Proof of Jesus?
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
04-11-2012, 11:36 AM (This post was last modified: 04-11-2012 03:53 PM by Bucky Ball.)
RE: Proof of Jesus?
(04-11-2012 11:32 AM)Free Wrote:  
(04-11-2012 11:29 AM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  Nope. You obviously only know things from very one sided perspective. You need to get out more.
http://westarinstitute.org/Events/JSORs/...o2012.html
The fact that you don't see this in a larger perspective, is proof of you lack of exposure to this topic, in general.
It's quite common though, for Americans, who are only exposed to Fundie stuff.
There exists a totally completely "other" view of things, in mainline academia, that the public is generally unaware of.

In the introduction to "Jesus Interrupted", Bart Ehrman said "
"Scholars of the Bible have made significant progress in understanding
the Bible over the past two hundred years, building on archaeological
discoveries, advances in our knowledge of the ancient Hebrew and Greek
languages in which the books of scripture were originally written and
deep and penetrating historical, literary and textual analyses. This is a
massive scholarly endeavor. Thousands of scholars just in North America
alone continue to do serious research in the field, and the results of
their study are regularly and routinely taught, both to graduate
students in universities and to prospective pastors attending seminaries
in preparation for the ministry. Yet such views of the Bible are
virtually unknown to the population at large."

http://www.thethinkingatheist.com/forum/...ment+texts

You just have no exposure to the field in general.
More assertion. And I'm not American.

I completely destroyed the Christ Myth Theory years ago. It's a joke in the scholarly field.

Prove it. Where ? Assertions with no evidence.
The thing is, you don't even understand why a "mythical Christ" is NOT the same as "no historical Jesus".
How old are you ? When was the last time you took a course at a reputable university ?
You obviously have no clue what's happening in mainline scholarship.

http://www396.ssldomain.com/tcpc/about/b...son_id=262

Insufferable know-it-all.Einstein
Those who were seen dancing were thought to be insane by those who could not hear the music - Friedrich Nietzsche
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
04-11-2012, 01:12 PM (This post was last modified: 04-11-2012 01:44 PM by Free.)
RE: Proof of Jesus?
Quote:
Quote:More assertion. And I'm not American.

I completely destroyed the Christ Myth Theory years ago. It's a joke in the scholarly field.


That was not assertion, that was a statement about the field with a quote and references to an acknowledged and respected Biblical scholar.


Did you actually click his links or investigate Bart Ehrman? What Bart Ehrman said in that quote has absolutely NOTHING to do with what Bucky is talking about. Bart Ehrman accepts the historicity of Jesus as a human being!


Quote:In 2012, Ehrman published Did Jesus Exist? defending the thesis that Jesus of Nazareth existed in contrast to the mythicist theory that Jesus is an entirely mythical or fictitious being woven whole-cloth out of legendary material. He states he expects the book to be criticized both by some atheists as well as fundamentalist Christians. In response, Richard Carrier published a lengthy criticism of the book in April 2012, particularly questioning both Ehrman's facts and methodology.[7] Ehrman replied to Carrier's criticisms on his website, primarily defending himself against Carrier's allegations of factual errors.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bart_D._Ehrman



So why the hell is Bucky creating links to people who contradict his view? For the record, I am associated with Bart Ehrman, and participate in his website via exclusive membership, so whatever Bucky is trying to do here about Ehrman I can conclusively refute from first-hand knowledge.


He's desperate. Period. He can't find a notable and well respected scholar who shares his view.

How can anyone become an atheist when we are all born with no beliefs in the first place? We are atheists because we were born this way.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
04-11-2012, 02:54 PM
RE: Proof of Jesus?
(04-11-2012 11:36 AM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  
(04-11-2012 11:32 AM)Free Wrote:  More assertion. And I'm not American.

I completely destroyed the Christ Myth Theory years ago. It's a joke in the scholarly field.

Prove it. Where ? Assertions with no evidence.
The think is, you don't even understand why a "mythical Christ" is NOT the same as "no historical Jesus".
How old are you ? When was the last time you took a course at a reputable university ?
You obviously have no clue what's happening in mainline scholarship.

http://www396.ssldomain.com/tcpc/about/b...son_id=262
I'll have no problem doing it again. Name the place and time and 1 on 1 you and me.

Present your argument.

How can anyone become an atheist when we are all born with no beliefs in the first place? We are atheists because we were born this way.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
04-11-2012, 03:03 PM
RE: Proof of Jesus?
(04-11-2012 02:54 PM)Free Wrote:  
(04-11-2012 11:36 AM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  Prove it. Where ? Assertions with no evidence.
The think is, you don't even understand why a "mythical Christ" is NOT the same as "no historical Jesus".
How old are you ? When was the last time you took a course at a reputable university ?
You obviously have no clue what's happening in mainline scholarship.

http://www396.ssldomain.com/tcpc/about/b...son_id=262
I'll have no problem doing it again. Name the place and time and 1 on 1 you and me.

Present your argument.
I asked you for a reference for where you proved it in the past.

Insufferable know-it-all.Einstein
Those who were seen dancing were thought to be insane by those who could not hear the music - Friedrich Nietzsche
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
04-11-2012, 03:20 PM
RE: Proof of Jesus?
(04-11-2012 03:03 PM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  
(04-11-2012 02:54 PM)Free Wrote:  I'll have no problem doing it again. Name the place and time and 1 on 1 you and me.

Present your argument.
I asked you for a reference for where you proved it in the past.
That would involve revealing my real name, as it was done on a pro level.

How can anyone become an atheist when we are all born with no beliefs in the first place? We are atheists because we were born this way.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
04-11-2012, 03:27 PM (This post was last modified: 03-03-2013 02:52 PM by Bucky Ball.)
RE: Proof of Jesus?
I can, and have. Dr. Bernard Brandon Scott, of Tufts. I am not denying the historicity. I saying your proofs are bullshit.

There is no "exclusive membership", at Ehrman's site. There is only "membership". I also am a member.
You TOTALLY missed the point. The point was that the public is unaware of the current state of scholarship. This is getting VERY interesting.

Insufferable know-it-all.Einstein
Those who were seen dancing were thought to be insane by those who could not hear the music - Friedrich Nietzsche
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
04-11-2012, 03:28 PM (This post was last modified: 04-11-2012 06:20 PM by Bucky Ball.)
RE: Proof of Jesus?
(04-11-2012 03:20 PM)Free Wrote:  
(04-11-2012 03:03 PM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  I asked you for a reference for where you proved it in the past.
That would involve revealing my real name, as it was done on a pro level.

You are no pro, sir, with THAT lack of understanding of the current state of scholarship.
Where did you get your education ?

Insufferable know-it-all.Einstein
Those who were seen dancing were thought to be insane by those who could not hear the music - Friedrich Nietzsche
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
04-11-2012, 06:21 PM (This post was last modified: 04-11-2012 07:38 PM by Bucky Ball.)
RE: Proof of Jesus?
So I will post this in two places.
My education was in, and continues, in the liberal centers. I realize how shocking some of this stuff must be to a non-scholar literalist. That's just the way it is. I can't help it.

In Free's introductory thread he said the following : "I'm a history buff and couldn't agree that argument for mythical was
better than the argument that somebody named Christ was crucified by Pontius Pilate."

The problem is, in mainline Biblical scholarship, that's not really what is meant by "mythical", or "mythological".
In Biblical scholarship, "mythology", (as authentic), has nothing to do with historicity.

In the last 75 years the mainline schools in Biblical scholarship were not concerned much about the actual existence of a "Jesus", but there was
an intense debate, mostly led by Rudolf Bultmann, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rudolf_Bultmann . Bultmann was a German
Lutheran Theologian, and New Testament scholar, and was a towering figure in Biblical scholarship in the last century. His most famous
work, was titled "Jesus Christ and Mythology". Here's a Google Book copy of it.
http://books.google.com/books/about/Jesu...UXAAAAIAAJ
He was of course an anathema to literalist Fundamentalists, but nonetheless had a huge, and lasting major influence on mainline Biblical
scholarship, and the church communities, as it gave those who needed a way to remain in their community of faith an alternative to literalism.
Bultmann thought that Jesus DID exist, but that the "Christ" was a mythological concept. The two were NOT self-exclusionary. They were 100 % compatible.

Modern Americans don't really have a concept of "authentic metaphor", or the "authentic use" of Mythology, (or any other of the literary devices for
that matter), especially in the Biblical context. For Americans, either it's literally true, or it has no value. Anything with that label
("mythological") is dismissed as "inauthentic", and fake, as it's not literally historical. Bultmann spent his career disabusing scholars of
that notion. This was one of THE major themes in Biblical scholarship in the last century, and in some quarters, remains so today. For humans
before the modern scientific age, when there was no way to actually record events, the way truth was imparted WAS Mythology. It was THE
authentic way the complex realities of human existence was imparted to the next generation, to others, and truth was taught. For example Aesop's
Fables were authentic myths. They taught very real truths, much as Star Wars is our authentic myth.
Bultmann tried to point out this was the intent of many of the writers of Biblical texts. It was a MAJOR movement in Biblical scholarship, and in some quarters, remains so, especially in liberal centers. Bultmann thought the Biblical texts were 100% "authentic", but needed to be "demythologized" in order to have
meaning for modern people.
http://www.giffordlectures.org/Author.asp?AuthorID=31
http://www.vary.freeuk.com/learning/relt...per06.html
http://www.biblicalstudies.org.uk/pdf/bq/16-8_343.pdf

The famous 20th Century Existentialist Theologian, Paul Tillich was a major follower of Bultmann, and his many books of sermons are evidence of
this non-literalistic approach to scripture. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paul_Tillich
Tillich ended up a Professor at Union Seminary, in New York, and also was a leading figure in 20th Century Protestant Theology, and
Existentialism. He was instrumental in the development of the idea of God as the "ground of (all) being", which became so popular in the last
century. One of his most prominent books was "The Courage To Be" in which he took the morality from his friend Martin Buber, (the Jewish
Talmud Philosopher), and incorporated Buber's reminder of the nature of "evil as chaos" which Buber had rediscovered in Genesis, by looking at
the Sumerian/Babylonian myth systems.

Saul of Tarsus says in his Letters that he was taught by no one. He says he directly received his ideas by a divine intervention. The "Christ" in Paul, is NOT the historical Yeshua". In Paul, the "Christ" is an apocalyptic figure. Whether they bear any historical resemblance was irrelevant to Paul.

It is in that context, most of the liberal centers operate today. Harvard, Princeton, Tubingen, (in Germany), Yale, Brown, and the many other non-fundamentalist
centers of learning. In that context, Dr. BB Scott writes and operates, in Tulsa, OK. He is but one of thousands. For these liberals, "mythical" is "authentic
myth", or REAL "truth", being imparted. The word has NOTHING to do with the historicity of the man Jesus. For them, when Jesus BECAME the "Anointed
One", (just as in the Pauline literature), THEN and ONLY THEN did he *become*, (mythologically) IN THE NON-PEJORATIVE sense the "Exalted"
One. Someone who never went to school in a mainline liberal school may have never been exposed to any of this. It's obvious in this case.

As Ehrman says, if the public knew what was going on in real classrooms in real schools, and centers of scholarship they would be shocked. Here we
just have another example of a member of the public who assumed he knew what was going on in Biblical scholarship, and in fact did not. So, it
appears we have another amateur here, who has no real academic exposure to Biblical scholarship, and another American literalist.
Ehrman, BTW, comes from a fundamentalist perspective, and while he has left Theism, his views will be forever colored by it.

Oh well. Carry on. Drinking Beverage

I ask Erxomai to weigh in here, and confirm what I KNOW he knows about all this. He will support at least my general outlines.

Insufferable know-it-all.Einstein
Those who were seen dancing were thought to be insane by those who could not hear the music - Friedrich Nietzsche
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
04-11-2012, 08:51 PM
RE: Proof of Jesus?
Quote:
My education was in, and continues, in the liberal centers. I realize how shocking some of this stuff must be to a non-scholar literalist. That's just the way it is. I can't help it.

The liberal centers is not mainstream. I am very familiar with it as it pretty much incorporates everything Jesus/Christ related that is not mainstream or fundamentalist. Personally, I have expertise in 1st - 4th century Gnosticism, Jesus Mythicism, and textual analysis.

There is nothing "literalist" about me.

Quote:In Free's introductory thread he said the following : "I'm a history buff and couldn't agree that argument for mythical was better than the argument that somebody named Christ was crucified by Pontius Pilate."

The problem is, in mainline Biblical scholarship, that's not really what is meant by "mythical", or "mythological".
In Biblical scholarship, "mythology", (as authentic), has nothing to do with historicity.

Actually, it's precisely what it means. In fact, it's common knowledge in the community.

Quote:The Christ myth theory (also known as Jesus mythicism, the Jesus myth theory and the nonexistence hypothesis) is the idea that Jesus of Nazareth was not a physical historical person, but is a fictional, mythological or solely incorporeal character created by the early Christian community.[1][2][3][4] Some proponents also argue that events or sayings associated with the figure of Jesus in the New Testament may have been drawn from one or more individuals who actually existed, but that none of them were in any sense the founder of Christianity

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christ_myth_theory


Quote:Modern Americans don't really have a concept of "authentic metaphor", or the "authentic use" of Mythology, (or any other of the literary devices for
that matter), especially in the Biblical context. For Americans, either it's literally true, or it has no value. Anything with that label ("mythological") is dismissed as "inauthentic", and fake, as it's not literally historical. Bultmann spent his career disabusing scholars of that notion. This was one of THE major themes in Biblical scholarship in the last century, and in some quarters, remains so today. For humans before the modern scientific age, when there was no way to actually record events, the way truth was imparted WAS Mythology. It was THE authentic way the complex realities of human existence was imparted to the next generation, to others, and truth was taught. For example Aesop's Fables were authentic myths. They taught very real truths, much as Star Wars is our authentic myth.

Bultmann tried to point out this was the intent of many of the writers of Biblical texts. It was a MAJOR movement in Biblical scholarship, and in some quarters, remains so, especially in liberal centers. Bultmann thought the Biblical texts were 100% "authentic", but needed to be "demythologized" in order to have meaning for modern people.

The famous 20th Century Existentialist Theologian, Paul Tillich was a major follower of Bultmann, and his many books of sermons are evidence of this non-literalistic approach to scripture. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paul_Tillich
Tillich ended up a Professor at Union Seminary, in New York, and also was a leading figure in 20th Century Protestant Theology, and
Existentialism. He was instrumental in the development of the idea of God as the "ground of (all) being", which became so popular in the last
century. One of his most prominent books was "The Courage To Be" in which he took the morality from his friend Martin Buber, (the Jewish
Talmud Philosopher), and incorporated Buber's reminder of the nature of "evil as chaos" which Buber had rediscovered in Genesis, by looking at
the Sumerian/Babylonian myth systems.

I have no problems with Bultmann's or Tillich opinions. At least they present their opinions as alternative views and not as something indisputable.

Quote:Saul of Tarsus says in his Letters that he was taught by no one. He says he directly received his ideas by a divine intervention. The "Christ" in Paul, is NOT the historical Yeshua". In Paul, the "Christ" is an apocalyptic figure. Whether they bear any historical resemblance was irrelevant to Paul.

Paul spoke frequently of Jesus Christ who was crucified, the very same Jesus Christ spoken about by all 4 Gospels, non canonical texts, and historians. He relates to Jesus and Christ as being one and the same.

However, I will admit that Paul does appear to swing slightly toward an early form of 1st century Gnosticism. Evidence of this can be found at 2Co_12:2, among a few other places. Another interesting fact about Paul is that he actually does claim to have met Jesus in 1Cor 9:1.

The concept of Jesus and Christ being separate entities is not new to me at all. This can be established by the purported words of Jesus himself all through the gospels where he speaks in the 3rd person of the "Son of Man" (Jesus in the flesh) and "Son of God," (Christ, a spirit.)

Quote:It is in that context, most of the liberal centers operate today. Harvard, Princeton, Tubingen, (in Germany), Yale, Brown, and the many other non-fundamentalist centers of learning. In that context, Dr. BB Scott writes and operates, in Tulsa, OK. He is but one of thousands. For these liberals, "mythical" is "authentic myth", or REAL "truth", being imparted. The word has NOTHING to do with the historicity of the man Jesus. For them, when Jesus BECAME the "Anointed One", (just as in the Pauline literature), THEN and ONLY THEN did he *become*, (mythologically) IN THE NON-PEJORATIVE sense the "Exalted" One. Someone who never went to school in a mainline liberal school may have never been exposed to any of this. It's obvious in this case.

Actually, all this stuff is old hat to me, and from my experience it is very clear that you are over-stating the worth of such so-called "scholarship" as it remains today far removed from acceptance. You are speaking about "Jesus mythicism," an area of study and beliefs that are almost universally rejected world-wide due to the total implausibility of the concept.

To be blunt, it is laughed at and frowned upon as un-scholarly.

Nothing you wrote here even romtely approached anything scholarly. You will need to do much better.

How can anyone become an atheist when we are all born with no beliefs in the first place? We are atheists because we were born this way.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
04-11-2012, 09:11 PM
RE: Proof of Jesus?
(04-11-2012 08:51 PM)Free Wrote:  1. The liberal centers is ARE not mainstream. I am very familiar with it as it pretty much incorporates everything Jesus/Christ related that is not mainstream or fundamentalist. Personally, I have expertise in 1st - 4th century Gnosticism, Jesus Mythicism, and textual analysis.

There is nothing "literalist" about me.

2. Actually, it's precisely what it means. In fact, it's common knowledge in the community.

3. Paul spoke frequently of Jesus Christ who was crucified, the very same Jesus Christ spoken about by all 4 Gospels, non canonical texts, and historians. He relates to Jesus and Christ as being one and the same.

4. Actually, all this stuff is old hat to me, and from my experience it is very clear that you are over-stating the worth of such so-called "scholarship" as it remains today far removed from acceptance. You are speaking about "Jesus mythicism," an area of study and beliefs that are almost universally rejected world-wide due to the total implausibility of the concept.

5. To be blunt, it is laughed at and frowned upon as un-scholarly.1. The idea that Union Seminary, Harvard Divinity School, and Princeton Seminary ARE not mainstream, or that the 124 scholars who assembled The Interpreters Bible are not mainstream is utterly preposterous. More proof of his lack of education. He is a literist. It oozes from every post.
2. In the Fundi community maybe. Obviously that's his only exposure. It's a "common" mistake of amateurs. Wiki is all ya got ?

3. He did not. The Greek words prove it, and as Dr. BB Scott has pointed out, he was not talking about Yeshua, as a physically risen human, as there was no such concept, either in Judaism or Greek thought.

4. Wrong. You obviously have no idea what I'm talking about. Apparently you were indoctrinated in a Fundamentalist system just as Ehrman. Calling Tubingen "overrated', is the most hilarious thing I have ever heard.

5. Of course it is. By ultra-conservative Fundamentalists.

6. Since you have no education in the subject, I won't be wasting any more time on your nonsense and street level ignorance. Try to get a real education some day.

Insufferable know-it-all.Einstein
Those who were seen dancing were thought to be insane by those who could not hear the music - Friedrich Nietzsche
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: