|
|
|
Grand Nubian
Skeptic Friend
USA
73 Posts |
 Posted - 10/09/2001 : 17:45:17 [Permalink]
|
Where did you gather that info from?
I voted that jesus is the brother of the tooth fairy and santa claus.
|
 |
|
|
tergiversant
Skeptic Friend
USA
284 Posts |
Posted - 10/10/2001 : 14:13:22 [Permalink]
|
quote:
quote:
To switch gears a bit, I wonder why, if they did invent the Jesus character to use as a basis for a new religion, why didn't they pick someone like Apollonius of Tyana (or someone similar) who was known to have existed for sure, to make their stuff more believable?
Because when the Emperor Constantius was killed in a revolt in Britain his troops fell under the command of his son Constantine...
I thought it was fairly well-established that the bulk of XP mythmaking happened from 50-200AD?
"Nihil curo de ista tua stulta superstitione."
|
|
|
|
Slater
SFN Regular
USA
1668 Posts |
Posted - 10/16/2001 : 09:24:47 [Permalink]
|
quote:
I thought it was fairly well-established that the bulk of XP mythmaking happened from 50-200AD?
You can't really use the word "established" when it comes to viewing Christian legend as history--or mythology for that matter. The most you can say is "assumed". And the assumption (Feast of the Assumption?) is, being that of the Roman Catholic Church, suspect at best.
We, as Skeptics, are faced with the fact that we have no documentation from the supposed time period coupled with the almost insurmountable presence of Bishop Eusebius. Eusebius made no bones about the fact that he was making church history up as he went along.
-------
The brain that was stolen from my laboratory was a criminal brain. Only evil will come from it. |
|
|
|
Slater
SFN Regular
USA
1668 Posts |
Posted - 10/16/2001 : 09:29:17 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Where did you gather that info from?
Edward Gibbon, The Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire
-------
The brain that was stolen from my laboratory was a criminal brain. Only evil will come from it. |
|
|
|
Tokyodreamer
SFN Regular
USA
1447 Posts |
Posted - 10/16/2001 : 11:33:36 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Edward Gibbon, The Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire
Finding a complete set of this work unabridged is turning out to be anything but easy. I can only find volumes 1 through 3 (of 6). 
Anyone know if the abridged version is worth it?
------------
And if rain brings winds of change
let it rain on us forever.
I have no doubt from what I've seen
that I have never wanted more.
|
|
|
|
Trish
SFN Addict
USA
2102 Posts |
Posted - 10/17/2001 : 03:26:12 [Permalink]
|
Did you check a local library? Or do you want them for your collection? There is a bookstore here in CO that might be able to locate all for you - at least might be worth a try. Let me know and I'll call them.
"Say what you will about the sweet miracle of unquestioning faith. I consider the capacity for it terrifying." ~Kurt Vonnegut, Jr. |
|
|
|
tergiversant
Skeptic Friend
USA
284 Posts |
Posted - 10/18/2001 : 14:13:22 [Permalink]
|
quote:
quote:
I thought it was fairly well-established that the bulk of XP mythmaking happened from 50-200AD?
You can't really use the word "established" when it comes to viewing Christian legend as history--or mythology for that matter. The most you can say is "assumed". And the assumption (Feast of the Assumption?) is, being that of the Roman Catholic Church, suspect at best.
What are you talking about? I'm not talking about assumptions, I'm talking about the consensus among contemporary bible scholarship, which has little if anything to do with the claims of the Catholic Magisterium. They put the formation of the NT in that time period primarily due to archaeological and textual evidence.
I'd love to see you make the case that Christianity was created from whole cloth during Constantine's reign on the Secular Web board where there are actual experts on such matters running about. Your hyperskepticism would meet some serious opposition there...
"Nihil curo de ista tua stulta superstitione."
Edited by - tergiversant on 10/18/2001 14:17:06 |
|
|
|
Slater
SFN Regular
USA
1668 Posts |
Posted - 10/18/2001 : 21:32:02 [Permalink]
|
I'm not talking about assumptions, I'm talking about the consensus among contemporary bible scholarship, which has little if anything to do with the claims of the Catholic Magisterium.
First assumption is that contemporary bible scholars have reached a consensus on anything. The secular web board would be a very dull place if that were the case. And all the guys at the Jesus Seminar would have to find honest jobs.
Second assumption is that one can study historic Christianity and leave out the Roman Catholic Church. From 325 CE (or if you ask them, 32CE) until the Reformation they were the only game in town (yeah, yeah, I left out Eastern Orthodox --I'm talkin' western Europe here).
They put the formation of the NT in that time period primarily due to archaeological and textual evidence.
To say that the time set is based on archaeological evidence is misleading. It implies that there is physical evidence to support the claim. To the best of my knowledge there is only a fragment of one page from Mark surviving that dates from slightly before Eusebius and his merry pranksters. Everything else is newer.
Textual evidence is even slipperier. It sounds like it couldn't have been written before 70 CE becomes changed, in the hands of biblical scholars, to it was written in 70 CE. This is the kind of thing that I'm talking about when I say "assumptions."
Hell, a historic Jesus is an assumption. That is probably the one thing that the majority of contemporary bible scholars actually are in agreement on--Jesus' existence. But without any proof--therefore they are assuming the very foundation that all of their other arguments are based on. Not a good way to build a case.
I'd love to see you make the case that Christianity was created from whole cloth during Constantine's reign on the Secular Web board where there are actual experts on such matters running about. Your hyperskepticism would meet some serious opposition there...
Yeah, that might be fun at that. I'm not sure that I would say Christianity was made from whole cloth (though I bet you can find a passage where I did) but rather from the bits and pieces of two or four existing religions.
I have peeked at the site. The "experts" (I put that in quotes because I don't see how one can be an expert on God when no one has ever even seen that, or any, deity) seem to spend their time bogged down in minutia. Basic questions like why does a Jew study with someone who has the name (John), and practices the rite, of a pagan god--or why does Jesus conduct the Zoroastrian mass and communion-- or why do Jewish apostles call him "Christ," when Christ is the name of another pagan god,-- are either never mentioned or are just blown off.
If there is anything there about the destruction of most of the books of the bible by the Ecumenical Council I've missed it.
This isn't "hyper-Skepticism" on my part. This is just plain old, run of the mill, down and dirty skepticism.
People make claims and Skeptics want to know what facts these claims are based on. When this request is met with hostility or evasion our suspicions are aroused.
As for skepticism being met with "some serious opposition" I would have to ask why? All skepticism is is asking for answers and checking to see if these answers are valid. When it comes to JC you don't get any verifiable answers that lead all the way back. You do get a lot of people (experts) making a lot of claims--you just don't get any of them backing these claims up.
-------
The brain that was stolen from my laboratory was a criminal brain. Only evil will come from it. |
|
|
|
darwin alogos
SFN Regular
USA
532 Posts |
Posted - 10/23/2001 : 22:18:45 [Permalink]
|
it seems you guy's haven't read the new testament documents only books about them(Luke1:1-4)
|
|
|
|
tergiversant
Skeptic Friend
USA
284 Posts |
Posted - 10/24/2001 : 01:26:58 [Permalink]
|
quote:
First assumption is that contemporary bible scholars have reached a consensus on anything. The secular web board would be a very dull place if that were the case.
Only if they reached a consensus on everything. In fact, when it comes to the major questions of fact most of them agree more than they disagree. For example, "Did Jesus exist?" "When?" "How did he die?" "What did he do?" etc. and so forth.
quote:
Second assumption is that one can study historic Christianity and leave out the Roman Catholic Church. From 325 CE (or if you ask them, 32CE) until the Reformation they were the only game in town (yeah, yeah, I left out Eastern Orthodox --I'm talkin' western Europe here).
Why leave out all the Eastern churches including the Orthodox and the Coptics and the lesser eastern churches? Are they not keepers of the Christian traditions as well? Do they not have sources dating back before the forth century?
quote:
To the best of my knowledge there is only a fragment of one page from Mark surviving that dates from slightly before Eusebius and his merry pranksters. Everything else is newer.
Post a question on the SecWeb asking if they know of anything earlier. I know that at least one thread discussing a disputing Markan fragment dated to the first century.
quote:
Hell, a historic Jesus is an assumption. That is probably the one thing that the majority of contemporary bible scholars actually are in agreement on--Jesus' existence. But without any proof--therefore they are assuming the very foundation that all of their other arguments are based on. Not a good way to build a case.
I'd love to see you make the case that Christianity was created from whole cloth during Constantine's reign on the Secular Web board where there are actual experts on such matters running about. Your hyperskepticism would meet some serious opposition there...
Yeah, that might be fun at that. I'm not sure that I would say Christianity was made from whole cloth (though I bet you can find a passage where I did) but rather from the bits and pieces of two or four existing religions.
You do get a lot of people (experts) making a lot of claims--you just don't get any of them backing these claims up.
Well at least give them a chance. Make your case over there and I'll comment when I get the opportunity. I promise it will be far more challenging than what I have to offer with my limited expertise and resources.
"Nihil curo de ista tua stulta superstitione."
|
|
|
|
Slater
SFN Regular
USA
1668 Posts |
Posted - 10/24/2001 : 05:38:36 [Permalink]
|
quote:
it seems you guy's haven't read the new testament documents only books about them(Luke1:1-4)
Of course we have read it.
It's one of the silliest, and most hateful, things that I have ever read.
It isn't going to do you any good to give me a chapter and verse reference (Luke : 1 1-4) because I've thrown my copy of the NT away. Sometimes there are children around here and I don't want such vulgar trash to fall into their hands.
What is it that you want me to read in it?
-------
The brain that was stolen from my laboratory was a criminal brain. Only evil will come from it. |
|
|
|
darwin alogos
SFN Regular
USA
532 Posts |
Posted - 10/24/2001 : 16:57:10 [Permalink]
|
 Wow, so sorry I didn't think Skeptics were so emotional.However,if you ask a question about Jesus existence and then refuse to look prima face evidence that supports he did ;then who is really living in fantasy world,the christian or the skeptic?
|
|
|
|
James
SFN Regular
USA
754 Posts |
Posted - 10/24/2001 : 17:44:19 [Permalink]
|
Must...not...respond...Ah, screw it-
quote:
Wow, so sorry I didn't think Skeptics were so emotional.However,if you ask a question about Jesus existence and then refuse to look prima face evidence that supports he did; then who is really living in fantasy world,the christian or the skeptic?
X-ians.  
Prayer is nothing more than "spiritual masturbation". -theatheistknight |
|
|
|
Tokyodreamer
SFN Regular
USA
1447 Posts |
Posted - 10/24/2001 : 18:47:52 [Permalink]
|
quote:
if you ask a question about Jesus existence and then refuse to look prima face evidence that supports he did
Are you saying the Bible is prima facie evidence for Jesus' existence? If so, please explain why you think so.
------------
Victory Not Vengeance |
|
|
|
Garrette
SFN Regular
USA
562 Posts |
Posted - 10/24/2001 : 18:52:04 [Permalink]
|
In a weird mood and so have to chime in, even absent the expertise demonstrated by others in this thread:
quote:
if you ask a question about Jesus existence and then refuse to look prima face evidence that supports he did;then who is really living in fantasy world,the christian or the skeptic?
First point: You are assuming that the NT is prima facie evidence.
Second point: You are ignoring the fact that evidence can be called prima facie only until it is rebutted; the NT has at an absolute minimum been called legitimately into question.
Third point: I assume you take Geoffrey of Monmouth's reference to King Arthur as prima facie evidence.
My kids still love me. |
|
|
 |
|
Topic Locked
