Nailed: Ten Christian Myths that show Jesus never existed

Status
Not open for further replies.
The other interesting point about 'ghost' and 'holy ghost' is that they are translations very much associated with the KJV Bible, as 'ghost' at that time meant something like 'essence'.

Later translations of 'pneuma hagios' mainly used 'spirit', although I think that 'pneuma' literally means 'breath'.

I suppose some people stick to 'ghost' so as to show how stupid Christianity is! Why else would they use a 400 year old translation?
 
zugzwang said:
The other interesting point about 'ghost' and 'holy ghost' is that they are translations very much associated with the KJV Bible, as 'ghost' at that time meant something like 'essence'.

Later translations of 'pneuma hagios' mainly used 'spirit', although I think that 'pneuma' literally means 'breath'.

I suppose some people stick to 'ghost' so as to show how stupid Christianity is! Why else would they use a 400 year old translation?
Click to expand...

Jesus was born of "breath" then. The Jesus story was a product of oxygen, nitrogen and carbon dioxide.

Who are you trying to impress with your pneuma [breath] story? Christians, Atheists or the Illiterates?

If Jesus was a product of 'pneuma' why are you arguing that he was a figure of history?
 
dejudge said:
Jesus was born of "breath" then. The Jesus story was a product of oxygen, nitrogen and carbon dioxide.

Who are you trying to impress with your pneuma [breath] story? Christians, Atheists or the Illiterates?

If Jesus was a product of 'pneuma' why are you arguing that he was a figure of history?
Click to expand...

I'm just curious as to why you persist with the KJV translation of 'pneuma' as 'ghost'. I wondered if you thought that 'ghost' made Christianity look stupid - ghost stories and so on - but maybe you are attached to the KJV translation, even though it's 400 years old.
 
zugzwang said:
The other interesting point about 'ghost' and 'holy ghost' is that they are translations very much associated with the KJV Bible, as 'ghost' at that time meant something like 'essence'.

Later translations of 'pneuma hagios' mainly used 'spirit', although I think that 'pneuma' literally means 'breath'.

I suppose some people stick to 'ghost' so as to show how stupid Christianity is! Why else would they use a 400 year old translation?
Click to expand...
So that dejudge can write ridiculous looking things like
Jesus was born of a Ghost.
Click to expand...
In what way does this improve our understanding of Christian origins, or of the significance of the various sources that have contributed to the Gospels? In what way would it convince theists that their views are wrong? It is pure vituperation based on equivocation permitted by changes over centuries in the meaning or connotation of words employed in religious discourse.
 
zugzwang

We're in agreement that the ghost in the proper noun or noun phrase "Holy Ghost" reflects an archaic sense of the English word. Even then, it is the name of a specific personal being, plausibly sui generis, and so it is unclear that any speaker ever intended that the phrase would designate a specific holy ghost, being one among a class of ghosts, plural, holy or not.

Prairie oysters aren't shellfish, so there is no general warrant for treating any noun phrase as "the sum of its parts." If there is a specific warrant for decomposing "Holy Ghost" into its parts, I'd love to learn it.

As to Jesus' supposed current situation, the compound in Paul (1 Corinthians 15: 44 and surrounding) is something like pneuma body. Paul apparently thinks his readers will get the gist of what that oxymoron could possibly mean from his discussion of it. I believe he was still formulating the concept as he wrote his letter, and that his task remains unfinished.

It is my good faith proposal that since in plain language, ghost covers such a wide variety of notions about what a perceptible revenant of a dead person might be, and since Paul fails to define what he means with any useful specificity, that ghost is fairly applied, dispassionately, to what Paul describes. Any story about living people interacting with such a being, then, is equally fairly referred to as a ghost story.
 
eight bits said:
... It is my good faith proposal that since in plain language, ghost covers such a wide variety of notions about what a perceptible revenant of a dead person might be, and since Paul fails to define what he means with any useful specificity, that ghost is fairly applied, dispassionately, to what Paul describes. Any story about living people interacting with such a being, then, is equally fairly referred to as a ghost story.
Click to expand...
Whatever Paul may mean, the connotations now attaching to the modern English usage of "ghost", let alone "ghost story" make the use of these expressions tendentious in this context.
 
Craig B said:
Take a break if you want to.
Click to expand...
I see. So you decide not to answer my questions a second time, but choose to respond to a known English idiomatic phrase in a smart ass way. I will take this into consideration when I read your posts from now on.
 
eight bits said:
zugzwang

We're in agreement that the ghost in the proper noun or noun phrase "Holy Ghost" reflects an archaic sense of the English word. Even then, it is the name of a specific personal being, plausibly sui generis, and so it is unclear that any speaker ever intended that the phrase would designate a specific holy ghost, being one among a class of ghosts, plural, holy or not.

Prairie oysters aren't shellfish, so there is no general warrant for treating any noun phrase as "the sum of its parts." If there is a specific warrant for decomposing "Holy Ghost" into its parts, I'd love to learn it.

As to Jesus' supposed current situation, the compound in Paul (1 Corinthians 15: 44 and surrounding) is something like pneuma body. Paul apparently thinks his readers will get the gist of what that oxymoron could possibly mean from his discussion of it. I believe he was still formulating the concept as he wrote his letter, and that his task remains unfinished.

It is my good faith proposal that since in plain language, ghost covers such a wide variety of notions about what a perceptible revenant of a dead person might be, and since Paul fails to define what he means with any useful specificity, that ghost is fairly applied, dispassionately, to what Paul describes. Any story about living people interacting with such a being, then, is equally fairly referred to as a ghost story.
Click to expand...

I think that's a pile of nonsense. I think that some people use 'ghost' and 'ghost story' in order to discredit Christianity.

As I said earlier, there's nothing wrong with doing that; but it's not compatible with scholarship. Go to any scholarly seminar or meeting, which is discussing ancient history, and use terms like that, and you would be a laughing stock.

But then I don't think the aim is scholarship in any case, so I guess the 'ghosters' don't really mind!
 
The Norseman said:
I see. So you decide not to answer my questions a second time, but choose to respond to a known English idiomatic phrase in a smart ass way. I will take this into consideration when I read your posts from now on.
Click to expand...
Thank you. Please do, if you wish.
 
pakeha

Thank you for those links.

zugzwang

I think that's a pile of nonsense. I think that some people use 'ghost' and 'ghost story' in order to discredit Christianity.
Click to expand...
Perhaps some people do. But that's not my problem. I need to distinguish between a revenant and the man from whom the revenant was believed to have stemmed. "Revenant" is barely an English word. The plain and ordinary word is ghost.

I am not at a scholarly meeting. I am at an English language forum. I will use the plain word here. What you think my post is a pile of is your affair.
 
Craig B said:
zugzwang said:
The other interesting point about 'ghost' and 'holy ghost' is that they are translations very much associated with the KJV Bible, as 'ghost' at that time meant something like 'essence'.

Later translations of 'pneuma hagios' mainly used 'spirit', although I think that 'pneuma' literally means 'breath'.

I suppose some people stick to 'ghost' so as to show how stupid Christianity is! Why else would they use a 400 year old translation?
Click to expand...
So that dejudge can write ridiculous looking things like
Jesus was born of a Ghost.
Click to expand...
In what way does this improve our understanding of Christian origins, or of the significance of the various sources that have contributed to the Gospels? In what way would it convince theists that their views are wrong? It is pure vituperation based on equivocation permitted by changes over centuries in the meaning or connotation of words employed in religious discourse.
Click to expand...
As opposed to the notion the jebus was just some bloke who was later hijacked by some idiot bleevers like paul.
 
Belz... said:
And as an atheist, it's weird that I find that tactic deplorable.
Click to expand...

I don't think it's deplorable in itself. Who cares if people want to slag off Christianity?

The point here is that presumably we are discussing a scholarly historical approach to ancient history, and hence the issue of HJ.

To slag Christianity off in the middle of a scholarly enquiry is a complete mess.

Of course, if people don't want to pursue such an enquiry, then they are free to slag off whatever they want, and have a good time with it. Go for it!
 
eight bits said:
pakeha

Thank you for those links.

zugzwang


Perhaps some people do. But that's not my problem. I need to distinguish between a revenant and the man from whom the revenant was believed to have stemmed. "Revenant" is barely an English word. The plain and ordinary word is ghost.

I am not at a scholarly meeting. I am at an English language forum. I will use the plain word here. What you think my post is a pile of is your affair.
Click to expand...

I'm sorry, I don't even know what you're talking about now. What is this 'revenant' a translation of?
 
abaddon said:
As opposed to the notion the jebus was just some bloke who was later hijacked by some idiot bleevers like paul.
Click to expand...
Yes. But he gave rise to a belief system prior to Paul also. Left to itself that would have been a modest Jewish sect based on the preachings of a peripatetic apocalypticist rabbi. Not the only one either. And it would have been forgotten by now. Or relegated to a tiny footnote in the history of Judaism. But Paul turned it into something else, something that finally displaced the pagan gods. That he "hijacked" it is true beyond doubt. Jesus' surviving disciples and "brothers" were indignant at Paul's doctrinal shenanigans.
 
Craig B said:
I ask sincerely, are you being facetious?
Click to expand...

I think what Belz... is saying is something that I feel too; that even though I'm an Atheist I still deplore dishonest arguments, even when they suit my biases.

I think Belz... is saying that honest arguments trump ideological ones.

Either way, I think ignoring facts in favour of beliefs, like dejudge and IanS do is deplorable, and it will never lead to a true answer to the question.
 
Brainache said:
I think what Belz... is saying is something that I feel too; that even though I'm an Atheist I still deplore dishonest arguments, even when they suit my biases.

I think Belz... is saying that honest arguments trump ideological ones.

Either way, I think ignoring facts in favour of beliefs, like dejudge and IanS do is deplorable, and it will never lead to a true answer to the question.
Click to expand...
I agree entirely with these sentiments. Playing with words for the purpose of irritating people with whom you have philosophical disagreements is a pointless procedure.
 
Brainache said:
I think what Belz... is saying is something that I feel too; that even though I'm an Atheist I still deplore dishonest arguments, even when they suit my biases.

I think Belz... is saying that honest arguments trump ideological ones.

Either way, I think ignoring facts in favour of beliefs, like dejudge and IanS do is deplorable, and it will never lead to a true answer to the question.
Click to expand...

I am reminded of some of the discussions we used to have in the 9/11 subforum. I shall, in honor of this, henceforth refer to MJers as "Trvthers."
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom