Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Toto · 07-20-2013, 02:01 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by outhouse

Quote:

Originally Posted by Toto

Yes - this is typical human behavior in war. People convince themselves that the gods will be on their side because their cause is virtuous, and throw themselves into disastrous situations.

Do you think anyone believed one man, a Galilean peasant, would overthrow the Roman army?

Or do you think it was written in later to build divinity?

You are taking a story about a humble Galilean who was crucified and rose from the dead, and assuming that the "humble" part was historical. I see no reason for this except it fits what you and some others want to believe.

Reza Aslan assumes that the crucifixion was historical, and therefore Jesus was an insurgent, and insurgents do tend to believe that magical forces will aid their cause.

So far,there is no good reason for assuming that any part of this story is historical as we understand that word today.

outhouse · 07-20-2013, 02:09 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Toto

So far,there is no good reason for assuming that any part of this story is historical as we understand that word today.

False

This is only your baseless assumption due to personal bias, and it does not reflect modern scholarships.

Quote:

You are taking a story about a humble Galilean who was crucified and rose from the dead, and assuming that the "humble" part was historical. I see no reason for this except it fits what you and some others want to believe.

The legends and mythology as written, deals with, "in general", a Galilean peasant's last week in life, his death and resurrection.

Context here is set by cultural anthropology and what defines a Galilean tekton. We also have later authors trying to cover this embarrassment up.

Debated, sure. But it fits a man from Nazareth better then anything else anyone has posited.

I think you did a poor job of dodging my question, you dont think one man against the Roman army is laughable, despite the mythilogical world they lived in.?

Toto · 07-20-2013, 02:33 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by outhouse

Quote:

Originally Posted by Toto

So far,there is no good reason for assuming that any part of this story is historical as we understand that word today.

False

This is only your baseless assumption due to personal bias, and it does not reflect modern scholarships.

You do not qualify as a mind reader. You have failed to identify any personal bias on my part. I have continually stated that I really don't care one way or another.

You also have failed to identify the "modern scholarships" [sic] that establish the historical value of the gospels - because you can't. It is only outdated scholarship that accepts the gospels as historical records.

This is a massive failure on your part. Please correct it.

Quote:

You are taking a story about a humble Galilean who was crucified and rose from the dead, and assuming that the "humble" part was historical. I see no reason for this except it fits what you and some others want to believe.

The legends and mythology as written, deals with, "in general", a Galilean peasant's last week in life, his death and resurrection.

Context here is set by cultural anthropology and what defines a Galilean tekton. We also have later authors trying to cover this embarrassment up.

Debated, sure. But it fits a man from Nazareth better then anything else anyone has posited.

I hope you are not trying to rely on the discredited criterion of embarrassment.

Quote:

I think you did a poor job of dodging my question, you dont think one man against the Roman army is laughable, despite the mythilogical world they lived in.?

I'm not dodging your question. I answered it. You just didn't like the answer. From a modern rationalist perspective, the idea of a peasant revolt against the Roman army is laughable, but you find these hopeless peasant revolts against superpowers all through history. All it takes is one deluded religious fanatic who thinks that a single act of violence will trigger god or the forces of history to come to his aid. I'm not going to take the time to find the references now, but you can find people even today who fit this pattern.

aa5874 · 07-20-2013, 02:57 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by outhouse

The legends and mythology as written, deals with, "in general", a Galilean peasant's last week in life, his death and resurrection...

The legends and mythology in the story of the character called Jesus does not deal with his last week in life.

In the Gospels according to Matthew and Luke, the story of Jesus is from his conception to his death and resurrection.

The story of Jesus, the Son of God, in gJohn covers at least 2-3 years or at least a time period of 3 passovers.

outhouse · 07-20-2013, 03:39 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Toto

You also have failed to identify the "modern scholarships" [sic] that establish the historical value of the gospels - because you can't. It is only outdated scholarship that accepts the gospels as historical records.

This is a massive failure on your part. Please correct it.

.

False again. Not all scholarships are apologetically inclined. And I have never followed those in any shape or form.

Quote:

From a modern rationalist perspective, the idea of a peasant revolt against the Roman army is laughable, but you find these hopeless peasant revolts against superpowers all through history.

Within Judaism, we have plenty of examples to draw from.

None have a account of a single man against a Empire. Not even a opologetic version states this as written.

Quote:

All it takes is one deluded religious fanatic who thinks that a single act of violence will trigger god or the forces of history to come to his aid. I'm not going to take the time to find the references now, but you can find people even today who fit this pattern

Understood.

But that is not what these legends or mythology are about. In general it is about a man who made the unltimate sacrifice for the common man.

Was he really a rebel or seditionist, it does look that way, but the context and definition of his actions do not fit a military action against Romans.

MrMacSon · 07-20-2013, 04:18 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Brendan Rizzo

.. But to assume that even those events in the Bible that have purely naturalistic explanations, such as Paul having been Jewish, must be fabricated is tantamount to disregard for the standards of evidence. No scholar, not even the atheists, are prepared to go that far and deny everything.

Quote:

Originally Posted by MrMacSon

I am prepared to be sceptical about everything: though not a historical or biblical scholar in an employed academic sense, I have an analytical forensic background with periods in academia, and have been following & engaged in discussion & evaluation of this for many years.

There is no evidence for Paul's background or 'origins' - there is nothing to verify the Pauline writings: they are variably disputed, and were at one stage fully disputed by the Dutch Radicals.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Brendan Rizzo

Sure, but why do you feel the need to deny that any of the original Christians were converted Jews? That's going a little too far, and every antisemite would love it if that were the case.

I don't feel the need to deny that any of the original Christians were converted Jews.

I don't know what the original Christians were and, because of the vagaries about exactly where it started and in what specific context, I doubt whether anyone could ever determine that.

I would suspect it had a nebulous beginning in one or two communities with mixed Jewish and Hellenic influences and developed & evolved over several years, if not several generations. The seeds of may have started before the 1st C. as a variation of a variation of some "messiahs" stories - story telling was widespread and parochial.

MrMacSon · 07-20-2013, 04:21 PM

As far as the alleged crucifixion of Jesus the Christ -

It was highly unusual to take a body down, and unheard of to put a crucified body in a tomb.

These proposals suggest an embellished if not fictitious story.

Toto · 07-20-2013, 04:37 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by outhouse

Quote:

Originally Posted by Toto

You also have failed to identify the "modern scholarships" [sic] that establish the historical value of the gospels - because you can't. It is only outdated scholarship that accepts the gospels as historical records.

This is a massive failure on your part. Please correct it.

.

False again. Not all scholarships are apologetically inclined. And I have never followed those in any shape or form.

This is completely nonresponsive. What scholarship are you talking about?

Quote:

...

Quote:

All it takes is one deluded religious fanatic who thinks that a single act of violence will trigger god or the forces of history to come to his aid. I'm not going to take the time to find the references now, but you can find people even today who fit this pattern

Understood.

But that is not what these legends or mythology are about. In general it is about a man who made the unltimate sacrifice for the common man.

Was he really a rebel or seditionist, it does look that way, but the context and definition of his actions do not fit a military action against Romans.

That's not the issue. But these last two paragraphs are too incoherent to answer.

Diogenes the Cynic · 07-21-2013, 10:30 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by outhouse

Do you think anyone believed one man, a Galilean peasant, would overthrow the Roman army?

Why did they think a shepherd could do it?

Quote:

Athronges, a person neither eminent by the dignity of his progenitors, nor for any great wealth he possessed. For he had been a mere shepherd, not known by anybody. But because he was a tall man, and excelled others in the strength of his hands, he was so bold as to set up for king. This man thought it so sweet a thing to do more than ordinary injuries to others, that, although he risked his life, he did not much care if he lost it in so great a design.
He had four brothers, who were tall men themselves, and were believed to be superior to others in the strength of their hands, and thereby were encouraged to aim at great things, and thought that strength of theirs would support them in retaining the kingdom. Each of these ruled over a band of men of their own (for those that got together to them were very numerous). They were every one of them also commanders; but when they came to fight, they were subordinate to him, and fought for him. After he had put a diadem about his head, he assembled a council to debate about what things should be done, and all things were done according to his pleasure. So, this man retained his power a great while; he was also called king, and had nothing to hinder him from doing what he pleased.
Together with his brothers, he slew a great many of both of Roman and of the king's forces, and managed matters with the like hatred to each of them. They fell upon the king's soldiers because of the licentious conduct they had been allowed under Herod's government; and they fell upon the Romans, because of the injuries they had so lately received from them. But in process of time they grew more cruel to all sorts of men, nor could anyone escape from one or other of these seditions, since they slew some out of the hopes of gain, and others from a mere custom of slaying men.
Once, they attacked a Roman company at Emmaus, soldiers who were bringing grain and weapons to the army, and fell upon Arius, the centurion, who commanded the company, and shot forty of the best of his foot soldiers. The other Romans panicked after this slaughter, left their dead behind them, and were saved by Gratus, who came to their assistance with the king's troops that he commanded. Now these four brethren continued the war a long while by such sort of expeditions, and they much grieved the Romans; but they did their own nation also a great deal of mischief.
Afterwards they were subdued; one of them in a fight with Gratus, another with Ptolemy; Herod Archelaus took the eldest of them prisoner; while the last of them was so dejected at the other's misfortune, and saw so plainly that he had no way now left to save himself, his army being worn away with sickness and continual labors, that he also delivered himself up to Archelaus, upon his promise and oath to God to preserve his life. But these things came to pass a good while afterward.
(Antiquities 17.278-284).

Jospehus lists several examples of attempted revolt led by guys like this. Sometimes they expected and promised that divine intervention would save them. It never did, but people still got their hopes up.

aa5874 · 07-22-2013, 12:08 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Diogenes the Cynic

Quote:

Originally Posted by outhouse

Do you think anyone believed one man, a Galilean peasant, would overthrow the Roman army?

Why did they think a shepherd could do it?

Quote:

Athronges, a person neither eminent by the dignity of his progenitors, nor for any great wealth he possessed. For he had been a mere shepherd, not known by anybody. But because he was a tall man, and excelled others in the strength of his hands, he was so bold as to set up for king. This man thought it so sweet a thing to do more than ordinary injuries to others, that, although he risked his life, he did not much care if he lost it in so great a design.
He had four brothers, who were tall men themselves, and were believed to be superior to others in the strength of their hands, and thereby were encouraged to aim at great things, and thought that strength of theirs would support them in retaining the kingdom. Each of these ruled over a band of men of their own (for those that got together to them were very numerous). They were every one of them also commanders; but when they came to fight, they were subordinate to him, and fought for him. After he had put a diadem about his head, he assembled a council to debate about what things should be done, and all things were done according to his pleasure. So, this man retained his power a great while; he was also called king, and had nothing to hinder him from doing what he pleased.
Together with his brothers, he slew a great many of both of Roman and of the king's forces, and managed matters with the like hatred to each of them. They fell upon the king's soldiers because of the licentious conduct they had been allowed under Herod's government; and they fell upon the Romans, because of the injuries they had so lately received from them. But in process of time they grew more cruel to all sorts of men, nor could anyone escape from one or other of these seditions, since they slew some out of the hopes of gain, and others from a mere custom of slaying men.
Once, they attacked a Roman company at Emmaus, soldiers who were bringing grain and weapons to the army, and fell upon Arius, the centurion, who commanded the company, and shot forty of the best of his foot soldiers. The other Romans panicked after this slaughter, left their dead behind them, and were saved by Gratus, who came to their assistance with the king's troops that he commanded. Now these four brethren continued the war a long while by such sort of expeditions, and they much grieved the Romans; but they did their own nation also a great deal of mischief.
Afterwards they were subdued; one of them in a fight with Gratus, another with Ptolemy; Herod Archelaus took the eldest of them prisoner; while the last of them was so dejected at the other's misfortune, and saw so plainly that he had no way now left to save himself, his army being worn away with sickness and continual labors, that he also delivered himself up to Archelaus, upon his promise and oath to God to preserve his life. But these things came to pass a good while afterward.
(Antiquities 17.278-284).

Jospehus lists several examples of attempted revolt led by guys like this. Sometimes they expected and promised that divine intervention would save them. It never did, but people still got their hopes up.

The story is actually about FIVE brothers--not a single person.

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

07-20-2013, 04:21 PM	#47
MrMacSon Senior Member Join Date: Mar 2012 Location: South Pacific Posts: 559	As far as the alleged crucifixion of Jesus the Christ - It was highly unusual to take a body down, and unheard of to put a crucified body in a tomb. These proposals suggest an embellished if not fictitious story.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.