Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
3 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 13/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   The Existence of Jesus Christ
ramoss
Member (Idle past 612 days)
Posts: 3228
Joined: 08-11-2004


Message 241 of 378 (221109)
07-01-2005 9:01 AM
Reply to: Message 240 by robinrohan
07-01-2005 3:36 AM


Re: The style of the New Testament
Only from a logical point of view. Just because something makes a claim doesn't mean that claim is true. Just because of work refers to a real place or event doesn't mean that the other parts of that work are phyisically true.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 240 by robinrohan, posted 07-01-2005 3:36 AM robinrohan has not replied

robinrohan
Inactive Member


Message 242 of 378 (221116)
07-01-2005 10:06 AM
Reply to: Message 238 by lfen
07-01-2005 3:13 AM


Re: The style of the New Testament
Question is was the Jesus a historical person, or a mystical experience Paul and others had of a spiritual person.
By this reasoning, why stop with Jesus? Why may not Paul be fictitious as well?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 238 by lfen, posted 07-01-2005 3:13 AM lfen has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 244 by lfen, posted 07-01-2005 10:42 AM robinrohan has replied

robinrohan
Inactive Member


Message 243 of 378 (221122)
07-01-2005 10:40 AM


To me it makes much more sense to think that Jesus was a local leader of a sect, whose followers had come to believe was a messiah. When he died, it was a bitter disappointment, so they came up with a reason as to why he died--as a ransom to save us from sin. What was an off-beat Jewish sect gradually separated from Judaism altogether.
It makes more sense to think that than to think that this story of the historical Jesus is totally fictitious and that non-Biblical references are all doctored up.

Replies to this message:
 Message 248 by Kapyong, posted 07-01-2005 8:18 PM robinrohan has replied

lfen
Member (Idle past 4677 days)
Posts: 2189
From: Oregon
Joined: 06-24-2004


Message 244 of 378 (221124)
07-01-2005 10:42 AM
Reply to: Message 242 by robinrohan
07-01-2005 10:06 AM


Re: The style of the New Testament
There is at least one person IIRC who asserts that Paul was created by Eusubius. Earl Doherty is satisfied with the evidence that Paul existed. However he doesn't accept that every epistle attributed to Paul was written by him, nor does he accept that Paul wrote Acts. I've read a few scholars who believe Acts was written by the author of Luke.
If Paul's writing are what they appear to be, to wit, the earliest Christian writings, they introduce some puzzling questions. Paul has only a few mentions of the historical details of the life of Jesus. Paul's Jesus is overwelmingly something he experiences in a mystical or spiritual sense. When Paul visits Jerusalem he makes no mention that the Christ he is preaching recently lived and taught there as a man. Paul doesn't mention his God was crucified there nor risen there.
Yes, there are some ambiguous references that Christians take to mean Paul is referring to an earthly man. You might check Doherty's The Jesus Puzzle site to see the arguments he makes that Paul was talking of a Christ whose sacrifice was in a spiritual realm and the Paul is not talking about an earthly human at all. The earthly Jesus was a later developement and the gospels written as a midrash to illustrate the OT basis of the Christ became the basis of an earthly life for Jesus.
The tiny shreds of possible historical references in Paul could point to an earthly teacher, one who possibly experienced an Awakening like the Buddha but who was killed before he could fully impart his teachings. This teacher's life and death could be the basis that later legends embellished into the Gospels. Keep in mind that Mark's purpose is to demonstrate the OT basis of the new Christian sect. The OT prophecies are the basis for the biography. It is not biography as we know it but rather an explication of scripture to demonstrate that his life was the fulfillment of OT prophecy.
Anyway, I do think you might find Doherty's site interesting. I do.
http://pages.ca.inter.net/~oblio/home.htm
lfen

This message is a reply to:
 Message 242 by robinrohan, posted 07-01-2005 10:06 AM robinrohan has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 246 by robinrohan, posted 07-01-2005 11:50 AM lfen has not replied

Jabez1000
Inactive Member


Message 245 of 378 (221129)
07-01-2005 10:59 AM
Reply to: Message 230 by Kapyong
07-01-2005 12:13 AM


Re: The Greatest Conspiracy Theory Ever Sold
Gone with the Wind includes historical places and things that are now destroyed.
Therefore according to your argument, Gone with the Wind is a true story.
James Bond novels are written in the 1st person.
Therefore according to your argument, James Bond is a real.
Jabez - you're analogies are ludicrous; you're not comparing apples and oranges; more like apples and daisies. Let me explain the difference between one of the stories you've mentioned and the gospels. Everyone knows that James Bond is a fictional character and that the author is Ian Fleming. In the movie Diamonds are Forever the character Willard White is based on Howard Hughes - EVERYONE KNOWS THIS!!! If the movie came out several years after Howard Hughes died instead of before he died no one would claim that Willard White is a real person. Fleming's stories were written in the twentieth century and we can easily find documentation if anyone tried to convince people that James Bond was a real person and started a religion based on him.
Previously you said
"The Jews only found out about the Gospel stories long long after the events.
When they DID find out, they made all sorts of critical comments and claims and stories about him.
It just never occured to him that he never existed."
Prove it! You claim that it's "rubbish" that the Jews who wrote the MT changed Psalm 22:16 to "like a lion" rather than pierced. The only other possiblity is that it was a scribal error and I give that about one chance in a thousand considering the verse in question. Since you claim this conclusion is rubbish and want proof then prove that sometime in the late first century or early second century the stories of Christ were known to be myths and suddenly became accepted as facts. Your argument completely depends on your unsubstantiated view that the gospels did not exist until the second century. I have seen that website for which you gave a link and am not impressed but will respond to one thing there:
"Helms states, "we need to note that part of the purpose of Irenaeus was to attack the teachings of Cerinthus, a gnostic Christian teacher who lived in Ephesus at the end of the first century" (op. cit., p. 162)."
It could also be said that the purpose of Irenaeus was to defend the gospels. Commmenting on 2 John 7 in his Word Pictures in the New Testament, the highly respected Greek Scholar A.T. Robertson said "Jesus Christ coming in the flesh." Present middle participle of erxomai treating the Incarnation as a continuing fact which the Docetic Gnostics flatly denied."
Some people claim that John and Paul both wrote in a way that promoted gnosticism but if they do a little research they will realize this is not the case. John lived in Ephesus and used Greek terms like 'Logos' because he was using the Greek language to show them who Jesus is. Philo also used the term Logos but that didn't make him a gnostic. If it is your view that Paul's letters were written to promote the gnostic point of view I suggest you do some research into his use of the term Pleroma.
Speaking of Irenaeus you said
"Yes he did.
Can you explain why YOU think this fable proves anything about the authorship of G.John?"
Jabez - why do you think that Against Heresies was a fable? Irenaeus knew Polycarp and there is some debate of whether or not Polycarp was a disciple of John's but Irenaeus wrote that Polycarp knew John. Also, I've read that Ireneaus referred to John as "the beloved disciple" once or twice but wasn't able to find references.
What on earth do you think this has to do with proving it was written by apostle John?
Everyone who lived in the region would know of the area!
5 Romans legions were in the region - 1000s of people knew the sights.
Do you REALLY think this proves ANYTHING?
Seriously?
Jabez - it proves that the author was not (as some people claim) a Greek but rather that he was well aware of the Judean topography and, more than that, he wrote of things that would have been in ruins when Jerusalem was destroyed in 70 A.D. Those who believe that this wasn't written until the second century are wrong. I have provided strong evidence that it was written before 70 A.D. - you can choose to believe it or not to but the liberal scholars, atheists and skeptics who think that the gospel of John wasn't written until the middle of the second century are wrong.
This message has been edited by Jabez1000, 07-01-2005 11:04 AM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 230 by Kapyong, posted 07-01-2005 12:13 AM Kapyong has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 249 by Kapyong, posted 07-01-2005 8:43 PM Jabez1000 has not replied

robinrohan
Inactive Member


Message 246 of 378 (221142)
07-01-2005 11:50 AM
Reply to: Message 244 by lfen
07-01-2005 10:42 AM


Re: The style of the New Testament
Anyway, I do think you might find Doherty's site interesting. I do.
Thanks, Ifen. It is very interesting and a lot of it makes sense to me. But somewhere along the line, somebody had to write a "novel" by Doherty's reasoning. Here it is from Doherty:
What did Mark do? He crafted a ministry which moved from Galilee to Jerusalem, now the site of Jesus' death. He virtually re-invented the Apostles out of early, now-legendary figures in the Christ movement; they served mostly instructional purposes. He brought into the Jesus orbit all the figures and concepts floating about in the Christian air, like Son of God, Messiah, Son of David, the apocalyptic Son of Man.
Most important of all, he had to craft the story of Jesus' passion. Some suggest that Mark used an earlier, more primitive fashioning of Jesus' trial and execution, one John later used as well. Others think that all the famous elements of our passion story are purely Markan inventions: the scene in Gethsemane, Judas the betrayer, the denial by Peter, the actual details of Jesus' trial and crucifixion, the story of the empty tomb. Considering that no concrete evidence surfaces in the record of any pre-Markan passion story, the second option is the most likely. We owe the most enduring tale Western culture has produced to the literary genius of Mark.
So did Mark believe the story he wrote? Apparently not, since he made it up. So it's an intentional fraud?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 244 by lfen, posted 07-01-2005 10:42 AM lfen has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 251 by Kapyong, posted 07-01-2005 8:47 PM robinrohan has replied

Kapyong
Member (Idle past 3442 days)
Posts: 344
Joined: 05-22-2003


Message 247 of 378 (221262)
07-01-2005 8:08 PM
Reply to: Message 240 by robinrohan
07-01-2005 3:36 AM


Re: The style of the New Testament
Greetings,
No.
I merely showed that YOUR argument,
when applied to documents which were obviously NOT true,
(e.g. ancient myths, or even modern historical novels)
claims these documents were true !
This showed your argument is false.
Of course, you ignore this, same as you ignore all my arguments.
I did describe the Gospels as LITERATURE, because I want to capture the idea that it is a finely crafted piece of creative writing which is deeply rooted in the culture and stories of the milieu.
It's not really a novel - although it shares some sinmilarities with a novel. Indeed one the very earliest novels was written just before the Gospels, and it climaxes with an EMPTY TOMB scene - Chariton's Chaereas and Callirhoe. Just like the G.Mark ended with an empty tomb climax (before the ending was added.)
It's not exactly fiction - although the author does clearly craft much of it - like Isis and Osiris is crafted, like Shakespeare is crafted, like the Gita is crafted, like Mallory's King Arthur was crafted.
G.Mark is a work of art, crafted as midrash from the OT, and also echoing the popular son-of-god legends.
It was one of the greatest acts of creative genius of all time.
Let me predict...
You will never deal with the many points I have adduced here.
Instead you will go on and on picking nits
about whether its a novel, or whether its a fraud.
As if you have caught me out in some error.
Please show me I'm wrong in this :-)
Lets get back to the main issues.
My arguments :
* the Gospels and their stories were un-known, even to Christians, until a CENTURY or so after the alleged events.
* there is no contemporary evidence for Jesus of Nazareth.
* the Gospel of Mark was not written by a local, but probably in Rome - by a person un-known
* G.Luke and G.Matthew were copied largely from G.Mark, by persons unknown
* G.John is so late and variant that it cannot be history either, also not by an eye-witness.
* None of the NT documents were written by anyone who met a physical historical Jesus of Nazareth.
Iasion

This message is a reply to:
 Message 240 by robinrohan, posted 07-01-2005 3:36 AM robinrohan has not replied

Kapyong
Member (Idle past 3442 days)
Posts: 344
Joined: 05-22-2003


Message 248 of 378 (221264)
07-01-2005 8:18 PM
Reply to: Message 243 by robinrohan
07-01-2005 10:40 AM


Greetings,
quote:
It makes more sense to think that than to think that this story of the historical Jesus is totally fictitious
Once again,
you completety fail to understand the argument.
Please take the time to READ and GRASP the issues.
No-one said "totally fictitious".
The Jesus character was mined from the OT.
Early christians believed the story of Jesus had been newly revealed and could be seen in re-interpretations of the OT (this process is called midrash.)
Paul described the Jesus story "according to the scriptures"
This is like describing the Arthur story as "according to the Mallory"
Mark crafted a new Jesus story based on the warp of Paul's writing, and the weft of the OT stories such as Elijah.
No-one claimed it was a "fraud".
Sadly, you keep saying "it's not a fraud",
as if my argument claims it IS a fraud.
No matter how many times I point this out,
I don't think robin will ever grasp the issue.
quote:
and that non-Biblical references are all doctored up.
No-one claimed this.
You just made it up.
Robin,
you have shown you don't understand these issues and arguments at all.
May I politely suggest you actually study the issues so you can follow the arguments properly?
Iasion

This message is a reply to:
 Message 243 by robinrohan, posted 07-01-2005 10:40 AM robinrohan has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 250 by robinrohan, posted 07-01-2005 8:45 PM Kapyong has not replied

Kapyong
Member (Idle past 3442 days)
Posts: 344
Joined: 05-22-2003


Message 249 of 378 (221267)
07-01-2005 8:43 PM
Reply to: Message 245 by Jabez1000
07-01-2005 10:59 AM


Re: The Greatest Conspiracy Theory Ever Sold
Greetings,
quote:
you're analogies are ludicrous; you're not comparing apples and oranges; more like apples and daisies.
It wasn't an analogy.
I showed that your argument,
when applied to obviously not true documents,
supposedly "proved" them true!
This shows your argument is false.
If you like, I will chose more analogous documents then :
* the Golden Ass of Apuleis - written in the same period as the Gospels, with historical figures as well as magical happenings - just like the Gospels.
* Chariton's Chaereas and Callirhoe - written just before the Gospels, with historical figures as well as magical happenings - just like the Gospels - even climaxing with a EMPTY TOMB scene!
* the Illiad - many historical places etc - as well as magic.
* Plutarch's Isis and Osiris - written in the same period as the Gospels, with historical figures as well as magical happenings - just like the Gospels.
So,
do you believe these documents are all true?
According to the argument YOU adduced they are.
Do you stand by that argument?
quote:
Prove it! You claim that it's "rubbish" that the Jews who wrote the MT changed Psalm 22:16 to "like a lion" rather than pierced.
What ?
YOU made the claim,
I asked YOU to prove it.
You FAILED to provide any evidence at all !
Then you have the gall to ask me to prove a negative!
This is nonsense.
It's YOUR CLAIM, then YOU prove it.
My prediction -
You will never provide any evidence for this claim.
quote:
It could also be said that the purpose of Irenaeus was to defend the gospels.
Yup.
One and a half CENTURIES after the alleged events,
Irenaeus is the FIRST to name the four Gospels.
He was the one who said there MUST BE FOUR because there are four winds and four cherubs etc. - and you think this is historical proof? Arguments about four winds and four cherubs? What a laugh.
quote:
Why do you think that Against Heresies was a fable? Irenaeus knew Polycarp and there is some debate of whether or not Polycarp was a disciple of John's but Irenaeus wrote that Polycarp knew John. Also, I've read that Ireneaus referred to John as "the beloved disciple" once or twice but wasn't able to find references.
Ha Ha.
"Some debate"
"wasn't able to find to references".
In other words you have no evidence at all.
quote:
It proves that the author was not (as some people claim) a Greek
No it doesn't.
Why do YOU think it does?
Every body in the region would know the topography, whether they be Greeks, Romans, Jews, Christians or pagans or whetever.
Can you explain why YOU think only the apostle John would know the region?
Can you explain why all the OTHER people living there would NOT know the region?
Did you even think for a MOMENT about this argument?
quote:
but rather that he was well aware of the Judean topography and, more than that, he wrote of things that would have been in ruins when Jerusalem was destroyed in 70 A.D.
What a laugh !
You think that NO-ONE after the year 70 would know about Jerusalem or Temple etc.?
Because it had been destroyed in 70 CE?
Therefore no-one could POSSIBLY knw anything about Jerusalem after 70CE?
Are you serious?
You REALLY BELIEVE that NO-ONE after the year 70 could have known anything about Jerusalem or the Temple?
Wow.
quote:
Those who believe that this wasn't written until the second century are wrong. I have provided strong evidence that it was written before 70 A.D.
No you didn't.
You showed that the author of G.John knew a few things about the region. Do you REALLY BELIEVE this proves anything about John?
None of your evidence mentioned ANYTHING specific about the AUTHOR AT ALL !
Instead you made some vague claims that the author knew something about the region, as if it proved something.
Such are the empty claims of apologists.
Iasion

This message is a reply to:
 Message 245 by Jabez1000, posted 07-01-2005 10:59 AM Jabez1000 has not replied

robinrohan
Inactive Member


Message 250 of 378 (221268)
07-01-2005 8:45 PM
Reply to: Message 248 by Kapyong
07-01-2005 8:18 PM


Robin,
you have shown you don't understand these issues and arguments at all.
May I politely suggest you actually study the issues so you can follow the arguments properly?
Thank you so much for your advice.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 248 by Kapyong, posted 07-01-2005 8:18 PM Kapyong has not replied

Kapyong
Member (Idle past 3442 days)
Posts: 344
Joined: 05-22-2003


Message 251 of 378 (221269)
07-01-2005 8:47 PM
Reply to: Message 246 by robinrohan
07-01-2005 11:50 AM


Spiritual Literature, not fraud
Greetings,
quote:
But somewhere along the line, somebody had to write a "novel" by Doherty's reasoning.
False.
Doherty never calls it a "novel".
But he does uses words like "story" and "create".
It seems that robin only knows of two types of writings in the world:
* true history
* novels (which are "fraud")
quote:
So did Mark believe the story he wrote? Apparently not, since he made it up. So it's an intentional fraud?
No-one said "fraud" except you.
You don't seem capable of grasping the argument, robin.
Was Homer a fraud?
Was Shakespeare a fraud?
Was Apuleis a fraud?
Was Mallory a fraud?
My prediction - you will never deal with the issues I raised.
Instead you will pick nits, on and on, about it being a "fraud" and/or a "novel".
Iasion
This message has been edited by Iasion, 07-01-2005 08:51 PM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 246 by robinrohan, posted 07-01-2005 11:50 AM robinrohan has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 252 by robinrohan, posted 07-01-2005 9:06 PM Kapyong has not replied

robinrohan
Inactive Member


Message 252 of 378 (221270)
07-01-2005 9:06 PM
Reply to: Message 251 by Kapyong
07-01-2005 8:47 PM


Re: Spiritual Literature, not fraud
My prediction - you will never deal with the issues I raised.
Instead you will pick nits, on and on, about it being a "fraud" and/or a "novel".
Well, it has to be one or the other. You know, a fictitious piece might have as its goal the teaching of a lesson.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 251 by Kapyong, posted 07-01-2005 8:47 PM Kapyong has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 253 by lfen, posted 07-01-2005 9:54 PM robinrohan has replied

lfen
Member (Idle past 4677 days)
Posts: 2189
From: Oregon
Joined: 06-24-2004


Message 253 of 378 (221273)
07-01-2005 9:54 PM
Reply to: Message 252 by robinrohan
07-01-2005 9:06 PM


Re: Spiritual Literature, not fraud
Robin,
Take Shakespeare's histories. Are they fiction? or history? or a mix of both? The ancients were even less careful about that distinction.
The old testament histories were highly spun stories to support Judah against Isreal and to support Josiah and the primacy of the Jerusalem Temple. Were they history? or fiction?
What if there had been a teacher whose teachings were influenced by the Cynics and someone wrote them down, or used the teachings of the Cynics and attributed to this unknown teacher who died young perhaps a victim of the Romans. I'm talking about the hypothesized Q document. We do have the Gospel according to Thomas.
We have references to various gospels. Christianity was in flux. There were the gnostics and other variations. Mark's writing must be seen as one viewpoint being put forth. He was relying of the authority of the OT for his version of the teachings of Jesus and he was giving a picture of the life of Jesus. Was he writing fiction? When Shakespeare wrote Richard the Second was he writing fiction?
Had stories grown up around the unknown teacher that were conflated with Paul's Christ? No way to know. There is no reliable history. Only a few centuries later did the Church now an instrument of the State under Constantive begin to build a coherent singular history and story of the faith and creating a coherent past for the institution.
lfen

This message is a reply to:
 Message 252 by robinrohan, posted 07-01-2005 9:06 PM robinrohan has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 254 by robinrohan, posted 07-02-2005 9:58 AM lfen has replied

robinrohan
Inactive Member


Message 254 of 378 (221308)
07-02-2005 9:58 AM
Reply to: Message 253 by lfen
07-01-2005 9:54 PM


Re: Spiritual Literature, not fraud
If you are comparing Shakespeare's histories to Mark's account of Jesus, then Jesus existed, just as Henry IV existed.
But if it is complete fiction, then Mark either wanted it to be seen as fiction, and everyone accepted it as fiction, or he wanted it to be seen as the truth. In the latter case, If Jesus never existed, it would be a fraud.
This message has been edited by robinrohan, 07-02-2005 09:00 AM
This message has been edited by robinrohan, 07-02-2005 09:00 AM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 253 by lfen, posted 07-01-2005 9:54 PM lfen has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 255 by lfen, posted 07-02-2005 11:58 AM robinrohan has not replied

lfen
Member (Idle past 4677 days)
Posts: 2189
From: Oregon
Joined: 06-24-2004


Message 255 of 378 (221333)
07-02-2005 11:58 AM
Reply to: Message 254 by robinrohan
07-02-2005 9:58 AM


Re: Spiritual Literature, not fraud
I don't know if I read it here or at the JesusMysteries group on Yahoo but somewhere I came across the idea that Mark was a Jewish satire of Christianity but that many gentile Christians didn't get the satire and so the book took off. So there is third possibility.
If you really get interested in the subject you might want to check the JesusMysteries group at Yahoo groups out. They delve into many historical issues of the first centuries of Christianity. It's a moderated group and they go into these things in great depth and length. Greater than I usually have time to follow so I only occasionaly check them out.
lfen

This message is a reply to:
 Message 254 by robinrohan, posted 07-02-2005 9:58 AM robinrohan has not replied

Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024