|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Did Jesus Exist? by Bart Ehrman | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Theodoric Member Posts: 7051 From: Northwest, WI, USA Joined: |
I am a Jesus myther. I agree that the similarity of Jesus to other myths can be an over played card. The thing is, until there is historical evidence for Jesus of the bible, mythicism is the default.
The reputable writers that write in support of mythicism do not make that the basis of their argument. Doherty, Carrier and Fitzgerald make it very clear there is no historical evidence and then, as part of their works, present arguments showing how the Jesus character is very similar to other mythical characters. That is not the basis or the root of their argument though. Facts don't lie or have an agenda. Facts are just facts "God did it" is not an argument. It is an excuse for intellectual laziness. If your viewpoint has merits and facts to back it up why would you have to lie?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Phat Member Posts: 15108 From: Denver,Colorado USA Joined: Member Rating: 1.1 |
They can't find a lot of the supposed antimatter in the universe that should exist either. Does that then mean that it does not exist for ALL INTENTS AND PURPOSES?
One difference between believers and the rest of you in general seems to be that believers presuppose that God should exist. The rest of you see no such need. For me, I was culturally raised to believe that God should exist. Whether He actually did or not was never discussed. Later, at around age 30, I became "born again" and felt subjective evidence of His reality. Subsequent arguments with many of you here have shown me that I had no evidence...despite my having experienced many unknown events that my bias would show me corroborated my belief. I'm not interested in proving anything to anyone anymore, apart from attempts at argumentative persuasion. I'm beginning to think that there is a reason for all of this disconnect in our culture, and I'm not sure how to explain it. It would be nothing more than my subjective belief anyway, but I am convinced that the scientific method has not neatly tied this argument up yet. After all, look at how long humans have been around in the grand scheme of things. look at how often we were wrong before about many things. It is just as silly in my opinion to presuppose that no God is necessary as it is to believe that one is. You limit yourselves by sticking to evidence. You also limit yourselves by believing that such imagination is limited to children's stories. You have far too much faith in scientific and psycho-sociological progress alone. Finally, you limit your whole hypothetical idea of what God would be like if he DID exist. Ask A Humanist Note the variety of answers. They all sound like you guys! Edited by Phat, : No reason given. Edited by Phat, : No reason given. Chance as a real force is a myth. It has no basis in reality and no place in scientific inquiry. For science and philosophy to continue to advance in knowledge, chance must be demythologized once and for all. ~RC Sproul "A lie can travel half way around the world while the truth is putting on its shoes." ~Mark Twain " ~"If that's not sufficient for you go soak your head."~Faith You can "get answers" by watching the ducks. That doesn't mean the answers are coming from them.~Ringo Subjectivism may very well undermine Christianity.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
AZPaul3 Member Posts: 5729 From: Phoenix Joined: Member Rating: 4.7 |
Bad example. We know that there was once lots of anti-matter and we know why there isn't so much anymore. And since we can make it in our labs we know it does exist regardless of intent or purpose.
Why? Because you were told this as an innocent trusting non-critical child?
You got emotional. You know how emotion affects judgement.
How about this: Religion is bad for the culture, the society, the species.
Well, actually science has already decided. Anything that can be asserted without evidence is just as easily dismissed without any concern at all.
You're being a good straight man, Phat. Having been wrong about so many things in the past is exactly why the scientific methods, all of them, were devised and are so strongly and highly regarded. And yes, we "limit yourselves by sticking to evidence" and the other things you mention so to avoid the egregious errors of the past and their disastrous consequences.
Proper analysis of an issue will lead to consensus. Good for us. Edited by AZPaul3, : No reason given. Eschew obfuscation. Habituate elucidation.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
LamarkNewAge Member Posts: 1819 Joined:
|
quote: Josephus said that James was "brother of Jesus called Christ" so the mention of "called Christ" proves he did not say "called Christ"? Because Josephus would not want to mention a false Messiah? Josephus lived in the small city of Jerusalem during the early 60s. quote: Especially when you have an excuse for erasing (or ignoring) everything you don't like. quote: Paul essentially says he talked to a dead man's spirit. Paul said Jesus had a "brother" and that he was "born of a woman", but I am sure you have 5-6 different ways to explain that away. quote: There are Paul's Letters. But that is "The Bible" There are extra Biblical documents from the first century. I Clement (Clement of Rome's Epistle to the Corinthians) quote: Like the Pastoral Epistles ( I Timothy, II Timothy, and Titus), Bishops, and Elders/Presbyters are synonymous. (There are also Deacons) Ignatius (probably written 107-108 or possible 115-116) was the first to clearly distinguish between Bishops and Elders/Presbyters. That makes the date likely no later than 100. The lack of quoting the Pastoral Epistles (except one possible reference that is an unimportant saying that is off the main topic of Bishops and Elders) is a major dating clue. The usefulness quoting of the Pastoral Epistles suggests they were perhaps not written yet (or just being written). There could be NO WRITTEN GOSPEL QUOTATIONS (but oral traditions that made it into Greek Matthew 5-7, plus other places, were in I Clement for sure) One more thing: Paul is mentioned.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Tangle Member Posts: 8089 From: UK Joined: Member Rating: 3.7
|
LMA, Why do you think that dumping a pile of copy and paste text on a page is worth doing? I don't read it and I'm pretty sure nobody else does.
Why not make whatever argument you have, simply and short and stick to one point at a time using your own words? Je suis Charlie. Je suis Ahmed. Je suis Juif. Je suis Parisien. I am Mancunian. I am Brum. I am London.I am Finland. Soy Barcelona "Life, don't talk to me about life" - Marvin the Paranoid Android "Science adjusts it's views based on what's observed.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Theodoric Member Posts: 7051 From: Northwest, WI, USA Joined: |
Again you show that there is no independent, contemporary evidence for the existence of the Jesus Christ character. 100 CE is not contemporary to 30 CE. That would be the same as claiming that we are contemporary to WWII. I know of no one alive that would be able to confirm or deny that there was a wandering preacher in this area during the 1930's and 40's. Your copypasta gishgallop just reaffirms that you have no evidence. Thank you for helping me to make my points.
As for Josephus you are less than honest in your comments. IN the Testimonium he is reputed to say. quote: Not something an observant Jew would say. But more importantly it does not matter. This is not evidence of Jesus. It is evidence that people believed in him. No corroboration. Find corroboration. If all you reply with is copypasta and a bunch of shit thrown against the wall I am done with you. Facts don't lie or have an agenda. Facts are just facts "God did it" is not an argument. It is an excuse for intellectual laziness. If your viewpoint has merits and facts to back it up why would you have to lie?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
LamarkNewAge Member Posts: 1819 Joined: |
quote: I doubt most are familiar with the issues involved in dating Clement of Rome (1 Clement) to 90-100. I would rather give people a chance to see what scholars (in this case, it was Bart Ehrman's Introduction to his translation of the man Catholics call "Pope Clement") look at. It would actually take a lot more text if I gave my reasons for an early date. (The biggest reason is that Ignatius has a MUCH more developed Church hierarchy than 1 Clement) (That, also, was always a problem for those who wanted to date the Pastoral Epistles after Ignatius of Antioch) Understand that this is the only (probable) pre 100 Christian document from outside the Bible. People need to learn about it, and the learning process does involve a deeper understanding of the issues the scholars look at (mind you: I DIN NOT post anything that would come close to doing the job, and I wish I could post a lot more from multiple sources)
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
LamarkNewAge Member Posts: 1819 Joined: |
quote: But this (I Clement)Epistle to the Corinthians demonstrated the fact that Paul was a good ways in the past. Ringo said that Paul might not have existed. He later said he didn't care one way or another. Others will question how far back we can assume Paul wrote his Epistles, when we strip ourselves of the Acts of the Apostles. Others, still, want "non Biblical evidence" to date Paul (In that case, I suppose we can't even consider his Epistles as helping us form a date for his missionary career). We know that there was a (however small) collection of Paul's Epistles in the possession of Clement of Rome, while he might not have had a written Gospel (though he had some sort of Jesus material) yet. We know that (regardless of the interpretation of 1 Clement) the combined evidence of Ignatius, Barnabas, and Didache (plus, perhaps, Papias, though he used oral sayings or Logions, as he is now being dated 95-120) demand that Greek Matthew was written no later than the 90s A.D.,and this places Mark no later than 80-85. The early non-Biblical Christian documents show us that Paul clearly dates before Mark. Paul almost definitely wrote his Epistles before 80, just from the evidence from the early non-Christian documents alone. So Paul's Epistles date no later than the 70s. Going further: If we can actually be allowed to read Paul's Epistles (for "evidence") then we can see he wrote his letters over a career that seems to span at least 10 years (probably longer). We can also see that he might not have known anything involving the MARKAN narrative of events in Jesus' life, thus indicating that the circulating pericopes - which later made it into The Gospel of Mark - were not YET assigned enough weight and credibility to warrant the attention of Paul's pen. Perhaps Paul was aware of many of the Jesus stories (that would make the cut in the Gospel of Mark), he simply couldn't separate the bogus historical stories from the actual accurate events, so he went without mentioning anything? So, the pericodes that would later make it into Mark (the early church said it was Peter himself that possessed all the material, then Mark put it into writing, but "form critics" 100% deny that tradition and see very different process and origin of the pericopes) were not yet credible enough in Paul's day - as the narrative events involved in the Gospel of Mark woud have needed a period of credibility & acceptance before they would be put into such a high quality, not to mention refined & expensive, work as the Gospel of Mark was. That is more evidence that Paul is even earlier still (than the 70s). So without any "Biblical" documents, aside from Paul's Epistles, we can place the bulk of his writings before 70. Then, we must consider his, seeming, long career WHEN ONLY HIS EPISTLES ARE READ (Acts compresses his - written Epistle - career into a span of just 7-9 years). That would put his Epistles into the 50s for sure. I find Paul to be a man we might possibly know about even if a Bible was never written. (Though we will never know what would have been preserved if history had played out differently) quote: You keep using Ant Book 18 as proof that Book 20 is fake. Your sloppy methodology is just glaring. Edited by LamarkNewAge, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Theodoric Member Posts: 7051 From: Northwest, WI, USA Joined: |
I have no idea why you think what you wrote is relevant to my post.
As for Josephus, you miss my point completely. The one Jesus reference puts the other into doubt. Facts don't lie or have an agenda. Facts are just facts "God did it" is not an argument. It is an excuse for intellectual laziness. If your viewpoint has merits and facts to back it up why would you have to lie?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
LamarkNewAge Member Posts: 1819 Joined: |
The problem is that Jesus Mythers can't get their story straight on why the Josephus text was messed up.
Richard Carrier somewhat recently wrote for the Journal of Early Christian Studies. (it is the same journal that I have been quoting: The Second Century, A Journal Of Early Christian Studies, but after Johns Hopkins purchased it, around 1993, it dropped the "The Second Century" part, and now covers the period as far as the 8th or 9th century) His argument was that the Book 20 Josephus reference ("called Christ" after "brother of Jesus") was just a careless note by a Christian scribe. Not deliberate fraud as is shown in Book 18. My problem with the methodology starts with: Jesus Mythers generally start out with a conclusion then search for an excuse to justify the conclusion. (You would never do that, would you Theodoric?)
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Theodoric Member Posts: 7051 From: Northwest, WI, USA Joined: |
Well as you refuse to actually discuss what I post and again resort to making things personal I am finished. I tried once more to have a rational informative discussion with you, but seemingly you are incapable of that. Continue your factless screeds. I am done.
Facts don't lie or have an agenda. Facts are just facts "God did it" is not an argument. It is an excuse for intellectual laziness. If your viewpoint has merits and facts to back it up why would you have to lie?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
LamarkNewAge Member Posts: 1819 Joined: |
You were finished before you even started.
You also should ask what predictions the Jesus Mythers have made? They make claims, but their theory needs some admitted way to be falsified. Doherty wrote his book Jesus Puzzle in 1990. I think Price wrote in 2001. Carrier has online Myther articles from 2002. The Myther claim (among others) that the entire line "brother of Jesus called Christ, James" was false (and "fraud") because only Christians would have written about a James brother of Jesus, seems to be ditched? Now they say it was just carelessness and just "called Christ" was added. When mid-first century archaeological artifacts are found ("James son of Joseph, brother of Jesus" in 2003), Mythers claimed it was fraud (modern inscriptions). It has been proven to NOT be fraud. (though there is STILL a lot of doubt that it refers to the New Testament characters) The Mythers were wrong about the James Ossuary being a forgery (with tampering). Why should we trust their claims of Christian "tampering" on the other secular first century mention of a James with a brother named Jesus?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
LamarkNewAge Member Posts: 1819 Joined: |
Theodoric is good at reaching conclusions while searching for a theory.
The Jesus Mythers like to use Origin as evidence for the controversial Josephus Ant Book 18 "Testinonium Flavianum" not being in the original manuscript. Then we get to Ant Book 20, and the other mention of Jesus. They also like to make much of Origin's seeming quotation of Hegesippus, and then say that the "Brother of Jesus, called Christ" was added later (Doherty says Eusebius, in around 325, invented the line). Now Carrier has a different theory: (not a free journal article) (Carrier's article can be read in full if you purchase on of his books, which has all of his journal articles reproduced, but I forget the title. It has "Homer" in the title I think) Carrier puts the change earlier. Back to a more mainstream type of theory: Here is the starting point THEORY (in my opinion): I quote from "The Testimonium Flavianum and the Martyrdom of James", by Zvi Baras in: Josephus, Judaism and Christianity (I made far more paragraph divisions than was in the original text plus put some quotation marks in spots, so reading could be easier) quote: On another thread, I was attempting to make send of the Eusebius "Josephus quotation": quote: This might make sense of it. (It sure beats Earl Doherty's theory that this was a "confusion" of Origen, in mistaking Hegesippus' words for Josephus, and the inspiration for Eusebius to simply amend the Ant. Book XX text to - FOR THE FIRST TIME EVER! - say "brother of Jesus called Christ".) (Theodoric refused to respond btw, instead attacked me for going off topic, while he offers no theory of his own, just claims) Edited by LamarkNewAge, : No reason given. Edited by LamarkNewAge, : No reason given. Edited by LamarkNewAge, : No reason given. Edited by LamarkNewAge, : No reason given. Edited by LamarkNewAge, : No reason given. Edited by LamarkNewAge, : No reason given. Edited by LamarkNewAge, : No reason given. Edited by LamarkNewAge, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Tangle Member Posts: 8089 From: UK Joined: Member Rating: 3.7 |
Your problem is that no one cares what you'd rather do so if you keep on doing it regardless of our attempts to keep you to the point, you're not going to be communicating with anyone. At the moment you're just entertaining yourself. Je suis Charlie. Je suis Ahmed. Je suis Juif. Je suis Parisien. I am Mancunian. I am Brum. I am London.I am Finland. Soy Barcelona "Life, don't talk to me about life" - Marvin the Paranoid Android "Science adjusts it's views based on what's observed.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Phat Member Posts: 15108 From: Denver,Colorado USA Joined: Member Rating: 1.1 |
While I personally think that your cut & pastes are getting better and more towards making a point, I see that your audience is not interested in your style of debate. Perhaps you need to listen to them and shorten your responses.
Chance as a real force is a myth. It has no basis in reality and no place in scientific inquiry. For science and philosophy to continue to advance in knowledge, chance must be demythologized once and for all. ~RC Sproul "A lie can travel half way around the world while the truth is putting on its shoes." ~Mark Twain " ~"If that's not sufficient for you go soak your head."~Faith You can "get answers" by watching the ducks. That doesn't mean the answers are coming from them.~Ringo Subjectivism may very well undermine Christianity.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2021