James, Jesus' brother
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
21-05-2015, 12:13 PM
RE: James, Jesus' brother
Quote:Assume for a second that he existed


No. Not without evidence. That gives the fuckers way more than they deserve. All they can ever trot out is regurgitated bible bullshit and that is no where near good enough.

Read Richard Carrier's "On the Historicity of Jesus." (Not the xtians...way too complicated for any of you.)

Atheism is NOT a Religion. It's A Personal Relationship With Reality!
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
21-05-2015, 12:27 PM
RE: James, Jesus' brother
(21-05-2015 12:13 PM)Minimalist Wrote:  
Quote:Assume for a second that he existed


No. Not without evidence. That gives the fuckers way more than they deserve. All they can ever trot out is regurgitated bible bullshit and that is no where near good enough.

Read Richard Carrier's "On the Historicity of Jesus." (Not the xtians...way too complicated for any of you.)

If you bothered to read the rest of the statement, I said that to illustrate that even if he did exist, that in no way gives credence to the claims. It was a freaking hypothetical statement which does not require any evidence. It's just a "what if", something to ponder, nothing more. I am aware of Carrier's arguments and while they are very interesting, it still does not change the fact that whether he existed or not, the claims about him are just as bullshit. That is all I was saying.

"If we are honest—and scientists have to be—we must admit that religion is a jumble of false assertions, with no basis in reality.
The very idea of God is a product of the human imagination."
- Paul Dirac
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
21-05-2015, 12:34 PM
RE: James, Jesus' brother
(21-05-2015 12:06 PM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  He did nothing of the sort. That's your prejudice talking. As Dr. B.B. Scott (Christian seminary Professor of the NT), in his book "The Trouble with Resurrection", said the meaning of "coming to see" or "they would *see* " does not necessarily mean (along with the many other similar "seeings", it could easily have meant "come to understand". But whatever, no one says he "rose physically from the dead".

http://www.thethinkingatheist.com/forum/...#pid192117

Except of course for the fact that Mark wrote of the stone being rolled back, and that the tomb was empty.

"When they looked up, they saw that the stone had been rolled back; it was very large...." “Do not be amazed! You seek Jesus of Nazareth, the crucified. He has been raised; he is not here. Behold the place where they laid him." (Mark 16: 4,6)

The verse claims that the reason for the tomb being empty, was because he was raised.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
21-05-2015, 12:43 PM
RE: James, Jesus' brother
(21-05-2015 12:34 PM)Tomasia Wrote:  
(21-05-2015 12:06 PM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  He did nothing of the sort. That's your prejudice talking. As Dr. B.B. Scott (Christian seminary Professor of the NT), in his book "The Trouble with Resurrection", said the meaning of "coming to see" or "they would *see* " does not necessarily mean (along with the many other similar "seeings", it could easily have meant "come to understand". But whatever, no one says he "rose physically from the dead".

http://www.thethinkingatheist.com/forum/...#pid192117

Except of course for the fact that Mark wrote of the stone being rolled back, and that the tomb was empty.

"When they looked up, they saw that the stone had been rolled back; it was very large...." “Do not be amazed! You seek Jesus of Nazareth, the crucified. He has been raised; he is not here. Behold the place where they laid him." (Mark 16: 4,6)

The verse claims that the reason for the tomb being empty, was because he was raised.

Sorry. The empty tomb may just as easily been allegorical, JUST LIKE the 500 others raised in Matthew, the temple curtain being torn, and and the earthquake (obviously all allegorical). "Being (physically) raised" makes no sense in a culture which had no concept of immortality as we do today, (and the information is transmitted very "matter-of-factly", as thought they should have expected or understood it IN THEIR CONTEXT. If "raised up" meant "exalted" which does make perfect sense in Jewish Apocalyptic literature, (as BB Scott explains) then the point is that Jesus was taking his place in the line of Jewish Apocalypitic heros, and the probability that it meant something completely foreign to that culture (ie physically reanimated) is very low.

Insufferable know-it-all.Einstein God has a plan for us. Please stop screwing it up with your prayers.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Bucky Ball's post
21-05-2015, 12:44 PM
RE: James, Jesus' brother
(21-05-2015 12:34 PM)Tomasia Wrote:  
(21-05-2015 12:06 PM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  He did nothing of the sort. That's your prejudice talking. As Dr. B.B. Scott (Christian seminary Professor of the NT), in his book "The Trouble with Resurrection", said the meaning of "coming to see" or "they would *see* " does not necessarily mean (along with the many other similar "seeings", it could easily have meant "come to understand". But whatever, no one says he "rose physically from the dead".

http://www.thethinkingatheist.com/forum/...#pid192117

Except of course for the fact that Mark wrote of the stone being rolled back, and that the tomb was empty.

"When they looked up, they saw that the stone had been rolled back; it was very large...." “Do not be amazed! You seek Jesus of Nazareth, the crucified. He has been raised; he is not here. Behold the place where they laid him." (Mark 16: 4,6)

The verse claims that the reason for the tomb being empty, was because he was raised.

Or just moved elsewhere and said that he was raised.


But as if to knock me down, reality came around
And without so much as a mere touch, cut me into little pieces

Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Momsurroundedbyboys's post
21-05-2015, 12:45 PM
RE: James, Jesus' brother
(21-05-2015 12:13 PM)Chas Wrote:  
(21-05-2015 11:55 AM)Tomasia Wrote:  And so did I.

The verses I quoted were all prior to verse 9, prior to the longer ending.

It ends with the women not telling this to anyone. How would anyone know about it?

Who knows, maybe they ended up running into him in Galilee, since Mark says he's going before them to Galilee. Or maybe when Jesus got to Galilee no one showed up, and he figured he got stood up. It wouldn't have been the first time he's been betrayed. Perhaps he chatted with a few locals, downed a few glasses of Manischewitz and bounced.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
21-05-2015, 12:50 PM
RE: James, Jesus' brother
(21-05-2015 12:44 PM)Momsurroundedbyboys Wrote:  Or just moved elsewhere and said that he was raised.

That could be true. Matthew did write of accusations of the disciples stealing the body:

"They assembled with the elders and took counsel; then they gave a large sum of money to the soldiers, telling them, “You are to say, ‘His disciples came by night and stole him while we were asleep.’ And if this gets to the ears of the governor, we will satisfy [him] and keep you out of trouble.” The soldiers took the money and did as they were instructed. And this story has circulated among the Jews to the present." (Matt 28)

It's an interesting detail, for mythicist to compensate for, why invent such a scandalous accusation up, if there really wasn't such accusation flying around at the time?
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
21-05-2015, 01:27 PM
RE: James, Jesus' brother
(21-05-2015 12:43 PM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  Sorry. The empty tomb may just as easily been allegorical, JUST LIKE the 500 others raised in Matthew, the temple curtain being torn, and and the earthquake (obviously all allegorical).

Is the empty tomb just as easily allegorical in all four of the Gospels, or just in Mark?

Was it allegorical in Mark, but taken as literal by the time of Matthew, since Matthew writes of accusations of the disciples stealing his body? Or were these accusations also allegorical?
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
21-05-2015, 03:16 PM
RE: James, Jesus' brother
(21-05-2015 12:13 PM)Minimalist Wrote:  [quote]

Read Richard Carrier's "On the Historicity of Jesus." (Not the xtians...way too complicated for any of you.)

Read it, and it's ridiculous. So totally full of the logical fallacies that you Jesus Mythicists bend down and worship.

Carrier is an internet historian, and although accredited, he can't even get a job due to his crackpot theories. He makes his money off of suckers like you just so he can pay the rent on his tar paper shack on the edge of town.

Drinking Beverage

Having problems with your computer? Visit our Free Tech Support thread for help!
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
21-05-2015, 03:36 PM
RE: James, Jesus' brother
(21-05-2015 03:16 PM)Free Wrote:  
(21-05-2015 12:13 PM)Minimalist Wrote:  Read Richard Carrier's "On the Historicity of Jesus." (Not the xtians...way too complicated for any of you.)

Read it, and it's ridiculous. So totally full of the logical fallacies that you Jesus Mythicists bend down and worship.

Carrier is an internet historian, and although accredited, he can't even get a job due to his crackpot theories. He makes his money off of suckers like you just so he can pay the rent on his tar paper shack on the edge of town.

Drinking Beverage

So you believe Jesus was a real person? He performed miracles and shit?


But as if to knock me down, reality came around
And without so much as a mere touch, cut me into little pieces

Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: