poor elfin lad who sacrified so much for the good of the world. LIKE SO MANY OTHER RELIGIOUS SYMBOLS.