• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Scriptural literacy

Paulhoff said:
There was no Jesus, show the proof there was.
Click to expand...

So... if we have no "proof" that Jesus lived, then we can conclude that he did not?

I don't think I have to point out the error in that sort of thinking.
 
Paulhoff said:
BS.
Click to expand...

No, it's not BS, I have indeed heard all of this stuff before.

And this "Go watch this DVD" business is silly.

If you have something to say to support your position that Jesus didn't exist, we can talk about it.

Mind you, I don't reject that position out of hand.

The historical reality of Jesus is a legitimate question. It's something that ought to be talked about.

But you're either going to discuss it here or you're not.

If not, then not.
 
Paulhoff, either you want to talk about scripture, or about the historicity of Jesus, or you do not.

If you actually understand the points that were raised in the DVD, you can bring them up here.

I am not about to waste my time watching a DVD which touts such absurd notions as those in the Web site's bullet points. Anyone with even a 101-level familiarity with the New Testament and with actual Biblical scholarship will recognize the errors there.

If you do not actually understand the issues you're raising here, then please, let it go.

However, if you want to address any specific points in detail, that's fine, we can do that.
 
How many of these sound a little like this so-called Jesus.

1. Hero's mother is a royal virgin;
2. His father is a king, and
3. Often a near relative of his mother, but
4. The circumstances of his conception are unusual, and
5. He is also reputed to be the son of a god.
6. At birth an attempt is made, usually by his father or his maternal grand father to kill him, but
7. he is spirited away, and
8. Reared by foster -parents in a far country.
9. We are told nothing of his childhood, but
10. On reaching manhood he returns or goes to his future Kingdom.
11. After a victory over the king and/or a giant, dragon, or wild beast,
12. He marries a princess, often the daughter of his predecessor and
13. And becomes king.
14. For a time he reigns uneventfully and
15. Prescribes laws, but
16. Later he loses favor with the gods and/or his subjects, and
17. Is driven from the throne and city, after which
18. He meets with a mysterious death,
19. Often at the top of a hill,
20. His children, if any do not succeed him.
21. His body is not buried, but nevertheless
22. He has one or more holy sepulchres.
Click to expand...
from:
http://department.monm.edu/classics/courses/clas230/mythdocuments/heropattern/default.htm

Paul

:) :) :)
 
Paulhoff said:
How many of these sound a little like this so-called Jesus.
Click to expand...

But you misunderstand.

The Jesus -- or Jesi -- of the Gospels and of Paul's letters (and of pseudo-Paul) is not the historical Jesus.

We would expect a cult of that time and place to invent exactly that kind of literature about their leader, especially if they were messianic.

The question is this: Which is more likely -- that a cult would develop those kinds of stories about their dead founder, or that a cult would develop those kinds of stories about nobody?

The former is much more probable.

Keep in mind, Jesus was not, at the time of the writing of the earliest stories, some ancient figure like the patriarchs.

The writing of these tales is entirely consistent with the theory that Jesus was a real flesh-and-blood human. The purpose of these tales was to reinforce his status after death.

This is why the writers of the Gospels go to such pains to attempt to align the life of Jesus with the Law, the Writings, and the Prophets (the Hebrew scriptures).

Again, if we assume that there was no historical Jesus, the production of the writings about Jesus becomes very difficult to explain.
 
Whatever arguments she heard they definitely didn't instruct her on at least the basics of correct literature evaluation techniques. And that's the whole problem here. People com e on this forum posturing as being biblically knowledgeable and fully capable of evaluating a literary work properly. Then their ignorance begins to show when they insist on ignoring the rules. Then their only option is mutual backslapping and chortling while praising one another on how clever they are and how stupid everyone who evaluates literature in accordance with the rules is. A real travesty of errors followed by buffoonery as a catharsis. Something totally unexpected on a skeptics forum which purportedly is supposed to attract critical thinkers.
 
Last edited:
Piggy said:
Again, if we assume that there was no historical Jesus, the production of the writings about Jesus becomes very difficult to explain.
Click to expand...
Yea, and all that writting about a so-called god must be difficult to explain too if it wasn't real.

Paul

:) :) :)
 
Radrook said:
Whatever arguments she heard they definitely didn't instruct her on at least the basics of correct literature evaluation techniques. And that's the whole problem here. People com e on this forum posturing as being biblically knowledgeable and fully capable of evaluating a literary work properly. Then their ignorance begins to show when they insist on ignoring the rules. Then their only option is mutual backslapping and chortling while praising one another on how clever they are and how stupid everyone who evaluates literature in accordance with the rules is. A real travesty of errors followed by buffoonery as a catharsis. Something totally unexpected on a skeptics forum which purportedly is supposed to attract critical thinkers.
Click to expand...

Why are you calling me "she"?

You know I'm a man, or you should.

Are you just trying to rankle me or something?

Now, are you done with the blustering?

Would you care to discuss scripture?

I see you don't have any stomach for comparing credentials, despite the fact that you were the one to initiate the (groundless) accusations regarding them.

And that's ok, but please, let's do get past the schoolyard taunts and focus on the text.
 
Last edited:
Contrary to the constant straw-man arguments, it's not biblical criticism I am opposing or arguing against. Neither is the subject biblical infallibility as some are trying to deviate to. It's simply the lack of proper criteria and blatant disregard for literary evaluation principles which if ignored in a literature class would readily earn you an "F." That's simply all I am referring to. A basic concept which seems beyond the comprehension of the fanatically godless on this forum.
 
Radrook said:
It's simply the lack of proper criteria and blatant disregard for literary evaluation principles which if ignored in a literature class would readily earn you an "F." That's simply all I am referring to. A basic concept which seems beyond the comprehension of the fanatically godless on this forum.
Click to expand...

This is, of course, ignoring the (often violent) disagreements over how to interpret the bible. How should these be resolved? Why, by going Radrooks way! Any other is false!
 
Radrook said:
Contrary to the constant straw-man arguments, it's not biblical criticism I am opposing or arguing against. Neither is the subject biblical infallibility as some are trying to deviate to. It's simply the lack of proper criteria and blatant disregard for literary evaluation principles which if ignored in a literature class would readily earn you an "F." That's simply all I am referring to. A basic concept which seems beyond the comprehension of the fanatically godless on this forum.
Click to expand...
Radrook. Piggy has established and applied the rational set of principles for interpreting the bible. If you wish to claim that his views are wrongly determined, you'll need to back that up with evidence and logical argument.
 
Mark Felt said:
This is, of course, ignoring the (often violent) disagreements over how to interpret the bible. How should these be resolved? Why, by going Radrooks way! Any other is false!
Click to expand...

Ignoring what? Whose way? Mine? Absolutely amazing! You still don't get it do you? I truly hope for you're sake that you are feigning incomprehension. Otherwise my friend, you have a very serious propblem to deal with.


BTW

Not applying the required principles of literature evaluation to the Bible is false. Hope that clears it up. If not-then you probably are in serious need of a brain transplant. : )
 
Last edited:
Radrook said:
Contrary to the constant straw-man arguments, it's not biblical criticism I am opposing or arguing against. Neither is the subject biblical infallibility as some are trying to deviate to. It's simply the lack of proper criteria and blatant disregard for literary evaluation principles which if ignored in a literature class would readily earn you an "F." That's simply all I am referring to. A basic concept which seems beyond the comprehension of the fanatically godless on this forum.
Click to expand...

Would you care to raise a specific point here?

From what I've seen of your posts, you have no clue what valid "literary evaluation principles" are, yet you accuse me of being ignorant of them.
 
Radrook said:
Not applying the required principles of literature evaluation to the Bible is false. Hope that clears it up.
Click to expand...

It might clear it up if you would explain what they are.

Perhaps you could give an example of how these principles may be applied to a particular passage in order to reach a valid interpretation.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom