|
|
|
darwinalogos
New Member
17 Posts |
 Posted - 05/16/2016 : 18:22:04
|
Hi guys, it's been a while hope you all are well. And special thanks to David G. for helping me log in. I haven't had time to go back and catch up what's been going on but what I did notice is that there weren't any Jesus was a myth, or a combination of myths from other religions. So I'm hoping we've all seen how foolish those views were and this post will be short and sweet. Now I'm not saying that some don't still hold to these views but that they have seen the spurious arguments and lack of evidence are keeping them internal. Anyhow, I'm glad to be back and will try and demonstrate to all why I think that the belief that Jesus was a "myth' is one of the greatest myths of the late 20th and early 21st centuries. 
|
Edited by - darwinalogos on 05/16/2016 20:38:04
|
|
|
ThorGoLucky
Snuggle Wolf
USA
1487 Posts |
Posted - 05/17/2016 : 11:27:16 [Permalink]
|
Hi! 
There have been crank claims that Jesus was a myth, including that Zeitgeist crap and the claim that the Romans made him up. But there is newer and compelling evidence that Jesus' origins were that of a cosmic/archangel character like Moroni or Gabriel. The only claim of an historical Jesus is the book of Mark. All other claims are derived from Mark (i.e. the other gospels) or are non-historical/cosmic (i.e. Paul).
On the Historicity of Jesus by Richard Carrier
http://freethoughtblogs.com/carrier/archives/7057
Is Evidence for Jesus Really as Good as for Caesar? No.
http://freethoughtblogs.com/carrier/archives/7862
A refutation of "41 Reasons Why Scholars Know Jesus Really Existed"
http://freethoughtblogs.com/carrier/archives/7463
|
| Edited by - ThorGoLucky on 05/17/2016 11:32:28 |
 |
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26022 Posts |
Posted - 05/17/2016 : 17:30:26 [Permalink]
|
Welcome back, DA.
The historicity of Jesus is irrelevant to the big question: is Christianity the path to salvation?
Evidence that Jesus really existed is neither necessary nor sufficient for salvation. It isn't necessary because salvation is contingent upon faith, not evidence (for both Protestants and Catholics). And it isn't sufficient because salvation is contingent upon the belief that Jesus was a divinely barbaric blood sacrifice, and mere existence doesn't strengthen any argument for divinity.
So if your goal, DA, is to save more sinners, then arguing for an historical Jesus is a non-starter. It can't possibly help. You'll instead need to provide a convincing argument that your god's words are trustworthy, while at the same time the Bible describes him as so incompetent that he didn't foresee his creation going so sideways that he had to send himself down to die to appease his own sick and twisted ideas of justice and "love." |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26022 Posts |
Posted - 05/17/2016 : 20:11:41 [Permalink]
|
Reading back, it occurred to me that my argument might be seen as an indictment of Richard Carrier's work. No. I admire Professor Carrier's style and think he's done a fantastic job of setting out the Bayseian argument against the historicity of Jesus, so far as I can tell (IANAStatistician).
I just think that historicity arguments are only effective against the faith-less - those who are so worried about their salvation that they think even a jot or tittle of error in the Bible means that the Bible might be wrong about Jesus' central message, and if so then they are damned no matter what. It is, of course, trivially easy to show errors in the Bible, but apologists just wave them away with ridiculous arguments or ignore the problems. Whether Jesus existed is rather more crucial to these fundamentalists than, say, how many legs grasshoppers have. So Carrier's work is important, for a certain segment of Christianity.
But for people who have taken John 3:16 to heart, what should they care about historicity? They require faith, not proof, and certainly not a contradiction-free Scripture. |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
darwinalogos2
New Member
22 Posts |
 Posted - 05/18/2016 : 21:14:12 [Permalink]
|
| To Thor, Glad you reject that Ziegests stuff. You mention the reliance on Mark for the other synoptics. However, we have a more apologetic argument when we consider the Luke/Acts proclamation yes the 3 relied on Mark, however, when we look at Luke he tells us at the first part of his gospel that he used other sources but more important is that he wrote Acts. And since he did his wrightings can establish him as a top notch historian in 1st cent affairis. |
|
|
|
darwinalogos2
New Member
22 Posts |
Posted - 05/18/2016 : 21:27:46 [Permalink]
|
And to Dave thank you. As usual you suprise me. It seems you've given up the Old Slater approach that Jesus was a myth? But now want to get into the Theodicy as to "Yeah so what if JC was here the world's a mess" and why?
|
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26022 Posts |
Posted - 05/18/2016 : 21:38:48 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by darwinalogos2
...however, when we look at Luke he tells us at the first part of his gospel that he used other sources but more important is that he wrote Acts. And since he did his wrightings can establish him as a top notch historian in 1st cent affairis. |
You must be joking. Not every contemporary reporter is a "top notch historian." Very few, in fact. I'm sure you could name dozens of journalists who can get the superficial details of a story correct (names of places and people, for example), but spin an agenda-filled, bias-driven yarn seeking to persuade instead of report.
So, cough up the evidence that Luke was a "top notch historian," and not just a religious hack. |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26022 Posts |
Posted - 05/18/2016 : 21:57:26 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by darwinalogos2
It seems you've given up the Old Slater approach that Jesus was a myth? |
As I said, it shouldn't matter to you.| But now want to get into the Theodicy as to "Yeah so what if JC was here the world's a mess" and why? |
No, theodicy is boring. The answers from Christians are pat and unoriginal, and have been for decades, if not centuries.
Instead, explain to me why I should discard the physical, political and moral evidence I have in front of me regarding the unreliability of the Bible and the childish barbarism of the Christian god and instead have faith in Jesus.
Really: even if I were to grant the existence of Jesus and the reality of God, give me good reasons why I should worship such an unbelievably brutal being and seek to spend eternity praising such a nasty actor.
Theodicy seeks to justify evil in the mortal realm in light of an allegedly omnipotent and omnibenevolent god. Instead, I want to know why anyone with an ounce of compassion would worship a god who is as evil as the one described by the Bible.
In still other words: I don't want to know why your God allows evil, I want to know why your god IS evil. |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
darwinalogos2
New Member
22 Posts |
Posted - 05/18/2016 : 22:14:37 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Dave W.
Originally posted by darwinalogos2
...however, when we look at Luke he tells us at the first part of his gospel that he used other sources but more important is that he wrote Acts. And since he did his wrightings can establish him as a top notch historian in 1st cent affairis. |
You must be joking. Not every contemporary reporter is a "top notch historian." Very few, in fact. I'm sure you could name dozens of journalists who can get the superficial details of a story correct (names of places and people, for example), but spin an agenda-filled, bias-driven yarn seeking to persuade instead of report.
So, cough up the evidence that Luke was a "top notch historian," and not just a religious hack.
|
No Dave Luke was a top notch Historian. We are talking about 2000 years and he mentions stuff in trival that are corrobratted by other historins not to mention all the people and places he mentionions that are accurate
 |
|
|
|
darwinalogos2
New Member
22 Posts |
Posted - 05/18/2016 : 22:22:46 [Permalink]
|
I think I remember why I keep leaving here is unless you are a super computer geek your system is like DOS |
|
|
|
darwinalogos2
New Member
22 Posts |
Posted - 05/18/2016 : 22:25:56 [Permalink]
|
Okay to Dave yes your right there ain't no god jesus bible is a mess and things is what it is
  |
|
|
|
darwinalogos2
New Member
22 Posts |
Posted - 05/18/2016 : 22:28:17 [Permalink]
|
Thats the way it is in 4 billion years its all cosmic burn  |
|
|
|
darwinalogos2
New Member
22 Posts |
Posted - 05/18/2016 : 23:20:08 [Permalink]
|
Luke " just a religious hack" Wow! Start the presses Dave W. "KNOWS" something about the gospel writer "Luke" that has escaped scholars for over a thousand years!!!! Tell us Dave where did you get this esoteric knowledge that the rest of us poor mortals don't have available? |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26022 Posts |
Posted - 05/19/2016 : 08:40:00 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by darwinalogos2
No Dave Luke was a top notch Historian. We are talking about 2000 years and he mentions stuff in trival that are corrobratted by other historins not to mention all the people and places he mentionions that are accurate |
If that's all it takes, then I am a top-notch historian, too. It's a tremendously low bar you're setting for "top notch." Or maybe you think people 2000 years ago were less intelligent.
And, of course, the idea that because some of his writing was accurate that means all of it was accurate is ridiculous.| Luke " just a religious hack" Wow! Start the presses Dave W. "KNOWS" something about the gospel writer "Luke" that has escaped scholars for over a thousand years!!!! Tell us Dave where did you get this esoteric knowledge that the rest of us poor mortals don't have available? |
Do you really not understand the difference between a question and a claim? I asked you for evidence that Luke was a "top notch historian" (which you failed to provide). I did not claim that he was a hack (even though his work - if he existed - reads like it).
And the idea that all scholars (today and ever) are in agreement that Luke was a top-notch historian is ludicrous. A cursory perusal of the data shows that the concept that Luke was pushing a religious/political agenda and so therefore was an unreliable historian where it matters is not at all original with me. I'd like to hear your reasons for dismissing those scholars while accepting the conclusions of others.| Okay to Dave yes your right there ain't no god jesus bible is a mess and things is what it is |
So... you're not even going to try to explain the reasons for your faith in a demented bully? So be it. |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
ThorGoLucky
Snuggle Wolf
USA
1487 Posts |
Posted - 05/19/2016 : 13:45:47 [Permalink]
|
If something requires faith, it's fiction.
|
|
|
|
darwinalogos2
New Member
22 Posts |
Posted - 05/19/2016 : 16:17:10 [Permalink]
|
| Thor, since you don't give a definition of "faith" I'll give mine and we can go on from there. Faith as i understand is confidence, so in that case your statement is false. For if I put my confidence in someone or thing doesn't make them or it fictional. That's how the NT understands "faith". When John the Baptist started doubting that Jesus was the Messiah he sent his disciples to have Jesus reaffirm he was the Messiah (Mt.11:1-7) Jesus didn't rebuke John but told his disciples to recount the "things they had seen" people healed, blind see, ect. In other words the evidence of the things saw should comfort their teacher in prison that Jesus is indeed the Messiah. |
|
|
 |
|
The myth that Jesus is a myth.
