Re: Jesus Christ -- Clashing Biblical Images


"Weland" <giles@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:4923ba79$0$17068$6e1ede2f@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
J Antero wrote:
"Weland" <giles@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:49210279$0$17067$6e1ede2f@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx


And that's where I come in, I don't like people who skew history for
any
reason...whether claiming that Cnut ruled an empire from Greenland to
Kiev or that no one in Brittany in the 11th century spoke or knew
French,
or Martin's misrepresentations of Late Antique Roman history.



OK, so tell us what they said that you object to, and, I assume that you
don't think jesus was anything more than an ordinary man, right?

There's an entire thread on the subject......catch up. You'll even your
question answered more than once by me in the process.


You're very unclear about what you actually think, or mean. An example
from
upthread:

" Because its a myth....again, it only becomes "nonsense" and "rubbish"
if
we demand that myth be scientific or historical fact. That's a very
mundane limitation on both myth and truth, and in any case is beside the
point I was making. "

What's unclear about that? To simplify: myths aren't science. myths
aren't history. To demand of them adherence to a set of criteria for
science and history is nonsensical. They themselves as myths are not
nonsense.

Dear me! Nykosian Logic again....

If myths are history, i.e., are true, they are not myths, they are facts.
If history is not scientifically proveable, it may be a myth - like the NT
for instance.
Myths are not necessarily nonsense, they may be allegories based on
historical events, or legends....(cont P98)

So, again, do you think jesus was anything more than an ordinary man, or
not?

Can't you people read? Seriously.

My first foray into this thread was on Oct 14. In reply to Martin's
statement: "I am sure> he did exist even so, but not as a deity" I
replied with a "sure". No other statement followed, in short I AGREED
WITH HIM.

But how can you be 'sure'? According to the Bible he was a 'half-deity',
like Hercules and many other heroes of the mythological past. The glaringly
obvious thing (even if you believe the gospels to be 'gospel truth') is that
he was all too human at his execution, led astray by his own beliefs in his
power.

In another message on the same date, Martin wrote: "> Even the teachings
and preachings of Jesus are inconsistent and unreliable" and I responded:
"So? If he was a human being, why should this surprise anyone?" Another
point of agreement...more or less...if we treat Jesus as a human, then
pointing out that the results of his teachings and life are well, human,
seems kinda silly doesn't it?

Son of Man, Son of God... or both? We are moving uncomfortably close to pure
theology here...
The point you missed there Larry, was that that bit you have quoted above
was referring to anomalies that exist between the 4C gospels, rather than
inconsistencies (which there are) between J's advice in any one of them. He
probably did 'change his tune' - who doesn't when they acquire power
unexpectedly?

Of course he was human - he believed in God the Father (rather like Odin the
Allfather), hence the start of his prayer... "*Our* Father, Who Art in
Heaven..."
I'm surprised nobody has noticed that?

On 10/16 in reply to TIglath, I stated: "Also just for the record, I
approach this as Jesus being a man."

That's all I have time to look up. That's less than the first 4 messages
from me in the thread. Now, could you take a moment and please explain to
me what precisely is unclear on the question of Jesus' humanity? How many
more times do I need to repeat it before you jokers get it? How much more
do I need to dumb it down?

You'd like that, wouldn't you! Well, tough, you aren't going to 'dumb down'
anything, the church(es) have been doing it for centuries, but can no longer
keep the cat in the bag. These issues need to be aired, brought to light and
discused like never before, and your glib dismissal of them as 'unimportant'
or 'inconsequential' are completely at odds with your desperate, rearguard
defence of traditional dogma.

And, tell us what Martin and Jose said that you object to.

Too late at night. There's a whole thread, if you can't be bothered to
read it, don't participate at this late date.

Truly pathetic....





.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Evidence for a Great Flood?
    ... > Just the opposite; myths convey fundamental truths. ... Even pure fiction has become mythology in modern times. ... Stories may become myths when we tell stories to our children and ... is a story based on history, just as most movies about history are ...
    (sci.archaeology)
  • Re: Columbiaa Cromwell v. The Devils Whore!
    ... 'official' version of history. ... You claimed that Richard Harris's opinion of Oliver Cromwell ... which these "myths" of yours can be judged. ... Roman Catholics for their beliefs. ...
    (uk.media.tv.misc)
  • Re: Archbishop more or less admits theres no God
    ... There are no actual FACTS that Jesus rose from the dead. ... What part of "The Bible is a book of myths and parables. ... GUIDEBOOK for life but it is NOT a history book" didn't you ...
    (rec.arts.drwho)
  • Re: How Our Brains Ignore Unpleasant Facts was: Re: The Reasonable
    ... Jesus did not exist - well there are some stories about some guy ... for myths and possible course of history but useless if you want to ... Seriously dude the bible is a set of inaccurate myths that only start ... scholarship of the scriptures by brilliant theologians from the best ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: Jesus Christ -- Clashing Biblical Images
    ... But myths do tell us a great deal ... Were they ever meant to be taken as "history" in our sense of the word, or as "science" in the modern sense? ... And anyone can see that such an action is nonsense. ... Many of the viewpoints that the general populace has of science and scientists are simply the same as our human ancestors and myths. ...
    (soc.history.medieval)