Religion II

[boxcar]

Originally Posted by Actor

Evidence is not a 1950 year old book.

Well, how would I know since you haven't defined evidence? When I ask you to define something, I'm asking you to enlighten me as to what it IS, not what it isn't. Do you know what the difference is between "is" and "is not"?

[Actor]

Curious thing about boxcar. He tends to address only the last sentence of anything I post. Not always of course, but quite often.

[Actor]

Originally Posted by boxcar

Well, how would I know since you haven't defined evidence? When I ask you to define something, I'm asking you to enlighten me as to what it IS, not what it isn't.

Logic is a primitive term. Re: Logic 103.

[boxcar]

Originally Posted by Actor

Logic is a primitive term. Re: Logic 103.

Prove it.

[Actor]

Originally Posted by boxcar

Prove it.

You obviously do not understand Logic 103. Primitives and definitions do not require proof.

[boxcar]

Originally Posted by Actor

You obviously do not understand Logic 103. Primitives and definitions do not require proof.

So the bottom line is: We're supposed to take your word for it? lol:

Our resident "imminent" scientist and guru of the universe has spoken, and we're supposed to respond, "O Great Guru, what other magnificent gems of wisdom do you have for us today?"

[Actor]

Originally Posted by boxcar

So the bottom line is: We're supposed to take your word for it?

Not at all. You're free to give us your definition.

Originally Posted by boxcar

Our resident "imminent" scientist and guru of the universe has spoken, and we're supposed to respond, "O Great Guru, what other magnificent gems of wisdom do you have for us today?"

Works for me! At least I won't be passing on the "wisdom" of someone whose very existence is questionable.

After all, you've been our "Great Guru" for over 6 years now.

[boxcar]

Originally Posted by Actor

Not at all. You're free to give us your definition.

Sure. I'll define it as soon as you define Xvputeq

Works for me! At least I won't be passing on the "wisdom" of someone whose very existence is questionable.

Again, only because you say so. Since you make the claim, then the burden of proof is on you to prove how and why it's questionable.

After all, you've been our "Great Guru" for over 6 years now.

Yes...and only because I have been passing on the wisdom of the Eternal One in whom resides all wisdom.

Since you again have brought up the issue of Christ's existence, I am deep into agnostic/atheistic-leaning Bart Ehrman's book "Did Jesus Exist?" I'm about 50% through it, so I'll reserve full and final judgment until I'm done.

As a professional historian, he is pretty darn certain that Jesus was a real person -- a Jew born in Palestine, who preached and had disciples and who was put to death on the cross by Romans at the insistence of Jewish leaders, etc. He has no problem using the four canonical Gospels plus three others (Thomas, Peter, etc.) using the canonical epistles plus the writings of early church fathers, as well. To this unbeliever's mind the evidence is overwhelming that Jesus Christ did indeed exist.

While he did cite and even quote the usual secular sources that mention Jesus by name or strongly allude to Him, he doesn't feel they add much weight to the above mentioned evidence. However, he did make mincemeat out of mythicizers' objections to the two passages in Josephus. While he tend to believe that some copyist may have edited slightly the two passages, he strongly believes the evidence doesn't support that the entire passages were inserted into Josesphus' writings.

But we must remember: Ehrman is not a believer. And he definitely seems to have some kind of axe to grind with Fundamentalists and Evangelicals. (At least to his credit and unlike Hcap, he seems to acknowledge the distinction between the two groups.) Ehrman clearly doesn't believe in the divinity of Jesus, for example. In fact, he wrote another book titled, "How Jesus Became the Son of God". Of course, the title is totally backwards theologically. The real issue is "How the Son of God Became Jesus". Or "How the Son of God Became Man." After all, the preincarnate Son of God predates Jesus the man by a "few years". But of course, Ehrman's bias against God, Christ, the bible, and whatever else won't allow him to see this.

Also, from time to time, he'll allow his bias to shine through by touting all the "contradictions" in the bible. Up until a certain point in his book, he wouldn't cite anything specific but finally he deviated from that practice by specifically citing "irreconcilable differences" concerning Judas Iscariot's death, the purchase of the Field of Blood, etc. (Not surprised since this one is a favorite of skeptics, and I went into some detail about these differences, which were far from being irreconcilable, with Hcap several years ago, as I recall.)

But I also learned something new (or perhaps I just forgot it) that mythicizers tend to make a huge deal with their claim that the apostle Paul never quoted Jesus (not true!) and, therefore, did not believe in the historical Jesus. Instead, Paul allegedly believed in a regurgitated version of the divinity of the sun-god -- which in this case happens to be Jesus. But Ehrman did a pretty credible job in debunking that nonsense, even though Paul did actually quote Jesus only a few times. Of course, these Jesus mythicizers depend entirely on the old fallacy of Argument from Silence, which is really no argument at all. Plus they conveniently overlook a few key differences between Jesus' preaching and Paul's, and Jesus' audience and Paul's etc.

I might have more to say after I have finished the book.

[Actor]

Originally Posted by boxcar

Since you make the claim, then the burden of proof is on you to prove how and why it's questionable.

Wrong. The claim is that this person existed and it's almost 2000 years old. My claim is not that this person never existed but that you cannot prove that he did.

Furthermore, the claim is not simply that some self-employed preacher named Jesus existed but includes the derivative claim that he performed miracles and was resurrected. Those are extraordinary claims that require extraordinary evidence.

Originally Posted by boxcar

... I am deep into agnostic/atheistic-leaning Bart Ehrman's book "Did Jesus Exist?" ... As a professional historian ...

He's not a historian. He's a theologian. Check his web site. He's employed by the "Department of Religious Studies". No doubt he knows which side of his bread has the butter on it.

Also, the fact that you've found one unbeliever who thinks Jesus existed is no real surprise. There are plenty of them. The late Christopher Hitchens was one.

Once you've finished reading Ehrman's book you should, in all fairness, get both sides of the controversy. Read The Christ-Myth Theory and It's Problems by Robert M. Price, On the Historicity of Jesus by Richard Carrier, or Jesus Never Existed by Kenneth Humphreys.

[boxcar]

Originally Posted by Actor

Wrong. The claim is that this person existed and it's almost 2000 years old. My claim is not that this person never existed but that you cannot prove that he did.

Wrong! He who makes the claim (and you have claimed that Jesus never existed), the burden of proof lay with that person.

Furthermore, the claim is not simply that some self-employed preacher named Jesus existed but includes the derivative claim that he performed miracles and was resurrected. Those are extraordinary claims that require extraordinary evidence.

He's not a historian. He's a theologian. Check his web site. He's employed by the "Department of Religious Studies". No doubt he knows which side of his bread has the butter on it.

Also, the fact that you've found one unbeliever who thinks Jesus existed is no real surprise. There are plenty of them. The late Christopher Hitchens was one.

Once you've finished reading Ehrman's book you should, in all fairness, get both sides of the controversy. Read The Christ-Myth Theory and It's Problems by Robert M. Price, On the Historicity of Jesus by Richard Carrier, or Jesus Never Existed by Kenneth Humphreys.

He's not a theologian, per se. More accurately he is a student of New Testament and early Christianity and for 30 years he has written on the historical Jesus, the Gospels, the early Christian movement and the history of the church's first three hundred years. Believe me: Ehrman is no theologian! He's far more of a language scholar and historian.

And it might interest you to know that because he finds the evidence strongly compelling that Jesus existed and because he disavows Fundamentalism and Evangelical Christianity, he has more than a few enemies or detractors on both sides of this issue. He gets lambasted by mythicists because he advocates for the historical existence of Jesus and he comes under strong criticism by the two above mentioned Christian camps precisely because of his theological views. Don't forget: This was a guy who at one time, apparently, professed to be a Christian but has since fallen away (i.e. apostatized).

And don't worry, I'm getting both sides of the story. I'm now in Part II of his book which deals with the claims of mythicists. Chapter 6, in fact, is titled: The Mythicist Case: Weak and Irrelevant Claims. Trust me on this: I don't have to wade through tons of mythicist horse manure before I smell the stench of their excrement! I was already introduced to a guy in his book by the name of Robert Price, and this guy was very proficient in performing great feats of mental gymnastics when trying to nullify a very embarrassing and inconvenient truth that Jesus had a brother named James. Price realized what a huge problem James was to the myth theory but for the life of himself, he was unable to come up with a reasoned and rational argument for how a non-existent person could have had a brother that is actually identified as such in the NT scriptures. But like all mind-numbed robotic mythicists, at the end of the day -- even though Price knew his three contrived explanations to explain James away were very weak -- he, like you, waved his hands and denied the existence of James as well. And mythicists call this magical wand waving disappearing act "scholarship".


Anyhow...Ehrman plans on presenting several of the major, popular mythicist arguments in Part II (he can't do all of them because it would require volumes of books!), and then he plans to present the counter-arguments.

And one more thing before I go... the vast majority of "derivative claims" have NOTHING to do with the existence of a person. What that person did in his life, if he existed, is an entirely separate matter. If Jesus didn't walk on water that does not prove that he didn't exist. If Jesus did not heal the sick, that does not prove he did not exist. If Jesus didn't resurrect from the tomb, that would not prove he never existed. But of course...if Jesus actually died -- well...that would be a horse of a very different color, wouldn't it? (I'm assuming that you would be able to make the logical inference, although that might be asking a lot of you.) At any rate, I plan on discussing Jesus' death shortly.

[Actor]

Originally Posted by boxcar

Wrong! He who makes the claim (and you have claimed that Jesus never existed), the burden of proof lay with that person.

What was the original claim and who made it? It was the early Christians. Thus the burden of proof lies with them. The passage of of 1950 years does not shift the burden of proof away from them or their modern day followers.

Originally Posted by boxcar

He's not a theologian, per se.

It's difficult to say what he is. He attended Christian schools but there seems to be nothing about his major. Whatever, his current employment is in the Department of Religion.

Originally Posted by boxcar

And don't worry, I'm getting both sides of the story.

Not if you're getting it from Ehrman. If you are then it's hearsay.

Originally Posted by boxcar

I'm now in Part II of his book which deals with the claims of mythicists. Chapter 6, in fact, is titled: The Mythicist Case: Weak and Irrelevant Claims. Trust me on this: I don't have to wade through tons of mythicist horse manure before I smell the stench of their excrement! I was already introduced to a guy in his book by the name of Robert Price, and this guy was very proficient in performing great feats of mental gymnastics when trying to nullify a very embarrassing and inconvenient truth that Jesus had a brother named James. Price realized what a huge problem James was to the myth theory but for the life of himself, he was unable to come up with a reasoned and rational argument for how a non-existent person could have had a brother that is actually identified as such ...

Obviously the brother also did not exist. Seriously, don't you see that?

Originally Posted by boxcar

... in the NT scriptures.

Scripture proves nothing. Any claim that it does is preaching to the choir. The NT in particular is entirely fiction, unlike the OT which has a few tidbits that correspond to secular records. And the sources of those tidbits were very likely secular.

[Actor]

Originally Posted by boxcar

And one more thing before I go... the vast majority of "derivative claims" have NOTHING to do with the existence of a person. What that person did in his life, if he existed, is an entirely separate matter. If Jesus didn't walk on water that does not prove that he didn't exist. If Jesus did not heal the sick, that does not prove he did not exist. If Jesus didn't resurrect from the tomb, that would not prove he never existed.

It's those "derivative claims" which make the question of his existence of any interest. Take away all the supernatural claims and the question becomes "who cares?"

If your claim is merely that there was a self-employed preacher in business circa 30 C.E., that said preacher had disputes with Pharisees, that he gave a sermon on a mountain, espoused a philosophy, then OK. There were probably a lot of them. One of them may have been named Yeshua ben Joseph, no big deal. It's the supernatural claims that make anyone give a damn.

If you claim that Socrates never existed, who really cares? The Socratic Philosophy certainly exists but the question of whether it originated with Socrates, Plato, Aristotle or even Ptolemy is academic. Who cares?

But if you claim that Socrates performed miracles, walked on water, and rose from the dead, then the very question of his existence becomes a big deal.

[boxcar]

Originally Posted by Actor

What was the original claim and who made it? It was the early Christians. Thus the burden of proof lies with them. The passage of of 1950 years does not shift the burden of proof away from them or their modern day followers.

It's difficult to say what he is. He attended Christian schools but there seems to be nothing about his major. Whatever, his current employment is in the Department of Religion.

Not if you're getting it from Ehrman. If you are then it's hearsay.
Obviously the brother also did not exist. Seriously, don't you see that?

Scripture proves nothing. Any claim that it does is preaching to the choir. The NT in particular is entirely fiction, unlike the OT which has a few tidbits that correspond to secular records. And the sources of those tidbits were very likely secular.

"Scripture proves nothing" EXCEPT when YOU try to use it as proof of this, that or some other thing. This is special Pleading at it worst, since you exempt yourself from your own inane axiom.

Again...it makes no difference who makes claims first, second or last. My point is still valid. The burden of proof lies with anyone who makes a claim.

You say: Jesus never existed. Prove it.

You say James (Jesus' brother) never existed. Prove it.

You have said Peter never existed, prove it.

You have said Paul never existed, prove it.

Then you say, unequivocally, that the NT is "entirely fiction". Really?

The ‘James, son of Joseph, brother of Jesus’ ossuary

James the brother of Jesus was martyred in AD 62. A mid first century AD chalk ossuary discovered in 2002 bears this inscription: “James, son of Joseph, brother of Jesus” (“Ya’akov bar Yosef akhui di Yeshua”)

The ossuary has provoked controversy as the inscription was originally suspected of being a forgery. However, two eminent paleogrophers confirmed it authentic in 2012. New Testament scholar Ben Witherington states: “If, as seems probable, the ossuary found in the vicinity of Jerusalem and dated to about AD 63 is indeed the burial box of James, the brother of Jesus, this inscription is the most important extra-biblical evidence of its kind.”

And there are several other archaeological finds that seriously refutes the most stupid thing (arguably, since you're continually trying to outdo yourself) you have ever said about God, Jesus, the bible or any portion of the bible.

https://www.premierchristianity.com/...-New-Testament

Also, since you have summarily dismissed the entire NT as fiction, then perhaps you can explain to us when did all the towns and villages come into existence. Certainly, Jerusalem could not have existed in Jesus' day. Or the temple, for that matter. Or the Sea of Galilee or the River Jordan. Or these places must have popped into existence long after the works of fiction were completed -- which had to be at least hundreds of years after Jesus' alleged birth, right? And there couldn't have been any such things as the various religious rituals mentioned in those works of fiction either, such as the Passover, Feast of the Tabernacle, Pentecost etc.. When did all these mythical become a Jewish fact of life?

And then of course, Judea in Jesus' day was never a province of Rome. Rome, Pontius Pilate, the Pharisees, the Saducees, the Sanhedrin -- all fictional.

And, of course, 70 A.D. -- that never happened. The spread of Christianity throughout the whole world, never happened. The persecution of the Christian church, never happened. Of course, all these things that could not have possibly come to past, were predicted in the NT -- that great ancient comic book of fiction.

The really sad thing -- I'm very serious here -- is that you are totally oblivious to how absurd and ridiculous you sound when you make such idiotic statements as these. Even other skeptics here must be quietly rolling their eyes at the insane nonsense you post. You are of NO help to their skepticism at all. In fact, you're an embarrassment because you have lost all credibility due to the utterly stupid, unsubstantiated, unprovable things you postulate.

A wise man once said, When someone doesn't believe in God, he can believe in anything.. And you, sir, are living proof of this. You fill that God vacuum with anything that pops into your mind.

[Actor]

Originally Posted by boxcar

Also, since you have summarily dismissed the entire NT as fiction, then perhaps you can explain to us when did all the towns and villages come into existence. Certainly, Jerusalem could not have existed in Jesus' day. Or the temple, for that matter. Or the Sea of Galilee or the River Jordan. Or these places must have popped into existence long after the works of fiction were completed -- which had to be at least hundreds of years after Jesus' alleged birth, right? And there couldn't have been any such things as the various religious rituals mentioned in those works of fiction either, such as the Passover, Feast of the Tabernacle, Pentecost etc.. When did all these mythical become a Jewish fact of life?

I will make another claim, that Gone With the Wind is entirely fiction. Then you say "Perhaps you can explain when Atlanta came into existence. When was the Battle of Gettysburg fought? Or is that also fiction? Is General Sherman also fictional? Are the carpetbaggers and scalawags who plundered the south after the war merely myth? And of course slavery never happened in America. In fact the entire Civil War is a myth."

That's precisely the argument you are putting up to defend the NT as historical. By that argument Gone With the Wind is also a true story.

Margaret Mitchell included Atlanta, Gettysburg, Sherman, carpetbaggers, slaves and the Civil War in her story because it establishes a milieu for the story. The existence of the milieu does not make the story authentic. The writers of the NT included Jerusalem, Pilate, etc. for the same reason. The difference is that Mitchell never presented her novel as a true story, whereas the NT is a hoax.

[Actor]

Originally Posted by boxcar

The ‘James, son of Joseph, brother of Jesus’ ossuary

James the brother of Jesus was martyred in AD 62. A mid first century AD chalk ossuary discovered in 2002 bears this inscription: “James, son of Joseph, brother of Jesus” (“Ya’akov bar Yosef akhui di Yeshua”)

The ossuary has provoked controversy as the inscription was originally suspected of being a forgery. However, two eminent paleogrophers confirmed it authentic in 2012. New Testament scholar Ben Witherington states: “If, as seems probable, the ossuary found in the vicinity of Jerusalem and dated to about AD 63 is indeed the burial box of James, the brother of Jesus, this inscription is the most important extra-biblical evidence of its kind.”

What was Witherington's dating method? Were they dating the stone or the patina?