Supposed "evidence" for jesus.
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
04-11-2015, 06:39 PM (This post was last modified: 04-11-2015 06:43 PM by Tomasia.)
Supposed "evidence" for jesus.
(04-11-2015 06:21 PM)RocketSurgeon76 Wrote:  
(04-11-2015 06:10 PM)Tomasia Wrote:  If such a group did exist then it would go without saying, that their expectations of what the Messiah would be, and their interpretations of OT messianic prophecies would be radically different than the predominant Jewish expectations at the time.

Like getting the alma/betulah interpretation wrong, in an attempt to force the "Immanuel" narrative in Isaiah to fit their leader?

Like failing completely on understanding the Hebrew system of inheritance, to try to squeeze him into the "House of David" lineage?

And the shoehorning you're suggesting here, only make sense in light of a historical Yeshua. Immaterial/Mythicist versions wouldn't be. Folks like Carrier believed the crucifixion narrative was formed and inspired by Isaiah suffering savior narrative, rather than historicist who would claim they read it back into the txt, to resolve the issue of his defeat at the hands of the Romans. Historicist would claim that these early followers of the historical Yeshua, spiritualized his defeat, to avoid accepting his political failure. Mythicist on the other would suggest that entirely spiritualized conceptions of the messiah were a part of heterodox messianic expectations at the time.

"Tell me, muse, of the storyteller who has been thrust to the edge of the world, both an infant and an ancient, and through him reveal everyman." ---Homer the aged poet.

"In Him was life, and the life was the Light of men. The Light shines in the darkness, and the darkness did not comprehend it."
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
04-11-2015, 08:17 PM
RE: Supposed "evidence" for jesus.
(04-11-2015 06:28 PM)GirlyMan Wrote:  
(04-11-2015 05:47 PM)Aliza Wrote:  I'm not aware that Jesus fulfilled any traditional Jewish expectations for Messiah.

Tell me what these are. Girly'll give 'em a go.

Sure!

The Messiah will be a Jew. *** Yes, Jesus fulfills that one.
The Messiah will be a normal human being, not a god. <-- I suppose technically Jesus fulfills that one, too. ***
The Messiah will be from the House of David. X
The Messiah will build the next Temple, or sustain the existing Temple. X
The Messiah will bring about universal knowledge of G-d. No one will be on atheist forums debating the existence of G-d once the messiah comes, so Jesus gets a big fat X on that one.
The Messiah will end the diaspora, and all the Jews will return to Israel. X
The Messiah will usher in an era of world peace. X
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like Aliza's post
04-11-2015, 09:22 PM
RE: Supposed "evidence" for jesus.
(04-11-2015 06:39 PM)Tomasia Wrote:  
(04-11-2015 06:21 PM)RocketSurgeon76 Wrote:  Like getting the alma/betulah interpretation wrong, in an attempt to force the "Immanuel" narrative in Isaiah to fit their leader?

Like failing completely on understanding the Hebrew system of inheritance, to try to squeeze him into the "House of David" lineage?

And the shoehorning you're suggesting here, only make sense in light of a historical Yeshua. Immaterial/Mythicist versions wouldn't be. Folks like Carrier believed the crucifixion narrative was formed and inspired by Isaiah suffering savior narrative, rather than historicist who would claim they read it back into the txt, to resolve the issue of his defeat at the hands of the Romans. Historicist would claim that these early followers of the historical Yeshua, spiritualized his defeat, to avoid accepting his political failure. Mythicist on the other would suggest that entirely spiritualized conceptions of the messiah were a part of heterodox messianic expectations at the time.

I agree, which is why I am not a Mythicist. However, I think the Mythicists make a lot of excellent points, and am willing to concede the strong possibility that he was an amalgamation/invention of the guys selling the early versions of the cult, no more real than the angel with whom Joseph Smith supposedly conversed. People make stuff up all the time, and unfortunately, humans have shown a surprising ability to run with the invented stuff, adding to it until it morphs into a semi-cohesive account that is hard to shake off after a bit of tradition and proselytizing.

"Theology made no provision for evolution. The biblical authors had missed the most important revelation of all! Could it be that they were not really privy to the thoughts of God?" - E. O. Wilson
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 3 users Like RocketSurgeon76's post
04-11-2015, 09:25 PM (This post was last modified: 04-11-2015 09:40 PM by Bucky Ball.)
RE: Supposed "evidence" for jesus.
(04-11-2015 05:17 PM)Tomasia Wrote:  Isn't that true for every historical messiah claimant? That none of them got the job done, that they were all failures?

The failed messiah claim makes sense in regards to a historical messiah claimant, not sure how that works in regards to a mythicist version of the messiah.

I mean if there was an early jewish sect, who interpreted messianic prophecies and expectations, to be of a spiritual, mythicist version of the messiah, their mythical Yeshua would have been one that got the job done, one formed by those very expectations, as opposed to having to read him back into scripture, the way historical claimants have to be. Would this early mythicist sect have expected their messiah to have physically overthrown Rome? I'd assume it would have been in some nebulous spiritual sense?

No. It's the same. It's why the Christians had to cook up all the other theological bullshit about the messiah's job was to die for their sins, and basically CHANGE everything about what a messiah was supposed to do. Do Christians say he was a political hero ?

No.

They CHANGED the entire concept to justify their BS. The early Christians (including their leader, if he was real) thought the end-times were about to happen. Paul also thought that. That is a well known fact. Paul was an apocalyptic Jew. He thought the end was nigh. After the temple was destroyed, and the end didn't pan out, they had to rearrange the deck chairs, and rationalize their 'stuff".

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
04-11-2015, 10:34 PM
RE: Supposed "evidence" for jesus.
(04-11-2015 06:10 PM)Tomasia Wrote:  
(04-11-2015 05:47 PM)Aliza Wrote:  hmmmm.... What criteria are you suggesting was in place for identifying a mythical messiah, and in what way did Jesus accomplish the job? Aside from being Jewish, I'm not aware that Jesus fulfilled any traditional Jewish expectations for Messiah.

I don't really know how familiar you are with mythicist arguments, those folks who don't believe that Jesus was based on a historical person, like Richard Carrier, Robert Price, etc..., who believed there was an early 1st century, perhaps much earlier jewish sect that believed in a non-material/spiritual messiah who was crucified in some spiritual realm, spiritually defeated the dark powers that be, etc....

If such a group did exist then it would go without saying, that their expectations of what the Messiah would be, and their interpretations of OT messianic prophecies would be radically different than the predominant Jewish expectations at the time.

Robert Price, I'm not familiar with. I'll have to read up or watch some of his stuff. Richard Carrier, on the other hand, I'm a little more familiar with. I've seen two or three lectures and debates from him on YouTube, but its pretty clear by the way he speaks that I'm just not in the demographic of his target audience.

I don't see why the expectations of these off-shoot Jews would be different from mainstream Judaism. The messianic prohpecies are fairly clear and simple; there really isn't a lot of room for wildly different interpretations.

Who are these people, and what kinds of things might they have believed?
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
04-11-2015, 10:57 PM
RE: Supposed "evidence" for jesus.
(04-11-2015 09:22 PM)RocketSurgeon76 Wrote:  I agree, which is why I am not a Mythicist. However, I think the Mythicists make a lot of excellent points, and am willing to concede the strong possibility that he was an amalgamation/invention of the guys selling the early versions of the cult, no more real than the angel with whom Joseph Smith supposedly conversed. People make stuff up all the time, and unfortunately, humans have shown a surprising ability to run with the invented stuff, adding to it until it morphs into a semi-cohesive account that is hard to shake off after a bit of tradition and proselytizing.

People are gullible and like a good story. In a culture dominated by men where more sex is the reward for joining a cult, the cult will grow. Dodgy

As the cult grows and generations pass, it will gain a veneer of credibility.

This is why there are 15,000,000+ adherents to an obviously fraudulent religion - Mormonism.

Skepticism is not a position; it is an approach to claims.
Science is not a subject, but a method.
[Image: flagstiny%206.gif]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 3 users Like Chas's post
05-11-2015, 12:06 AM
RE: Supposed "evidence" for jesus.
(03-11-2015 07:04 PM)Tomasia Wrote:  
(03-11-2015 06:57 PM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  Your analogy (which you repeated here) stupidly comparing Creationism with Mythicism is false.

And creationist don't like being compared to mythicist. But I don't care. I deal with both often enough, to recognize how their patterns and criticisms have a great deal in common.
Except that that you just demonstrated the exact opposite. Creationists are not asked to "to provide a more compelling explination" they are asked to provide a single shred of demonstrable fucking evidence for their idiotic assertions.
They, and you, have a responsibility to meet the burden of proof and they, like you, have failed to do so. Your repeated...endlessly repeated...attempts to shift the burden away from yourself makes YOU the creationist not the opposition.

Acting like Jesus was real is the default correct answer and not the assertion you have failed to demonstrate as accurate is juvenile and tedious.

It is held that valour is the chiefest virtue and most dignifies the haver.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 5 users Like WhiskeyDebates's post
05-11-2015, 05:22 AM
Supposed "evidence" for jesus.
(05-11-2015 12:06 AM)WhiskeyDebates Wrote:  
(03-11-2015 07:04 PM)Tomasia Wrote:  And creationist don't like being compared to mythicist. But I don't care. I deal with both often enough, to recognize how their patterns and criticisms have a great deal in common.
Except that that you just demonstrated the exact opposite. Creationists are not asked to "to provide a more compelling explination" they are asked to provide a single shred of demonstrable fucking evidence for their idiotic assertions.

So they're suppose to provide demonstrable evidence that theory of evolution is fiction?

Creationist like mythicist, and the tactile supporters of it here, offer primarily negative arguments. Arguments against a position. In the burden of proof realm they see themselves not as affirming any particular position, but in the role of the disputing party. They offer a series of negative arguments against the ToE, and historicity.

And as I stated when I encounter folks trying to dispute the ToE with nothing but negative arguments, I ask them what they believe is a more compelling alternative, that offers a better account of the fossil record, the diversity of biological life, etc.
They tend to deflect this question, just as much as the folks here who offer nothing but negative arguments against historicity do.

Quote:They, and you, have a responsibility to meet the burden of proof and they, like you, have failed to do so. Your repeated...endlessly repeated...attempts to shift the burden away from yourself makes YOU the creationist not the opposition.

I'm not sure who I've shifted the burden of proof to, to folks who subscribe to a mythicist position, or to those who define themselves as lacking a belief, as agnostic on the question of historicity?

Quote:Acting like Jesus was real is the default correct answer and not the assertion you have failed to demonstrate as accurate is juvenile and tedious.

I would think that if he wasn't real his brother would surely know about it, lol.

I've repeated on numerous occasions why secular historical conclusions, offer far greater explanatory capacity, makes better sense of our particular sources and materials, and history of the early Christian movement, pointing out accounts of folks meeting his brother and disciples, writing of his brothers death etc. as evidence all supportive of historicist conclusions.

And the main opposition to this appears to be that I shouldn't think in terms of the best explanation, but rather reserve myself to arguing the semantics, such as the meaning of the word evidence. The entire dispute appears to be exclusively a protest of word usage.

"Tell me, muse, of the storyteller who has been thrust to the edge of the world, both an infant and an ancient, and through him reveal everyman." ---Homer the aged poet.

"In Him was life, and the life was the Light of men. The Light shines in the darkness, and the darkness did not comprehend it."
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
05-11-2015, 05:33 AM
RE: Supposed "evidence" for jesus.
(04-11-2015 10:34 PM)Aliza Wrote:  Robert Price, I'm not familiar with. I'll have to read up or watch some of his stuff. Richard Carrier, on the other hand, I'm a little more familiar with. I've seen two or three lectures and debates from him on YouTube, but its pretty clear by the way he speaks that I'm just not in the demographic of his target audience.

Yea, I don't think your the target audience either, lol.

Quote:I don't see why the expectations of these off-shoot Jews would be different from mainstream Judaism. The messianic prohpecies are fairly clear and simple; there really isn't a lot of room for wildly different interpretations.

Who are these people, and what kinds of things might they have believed?

Hallucinogenic Mushroom using Essenes of course (According to the mythicist John Allegro). This heterodox Jewish sect read the OT prophecies wildly differently then mainstream Judaism, reading these prophecies as referring to a spiritual, non-material messiah, as opposed to a real political one, who would overthrow demonic spiritual forces, in the spiritual realm, requiring his sacrifice in this realm to do so. They might of read all this in the OT during one of their drug induced trips. And then on another drug induced spiral, believed he arrived, and all this took place already.

Duh!

"Tell me, muse, of the storyteller who has been thrust to the edge of the world, both an infant and an ancient, and through him reveal everyman." ---Homer the aged poet.

"In Him was life, and the life was the Light of men. The Light shines in the darkness, and the darkness did not comprehend it."
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
05-11-2015, 05:49 AM
RE: Supposed "evidence" for jesus.
(04-11-2015 09:25 PM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  
(04-11-2015 05:17 PM)Tomasia Wrote:  Isn't that true for every historical messiah claimant? That none of them got the job done, that they were all failures?

The failed messiah claim makes sense in regards to a historical messiah claimant, not sure how that works in regards to a mythicist version of the messiah.

I mean if there was an early jewish sect, who interpreted messianic prophecies and expectations, to be of a spiritual, mythicist version of the messiah, their mythical Yeshua would have been one that got the job done, one formed by those very expectations, as opposed to having to read him back into scripture, the way historical claimants have to be. Would this early mythicist sect have expected their messiah to have physically overthrown Rome? I'd assume it would have been in some nebulous spiritual sense?

No. It's the same. It's why the Christians had to cook up all the other theological bullshit about the messiah's job was to die for their sins, and basically CHANGE everything about what a messiah was supposed to do. Do Christians say he was a political hero ?

No.

They CHANGED the entire concept to justify their BS. The early Christians (including their leader, if he was real) thought the end-times were about to happen. Paul also thought that. That is a well known fact. Paul was an apocalyptic Jew. He thought the end was nigh. After the temple was destroyed, and the end didn't pan out, they had to rearrange the deck chairs, and rationalize their 'stuff".

The question is whether or not their leader was real, or as Carrier and Price and other mythcisit suggest, Jesus was seen by his earlier followers, including Paul, as a spiritual/mythical non-material being, like angels and demons, and not as a historical person.

You seem to want to have it both ways, offering criticisms dependent on a historical Yeshua, when convenient for you, and then suggestive of mythicism when not.

Never mind what happened in the period after Paul, according to the mythicist Paul Jesus wasn't crucified by the romans, but in some spiritual realm. These beliefs wouldn't have stemmed from having to reconcile historic realities, like an unfortunate demise at the hands of the Romans, and a desperate attempt to make sense of it in light of OT messianic expectations.

They would have been formed, and sculpted by their interpretations of those prophecies.

"Tell me, muse, of the storyteller who has been thrust to the edge of the world, both an infant and an ancient, and through him reveal everyman." ---Homer the aged poet.

"In Him was life, and the life was the Light of men. The Light shines in the darkness, and the darkness did not comprehend it."
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: