Checkmite
Skepticifimisticalationist
Strictly speaking, the probability of Jesus existing somewhere in the universe at some point in time is 100%.
Okay, convince me Jesus existed.
- Thread starter Buckyball
- Start date
Actually that is EXACTLY what moslims do..... they say Al-Rasool....which is literally "Prophet".... ie god's prophet. They hardly ever call him by name…. but if they do they say Al-Rasool Muhammad.
Also the word Xristos (Christos)....in Greek means the anointed one....so does the word Messiah (MSKH) means the one that has been wiped with oil. That is The anointed one.
RandFan
Mormon Atheist
- Joined
- Dec 18, 2001
- Messages
- 60,135
I know, but neither Bill nor I are Muslim. Which is why it would be silly for us to be so presumptive.
In the old days a king of Israel or Judah was ANOINTED as part of the coronation ceremony. In fact it is a Middle Eastern custom including Babylonians, Egyptians etc.
Cyrus was a very important KING (=anointed) character. He restored the kingdom of Judah and rebuilt the Temple and restored its treasures from the Babylonians.
See 2 Chronicles 36:22, Ezra 1:1, 1:7, 3:7, 4:3, 5:13, 6:1, Isaiah 44:28, 45:1, Daniel 1:17, 6:28, 10:1
So it is no wonder the Bible actually makes him the servant of YHWH and an anointed one.
The actual concept of a liberating Messiah started in the Hellenistic era after the Hellenic empire took over Judah (yet one more defeat). I think Isaiah calling Cyrus a Messiah is an indication of the writing date of the book…post 380 BCE. (???)
Bill Thompson
Banned
- Joined
- Oct 23, 2006
- Messages
- 6,171
My son noticed my expression and is saying "what?".
I told him that I saw something online that is funny.
I like this post.
Bill Thompson
Banned
- Joined
- Oct 23, 2006
- Messages
- 6,171
I think we are supposed to believe what is the most probable, not what is possible. I guess it is possible that Christ never existed. So you believe he did not exist because it is possible that he did not exist? That is not good enough. If you believe he did not exist because it is more ethical to believe he did not exist, then you are no different than other people who believe or have faith in things who use ethics alone to decide what is real and what is not.
BobTheDonkey
Illuminator
- Joined
- Jun 30, 2009
- Messages
- 4,501
Ahhh, but I believe Jesus didn't exist because there is no credible evidence to support that he did exist. When that evidence is found, I'll adjust my beliefs appropriately. Until that time, I do believe the assumption that Jesus did not exist is the more valid assumption.
RandFan
Mormon Atheist
- Joined
- Dec 18, 2001
- Messages
- 60,135
I'm guessing that you haven't a clue about Epistemology, Ontology or Ethics. That sentence fails all three. That's some kind of record.
"Supposed"? Really, cite the relevant philosophical argument Bill?
You "guess"?
Who is this "you" you are talking about?
Really bill? Argument?....
There's that "supposed" again. I'm dying for you to justify that. I look forward to that. I really am.
Fail. Epic fail. In short your argument is as follows, You should believe X because people who don't believe X do so be cause they believe they shouldn't.
Look, Bill (if that really is your name) let me give you some advice. Take a course in philosophy. Your argument is so convoluted and incoherent it will make most people's nose bleed.
Telling people that they should do something because otherwise they will be like people who use ethics to come to ontological conclusions is about as contradictory as one can get.
Last edited:
RandFan
Mormon Atheist
- Joined
- Dec 18, 2001
- Messages
- 60,135
You are only dismissing Jesus out of a sense of ethical responsibility Bob. Bill says it's ahem... wrong to do that.
Tell me about it.
Leumas
Is that necessary? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Book_of_Isaiah suggests a very early date - contemporary with its subject matter - for "Deutero-Isaiah". Surprising, but not impossible. Isaiah could have used the term before the concept of a liberating messiah had arisen.
After the Jews ceased to have their own kings, the word mashiach took on a more ideologically-charged signification. Previously it had meant simply: legitimate anointed ruler. Now it came to mean: the legitimate ruler YHWH will one day send to liberate us from foreign usurpation. And the more improbable such a thing came to seem, the more powerful the mashiach had to be going to be, until finally the Christians even divinised this figure.
But Isaiah could simply have been using the word in its plain original sense. Anointed ruler. Or as 19th century Europeans put it - "crowned head".
Is that necessary? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Book_of_Isaiah suggests a very early date - contemporary with its subject matter - for "Deutero-Isaiah". Surprising, but not impossible. Isaiah could have used the term before the concept of a liberating messiah had arisen.
After the Jews ceased to have their own kings, the word mashiach took on a more ideologically-charged signification. Previously it had meant simply: legitimate anointed ruler. Now it came to mean: the legitimate ruler YHWH will one day send to liberate us from foreign usurpation. And the more improbable such a thing came to seem, the more powerful the mashiach had to be going to be, until finally the Christians even divinised this figure.
But Isaiah could simply have been using the word in its plain original sense. Anointed ruler. Or as 19th century Europeans put it - "crowned head".
BobTheDonkey
Illuminator
- Joined
- Jun 30, 2009
- Messages
- 4,501
Then baby, I don't want to be right...
RandFan
Mormon Atheist
- Joined
- Dec 18, 2001
- Messages
- 60,135
MRC_Hans
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- Aug 28, 2002
- Messages
- 24,967
SpuriusMaximus
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- Mar 2, 2009
- Messages
- 25,782
Not really, no.
You have to look at the literary devices and style that Mark uses, and that seems lost on most people. Mark is a curious case. The overall narrative he builds is rather boring and reads like a laundry list, and yes, he seems to often not write what the LATER church would have liked him to write. There's a reason he's not read in church too often. BUT at the same time Mark is a master of allegories, foreshadows, making the same point several times so the reader gets it, and even layering allegories within allegories some half a dozen levels deep. No, literally.
A lot of the allegories in Mark aren't even very subtle. In fact they're pretty obvious, if you think of the problems of the early church, especially the "so why don't the Jews accept him" problem.
And Mark makes the same point in more than one place, of basically just that: why don't the Jews accept Jesus, but gentiles do. There is the prophet without honour incident, in which it's spelled out that the closer to home, the less respect you get. And there is, yes, the case where Jesus's own family thinks he's nuts, and in turn Jesus proclaims that his real family are those who follow him.
The only problems understanding that seem to come from people who, basically, practice wilful ignorance. Educated otherwise, but suddenly forget that such literary devices even exist when reading the gospels for stuff to support Jesus with.
In effect, it's again a curious case of circular logic. They have to assume that Mark was writing about real stuff (as opposed to using literary devices) to get that Mark was writing about real stuff.
ETA: But to return to that "inconvenience" criterion: would it be inconvenient? For the later church and their preaching to masses of people on whom such literary devices were lost, yes. For Mark? No, not really. It makes the point he's trying to make, and quite masterfully so.
Last edited:
Hans
It is possible to recruit authentic material into literary device. Thus, poetic treatment of a historical theme doesn't necessarily imply totally imaginary history. Are there literary devices in Homer? Was there ever a Trojan War?
Surely, too, the principle of inconvenience still applies.
But I have no particular interest in defending some sort of historical Jesus, certainly not to the point of "wilful ignorance". In any case, it is of little moment whether a particular insane preacher called Jesus (in addition to Josephus' Jesus son of Ananias) existed or not.
Nevertheless, if there is a historical basis, however slight, surely it is to be found in these inconvenient locations.
It is possible to recruit authentic material into literary device. Thus, poetic treatment of a historical theme doesn't necessarily imply totally imaginary history. Are there literary devices in Homer? Was there ever a Trojan War?
Surely, too, the principle of inconvenience still applies.
But I have no particular interest in defending some sort of historical Jesus, certainly not to the point of "wilful ignorance". In any case, it is of little moment whether a particular insane preacher called Jesus (in addition to Josephus' Jesus son of Ananias) existed or not.
Nevertheless, if there is a historical basis, however slight, surely it is to be found in these inconvenient locations.
BobTheDonkey
Illuminator
- Joined
- Jun 30, 2009
- Messages
- 4,501
This is no different from the "Gods of the gaps" claims so oft presented. I do wish you could see how much like DOC you sound with this evidence. As a matter of fact, his NT truthiness thread begins with this exact argument as one of the "Reasons we know the NT writers were telling the truth".
Remember, Paul wasn't the first to write of Jesus. Supposedly there were other people who had heard some hearsay and begun sects of their own. His (and Mark's) stories had to, somewhat, bind these beliefs together in some plausible manner. If that means Jesus had a brother and this was inconvenient, so be it. Better an inconvenient brother than alienating a sect of a small, growing cult.
BobTheDonkey
That is most assuredly NOT my "exact argument".
But an insane preacher with brothers is a possible truth. A real Jesus talking to Paul from up in the sky isn't, so my tentative approach to the former in no way supports NT truthiness. Was there ever a Trojan War? Possibly. So Homer was right. So Achilles had talking horses.
That is most assuredly NOT my "exact argument".