The historical Jesus--dead wrong, literally.

[Barre]

Agreed. Barre, you might be better off trying to float this on some xtian forum. Around here the first step would have to be to demonstrate why we should take anything from the bible seriously, before disappearing down the rabbit hole chasing after some esoteric spiritual meaning of the story. Not all of us automatically buy into the veracity of holy books, especially when the text is known to be filled with inaccuracies. distortions and pure fantasy. Hardly a reliable source of information.

I for one do not think that the Bible is "Holy." I treat the writings contained in the Bible as I would any other ancient writing. Also, as "Canon" is a religious notion, I do not accept the common "inside/outside the Bible" dichotomy as methodologically irrelevant. Also, the talk of wanting "proof" in research that involves empirical data can only generate theses that are judged by degrees of probability. This is because someone can introduce new, relevant data, or one might advance new arguments that either increase or decrease the probability assessment of a given thesis.

[houseofcantor]

The gospels are straight fiction. That "why hast thou forsaken me" business is a psalm, regurgitated. I mean, layers of ridiculousness, right? It' all supposed to be "true word of god," yet half of the the words are all ritualistic and devoid of meaning...

As for myself, I contend that "Paul" existed, either as an individual or as a movement - and looking at the earliest footprints of Paul, when there's only one set of prints in the desert sand, those are the days when Paul is not hallucinating.

Scope this: For ye, brethren, became followers of the churches of God which in Judaea are in Christ Jesus: for ye also have suffered like things of your own countrymen, even as they have of the Jews: Who both killed the Lord Jesus, and their own prophets, and have persecuted us; and they please not God, and are contrary to all men: - I Thessalonians 2:14-16

How does YHWH do it in Job? Now there was a day when the sons of God came to present themselves before the LORD, and Satan came also among them. Job 1:6

That's right. The oldest scripture gets five lines into it before creating a villain; Paul waits to the second chapter in this, a rough draft for Romans. And Romans is the whole ball of wax.

[Minimalist]

Also, the talk of wanting "proof" in research that involves empirical data can only generate theses that are judged by degrees of probability. This is because someone can introduce new, relevant data, or one might advance new arguments that either increase or decrease the probability assessment of a given thesis.

Precisely. The continued study of an issue and the introduction of new evidence is what science does. That is the main reason for keeping religion ( or its bastard siblings creationism and intelligent design out of science classrooms.) One can "teach" science...one can only "preach" religion which is what the nutjobs mean when they say they want religious hogwash "taught" in public schools.

Consider the reaction of the bibliotards when the gnostic gospels were found at Nag Hammadi. These finds were as welcome as a nun at a nudist colony. Had the Nag Hammadi finds come a few centuries earlier they would have been burned as heretical. Fortunately, we live in somewhat more enlightened times!

[Oldandeasilyconfused]

Agreed. Barre, you might be better off trying to float this on some xtian forum.

Lot's of luck. The inmates of those places will not be swayed by anything as prosaic as reason and/or credible evidence. They will ban your arse if you do anything which might cause their cerebral cortex to kick in.

[Barre]

Whereas you (Barre) seem only too willing to study something that you appear to regard as true - and that's the part you have to establish first before you go running off into the sunset.

What do you mean that I am only too willing to study something that I appear to regard as true. What do you think I am I taking to be true?

[Barre]

Whereas you (Barre) seem only too willing to study something that you appear to regard as true - and that's the part you have to establish first before you go running off into the sunset.

What do you mean that I am only too willing to study something that I appear to regard as true. What do you think I am I taking to be true?

Not at all. There is much talk about the Gospels being fiction. Actually, this is a point to be discussed. Competent interpretation involves the classification of a text's literary genre within its own historical contexts. One looks to find text that share the same literary traits which together form a type or genre.

[Barre]

Where's the historical part? The book of old myths that you're quoting?

That's the hysterical part.

Um Stimbo, it seems that you are smugly triumphal. Would you agree?

---

Using the gMark to prove jesus ....its the worst thing you could have done...that and using the bible to prove itself another fallacy often attempted and failed by jesus followers..

Demonstrating "proof" is impossible when inductive reasoning is involved due to that fact that we deal with open data and the possiblity of new evidence being created. This confines one to assessing the merit of a thesis in terms of a scale of relative posiiblity:

-- virtually certain
-- highly probable
-- probable/improbable
-- highly unlikely
-- virtually impossible

Certainty or "proof" is epistomologically and rationally methodogically not an option.

---

Using the gMark to prove jesus ....its the worst thing you could have done...that and using the bible to prove itself another fallacy often attempted and failed by jesus followers..

Inductive reasoning inherently cannot produce "proof."

---

The gospels are straight fiction.

They are? Not a mixture of fact and fiction? How did you arrive at this conclusion?

That "why hast thou forsaken me" business is a psalm, regurgitated. I mean, layers of ridiculousness, right? It' all supposed to be "true word of god," yet half of the the words are all ritualistic and devoid of meaning...

As for myself, I contend that "Paul" existed, either as an individual or as a movement - and looking at the earliest footprints of Paul, when there's only one set of prints in the desert sand, those are the days when Paul is not hallucinating.

Scope this: For ye, brethren, became followers of the churches of God which in Judaea are in Christ Jesus: for ye also have suffered like things of your own countrymen, even as they have of the Jews: Who both killed the Lord Jesus, and their own prophets, and have persecuted us; and they please not God, and are contrary to all men: - I Thessalonians 2:14-16

How does YHWH do it in Job? Now there was a day when the sons of God came to present themselves before the LORD, and Satan came also among them. Job 1:6

That's right. The oldest scripture gets five lines into it before creating a villain; Paul waits to the second chapter in this, a rough draft for Romans. And Romans is the whole ball of wax.

[Cyberman]

Where's the historical part? The book of old myths that you're quoting?

That's the hysterical part.

Um Stimbo, it seems that you are smugly triumphal. Would you agree?

Would you be surprised if I said I don't? For the record I was simultaneously passing commentary, making a pun and taking the piss. It's called humour; look it up, it's quite popular. I am neither smug nor triumphal. I have no need to be either; I am simply sitting here laughing at theists and related apologists tying themselves in knots with all the mental gymnastics required to make a collection of myths and fairy tales appear legitimate and relevant to the real world. If that makes me seem smug, and you object to it, perhaps you shouldn't be so funny to me (or to paraphrase the immortal Thunderf00t: Why do people laugh at biblical literalists? Only biblical literalists don't know why).

It seems to me that you are an arrogant arsehole. Would you agree?

[Barre]

Agreed. Barre, you might be better off trying to float this on some xtian forum. Around here the first step would have to be to demonstrate why we should take anything from the bible seriously, before disappearing down the rabbit hole chasing after some esoteric spiritual meaning of the story. Not all of us automatically buy into the veracity of holy books, especially when the text is known to be filled with inaccuracies. distortions and pure fantasy. Hardly a reliable source of information.

You should take the Bible seriously because of its tremendous inlfuence it has. Yes, like any other text, the biblcal writings contain expected "inaccuracies, distortions and pure fantasy." But it is also true, also to be expected, that the biblical writings also contain and convey accurate information. It is a common sense perception, born out by empirically based research.--The biblical writings are a mixture of truth and fiction, fact and imagination.

[Minimalist]

that the biblical writings also contain and convey accurate information.

That's a leap of logic that I have trouble with. Aesop's fables contain lessons for living but I don't think they convey accurate information.