quote:

---

Originally posted by darwin alogos

This book supplies more evidence to support the topic of this thread

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by @tomic

quote:

---

Easy Phd RD will simply resort to the same fallacious reasoning as you just did,namely,how do you know the NT is a collection of"myth-based doctrines"?You don't and offer no evidence to support it,that's called begging the question.

---

No DA, it's called "proving a negative" which is something that is impossible to do. How can you expect PhDreamer to prove a myth? You are the one that claims something and it's you that has to put up the proof.


@tomic

Gravity, not just a good idea...it's the law!

---

quote:

---

You might find this website of some interest regarding the unprovability of negatives.
Originally posted by @tomic

quote:

Easy Phd RD will simply resort to the same fallacious reasoning as you just did,namely,how do you know the NT
is a collection of"myth-based doctrines"?You don't and offer no evidence to support it,that's called begging the
question.




No DA, it's called "proving a negative" which is something that is impossible to do. How can you expect PhDreamer to prove a
myth? You are the one that claims something and it's you that has to put up the proof.


@tomic

---

quote:

---

Posted - 12/06/2002 : 12:07:58
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------




ReasonableDoubt
Skeptic Friend



286 Posts
Posted - 12/06/2002 : 12:24:38
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by darwin alogos
First, the you claim to have proof that Jesus never existed, ...
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------- RD:

Where?

quote:

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by darwin alogos
So you admit your theory has no PROOF, ...
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------RD:

I honestly don't know if you fabricate this crap out of stupidity or deceit.
quote:


DA: It really must suck having that foot in your mouth all the time?





On DJRE #4 Slater denied ever stating that he had any evidence that Jesus didn't Exist. However, Slater said on
the Original DJRE #1 post[Slater]: "We have no facts on which to base a claim that there was a historic Jesus.
We do have enough evidence to the contrary to make any such claim highly suspect ." Now which is it do you or
do you not have evidence which proves that he didn't exist

---

quote:

---

Book Review



The Reality of the Incanation, by Oskar Skarsuane, trans. Trygve Skarsten

Concordia, 1991, 176 pages, $14.95, paperback
Reviewed by Norlan DeGroot

One product of twentieth-century thought is an abundance of questions concerning our idea of God. Pivotal to most of them is the concept of the incarnation. While
the reality of the incarnation has been accepted for centuries, the debate is raging whether the incarnation actually took place or if it was simply the product of Jewish
Messianic or Hellenistic thought.

This is the problem which Skarsaune addresses in his book, Incarnation: Myth or Fact? Specifically, he examines two related question: 1) What was the Jewish
understanding of the Messiah and to what extent did Jesus meet this expectation? and 2) Could the idea that Jesus was God incarnate have emerged from the Greek
setting?

Skarsaune's answer to these two questions is the same. Neither the Hebrew nor the Greek mindset would have come up with such a radical concept as a God
incarnate. It was a stumbling block to the Jews because they could not conceive of a human who was God. The Jewish Messianic confession depicts the Messiah as
"nothing more than a human being like all of us, nevertheless chosen for his Messianic role" (p.15).

Likewise, the incarnation was a stumbling block to the Greeks because they could not conceive of a God who was human. "That which the philosophers found
especially scandalous and impossible about the mythological gods was their pronounced human, yes, excessive human character....In contrast to this concept of
deity, especially Platonic and Stoic philosophy developed an alternative, anti-mythological theology. God, or rather the divine, is far removed from human suffering
and passion. God is `beyond suffering'; He cannot suffer. He cannot be subject to another's power. God is pure reason and absolutely sovereign. He is apathês (not
suffering). Any human curtailment of God was unthinkable" (p.16).

An understanding of the fully God, fully man, person of Jesus Christ was incomprehensible to both the Jew and the Greek, for reasons peculiar to them both. For this
understanding of Jesus Christ to arise, it had to come from another source. Skarsaune finds this in the Old Testament understanding of wisdom of God.

The usual Jewish portrayal of the Messiah did not automatically lead to an understanding of a personal, preexistent, incarnate Messiah. For that, we must go back to
the Old Testament itself and its concept of the Wisdom of God. The Wisdom of God, says Skarsaune, was active not only when God created the world but "was also
active in the salvation history of Israel and is itself that history's creative power....Wisdom becomes the entity which holds creation and salvation history together.
The God of creation, who with His Wisdom created the world, also broke into history with the same Wisdom" (p.31).

Skarsaune points out that Christ understood Himself as incarnate Wisdom. "He who said of Himself what was usually reserved only for Wisdom or Law could not be
understood as anything less than the incarnation of Wisdom" (p.37). "He acted with an authority and power that can only be understood if He is the incarnated
Wisdom of God" (p.43).

It is this understanding of the radical reality of an incarnate Christ, who came as the Wisdom of God, that was a stumbling block to both the Jews and the Greeks. For
Skarsaune the scandal of the cross is matched only by the scandal of the incarnation. Neither the Hebrew nor the Greek mind would have made this up. "Both would
have had the tendency to eliminate incarnation theology, but in different ways" (p.48). The Jews would have endorsed an adoptionist Christology; the Greeks, a
docetic one.

Skarsaune dedicates a large portion of his book to discussion of how this scandal worked itself out in the early Christological controversies and their culmination at
Nicea and Chalcedon. But he does not stop with Chalcedon. Of special interest is the postscript where Skarsaune gives his understanding of the present, existential
significance of the incarnation. This section is quite helpful and should not be skipped by even the most casual reader.

Skarsaune deals a heavy blow against a Bultmanian understanding of the development of Christian dogma. It was not developed from the mindset of the day, be it
Hebrew or Greek. Rather, it came from Old Testament revelation itself and, particularly, from its revelation of the Wisdom of God. It is much too radical to have
come from any source other than God's own revelation. Skarsaune's point is well taken.

However, one should add a word of caution. The incarnation is a fact, plain and simply because God reveals it as such. Skarsaune's development of the connection
between the Old Testament Wisdom of God and the incarnation is a welcome addition to the debate, but should never be understood as the foundation for belief in
the fact of the incarnation. The foundation is--and always will be--God and His own revelation of His dealings with man. We can understand the incarnation as a fact
not because of any human argument, but because we have a God who tells us it is so.

The fact of the incarnation, for many, remains incomprehensible. But that it is a fact is certain. Skarsaune's book is helpful inasmuch as it refutes many of the
opposing arguments. It deals with a subject that is basic to Christianity, but in a day and age when even the basics are being questioned, Skarsaune's book is a
welcome addition to anyone's library.


Norlan DeGroot is currently an adjunct faculty member of Covenant College and Assistant Editor of CONTACT magazine.

---

quote:

---

Likewise, the incarnation was a stumbling block to the Greeks because they could not conceive of a God who was human. "That
which the philosophers found
especially scandalous and impossible about the mythological gods was their pronounced human, yes, excessive human
character....In contrast to this concept of
deity, especially Platonic and Stoic philosophy developed an alternative, anti-mythological theology. God, or rather the divine,
is far removed from human suffering
and passion. God is `beyond suffering'; He cannot suffer. He cannot be subject to another's power. God is pure reason and
absolutely sovereign. He is apathês (not
suffering). Any human curtailment of God was unthinkable" (p.16).

An understanding of the fully God, fully man, person of Jesus Christ was incomprehensible to both the Jew and the Greek, for
reasons peculiar to them both. For this
understanding of Jesus Christ to arise, it had to come from another source. Skarsaune finds this in the Old Testament
understanding of wisdom of God.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Slater

No wonder you like this. This is the work of an idiot.
Likewise, the incarnation was a stumbling block to the Greeks because they could not conceive of a God who was human.
The Hellenists had an entire catagory of gods who were also human. The word for that is Demigod.
Perseus, Aeacus, Dardanus, Harmonia, Lasius, Minos, Rhadamanthys, Sarpedon, Epaphus, Pollux, Helen of Troy, Argos, Pelasgus, Tantalus, Dionysus, Lacadaemon, even Hercules were all Demigods.
It was a common piece of politeness in Rome to refer to any great man as being decended from the gods.
Why do you insist on telling lies all the time? Is this all your faith is based on, the bald faced lies of idiots?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by walt fristoe

quote:

---

Originally posted by Slater

No wonder you like this. This is the work of an idiot.
Likewise, the incarnation was a stumbling block to the Greeks because they could not conceive of a God who was human.
The Hellenists had an entire catagory of gods who were also human. The word for that is Demigod.
Perseus, Aeacus, Dardanus, Harmonia, Lasius, Minos, Rhadamanthys, Sarpedon, Epaphus, Pollux, Helen of Troy, Argos, Pelasgus, Tantalus, Dionysus, Lacadaemon, even Hercules were all Demigods.
It was a common piece of politeness in Rome to refer to any great man as being decended from the gods.
Why do you insist on telling lies all the time? Is this all your faith is based on, the bald faced lies of idiots?

---

Hey Slater, here's a site that gives a chart showing the many parallels between Jesus and several of those demigods.

Here's another really good website that you might find informative.

Also, there is the book The Jesus Mysteries by Timothy Freke and Peter Gandy. This is a must read for anyone interested in the subject of Jesus mythology.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by darwin alogos

It seems a lot hangs on the answer to this question;some say the NT was influenced by pagan myths.But this couldn't be if the writers were orthodox Jews.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by walt fristoe

Hey Slater, here's a site that gives a chart showing the many parallels between Jesus and several of those demigods.

Here's another really good website that you might find informative.

---