ISF Logo   IS Forum
Forum Index Register Members List Events Mark Forums Read Help

Go Back   International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » Religion and Philosophy
 


Welcome to the International Skeptics Forum, where we discuss skepticism, critical thinking, the paranormal and science in a friendly but lively way. You are currently viewing the forum as a guest, which means you are missing out on discussing matters that are of interest to you. Please consider registering so you can gain full use of the forum features and interact with other Members. Registration is simple, fast and free! Click here to register today.
Reply
Old 6th April 2018, 06:36 AM   #1281
dejudge
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Nov 2013
Posts: 4,982
Originally Posted by aleCcowaN View Post
One thing one learns from the Dunning-Kruger's of any forum is that amateurish people would need 2 years of full studies just to become amateurs -if they can pass a single exam-.

Here, this dejudge person "argues" departing from the adversarial system of law, which she/he probably learnt in their 20s while watching brand new TV series Perry Mason, later reinforced by a lot of soap opera-like lawyers TV series. That is, something purported as "evidence" in a trial is presented as historical evidence. She/he is also so naοve as to highlight the parts where their documents let the fang be seen as if it were what makes those testimony evidence: "fiction of men composed by wickedness", "and few others of the kind -men who where liars-". This dejudge person struggles to make clear they side with the part of testimonies that discard those very testimonies as evidence regarding the real nature of the topic at hand.

Also, this dejudge person must assert an impossibility ("general evidence of any kind regarding a broad field will never ever be available") in order to make room to what their obsession commands them to promote: that there was no Jesus of any kind, period. Health reasons prevent them from acknowledging any other possibility, and with religious ritualistic regularity they repeat the same litany once and again in the hope it will become eventually true.

So, dejudge, the kind of person who thinks equations have only one side, will continue to hijack this thread until it falls into oblivion, unless the rest of us is able to point to the OCD/religious-like parts and other fatal flaws in dejudge's ritualistic babble.

I think, from their latter posts, dejudge is committed to have this thread either ascribing to their thoughts or shut down. Regrettably, a weak MA allows such deleterious behaviour and it is up to us to let them succeed.
Your absurd response was expected. As predicted you have no historical evidence and no credible source to support your opinion of your Jesus so waste time talking about me.

That is the only thing you can do--nothing else.

I argue that, based on the existing abundance evidence, Jesus of Nazareth was a total lie--a figure of fiction manufactured propaganda to explain the fall of the Jewish Temple c 70 CE and that the character called Paul and the so-called Pauline letters were invented no earlier than 170 CE in an attempt to historicise the fables of the Gospels and Acts of the Apostles.

The Gospels put out the fiction that their Jesus was born of a Ghost, God Creator who walked on water, instantly transfigured before he was raised from the dead and ascended to heaven and the deceiver under the name of Paul claimed he was a witness that God raised Jesus from the dead.

The NT is evidence that the characters called Jesus and Paul never ever had any history.
dejudge is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 6th April 2018, 08:46 AM   #1282
aleCcowaN
imperfecto del subjuntivo
 
aleCcowaN's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: stranded at Buenos Aires, a city that, like NYC or Paris, has so little to offer...
Posts: 8,452
Originally Posted by dejudge View Post
Your absurd response was expected. As predicted you have no historical evidence and no credible source to support your opinion of your Jesus so waste time talking about me.

That is the only thing you can do--nothing else.

I argue that, based on the existing abundance evidence, Jesus of Nazareth was a total lie--a figure of fiction manufactured propaganda to explain the fall of the Jewish Temple c 70 CE and that the character called Paul and the so-called Pauline letters were invented no earlier than 170 CE in an attempt to historicise the fables of the Gospels and Acts of the Apostles.

The Gospels put out the fiction that their Jesus was born of a Ghost, God Creator who walked on water, instantly transfigured before he was raised from the dead and ascended to heaven and the deceiver under the name of Paul claimed he was a witness that God raised Jesus from the dead.

The NT is evidence that the characters called Jesus and Paul never ever had any history.
Rejected as absurdity surrounded by drivel.

Your church* could go there, where Pluto is king.

*the church of no-jesus-no-peter-no-paul, repeat endlessly as a litany, if not, you become increasingly anxious.
__________________
Horrible dipsomaniacs and other addicts, be gone and get treated, or covfefe your soul!These fora are full of scientists and specialists. Most of them turn back to pumpkins the second they log out.
I got tired of the actual schizophrenics that are taking hold part of the forum and decided to do something about it.
aleCcowaN is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 6th April 2018, 08:57 AM   #1283
Craig B
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: May 2011
Posts: 22,202
Originally Posted by dejudge View Post
.I argue that, based on the existing abundance evidence, Jesus of Nazareth was a total lie--a figure of fiction manufactured propaganda to explain the fall of the Jewish Temple c 70 CE and that the character called Paul and the so-called Pauline letters were invented no earlier than 170 CE in an attempt to historicise the fables of the Gospels and Acts of the Apostles.
Do you really think that? It's a bit different from saying, well perhaps there isn't enough evidence in the gospel sources to establish with sufficient certainty that Jesus the Nazarene really existed. That's a legitimate point of view.

But your fantastic story of lies and fictional propaganda concocted to explain the fall of the Temple seems like a collection of bizarre delusions.
Craig B is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 6th April 2018, 02:18 PM   #1284
dejudge
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Nov 2013
Posts: 4,982
Originally Posted by Craig B View Post
Do you really think that? It's a bit different from saying, well perhaps there isn't enough evidence in the gospel sources to establish with sufficient certainty that Jesus the Nazarene really existed. That's a legitimate point of view.

But your fantastic story of lies and fictional propaganda concocted to explain the fall of the Temple seems like a collection of bizarre delusions.
Again, you don't make any sense!!

Romulus and Remus [the founders of Rome] born of a phantom are considered fictional characters with similar accounts like Jesus of Nazareth born of a Ghost and a Virgin . Romulus and Remus are claimed to have a human mother and a phantom as their father.

In addition, you also show that you have very little or no knowledge of the evidence.

Christian writers admitted in their fables that the Jewish Temple fell because the Jews killed the son of the Ghost.

Look at the evidence.

http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/0503.htm

Hippolytus Treatise Against the Jews.

Quote:
7. But why, O prophet, tell us, and for what reason, was the temple made desolate? Was it on account of that ancient fabrication of the calf? Was it on account of the idolatry of the people? Was it for the blood of the prophets? Was it for the adultery and fornication of Israel? By no means, he says; for in all these transgressions they always found pardon open to them, and benignity; but it was because they killed the Son of their Benefactor, for He is coeternal with the Father.
The character called Jesus of Nazareth, the crucified and resurrected son of the Ghost, was invented propaganda to explain the fall of the Jewish Temple.

Jesus of Nazareth never ever existed.

Jesus of Nazareth is total fiction.
dejudge is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 7th April 2018, 02:57 AM   #1285
aleCcowaN
imperfecto del subjuntivo
 
aleCcowaN's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: stranded at Buenos Aires, a city that, like NYC or Paris, has so little to offer...
Posts: 8,452
Originally Posted by dejudge View Post

Jesus of Nazareth never ever existed.

Jesus of Nazareth is total fiction.
mantra from dejudge's religion^

(notice the unnecessary "ever")

This thread is about evidence, not fake evidence introducing religious mantras.
__________________
Horrible dipsomaniacs and other addicts, be gone and get treated, or covfefe your soul!These fora are full of scientists and specialists. Most of them turn back to pumpkins the second they log out.
I got tired of the actual schizophrenics that are taking hold part of the forum and decided to do something about it.
aleCcowaN is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 7th April 2018, 08:25 AM   #1286
clayflingythingy
Critical Thinker
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Posts: 430
I just finished BE Misquoting Jesus. Some random thoughts follow.

BE reports that some textual critics have asserted it simply isn't possible to recreate the original texts of the New Testament. BE doesn't share this view.

With the first nearly complete manuscript of Galatians being dated to around 200 CE, that leaves 150 years for accidental or deliberate changes to the text.

If we are honest, we cannot be 100% certain that Paul wrote "the Lord's Brother". Reading BE leaves no doubt that early Xtians made changes to the text to suit their agenda. Especially the group that became the orthodox.

BE has made the point that literacy in the first century was likely something less than 10%. And that more people could read than could write.

That makes Paul and the Gospel and epistle writers part of an elite. They were well educated and able to compose sophisticated literary works.

Seen in that light, Mark isn't some yokel recording some tradition he has received. Since we know he used scripture for his Jesus life moments, Mark is producing a literary product. Mark as an highly educated person was quite capable of creating a fictional account of a fictional Jesus. If Mark knew of any HJ we cannot tell from his account.

After reading Doherty I was an agonistic. But the more I read about early Xtians I have taken the MJ position. With the gospels fiction and the Epistles problematic, I just do not see the slam dunk case for HJ that some here seem to assert.





Sent from my QTASUN1 using Tapatalk
clayflingythingy is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 7th April 2018, 08:26 AM   #1287
maximara
Master Poster
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Posts: 2,333
Originally Posted by aleCcowaN View Post
By your own words, I have much much more than what you have: a possibility waiting for evidence against an unprovable from a logic standpoint. That is what you don't gather.

Besides, it is you who writes this kind of brainsores:

"The fact that the Christian Bible claims their Jesus was born of a Holy Ghost must mean that the Holy Ghost was believed to be a real figure of history [no, it must squat!] and was believed to have existed before his son Jesus was born [once ridden of the crap in red, duuuhhh!]."

That's why CraigB's assertion on the quality of your analysis is spot on.
I agree. Over 100 years ago Remsburg made the distinction between the Gospel Jesus and a possible human Jesus:

"Jesus of Nazareth, the Jesus of humanity, the pathetic story of whose humble life and tragic death has awakened the sympathies of millions, is a possible character and may have existed; but the Jesus of Bethlehem, the Christ of Christianity, is an impossible character and does not exist."

These two Jesuses are at the heart of the issue.

"Either side of the historicity debate will at times engage in a fallacy here, citing evidence supporting the reductive theory in defense of the triumphalist theory (as if that was valid), or citing the absurdity of the triumphalist theory as refuting the reductive theory (as if that were valid)" - Carrier, Richard (2014). On the Historicity of Jesus. pg 30

dejudge has "citing the absurdity of the triumphalist theory as refuting the reductive theory" constantly. But outside of a few extremists what scholar really says that that the Jesus of Bethlehem (triumphalist Jesus) existed?

The question should be stripped of all the supernatural and ahistorical stuff is there anything really there? Or is the remainder so little that no clear origin is left?

Originally Posted by clayflingythingy View Post
I just finished BE Misquoting Jesus. Some random thoughts follow.

BE reports that some textual critics have asserted it simply isn't possible to recreate the original texts of the New Testament. BE doesn't share this view.

With the first nearly complete manuscript of Galatians being dated to around 200 CE, that leaves 150 years for accidental or deliberate changes to the text.

If we are honest, we cannot be 100% certain that Paul wrote "the Lord's Brother". Reading BE leaves no doubt that early Xtians made changes to the text to suit their agenda. Especially the group that became the orthodox.
BE does raise good points.

Originally Posted by clayflingythingy View Post
BE has made the point that literacy in the first century was likely something less than 10%. And that more people could read than could write.
And just when BE is making sense he goes completely off the rails.

The problem with this idea is it is basically ad hoc (i.e. untestable). There is no agreement on the literacy level of the Roman Empire in general (ranging from 5% to 30%) or Palestine in particular. In fact, there is an argument that the Roman Empire in general and Palestine in particular was far more literate than once supposed. (Di Renzo, A (2000) “His master's voice: Tiro and the rise of the Roman secretarial class,” Journal of technical writing and communication, vol. 30, (2) 155-168; Dupont, Florence. (1989) Daily Life in Ancient Rome Tr. Christopher Woodall. Oxford: Blackwell; pg 223; Millard, Alan (2003) Literacy in the Time of Jesus - Could His Words Have Been Recorded in His Lifetime? Biblical Archaeology Review 29:04, Jul/Aug 2003.)

The 'Rome was the most literate society of the classical world, “a civilization based on the book and the register,” and “no one, either free or slave, could afford to be illiterate”' statement is the most striking to me. More over it is documented by contemporaries that the Jewish society in Palestine effectively mandated the teaching of reading and writing.

Then there is the Gospel by Jesus Christ ie a Gospel that claimed to be written by Jesus himself. This is keeping with Jesus being a tekton which is translated as "carpenter" but actually is better translated as craftsman or builder. There are passages supposedly by Jesus that better fit him being a worker of stone then wood.

Last edited by maximara; 7th April 2018 at 09:07 AM.
maximara is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 7th April 2018, 11:07 AM   #1288
clayflingythingy
Critical Thinker
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Posts: 430
Ok. So literacy rates may have been as high as 30%.

What does that mean? 30% of the population could compose a sophisticated literary work? I doubt that would be true.

In my current occupation I deal with applicants for blue collar jobs that although high school graduates, are often functionally illiterate. I'm talking reading at the run Dick run level. How many in the ancient world would be able to read and comprehend the Epistles or gospels?

There seems to be widespread agreement that Mark was written outside of the stomping grounds of the supposed HJ and that he wrote for a Gentile audience.

I still suspect that Mark was a rarity in that composing such a work could only be accomplished by a small percentage of the literate population. Which means it was well within his capibility to write fiction passed off as historical.

Sent from my QTASUN1 using Tapatalk
clayflingythingy is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 7th April 2018, 11:25 AM   #1289
aleCcowaN
imperfecto del subjuntivo
 
aleCcowaN's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: stranded at Buenos Aires, a city that, like NYC or Paris, has so little to offer...
Posts: 8,452
Thank you both for some highly interesting posts.

A reflection I wanted to make since many posts ago. I don't think literacy was at any level above a 1% in the West and maybe 2% in the East. It must have been higher in local contexts: Rome herself or the 10,000 Essenes -who where bound to read and learn the Bible-

There's another caveat: by the first century CE written Latin was very different than spoken Latin in a way modern languages like Spanish are said to descend from early Italian and not Latin (vulgar Latin is a misnomer). I'm not so sure about Greek, but when we face texts in Aramaic, Hebrew or Arabic we have the same multiple interpretations, which I suspect shows the same dynamics (written language as opposed to oral language).

So early Christians -if there were some-, who were pretty ignorant, started a geographically disseminated oral tradition, probably full of inconsistencies that is interfered by more modern texts, like "epistles" and later codified by the first gospel writers, who in turn were edited during 2 centuries to match the political need of the hour.

I'm also sure any text written by any idiot had the effect of destabilizing and editing the oral tradition. Why? Because "paper trumps rock". The prestige of written languages -almost a foreign language in case of Latin- was that high.

This means the first ones in writing "down" the "sacred" stories called dibs on what the creed become. And those first ones had to be the most audacious, not the most knowledgeable or moral.

That a certain dude has a private function where Jesus appears exclusively for him to learn how thing should be understood and done, I've always felt it to be very forced and convenient -for the conman-. This is so nasty, and logical, and human, that I tend to think possible that one or two "proto-Pauls" really existed, and that he/they made up 75%, 90% or more of what they wrote.
__________________
Horrible dipsomaniacs and other addicts, be gone and get treated, or covfefe your soul!These fora are full of scientists and specialists. Most of them turn back to pumpkins the second they log out.
I got tired of the actual schizophrenics that are taking hold part of the forum and decided to do something about it.
aleCcowaN is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 7th April 2018, 11:38 AM   #1290
aleCcowaN
imperfecto del subjuntivo
 
aleCcowaN's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: stranded at Buenos Aires, a city that, like NYC or Paris, has so little to offer...
Posts: 8,452
Originally Posted by clayflingythingy View Post

I still suspect that Mark was a rarity in that composing such a work could only be accomplished by a small percentage of the literate population. Which means it was well within his capibility to write fiction passed off as historical.
I see every day here people trying to take control of the "truth of the thread" by making things up in order to win. They are Trump-like: non fallacious arguments, logic and decency won't ruin their determination.

What makes you think it was going to be less intense during the inception of Xian dogma?
__________________
Horrible dipsomaniacs and other addicts, be gone and get treated, or covfefe your soul!These fora are full of scientists and specialists. Most of them turn back to pumpkins the second they log out.
I got tired of the actual schizophrenics that are taking hold part of the forum and decided to do something about it.
aleCcowaN is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 7th April 2018, 04:15 PM   #1291
maximara
Master Poster
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Posts: 2,333
Originally Posted by clayflingythingy View Post
Ok. So literacy rates may have been as high as 30%.

What does that mean? 30% of the population could compose a sophisticated literary work? I doubt that would be true.

In my current occupation I deal with applicants for blue collar jobs that although high school graduates, are often functionally illiterate. I'm talking reading at the run Dick run level. How many in the ancient world would be able to read and comprehend the Epistles or gospels?
You don't even have to go back that far.

It wasn't until the mid 16th century that any place's literacy level went above the 20% mark. Heck, Italy, sometimes viewed as the birth place of the Renaissance, puttered around the 20% range clear into the 19th century.

Originally Posted by clayflingythingy View Post
There seems to be widespread agreement that Mark was written outside of the stomping grounds of the supposed HJ and that he wrote for a Gentile audience. I still suspect that Mark was a rarity in that composing such a work could only be accomplished by a small percentage of the literate population. Which means it was well within his capibility to write fiction passed off as historical.
Heck it is possible to write fiction and pass it off as historical even in highly literate countries of the world. The issue wasn't so much literacy but verification.

How could anything Mark wrote be verified after 70 CE? Any possible witnesses were either dead or enslaved and Rome had suffered a major fire destroying who knows how many official records.

It is clear from what did survive that the Christians weren't on anyone's radar until the 90s CE...and that is assuming the TF is genuine.
maximara is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 8th April 2018, 01:51 AM   #1292
dejudge
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Nov 2013
Posts: 4,982
Originally Posted by maximara View Post

"Jesus of Nazareth, the Jesus of humanity, the pathetic story of whose humble life and tragic death has awakened the sympathies of millions, is a possible character and may have existed; but the Jesus of Bethlehem, the Christ of Christianity, is an impossible character and does not exist."
You seem not to have read a single Christian writing from antiquity. It was the claim that the Jews crucified the Son of their own God that awakened the sympathy of people called Christians.



Christians do not worship men. Christians worship the Creator--not the created.


Romans 1
Quote:
Wherefore God also gave them up to uncleanness through the lusts of their own hearts, to dishonour their own bodies between themselves:
25 Who changed the truth of God into a lie, and worshipped and served the creature more than the Creator, who is blessed for ever. Amen.
Theophilus to Autolycus
Quote:
Wherefore I will rather honour the king [than your gods], not, indeed, worshipping him, but praying for him. But God, the living and true God, I worship, knowing that the king is made by Hin.

You will say, then, to me, "Why do you not worship the king?" Because he is not made to be worshipped, but to be reverenced with lawful honour, for he is not a god, but a man appointed by God, not to be worshipped, but to judge justly...
It is simply implausible that people in the Roman Empire actually knew Jesus was a crucified criminal and false prophet but yet worshiped Jesus as God Creator--the Lord and Savior from heaven.

Last edited by dejudge; 8th April 2018 at 01:53 AM.
dejudge is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 8th April 2018, 04:43 AM   #1293
Craig B
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: May 2011
Posts: 22,202
Originally Posted by dejudge View Post
It is simply implausible that people in the Roman Empire actually knew Jesus was a crucified criminal and false prophet but yet worshiped Jesus as God Creator--the Lord and Savior from heaven.
You think that Christians believe the universe was created by a crucified felon and fraud. That is indeed "implausible" as an account of their ideology.
Craig B is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 8th April 2018, 06:39 AM   #1294
Vixen
Penultimate Amazing
 
Vixen's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2015
Location: Moomin Valley
Posts: 12,331
Originally Posted by Craig B View Post
There's a reason for that, according to religious believers. Ask yourself this: when were Satan and the Holy Ghost born? Where were they born? What was their Mum's name? Was she a virgin or were Satan and the Holy Ghost born of sexually active mothers?

We know who Satan's father was. See Job 1:6
Now there was a day when the sons of God came to present themselves before the Lord, and Satan came also among them.
Satan is a son of God. I'm not sure if the Holy Ghost had a father. He wasn't born, he "proceeds" as the Nicene Creed asserts: "And we believe in the Holy Spirit, the Lord, the giver of life. He proceeds from the Father and the Son" That "and from the son" bit was not in the creed to start with and it is not accepted by the Eastern Churches. If it is true, it means that the Son proceeded from the Holy Ghost, but also the HG proceeds from the Son. So they proceed from each other. One wonders which of them came first.

Isn't religion very complicated, dejudge?

Poor logic. It clearly says the sons of God came to present themselves and in addition Satan also turned up.
__________________
If man has no tea in him, he is incapable of understanding truth and beauty. ~ Japanese Proverb
Vixen is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 8th April 2018, 06:46 AM   #1295
Vixen
Penultimate Amazing
 
Vixen's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2015
Location: Moomin Valley
Posts: 12,331
Originally Posted by dejudge View Post
The Christian Bible makes references to non-human characters called sons of God who impregnated human women.

Genesis 6.2-4

The fact that the Christian Bible claims their Jesus was born of a Holy Ghost must mean that the Holy Ghost was believed to be a real figure of history and was believed to have existed before his son Jesus was born.

Now, the Christian Bible admits their God is a Spirit.

John 4:24----

Jesus was always a non-historical character manufactured by manipulating events and supposed prophecies in Hebrew Scripture.

Jesus first appears in Genesis (Gen 14:18–20) as the High Priest Melchizedek, again in Psalm 110:4 and back-referenced in Hebrews 5:6–11; 6:20—7:28.

So, Jesus was a High Priest, healer, exorcist and teacher. His is also your advocate before God.
__________________
If man has no tea in him, he is incapable of understanding truth and beauty. ~ Japanese Proverb
Vixen is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 8th April 2018, 06:48 AM   #1296
Nay_Sayer
I say nay!
 
Nay_Sayer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Long Island
Posts: 3,422
Originally Posted by Vixen View Post
Jesus first appears in Genesis (Gen 14:18–20) as the High Priest Melchizedek, again in Psalm 110:4 and back-referenced in Hebrews 5:6–11; 6:20—7:28.

So, Jesus was a High Priest, healer, exorcist and teacher. His is also your my advocate before my god.
fify
__________________
I am 100% confident all psychics and mediums are frauds.
----------------------------------------------
Proud woo denier
----------------------------------------------
“That which can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence.” -Christopher Hitchens-
Nay_Sayer is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 8th April 2018, 07:00 AM   #1297
Vixen
Penultimate Amazing
 
Vixen's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2015
Location: Moomin Valley
Posts: 12,331
Originally Posted by clayflingythingy View Post
Ok. So literacy rates may have been as high as 30%.

What does that mean? 30% of the population could compose a sophisticated literary work? I doubt that would be true.

In my current occupation I deal with applicants for blue collar jobs that although high school graduates, are often functionally illiterate. I'm talking reading at the run Dick run level. How many in the ancient world would be able to read and comprehend the Epistles or gospels?

There seems to be widespread agreement that Mark was written outside of the stomping grounds of the supposed HJ and that he wrote for a Gentile audience.

I still suspect that Mark was a rarity in that composing such a work could only be accomplished by a small percentage of the literate population. Which means it was well within his capibility to write fiction passed off as historical.

Sent from my QTASUN1 using Tapatalk
There has always been an elite highly literate - often multilingual - highly educated elite. It is a mistake to believe 'people have become more and more clever, which means ancient scribes must have been much thicker than we are'.

As an example, the other day I was re-reading Daniel Defoe's Robinson Crusoe written in 1719. It struck me, the average 12-year old today and even the average adult would really struggle with such a high standard of writing. It would really need to be 'dumbed down' to make it down to the level of the average person.

It is really nonsense to assume early scribes were lucky to know how to read and write. They did it easily: in Latin, French and German. Nil problemo.
__________________
If man has no tea in him, he is incapable of understanding truth and beauty. ~ Japanese Proverb

Last edited by Vixen; 8th April 2018 at 07:04 AM.
Vixen is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 8th April 2018, 08:33 AM   #1298
Craig B
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: May 2011
Posts: 22,202
Originally Posted by Vixen View Post
Poor logic. It clearly says the sons of God came to present themselves and in addition Satan also turned up.
No "in addition". He was among them. Perhaps Zivan would like to tell us if the Hebrew text carries the implication that "the adversary" was of the number of these "sons of god".
וַיְהִ֣י הַיֹּ֔ום וַיָּבֹ֙אוּ֙ בְּנֵ֣י הָאֱלֹהִ֔ים לְהִתְיַצֵּ֖ב עַל־יְהוָ֑ה וַיָּבֹ֥וא גַֽם־הַשָּׂטָ֖ן בְּתֹוכָֽם׃
Craig B is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 8th April 2018, 09:19 AM   #1299
Zivan
Muse
 
Zivan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2016
Posts: 725
Originally Posted by Craig B View Post
No "in addition". He was among them. Perhaps Zivan would like to tell us if the Hebrew text carries the implication that "the adversary" was of the number of these "sons of god".
וַיְהִ֣י הַיֹּ֔ום וַיָּבֹ֙אוּ֙ בְּנֵ֣י הָאֱלֹהִ֔ים לְהִתְיַצֵּ֖ב עַל־יְהוָ֑ה וַיָּבֹ֥וא גַֽם־הַשָּׂטָ֖ן בְּתֹוכָֽם׃
Craig B is correct. This verse is setting up the rest of the story. If "the adversary" was not counted as one of the "sons of god" there would be no need to mention them at all, it would have simply said "the adversary" came. But it says they all came and "the adversary" was one of them, ("...indeed the adversary among them.")
__________________
"Zivan" = "Ziva N" = I am a female, but keep being mistaken as a male on the forum. My mistake for using an "n" instead of "N" on my forum name.

Last edited by Zivan; 8th April 2018 at 09:40 AM.
Zivan is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 8th April 2018, 09:23 AM   #1300
Vixen
Penultimate Amazing
 
Vixen's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2015
Location: Moomin Valley
Posts: 12,331
Originally Posted by Zivan View Post
Craig B is correct. This verse is setting up the rest of the story. If "the adversary" was not counted as one of the "sons of god" there would be no need to mention them at all, it would have simply said "the adversary" came. But it says they all came and "the adversary" was one of them.
In your (biased) opinion.
__________________
If man has no tea in him, he is incapable of understanding truth and beauty. ~ Japanese Proverb
Vixen is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 8th April 2018, 09:28 AM   #1301
Zivan
Muse
 
Zivan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2016
Posts: 725
Originally Posted by Vixen View Post
In your (biased) opinion.
No. That is not my "opinion". It is what is written in the Hebrew. The word "גם" can mean "too, also" and in biblical Hebrew also means "indeed". The adversary is mentioned separately because he is a major character in the story, but he is one of "the sons of god" בני האלהים.
__________________
"Zivan" = "Ziva N" = I am a female, but keep being mistaken as a male on the forum. My mistake for using an "n" instead of "N" on my forum name.

Last edited by Zivan; 8th April 2018 at 09:33 AM.
Zivan is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 8th April 2018, 09:29 AM   #1302
dejudge
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Nov 2013
Posts: 4,982
Originally Posted by Vixen View Post
Jesus first appears in Genesis (Gen 14:18–20) as the High Priest Melchizedek, again in Psalm 110:4 and back-referenced in Hebrews 5:6–11; 6:20—7:28.

So, Jesus was a High Priest, healer, exorcist and teacher. His is also your advocate before God.
It is really a waste of time to use the Christian Bible to argue that Jesus was human.

In the Christian Bible, Jesus was born of a Ghost, the Logos, God Creator, the Lord from heaven, the firstborn of the dead and also from the beginning.

In addition, there is no historical records of any person called Jesus of Nazareth who was a High Priest of the Jews in the time of Pilate and Tiberius.

By the way, the book of Genesis is fundamentally a non-historical source riddled with fiction or mythology.

Last edited by dejudge; 8th April 2018 at 09:47 AM.
dejudge is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 8th April 2018, 09:42 AM   #1303
dejudge
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Nov 2013
Posts: 4,982
Originally Posted by Craig B View Post
You think that Christians believe the universe was created by a crucified felon and fraud. That is indeed "implausible" as an account of their ideology.
You are only contradicting yourself.

You are arguing that Jesus of Nazareth was a know human who was crucified after a trial under Pilate.

It is implausible that a known crucified criminal would be worshiped as God Creator, the Lord from heaven, the Lord and Savior when he could not even save himself.

Last edited by dejudge; 8th April 2018 at 09:56 AM.
dejudge is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 8th April 2018, 07:15 PM   #1304
Craig B
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: May 2011
Posts: 22,202
Originally Posted by Vixen View Post
Jesus first appears in Genesis (Gen 14:18–20) as the High Priest Melchizedek, again in Psalm 110:4 and back-referenced in Hebrews 5:6–11; 6:20—7:28.

So, Jesus was a High Priest, healer, exorcist and teacher. His is also your advocate before God.
Have you read the text?
14 And when Abram heard that his brother was taken captive, he armed his trained servants, born in his own house, three hundred and eighteen, and pursued them unto Dan.15 And he divided himself against them, he and his servants, by night, and smote them, and pursued them unto Hobah, which is on the left hand of Damascus.16 And he brought back all the goods, and also brought again his brother Lot, and his goods, and the women also, and the people.

17 And the king of Sodom went out to meet him after his return from the slaughter of Chedorlaomer, and of the kings that were with him, at the valley of Shaveh, which is the king's dale.18 And Melchizedek king of Salem brought forth bread and wine: and he was the priest of the most high God.
This is a story of squabbles among clans of bronze age goatherds kidnapping one another's families and engaging in feuds. Not only did the king of Salem greet Abram, so did the king of Sodom. Is he our advocate brfore God too? The story contains an anachronism also. The place name Dan is much later. It was called Laish in early times. See Joshua 19:47, another disgusting account of mass killing and destruction.
Craig B is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 8th April 2018, 08:16 PM   #1305
Craig B
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: May 2011
Posts: 22,202
Originally Posted by Vixen View Post
Jesus first appears in Genesis (Gen 14:18–20) as the High Priest Melchizedek, again in Psalm 110:4 and back-referenced in Hebrews 5:6–11; 6:20—7:28.

So, Jesus was a High Priest, healer, exorcist and teacher. His is also your advocate before God.
Here is the barbarism and triumphalism of Psalms 110.
2 The LORD shall send the rod of thy strength out of Zion: rule thou in the midst of thine enemies.
3 Thy people shall be willing in the day of thy power, in the beauties of holiness from the womb of the morning: thou hast the dew of thy youth.
4 The LORD hath sworn, and will not repent, Thou art a priest for ever after the order of Melchizedek.
5 The Lord at thy right hand shall strike through kings iin the day of his wrath.
6 He shall judge among the heathen, he shall fill the places with the dead bodies; he shall wound the heads over many countries.
This is your healer and teacher?
Craig B is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 8th April 2018, 08:41 PM   #1306
SezMe
post-pre-born
 
SezMe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Santa Barbara, CA
Posts: 22,553
Originally Posted by clayflingythingy View Post
Seen in that light, Mark isn't some yokel recording some tradition he has received. Since we know he used scripture for his Jesus life moments, Mark is producing a literary product. Mark as an highly educated person was quite capable of creating a fictional account of a fictional Jesus. If Mark knew of any HJ we cannot tell from his account.
Keep reading BE and you will soon learn that Mark is not the author of Mark, Matthew is not the author of Matthew, etc.
SezMe is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 9th April 2018, 08:32 AM   #1307
maximara
Master Poster
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Posts: 2,333
Originally Posted by SezMe View Post
Keep reading BE and you will soon learn that Mark is not the author of Mark, Matthew is not the author of Matthew, etc.
There is no real evidence that any of the Gospels was written by an follower of Jesus or even an eye witness. No work before the 2nd century makes a reference to what we call the Gospels. For example when 1 Clement (dated 70 - 90 CE) talks of "the Gospel" is is clear it is referencing the works of Paul the Apostle.
maximara is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 9th April 2018, 03:20 PM   #1308
Vixen
Penultimate Amazing
 
Vixen's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2015
Location: Moomin Valley
Posts: 12,331
Originally Posted by Craig B View Post
Here is the barbarism and triumphalism of Psalms 110.
2 The LORD shall send the rod of thy strength out of Zion: rule thou in the midst of thine enemies.
3 Thy people shall be willing in the day of thy power, in the beauties of holiness from the womb of the morning: thou hast the dew of thy youth.
4 The LORD hath sworn, and will not repent, Thou art a priest for ever after the order of Melchizedek.
5 The Lord at thy right hand shall strike through kings iin the day of his wrath.
6 He shall judge among the heathen, he shall fill the places with the dead bodies; he shall wound the heads over many countries.
This is your healer and teacher?
I have never said the Bible was a fairy tale where everybody lives happily ever after. Children in schools learn about all the happy-clappy stuff and become all upset as adults to realise the ending can be equally bad as it is good.

Nowhere in the Bible does it promise life will be a holiday. In fact, it warns of quite the reverse.
__________________
If man has no tea in him, he is incapable of understanding truth and beauty. ~ Japanese Proverb
Vixen is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 9th April 2018, 09:31 PM   #1309
dejudge
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Nov 2013
Posts: 4,982
Originally Posted by maximara View Post
There is no real evidence that any of the Gospels was written by an follower of Jesus or even an eye witness. No work before the 2nd century makes a reference to what we call the Gospels. For example when 1 Clement (dated 70 - 90 CE) talks of "the Gospel" is is clear it is referencing the works of Paul the Apostle.
The so-called 1 Clement is an anonymous writing composed no earlier than the 4th century.

In the letter itself it is admitted that it was written by the Church of Rome.
dejudge is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 9th April 2018, 10:01 PM   #1310
Craig B
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: May 2011
Posts: 22,202
Originally Posted by Vixen View Post
I have never said the Bible was a fairy tale where everybody lives happily ever after. Children in schools learn about all the happy-clappy stuff and become all upset as adults to realise the ending can be equally bad as it is good.

Nowhere in the Bible does it promise life will be a holiday. In fact, it warns of quite the reverse.
What you are in fact saying is that there is no difference between the murderous despotism of Bronze Age kings and the message preached by your teacher, saviour and advocate. By this reasoning the sermon on the Mount is the same as the King of Sodom congratulating Abram on slaughtering the warriors of a rival clan of nomadic raiders.

An interesting concept. Most Christian commentators would reject that view in favour of a more "happy clappy" approach to their religion, I'm relieved to say.
Craig B is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 10th April 2018, 03:22 AM   #1311
Vixen
Penultimate Amazing
 
Vixen's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2015
Location: Moomin Valley
Posts: 12,331
Originally Posted by Craig B View Post
What you are in fact saying is that there is no difference between the murderous despotism of Bronze Age kings and the message preached by your teacher, saviour and advocate. By this reasoning the sermon on the Mount is the same as the King of Sodom congratulating Abram on slaughtering the warriors of a rival clan of nomadic raiders.

An interesting concept. Most Christian commentators would reject that view in favour of a more "happy clappy" approach to their religion, I'm relieved to say.
Life is a b*tch and then you die.

The only reason you are enjoying a privileged comfortable life style is because your forefathers fought for it and that included horrible bloodbaths involving rival armies and adversaries.

Just think, we might have all been subjects of General Adolf Hitler now if we hadn't fought back the Bosh. The ridiculous idea 'Abram was evil because he defeated the opposing armies' is simply not rational or even reasonable.
__________________
If man has no tea in him, he is incapable of understanding truth and beauty. ~ Japanese Proverb
Vixen is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 10th April 2018, 04:51 AM   #1312
dejudge
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Nov 2013
Posts: 4,982
Originally Posted by Vixen View Post
Life is a b*tch and then you die.

The only reason you are enjoying a privileged comfortable life style is because your forefathers fought for it and that included horrible bloodbaths involving rival armies and adversaries.

Just think, we might have all been subjects of General Adolf Hitler now if we hadn't fought back the Bosh. The ridiculous idea 'Abram was evil because he defeated the opposing armies' is simply not rational or even reasonable.
Based on your faulty logic it would be ridiculous [not even rational nor reasonable] to claim Hitler was evil when he exterminated the Jews.
dejudge is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 10th April 2018, 05:43 AM   #1313
Tommy Jeppesen
Master Poster
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Posts: 2,301
Originally Posted by dejudge View Post
Based on your faulty logic it would be ridiculous [not even rational nor reasonable] to claim Hitler was evil when he exterminated the Jews.
A human does something, therefore he is evil.
That is an invalid deduction and thus irrational.

A human does something and I say that human is evil, because of that.
That is magical thinking, because another human doesn't become something, just because I say that this human is something. Again irrational.

Since I can't observe evil, as it has no external sensation(see, hear, touch and so on), I conclude that there are no evil humans.

Since you believe that Hitler was evil, it follows that you believe in a fiction/magical thinking and thus you are not real, because you have done something, which is unreal/fictional/magical thinking.
You don't exist and since I am answering you, I have done the same, so I don't exist.

BTW Hitler wasn't evil. That is a folk belief and not backed up by reason, logic and evidence.

With regard
__________________
I don't believe in God and all the rest outside of methodological naturalism But I am a cognitive and ethical relativist/subjectivist and skeptic.
#JeSuisAhmed
Tommy Jeppesen is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 10th April 2018, 06:58 AM   #1314
aleCcowaN
imperfecto del subjuntivo
 
aleCcowaN's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: stranded at Buenos Aires, a city that, like NYC or Paris, has so little to offer...
Posts: 8,452
Originally Posted by Tommy Jeppesen View Post

Since I can't observe evil, as it has no external sensation(see, hear, touch and so on), I conclude that there are no evil humans.
Yet, every single human being who is not a sociopath comes with a built-in sense of moral repugnance on learning about certain behaviours...
__________________
Horrible dipsomaniacs and other addicts, be gone and get treated, or covfefe your soul!These fora are full of scientists and specialists. Most of them turn back to pumpkins the second they log out.
I got tired of the actual schizophrenics that are taking hold part of the forum and decided to do something about it.
aleCcowaN is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 10th April 2018, 07:45 AM   #1315
Tommy Jeppesen
Master Poster
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Posts: 2,301
Originally Posted by aleCcowaN View Post
Yet, every single human being who is not a sociopath comes with a built-in sense of moral repugnance on learning about certain behaviours...
Yes. But that doesn't make other humans evil. I find, what Hitler did, wrong, but that is something to/in me and not in Hitler.
__________________
I don't believe in God and all the rest outside of methodological naturalism But I am a cognitive and ethical relativist/subjectivist and skeptic.
#JeSuisAhmed
Tommy Jeppesen is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 10th April 2018, 12:19 PM   #1316
aleCcowaN
imperfecto del subjuntivo
 
aleCcowaN's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: stranded at Buenos Aires, a city that, like NYC or Paris, has so little to offer...
Posts: 8,452
Originally Posted by Tommy Jeppesen View Post
Yes. But that doesn't make other humans evil. I find, what Hitler did, wrong, but that is something to/in me and not in Hitler.
I partly agree, but still find "evil" to be a synthetic way to address vicious massive wrongdoers like Hitler. But why Julius Caesar, Chandragupta, Napoleon Bonaparte and Shaka Zulu get a free pass while Hitler doesn't, that is behind my comprehension ... or maybe not.
__________________
Horrible dipsomaniacs and other addicts, be gone and get treated, or covfefe your soul!These fora are full of scientists and specialists. Most of them turn back to pumpkins the second they log out.
I got tired of the actual schizophrenics that are taking hold part of the forum and decided to do something about it.
aleCcowaN is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 10th April 2018, 01:38 PM   #1317
Craig B
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: May 2011
Posts: 22,202
Originally Posted by Vixen View Post
Jesus first appears in Genesis (Gen 14:18–20) as the High Priest Melchizedek, again in Psalm 110:4 and back-referenced in Hebrews 5:6–11; 6:20—7:28.

So, Jesus was a High Priest, healer, exorcist and teacher. His is also your advocate before God.
Originally Posted by Vixen View Post
Life is a b*tch and then you die.



The only reason you are enjoying a privileged comfortable life style is because your forefathers fought for it and that included horrible bloodbaths involving rival armies and adversaries.

Just think, we might have all been subjects of General Adolf Hitler now if we hadn't fought back the Bosh. The ridiculous idea 'Abram was evil because he defeated the opposing armies' is simply not rational or even reasonable.
So which is it? I'm not accusing Abram of bring anything other than a nomadic goatherd warlord chieftain, as the kings of Sodom and Salem were also. But you are saying that one of these individuals is also a priest, healer, exorcist and teacher, and my advocate before God. That's the bit that strikes me as exaggerated, when I read the tales of rapine, murder, feuding and kidnapping, with which the early books of the scriptures are filled.
Craig B is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Reply

International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » Religion and Philosophy

Bookmarks

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 02:44 AM.
Powered by vBulletin. Copyright ©2000 - 2018, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
© 2014, TribeTech AB. All Rights Reserved.
This forum began as part of the James Randi Education Foundation (JREF). However, the forum now exists as
an independent entity with no affiliation with or endorsement by the JREF, including the section in reference to "JREF" topics.

Disclaimer: Messages posted in the Forum are solely the opinion of their authors.