Go Back   AFA Forums > Atheism > General Chit Chat About Atheism

General Chit Chat About Atheism Something on your mind?

Reply
 
Thread Tools
  #91  
Old 11th February 2018, 09:35 AM
stylofone's Avatar
stylofone stylofone is offline
I am no feeble Christ, not me.
 
Join Date: Feb 2015
Location: Sydney
Posts: 1,189
Default Re: Why Christopher Hitchens believed in The Historical Jesus

In response to wearestardust, below...

I actually don't mind the debate, there's some pretty impressive knowledge coming into play here.

But I see the source of frustration and concern. It reminds me of the epistemologically flawed neophytes who come in and declare THERE IS NO GOD. These gnostic atheists think you're some sort of pussy, and start calling you a closet christian (or whatever) for limiting your atheism to belief, and not making impossible claims of knowledge.

The existence of Jesus is a historical question, and therefore in a falsifiable category, compared to the airy-fairy supernatural topic of god the creator. But if you're on the "no" side, you're still in the position of having to prove a negative. And I get the impression that the debate crops up not on its own merit, but because the "no" side want to show how bad-ass they are, how much they're not the pussies mentioned above.

My brother is a historian and genealogist. One of the games played there is to establish your ancestry with a famous person, e.g. finding Oliver Cromwell or a common ancestor with the Queen, in your family tree. He's found a black ancestor due to an inter-racial marriage in Jamaica which we all think is pretty cool. Our common ancestor with the Queen (through her Mother) less so. Sometimes there are gaps or ambiguous records, but you can still make a claim. You publish it and invite peer review to see if your claim can be debunked or reinforced with more evidence. A lot of the time the evidence doesn't require a genius level of insight or a multi-billion dollar particle accelerator. It can simply be that you are the first person to get your shit together and visit the colonial records office in Kingston or Bangalore or whatever, and scan the births, deaths and marriages register.

I'm not a scholarly person, I'm only vaguely aware of the debate over whether history belongs in the arts or science faculty. Jared Diamond of "Guns Germs and Steel" fame says the latter. You can see how the disciplines cross over.

But some of the analysis is qualatitive, isn't it? The two thieves at the crucifixion seem like am embellishment to the story. Calvary just looks better with three crosses on it sometimes: the fairytale/mytholgical/biblical pattern of threes is hard to beat, so someone made that bit up. But the crucifixion of Jesus - a religious freak who the occupying authorities saw as a threat - looks pretty sound. It probably happened, and the fictional bits were added to the accounts later. But I can't be sure, of course.

At the end of the day, I think I'd prefer to read Michael Moorcock's novel "Behold the Man", about a guy who is obsessed with Jesus so he gets a time machine and goes back to witness him preaching. He finds out there is no Jesus preaching, and he's so horrified that he starts addressing crowds to tell them the "Christian" message, and ends up getting himself crucified, thus starting the whole Jesus legend himself. This time travel paradox has been done a lot of times in science fiction, it's a storytelling pattern like the rule of three which gives us the three bears or the three little pigs or the 3 crosses on Calvary.

Quote:
wearestardust said View Post
Oh Christ, not again.


Q: why is it so important to some atheists to believe that there was no historical Jesus. In the case of those religions where we can be pretty confident that the originator actually did exist, it doesn't bother us (case in point: scientology) but why in this case?


Srsly, why? I am confident that in the atheist future, ideological wars will be fought over this.


btw: absence of evidence is not evidence of absence, per se.


Absence of evidence after a thorough search is evidence of absence of a sort, but that's a different kettle of fish.
Reply With Quote
Like Goldenmane, SEG liked this post
  #92  
Old 11th February 2018, 11:54 AM
Darwinsbulldog's Avatar
Darwinsbulldog Darwinsbulldog is offline
AFA Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: Perth
Posts: 18,826
Default Re: Why Christopher Hitchens believed in The Historical Jesus

wearestardust wrote:-

Quote:
absence of evidence is not evidence of absence, per se.
I think you meant to say: "Absence of evidence is not proof of absence". It is evidence of absence, but far from conclusive. We have evidence of the absence of fairies, but that, in itself, is not proof of the absence of fairies. So we have to remain technically agnostic concerning the reality of fairies, unless the situation changes. The joke "pics or it didn't happen" is sort of a rule of thumb for life. Fairies as existential beings, remain moot so long as they are undetectable.

For this reason I reject the historical Jesus. The evidence is too weak, too contradictory. It is a myth that may have basis in fact, or it may not. People's bias to believe in not only the historical, but also the divine Jesus has altered historical accounts so much that they have become very dubious in terms of a true and unbiased record. This is a problem in all histories, but there are few subjects more emotive than the 'reality" [or otherwise] of Christ. Like the "Virgin Mary" myth, which not only faces the same problems as the historical Christ, but is also biologically impossible. As is the Resurrection of Christ and other miracles. [But of course, miracles are not part of the historical Christ discussion]. Not directly anyway. We may never know how "young woman" morphed into "virgin". Was it simply a mistranslation or the did the scribe have ideological/religious motives to make the change? It is also clear that the bible is heavily redacted, and again, the suspicion that "the word" was changed by scribes to conform with the dogma of the times.

Was the Guerra del AtlŠntico, or Falklands war an act of defence or aggression? It depends who you ask, and who writes the histories. But there are some inter-subjective facts that all can agree on, for example, that it occurred in 1982.

The problem is that unlike the Malvinas/Falklands conflict, there are so few inter-subjective facts that people can agree on. Histories always fade into myths, unless facts can be found. When our sun swells into a red giant, and engulfs the Earth, will some future intergalactic society belief in evolution and Earth as their point of origin? No fossils, no Earth. Will evolution become a myth?
__________________
Just stick to the idea that science tests falsifiable hypotheses to destruction.
Reply With Quote
Like SEG, stylofone liked this post
Thank SEG thanked this post
  #93  
Old 11th February 2018, 12:05 PM
SEG's Avatar
SEG SEG is offline
AFA Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2016
Location: Hills District of Sydney
Posts: 694
Default Re: Why Christopher Hitchens believed in The Historical Jesus

Quote:
stylofone said View Post

I'm not a scholarly person, I'm only vaguely aware of the debate over whether history belongs in the arts or science faculty. Jared Diamond of "Guns Germs and Steel" fame says the latter. You can see how the disciplines cross over.

But some of the analysis is qualatitive, isn't it? The two thieves at the crucifixion seem like am embellishment to the story. Calvary just looks better with three crosses on it sometimes: the fairytale/mytholgical/biblical pattern of threes is hard to beat, so someone made that bit up. But the crucifixion of Jesus - a religious freak who the occupying authorities saw as a threat - looks pretty sound. It probably happened, and the fictional bits were added to the accounts later. But I can't be sure, of course.
Ta Stylifone. I feel sure that a dude named Jesus that claimed he was a messiah and got crucified, there could have been a few of 'em. The same one that is described in the Bible is a lot harder to believe because of all the fiction and legendary stuff. I can't prove a negative in this case, but in the same vein, the evidence of an historical Jesus of Nazareh is horribly weak IMO. Like I said earlier, there are no smoking guns either way.
Reply With Quote
Like stylofone liked this post
  #94  
Old 11th February 2018, 12:09 PM
SEG's Avatar
SEG SEG is offline
AFA Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2016
Location: Hills District of Sydney
Posts: 694
Default Re: Why Christopher Hitchens believed in The Historical Jesus

Quote:
Stu said View Post
Hi TJ - Iíve been following your debate with SEG, and I think you have lucidly and patiently made your points.
I think the same Stu. It's refreshing chatting to him without being insulted so that we can go over some issues without boiling over.
Reply With Quote
  #95  
Old 11th February 2018, 12:35 PM
toejam toejam is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2018
Posts: 52
Default Re: Why Christopher Hitchens believed in The Historical Jesus

Quote:
SEG said View Post
Ta Stylifone. I feel sure that a dude named Jesus that claimed he was a messiah and got crucified, there could have been a few of 'em. The same one that is described in the Bible is a lot harder to believe because of all the fiction and legendary stuff. I can't prove a negative in this case, but in the same vein, the evidence of an historical Jesus of Nazareh is horribly weak IMO. Like I said earlier, there are no smoking guns either way.
It depends on the degree of certainty you require to believe something. Personally, I believe lots of things that I haven't absolute "smoking guns" for, yet I evaluate the likelihood of them to be probable. As a simple example, I have no "smoking gun" that the next dice I roll land won't land on a 6, but I believe that it won't.

You've also shown in this thread your willingness to believe something without a "smoking gun" - i.e. your belief that Paul thought Jesus hadn't been here on Earth despite a total lack of attestation from the hand of Paul of him ever saying that.

If Galatians 1:18 is legit, and there are good reasons for thinking that it is, then it's pretty damn close to a "smoking gun". Paul knew Jesus's brother!

Last edited by toejam; 11th February 2018 at 12:36 PM.
Reply With Quote
Like stylofone liked this post
  #96  
Old 11th February 2018, 12:38 PM
toejam toejam is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2018
Posts: 52
Default Re: Why Christopher Hitchens believed in The Historical Jesus

Quote:
Stu said View Post
Hi TJ - Iíve been following your debate with SEG, and I think you have lucidly and patiently made your points.
Thanks.
Reply With Quote
  #97  
Old 11th February 2018, 01:34 PM
stylofone's Avatar
stylofone stylofone is offline
I am no feeble Christ, not me.
 
Join Date: Feb 2015
Location: Sydney
Posts: 1,189
Default Re: Why Christopher Hitchens believed in The Historical Jesus

A slight derail, but I liked hearing Francesca Stavrokopoulou state it baldly... Moses is a myth.

Reply With Quote
  #98  
Old 11th February 2018, 01:52 PM
stylofone's Avatar
stylofone stylofone is offline
I am no feeble Christ, not me.
 
Join Date: Feb 2015
Location: Sydney
Posts: 1,189
Default Re: Why Christopher Hitchens believed in The Historical Jesus

Quote:
toejam said View Post

If Galatians 1:18 is legit, and there are good reasons for thinking that it is, then it's pretty damn close to a "smoking gun". Paul knew Jesus's brother!
It's only one passing reference, shouldn't he have made a bigger deal of it? Also there are so many Jamses, is James being Jesus' brother, really all that certain?

I note the downplaying the whole brother thing as part of the promotion of the virgin Mary dogma/myth, which might explain the lack of emphasis. Also, maybe James was big on circumcision/Jewish law, so Paul didn't want to linger on him, it was just a bit of name-dropping.

Actually the anti-circumcision rant in Galatians is pretty full on, I'd forgotten that bit. Circumcision was pretty standard among Catholics when I was growing up, they really skipped over this section!

Quote:
2 Mark my words! I, Paul, tell you that if you let yourselves be circumcised, Christ will be of no value to you at all. 3 Again I declare to every man who lets himself be circumcised that he is obligated to obey the whole law. 4 You who are trying to be justified by the law have been alienated from Christ; you have fallen away from grace. 5 For through the Spirit we eagerly await by faith the righteousness for which we hope. 6 For in Christ Jesus neither circumcision nor uncircumcision has any value. The only thing that counts is faith expressing itself through love.
Reply With Quote
  #99  
Old 11th February 2018, 02:30 PM
Stu Stu is offline
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2014
Posts: 12
Default Re: Why Christopher Hitchens believed in The Historical Jesus

Quote:
A slight derail, but I liked hearing Francesca Stavrokopoulou state it baldly... Moses is a myth.
Noting of course that she doesn’t think Jesus was a myth.
Reply With Quote
Like stylofone liked this post
  #100  
Old 11th February 2018, 02:43 PM
SEG's Avatar
SEG SEG is offline
AFA Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2016
Location: Hills District of Sydney
Posts: 694
Default Re: Why Christopher Hitchens believed in The Historical Jesus

Quote:
toejam said View Post
Sorry mate. Marcion won't help you here. Marcion revererd Paul. And Marcion was not teaching that Paul believed Jesus was only a celestial being who never came to Earth.
Hang on! Maybe he CAN help my argument. Sure Marcion of Sinope wrote his version of ten epistles of Paul but he didn’t believe that Jesus was a real man. With those doe-like blue eyes and long flowing locks, I agree!

Quote:
toejam said View Post
Scholar Jason BeDuhn recently reconstructed what he could of Marcion's New Testament by putting together early Church Father quotations of it. A lot of it goes unattested, unfortunately. In a lot of cases we simply don't know whether verse x was included or not. But a good chunk of it can be reconstructed. According to BeDuhn's reconstruction, Marcion's canon contained many of the 'earthy' verses we've been discussing, including:

* 1 Thes 2:14, where Jesus is said by Paul to have been killed by Jews in Judea.
* 1 Cor 1:23, where Jesus's crucifixion is said to have been a stumbling block to Jews.
* 1 Cor 11:23-28, where Jesus is said to have "broken bread", "passed cups", "after dinner", etc.
* 1 Cor 15:3, where Jesus is said to have been buried
* 1 Cor 15:21, where Jesus is described as a "human being".
* Romans 8:3, where Jesus is described as having come "in the likeness of faulty flesh".
* Phili 2:7-8, where Jesus is said to have come in "the likeness/appearance of a human being".
From Wiki: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Docetism
Quote:
Marcion held Jesus to be the son of the Heavenly Father but understood the incarnation in a docetic manner, i.e. that Jesus' body was only an imitation of a material body, and consequently denied Jesus' physical and bodily birth, death, and resurrection.
Marcion was the first to introduce an early Christian canon. His canon consisted of only eleven books, grouped into two sections: the Evangelikon, based on Luke with parts removed that did not agree with his views,[10] and the Apostolikon, a selection of ten epistles of Paul the Apostle (also altered to fit his views),[10] whom Marcion considered the correct interpreter and transmitter of Jesus' teachings. The gospel used by Marcion does not contain elements relating to Jesus' birth and childhood, although it does contain some elements of Judaism, and material challenging Marcion's ditheism.
Gnosticism
Marcion is sometimes described as a Gnostic philosopher. In some essential respects, Marcion proposed ideas which would have aligned well with Gnostic thought. Like the Gnostics, he argued that Jesus was essentially a divine spirit appearing to human beings in the shape of a human form, and not someone in a true physical body.
Marcion held Jesus to be the son of the Heavenly Father but understood the incarnation in a docetic manner, i.e. that Jesus' body was only an imitation of a material body, and consequently denied Jesus' physical and bodily birth, death, and resurrection.
Marcion was the first to introduce an early Christian canon. His canon consisted of only eleven books, grouped into two sections: the Evangelikon, based on Luke with parts removed that did not agree with his views,[10] and the Apostolikon, a selection of ten epistles of Paul the Apostle (also altered to fit his views),[10] whom Marcion considered the correct interpreter and transmitter of Jesus' teachings. The gospel used by Marcion does not contain elements relating to Jesus' birth and childhood, although it does contain some elements of Judaism, and material challenging Marcion's ditheism.
Quote:
... and it is thought that the Gospels were written to dispute what [Marcion] wrote about Jesus being a celestial being.
Quote:
toejam said View Post
Marcion's gospel text was a variant version of the Gospel of Luke that began at Chapter 3. BeDuhn has reconstructed it too. Marcion's gospel certainly did not teach that Jesus stayed in the heavens and never came to Earth.
But in Marcion's gospel he never was born, he popped into existence as a fully grown man. You accept that the nativity stories are rubbish, this is only one step further.

As quoted earlier
Quote:
…but understood the incarnation in a docetic manner, i.e. that Jesus' body was only an imitation of a material body, and consequently denied Jesus' physical and bodily birth, death, and resurrection.
Quote:
toejam said View Post
It is well understood that the Gospel of Luke drew heavily from the Gospel of Mark, so it is simply a matter of logic to see that the canonical Mark (at least) could not have been written "to dispute what Marcion wrote about Jesus being a celestial being".
Sorry, how do you mean the above? Why couldn’t it have been written "to dispute what Marcion wrote about Jesus being a celestial being? Mark squarely places Jesus on Earth as a living human being.

Quote:
Nothing that Paul says is related to a Jesus of Nazareth existing in the natural world or ties him to a historic event. He never mentions a "Jesus" or a "Nazareth". None of the evidence that you have mentioned so far links a Jesus of Nazareth to what Paul supposedly wrote.
Quote:
toejam said View Post
I'm sure it sounds that way when your fingers are wedged in your ears ;-) I've already addressed this. Paul did believe Jesus had been here on Earth, and Paul ties him to historical 'earthy' events and people - his Jessean and Davidic descent "according to the flesh", his having come from a woman under the Mosaic law, his living sibling James, his instigation of the Eucharist ritual that involved him breaking bread and passing cups one night after supper, his crucifixion in Judea, his burial, etc. Paul mentions the name "Jesus" ~143 times in the 7 genuine epistles. There is no necessity for Paul to mention Nazareth given the occasion of his epistles.
The above all fall into the ancient docetic idea that Jesus only seemed to come into the world "in the flesh" and in early Jewish beliefs of earthly representations that are mirrored in Heaven. Paul may have mentioned Jesus 143 times, but never in an historical sense.

Here’s some scriptcha backatcha:

Quote:
Romans 10:14
14 How then shall they call on him in whom they have not believed? and how shall they believe in him of whom they have not heard? and how shall they hear without a preacher?
It looks like they hadn't heard of him. Those "stumbling blocks" could have been dispelled by mentioning JC's miracles and wise sayings, but Paul never quotes them at all. Paul's writings and the Gospel stories don't gel and aren't complementary or harmonious


It’s a pity that he never once said, “born of a woman called Mary”, or refers to the Jesus of Nazareth resplendent in the Gospels. That would have made it crystal clear and be a slam dunk for your arguments.

Quote:
There is also no credible evidence that Nazareth existed at the time of Jesus.
Quote:
toejam said View Post
Mostly importantly, the historical Jesus's existence does not depend on his having to have come from Nazareth. And there is evidence for Nazareth existing in the 1st century.
Oh nooooo! Not Jesus’s own house at No. 666 Devil’s Gate Drive Nazareth, lol! Did you have a look at what was said in that article?

Quote:
According to the New Testament, Mary, the mother of Jesus, lived in Nazareth together with her husband Joseph. It was there that she also received the revelation by the Angel Gabriel that she would conceive a child to be born the Son of God. The New Testament mentions that Jesus himself grew up in Nazareth.
Note that it is a Government website, so it’s got to be correct!

Have a read of Rene Salm's article:
Quote:
No “house from the time of Jesus” has been found at Nazareth
On December 21, 2009, news regarding an excavation in Nazareth was released simultaneously to multiple press agencies around the globe. Many articles immediately touted discovery of house remains “from the time of Jesus,” a view allegedly expressed by the archaeologist herself. However, the brief official statement (recently taken offline) from the Israel Antiquities Authority (IAA) does not support this thesis. The IAA release is the primary report and supersedes secondary sources such as articles in the press and interpretive remarks. This will continue until a scholarly report with independently verifiable itemizations, diagrams, and discussion appears in print.
The IAA report makes no mention of first-century remains, much less of evidence from the turn of the era (“time of Jesus”).

An American archaeologist rails against Yardenna Alexandre’s announcement:
...What I find most notable is that to date the excavators have yet to report even one shred of evidence that places this structure in the first century CE as opposed to the second century. People can “trust” all they wish, but it is precisely this type of trust that leads the gullible to pay no heed to the requirements of evidence. Instead, they buy into the spurious idea that the traces of farms, Roman bath houses, garrison works, vineyards, caravanseries, synagogues, etc., have been discovered from a turn of the era Nazareth. These edifices do not exist in the factual record, but they widely populate apologists’ fiction.
The same archaeologist writes:
…After reading the MFA [Israel Ministry of Foreign Affairs] press release, which states that the ceramics found at the site were perhaps second century CE, I contacted a friend of mine who is a director at the Albright. He confirmed for me that the typology is first-second century CE, and presently the ceramic finds are so sparse and disjointed that it is still too early to rule out stratigraphic intrusion. So, judging from the finds themselves, the “Jesus era” is apparently first-second century CE or perhaps even later. Obviously, this dig adds little if anything to our previous body of knowledge at this time, as we already have scarce first-second century ceramic remains at Nazareth and an evidentiary profile that confirms occupation of the site in the second century CE.

BTW, if anyone is interested in an excellent summary of the archaeological recoveries at Nazareth to date, I would highly recommend Rene Salm’s book on the subject… [I]t provides an excellent inventory and analysis of the evidence, a feat all the more remarkable when one considers that Salm is not a formal member of our profession.

The Mary of Nazareth International Center
The Grand Opening of The Mary of Nazareth International Center took place on March 25, 2011. This imposing complex (see below) is located directly on the site of the so-called “house from the time of Jesus,” one discovered in Nazareth in late 2009. For the last year, the Roman Catholic Church has been publicizing this very small dig—one evidently unworthy of any scholarly report, for none has appeared.

That report has now been taken off the web, so the world must now rely entirely upon the claims of the Church regarding the primary evidence: “the house dates with certainty from the time of Christ… pottery and ceramics are from the Hellenistic Period.” All this is typical. For two thousand years the faithful have similarly relied exclusively on ‘in-house’ reports regarding their founder Jesus of Nazareth—namely, the Gospels.
There is, however, a statement in the Catholic literature which, I submit, should be taken seriously: “Up till then [that is, the recent ‘house’ discovery], there was no scientific evidence affirming the existence of a village of Nazareth of the epoch of Christ.” After a hundred years of digging, this belated admission is entirely correct, besides being an oblique nod to my work. Coming from the Catholic Church, it is categorical assurance (were any still required) that the last century of excavation in Nazareth has utterly failed to vindicate the traditional story of Jesus.
Now, to The Mary of Nazareth International Center. The humble Mary, Mother of God, must be proud as she looks down from her heavenly throne on the spanking new edifice which, curiously, marks not her home but that of an anonymous next door neighbor. You see, Mary herself lived across the street at the present Church of the Annunciation. Who her (now-exalted) neighbor was nobody really knows …or seems to care. It couldn’t have been Joseph, for he evidently lived to the other side of Mary’s dwelling (the Church of St. Joseph is 100 m. north of the Church of the Annunciation). Anyway, an unknown Nazarene is now posthumously venerated by the Catholic Church at this new Center. The impressive edifice consists of several areas including: (1) a 120-seat theatre for rent, amenable to performances, conferences, and motion pictures. (2) A cafeteria-restaurant for “coffee break, an ice-cream, or even a full meal,” for hungry sinners requiring sustenance of a physical nature. (3) A Boutique where one can buy “olive tree wood, icons, cards, souvenirs, books, CDs and DVDs, ceramics, candles, confections, jams, olive oil, and spices”—evidently, all one could possibly need to get to heaven. (4) A botanical garden “with a breathtaking view.” (5) A chapel. (6) Offices of the Chemin Neuf association, which runs the Marian Center.
The Chemin Neuf (“New Path”) association seems to be the arm of the Roman Catholic Church which reaches out especially to young adults. Founded by a certain PŤre Laurent Fabre, it’s motto is “Let Mary be your guide through the Scriptures.” Chemin Neuf exists in many countries. There is a photo online of its local director in Nazareth, a certain Marc Hodara. Looking very much the Catholic foreman, he stands in front of the Marian construction site wearing dark glasses, a prominent crucifix, and a construction hat emblazoned with the letters “MH”.
Certainty at Nazareth?
The founder of the Mary of Nazareth Association is a certain Olivier Bonnassies. He has written (regarding the Nazareth house excavation): “One is able to establish the date of these stones—they are datable because of pottery and ceramics; and they date to before Christ, that is, before the Hellenistic period, which is to say before 67 B.C., the year of the conquest of Pompey, which made Palestine roman.” This confusing statement aptly summarizes the position of the Catholic Church regarding Nazareth. It contradicts itself and is quite unsubstantiated. In the first place, skeptics and scholars alike must consider the alleged ‘pottery and ceramics’ mythical for, as mentioned above, no report has appeared in the literature regarding them. In other words, they don’t exist in the scholarly record. Secondly, the time “before Christ” is not “the Hellenistic period” (which ended with Pompey’s conquest in 63, not 67 BCE). So, if material there were to date to the Hellenistic period (which I very much doubt), that would hardly substantiate a settlement at the turn of the era. Finally, the claim of evidence from “before the Hellenistic period” adds another layer of confusion and moves us back several centuries before ‘Christ.’ In sum, we don’t really know what Bonnassies is saying here.
Oh, well. I’m not sure he himself knows what he is saying.
(Bonnassies, a highly trained media expert, has emerged as the lynchpin of the Catholic Church’s recent [and well-funded] media blitz to combat atheism, skepticism, and a rational view of the “facts” underlying Christianity. For more on this Catholic VIP, see here.)
I've been to a Christian tourist mecca and know how they ramp up their bullshit to fleece gullible Christians. I haven't been to Jerusalem yet, but I can imagine it gets worse there. Click on the link above and you get these gems:
Quote:
the “core Catholic message” is the following:
Multimedia show – Room 1 – Mary discovers the Scriptures on the knees of her parents
Multimedia show – Room 2 – Mary at Nazareth
Multimedia show – Room 3 – the mission and life of Jesus
Multimedia show – Room 4 – The resurrection of Jesus

One might wonder how a simple country girl in Nazareth would discover “the scriptures on the knees of her parents,” when few people in that era could read and hardly any women received an education. Interestingly, however, the events in Multimedia show 1 do not take place in Nazareth at all but in Jerusalem—Mary learns the scriptures in the Temple! Readers familiar with the Protevangelium of James will be acquainted with this extraordinary account of history.
Quote:
You are starting to sound like a Christian fundy.
Quote:
toejam said View Post
I think Jesus was a deluded and failed apocalyptic preacher and I think Yahweh does not exist. I also think most of the New Testament epistles are forgeries, and that the Gospels and Acts are best described as historical propaganda. I would make for a poor Christian fundamentalist haha.
Glad to hear that TJ! I’m not saying that you are one, but you are using the same arguments that they do to prop up their faith. Have you read any of Rene Salm’s books?


Quote:
Please enlighten us to how the Jesus of Nazareth of the Bible was arrested and charged with sedition, insurrection or blasphemy and how the Romans were solely responsible for his crucifixion.
"the Jesus of Nazareth of the Bible"? My view of the historical Jesus is not completely synonymous with "the Jesus of Nazareth of the Bible". You seem to have a hard time distinguishing the difference between a discussion over a historical Jesus with "the Jesus of Nazareth of the Bible".
Quote:
toejam said View Post
I think the historical Jesus was claiming to be the Messiah and probably made some sort of scene at the Temple. In the eyes of those who held power - the Romans and Jewish aristocracy - that was probably enough to warrant his execution.
I reckon that if an angry Jew burst into the temple with a whip and tried to chase money changers out, the armed guards would not have stood by and done nothing, let alone let him go so he would continue his teachings for another 3 years. John describes the cleansing of the temple as occurring during the first Passover (of three) mentioned in his Gospel. Meanwhile, Matthew, Mark, and Luke all describe the temple-cleansing as taking place just days before Christ’s Crucifixion.

The historical Jesus that you are indicating has been lost in the sands of time. The Jesus of Nazareth has been put to bed long ago.

Last edited by SEG; 11th February 2018 at 02:47 PM.
Reply With Quote
Reply

Bookmarks

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT +11. The time now is 03:00 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.11
Copyright ©2000 - 2018, vBulletin Solutions Inc.
Feedback Buttons provided by Advanced Post Thanks / Like (Pro) - vBulletin Mods & Addons Copyright © 2018 DragonByte Technologies Ltd.