Materialists

Quote from ShoeshineBoy:

Think about the stories of the exodus. Do you really think someone wrote that to be allegorical?!?
More...

not a "someone" - someones, plural. the story was part of the tribe's oral history for centuries before being written down (and revised and rewritten and...). the reason it is so finely honed - with so many exquisite details - the basket on the river, the stones in the mouth, "i will harden pharaoh's heart", the vivid plagues - is that it was "market tested" tens of thousands of times on tens of thousands of evenings across tens of thousands of campfires before achieving the form we are now familiar with.

i ask the question again: if Jews don't have a problem with the allegorical nature of their own texts, why should you?
 
Quote from Turok:

That point is not meant to be critical, but rather to demonstrate that "truth", "half truth" and "non truth" are nearly indistinguishable in the realm of theology when interpreted by two different people -- and that perhaps is Damirs point.
More...

i wouldn't have thought to put it that way - but it's exactly true and the primary reason Judaism dispenses with dogma on such things. mandating a belief in something that cannot be demonstrated to be true is essentially a form of mind control and unacceptable to the traditional Jewish notion of our place and role in the universe.

we are here to think and decide, not quote and recite.
 
LOL! Its terrible worthless research.

JEM is now showing his utter desperation by falling
back on Tacitus,Pliny the Younger,Suetonius , and friends. :p


The reason the biblical scholars focus on Josephus so much
is because Tacitus and friends have already been rejected
and are embarrassing , unreliable sources, compared to
Josephus. Josephus is the BEST THEY HAVE, and Josephus
is nothing but 3 decade old hearsay from a NON-contemporary
historian! LOL! :p


Tacitus wrote 117 years after the fact, wrote nothing but hearsay,
and got many historical facts WRONG, and is also highly
suspect of forgery/modification.

Sigh.... Do I really have to address all this garbage?
Read for yourself here: http://freethought.mbdojo.com/josephus.html

I know... ill dismiss this with one fell swoop and make the
very SAME point again, which JEM cant seem to address.

NONE OF THESE GUYS ARE CONTEMPORARY HISTORIANS

This is nothing but hearsay mythology written down decades
or hundreds of years AFTER THE FACT.


Sorry.... but there STILL isnt a rational reason to believe
in a historical jesus.


Come on JEM, give us ONE contemporary historian!
Not bullshit worthless mythology hearsay.
Just ONE...one itty bitty little contemporary historian! ONE Jem!
OOOOONE! LOL! :p :p

Case closed.


peace

axeman


Wow! Nice research! I had no idea there were so many references...
More...
 
Quote from damir00:

not a "someone" - someones, plural. the story was part of the tribe's oral history for centuries before being written down (and revised and rewritten and...). the reason it is so finely honed - with so many exquisite details - the basket on the river, the stones in the mouth, "i will harden pharaoh's heart", the vivid plagues - is that it was "market tested" tens of thousands of times on tens of thousands of evenings across tens of thousands of campfires before achieving the form we are now familiar with.

i ask the question again: if Jews don't have a problem with the allegorical nature of their own texts, why should you?
More...

Several important reasons but I'll stick to just two for now:

1. First of all: intent and deception. Let's stick to the New Testament cuzz I don't really want to argue with a Jewish person about his own scripture. I believe that an examination of the writings and the historical events surrounding the New Testament show that the authors truly believed what they wrote was true.

2. Supernatural backing. I'll come across as poseltyzing if I say much about this, but I ask the question: how much of your world view is dictated by the fact (I am assuming) that you have had no events in your life that you consider supernatural? Imagine if you're in my shoes and the opposite has occurred? Why would I ignore this aspect of the picture?
 
Quote from ShoeshineBoy:

Let's stick to the New Testament ...
More...

you can't stick to the new testament because all the prophetic underpinnings of c'ianity are taken from Jewish texts. Jews have always know the texts are NOT innerrant - so on what basis can you claim inerrancy?

from the preface to a standard Jewish Tanakh translation...

The Unbroken Chain of Uncertainty...ironically, the result is a Bible whose text continually evolves - the changes being justified to preserve the accuracy of tradition."
 
Quote from ShoeshineBoy:

how much of your world view is dictated by the fact (I am assuming) that you have had no events in your life that you consider supernatural?
More...

none. to quote another cultural artificat..."i've seen things you people wouldn't believe."

but you're conflating again. i have no issue with what you choose to believe about the supernatural - honestly, i don't.
 
Shoe,

Even if we agree that "the authors truly believed what they wrote was true", you must agree that that does not
make it TRUE.

I can produce 1000 people who BELIEVE all kinds of weird
shit is true, that ISNT. And I can PROVE that it isnt.


This is why this historical jesus debate exists.
You are having numerous debates on the bible and jesus, etc,
without first even verifying if the person the bible speaks of
even existed. Seems like a huge waste of time to me.

For a rational person to believe in jesus, he must first collect
hard evidence for the existence of jesus.

Why should you believe in a historical figure?
1) Recorded in history by contemporary historian, preferably
multiple ones you can cross reference
2) They left writings behind
3) They left other artifacts behind

In case you didnt know, although we have these for historical
figures like hitler, and even much older ones like aristotle, we
have NONE of these for Jesus. So why even debate a book
of fiction like the bible, until you can prove ITS NOT FICTION???

The authors are even completely unknown! sheesh!


And for the record, you quoted me as ASSERTING jesus
did not exist.

This is not true, and if I made such an assertion, it was out
of frustration, trust me.

My position is that, just like unicorns and elves, there is no
RATIONAL reason to believe that a historical jesus existed.

Simple as that.


Im still waiting to see the evidence. Show us some
contemporary historians or artifacts please. Until then,
the "son of god" is a myth.


peace

axeman



Quote from ShoeshineBoy:

1. First of all: intent and deception. Let's stick to the New Testament cuzz I don't really want to argue with a Jewish person about his own scripture. I believe that an examination of the writings and the historical events surrounding the New Testament show that the authors truly believed what they wrote was true.
[/B]
More...
 
Shoe,

Even if we agree that "the authors truly believed what they wrote was true", you must agree that that does not
make it TRUE.

I can produce 1000 people who BELIEVE all kinds of weird
shit is true, that ISNT. And I can PROVE that it isnt.


This is why this historical jesus debate exists.
You are having numerous debates on the bible and jesus, etc,
without first even verifying if the person the bible speaks of
even existed. Seems like a huge waste of time to me.

For a rational person to believe in jesus, he must first collect
hard evidence for the existence of jesus.

Why should you believe in a historical figure?
1) Recorded in history by contemporary historian, preferably
multiple ones you can cross reference
2) They left writings behind
3) They left other artifacts behind

In case you didnt know, although we have these for historical
figures like hitler, and even much older ones like aristotle, we
have NONE of these for Jesus. So why even debate a book
of fiction like the bible, until you can prove ITS NOT FICTION???

The authors are even completely unknown! sheesh!


And for the record, you quoted me as ASSERTING jesus
did not exist.

This is not true, and if I made such an assertion, it was out
of frustration, trust me.

My position is that, just like unicorns and elves, there is no
RATIONAL reason to believe that a historical jesus existed.

Simple as that.


Im still waiting to see the evidence. Show us some
contemporary historians or artifacts please. Until then,
the "son of god" is a myth.


peace

axeman



Quote from ShoeshineBoy:

1. First of all: intent and deception. Let's stick to the New Testament cuzz I don't really want to argue with a Jewish person about his own scripture. I believe that an examination of the writings and the historical events surrounding the New Testament show that the authors truly believed what they wrote was true.
[/B]
More...
 
Quote from axeman:

LOL! Its terrible worthless research.
More...

Remember, Axe, there was no Reuters or AP wires. It's remarkable that a smalltown teacher from a backwater nation in the middle of the desert was documented by anyone. Again, you're only looking at it from one side of the argument...
 
Quote from axeman:

Shoe,

Even if we agree that "the authors truly believed what they wrote was true", you must agree that that does not
make it TRUE.

In case you didnt know, although we have these for historical
figures like hitler, and even much older ones like aristotle, we
have NONE of these for Jesus. So why even debate a book
of fiction like the bible, until you can prove ITS NOT FICTION???

My position is that, just like unicorns and elves, there is no
RATIONAL reason to believe that a historical jesus existed.

Simple as that.
More...

As I've said many times, in the absence of faith and the supernatural, you logic is correct. But the only thing I would add is that you do NOT know that it is a fable. You clearly come across not as an agnostic, but as a "you believe in Santa Claus" position.

I don't believe that if you experienced what I did that you would state things as you do, but you don't want to see things through someone else's eyes, so there's no point in going there...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top