Jump to content
Goodbye Jesus

"we Two Kings Of Orient Is, Totally Confused About When We Started The Biz"


Pegasus_Voyager

Recommended Posts

Then I would be accused of some logical fallacy or personality flaw. I know that trap.

I stress mainstream because, of course, one can find someone or several someones who claim anything, absolutely anything...... You get the point. So I'm looking for mainstream scholars.
Ah, Yes, I get the point. Any source I provide would be considered "not main stream" because they don't agree with your a priori assumptions. If I seem jaded, or cynical, about this, it's because I've been having these same discussions, with the same replies, for about 30 years now. You might want to try anything by a friend of mine; A.J. Mattill, Jr.. He has a doctorate in biblical studies from a major college. He told me that he studied the bible so much and learned so much about it that he could not longer believe a word of it. You'll need to do your own research since anything I provide would be discounted.
The scholars of the Jesus Seminar likely spent thousands of hours debating the question of the existence of a historical Jesus prior to forming the group.....
Yes, and their bias is quite evident. Why do you assume they did any studying at all (except for market studies to see if they could make a profit)?

If this is the friend you refer to I would call him "mainstream,"
Did I predict that or what? :grin:
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 81
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

  • currentchristian

    31

  • Dave

    24

  • Jun

    5

  • Warrior_of_god

    4

but no mainstream scholar would posit that Jesus did not exist.

 

-currentchristian in massachusetts

 

 

If this is the friend you refer to I would call him "mainstream," even if he no longer believes a word of it.

 

Slippery Christian that you are!

 

You graciously accept that this person is a mainstream scholar but you so very conveniently forget to confess your error earlier where you insisted that no such scholar exists. I copied one example of it; there are others if one digs into the posts of this thread. This is the abomination of christians. They profess loud and long and when proven wrong slide and slither away with the prize in their fangs. :ugh:

 

Oh, and then they think they are being persecuted when we complain about it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

but no mainstream scholar would posit that Jesus did not exist.

 

WRONG. Tom Harpur may have been the first to say it out loud but he's got fans. I know scholars in mainstream universities who seriously question it. They are not necessarily fans of Harpur because they were saying it before Harpur's Pagan Christ was published.

 

You are right, RubySera, to point out that my use of the modifer "no" is incorrect. It would have been more correct for me to write "few mainstream...." Thanks for pointing that out.

 

-CC in MA

 

but no mainstream scholar would posit that Jesus did not exist.

 

-currentchristian in massachusetts

 

 

If this is the friend you refer to I would call him "mainstream," even if he no longer believes a word of it.

 

Slippery Christian that you are!

 

You graciously accept that this person is a mainstream scholar but you so very conveniently forget to confess your error earlier where you insisted that no such scholar exists. I copied one example of it; there are others if one digs into the posts of this thread. This is the abomination of christians. They profess loud and long and when proven wrong slide and slither away with the prize in their fangs. :ugh:

 

Oh, and then they think they are being persecuted when we complain about it.

 

Dear RubySear, I did confess my error and prior to reading your post above. Please do not refer to me, a Christian, as an abomination. As a gay person, I have heard that word used too often to describe my being gay. Please be sensitive about throwing around such a judgmental word. And, I think celebrating diversity is important and fostering tolerance is important. No one is an abomination in my view. No one.

 

-CC in MA

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You are right, RubySera, to point out that my use of the modifer "no" is incorrect. It would have been more correct for me to write "few mainstream...." Thanks for pointing that out.....
You'd still be wrong. Most "biblical scholars" start out believing and stay believers. As you have done here they just automatically discount any contrary information. They start with the premise that the jesus of the bible is an actual person/god and work from there. They are no different than many other scholars of their ilk. Astrologers are another good example; they study all kinds of charts and conjunctions yet fail to read, or give credence to, any contrary literature or thoughts. Your "jesus seminar" people are no different. It's called "selective reading" and compartmentalization. An "argument from authority" is also going on here. You have mentioned several alleged scholars, or groups, as if what they said was sacrosanct or absolutely correct. They're just giving their opinions based on their beliefs, not upon any kind of empirical evidence.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

You are right, RubySera, to point out that my use of the modifer "no" is incorrect. It would have been more correct for me to write "few mainstream...." Thanks for pointing that out.....
You'd still be wrong. Most "biblical scholars" start out believing and stay believers. As you have done here they just automatically discount any contrary information. They start with the premise that the jesus of the bible is an actual person/god and work from there. They are no different than many other scholars of their ilk. Astrologers are another good example; they study all kinds of charts and conjunctions yet fail to read, or give credence to, any contrary literature or thoughts. Your "jesus seminar" people are no different. It's called "selective reading" and compartmentalization. An "argument from authority" is also going on here. You have mentioned several alleged scholars, or groups, as if what they said was sacrosanct or absolutely correct. They're just giving their opinions based on their beliefs, not upon any kind of empirical evidence.

 

By the way, the Jesus Seminar is quite unpopular among moderate and conservative scholars of the Bible, and likely despised by most fundamentalist Christians as heretics.

 

We all engage in some form of selective reading and compartmentalization. I don't medidate every day on the fact that my father is dead and my mother's health is precarious; therefoe I am compartmentalizing. But this is a natural feature of the human brain. At some point, one must make a choice.

 

I admit that I sometimes read selectively and compartmentalize -- for various reasons about different things.

 

Do you ever read selectively and compartmentalize in order to maintain your disbelief?

 

-CC in MA

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Robert Price is a member of the Jesus Seminar. I'd say he's a pretty well respected scholar with impressive credentials.

 

As he concludes the book "Deconstructing Jesus" he leaves no room for doubt that he considers Jesus to be a mythological construct.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Robert Price is a member of the Jesus Seminar. I'd say he's a pretty well respected scholar with impressive credentials.

 

As he concludes the book "Deconstructing Jesus" he leaves no room for doubt that he considers Jesus to be a mythological construct.

 

His name is new to me. Looking him up on the Internet, he looks like Daniel Dennett (Breaking the Spell: Religion as a Natural Phenomenon, which I did read along with my agnostic friend who referred me to this website) and I see that Price's most-recent book, The Reason-Driven Life, is endorsed by John Shelby Spong ("heretical" Episcopal priest). No, do you really think I'd read his book!? Just kidding.

 

I'll put it on my "to buy later" list at amazon.com.

 

Thanks for the referral.

 

-CC in MA

Link to comment
Share on other sites

By the way, the Jesus Seminar is quite unpopular among moderate and conservative scholars of the Bible, and likely despised by most fundamentalist Christians as heretics.
Just so you know, I could care less about this "jesus seminar."
We all engage in some form of selective reading and compartmentalization. I don't medidate every day on the fact that my father is dead and my mother's health is precarious; therefoe I am compartmentalizing. But this is a natural feature of the human brain. At some point, one must make a choice.
You purposely misrepresent the compartmentalization I am talking about. Your belief in a god is in a box so tightly closed that no light what so ever could get in. Ask the ex christians around here; the moment one bit of light gets through it lights up the box and gods disappear.
Do you ever read selectively and compartmentalize in order to maintain your disbelief?
No. I keep asking for proof. Not one christian, or anyone of any other religion, has ever come up with any.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I do love, Dave, to step outside of my world.

 

If you really want to step outside of your world, read "The Jesus Puzzle" by Earl Doherty.

 

It is most definitely not quack theology. And it lays out quite thoroughly the Jesus Myth position.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

By the way, the Jesus Seminar is quite unpopular among moderate and conservative scholars of the Bible, and likely despised by most fundamentalist Christians as heretics.
Just so you know, I could care less about this "jesus seminar."
We all engage in some form of selective reading and compartmentalization. I don't medidate every day on the fact that my father is dead and my mother's health is precarious; therefoe I am compartmentalizing. But this is a natural feature of the human brain. At some point, one must make a choice.
You purposely misrepresent the compartmentalization I am talking about. Your belief in a god is in a box so tightly closed that no light what so ever could get in. Ask the ex christians around here; the moment one bit of light gets through it lights up the box and gods disappear.
Do you ever read selectively and compartmentalize in order to maintain your disbelief?
No. I keep asking for proof. Not one christian, or anyone of any other religion, has ever come up with any.

 

Hi Dave, I really don't believe that you have the capacity to judge that I am purposely misrepresenting the compartmentalization you are talking about. I also don't think you have the (god-like) capacity to judge how tightly my god box is closed. Do you really, really think you can discern these things about others by means of a few Internet exchanges? Not trying to be argumentative, but wondering if you really want to state things so dogmatically?

 

-CC in MA

 

 

I do love, Dave, to step outside of my world.

 

If you really want to step outside of your world, read "The Jesus Puzzle" by Earl Doherty.

 

It is most definitely not quack theology. And it lays out quite thoroughly the Jesus Myth position.

 

Added to the "buy" list at amazon.com.

 

Gracias.

 

-CC in MA

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hi Dave, I really don't believe that you have the capacity to judge that I am purposely misrepresenting the compartmentalization you are talking about. I also don't think you have the (god-like) capacity to judge how tightly my god box is closed. Do you really, really think you can discern these things about others by means of a few Internet exchanges? Not trying to be argumentative, but wondering if you really want to state things so dogmatically?
I don't have to "judge" anything. I just rely upon what you have shown me so far. Haven't you noticed that you have also stated several things dogmatically? When you're given rational explanations for your claims, you dismiss them and cling to your dogma.

 

But all this bible discussion is nonsense anyway. You need to prove the god exists before you can make any claims about it. The bible is a complete myth and is not useful for any honest discussion trying to get to the truth of the matter. The bible was written by guys trying to push a religion. Including it in any discussion is just a diversionary tool used to evade the real issues. The bible is your only source for any information about this jesus and the bible has been shown to be completely unreliable, and even you have admitted to that, yet you cling to it as if it were the truth. There's a dissonance there that I haven't been able to figure out in believers.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

...But all this bible discussion is nonsense anyway. You need to prove the god exists before you can make any claims about it...

 

I don't think he does need to prove God before he makes any claims.

 

You might want to deal directly with the claims, or just ignore him.

 

CC is sort of another Amanda. If he likes Spong you won't be able to put him in any of the usual Christian/fundy boxes, and it will drive you nuts trying to do so.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

...But all this bible discussion is nonsense anyway. You need to prove the god exists before you can make any claims about it...
I don't think he does need to prove God before he makes any claims.
Then the argument is degraded to arguing over which false claim is the best one.
You might want to deal directly with the claims, or just ignore him.
By forcing them to deal with the main question instead of unimportant side issues, then they win by derailing.
CC is sort of another Amanda. If he likes Spong you won't be able to put him in any of the usual Christian/fundy boxes, and it will drive you nuts trying to do so.
Or you can drive them nuts by not letting them get away with their games. Have you noticed that CC stopped answering my questions? He can't answer them. I wouldn't play his games.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hi Dave, I really don't believe that you have the capacity to judge that I am purposely misrepresenting the compartmentalization you are talking about. I also don't think you have the (god-like) capacity to judge how tightly my god box is closed. Do you really, really think you can discern these things about others by means of a few Internet exchanges? Not trying to be argumentative, but wondering if you really want to state things so dogmatically?
I don't have to "judge" anything. I just rely upon what you have shown me so far. Haven't you noticed that you have also stated several things dogmatically? When you're given rational explanations for your claims, you dismiss them and cling to your dogma.

 

But all this bible discussion is nonsense anyway. You need to prove the god exists before you can make any claims about it. The bible is a complete myth and is not useful for any honest discussion trying to get to the truth of the matter. The bible was written by guys trying to push a religion. Including it in any discussion is just a diversionary tool used to evade the real issues. The bible is your only source for any information about this jesus and the bible has been shown to be completely unreliable, and even you have admitted to that, yet you cling to it as if it were the truth. There's a dissonance there that I haven't been able to figure out in believers.

 

What is your view, Dave, about the man called St. Paul: Was he a historical person? Did he write some of the letters allegedly from his pen? I only ask because you have dismissed the entire Bible as a myth. My goodness, that is your right, so I'm wondering if you feel it has even one person or one incident that might not be mythical?

 

-CC in MA

 

 

...But all this bible discussion is nonsense anyway. You need to prove the god exists before you can make any claims about it...
I don't think he does need to prove God before he makes any claims.
Then the argument is degraded to arguing over which false claim is the best one.
You might want to deal directly with the claims, or just ignore him.
By forcing them to deal with the main question instead of unimportant side issues, then they win by derailing.
CC is sort of another Amanda. If he likes Spong you won't be able to put him in any of the usual Christian/fundy boxes, and it will drive you nuts trying to do so.
Or you can drive them nuts by not letting them get away with their games. Have you noticed that CC stopped answering my questions? He can't answer them. I wouldn't play his games.

 

My goodness, Dave. I must say no one wins or loses here. I didn't even know there was a contest (dare I say, a fight) going on. I thought we were sharpening each other's iron, not fighting a duel to the death.

 

-CC in MA

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What is your view, Dave, about the man called St. Paul:
Which one?
Was he a historical person? Did he write some of the letters allegedly from his pen? I only ask because you have dismissed the entire Bible as a myth. My goodness, that is your right, so I'm wondering if you feel it has even one person or one incident that might not be mythical?
Wouldn't change a thing. Why should it? One guy mentioned was real, or one author was real proves absolutely nothing. It verifies not one of the claims the bible made. They point you are so desperately trying to avoid is that the outlandish claims made in the bible are what makes it false, not any author or person. That Kurt Vonnegut exists does not make the Tralfamidorians real. And you still haven't proven the god they talk about exists.
Or you can drive them nuts by not letting them get away with their games. Have you noticed that CC stopped answering my questions? He can't answer them. I wouldn't play his games.
My goodness, Dave. I must say no one wins or loses here. I didn't even know there was a contest (dare I say, a fight) going on. I thought we were sharpening each other's iron, not fighting a duel to the death.
More evasion and games. "Games" does not always mean a contest with winners or losers. There are several meanings of the word and you know exactly which meaning I was using.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

What is your view, Dave, about the man called St. Paul:
Which one?
Was he a historical person? Did he write some of the letters allegedly from his pen? I only ask because you have dismissed the entire Bible as a myth. My goodness, that is your right, so I'm wondering if you feel it has even one person or one incident that might not be mythical?
Wouldn't change a thing. Why should it? One guy mentioned was real, or one author was real proves absolutely nothing. It verifies not one of the claims the bible made. They point you are so desperately trying to avoid is that the outlandish claims made in the bible are what makes it false, not any author or person. That Kurt Vonnegut exists does not make the Tralfamidorians real. And you still haven't proven the god they talk about exists.
Or you can drive them nuts by not letting them get away with their games. Have you noticed that CC stopped answering my questions? He can't answer them. I wouldn't play his games.
My goodness, Dave. I must say no one wins or loses here. I didn't even know there was a contest (dare I say, a fight) going on. I thought we were sharpening each other's iron, not fighting a duel to the death.
More evasion and games. "Games" does not always mean a contest with winners or losers. There are several meanings of the word and you know exactly which meaning I was using.

 

You, Dave, introduced the "they win" terminology as though this were a contest. I'm simply saying I didn't know anyone could win or lose. My point about Paul is that if he did exist, then at least one thing in the Bible is not myth, while you (over?)stated that it's all myth -- which is your right! Since neither you nor I have complete understanding or truth or knowledge about anything, my hope is that both of us will continue to grow and learn and discover.

 

-CC in MA

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You, Dave, introduced the "they win" terminology as though this were a contest.
No, you did by purposely misinterpreting one word I used.
I'm simply saying I didn't know anyone could win or lose. My point about Paul is that if he did exist, then at least one thing in the Bible is not myth, while you (over?)stated that it's all myth
One minor thing that is not myth does not prove the rest of the myth to be true.
-- which is your right!
It's not my "right" it's logic.
Since neither you nor I have complete understanding or truth or knowledge about anything, my hope is that both of us will continue to grow and learn and discover.
More evasion and games.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

You, Dave, introduced the "they win" terminology as though this were a contest.
No, you did by purposely misinterpreting one word I used.
I'm simply saying I didn't know anyone could win or lose. My point about Paul is that if he did exist, then at least one thing in the Bible is not myth, while you (over?)stated that it's all myth
One minor thing that is not myth does not prove the rest of the myth to be true.
-- which is your right!
It's not my "right" it's logic.
Since neither you nor I have complete understanding or truth or knowledge about anything, my hope is that both of us will continue to grow and learn and discover.
More evasion and games.

 

It's your right to be logical, and it's your right to go where your logic leads you. No argument from me. Do I have that right, too, even if my logic leads me to conclusions that are not yours?

 

-CC in MA

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's your right to be logical, and it's your right to go where your logic leads you. No argument from me. Do I have that right, too, even if my logic leads me to conclusions that are not yours?
Non stop evasion and games. You only need to use logic, not invent some twisted form of it. Believing any part of the bible is not logical.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

What is your view, Dave, about the man called St. Paul: Was he a historical person? Did he write some of the letters allegedly from his pen? I only ask because you have dismissed the entire Bible as a myth. My goodness, that is your right, so I'm wondering if you feel it has even one person or one incident that might not be mythical?

 

Some of us do think the Saul / Paul is historical. And that (some) of the writings attributed to him are genuine. But, it's a mistake to read Paul with presuppositional gospel tunnel vision.

 

The real question is - what Jesus did Saul / Paul preach? When the genuine pauline epistles are carefully scrutinized, you have to wonder if Paul's Jesus is the same as Mark's Jesus.

 

Saul / Paul is curiously silent about Jesus' miracles. About Jesus' teachings. About Mary, and Pilate. About Gethsemane. About the cleansing of the temple. About any details that would lead us to believe that Saul / Paul understood Jesus as a recent human resident of mother earth.

 

Even when Paul is making an argument that would be bolstered by something Jesus said, he chooses instead to refer to an old testament prophet. Paul's Jesus certainly appears to be a revelatory Jesus. A celestial son of god who resides in an upper realm.

 

Perhaps Paul's "other Jesus" that he talks about is the Jesus of the gospels.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's your right to be logical, and it's your right to go where your logic leads you. No argument from me. Do I have that right, too, even if my logic leads me to conclusions that are not yours?
Non stop evasion and games. You only need to use logic, not invent some twisted form of it. Believing any part of the bible is not logical.

 

In your perfect world, what would you do with those such as myself whose logic leads them to believe at least some parts of the Bible?

 

-CC in MA

 

What is your view, Dave, about the man called St. Paul: Was he a historical person? Did he write some of the letters allegedly from his pen? I only ask because you have dismissed the entire Bible as a myth. My goodness, that is your right, so I'm wondering if you feel it has even one person or one incident that might not be mythical?

 

Some of us do think the Saul / Paul is historical. And that (some) of the writings attributed to him are genuine. But, it's a mistake to read Paul with presuppositional gospel tunnel vision.

 

The real question is - what Jesus did Saul / Paul preach? When the genuine pauline epistles are carefully scrutinized, you have to wonder if Paul's Jesus is the same as Mark's Jesus.

 

Saul / Paul is curiously silent about Jesus' miracles. About Jesus' teachings. About Mary, and Pilate. About Gethsemane. About the cleansing of the temple. About any details that would lead us to believe that Saul / Paul understood Jesus as a recent human resident of mother earth.

 

Even when Paul is making an argument that would be bolstered by something Jesus said, he chooses instead to refer to an old testament prophet. Paul's Jesus certainly appears to be a revelatory Jesus. A celestial son of god who resides in an upper realm.

 

Perhaps Paul's "other Jesus" that he talks about is the Jesus of the gospels.

 

Very interesting insights. I'll chew them over!

 

-CC in MA

Link to comment
Share on other sites

In your perfect world,
I knew the personal attacks would start soon. I do not live in a perfect world.
what would you do with those such as myself whose logic leads them to believe at least some parts of the Bible?
I realize they are not using logic but emotions and belief.
Some of us do think the Saul / Paul is historical. And that (some) of the writings attributed to him are genuine. But, it's a mistake to read Paul with presuppositional gospel tunnel vision.
Then why do you make that mistake? Even if Saul/Paul was real, it proves nothing. I'll even give you that he absolutely believed every word he wrote. It still proves nothing.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

In your perfect world,
I knew the personal attacks would start soon. I do not live in a perfect world.
what would you do with those such as myself whose logic leads them to believe at least some parts of the Bible?
I realize they are not using logic but emotions and belief.
Some of us do think the Saul / Paul is historical. And that (some) of the writings attributed to him are genuine. But, it's a mistake to read Paul with presuppositional gospel tunnel vision.
Then why do you make that mistake? Even if Saul/Paul was real, it proves nothing. I'll even give you that he absolutely believed every word he wrote. It still proves nothing.

 

I did not mean that as an attack. What I meant was in a more perfect world (as you see it), what would you do with believers? How generous would you be in extending to them the freedom to follow their logic wherever it leads, even if it doesn't lead them to the same place your logic does.

 

-CC in MA

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I did not mean that as an attack. What I meant was in a more perfect world (as you see it), what would you do with believers?
Again, I don't see a perfect World with humans in it. Humans are not now, and most likely, will never be perfect. So, I'm not inclined to enter into any discussion that deals with any kind of perfection.
How generous would you be in extending to them the freedom to follow their logic wherever it leads, even if it doesn't lead them to the same place your logic does.
You're glossing over my point, so I'll restate it for you: they ain't usin' logic. Just because you call it logic, doesn't mean it is. And don't give me that silly, sophomoric, come back; just because you say it isn't logic doesn't mean it isn't. Logic is a system to distinguish logical from flawed arguments. Your friends are using flawed arguments so it cannot be called "logic."
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I did not mean that as an attack. What I meant was in a more perfect world (as you see it), what would you do with believers?
Again, I don't see a perfect World with humans in it. Humans are not now, and most likely, will never be perfect. So, I'm not inclined to enter into any discussion that deals with any kind of perfection.
How generous would you be in extending to them the freedom to follow their logic wherever it leads, even if it doesn't lead them to the same place your logic does.
You're glossing over my point, so I'll restate it for you: they ain't usin' logic. Just because you call it logic, doesn't mean it is. And don't give me that silly, sophomoric, come back; just because you say it isn't logic doesn't mean it isn't. Logic is a system to distinguish logical from flawed arguments. Your friends are using flawed arguments so it cannot be called "logic."

 

So one is properly employing logic only when their conclusions are the same as yours? That sounds very fundamentalist to me. I allow for myriad results to be reached by the use of logic.

 

-CC in MA

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Guidelines.