Proof of Jesus?
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
04-11-2012, 09:13 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.

1. The idea that Union Seminary, Harvard Divinity School, Princeton Seminary, Yale and the 124 scholars who assembled The Interpreters Bible are NOT mainstream, is utterly preposterous. Nice try.

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
05-11-2012, 10:00 AM
RE: Proof of Jesus?
Quote:1. The idea that Union Seminary, Harvard Divinity School, Princeton Seminary, Yale and the 124 scholars who assembled The Interpreters Bible are NOT mainstream, is utterly preposterous. Nice try.

Not preposterous at all. Alternate views of interpretation of ancient texts do not find much in the way of acceptance in the mainstream. If this was not true, then Jesus Mysticism and Gnostic interpretations would be far more accepted as viable and believable interpretations than they currently are, and currently they are not.

Quote:2. In the Fundi community maybe. Obviously that's his only exposure. It's a "common" mistake of amateurs. Wiki is all ya got ?

Has nothing to do with anything Fundi. It is the universal definition. You deny it because you believe in your interpretation as being the only acceptable explanation. You are simply in denial.

Quote: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.

It doesn't matter what Scott says, or what Earl Doherty says, or what a small handful of others say. Do you think that because a small handful of people agree on some obscure and implausible interpretation that it somehow makes it true? Their interprations are rejected by leading authorities, and not because they are Fundis, but because their work is self-contradictory and ignores the contradictions.



Quote: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.

Over-rated or over-stated? Re-read what I said. you are over-stating the worth of scholarship in your interpretations and when the actual mainstream scholarship views those types of interpretations as utterly and totally groundless.

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

By almost everybody in the field, including atheists.

Quote: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.

Go ahead and run. You have provided absolutely nothing here that has not already been seen and dismissed as ridiculous numerous times by the best scholars in the world. You cannot justify what you believe and expect to gain any traction whatsoever in the credibility department. Logic and reason alone utterly destroys your position, and nobody needs to be a scholar to see it.

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
05-11-2012, 10:16 AM (This post was last modified: 05-11-2012 11:28 AM by Bucky Ball.)
RE: Proof of Jesus?
(05-11-2012 10:00 AM)Free Wrote:  1. Not preposterous at all. Alternate views of interpretation of ancient texts do not find much in the way of acceptance in the mainstream. If this was not true, then Jesus Mysticism and Gnostic interpretations would be far more accepted as viable and believable interpretations than they currently are, and currently they are not.

2. Has nothing to do with anything Fundi. It is the universal definition. You deny it because you believe in your interpretation as being the only acceptable explanation. You are simply in denial.

3. It doesn't matter what Scott says, or what Earl Doherty says, or what a small handful of others say. Do you think that because a small handful of people agree on some obscure and implausible interpretation that it somehow makes it true? Their interprations are rejected by leading authorities, and not because they are Fundis, but because their work is self-contradictory and ignores the contradictions.

4. By almost everybody in the field, including atheists.
5 Missing
6. Go ahead and run. You have provided absolutely nothing here that has not already been seen and dismissed as ridiculous numerous times by the best scholars in the world. You cannot justify what you believe and expect to gain any traction whatsoever in the credibility department. Logic and reason alone utterly destroys your position, and nobody needs to be a scholar to see it.
1. Point not addressed. No evidence. No consensus. Rubbish.
2. Point not addressed. No evidence. No consensus. Rubbish.
3. Point not addressed. No evidence. No consensus. Rubbish.
Earl Doherty has nothing to do with anything. I have demonstrated that the ideas he has and the mainline view came from Bultmann. Has only the ability to deal with questions in his small limited exposure view. Has not demonstrated anything said even resembled Doherty. In fact I had never even heard of him until he mentioned nim. Unaware of broad scope, in general of scholarship.
4. Point not addressed. No evidence. No consensus. Rubbish.
5. Point not addressed. No evidence. No consensus. Rubbish.
6. Point not addressed. No evidence. No consensus. Rubbish. Assertions. no evidence Talking through ass.
Just as "I completely destroyed the Christ Myth Theory years ago. It's a joke in the scholarly field". Poster is deluded, has delusions of grandeur. Another nut job sufferer from Dunning-Kruger, inflicted on TTA.

Every point :
1. All assertion.
2. No scholarly consensus.
3. No historical method employed.


No attempt to address anything. His Majesty has made complete fool of the royal personage
Tongue.

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
05-11-2012, 10:28 AM
RE: Proof of Jesus?
(04-11-2012 09:13 PM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  I won't be wasting any more time on your nonsense and street level ignorance.

And yet... Tongue

I'm not seeing Free as ignorant so much as biased. And there seems to be some confusion as to "Jesus myth" and Jesus mythology."

[Image: klingon_zps7e68578a.jpg]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
05-11-2012, 10:57 AM
RE: Proof of Jesus?
(05-11-2012 10:28 AM)houseofcantor Wrote:  I'm not seeing Free as ignorant so much as biased. And there seems to be some confusion as to "Jesus myth" and Jesus mythology."
He's fun to play with, and it provides an opportunity to point out what the the mainline views actually are.
I was waiting for him to say that what you mentioned is true. We are not even talking about the same thing.
"Mythicism" has never been a concern of the mainline scholars, as the "Christ" of faith is not necessarily the Jeebus of history.
BB Scott's is a very careful exegesis, which he's never read. (Scott was trained at Harvard, I think.), and NEVER once mentions Doherty. His ideas originated with Bultmann. He says so.
I actually do believe that a historical Jeebus existed, as Acts tells of a giant conflict. No cult, arising from a fabrication would make itself. off that bat, by telling of a huge internecine conflict.
It also easy to demonstrate that the Paul in Acts is not the Paul, (one of) the-letter-writers. Paul the letter-writer has a non-Hebrew world view, and the Saul in acts has a Hebrew world view.
he did teach me one good thing though. If you can't provide an answer to an argument, you just say "rubbish". Love that word.

R-R-R-R-R-R-R-R-R-R-Rubbish.

Tongue

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
05-11-2012, 11:03 AM
RE: Proof of Jesus?
Quote:
Quote:I won't be wasting any more time on your nonsense and street level ignorance.




And yet...

I'm not seeing Free as ignorant so much as biased. And there seems to be some confusion as to "Jesus myth" and Jesus mythology."

The confusion isn't with me. There's the myth, and there's the mythology, and there's also the mysticism. All three are indeed different, but all fall under the "Christ Myth Theory." Have a look:

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. 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



Bucky is advocating Jesus/Christ Mythicism. He believes that Paul regarded the Christ as a separate spiritual entity from the personage of Jesus, which closely resembles the beliefs of 1st - 4th century Gnostics. The Gnostics believed that Jesus had his own soul, and also the Son of God co-existing within his corporeal body.

Bucky's position regarding what he believes about what Paul believed gets refuted constantly by numerous qualified scholars. Links can be provided if requested.

Am I biased? Perhaps a little, but the reason is not because I am stubborn, but because the argument people like Bucky present is so easily dismantled by mere reason and logic, as well as true scholarship. His position contradicts itself in the face of obvious evidence.

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
05-11-2012, 11:07 AM
RE: Proof of Jesus?
(05-11-2012 10:57 AM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  I actually do believe that a historical Jeebus existed, as Acts tells of a giant conflict. No cult, arising from a fabrication would make itself. off that bat, by telling of a huge internecine conflict.

Come on. What about 9/11? There's definitely some mythology there. But there's also some fuckers going on about holographic airplanes and scalar energy beams from space... and they actually believe that shit. Tongue

[Image: klingon_zps7e68578a.jpg]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
05-11-2012, 11:23 AM (This post was last modified: 05-11-2012 11:38 AM by Vosur.)
RE: Proof of Jesus?
(05-11-2012 11:03 AM)Free Wrote:  Am I biased? Perhaps a little, but the reason is not because I am stubborn, but because the argument people like Bucky present is so easily dismantled by mere reason and logic, as well as true scholarship. His position contradicts itself in the face of obvious evidence.
According to your own source:

"Since the publication of the 2nd edition of Schweitzer's Quest for the Historical Jesus in 1926, virtually no major New Testament scholar has offered a refutation of the Christ-myth hypothesis until the publication in 2012 of Bart Ehrman's Did Jesus Exist? The Historical Argument for Jesus of Nazareth [...]"

Also according to your own source:

"Donald Akenson, Professor of Irish Studies in the department of history at Queen's University has argued that, with very few exceptions, the historians of Yeshua have not followed sound historical practices. He has stated that there is an unhealthy reliance on consensus, for propositions which should otherwise be based on primary sources, or rigorous interpretation. He also holds that some of the criteria being used are faulty. He says that the overwhelming majority of biblical scholars are employed in institutions whose roots are in religious beliefs. Because of this, he maintains that, more than any other group in present day academia, biblical historians are under immense pressure to theologize their historical work and that it is only through considerable individual heroism that many biblical historians have managed to maintain the scholarly integrity of their work."

[Image: 7oDSbD4.gif]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
05-11-2012, 11:26 AM (This post was last modified: 05-11-2012 12:31 PM by Bucky Ball.)
RE: Proof of Jesus?
(05-11-2012 11:07 AM)houseofcantor Wrote:  
(05-11-2012 10:57 AM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  I actually do believe that a historical Jeebus existed, as Acts tells of a giant conflict. No cult, arising from a fabrication would make itself. off that bat, by telling of a huge internecine conflict.
Come on. What about 9/11? There's definitely some mythology there. But there's also some fuckers going on about holographic airplanes and scalar energy beams from space... and they actually believe that shit. Tongue
Not sure what cult your talking about, that started at 9/11, by making itself look bad. The Muslims conned some alienated guys to kill themselves, but Islam, (the non-Abrahamic moon-god cult) was well underway, at that point. are there NEW cults from then ?

Actually what I think is, the gentleman likely got a history undergrad degree, and approaches Biblical Studies from THAT specialized view. I would bet he even did a paper on Gnosticism and Early Christianity from a view of someone from 30 years ago, as he says.
Just as Habermas goes WAY off the rails, as he uses a completely 100% Historian methodology, with respect to Paul, so is he. Biblical Studies is a completely separate field, and requires a separate set of tools. It's pretty obvious, that's what's going on here.

He may have heard of a Birger A Pierson, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Birger_A._Pearson , a well known Gnostic/Christian expert, who says in the second line of the Preface to "Gnosticism, Judasim, and Egyptian Christianity", (2006), "I am quite aware, of course, that scholarship moves on, not least in the study of Gnosticism." Scholarship does indeed move on. (Supposedly) demonstrating something 30 years ago could be irrelevant, depending what citations were used, and what scholars were cited. We are left guessing.

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
05-11-2012, 12:29 PM
RE: Proof of Jesus?
Quote:
Quote:Am I biased? Perhaps a little, but the reason is not because I am stubborn, but because the argument people like Bucky present is so easily dismantled by mere reason and logic, as well as true scholarship. His position contradicts itself in the face of obvious evidence.


According to your own source:

"Since the publication of the 2nd edition of Schweitzer's Quest for the Historical Jesus in 1926, virtually no major New Testament scholar has offered a refutation of the Christ-myth hypothesis until the publication in 2012 of Bart Ehrman's Did Jesus Exist? The Historical Argument for Jesus of Nazareth [...]"

And that reason for that is exacly what I said: "because the argument people like Bucky present is so easily dismantled by mere reason and logic, as well as true scholarship."

Also according to your own source:

Quote:"Donald Akenson, Professor of Irish Studies in the department of history at Queen's University has argued that, with very few exceptions, the historians of Yeshua have not followed sound historical practices. He has stated that there is an unhealthy reliance on consensus, for propositions which should otherwise be based on primary sources, or rigorous interpretation. He also holds that some of the criteria being used are faulty. He says that the overwhelming majority of biblical scholars are employed in institutions whose roots are in religious beliefs. Because of this, he maintains that, more than any other group in present day academia, biblical historians are under immense pressure to theologize their historical work and that it is only through considerable individual heroism that many biblical historians have managed to maintain the scholarly integrity of their work."

Perfect example of using an Argument from Authority. "Professor of Irish Studies," not an expert in the field. He's respected for sure, but is he actually qualified in the field?

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
Post Reply
Forum Jump: