Okay, convince me Jesus existed.

[OCaptain]

OCaptain

And why are you giving me evidence from Suetonius about someone called Chrestus causing riots in Rome? Jesus changed his name ten years after his death, went to Rome and made big trouble in the Jewish quarter of that city? That's not what I was taught at Sunday School!

For the common Graeco-Roman name Chrestus, see... About 200, I believe.

What either of us might have been taught in our formative years has no bearing here.

I'm puzzled that you're expecting perfect clarity in all documents which concern (or may even possibly concern) An historical Jesus. And you still didn't answer my question about other people, places and events referred to by these early historians and chroniclers. Have you read any of them?

 

[OCaptain]

OCaptain

I didn't say the writers wrote nonsense. I mean that you write nonsense.

Pliny wrote in letter 10 to Trajan that Christianity was "depraved, excessive superstition", and you use him as a support for your beliefs? That's nonsense. Pliny was, however, quite right.

And no rational person - Christian or otherwise - believes that Josephus called Jesus "the Christ". It is universally dismissed as an interpolation, even by people deluded enough to accept some parts of Josephus' reference to be authentic. Origen explicitly tells us that Josephus did NOT accept Jesus as Christ. It's tosh.

Your animosity has clouded your judgment. Simply because you disagree with me doesn't make my words nonsense.

Can you discuss this without interjecting your personal views about Christianity into a conversation where it doesn't belong? You don't see me abusing anyone here.

 

[Craig B]

OCaptain

The first example I'm thinking of is the passages that refer to Christ as the sacrificial lamb. Now, not even the most fundamentalist Christians I've known have believed that Christ literally became a lamb, so there is room for a more common-sense approach to Biblical studies.

Modernist liberalism, indeed! Does that mean this isn't literally true? A pity; it's a striking image.

Revelation 14: 10 The same shall drink of the wine of the wrath of God, which is poured out without mixture into the cup of his indignation; and he shall be tormented with fire and brimstone in the presence of the holy angels, and in the presence of the Lamb: 11 And the smoke of their torment ascendeth up for ever and ever: and they have no rest day nor night, who worship the beast and his image, and whosoever receiveth the mark of his name.

 

[Lord Emsworth]

How's this?

And thank you for the welcome!

Way to go.

 

[Craig B]

OCaptain

I'm sorry; I intend no personal insult. But really, even Christian authors have given up on Josephus' "Christ" declaration.

And if you think the earlier references to the historical sources in this thread were unsound, why not say so, and give your reasons, rather than simply regurgitate material that has been discussed here umpteen times?

 

[OCaptain]

OCaptain



Modernist liberalism, indeed! Does that mean this isn't literally true? A pity; it's a striking image.

Indeed, it is, a striking image. And intelligent people, apart from mythicists, can suss out valid interpretations of these texts.

Might want to make sure you contrive your arguments for the right person before getting so proud of yourself.

 

[tsig]

Your animosity has clouded your judgment. Simply because you disagree with me doesn't make my words nonsense.

Can you discuss this without interjecting your personal views about Christianity into a conversation where it doesn't belong? You don't see me abusing anyone here.

You seem to be reading a post other than what he wrote.

 

[Leumas]

Leumas,

You're confusing Christians who are biblical literalists with those Christians who are not. It is certainly possible (I know, because I am proof of it) to regard the Bible as a sacred volume while understanding that not every word of it is the literal Word of God , by its writers' own admission.

The first example I'm thinking of is the passages that refer to Christ as the sacrificial lamb. Now, not even the most fundamentalist Christians I've known have believed that Christ literally became a lamb, so there is room for a more common-sense approach to Biblical studies.

 

[OCaptain]

OCaptain

I'm sorry; I intend no personal insult. But really, even Christian authors have given up on Josephus' "Christ" declaration.

And if you think the earlier references to the historical sources in this thread were unsound, why not say so, and give your reasons, rather than simply regurgitate material that has been discussed here umpteen times?

Okay, I will. K has a perspective from the mythicist side of things that colors his view. Doesn't make it right. Doesn't make it wrong, but to deny it is intellectually dishonest, but he writes as though he represents the voice of objectivity and sensibility with regard to ancient faith and religion. He doesn't.

His statistics game in post #249 is like textbook Popper. Falsifiability is not what it once was, and even most Copenhagen school scholars know this.

 

[OCaptain]

Is there anything constructive you'd like to contribute?

 

[tsig]

Indeed, it is, a striking image. And intelligent people, apart from mythicists, can suss out valid interpretations of these texts.

Might want to make sure you contrive your arguments for the right person before getting so proud of yoursel.

You imply that he isn't intelligent and disagrees with you because of his pride.

Didn't take you long to find the low road.

 

[OCaptain]

You seem to be reading a post other than what he wrote.

Well, I certainly don't need help reading or writing, but thanks for the hearty welcome. And you are?

 

[Craig B]

OCaptain

Your arguments re #249 are purely ad hominem, and void of content. As to the Revelation Lamb, it would be interesting to see the valid interpretation to which you refer.

Ah, but who is tsig? Who are you, for that matter, o Captain?

 

[Mudcat]

bing

Google

 

[OCaptain]

You imply that he isn't intelligent and disagrees with you because of his pride.

Didn't take you long to find the low road.

I call them as I see them. I have a very-well developed BS meter. The disappointing aspect to all this is that I've been singing the praises Of the JREF to others on other forae on the web, but - with one notable exception- I haven't received a genial reception on my first day here, nor have I experienced the same intellectual debate but respectful disagreement I expected.

So , it's a bit of shock that I'm seeing piling on the new guy for no good reason. I am not looking forward to having to put on a porcupine suit to post here.

 

[OCaptain]

OCaptain

Your arguments re #249 are purely ad hominem, and void of content. As to the Revelation Lamb, it would be interesting to see the valid interpretation to which you refer.

Ah, but who is tsig? Who are you, for that matter, o Captain?

Man, you guys are standing at the ready to pummel.

Again, must I remind you that just because you accuse me of ad hominem attacks, the onus is on you to demonstrate that, not simply state it.

I don't know about you but I didn't come here for intellectual masturbation.

 

[Craig B]

OCaptain

For my meaning of ad hominem, please consider your own statement:

Okay, I will. K has a perspective from the mythicist side of things that colors his view. Doesn't make it right. Doesn't make it wrong, but to deny it is intellectually dishonest, but he writes as though he represents the voice of objectivity and sensibility with regard to ancient faith and religion. He doesn't.

His statistics game in post #249 is like textbook Popper. Falsifiability is not what it once was, and even most Copenhagen school scholars know this.

You refer to K's mythicist perspective, intellectual dishonesty, lack of objectivity, etc; but you don't refer to anything he actually wrote. That is purely personal, not intellectual, comment. Ad hominem. And if you wish to escape such a charge, going on about masturbation is not the best way to do it, if you will forgive my saying so.

 

[OCaptain]

OCaptain

For my meaning of ad hominem, please consider your own statement:

You refer to K's mythicist perspective, intellectual dishonesty, lack of objectivity, etc; but you don't refer to anything he actually wrote. That is purely personal, not intellectual, comment. Ad hominem. And if you wish to escape such a charge, going on about masturbation is not the best way to do it, if you will forgive my saying so.

So as someone who has read his posts apart from me, would you say that his mythicist perspective makes him MORE objective?

And when I read this bullying and ridiculing attitude infusing nearly his every post directed at people whose views don't align with his in this thread, I certainly don't need to hold your hand to find what is, in practical terms, the nose on your face.

 

[Craig B]

OCaptain

I accused you of making ad hominem remarks rather than addressing the content of posts, and you respond by referring to bullying and ridiculing, but STILL don't address that content.

I simply don't know what to say.

 

[RandFan]

OCaptain,

Why do you believe what you believe? If you answer I promise to not be snarky. I get that way with Bill because I find him so damn hard to have a discussion with.

FWIW: I think you have written some reasonable things. I agree with you that there are many things in the Bible that are obviously not meant to be literal. Jesus states quite clearly that he speaks in parables. Those are obviously not meant to be taken literally.