Yes I know. It isn't you who uncritically cites him as if his words were an infallible question-deciding source of truth, like Bible-thumping fundies churning out "scriptures".
The Historical Jesus II
- Thread starter dejudge
- Start date
- Status
Again, you write fiction and logically fallacious arguments.
The same gMatthew which claims Jesus was without sin also stated that the voice from heaven was WELL PLEASED with Jesus AFTER the BAPTISM.
There is NO Christian writer of antiquity who claimed that Baptism story was embarrassing.
In fact, all the Canonised Gospels admit that a Holy Ghost Bird descended upon their Jesus which is TOTAL fiction whether or not Jesus did exist
In addition, you have ZERO evidence that gMatthew is an historical account and ZERO evidence that gMatthew or any Canonised Gospel was composed in the 1st century.
The baptism story of Jesus with the Holy Ghost bird and the voice from heaven is obvious fiction.
dejudge said:
Again, you write more fiction and logically fallacious arguments.
I am used to your trick. No-one claimed you were a Bible thumping fundie because you believe Bible stories of Jesus.
It is you who is attempting to RE-DATE the writings in the Canon to pre 70 CE without a shred of evidence and using preposterous analysis like Bible thumping fundies.
All existing manuscripts and Codices with stories of Jesus and Paul are dated to the 2nd century or later and is riddled with fiction, false attribution, forgeries, falsehood, historical problems, discrepancies, contradictions, and events which did not and could not have happened.
It is true and cannot be denied that Bible thumping fundies and YOU BELIEVE the Bible is a credible historical source for Jesus of Nazareth.
You and Bible thumping fundies argue that John REALLY Baptised Jesus even though he was described as a Transfiguring Sea water walker and born of Ghost.
Why do YOU and Bible thumping fundies believe Bible stories of Jesus that are OBVIOUS fiction?
You must agree that there was NO holy ghost bird and voice from heaven if Jesus did exist and was baptized.
You must agree that the Baptism story is fiction.
Do you refuse to agree that the Baptism story is fiction with the Holy Ghost Bird and the Voice from heaven?
Is it not a fact that Bible thumping fundies REFUSE to agree that the Baptism story is not credible?
Good, yes, that's right, and it corresponds to the point I have made. The issue is not whether the NT writers "felt embarrassed" about writing these things. The issue is whether these things were consistent with the doctrine that they embraced.
Of course the idea of a perfect divine Holy Ghost having his sins washed away by a wandering hairy preacher is absurd. It is an embarrassment to the doctrine of the miracle Jesus that you have described thousands and thousands of TIMES here. So why is the Markan baptism description there at all?
Why does it contain this doctrine about the baptism, that the people who received it confessed their sins? Because the Holy Ghost Jesus you have told us about MILLIONS of TIMES didn't have any sins to confess, did he?
tsig
a carbon based life-form
- Joined
- Nov 25, 2005
- Messages
- 39,049
All I have ever said is show me the evidence.
Again, you make another logically fallacious argument.
The Canonised Baptism story is consistent with the doctrine of the Church and that is PRECISELY why it was Canonised.
CraigB said:
Now, you write another piece of fiction.
All the Gospels show that a Holy Ghost Bird descended upon Jesus at BAPTISM which was the RECORD that Jesus was the Son of God and God Creator.
John 1:32
CraigB said:
Again, you write more fiction.
The author of gJohn claimed that John the Baptist SAW and BARE RECORD that the HOLY GHOST Bird did descend on HIS Jesus, God Creator, [the Logos] who would baptised people WITH a Ghost.
The Baptism story with the Holy Ghost Bird and the Transfiguring Sea water walker, born of a Ghost and God Creator was one of the Most Pleasing event in the NT.
Please, stop the fiction. Please stop the propaganda.
The Gospels are obvious myth fables WITHOUT a shred of history and are ALL dated in the 2nd century or later.
Last edited:
And you HAVE seen, but have not BEEN paying attention, so YOU have not borne record that I was talking about things IN Mark that contradict THE most pleasing holy GHOST Jesus, and i WAS asking why they were there; I wasn't asking WHY the ghost virgin born Jesus was there.
I was asking why THE sin-confessing Jesus got baptised BY A hairy wandering preacher. And that's in Mark. So why is IT there?
You have been writing so much fiction that you can't remember what you posted.
You have been talking about the Baptism stories in, gMark, gMatthew and gJohn.
Your posts are recorded.
You continue to mis-represent yourself.
Examine an excerpt of your own post.
CraigB said:
You should PAY ATTENTION to the fiction you post.
CraigB said:
Again, you write fiction. You have ZERO contemporary evidence from antiquity of an historical Paul and NO evidence that the Pauline Corpus was before the Jesu story was known.
You have completely forgotten that if Jesus did exist and was the founder of the Jesus cult that the story of Jesus would PRECEDE the Pauline story.
You forget that a Pauline writer claimed his Jesus, the Lord from heaven, was ALREADY dead before he had CONFERENCE WITHOUT Flesh and blood.
It is void of logic to place the Pauline story BEFORE Jesus himself if it is argued that there was an historical Jesus who was the founder of the Christian cult.
It MOST logical that the story of Jesus PRECEDED Paul if Jesus did exist, was the founder of the Christian cult, and was already dead before the Pauline writer preached that Jesus Christ himself Resurrected.
The HJ argument is most embarrassingly logically fallacious and is a product of fiction.
Last edited:
JaysonR
Graduate Poster
- Joined
- May 16, 2013
- Messages
- 1,816
Craig,
Perhaps I somehow wasn't clear, but shifting from emotion to doctrine does not solve the problem.
We do not know what these authors' doctrines actually were and our attempts to determine them are filled with axioms and educated guesswork.
For just an example:
Each text could be an entirely different doctrinal holding - competing is even possible.
The addition of the crowds in Luke could simply be an attempt at being informative to those who do not know the custom in a heavily Greek reading and cultural location, or it could be to ensure that Jesus is represented as being among the common man and not above them in a separate caste - he was baptized with them.
Matthew could elaborate, not retract or hide really, because it was a political text and perhaps written for Egyptian Jews who were used to stories having preludes and, as I mentioned, could have needed the insistence for, not Jesus, but John - for it would be poor social custom to not refuse even a priest if they asked one in lower station to cleanse them in a ritual bath.
You know the joke about haggling? Refusal is sometimes a similar custom.
John could lack the action of baptism and have John speaking a monologue because it could have been more pragmatic for Anatolian stage play than attempting to craft heavenly lights, doves, voices without bodies for gods (could be confusing to some audiences), and water for dunking.
These are all actual possibilities other than it wasn't doctrinally convenient - which assumes we know each of these text's Christology...which we do not.
The above are just as possible because we have no idea where these texts were first written, by whom, or for what purpose.
Perhaps I somehow wasn't clear, but shifting from emotion to doctrine does not solve the problem.
We do not know what these authors' doctrines actually were and our attempts to determine them are filled with axioms and educated guesswork.
For just an example:
Each text could be an entirely different doctrinal holding - competing is even possible.
The addition of the crowds in Luke could simply be an attempt at being informative to those who do not know the custom in a heavily Greek reading and cultural location, or it could be to ensure that Jesus is represented as being among the common man and not above them in a separate caste - he was baptized with them.
Matthew could elaborate, not retract or hide really, because it was a political text and perhaps written for Egyptian Jews who were used to stories having preludes and, as I mentioned, could have needed the insistence for, not Jesus, but John - for it would be poor social custom to not refuse even a priest if they asked one in lower station to cleanse them in a ritual bath.
You know the joke about haggling? Refusal is sometimes a similar custom.
John could lack the action of baptism and have John speaking a monologue because it could have been more pragmatic for Anatolian stage play than attempting to craft heavenly lights, doves, voices without bodies for gods (could be confusing to some audiences), and water for dunking.
These are all actual possibilities other than it wasn't doctrinally convenient - which assumes we know each of these text's Christology...which we do not.
The above are just as possible because we have no idea where these texts were first written, by whom, or for what purpose.
Last edited:
Let us not suppose.
I told you that I do not accept the Bible as a credible historical source but you keep saying "but the Bible says...."
"That's silly, isn't it?"
Tell us what the Bibles says in Galatians 1.19?
Tell us what the Auditory Hallucinator [Bible Paul] says about Jesus, the Lord from heaven, God's Own Son and God Creator?
What does the Bible say happened when Jesus, the son of the Ghost, was baptized?
You believe the Bible contains the history of your Jesus as stated by Bible Paul.
Last edited:
I don't believe that the Bible contains the history of any Jesus stated by Bible Paul.
You don't believe Galatians 1.19 anymore? Were you not arguing that the character called the Lord Jesus in Galatians 1 actually had a brother called James?
Not the point. You said I believed that the Bible contains the history of Jesus stated by Bible Paul. But there is no history of Jesus stated by Bible Paul. Bible Paul gives us no history of Jesus, so when you ask
that has nothing to do with Bible Paul. You keep doing this ridiculous thing, treating the "Bible" as a single source.
That is what Bible thumping fundies do when they turn up on your doorstep early in the morning and ask you if you've taken The Lord Jesus as your Personal Saviour.
I have never taken Carrier's words as if they "were an infallible question-deciding source of truth". In fact, I have pointed out the major flaw with the whole Lord Raglan Hero Pattern (Element 48) and the Non sequitur of if Jesus was a nobody "which begs the question how he convinced anyone he was the Messiah and Savior who would soon return on clouds of glory if he never said or did anything anyone thought impressive enough to ever discuss until a lifetime later" (Jesus didn't need to do this. Paul or those who came before him were all that were needed).
Carrier references movements that demonstrate the logic being presented: John Frum and the Luddites
If we for a moment assume that John Frum really did exist c 1910s then that would also "beg the question how he convinced anyone he was the Messiah and Savior who would soon return on clouds of glory if he never said or did anything anyone thought impressive enough to ever discuss until a lifetime late" but as it was not John Frum himself that caused the movement to hit critical mass but the actions of Manehivi, Neloaig, Iokaeye, and various "sons" of John Frum. Step back and think on that hilited part; for the idea of John Frum having adult (21 or older) sons to strike any cord then his appearance had to be set further back in time then the supposed late 1930s as the cult now holds.
The same is true of Ned Ludd. If we assume that Ned Ludd was also a nobody that in his time didn't amount to anything then you have the same issue.
Even Gregor Mendel whose work was dismissed during his lifetime but promoted about a lifetime later (about 30 years later) has contemporary evidence of his existence. Jesus by contrast. if he was an actual person, falls totally through the cracks. Given the 4th century produced things like Philo knowing Peter, and supposed lettesr from Pontius Pilate to the emperor regarding Jesus, and other similar nonsense shows that even at that early time the supporters of a Historical Jesus knew they had a problem.
Carrier writings are not gospel as you imply but merely the best nearly all in one source we have.
If a lot of what Carrier says was rubbish then a much of it wouldn't have appeared in a peer reviewed scholar published book unless the entire HJ field is little more then a joke, now wouldn't it?
As if a pro HJ work published by Baker Academic presents the criteria of embarrassment along with the over 5,000 manuscript nonsense as the cherry on 'why we should trust the Gospel account as distorted history' sundae didn't show that the pro HJ side has some serious issues. That is the sort of nonsense I would expect out of Holding not a respected academic publisher.
As flawed as Carrier is he is a light years better then the twaddle we got out out of the total insanity that is Zeitgeist as well as a good amount of the pro Christ Myth stuff out there.
Last edited:
Eh? Come again? What sort of argument is that? What "peer reviewed scholar published" book can show that the entire HJ field is "little more than a joke", merely by existing?
Do you mean that no HJ book has ever been published by a scholar, or subject to peer review? If there have been such scholars and books, does that mean that the entire MJ field is little more than a joke? What are you on about?
Throughout all these threads you have used the bible to quote all sorts of things as your evidence for Jesus.
And in particular you have frequently claimed that the bible tells us that Paul met the actual human brother of Jesus, and hence you say Jesus must have been real ...
... that is a family history which you are accepting from the bible as a credible source.
In fact, you don't have any primary source for Jesus except for the bible!
No they are not, and I believe you have made a common but fatal error.
I think we can know what the doctrines were because the doctrines are set down in the text. But even if we did not know what they were, and decided to indulge in untrammelled speculation about them, as you do, then it does NOT follow that the various notions that are conjured up by our imagination are all equally probable, as you say they are.
If I am in Naples in midsummer I might not know what the weather might be like a week later, and I might propose various possibilities. But I am not justified in saying, well because I have no idea what the weather will be like next week; for that reason I may say that sun, rain, hail, sleet and snow are all just as possible.
Well they must be, eh? Because I can't say that any of them won't happen? No, it's a fallacy, because some of them are intrinsically more probable than others, even though our ignorance of the future with regard to anything that might happen is equally absent.
That is a common fallacy: I don't know anything for certain, so I can say anything I like (true); therefore any one thing I might decide to say is as likely to be true as any other thing I might decide to say (false).
dejudge said:
You are a confirmed fiction writer.
You have used Galatians 1.19 as evidence for an HISTORICAL Jesus.
You keep writing ridiculous fiction stories of Jesus based on Bible Paul and the Bible authors of gMark and gMatthew.
CraigB said:
Don't you agree with Bible thumping fundies that Galatians 1.19 is evidence of an historical Jesus?
When YOU turn up at the doorsteps of Bible thumping fundies you will tell them that Galatians 1.19 is evidence of an historical Jesus.
Oh, I see. You've been sensible enough to retreat from your previous ridiculous statement that
Because Bible Paul doesn't give any history of Jesus at all. Read this.
http://www.patheos.com/blogs/crossexamined/2012/12/what-did-paul-know-about-jesus-not-much/
So if you turn up on the doorstep of Bible-thumping fundies and tell them that the history of Jesus was written by Bible Paul, they will laugh until they collapse in a coma; and they will think the MJ gang are a total joke!
JaysonR
Graduate Poster
- Joined
- May 16, 2013
- Messages
- 1,816
Craig,
Can I request some equal courtesy in discourse?
I feel poorly returned in this post and you seem to be responding to something I am not; and in ill manner.
I did not state that we have no idea at all what ideas they held.
I stated that several possibilities are AS LIKELY as each other because we have no idea WHERE these texts were created, by whom, and for what purpose.
For instance, though you just rudely snipped the section out and - without any shown reason - declared them "fanciful speculation", each of those propositions stands JUST AS possible as what you wrote.
There is nothing in the text that lists a doctrinal holding or motive for the writings.
There are a myriad of beliefs even today about both the Baptism and the Crucifixion doctrinally which vary widely even though they all hold the same texts.
You took my point too far to an hyperbolic range that I did not.
Of course we can determine some constructs - I myself offered just as much even in that post and have often done so in this thread and in several threads you have been involved in - so clearly I do not mean that we are hopelessly ignorant.
The point was that we cannot settle on ONE of several possibilities regarding what the doctrine was.
And we are safe in knowing that the doctrines of these texts was and is unknown for ALL later factions of Christianity fought adamantly with each other over interpreting exactly these concepts of doctrine; clearly it is not straight forward as only one possibility.
It is not that I am claiming ANY idea is as likely...no. It is that MULTIPLE ideas are possible; not just one.
(caps because on phone and can't easily italic).
Can I request some equal courtesy in discourse?
I feel poorly returned in this post and you seem to be responding to something I am not; and in ill manner.
That is not what I was writing.
I did not state that we have no idea at all what ideas they held.
I stated that several possibilities are AS LIKELY as each other because we have no idea WHERE these texts were created, by whom, and for what purpose.
For instance, though you just rudely snipped the section out and - without any shown reason - declared them "fanciful speculation", each of those propositions stands JUST AS possible as what you wrote.
There is nothing in the text that lists a doctrinal holding or motive for the writings.
There are a myriad of beliefs even today about both the Baptism and the Crucifixion doctrinally which vary widely even though they all hold the same texts.
You took my point too far to an hyperbolic range that I did not.
Of course we can determine some constructs - I myself offered just as much even in that post and have often done so in this thread and in several threads you have been involved in - so clearly I do not mean that we are hopelessly ignorant.
The point was that we cannot settle on ONE of several possibilities regarding what the doctrine was.
And we are safe in knowing that the doctrines of these texts was and is unknown for ALL later factions of Christianity fought adamantly with each other over interpreting exactly these concepts of doctrine; clearly it is not straight forward as only one possibility.
It is not that I am claiming ANY idea is as likely...no. It is that MULTIPLE ideas are possible; not just one.
(caps because on phone and can't easily italic).
Last edited:
- Status