tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-33241741.post3085610323825572267..comments2023-09-24T07:53:50.826-05:00Comments on The Atheist Experience™: We get YouTubes (Historicity of Jesus part 1)Unknownnoreply@blogger.comBlogger8125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-33241741.post-21722238734321962542010-02-16T06:34:41.418-06:002010-02-16T06:34:41.418-06:00"Historical Jesus"?!?
Just using this c..."Historical Jesus"?!?<br /><br />Just using this contra-historical oxymoron (demonstrated by the eminent late Oxford historian, James Parkes, The Conflict of the Church and the Synagogue) exposes your Christian-blinkered agenda--dependent upon 4th-century, gentile, Hellenist sources.<br /><br />While scholars debate the provenance of the original accounts upon which the earliest extant (4th century, even fragments are post-135 C.E.), Roman gentile, Hellenist-redacted versions were based, there is not one fragment, not even one letter of the NT that derives DIRECTLY from the 1st-century Pharisee Jews who followed the Pharisee Ribi Yehoshua.<br />Historians like Parkes, et al., have demonstrated incontestably that 4th-century Roman Christianity was the 180° polar antithesis of 1st-century Judaism of ALL Pharisee Ribis. The earliest (post-135 C.E.) true Christians were viciously antinomian (ANTI-Torah), claiming to supersede and displace Torah, Judaism and ("spiritual) Israel and Jews. In soberest terms, ORIGINAL Christianity was anti-Torah from the start while DSS (viz., 4Q MMT) and ALL other Judaic documentation PROVE that ALL 1st-century Pharisees were PRO-Torah.<br /><br />There is a mountain of historical Judaic information Christians have refused to deal with, at: www.netzarim.co.il (see, especially, their History Museum pages beginning with "30-99 C.E.").<br />Original Christianity = ANTI-Torah. Ribi Yehoshua and his Netzarim, like all other Pharisees, were PRO-Torah. Intractable contradiction.<br />Building a Roman image from Hellenist hearsay accounts, decades after the death of the 1st-century Pharisee Ribi, and after a forcible ouster, by Hellenist Roman gentiles, of his original Jewish followers (135 C.E., documented by Eusebius), based on writings of a Hellenist Jew excised as an apostate by the original Jewish followers (documented by Eusebius) is circular reasoning through gentile-Roman Hellenist lenses.<br /><br />What the historical Pharisee Ribi taught is found not in the hearsay accounts of post-135 C.E. Hellenist Romans but, rather, in the Judaic descriptions of Pharisees and Pharisee Ribis of the period... in Dead Sea Scroll 4Q MMT (see Prof. Elisha Qimron), inter alia.<br /><br />The question is, now that you've been informed, will you follow the authentic historical Pharisee Ribi? Or continue following the post-135 C.E. Roman-redacted antithesis—an idol?Anders Branderudhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12590420531095058999noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-33241741.post-18160645613050121202009-09-09T03:38:43.132-05:002009-09-09T03:38:43.132-05:00Hi Tracie,
Nice to meet you, I always enjoy your ...Hi Tracie,<br /><br />Nice to meet you, I always enjoy your talks on AE.<br /><br />> If I lack the means to demonstrate he didn't exist, and if his existence is irrelevant to the claim he was god, then the issue is a red herring.<br /><br />I had written up a few paragraphs attempting to justify my position, but the more I wrote, the more I realised that you are actually right.<br /><br />Thanks very much. Always appreciate being corrected!Mike Hallhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05259829527706207217noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-33241741.post-38182464810467875542009-09-08T14:11:20.765-05:002009-09-08T14:11:20.765-05:00Mersey:
>However, if we were able to reliably ...Mersey:<br /><br />>However, if we were able to reliably demonstrate that no such man existed - and the Jesus story was cut from whole cloth - that completely undermines all other claim made about him. If there were no Jesus, he can't have been the son of God. And the whole thing falls to pieces.<br /><br />Short of someone inventing a time machine, I'm not sure how you would intend to demonstrate someone didn't exist 2,000+ years ago...?<br /><br />If I lack the means to demonstrate he didn't exist, and if his existence is irrelevant to the claim he was god, then the issue is a red herring.<br /><br />Until/unless you find some method of achieving what nobody currently can achieve, it's utterly moot.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-33241741.post-44082394221344044762009-09-06T08:04:29.397-05:002009-09-06T08:04:29.397-05:00Yes, again, totally agree on that. Even if a good ...Yes, again, totally agree on that. Even if a good case were made for the supernatural claims in the Bible, that still doesn't prove Jesus was the son of God. But I worry you've missed my point.<br /><br />If historians are able to demonstrate that a historial Jesus really existed, it does nothing to support any claim made about him. In this sense, it is a red herring in terms of proving Christianity is true.<br /><br />However, if we were able to reliably demonstrate that no such man existed - and the Jesus story was cut from whole cloth - that completely undermines all other claim made about him. If there were no Jesus, he can't have been the son of God. And the whole thing falls to pieces.Mike Hallhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05259829527706207217noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-33241741.post-28574362453845744472009-09-04T23:26:47.663-05:002009-09-04T23:26:47.663-05:00I would also love to point out that in the comic &...I would also love to point out that in the comic "Wormwood Gentlemen Corpse" the titular character ( a demonic maggot that animates dead bodies he lives in) has "Jesus" as one of his old bodies in storage. Apparently he promised not to use it for a while especially not after "what happened last time"Inghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13024689390434414829noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-33241741.post-85817526776328193802009-09-04T15:22:29.034-05:002009-09-04T15:22:29.034-05:00If Jesus is Mr. Mxyzptlk, does that mean we can ge...If Jesus is Mr. Mxyzptlk, does that mean we can get rid of him by tricking him into saying "Tsirhc Susej"?<br /><br />Oh, and you forgot another option, which is that "Jesus"="Q". (I guess that's technically covered under "alien," but Q is better than a boring regular alien.)Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05324968314168283095noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-33241741.post-25786923731082760772009-09-04T12:31:35.967-05:002009-09-04T12:31:35.967-05:00I think it's still a red hering. Even if A su...I think it's still a red hering. Even if A supernatural jesus existed that still proves NONE of the claims about him. The fact that many of the claims rose decades to centuries after his death, contradicting the story itself would seem to refute that. Even if he were seemingly supernatural there is no evidence to rule out other explanations than the one he gave (Son of God). <br /><br />a) Warlock<br />b) Alien<br />C) Mr. Mxypltk<br />d) Lovecraftian cult figureInghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15677092968714424939noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-33241741.post-80509017873632019562009-09-04T06:30:27.186-05:002009-09-04T06:30:27.186-05:00I can understand what you're getting at when y...I can understand what you're getting at when you claim that asking whether there was a historical Jesus is missing the point. I largely agree, but I don't think it is a total red herring.<br /><br />I agree that a solid case made for the existence of a historical Jesus says nothing about whether any of the supernatural claims about him are true. A separate case must be made for them.<br /><br />Surely, however, if a solid case were made to show there was no historical Jesus, that will invalidate any supernatural claims made about him? Such claims cannot be true if the man never existed. There is then no case which can be made to support any supernatural claims, except perhaps "Jesus lived and died in a purely spiritual sense".Mike Hallhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05259829527706207217noreply@blogger.com