Jesus Myth

Christos
Theist
Christos's picture
Posts: 311
Joined: 2007-06-05
User is offlineOffline
Jesus Myth

Rook, I have seen your video here about Jesus Myth, and I have also seen "The God who wasn't there."

Have you considered the proofs of Jesus offered by John Shelby Spong. He is a very liberal Christian (he doesn't believe in a physical resurrection.) He offers several basic proofs that Jesus could not have been a myth in Jesus for the Non-Religious.

The first one I will point out is that Jesus came from Nazareth. The region of Galilee, where Nazareth resides, was a small, dirty, insignificant town of no notable distinction. Even people in the rest of Galilee looked down upon it. Phillip even asks Nathaniel in John 1 if "anything good can come out of Nazareth?" The town of Nazareth is referenced 28 times in the gospels and Acts.

The very fact that a Bethlehem birth tradition grew up around Jesus is additional testimony to the embarrassment that his roots in Nazareth caused to early Christians. The first written gospel of Mark has no birth narrative. Only in Matt/Luke do we have a Jesus born in Bethlehem. In all likelihood, the Bethlehem birth story is a myth to cover for the likelihood that Jesus was born in the second-rate town of Nazareth.

If Jesus himself was a myth, why would the mythmakers create a myth that would embarrass them?

"A man can no more diminish God's glory by refusing to worship Him than a lunatic can put out the sun by scribbling the word, 'darkness' on the walls of his cell." (CS Lewis)

"A young man who wishes to remain a sound atheist cannot be too careful of his reading." (CS Lewis)


Rook_Hawkins
RRS CO-FOUNDER
Rook_Hawkins's picture
Posts: 1322
Joined: 2006-02-11
User is offlineOffline
Christos wrote: Rook, I

Christos wrote:
Rook, I have seen your video here about Jesus Myth, and I have also seen "The God who wasn't there."

Excellent!

Quote:
Have you considered the proofs of Jesus offered by John Shelby Spong.

Among the many apologists out there, yes. 

Quote:
He is a very liberal Christian (he doesn't believe in a physical resurrection.)

He's like a not-so-well-known Crossan.

Quote:
He offers several basic proofs that Jesus could not have been a myth in Jesus for the Non-Religious. The first one I will point out is that Jesus came from Nazareth. The region of Galilee, where Nazareth resides, was a small, dirty, insignificant town of no notable distinction.

I see this is a probable reason why Jesus was Legendary instead of historical.  Watch my video on Nazareth in this thread. Smiling

Quote:
Even people in the rest of Galilee looked down upon it.

That's not true. 

Quote:
Phillip even asks Nathaniel in John 1 if "anything good can come out of Nazareth?"

Again, this is evidence for the mythicist position just as much as one could say it's evidence for the historicists perspective.  Please watch my video. 

Quote:
The town of Nazareth is referenced 28 times in the gospels and Acts.

But this is not evidence for Jesus, this is only evidence for Nazareth. 

Quote:
The very fact that a Bethlehem birth tradition grew up around Jesus is additional testimony to the embarrassment that his roots in Nazareth caused to early Christians.

You're following down a shady road right now.  I'll explain in a moment. 

Quote:
The first written gospel of Mark has no birth narrative.

You're right. 

Quote:
Only in Matt/Luke do we have a Jesus born in Bethlehem.

 Which speaks more of a growing legend instead of an actual historical narrative.

Quote:
In all likelihood, the Bethlehem birth story is a myth to cover for the likelihood that Jesus was born in the second-rate town of Nazareth.

This is far from likely. This is certainly more speculative then he would like to admit. Although I would agree the birth is mythology.  But since tehre is certainly other virgin birth narratives in existence, it is more probable that the virgin birth was added by redactors or the authors of Matthew/Luke to make Jesus more presentable to the Greeks or Hellenized Jews, would would have recognized the virgin birth as a similarity to the Greek God Dionysus, which the jews were all too familiar with, having that belief forced on them during the reign of Antiochus IV.

Quote:
If Jesus himself was a myth, why would the mythmakers create a myth that would embarrass them?

 This is that muddy slope I was referencing earlier, that shady path.  There is a common theme of the murdered savior among the Greeks and the Romans, even even the Jews of the first century.  This is not a new genre of legend, simply that the Christians perfected it and also later on crushed opposition to it.  This has been explained by modern scholars like Dr. Robert Price (Jesus is Dead, The Empty Tomb) and Richard Carrier in this online rebuttal to J.P. Holding on his claims.  There are others as well, like Earl Doherty's book, The Jesus Puzzle and his upcoming 2nd Edition of this title.

 

The best to you,

 

Rook 

 

Atheist Books, purchases on Amazon support the Rational Response Squad server, which houses Celebrity Atheists. Books by Rook Hawkins (Thomas Verenna)


Christos
Theist
Christos's picture
Posts: 311
Joined: 2007-06-05
User is offlineOffline
 Rook: Here is the

Rook: Here is the problem I find with your theory. I find it hard to believe that first century Jewish writers would craft a story of Jesus with any non-Jewish influence. It is uncharacteristic for Jewish writers to use pagan material as inspiration for their writing (just look at the Talmud). For example, Mark is a Jew with an excellent understanding of liturgy. The Hebrew Scriptures play the sole role in his historical interpretation.  

 

 

A perfect instance of Mark's historical interpretation of a real event was the crucifixion. Mark interprets the crucifixion based on Psalm 22. Working in reverse, Mark uses verses such as the cry of dereliction, and a verse about casting lots to interpret the execution of Jesus. This does not mean that the core event of the crucifixion wasn't real. Instead, Mark inputs his own historical interpretation of the event through his use of Hebrew Scriptures.  

Furthermore, the author of Matthew certainly isn't using outside sources other than Hebrew Scriptures. The entire book is structured in five parts to represent the Torah. Throughout the book, Jesus is painted as a new and greater Moses.  

"A man can no more diminish God's glory by refusing to worship Him than a lunatic can put out the sun by scribbling the word, 'darkness' on the walls of his cell." (CS Lewis)

"A young man who wishes to remain a sound atheist cannot be too careful of his reading." (CS Lewis)


Rook_Hawkins
RRS CO-FOUNDER
Rook_Hawkins's picture
Posts: 1322
Joined: 2006-02-11
User is offlineOffline
Funny enough, I actually

Funny enough, I actually picture Stewie sitting at a computer typing this out.  I love The Family Guy, btw. 

Christos wrote:

Rook: Here is the problem I find with your theory. I find it hard to believe that first century Jewish writers would craft a story of Jesus with any non-Jewish influence.

I don't ever recall making that claim. 

Quote:
It is uncharacteristic for Jewish writers to use pagan material as inspiration for their writing (just look at the Talmud).

This assumes that all Jews were one.  As if there were no diversity in the Diaspora and in Palestine.  What evidence do you have to support this? 

Quote:
For example, Mark is a Jew with an excellent understanding of liturgy. The Hebrew Scriptures play the sole role in his historical interpretation.

Meet Dennis R. McDonald, Thomas L. Thompson, and Richard Carrier to name a few who disagree with you on Mark's genre and interpretation.   

Quote:
A perfect instance of Mark's historical interpretation of a real event was the crucifixion.

You are assuming the very point in dispute.  Prove that jesus was crucified. 

Quote:
Mark interprets the crucifixion based on Psalm 22.

 I would agree that may be one reference of use.  Perhaps he used other works from the Old Testament as well.  Perhaps he simply re-interpreted the entire Old Testament and Greek epics to form his Gospel.  Are you familiar with what a hypertext is?  If he's already written a re-interpretation, how can you choose which is interpretation and what isn't?

Quote:
Working in reverse, Mark uses verses such as the cry of dereliction, and a verse about casting lots to interpret the execution of Jesus. This does not mean that the core event of the crucifixion wasn't real.

 It also doesn't mean it was.  But that is up to you to prove.

Quote:
Instead, Mark inputs his own historical interpretation of the event through his use of Hebrew Scriptures.

You seem to be confusing "historical" with "allegorical."  mark is definitely interpreting, there is no doubt.  But you cannot interpret history, because it has effect happened.  You either record it or you allegorize it.  We can already rule out a record of it, as you admit he is interpreting.  But this is where the historicist always faulters.  If it's allegory, where is the leap that therefore than it must be historical?  

 

Quote:
Furthermore, the author of Matthew certainly isn't using outside sources other than Hebrew Scriptures.

That isn't true. He certainly is using Mark.

Quote:
The entire book is structured in five parts to represent the Torah. Throughout the book, Jesus is painted as a new and greater Moses.

I agree.  But that is because of Mark.  That was Mark's initial intention- to paint Jesus as the new and better Moses, and also to paint him as the new and better Odysseus.  Please read Dennis R. McDonald's book, "The Homeric Epics and the Gospel of Mark."  It is extremely well sourced, uses a lot of internal evidence to make points, and is exceptionally written.  It has been peer reviewed.

 The best to you,

 

Rook 

Atheist Books, purchases on Amazon support the Rational Response Squad server, which houses Celebrity Atheists. Books by Rook Hawkins (Thomas Verenna)


Christos
Theist
Christos's picture
Posts: 311
Joined: 2007-06-05
User is offlineOffline
I will definetly look into

I will definetly look into that book about Homer. Regardless, I don't see how that disproves the mere existence of Jesus. Certainly almost every aspect of his life can be disputed. I don't deny that many aspects of the gospels are not historical events. However, the writings and myths surrounding Jesus still center on a man who really existed in some capacity.

 

Take Paul for example. His conversion to Christianity has been dated from 31-36 CE (Harnack). Although never meeting Jesus, Paul literally would have been surrounded by follwers of Jesus. In an authentic letter of Paul, he specifically mentions the birth of Jesus from a woman (Galatians 4:4-5).

 

On another note, in "The God who wasn't there," the video tries to use Hebrews 8:4 to prove that Paul believed that Jesus was a mythical person. Other than that verse being out of context, the video ignores that fact that Paul did not write Hebrews. I'm sure you know the reasons why Paul is not considered the author. The main reason is Koine analysis compared to authentic letters of Paul.

 

Sorry about my mention of Matthew. Obviously Mark was his main source. I meant to say that he draws significant influence from the Torah.

 

"A man can no more diminish God's glory by refusing to worship Him than a lunatic can put out the sun by scribbling the word, 'darkness' on the walls of his cell." (CS Lewis)

"A young man who wishes to remain a sound atheist cannot be too careful of his reading." (CS Lewis)


Rook_Hawkins
RRS CO-FOUNDER
Rook_Hawkins's picture
Posts: 1322
Joined: 2006-02-11
User is offlineOffline
Christos wrote: I will

Christos wrote:

I will definetly look into that book about Homer.

I hope so.  It is a very good book. 

Quote:
Regardless, I don't see how that disproves the mere existence of Jesus.

It doesn't, because you cannot disprove a negative.  ON an aside, however, History is seldom the persuit of proof, rather it is the persuit of probability.  Proof cannot be established in History, only a certain level fo probability can.  This is because history is not an exact science, we cannot reproduce 'history' because it has effectively already happened.

What my position offers is not 'proof for Jesus' ahistoricity,' it is an altgernative theory, and one that makes more sense.  Especially given the amount of allegory and re-interpretation of scripture and outside myths to build the story.  

So in a sense, Jesus was 'historical' but only in the nature that the authors of the Gospels assembled Jesus out of many historic events to them.  Making Jesus the bigger, better Moses is in a sense historicizing his character because they are trying to build of what they think is history to make Jesus better then history.  But, that wouldn't change what he is:  Allegory

Quote:
Certainly almost every aspect of his life can be disputed. I don't deny that many aspects of the gospels are not historical events.

Can you really find ANY attestation to his life that isn't in some dispute? 

Quote:
However, the writings and myths surrounding Jesus still center on a man who really existed in some capacity.

But that is for you to prove.  If you discount every event in the Gospels, what exactly are you left with?  There4 is no "man" Jesus in the Gospels...only superman.  There is "rebel leader" or even "religious leader" in the Gospels, only God.  SO discount the Gospels, where is your allusion to the man? 

Quote:
Take Paul for example.

You might not want to go down this road. Eye-wink 

Quote:
His conversion to Christianity has been dated from 31-36 CE (Harnack).

Harnack has been refuted by modern scholars like Joseph B. Tyson and Richard I. Pervo, who effectively argue a late dat (second century) for Luke-Acts. 

Quote:
Although never meeting Jesus, Paul literally would have been surrounded by follwers of Jesus.

That is how the speculation goes, you're right.  So why is it we never once get amny allusion to jesus the man?  Can you find me one Pauline Epistle that has any historical information in it?  A name of one of Jesus' parents?  A place where Jesus walked?  Miracles jesus performed?  His triumphant return into Jerusalem?  Anything? 

Quote:
In an authentic letter of Paul, he specifically mentions the birth of Jesus from a woman (Galatians 4:4-5).

From somebody who knows so much about allegory, you certainly missed the allegory in this passage.  Have you read the whole chapter of Galatians 4?  Allow me to give you some more information, to round your approach.

 

In the Greek, γενομενον can mean “generate” or “make,” not necessarily referring to a birth.  In fact, the word used most often to signify the actual births of somebody are variants such as gennhtos or genos which signify “birth, those that are born” and “born, stock, offspring” respectively.  Such words would have been better suited to explain a biological birth.  Instead it is the root genomai which is “to generate,” “become of” or “come into being” as in Genesis 1 where god creates light.  Such words resonate as impractical to use had Paul literally meant the birth of Christ on a natural plain.  Instead the Mythicist position makes more sense here. (LSJ, Strong’s Exhaustive Concordance)

Richard Carrier on this passage, "Jesus was born of a mother then he immediately goes on to talk about these two women that are merely allegorical women and that we’re children of these women. (Galatians 4:21-31 - Ed)  We, the Christians and the Jews are children of these women in a metaphorical sense not a biological sense.  …Of course all of this comes from scripture so they’re reinterpreting scripture....he never says ‘born to the womb of Mary,’ for example.  It’s always this formulaic sort of scriptural phrase that doesn’t actually have any reference to the father (or mother) of Jesus." (Richard Carrier, The Rational Response Squad Radio Show, Show 25)

Quote:
On another note, in "The God who wasn't there," the video tries to use Hebrews 8:4 to prove that Paul believed that Jesus was a mythical person.

I don't think that point was being made.  Paul obviously didn't write Hebrews.  If anything, Hebrews would have been written perhaps by a contemporary of Paul, or around the same time Paul wrote. 


Quote:
Other than that verse being out of context, the video ignores that fact that Paul did not write Hebrews. I'm sure you know the reasons why Paul is not considered the author. The main reason is Koine analysis compared to authentic letters of Paul.

That's part of it, yes.  I don't recall the video saying Paul wrote Hebrews, but I wouldn't be surprised if they did that to throw off the evangelicals who believe that paul did write it.  I can't speak for Brian Flemming, however.

Quote:
Sorry about my mention of Matthew. Obviously Mark was his main source. I meant to say that he draws significant influence from the Torah. 

Quite all right.  Hope to hear from you again, and thanks for your honesty.

 

Atheist Books, purchases on Amazon support the Rational Response Squad server, which houses Celebrity Atheists. Books by Rook Hawkins (Thomas Verenna)


Christos
Theist
Christos's picture
Posts: 311
Joined: 2007-06-05
User is offlineOffline
"The God who wasn't there,"

"The God who wasn't there," only uses Hebrews 8:4 to prove that Paul didn't think that Jesus was a real person. The video ignores that Paul didn't write Hebrews, and was probably executed before Hebrews was written.

 

Harnack wasn't using Luke-Acts to date Paul's conversion. It doesn't really matter when Luke-Acts was written to date Paul, because it was written at least 20-30 years after Paul's death my an author who never met Paul. Harnack uses Galatians to date the conversion at 31-36 CE.

 

You are certainly right that Paul does not mention many of the details from the gospels. However, I think that 1 Cor 15 gives a strong account of the death/resurrection of Jesus. For example, Jesus was buried (verse 4). Paul goes on to describe a resurrected body later on in chapter 15. "So will it be with the resurrection of the dead. The body that is sown is perishable, it is raised imperishable....it is sown a natural body, it is raised a spiritual body." Paul is trying to show the importance of a real person resurrected into a spiritual body.

 

 

"A man can no more diminish God's glory by refusing to worship Him than a lunatic can put out the sun by scribbling the word, 'darkness' on the walls of his cell." (CS Lewis)

"A young man who wishes to remain a sound atheist cannot be too careful of his reading." (CS Lewis)


Christos
Theist
Christos's picture
Posts: 311
Joined: 2007-06-05
User is offlineOffline
By the way, where did you go

By the way, where did you go to get your history degree?


Rook_Hawkins
RRS CO-FOUNDER
Rook_Hawkins's picture
Posts: 1322
Joined: 2006-02-11
User is offlineOffline
Christos wrote: "The God

Christos wrote:

"The God who wasn't there," only uses Hebrews 8:4 to prove that Paul didn't think that Jesus was a real person. The video ignores that Paul didn't write Hebrews, and was probably executed before Hebrews was written.

You assume Paul was executed.  I don't necessarily know if that is established, as we have no real data, even from Paul. But if that is the case, then I'm sure Brian Flemming has corrected the problem in his newer addition.

Quote:
Harnack wasn't using Luke-Acts to date Paul's conversion. It doesn't really matter when Luke-Acts was written to date Paul, because it was written at least 20-30 years after Paul's death my an author who never met Paul. Harnack uses Galatians to date the conversion at 31-36 CE.

Fair enough.  I was just making sure you weren't going to try to use Acts.  I'm glad you didn't, and I conceed this point. 

 

Quote:
You are certainly right that Paul does not mention many of the details from the gospels.

Actually, you say 'many', I would say Paul mentions none of the accounts from the Gospels since the Gospels might have even used some of Paul to write their accounts, or atleast Pauline tradition.  So it may not be hard to find some similarities in Paul with the Gospels.  This is understandable, since tradition would have been known then to Mark.  This does not imply that Paul knew of the Gospel events, what it does mean is that (and which is more probable) the followers of Christ at the time of mark knew of Pauline Theology, but that at the time Mark wrote, it would have been heavily altered theology.

Quote:
However, I think that 1 Cor 15 gives a strong account of the death/resurrection of Jesus. For example, Jesus was buried (verse 4). Paul goes on to describe a resurrected body later on in chapter 15. "So will it be with the resurrection of the dead. The body that is sown is perishable, it is raised imperishable....it is sown a natural body, it is raised a spiritual body." Paul is trying to show the importance of a real person resurrected into a spiritual body.

Note that Carrier holds your position in his debate with Licona on UCLA.  I'm not sure if you're aware, but he's not a mythicist.  This is an excerpt from a book I'm working on and revising (although this is not revised yet) it has a lot of information.  I'll also include more information at the end of the excerpt.  I apologize for length, I like being throrough.


There is a lot to cover, so I'm going to start out with what Carrier has to say on this chapter, and I'll add in my two cents after his points, which he makes clear where he has posted these that there are more he could cover.

  1. Paul makes no distinction between his vision and appearances to the others, apart from when it happened (vv. 8, vs. 1-7). This makes it prima facie reasonable that all the appearances were understood by him to be visions and not literally physical in the sense portrayed by the Gospels of Luke and John.
  2. Paul's distinction between "perishable" and "imperishable" bodies (vv. 42) is based on a distinction between earthly things and things of heaven (vv. 40, 47-9), and it was common belief in antiquity that the heavenly things were ethereal. Since Paul does not disclaim the common belief, he must be assuming his readers already accept it. This makes it prima facie reasonable that he means the "imperishable body" to be an ethereal one, not a body of flesh.
  3. Paul literally makes this distinction, calling the one a "natural body" (psychikos) and the other a "spiritual body" (pneumatikos), and says that they both coexist in one person (vv. 44), in that first there is a natural body which is then infused with a spiritual one (vv. 46), thus the resurrected body is clearly in his mind something lacking the physical body we know, the body that is conceived in a womb and only later infused with a spirit. He says outright (here and in 2 Cor. 4:16-5:9) that the body we know, the body of flesh, is sown only to die, and only this other, second body, the body of the spirit, rises to new life.
  4. The Christian lexicographer Photius understood psychikos to mean the "animal" part of man (Lexicon, s.v.), as opposed to the higher, spiritual part that was made in the image of God (and God is certainly not a body of flesh), and there is a lot of evidence that Paul meant this as well.[i]
  5. Paul distinguishes Adam and Jesus in a certain way that supports this: Adam is regarded as being alive in the psychic sense, Jesus as giving life in the pneumatic sense (vv. 45), and Paul relates them as opposites (also vv. 22), so that as Adam was given physical form, beginning the age of sin, Jesus transcended it, ending sin. For Adam was made of dust (crude matter), but the resurrected Jesus was not (vv.47, cf. 48-9).
  6. Paul says point blank that "flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God" (vv. 50), because flesh and blood is the mortal, perishable body, and we are resurrected as an imperishable body (ibid.). It is thus plain that he does not believe that the resurrection involved flesh and blood, i.e a physical body in our familiar sense, but a different, ethereal body, like the same sort of body angels have (and according to the Gospels, Jesus said we shall be like angels, cf. Mk. 12:25; Mt. 22:30; Lk. 20:34-36).

I'd like to go over each bullet point as these are Carrier's points, and since he isn't here to back these up, I'll add in my own evidence to weigh in on certain things I feel need to be explained more.

The first point is pretty clear if you know Paul, but if not you may be wondering, "Wait, what about his conversion? Didn't he see Christ?" No. According to Galatians1:1, "Not of men, neither by man, but by Jesus Christ, and God the Father, who raised him from the dead;" and also Galatians 1:11-12, "But I certify you, brethren, that the gospel which was preached of me is not after man. For I neither received it of man, neither was I taught it, but by the revelation of Jesus Christ."

For Paul this is clear as day, that he did not receive his conversion from a physical being, but rather a revelation (aποκaλυψις), which in the Greek literally means "manifestation" or “revelation/apocalypse.”[ii]  This is the same word used in Romans 2:5, “But after thy hardness and impenitent heart treasurest up unto thyself wrath against the day of wrath and revelation of the righteous judgment of God” and 1 Corinthians 1:7.

1 Corinthians 1:7 is important to have a side note, just to explain how some Christians will purposefully misinterpret texts to explain things. If you read the KJV text of this passage this is what you get: "So that ye come behind in no gift; waiting for the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ:" The problem is the Greek doesn't use the word "coming" or "to come" in any manner. This verse is used by Christians to generally prove a second coming of Christ[iii], but lets look at the Greek, " ωστε (therefore) υμας (you) μη υστερεισθαι (shall not fall short) εν μηδενι (in any) χαρισματι (grace) απεκδεχομενους (anticipating) την αποκαλυψιν (the revelation) του κυριου ημων (of our Lord) ιησου χριστου (Jesus Christ)."

You'll see the translation is much different when understood in the Greek and within the context of the passages. Note that I highlighted in red the same word used in 1 Corinthians 15, and that it again means the same thing - a revelation, a vision of Jesus. Paul uses this word even after interviewing with the Apostles in Jerusalem three years after his conversion in Galatians to explain his vision. You'd think that had Jesus really been resurrected in the bodily form as Acts suggests, that Peter would have compared stories with Paul when they met there in Jerusalem. Couldn't you just see the conversation unfolding in your mind?

Peter: "Yes, I've seen Christ risen as well! He was glorious! He let us tough his palms where the nails had been pierced through his very bone! And Thomas just started apologizing like you wouldn't believe. Then he was swept up in an array of clouds! Was that what you saw too?"

Paul: "Why yes! I saw that as well! Let me go preach about this miracle to the world!"

*some years later*

Paul scribbling notes down on papyri to the Galatians: "But I certify you, brethren, that the gospel which was preached of me is not after man. For I neither received it of man, neither was I taught it, but by the revelation of Jesus Christ."



Don't you find it odd that he would describe his vision in this manner? Why would he use the word donating "revelation" and not something that would have fit much better? And what of his constant reference to Christ "in the spirit?" Romans 8:1, “There is therefore now no condemnation to them which are in Christ Jesus, who walk not after the flesh, but after the Spirit.”

Had Christ been a physical being, and Paul had witnessed this, or even discussed this matter with Peter, why does he differentiate between the spiritual body (pneumatikos) and the natural body (psycikos)? It seems rather odd one would make a distinction between the two if they believed in a one-body resurrection, and not a new, spiritual body that they'd get upon death. This makes no sense at all, unless there's more to it.

In fact when he describes the vision among the 500, he states in the Greek, "φησν κοων λγια θεο ῦὅστις ρασιν θεο εδεν ν πν ποκεκαλυμμνοι ο φθαλμο ατο" in which the two words highlighted differentiate better the difference between sight and visions. The first word comes from the Greek ρασις which indicates seeing (mentally, a vision) which is then supported by the word ρω which signifies the vision, qualifying the first. This is how the word is read - a vision, a sight through the mind.[iv]

Notice how these phrases and words and just the general overall language of Paul differs from that of the Talmud, and that of Christians less then a hundred years later. This is important, because remember what we're trying to establish - what exactly Paul believed of the resurrection. Not only through that of Christ but of every man, and how important Paul said it was - "if Christ has not been raised, then our preaching is in vain..." Of course it's important! As stated earlier, the entire Christian faith rests upon this idea.

But clearly Paul does not hold to the one-body resurrection. If he had, we would see signs of this, but we don't. It's clear, in fact, that we see the opposite. As Carrier alluded to, it makes a clear reference to what Josephus states on this doctrine, believed by the Essene sect of the Jews:

 

“For this particular doctrine (the Two-Body doctrine – Ed) is strong among them: bodies are subject to corruption and their material is not permanent, but souls are immortal and persist forever. Descending from the thinnest ether they are merged with bodies just like prisons, having been drawn down by some natural spell. But whenever they are released from the bonds of the flesh, as if released from a long slavery, then they rejoice and are carried skyward.” (Wars 2:8:11; 154-5)

“The bodies of all men are indeed mortal, and are created out of corruptible matter, but the soul is forever immortal, and is a part of God that inhabits our bodies….Don’t you know that those who exit this life according to the law of nature, and pay that debt received from God, when he that gave it wants it back again…then the souls that remain pure and obedient obtain from God the holiest place in heaven, and from there, after the completion of the ages, they are instead sent again into undefiled bodies.” (
Wars 3:8:5; 372, 374-75)

Indeed the very same idea is shown here in Paul. What is more interesting is how Josephus describes the nature of this ideology and from whence it stemmed. That will be discussed in the next section.

I also want to make it clear the meaning of Paul when he discusses the natural and spiritual bodies. Carrier, in his publication I posted above, makes the following graph:

Psychikos
aka "Psyche-like"

 

Pneumatikos
aka "Pneuma-like"

->

 

->

Psychê
aka "Living Person"

 

Pneuma
aka "Holy Spirit"

[always something one can lose (Php. 2:30)]

 

[always something ethereal (2 Cor. 5:5)]

Figure 4

Carrier states, "The above chart makes the meaning of these Greek words clear: psychikos and pneumatikos are adjectives, meaning something is made of, or is like, or shares the properties of the noun they are derived from, in this case psychê and pneuma respectively. When we look at the nouns, we find that their associations are clear: one is used typically to refer to a living body, hence a body of flesh and blood (a search of the letters of Paul shows this to be his usual use of the word); the other, always to a disembodied spirit. The word sôma, which they modify in 1 Cor. 15:44, means only a distinct thing with volume and location, it does not entail what that thing is made of or what its properties are or where it came from. Paul calls the resurrected a pneumatikos sôma to distinguish this pneuma from "the" Pneuma, or Holy Spirit, which is not a sôma because it is everywhere, whereas a resurrected soul is not everywhere, but has a distinct and localized existence as an individual. Paul clearly means to say that when we are resurrected, we become like the Holy Spirit, and cease to be what we are when we were alive (a living body made of dust), but unlike the Holy Spirit, our spirit is still organized as a new kind of body, more like Casper the Ghost.”[v]

Indeed, there is no denying the fact that these words are dissimilar, and in fact are not the same thing as some of the early church fathers had thought - and even made a case using this very passage and chapter. It is also obvious that Paul could not have been discussing the same thing that the Church fathers had thought he was.

So far we've discussed several important topics in this essay, that being the fact that we determined exactly the nature of the resurrection through various sources including modern-day church authorities and authorities in antiquity. We've discussed the importance of it, and why it is that way, as well as determined what the church fathers had to say on the matter. We've witnessed the internal contradictions of the resurrection in the Gospels and also the complications of the historical nature of the resurrection, and we've now discussed Paul at length concerning his views on the resurrection, how he differed from the Gospels, Pharisees and the later Church fathers, and also how there was similarity to Paul's thought to that of Josephus and Philo, and other Jews and Gentile Jews of the day.

But if Paul believed in this two-body resurrection doctrine, where did it originate? Glad you asked. Let's turn to the final subject of the essay - that being the Greeks and how they viewed the resurrection.



[i] Check out Richard’s article, particularly Section V.

 

[ii] LSJ: Greek-English Lexicon 9th Edition

 

[iii] Naves Study Bible, 1 Corinthians 1:7, Pp. 1567 states in a side note, "Jesus, second coming of (as some interpret), Matt. 1:21. 1. R.V. Revelation" - Clearly a purposeful mistranslation when the word, as they admit, means revelation. This is not the same thing as "coming."

 

[iv] LSJ: Greek-English Lexicon 9th Edition

 

[v] Richard Carrier, "Why I Don't Buy the Resurrection Story; Section V: What Do 'Pneumatikos' and 'Psychikos' Mean?"

 


 

 Also on this subject, Robert Price has a great chapter which I highly recommend you read in "Jesus is Dead" (2007), on the resurrection in Paul, and this very thing.  It's chapter 12, and it deals with Gary Habermass.  

The best to you,

 

Rook 

Atheist Books, purchases on Amazon support the Rational Response Squad server, which houses Celebrity Atheists. Books by Rook Hawkins (Thomas Verenna)


AL500
Theist
AL500's picture
Posts: 211
Joined: 2007-05-26
User is offlineOffline
 Nook Stated: Prove Jesus

 Nook Stated: Prove Jesus was crucified.

 

My Response: I will inform you that that 1 Corinthians 15 speaks on the crucifixtion of Christ, and it is considered by scholars to date from three to eight years after Jesus death. (Hans Grass, Ostergescheb und Osterberichte, 2nd Edition, p. 96).

 It is believed to be the oldest creed in Christianity. Ulrich Wilkens asserts that this creed

"indubitably goes back to the oldest phase of all in the history of primitive Christianity." (Resurrection, p.2).

Joachim Jeremias calls 1Cor. 15

"the earliest tradition of all." (Easter, p. 306).

German historian Hans von Campenhausen attests concerning 1Cor.15:

"This account meets all the demands of historical reliability that could possibly be made of such a text." (The Events of Easter and the Empty Tomb, p.44).

A.M. Hunter states that

"The passage therefore preserves uniquely early and verifiable testimony. It meets every reasonable demand of historical reliability." (Jesus, p.100).

That Jesus was crucified, is a core fact accepted by virtually all critical scholars.  For a sampling of critical scholars who accept the crucifixtion to be factual, see Fuller, "Resurrection Narratives," pp.27-49; Bultmann, "Theology". vol.1, pp.44-45; Tillich, "Systematic Theology", vol.2, pp.153-158; Bornkamm, "Jesus", pp. 179-186; Wilkins, "Resurrection," pp.112-113; Pannenberg, "Jesus", pp.88-106; Moltmann, "Theology of Hope," pp.197-202; Hunter, "Jesus," pp.98-103; Perrin, "Resurrection," pp.78-84; Brown, "Bodily Resurrection," pp.81-92; VanBurden, "The Secular Meaning of the Gospel," pp.126-134.

The crucifixtion of Christ is generally accepted not only by critical theologians but also by historians and philosophers who who study the subject. (Grant, "Jesus: An Historian's Review," pp.175-178; W.T. Jones, "The Medieval Mind," pp. 34-35; Braaten, "History and Hermeneutic," p.78).

Dominic Crossan, co-founder of the Westar Institute, a liberal historical think tank, sums it up quite well:

"That he [Jesus] was crucified is as sure as anything historical can ever be." (Jesus: A Revolutionary Biography, p.145.).

Marcus Borg agrees:

"The most certain fact about the historical Jesus is his execution as a political rebel." (Jesus, p.179).

 

 

God exists or nothing exists --- Greg Bahnsen


Rook_Hawkins
RRS CO-FOUNDER
Rook_Hawkins's picture
Posts: 1322
Joined: 2006-02-11
User is offlineOffline
Aside from the fact that

Aside from the fact that none of this is evidence, I can't trust a person who can't even spell my name right with actually understanding the complex nature of historic methodologies.

Atheist Books, purchases on Amazon support the Rational Response Squad server, which houses Celebrity Atheists. Books by Rook Hawkins (Thomas Verenna)


AL500
Theist
AL500's picture
Posts: 211
Joined: 2007-05-26
User is offlineOffline
Rook_Hawkins wrote: Aside

Rook_Hawkins wrote:
Aside from the fact that none of this is evidence, I can't trust a person who can't even spell my name right with actually understanding the complex nature of historic methodologies.

My point was that the vast majority of scholars in the world today affirm the historicity of the crucifixtion of Christ. I don't have to understand "the complex nature of historic methodologies." The scholars listed above understand it for me.

God exists or nothing exists --- Greg Bahnsen


simple theist
Theist
Posts: 259
Joined: 2007-05-28
User is offlineOffline
AL500 wrote: Rook_Hawkins

AL500 wrote:

Rook_Hawkins wrote:
Aside from the fact that none of this is evidence, I can't trust a person who can't even spell my name right with actually understanding the complex nature of historic methodologies.

My point was that the vast majority of scholars in the world today affirm the historicity of the crucifixtion of Christ. I don't have to understand "the complex nature of historic methodologies." The scholars listed above understand it for me.

AL500, you did simply quote people and not present their reasons why they believed what you quoted them as saying. I think you did establish that there are historians who disagree with Rook, but you need to present their arguments for this.


Rook_Hawkins
RRS CO-FOUNDER
Rook_Hawkins's picture
Posts: 1322
Joined: 2006-02-11
User is offlineOffline
Thanks Simple, that is

Thanks Simple, that is correct.  I never said that some, even many, historians disagree with me.  But their reasons aren't because they've done the research, if anything I would say most go along with the research that gets them in the least trouble with Christian board members (who reign over their positions like heavy bricks ready to fall), and sell books. 

Aside from the fact that many of the people you listed are apologists and not historians, you do need to cite arguments and not simply quotes.  I can pull just as many, if not more, quotes from historians who disagree with you, but quoting somebody isn't proving anything.

 I've read Crossan, Habermass, and N.T. Wright, apologetics is not history.

 The best to you,

 

Rook 

Atheist Books, purchases on Amazon support the Rational Response Squad server, which houses Celebrity Atheists. Books by Rook Hawkins (Thomas Verenna)


AL500
Theist
AL500's picture
Posts: 211
Joined: 2007-05-26
User is offlineOffline
 Nook, I didn't come in

 Nook, I didn't come in here to argue the evidence. I was merely educating you on the fact that the vast majority of scholars and historians from both the liberal and conservative sides affirm the historicity of Jesus crucifiction. To insult their intelligence and education by asserting they only accept it because they are Christians, is an ad hominem. Some became Christians after analysis of the data. Some are not Christians. And no, you cannot list as many scholars as I have because as I said and proved by the sources I gave, the vast majority of scholars do not hold your position. The sources I gave list many of the scholars who affirm the crucifiction.

God exists or nothing exists --- Greg Bahnsen


AL500
Theist
AL500's picture
Posts: 211
Joined: 2007-05-26
User is offlineOffline
 sorry I meant Rook.

 sorry I meant Rook.


simple theist
Theist
Posts: 259
Joined: 2007-05-28
User is offlineOffline
Galieo was killed for what

Galieo was killed for what was once considered true by a majority of people. Slavery was considered not wrong by the majority of southerners. I can quote more Catholics that claim Protestants are going to Hell then you can quote protestants claiming that protestants aren't going to Hell.

Please present proof that what these guys say is true. At least let me know who these guys are and why I should listen to them.


Rook_Hawkins
RRS CO-FOUNDER
Rook_Hawkins's picture
Posts: 1322
Joined: 2006-02-11
User is offlineOffline
Simple, thank you again.

Simple, thank you again. AL500 does not understand how this works.

On a technical note, Galileo wasn't killed, but he was quarenteened for the rest of his life behind the walls of the Vatican, and his books were taken into the Vatican with him, his books banned for public viewing.  This is a far too common story.

It happens today as well.  Thomas L. Thompson wrote his doctorate dissertation on the allegory of the OT and was actually blocked from getting it due to the Christian board that oversaw his courses, and when he finally got his doctorate at Temple, the poor guy was blocked for teaching for 10 YEARS, until he moved to Denmark which is one of the more secular countries.  Now he can  teach.  And he is known as one of the greatest OT scholars and near-eastern scholars in the world.  He's published several books and many more papers, and he just so happens to be a friend and colleague, another mythicist.

There are scholars on both sides, but quoting them does not prove or disprove a claim.  Arguments are what counts.

Atheist Books, purchases on Amazon support the Rational Response Squad server, which houses Celebrity Atheists. Books by Rook Hawkins (Thomas Verenna)


AL500
Theist
AL500's picture
Posts: 211
Joined: 2007-05-26
User is offlineOffline
 Thompson is an Old

 Thompson is an Old Testament scholar, not an NT scholar. He needs to stay with what he knows and not pretend to be an authority on a subject out of his area of specialty.

God exists or nothing exists --- Greg Bahnsen


Rook_Hawkins
RRS CO-FOUNDER
Rook_Hawkins's picture
Posts: 1322
Joined: 2006-02-11
User is offlineOffline
First of all, you need to

First of all, you need to mind your tongue.  You can insult me all you want, but lay off my friends.  He's a published historian, he's got more publications and experience in the field then you ever will.  So the second you start telling me where you think scholars (especially my friends) should stay is the second I start getting angry.  And you won't like me when I'm angry.

 Trust me when I say Thompson is well versed in the New Testament as he is in the Old.

Atheist Books, purchases on Amazon support the Rational Response Squad server, which houses Celebrity Atheists. Books by Rook Hawkins (Thomas Verenna)


simple theist
Theist
Posts: 259
Joined: 2007-05-28
User is offlineOffline
AL500 wrote: Thompson is

AL500 wrote:
Thompson is an Old Testament scholar, not an NT scholar. He needs to stay with what he knows and not pretend to be an authority on a subject out of his area of specialty.

Ok, its late and I'm probably missing something obvious, but why are we talking about Thompson not being a NT sholar? How does this relate to the previous conversation? 


Rook_Hawkins
RRS CO-FOUNDER
Rook_Hawkins's picture
Posts: 1322
Joined: 2006-02-11
User is offlineOffline
It doesn't, he's dodging.

It doesn't, he's dodging.


simple theist
Theist
Posts: 259
Joined: 2007-05-28
User is offlineOffline
AL500 wrote: Thompson is

AL500 wrote:
Thompson is an Old Testament scholar, not an NT scholar. He needs to stay with what he knows and not pretend to be an authority on a subject out of his area of specialty.

Ok, so when did Thompson pretend to be an authority out of his area of specialty? How do you know that Thompson is not a new testament scholar?


Rook_Hawkins
RRS CO-FOUNDER
Rook_Hawkins's picture
Posts: 1322
Joined: 2006-02-11
User is offlineOffline
Simple, like I said in the

Simple, like I said in the Peter thread, I'm not paying much more attention to AL500, he simply dodges and copies from websites without citing them.  Would you be willing to discuss the mythicist position with me?  You seem more open minded then your counterpart.

Atheist Books, purchases on Amazon support the Rational Response Squad server, which houses Celebrity Atheists. Books by Rook Hawkins (Thomas Verenna)


AL500
Theist
AL500's picture
Posts: 211
Joined: 2007-05-26
User is offlineOffline
 Because I looked at his

 Because I looked at his credentials. He's an atheist like everyone Rook cites. Only atheists would suggest such outlandish theories. No real unbiased NT scholar or historian denies the historicity of Jesus.  All this "Jesus myth" nonsense is coming from avowed atheists.

God exists or nothing exists --- Greg Bahnsen


AL500
Theist
AL500's picture
Posts: 211
Joined: 2007-05-26
User is offlineOffline
Rook_Hawkins wrote: Simple,

Rook_Hawkins wrote:
Simple, like I said in the Peter thread, I'm not paying much more attention to AL500, he simply dodges and copies from websites without citing them.  Would you be willing to discuss the mythicist position with me?  You seem more open minded then your counterpart.

Can you please produce the link to the site I allegedly quoted from? I don't think I've ever heard any arguments of your own. You seem to only copy and paste from other writers and websites.

God exists or nothing exists --- Greg Bahnsen


Rook_Hawkins
RRS CO-FOUNDER
Rook_Hawkins's picture
Posts: 1322
Joined: 2006-02-11
User is offlineOffline
AL500 wrote: Because I

AL500 wrote:
Because I looked at his credentials. He's an atheist like everyone Rook cites. Only atheists would suggest such outlandish theories. No real unbiased NT scholar or historian denies the historicity of Jesus. All this "Jesus myth" nonsense is coming from avowed atheists.

 

First, asshole, Thompson is NOT an atheist.  Secondly, you don't know the meaning of the term 'unbias', and third, I don't want to hear another lie from you or I'm moving all your threads into trollville.

Either present an argument or shut the fuck up. 

 

 

Atheist Books, purchases on Amazon support the Rational Response Squad server, which houses Celebrity Atheists. Books by Rook Hawkins (Thomas Verenna)


simple theist
Theist
Posts: 259
Joined: 2007-05-28
User is offlineOffline
Rook_Hawkins wrote: Simple,

Rook_Hawkins wrote:
Simple, like I said in the Peter thread, I'm not paying much more attention to AL500, he simply dodges and copies from websites without citing them. Would you be willing to discuss the mythicist position with me? You seem more open minded then your counterpart.
I would...after I read the book.


Rook_Hawkins
RRS CO-FOUNDER
Rook_Hawkins's picture
Posts: 1322
Joined: 2006-02-11
User is offlineOffline
Here's a few others which

Here's a few others which would be worth your read:

What is a Gospel, Talbert (Fortress Press: 1977) - Argues effectively that the Gospels are allegory and scriptural re-interpretation - He's a Christian

The Homeric Epics and the Gospel of Mark (Yale University Press: 2000); Does the New Testament Imitate Homer (Yale University Press: 2003); The Legend and the Apostle (Yale University Press: 1983), Dennis R. McDonald - Argues effectively that the New Testament, especially Luke-Acts and Mark are allegorical hypertexts of Homer's Odessy and the Old Testament - also a theist, although I don't know if he's a Christian

The Jesus Tomb, Robert Price (Prometheus Books: 2005) - Price is a former member of the Jesus Seminar and currently a member of the Jesus Project, of which AL500 has incorrectly stated that they "came to a conclusion that Christ existed" which is false.  That wasn't even part of the Jesus Seminar's objective.  This book argues the mythicist position from a variety of scholars.

 Jesus is Dead, Robert Price (American Atheist Press: 2007) - Argues the Mythicist Position (inexpensive!)

In Quest of the Hero, Alan Dundes (Princeton University Press: 1990) - A folklorist argues against the historicity of Christ based on using Lord Raglan's 'Hero' scale, and compares the legend of Jesus to other legends which are nothing but euhemerized into history.

Sourcebook of Texts for the Comparative Study of the Gospels, editted by Dungan and Cartlidge (SBL Scholars Press: 1974) - Put out by the JBL, compares various legends earlier then Christianity to the Gospels and other Christian texts.

The jesus the Jews Never Knew, Frank Zindler (American Atheist Press: 2003) - Argues the mythicist position. 

Gnosticism and Later Platonism: Themes, Figures, and Texts, editted by Turner and Majercik (SBLSymS 12: 2000) - JBL. Argues Gnosticism in the first four centuries CE and how they relate to Christianity 

Redescribing Christian Origins, editted by Cameron and Miller (SBLSym28: 2004) - JBL. Argues for a new way to look at the New Testament, not "responses to the historical Jesus or as generative forces set in motion by singular events and personal revelations" but rather as "reflexive social experiments." (p. 17)

 

The list is large, but these are more then sufficient to establishing my position.  The best to you. 

Atheist Books, purchases on Amazon support the Rational Response Squad server, which houses Celebrity Atheists. Books by Rook Hawkins (Thomas Verenna)


AL500
Theist
AL500's picture
Posts: 211
Joined: 2007-05-26
User is offlineOffline
 Most of the "Jesus

 Most of the "Jesus Myther"s are atheists and non-historians.

 

What are real historians and scholars saying about the "Jesus Mythers"?

Otto Betz

 No serious scholar has ventured to postulate the non-historicity of Jesus (What do We Know about Jesus, p.9).

E.P. Sanders

 We know a lot about Jesus, vastly more than about John the Baptist, Theudas, Judas the Galilean, or any of the other figures whose names we have from approximately the same date and place (The Historical Figure of Jesus, 1993).

Bultmann

Of course the doubt as to whether Jesus really existed is unfounded and not worth refutation. No sane person can doubt that Jesus stands as founder behind the historical movement whose first distinct stage is represented by the Palestinian community (Bultmann, Jesus and the Word, p.13).

Van Voorst

 Although Wells has been probably the most able advocate of the non historicity theory, he has not been pursuasive and is now almost a lone voice for it. The theory of Jesus nonexistence is now effectively dead as a scholarly question (Jesus Outside the New Testament,, p.14).

F.F. Bruce

 The historicity of Christ is axiomatic for an unbiased historian as the historicity of Julius Caesar. It is not historians who propagate the "Christ-myth' theories (The New Testament Documents: Are they Reliable, 1972).

A.E. Harvey

 It would be no exaggeration to say that this event [the Crucifixtion] is better attested, and supported by a more impressive array of evidence, than any other event of comparable importance of which we have knowledge from the ancient world (Jesus and the Constraints of History,1982).

Morton Smith

 I don't think the arguments from in (Wells) book deserve detailed refutation.....he argues mostly from silence...many of his arguments are incorrect, far too many to discuss in this space.

R.J. Hoffmann

Wells presents us with a piece of private mythology that I find incredible beyond anything in the Gospels, (Jesus in History and Myth), pp.47-48).

G. Wells

 Wells has now abandoned the Christ-Myth hypothesis and has accepted the historicity of Jesus on the basis of the "Q" document (The Jesus Myth, 1999).

 Werner Kummel

The denial of the existence of Jesus is arbitrary and ill-founded (The New Testament: The History of the Investigation of its Problems, p.447, n. 367).

Gunter Bornkamm

 To doubt the historical existence of Jesus at all, was reserved for an unrestrained, tendentious criticism of modern times into which it is not worth while to enter here (Jesus of Nazareth, p.28).

Van Voorst

 (referring to the mythicists) states: Contemporary New Testament scholars have typically viewed their arguments as so weak or bizarre that they relegate them to footnotes, or often ignore them completely (Jesus Outside the New Testament, p.6).

James Charlesworth

Jesus did exist; and we know more about him than about almost any Palestinian Jew before 70 C.E. (Jesus Within Judaism, pp.168-169).

Dominic Crossan : That he was crucified is as sure as anything historical can ever be. (Jesus: A Revolutionary Biography, p.145).

Marcus Borg:

The most certain fact about the historical Jesus is his execution as a political rebel. (Jesus, p.179).

The Encyclopedia Britanica

..these independent accounts (Tacitus, Josephus, the Talmud, etc.) prove that in ancient times even the opponents of Christianity never doubted the historicity of Jesus, which was disputed for the first time and on inadequate grounds by several authors at the end of the 18th century, during the 19th, and at the beginning of the 20th centuries. (Article on Jesus, 1990).

Refutations of the Jesus Seminar (The JS is an organization comprised of liberal teachers who claim that the NT is mostly allegorical). But the founders of the JS, Crossan and Funk, affirm the historicity of Christ, as do all the other members. These links refute the claim that the NT is allegorical. There are many more links aswell, including several books and scholarly papers.

 

http://www.apologeticsinfo.org/papers/fivegospels.htmhttp://www.leaderu.com/offices/billcraig/docs/rediscover1.html

God exists or nothing exists --- Greg Bahnsen


Rook_Hawkins
RRS CO-FOUNDER
Rook_Hawkins's picture
Posts: 1322
Joined: 2006-02-11
User is offlineOffline
Okay let's do this.  Come

Okay let's do this.  Come in the chatroom RIGHT NOW, and we'll have a debate you and I and see who can bring better arguments to the table.  Put out or shut up time.

Atheist Books, purchases on Amazon support the Rational Response Squad server, which houses Celebrity Atheists. Books by Rook Hawkins (Thomas Verenna)


Rook_Hawkins
RRS CO-FOUNDER
Rook_Hawkins's picture
Posts: 1322
Joined: 2006-02-11
User is offlineOffline
Okay let's do this. Come

Still waiting.


Christos
Theist
Christos's picture
Posts: 311
Joined: 2007-06-05
User is offlineOffline
Wow, this thread really

Wow, this thread really stopped being productive when I left.

Sorry I haven't been on this thread Rook. I was on the Atheist v. Theist for a couple days. I'll be back soon to debate with you again.

"A man can no more diminish God's glory by refusing to worship Him than a lunatic can put out the sun by scribbling the word, 'darkness' on the walls of his cell." (CS Lewis)

"A young man who wishes to remain a sound atheist cannot be too careful of his reading." (CS Lewis)


AL500
Theist
AL500's picture
Posts: 211
Joined: 2007-05-26
User is offlineOffline
 I know you reject

 I know you reject everything theists say, so I'm sure you will reject this. In a Greek monastery on Mount Athos in Greece, they have the actual nails that Christ was crucified with, including a portion of the true cross. Many miracles occur when people venerate them. also, they have the head of John the Baptist, and the left foot of Mary Magdeline, which is preserved on its own accord at body temperature. They also produce miracles. These relics have been handed down to the Church through the ages. You can critisize all you want. The Church has posession of these relics.

God exists or nothing exists --- Greg Bahnsen


Rook_Hawkins
RRS CO-FOUNDER
Rook_Hawkins's picture
Posts: 1322
Joined: 2006-02-11
User is offlineOffline
Christos wrote: Wow, this

Christos wrote:

Wow, this thread really stopped being productive when I left.

Sorry I haven't been on this thread Rook. I was on the Atheist v. Theist for a couple days. I'll be back soon to debate with you again.

 I look forward to some intelligent conversation again, Christos. Show AL500 how to debate.

 The best to you,

 

Rook 

 

Atheist Books, purchases on Amazon support the Rational Response Squad server, which houses Celebrity Atheists. Books by Rook Hawkins (Thomas Verenna)


AL500
Theist
AL500's picture
Posts: 211
Joined: 2007-05-26
User is offlineOffline
 I just listed to Gary

 I just listed to Gary Habermas kill Richard Carrier in debate on Jesus resurrection. For anyone interested.

 

http://www.garyhabermas.com/audio/audio.htm

God exists or nothing exists --- Greg Bahnsen


Cassiopeia
Cassiopeia's picture
Posts: 102
Joined: 2007-05-23
User is offlineOffline
Hey Rook I see your book

Hey Rook I see your book recommendations on Jesus, do you think you could tell me which one to start with? I only have the time for one or two books that I can fit into my schedule. Your best suggestion will help.

Thanks and keep kicking ass. 

 

I suck at signatures.


jcgadfly
SuperfanBronze Member
Posts: 6789
Joined: 2006-07-18
User is offlineOffline
AL500 wrote: I just

AL500 wrote:

I just listed to Gary Habermas kill Richard Carrier in debate on Jesus resurrection. For anyone interested.

 

http://www.garyhabermas.com/audio/audio.htm

How nice - he's still running that phonied up "dialogue" as a debate. 

"I do this real moron thing, and it's called thinking. And apparently I'm not a very good American because I like to form my own opinions."
— George Carlin


simple theist
Theist
Posts: 259
Joined: 2007-05-28
User is offlineOffline
Cassiopeia wrote:

--never mind--


I Quixie
I Quixie's picture
Posts: 56
Joined: 2007-06-05
User is offlineOffline
Christos wrote: On another

Christos wrote:

On another note, in "The God who wasn't there," the video tries to use Hebrews 8:4 to prove that Paul believed that Jesus was a mythical person. Other than that verse being out of context, the video ignores that fact that Paul did not write Hebrews. I'm sure you know the reasons why Paul is not considered the author. The main reason is Koine analysis compared to authentic letters of Paul.

Actually, the main reason we know that Hebrews is not by Paul is the fact that it is NOT included in Marcion's list of Pauline works. Marcion was the first collector of Paul's letters of any note (Known as the first mega-heretic, few people know that he was also Paul's biggest fan. In fact, the Pauline corpus would probably have been forgotten but for Marcion).

 

Ó

"Theology is that science which treats of the unknowable with infinitesimal exactitude." - Anatole France


AL500
Theist
AL500's picture
Posts: 211
Joined: 2007-05-26
User is offlineOffline
jcgadfly wrote: How nice -

jcgadfly wrote:

How nice - he's still running that phonied up "dialogue" as a debate. 

 

Prove it. I know you can't because atheists never prove anything. They just invent all kinds of accusations, name calling and allegations. You may consult with the Infidel radio program. They can provide you with a copy of the debate. Sorry it was real. Carrier had no business even dialoguing with someone of Habermas' knowledge and expertise. There's a reason the scholarly community does not take the "Jesus mythers" and people like Carrier seriously.

God exists or nothing exists --- Greg Bahnsen


I Quixie
I Quixie's picture
Posts: 56
Joined: 2007-06-05
User is offlineOffline
AL500 wrote: Most of the

AL500 wrote:

Most of the "Jesus Myther"s are atheists and non-historians.

While 4 out of 5 doctors subscribe to the notion that Jesus really existed in history, there ARE legitimate scholars who doubt his historicity (notice I didn't say "deny", but "doubt" ).

Just to mention a couple of them:

Robert Price - thinks it cannot be known either way. There's just too little evidence.

Alvar Ellegård - wrote a fascinating book in 1999 illustrating his theory of the development of the mythic Jesus.

G.A. Wells - who holds a similar position to that of Ellegård.

To dismiss all dissenters are just atheists and non-historians is disingenuous. Sure, they are decidedly in the minority on this point, but then 4 out of 5 doctors once upon a time argued for the existence of the æther. No?

My point: Counting doctors is not a really good way to come to historical conclusions. Is it?

Personally, whether there was an historical Jesus or not is not really important to me (I tend to lean toward there having been such a man, but I understand the objections of the mythicists). What is fascinating to me is the origin and spread of the movement that used Jesus (whether real man or mythic superhero) as their flagship. THAT certainly is a tangible phenomenon that has undeniably taken the world by force and warrants exploration. Some - myself included - would even say that the extremist fundamentalist variant of this tradition is a malevolent force in the world and needs to be stopped from conducting its coersive missionary campaign. To that end, we continue to study the virus. One must understand the organism to be able to eradicate it.

I do realize that if it could be proven that he didn't in fact exist in history, that would put the whole notion of a divine mandate to rest in a clean fell swoop, and so it is a worthwhile possibility to explore (proving he didn't exist would be a cool shortcut to this effect - a short circuit to supernaturalism). But I feel that there's just not enough evidence either way and is thus a bit of a blind alley. Perhaps some new previously unknown text, unearthed in the Egyptian sands, will settle the issue some day. Until then all we can do is speculate.

 

peace

Ó

"Theology is that science which treats of the unknowable with infinitesimal exactitude." - Anatole France


I Quixie
I Quixie's picture
Posts: 56
Joined: 2007-06-05
User is offlineOffline
AL500 wrote: I know you

AL500 wrote:
I know you reject everything theists say, so I'm sure you will reject this. In a Greek monastery on Mount Athos in Greece, they have the actual nails that Christ was crucified with, including a portion of the true cross. Many miracles occur when people venerate them. also, they have the head of John the Baptist, and the left foot of Mary Magdeline, which is preserved on its own accord at body temperature. They also produce miracles. These relics have been handed down to the Church through the ages. You can critisize all you want. The Church has posession of these relics.

I happen to have in my possesion the left pinky toe of St. Veronica. I also have St Blaise's vocal cords that have been braided and incorporated into a rosary.

I'd be willing to sell you both at a resonable price, if you are interested.

Smile

(this post was so absurd as to almost be dada)

"Theology is that science which treats of the unknowable with infinitesimal exactitude." - Anatole France


jcgadfly
SuperfanBronze Member
Posts: 6789
Joined: 2006-07-18
User is offlineOffline
AL500 wrote: jcgadfly

AL500 wrote:
jcgadfly wrote:

How nice - he's still running that phonied up "dialogue" as a debate.

 

Prove it. I know you can't because atheists never prove anything. They just invent all kinds of accusations, name calling and allegations. You may consult with the Infidel radio program. They can provide you with a copy of the debate. Sorry it was real. Carrier had no business even dialoguing with someone of Habermas' knowledge and expertise. There's a reason the scholarly community does not take the "Jesus mythers" and people like Carrier seriously.

Sorry to mislead you.

The "phonied up" part was that Carrier was told it was going to be a discussion, an airing out of views. When he got on, all of a sudden it became a debate, something that Carrier was neither interested in doing or prepared for. He tried to keep it going as a discussion but your boys insisted on pressing the ambush.

It isn't hard to win a debate when only one side knows the debate is coming..

"I do this real moron thing, and it's called thinking. And apparently I'm not a very good American because I like to form my own opinions."
— George Carlin


Paranoia21
Paranoia21's picture
Posts: 25
Joined: 2007-06-02
User is offlineOffline
OMG.  I just read through

OMG.  I just read through this thread, and I am extremely disappointed with Al500's arguements.  You have never even set up a good arguement, but you claim everyone else has bad arguements.  You are a fucking joke.  You cite random websites, claim you know all about them, but you don't know jack.  Then Rook steps in and pwns you, but you deny it, then say his argeuments are bullshit.  You are just out of proof, which you had none of in the first place, so suck it up and realize that you have NO HISTORICAL PROOF THAT JESUS EVER EXISTED.  You believe in lies, get the FUCK over it.

VERITAS OMNIA VINCIT


AL500
Theist
AL500's picture
Posts: 211
Joined: 2007-05-26
User is offlineOffline
jcgadfly wrote: The

jcgadfly wrote:

The "phonied up" part was that Carrier was told it was going to be a discussion, an airing out of views. When he got on, all of a sudden it became a debate, something that Carrier was neither interested in doing or prepared for. He tried to keep it going as a discussion but your boys insisted on pressing the ambush.

It isn't hard to win a debate when only one side knows the debate is coming..

 

It's always funny to me how the atheists make-up all kinds of excuses when they lose debates. Crossan says, oh I wasn't there to debate I just wanted to get my view across.

lol right!

Quixie, your partial list was most impressive. First, Carrier is not a Jesus historian. He doesn't even have a doctorate. He is not recognized as a Jesus historian in academic circles. He's an atheist with an axe to grind. G. A. Wells, has recanted his position in case you didn't know. As of 2001, he affirms Jesus historicity. The other individual you listed must also be pseudo-scholar since I don't even recognize his name. Or did you make him up.

God exists or nothing exists --- Greg Bahnsen


AL500
Theist
AL500's picture
Posts: 211
Joined: 2007-05-26
User is offlineOffline
 Quixie, you lauged at me

 Quixie, you lauged at me when I told you about the relics in a Greek monastery. But you didn't refute the fact they are there. You just dismiss them completely prior to examination. The is typical of atheistic bias. Their arguments are never based on evidence, but on ideological biases. I'm sorry to disappoint you, but Mount Athos has had in its posession for some time, the nails that pierced Christ, a large segment of the true cross, the head of John the Baptist, and the left foot of Mary Magdaline, which is still preserved with her flesh at body temperature. Many miracles proceed from these relics. These relics have been handed down through the Church. Just because you were unaware of this, does not make it untrue.  Too many skeptics are so full of themselves or their skepticism that they think that if no one has brought it to their attention then it must not exist. As if the world owes them an obligation to spoon feed them every little factoid that stands in the way of their comfortable skepticism.

God exists or nothing exists --- Greg Bahnsen


AL500
Theist
AL500's picture
Posts: 211
Joined: 2007-05-26
User is offlineOffline
I SAID: Quixie, your

I SAID: Quixie, your partial list was most impressive.

I meant to say most unimpressive.


I Quixie
I Quixie's picture
Posts: 56
Joined: 2007-06-05
User is offlineOffline
AL500 wrote: I SAID:

AL500 wrote:

I SAID: Quixie, your partial list was most impressive.

I meant to say most unimpressive.

No problem, I accept that you mistyped the word "unimpressive". Innocuous mistakes like that happen all the time in this digital medium. No worries.

But . . . what about THIS mistake?:

AL500 wrote:
Quixie, your partial list was most impressive. First, Carrier is not a Jesus historian. He doesn't even have a doctorate. He is not recognized as a Jesus historian in academic circles. He's an atheist with an axe to grind.

For the sake of clarity, allow me to quote the list in question:

I Quixie wrote:

Robert Price - thinks it cannot be known either way. There's just too little evidence.

Alvar Ellegård - wrote a fascinating book in 1999 illustrating his theory of the development of the mythic Jesus.

G.A. Wells - who holds a similar position to that of Ellegård.

Let's take a look at it. Hmm . . . . let's see . . . . there's Price . . . . there's Wells . . . . and some weird Scandinavian name, Allegård. But . . . would you be so kind as to point out exactly where I mentioned Richard Carrier on that list?

This is only my third exchange with you, sir, yet I have garnered enough evidence in posts to lead me to deduce a couple of things about you:

1 - You don't pay attention to what is actually being said. You seem to prefer to substitute your favorite points in place of whatever data is given to you to examine.

2 - You have a tendency to categorically denounce all scholars who do not accept your evangelical point of view as having an axe to grind, and therefore not really as advancing any tenable evidence to make their case. They are all just "haters" to you, aren't they?

Because of these observations of mine, I am beginning to feel that a productive and earnest discussion with you is not really possible,and have therefore come to the conclusion that, unless you transform into an honest contributor to the discussion regarding these relevant matters, I have no choice but to consider you an antagonistic and infantile troll, unworthy of being taken seriously, though I think you are a good source of comic relief in this forum.

This being the last time I address you personally here, let me deal with your main points on a couple of other posts directed to me, while I have your quasi-attention.

AL500 wrote:
Carrier is not a Jesus historian. He doesn't even have a doctorate.

Now, personally, I don't require that people have a doctorate to make them worthy of respect or to make their work somehow more credible, but you can if you want to, I suppose. The problem with this, however, is that using your own logic begs the question:

Do YOU have a doctorate? If not, then why should people listen to you? Just a thought.

Finally,

AL500 wrote:
Quixie, you lauged at me when I told you about the relics in a Greek monastery.

To this I offer two alternative responses for you to choose from:

number 1 - "No, no, no, sir . . . I was merely making you a business proposition. (the offer is still good, btw Wink ) "

number 2 - "No, no, no, sir . . . I was laughing NEAR you . . . not AT you."

Which is all to say that I am laughing at you right now, a response that I think is quite appropriate in this context. I am justified in doing so by my deep conviction that those that are above correction are certainly not above mockery.

Get well soon,

 

Ó

"Theology is that science which treats of the unknowable with infinitesimal exactitude." - Anatole France


caseagainstfaith
Silver Member
caseagainstfaith's picture
Posts: 202
Joined: 2006-09-10
User is offlineOffline
AL500 wrote: It's always

AL500 wrote:

It's always funny to me how the atheists make-up all kinds of excuses when they lose debates.

I haven't listened to that specific debate or discussion or whatever.  But, at least from my perspective, I think of all "airing of views" among people with diametrically opposed views as inherintly debate-like, whether a formal debate or not.  And therefore probably wouldn't be too impressed if it was your man saying that it was only ad discussion and not a debate.So if "your man" came out on top of that discussion, so be it.  I have the Carrier/Licona debate DVD, and "your man" did NOT come out on top of that formal debate. 

By the way, notice you use a generalization, "atheists make-up all kinds of excuses...".  And to be honest, atheists, myself included, often use broad generalizations of Christians, "Christians are hypocritical sons of bitches, ya know?"  So, yeah, I'm guilty too.  But, its annoying that you are so completely blinded that you repeatedly do exactly what you criticize of others of doing and seemingly totally oblivious of this.

 


AL500
Theist
AL500's picture
Posts: 211
Joined: 2007-05-26
User is offlineOffline
Yes, I accidently said

Yes, I accidently said Carrier. The reason is probably because everytime I turn around atheists are appealing to him. And no I don't have a doctorate, but I don't need one because I never claimed to be a Jesus historian. Don't quote me on this but I think Price affirms the historicity of Christ, but denies the resurrection. G.A. Wells is the father of the modern "Jesus Myth" hypothesis, but has abandoned it. He now affrms Jesus historicity based on the "Q" document.

God exists or nothing exists --- Greg Bahnsen