Then you are totally ignorant or are feigning to be totally ignorant of the method by which are evaluated and are therefor proclaiming yourself to be
unqualified to comment on the subject.
Because context is the established criterion by which we derive meaning from literature.;
'
Not must have been but IS blatantly taken out of context. The Bible does have context-you know? If it didn't then your argument could maybe hold a little water. But since it does-your argument just doesn't fly.
BTWTHew Bible tells us repeatedly to gain understanding of God's wisdom by reading it.
So your accusation is merely another example of biblical illiteracy.
BTW
The Bible need not be inerrant in order to be properly evaluatred via the established rules of literature evaluation which you choose to condemn. You have your issues all mixed up.
Last edited:
The obvious typo served you well in your attempt at misrepresenting? I doubt it since the typo is obvious. By tagging long-established criterion for literature evaluation as a pseudo scolarship you inadvertently tag yourself as a literary ignoramus.
By tagging basic theological criterion in the same way you identify yourself as a biblical illiterate. Now that's not only amazing-it's pitiful. Especially for a self-proclaimed a skepic that supposedly prides herself on accuracy via reasearch before making claims of that type. May I suggest Canasta or Peaknuckle as a more manageable pass-time?
Last edited:
Frozenwolf150
Formerly SilentKnight
- Joined
- Dec 10, 2007
- Messages
- 4,134
Scratch that, I do have something else to add after all:
Piggy
Unlicensed street skeptic
- Joined
- Mar 11, 2006
- Messages
- 15,905
Well, claims of divinity notwithstanding, it is more likely that the rabbi Jesus did exist than that he did not.
I suppose it is possible that an imaginary rabbi might be the focus of a new sect of Judaism at that time, but it's highly unlikely, especially given the fact that the Jesus cult had to go to great lengths to explain the manner of his death and the delay of his expected return.
It's difficult to imagine how a sect would become established with writings about their leader, a mere generation (some 30 years or so) after the time of his purported death, if that leader had been invented out of thin air.
Who would have started such a cult, and why? It doesn't fit the pattern we would expect during those times.
What does fit the pattern is the propagation of miracle stories and spurious biographies and scrolls of wisdom sayings by the disciples of a deceased rabbi.
It also fits what we know about the psychology of end-times cults, which, when the predicted end fails to arrive, do not usually disband but rather enter into an even more zealous phase of conversion and retrofitted justification (see Robert Cialdini's "Influence" for case studies).
If we assume Jesus did exist, there is nothing very extraordinary to explain about the writings about him and the spread of his cult. If we assume he did not exist, then we're left scratching our heads for answers.
Arthur Denton
Muse
- Joined
- Jul 6, 2008
- Messages
- 870
Get this DVD from you library, or rent it, THE GOD WHO WASN'T THERE.
Then come back to me about Jesus being real or not.
Paul
Can you list some of the arguments for the enjoyment of the crowd?
AD
Piggy
Unlicensed street skeptic
- Joined
- Mar 11, 2006
- Messages
- 15,905
I seriously doubt that it contains any arguments I have not heard many times over.
I would just as soon spend my time with a DVD which purports that Shakespeare did not write his plays.
Or "What the Bleep Do We Know?"
Piggy
Unlicensed street skeptic
- Joined
- Mar 11, 2006
- Messages
- 15,905
Hoo boy.
You're intent on making a clown of yourself. I wish you weren't, but I can't stop you.
Between the two of us, let me ask you, who has more experience?
Who has studied with the more reputable Biblical scholars?
Who has the better credentials in literary scholarship?
Who has read more widely in the field of ancient religious texts?
Now, of course, that doesn't necessarily mean that one of us is wrong and the other is right.
But your accusations here simply don't hold water.
Now, if you'd like to discuss any points of textual interpretation, then I'd be happy to do that.
Arthur Denton
Muse
- Joined
- Jul 6, 2008
- Messages
- 870
Just like in the Aliens movie. There's a guy who would look around and say, "now what the bleep are we supposed to do? Game over, man, game over!".
Piggy
Unlicensed street skeptic
- Joined
- Mar 11, 2006
- Messages
- 15,905
Let's take a look at the bullet points from the DVD's Web site:
Point 1 is simply false. There's no other way to put it.
Point 2 is consistent with the trajectory we would expect of a disciple cult at that time, after its leader's death.
Point 3 and point 4 are completely irrelevant to the question of Jesus's existence.
Paulhoff
You can't expect perfection.
- Joined
- May 1, 2005
- Messages
- 12,512
Really, when have a disciple talking of Jesus as not being anything other then being a spiritual being and not being a living person.
Paul
Piggy
Unlicensed street skeptic
- Joined
- Mar 11, 2006
- Messages
- 15,905
Care to get specific?
Paulhoff
You can't expect perfection.
- Joined
- May 1, 2005
- Messages
- 12,512
Point 1 is simply not false.
Point 2 If he was.
Point 3 and Point 4 are completely relevant to the question of Jesus's existence.
And my mother (a born-again) needs Jesus to be the so-called son of a so-called god for his words to have meaning.
Paul
Frozenwolf150
Formerly SilentKnight
- Joined
- Dec 10, 2007
- Messages
- 4,134
But you forget! Everyone who doesn't agree with the Jehovah's Witnesses* is wrong, wrong, wrong, regardless of their credentials. Teaching ultra-conservative bible study for years is enough to justify lording scriptural interpretation over everyone else, as well as to declare oneself an unquestionable infallible authority on the subject. Besides, you're an atheist, and therefore just out to get him, so what would you know?
On a serious note, I'm not one of those atheists who thinks that Jesus never existed. There are several reasons why I think there could have been a Jesus of history. First of all, Jesus/Yeshua was a very common name at the time. It was also a time when various religious leaders were rising up, calling for reform, and traveling the lands to preach their message. There would have been too many Jesus-types for any one Jesus never to have existed. Perhaps the legends were based on the lives of more than one individual, as religious myths often are.
Secondly, there's his town of origin, Nazareth. Some skeptics of Jesus's existence will say that Nazareth was invented in order to fulfill the "Nazarene" prophecy, or that the town of Nazareth wasn't called that until after Jesus died. However, evidence shows that the "Nazarene" prophecy was written and reverse-engineered after the fact, and the word "Nazoraios" originally meant something else entirely before it was connected with Nazareth. The fact that the name was changed after Jesus died doesn't change the fact that it was a real place--that was filthy, squalid, and run-down. Nazareth at the time was roughly the equivalent of Little-Crapshack-Ville. This is NOT the kind of place you'd want your legendary hero to come from if you were writing a new myth from scratch, yet obviously the authors left it in. It was a shameful detail about the life of Jesus that they had to find some way of dealing with.
Third, according to the gospels, Jesus was subordinate to John the Baptist. This was another embarrassing detail for the authors to have to deal with. If you were writing a myth from scratch, why would you make your great hero subordinate to anyone at any time in his career? The author of the book of John tried to squirm his way out of this by portraying John the Baptist as being clearly superseded by Jesus.
Fourth, there were the circumstances of Jesus's birth. In the world at the time, just as today, a virgin birth would have been a completely ridiculous concept. What we do know is that the true parentage of Jesus was a mystery at the time. Nobody knew who his real father was, and in Jewish culture, that would have literally made him a bastard. Nor did the messianic prophecies ever say anything about a virgin birth (almah = young woman; bethulah = virgin). For a Jewish man to be born without a known father would have been a great source of shame. Again, if the authors were inventing a myth from scratch, there's no way they would have let this detail slide.
Fifth, there's the fact that Jesus was killed by the Romans. This was the worst possible blow that could have been dealt to his fledgling Jewish sect, and for several decades his followers struggled and devoted a great deal of time and effort to trying to reconcile this. It was long after the fact that the death of Jesus was portrayed as a divinely preordained event. They recast a complete disaster into something that was not only supposed to happen, but also a blessing upon the human race. The messiah of prophecy was supposed to be a monarch and a conquering hero, which Jesus clearly was not. If they were trying to write a myth from scratch, they would have had no trouble creating a fictional figure that perfectly matched the prophecies.
* Better known as that religion that dictates parking in handicapped spaces, while handicapped people make handicapped faces, as one of its central tenets.
Last edited:
Paulhoff
You can't expect perfection.
- Joined
- May 1, 2005
- Messages
- 12,512
Piggy
Unlicensed street skeptic
- Joined
- Mar 11, 2006
- Messages
- 15,905
Yes, point 1 is false.
Point 2, yes, if he was, which is entirely my point.
No, point 3 and 4 are utterly irrelevant -- what people believe today has nothing to do with the question.
In any case, would you care to get specific, or are you just going to continue like this?
Piggy
Unlicensed street skeptic
- Joined
- Mar 11, 2006
- Messages
- 15,905
Oh, Jesus. Like the Truthers want us to watch their DVDs. And the "What the Bleep" people want us to watch their DVDs. Etc etc etc.
If you care to make any arguments here for the no-Jesus hypothesis, please do so.
If not, then we have nothing to talk about.
Believe me, I've heard all of this before. Many times.
Paulhoff
You can't expect perfection.
- Joined
- May 1, 2005
- Messages
- 12,512