Total Posts:47|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

Jesus was a doomsday cult leader...

ApostateAbe
Posts: 236
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/24/2011 9:30:54 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
...and the historical Jesus was NOT a commendable moral teacher, mere myth, nor Messiah. Or so I propose.

http://www.debate.org...

The first round of arguments have been completed arguing for and against the proposition that "The historical Jesus Christ was a doomsday cult leader," and it is looking like an interesting debate. The contended alternative is that Jesus was a commendable moral teacher and maybe the world's first Marxist.

I am itching to hold a similar debate with those of other perspectives, such as Jesus as mere myth or Jesus the Messiah Son of God.

Who was Jesus, in your opinion? And, how do you know?
brian_eggleston
Posts: 3,347
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/24/2011 12:45:07 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 6/24/2011 9:30:54 AM, ApostateAbe wrote:
...and the historical Jesus was NOT a commendable moral teacher, mere myth, nor Messiah. Or so I propose.

http://www.debate.org...

The first round of arguments have been completed arguing for and against the proposition that "The historical Jesus Christ was a doomsday cult leader," and it is looking like an interesting debate. The contended alternative is that Jesus was a commendable moral teacher and maybe the world's first Marxist.

I am itching to hold a similar debate with those of other perspectives, such as Jesus as mere myth or Jesus the Messiah Son of God.

Who was Jesus, in your opinion? And, how do you know?

The similarities between Jesus and a modern day cult leader are too numerous to mention.

indeed, if Jesus were actually the son of God and he returned to Earth once again he would almost certainly be regarded as a dangerous religious crackpot.
Visit the burglars' bulletin board: http://www.break-in-news.com...
ApostateAbe
Posts: 236
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/28/2011 2:40:16 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
The debate is over, and the contender forfeited twice, unfortunately. That doesn't mean you can't vote, and nobody has voted yet. Here it is:

http://www.debate.org...
DATCMOTO
Posts: 6,160
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/29/2011 5:50:59 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 6/24/2011 9:30:54 AM, ApostateAbe wrote:
...and the historical Jesus was NOT a commendable moral teacher, mere myth, nor Messiah. Or so I propose.

http://www.debate.org...

The first round of arguments have been completed arguing for and against the proposition that "The historical Jesus Christ was a doomsday cult leader," and it is looking like an interesting debate. The contended alternative is that Jesus was a commendable moral teacher and maybe the world's first Marxist.

I am itching to hold a similar debate with those of other perspectives, such as Jesus as mere myth or Jesus the Messiah Son of God.

Who was Jesus, in your opinion? And, how do you know?

What is your source material?

mine is the Gospels; 1st hand accounts by those who new Him best.. His friends..

Also they contain many many quotations from the man Himself..

A 'good moral teacher' would not say that He was " the only begotten Son of God " and that He was " the ONLY way to eternal life " IF He were lying about those things, or even if He were deluded..

His predictions about the end of time etc were COMMON KNOWLEDGE to the Jewish people and have nothing to do whatsoever with any cults or secret knowledge:

John 11:23-25
New International Version 1984 (NIV1984)

23 Jesus said to her, "Your brother will rise again."

24 Martha answered, "I know he will rise again in the resurrection at the last day."

25 Jesus said to her, "I am the resurrection and the life. He who believes in me will live, even though he dies;
The Cross.. the Cross.
ApostateAbe
Posts: 236
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/29/2011 10:46:44 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 6/29/2011 5:50:59 AM, DATCMOTO wrote:
At 6/24/2011 9:30:54 AM, ApostateAbe wrote:
...and the historical Jesus was NOT a commendable moral teacher, mere myth, nor Messiah. Or so I propose.

http://www.debate.org...

The first round of arguments have been completed arguing for and against the proposition that "The historical Jesus Christ was a doomsday cult leader," and it is looking like an interesting debate. The contended alternative is that Jesus was a commendable moral teacher and maybe the world's first Marxist.

I am itching to hold a similar debate with those of other perspectives, such as Jesus as mere myth or Jesus the Messiah Son of God.

Who was Jesus, in your opinion? And, how do you know?

What is your source material?

mine is the Gospels; 1st hand accounts by those who new Him best.. His friends..

Also they contain many many quotations from the man Himself..

A 'good moral teacher' would not say that He was " the only begotten Son of God " and that He was " the ONLY way to eternal life " IF He were lying about those things, or even if He were deluded..

His predictions about the end of time etc were COMMON KNOWLEDGE to the Jewish people and have nothing to do whatsoever with any cults or secret knowledge:

John 11:23-25
New International Version 1984 (NIV1984)

23 Jesus said to her, "Your brother will rise again."

24 Martha answered, "I know he will rise again in the resurrection at the last day."

25 Jesus said to her, "I am the resurrection and the life. He who believes in me will live, even though he dies;


I also use the gospels, but my theory rests on the apparent reality that the gospels are NOT firsthand accounts. Jesus was a lowerclass Aramaic-speaking Jew, and everyone in his circle was a lowerclass Aramaic-speaking Jew. The gospels were written by and for Greek speakers by fluently-Greek-speaking converts. None of the gospels claim to be eyewitness accounts, and one of them claims the contrary--the gospel of Luke (1:1-4). The gospels of Matthew and Luke sourced their material from two prior written texts--Mark and Q. The gospel of John likewise sourced its material from prior written texts, given its stark literary seams. The belief that the gospel were written by the authors of their current namesakes is late Christian myth of the second-century. None of the gospels themselves identified their own authorship, but it was an unlikely claim made by a Christian of the second century (Papias). The gospels are the products of myths.

Anyway, I would appreciate it if you would go to that debate and cast your vote. You disagree with both of us, so you are little more fair regarding who won and who lost.
ApostateAbe
Posts: 236
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/29/2011 11:31:57 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
Debate has been completed, with two rounds forfeited by the contender. If you think you can do better (and you almost certainly can), then join the new debate:

"The historical Jesus predicted a first-century doomsday"

http://www.debate.org...
ApostateAbe
Posts: 236
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/30/2011 10:47:57 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 6/30/2011 10:04:57 PM, jharry wrote:
Apostate, when do you think the gospels were written?

My best guesses are that the gospel of Q was written about 60 CE, gospel of Mark about 72 CE, gospel of Matthew about 75 CE, gospel of Luke about 80 CE, gospel of Signs about 80 CE, gospel of Discourses about 85 CE, gospel of John about 95 CE, and gospel of Thomas about 150 CE. Since we don't have the original copies of any of them, and evidence is relatively scarce (some of the above gospels don't exist anymore except as adaptations by later gospels), we can only guess the dates based on the internal evidence and the few facts of ancient history of the time and place. I am not a qualified historian, either, and one way or the other, the mode of the opinions of critical scholars is more probable than my own estimates.
jharry
Posts: 4,984
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/30/2011 11:12:26 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 6/30/2011 10:47:57 PM, ApostateAbe wrote:
At 6/30/2011 10:04:57 PM, jharry wrote:
Apostate, when do you think the gospels were written?

My best guesses are that the gospel of Q was written about 60 CE, gospel of Mark about 72 CE, gospel of Matthew about 75 CE, gospel of Luke about 80 CE, gospel of Signs about 80 CE, gospel of Discourses about 85 CE, gospel of John about 95 CE, and gospel of Thomas about 150 CE. Since we don't have the original copies of any of them, and evidence is relatively scarce (some of the above gospels don't exist anymore except as adaptations by later gospels), we can only guess the dates based on the internal evidence and the few facts of ancient history of the time and place. I am not a qualified historian, either, and one way or the other, the mode of the opinions of critical scholars is more probable than my own estimates.

Yeah, it is spread out by any source you go to.

Q, that is supposed to be the first gospel where the others came from?
In nomine Patris, et Filii, et Spiritus Sancti. Amen
ApostateAbe
Posts: 236
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/30/2011 11:22:45 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 6/30/2011 11:12:26 PM, jharry wrote:
At 6/30/2011 10:47:57 PM, ApostateAbe wrote:
At 6/30/2011 10:04:57 PM, jharry wrote:
Apostate, when do you think the gospels were written?

My best guesses are that the gospel of Q was written about 60 CE, gospel of Mark about 72 CE, gospel of Matthew about 75 CE, gospel of Luke about 80 CE, gospel of Signs about 80 CE, gospel of Discourses about 85 CE, gospel of John about 95 CE, and gospel of Thomas about 150 CE. Since we don't have the original copies of any of them, and evidence is relatively scarce (some of the above gospels don't exist anymore except as adaptations by later gospels), we can only guess the dates based on the internal evidence and the few facts of ancient history of the time and place. I am not a qualified historian, either, and one way or the other, the mode of the opinions of critical scholars is more probable than my own estimates.

Yeah, it is spread out by any source you go to.

Q, that is supposed to be the first gospel where the others came from?

Q is probably the earliest, but Mark is independent from Q. Matthew and Luke sourced from both Q and Mark, each adding their own additional material on top of that--the gospels of M and L. It is uncertain whether M and L were written or spoken. One way or the other, the gospels are sourced from a diverse set of initially word-of-mouth traditions--at least seven--in the eastern Mediterranean Sea area of the first century.
jharry
Posts: 4,984
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/30/2011 11:24:48 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 6/30/2011 11:22:45 PM, ApostateAbe wrote:
At 6/30/2011 11:12:26 PM, jharry wrote:
At 6/30/2011 10:47:57 PM, ApostateAbe wrote:
At 6/30/2011 10:04:57 PM, jharry wrote:
Apostate, when do you think the gospels were written?

My best guesses are that the gospel of Q was written about 60 CE, gospel of Mark about 72 CE, gospel of Matthew about 75 CE, gospel of Luke about 80 CE, gospel of Signs about 80 CE, gospel of Discourses about 85 CE, gospel of John about 95 CE, and gospel of Thomas about 150 CE. Since we don't have the original copies of any of them, and evidence is relatively scarce (some of the above gospels don't exist anymore except as adaptations by later gospels), we can only guess the dates based on the internal evidence and the few facts of ancient history of the time and place. I am not a qualified historian, either, and one way or the other, the mode of the opinions of critical scholars is more probable than my own estimates.

Yeah, it is spread out by any source you go to.

Q, that is supposed to be the first gospel where the others came from?

Q is probably the earliest, but Mark is independent from Q. Matthew and Luke sourced from both Q and Mark, each adding their own additional material on top of that--the gospels of M and L. It is uncertain whether M and L were written or spoken. One way or the other, the gospels are sourced from a diverse set of initially word-of-mouth traditions--at least seven--in the eastern Mediterranean Sea area of the first century.

These are the first written gospels. But they all came out of Tradition leading to what Jesus said and did.
In nomine Patris, et Filii, et Spiritus Sancti. Amen
ApostateAbe
Posts: 236
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/30/2011 11:28:59 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 6/30/2011 11:24:48 PM, jharry wrote:
At 6/30/2011 11:22:45 PM, ApostateAbe wrote:
At 6/30/2011 11:12:26 PM, jharry wrote:
At 6/30/2011 10:47:57 PM, ApostateAbe wrote:
At 6/30/2011 10:04:57 PM, jharry wrote:
Apostate, when do you think the gospels were written?

My best guesses are that the gospel of Q was written about 60 CE, gospel of Mark about 72 CE, gospel of Matthew about 75 CE, gospel of Luke about 80 CE, gospel of Signs about 80 CE, gospel of Discourses about 85 CE, gospel of John about 95 CE, and gospel of Thomas about 150 CE. Since we don't have the original copies of any of them, and evidence is relatively scarce (some of the above gospels don't exist anymore except as adaptations by later gospels), we can only guess the dates based on the internal evidence and the few facts of ancient history of the time and place. I am not a qualified historian, either, and one way or the other, the mode of the opinions of critical scholars is more probable than my own estimates.

Yeah, it is spread out by any source you go to.

Q, that is supposed to be the first gospel where the others came from?

Q is probably the earliest, but Mark is independent from Q. Matthew and Luke sourced from both Q and Mark, each adding their own additional material on top of that--the gospels of M and L. It is uncertain whether M and L were written or spoken. One way or the other, the gospels are sourced from a diverse set of initially word-of-mouth traditions--at least seven--in the eastern Mediterranean Sea area of the first century.

These are the first written gospels. But they all came out of Tradition leading to what Jesus said and did.

Yes, that's right.
jharry
Posts: 4,984
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/30/2011 11:34:16 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 6/30/2011 11:28:59 PM, ApostateAbe wrote:
At 6/30/2011 11:24:48 PM, jharry wrote:
At 6/30/2011 11:22:45 PM, ApostateAbe wrote:
At 6/30/2011 11:12:26 PM, jharry wrote:
At 6/30/2011 10:47:57 PM, ApostateAbe wrote:
At 6/30/2011 10:04:57 PM, jharry wrote:
Apostate, when do you think the gospels were written?

My best guesses are that the gospel of Q was written about 60 CE, gospel of Mark about 72 CE, gospel of Matthew about 75 CE, gospel of Luke about 80 CE, gospel of Signs about 80 CE, gospel of Discourses about 85 CE, gospel of John about 95 CE, and gospel of Thomas about 150 CE. Since we don't have the original copies of any of them, and evidence is relatively scarce (some of the above gospels don't exist anymore except as adaptations by later gospels), we can only guess the dates based on the internal evidence and the few facts of ancient history of the time and place. I am not a qualified historian, either, and one way or the other, the mode of the opinions of critical scholars is more probable than my own estimates.

Yeah, it is spread out by any source you go to.

Q, that is supposed to be the first gospel where the others came from?

Q is probably the earliest, but Mark is independent from Q. Matthew and Luke sourced from both Q and Mark, each adding their own additional material on top of that--the gospels of M and L. It is uncertain whether M and L were written or spoken. One way or the other, the gospels are sourced from a diverse set of initially word-of-mouth traditions--at least seven--in the eastern Mediterranean Sea area of the first century.

These are the first written gospels. But they all came out of Tradition leading to what Jesus said and did.

Yes, that's right.

Cool, so if Jesus said or did anything He did it before (roughly) 33 AD. And it wasn't written down for a time after.

Most people couldn't read or write back then. And paper wasn't cheap. Did you know that most Jews (back then) could recite the OT by heart?
In nomine Patris, et Filii, et Spiritus Sancti. Amen
ApostateAbe
Posts: 236
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/1/2011 12:33:00 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 6/30/2011 11:34:16 PM, jharry wrote:
At 6/30/2011 11:28:59 PM, ApostateAbe wrote:
At 6/30/2011 11:24:48 PM, jharry wrote:
At 6/30/2011 11:22:45 PM, ApostateAbe wrote:
At 6/30/2011 11:12:26 PM, jharry wrote:
At 6/30/2011 10:47:57 PM, ApostateAbe wrote:
At 6/30/2011 10:04:57 PM, jharry wrote:
Apostate, when do you think the gospels were written?

My best guesses are that the gospel of Q was written about 60 CE, gospel of Mark about 72 CE, gospel of Matthew about 75 CE, gospel of Luke about 80 CE, gospel of Signs about 80 CE, gospel of Discourses about 85 CE, gospel of John about 95 CE, and gospel of Thomas about 150 CE. Since we don't have the original copies of any of them, and evidence is relatively scarce (some of the above gospels don't exist anymore except as adaptations by later gospels), we can only guess the dates based on the internal evidence and the few facts of ancient history of the time and place. I am not a qualified historian, either, and one way or the other, the mode of the opinions of critical scholars is more probable than my own estimates.

Yeah, it is spread out by any source you go to.

Q, that is supposed to be the first gospel where the others came from?

Q is probably the earliest, but Mark is independent from Q. Matthew and Luke sourced from both Q and Mark, each adding their own additional material on top of that--the gospels of M and L. It is uncertain whether M and L were written or spoken. One way or the other, the gospels are sourced from a diverse set of initially word-of-mouth traditions--at least seven--in the eastern Mediterranean Sea area of the first century.

These are the first written gospels. But they all came out of Tradition leading to what Jesus said and did.

Yes, that's right.

Cool, so if Jesus said or did anything He did it before (roughly) 33 AD. And it wasn't written down for a time after.

Most people couldn't read or write back then. And paper wasn't cheap.

Absolutely.

Did you know that most Jews (back then) could recite the OT by heart?

No, it is the first time I heard that claim, and it does seem very much implausible.
Puck
Posts: 6,457
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/1/2011 12:56:12 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 7/1/2011 12:48:04 AM, popculturepooka wrote:
What reason do we have for even accepting the existence of Q?

It makes things tidier. :P

I've heard Deuteronomy being floated as a the 'source' as well. Not sure how valid that is though.
ApostateAbe
Posts: 236
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/1/2011 8:16:02 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 7/1/2011 12:48:04 AM, popculturepooka wrote:
What reason do we have for even accepting the existence of Q?

It is very much the most parsimonious explanation for the commonalities between Matthew and Luke that are not found in Mark. We know that in very many passages both Matthew and Luke sourced from Mark, not from each other--the patterns of agreement tell us that sometimes Matthew and Mark match exactly on a certain passage but not Luke, and sometimes Luke and Mark match exactly on another certain passage but not Matthew, but never Matthew and Luke match exactly on a certain passage and the same passage in Mark has a variation not shared by either Matthew or Luke. These things would be expected if Matthew and Luke sourced Mark and Matthew and Luke did not source each other. There are many other common passages between Matthew and Luke that are not found in Mark, and, since we know that Matthew and Luke did not source each other, we expect another source, and we call it Q.
ApostateAbe
Posts: 236
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/1/2011 9:05:46 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 7/1/2011 12:56:12 AM, Puck wrote:
At 7/1/2011 12:48:04 AM, popculturepooka wrote:
What reason do we have for even accepting the existence of Q?

It makes things tidier. :P

I've heard Deuteronomy being floated as a the 'source' as well. Not sure how valid that is though.

Answer: Not at all, and doesn't even begin to make sense.
jharry
Posts: 4,984
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/1/2011 9:20:19 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 7/1/2011 12:33:00 AM, ApostateAbe
Cool, so if Jesus said or did anything He did it before (roughly) 33 AD. And it wasn't written down for a time after.

Most people couldn't read or write back then. And paper wasn't cheap.

Absolutely.

Did you know that most Jews (back then) could recite the OT by heart?

No, it is the first time I heard that claim, and it does seem very much implausible.

Why do you say that.
In nomine Patris, et Filii, et Spiritus Sancti. Amen
ApostateAbe
Posts: 236
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/1/2011 2:34:47 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 7/1/2011 9:20:19 AM, jharry wrote:
At 7/1/2011 12:33:00 AM, ApostateAbe
Cool, so if Jesus said or did anything He did it before (roughly) 33 AD. And it wasn't written down for a time after.

Most people couldn't read or write back then. And paper wasn't cheap.

Absolutely.

Did you know that most Jews (back then) could recite the OT by heart?

No, it is the first time I heard that claim, and it does seem very much implausible.

Why do you say that.

Well, just because ancient Jews did not have hard drives for brains. There are a heckuva lot of people in the world today who would be interested in memorizing the Bible, but only a handful have actually done it, and it takes a helluva lot of time and effort. I don't know of any reason that most ancient Jews would be interested in memorizing all of their scriptures.
DATCMOTO
Posts: 6,160
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/4/2011 5:20:39 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 6/29/2011 10:46:44 AM, ApostateAbe wrote:
At 6/29/2011 5:50:59 AM, DATCMOTO wrote:
At 6/24/2011 9:30:54 AM, ApostateAbe wrote:
...and the historical Jesus was NOT a commendable moral teacher, mere myth, nor Messiah. Or so I propose.

http://www.debate.org...

The first round of arguments have been completed arguing for and against the proposition that "The historical Jesus Christ was a doomsday cult leader," and it is looking like an interesting debate. The contended alternative is that Jesus was a commendable moral teacher and maybe the world's first Marxist.

I am itching to hold a similar debate with those of other perspectives, such as Jesus as mere myth or Jesus the Messiah Son of God.

Who was Jesus, in your opinion? And, how do you know?

What is your source material?

mine is the Gospels; 1st hand accounts by those who new Him best.. His friends..

Also they contain many many quotations from the man Himself..

A 'good moral teacher' would not say that He was " the only begotten Son of God " and that He was " the ONLY way to eternal life " IF He were lying about those things, or even if He were deluded..

His predictions about the end of time etc were COMMON KNOWLEDGE to the Jewish people and have nothing to do whatsoever with any cults or secret knowledge:

John 11:23-25
New International Version 1984 (NIV1984)

23 Jesus said to her, "Your brother will rise again."

24 Martha answered, "I know he will rise again in the resurrection at the last day."

25 Jesus said to her, "I am the resurrection and the life. He who believes in me will live, even though he dies;


I also use the gospels, but my theory rests on the apparent reality that the gospels are NOT firsthand accounts. Jesus was a lowerclass Aramaic-speaking Jew, and everyone in his circle was a lowerclass Aramaic-speaking Jew. The gospels were written by and for Greek speakers by fluently-Greek-speaking converts. None of the gospels claim to be eyewitness accounts, and one of them claims the contrary--the gospel of Luke (1:1-4). The gospels of Matthew and Luke sourced their material from two prior written texts--Mark and Q. The gospel of John likewise sourced its material from prior written texts, given its stark literary seams. The belief that the gospel were written by the authors of their current namesakes is late Christian myth of the second-century. None of the gospels themselves identified their own authorship, but it was an unlikely claim made by a Christian of the second century (Papias). The gospels are the products of myths.

Anyway, I would appreciate it if you would go to that debate and cast your vote. You disagree with both of us, so you are little more fair regarding who won and who lost.

" None of the gospels claim to be eyewitness accounts "

John 21:24
This is the disciple who testifies to these things and who wrote them down. We know that his testimony is true.


OH, as they say, DEAR..
The Cross.. the Cross.
ApostateAbe
Posts: 236
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/4/2011 9:15:20 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 7/4/2011 5:20:39 AM, DATCMOTO wrote:
At 6/29/2011 10:46:44 AM, ApostateAbe wrote:
At 6/29/2011 5:50:59 AM, DATCMOTO wrote:
At 6/24/2011 9:30:54 AM, ApostateAbe wrote:
...and the historical Jesus was NOT a commendable moral teacher, mere myth, nor Messiah. Or so I propose.

http://www.debate.org...

The first round of arguments have been completed arguing for and against the proposition that "The historical Jesus Christ was a doomsday cult leader," and it is looking like an interesting debate. The contended alternative is that Jesus was a commendable moral teacher and maybe the world's first Marxist.

I am itching to hold a similar debate with those of other perspectives, such as Jesus as mere myth or Jesus the Messiah Son of God.

Who was Jesus, in your opinion? And, how do you know?

What is your source material?

mine is the Gospels; 1st hand accounts by those who new Him best.. His friends..

Also they contain many many quotations from the man Himself..

A 'good moral teacher' would not say that He was " the only begotten Son of God " and that He was " the ONLY way to eternal life " IF He were lying about those things, or even if He were deluded..

His predictions about the end of time etc were COMMON KNOWLEDGE to the Jewish people and have nothing to do whatsoever with any cults or secret knowledge:

John 11:23-25
New International Version 1984 (NIV1984)

23 Jesus said to her, "Your brother will rise again."

24 Martha answered, "I know he will rise again in the resurrection at the last day."

25 Jesus said to her, "I am the resurrection and the life. He who believes in me will live, even though he dies;


I also use the gospels, but my theory rests on the apparent reality that the gospels are NOT firsthand accounts. Jesus was a lowerclass Aramaic-speaking Jew, and everyone in his circle was a lowerclass Aramaic-speaking Jew. The gospels were written by and for Greek speakers by fluently-Greek-speaking converts. None of the gospels claim to be eyewitness accounts, and one of them claims the contrary--the gospel of Luke (1:1-4). The gospels of Matthew and Luke sourced their material from two prior written texts--Mark and Q. The gospel of John likewise sourced its material from prior written texts, given its stark literary seams. The belief that the gospel were written by the authors of their current namesakes is late Christian myth of the second-century. None of the gospels themselves identified their own authorship, but it was an unlikely claim made by a Christian of the second century (Papias). The gospels are the products of myths.

Anyway, I would appreciate it if you would go to that debate and cast your vote. You disagree with both of us, so you are little more fair regarding who won and who lost.

" None of the gospels claim to be eyewitness accounts "

John 21:24
This is the disciple who testifies to these things and who wrote them down. We know that his testimony is true.


OH, as they say, DEAR..

Yes, the author of the gospel of John claims to be sourcing from the written account of the disciple John, and I know that Christian tradition interprets that claim to be referring to the gospel author's own self, but I don't think that is a plausible interpretation. Writers generally didn't refer to themselves in the third person word form instead of the first person word form, not even ancient Greek writers, and we know that the gospel of John most certainly did source from prior written materials given its stark literary seams within the text.
DATCMOTO
Posts: 6,160
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/13/2011 5:08:27 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 7/4/2011 9:15:20 AM, ApostateAbe wrote:
At 7/4/2011 5:20:39 AM, DATCMOTO wrote:
At 6/29/2011 10:46:44 AM, ApostateAbe wrote:
At 6/29/2011 5:50:59 AM, DATCMOTO wrote:
At 6/24/2011 9:30:54 AM, ApostateAbe wrote:
...and the historical Jesus was NOT a commendable moral teacher, mere myth, nor Messiah. Or so I propose.

http://www.debate.org...

The first round of arguments have been completed arguing for and against the proposition that "The historical Jesus Christ was a doomsday cult leader," and it is looking like an interesting debate. The contended alternative is that Jesus was a commendable moral teacher and maybe the world's first Marxist.

I am itching to hold a similar debate with those of other perspectives, such as Jesus as mere myth or Jesus the Messiah Son of God.

Who was Jesus, in your opinion? And, how do you know?

What is your source material?

mine is the Gospels; 1st hand accounts by those who new Him best.. His friends..

Also they contain many many quotations from the man Himself..

A 'good moral teacher' would not say that He was " the only begotten Son of God " and that He was " the ONLY way to eternal life " IF He were lying about those things, or even if He were deluded..

His predictions about the end of time etc were COMMON KNOWLEDGE to the Jewish people and have nothing to do whatsoever with any cults or secret knowledge:

John 11:23-25
New International Version 1984 (NIV1984)

23 Jesus said to her, "Your brother will rise again."

24 Martha answered, "I know he will rise again in the resurrection at the last day."

25 Jesus said to her, "I am the resurrection and the life. He who believes in me will live, even though he dies;


I also use the gospels, but my theory rests on the apparent reality that the gospels are NOT firsthand accounts. Jesus was a lowerclass Aramaic-speaking Jew, and everyone in his circle was a lowerclass Aramaic-speaking Jew. The gospels were written by and for Greek speakers by fluently-Greek-speaking converts. None of the gospels claim to be eyewitness accounts, and one of them claims the contrary--the gospel of Luke (1:1-4). The gospels of Matthew and Luke sourced their material from two prior written texts--Mark and Q. The gospel of John likewise sourced its material from prior written texts, given its stark literary seams. The belief that the gospel were written by the authors of their current namesakes is late Christian myth of the second-century. None of the gospels themselves identified their own authorship, but it was an unlikely claim made by a Christian of the second century (Papias). The gospels are the products of myths.

Anyway, I would appreciate it if you would go to that debate and cast your vote. You disagree with both of us, so you are little more fair regarding who won and who lost.

" None of the gospels claim to be eyewitness accounts "

John 21:24
This is the disciple who testifies to these things and who wrote them down. We know that his testimony is true.


OH, as they say, DEAR..

Yes, the author of the gospel of John claims to be sourcing from the written account of the disciple John, and I know that Christian tradition interprets that claim to be referring to the gospel author's own self, but I don't think that is a plausible interpretation. Writers generally didn't refer to themselves in the third person word form instead of the first person word form, not even ancient Greek writers, and we know that the gospel of John most certainly did source from prior written materials given its stark literary seams within the text.

"None of the gospels themselves identified their own authorship"

"Yes, the author of the gospel of John claims to be sourcing from the written account of the disciple John,"

The second statement CLEARLY contradicts the first.

What is your source material for your claim of 2nd century authourship? as you do NOT (as previously stated) take the Gospels, as gospel.
The Cross.. the Cross.
ApostateAbe
Posts: 236
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/13/2011 9:00:58 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 7/13/2011 5:08:27 AM, DATCMOTO wrote:
At 7/4/2011 9:15:20 AM, ApostateAbe wrote:
At 7/4/2011 5:20:39 AM, DATCMOTO wrote:
At 6/29/2011 10:46:44 AM, ApostateAbe wrote:
At 6/29/2011 5:50:59 AM, DATCMOTO wrote:
At 6/24/2011 9:30:54 AM, ApostateAbe wrote:
...and the historical Jesus was NOT a commendable moral teacher, mere myth, nor Messiah. Or so I propose.

http://www.debate.org...

The first round of arguments have been completed arguing for and against the proposition that "The historical Jesus Christ was a doomsday cult leader," and it is looking like an interesting debate. The contended alternative is that Jesus was a commendable moral teacher and maybe the world's first Marxist.

I am itching to hold a similar debate with those of other perspectives, such as Jesus as mere myth or Jesus the Messiah Son of God.

Who was Jesus, in your opinion? And, how do you know?

What is your source material?

mine is the Gospels; 1st hand accounts by those who new Him best.. His friends..

Also they contain many many quotations from the man Himself..

A 'good moral teacher' would not say that He was " the only begotten Son of God " and that He was " the ONLY way to eternal life " IF He were lying about those things, or even if He were deluded..

His predictions about the end of time etc were COMMON KNOWLEDGE to the Jewish people and have nothing to do whatsoever with any cults or secret knowledge:

John 11:23-25
New International Version 1984 (NIV1984)

23 Jesus said to her, "Your brother will rise again."

24 Martha answered, "I know he will rise again in the resurrection at the last day."

25 Jesus said to her, "I am the resurrection and the life. He who believes in me will live, even though he dies;


I also use the gospels, but my theory rests on the apparent reality that the gospels are NOT firsthand accounts. Jesus was a lowerclass Aramaic-speaking Jew, and everyone in his circle was a lowerclass Aramaic-speaking Jew. The gospels were written by and for Greek speakers by fluently-Greek-speaking converts. None of the gospels claim to be eyewitness accounts, and one of them claims the contrary--the gospel of Luke (1:1-4). The gospels of Matthew and Luke sourced their material from two prior written texts--Mark and Q. The gospel of John likewise sourced its material from prior written texts, given its stark literary seams. The belief that the gospel were written by the authors of their current namesakes is late Christian myth of the second-century. None of the gospels themselves identified their own authorship, but it was an unlikely claim made by a Christian of the second century (Papias). The gospels are the products of myths.

Anyway, I would appreciate it if you would go to that debate and cast your vote. You disagree with both of us, so you are little more fair regarding who won and who lost.

" None of the gospels claim to be eyewitness accounts "

John 21:24
This is the disciple who testifies to these things and who wrote them down. We know that his testimony is true.


OH, as they say, DEAR..

Yes, the author of the gospel of John claims to be sourcing from the written account of the disciple John, and I know that Christian tradition interprets that claim to be referring to the gospel author's own self, but I don't think that is a plausible interpretation. Writers generally didn't refer to themselves in the third person word form instead of the first person word form, not even ancient Greek writers, and we know that the gospel of John most certainly did source from prior written materials given its stark literary seams within the text.

"None of the gospels themselves identified their own authorship"

"Yes, the author of the gospel of John claims to be sourcing from the written account of the disciple John,"

The second statement CLEARLY contradicts the first.

What is your source material for your claim of 2nd century authourship? as you do NOT (as previously stated) take the Gospels, as gospel.

To be clear, I did not claim that the gospels were written in the 2nd century. I claimed that their reputed authors (the saints Matthew, Mark, Luke and John) were attributed in the 2nd century. The gospels were actually written by anonymous authors of the late 1st century, and they ultimately sourced oral myths. I have a debate going on right now about it:

http://www.debate.org...
DATCMOTO
Posts: 6,160
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/15/2011 5:35:21 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 7/13/2011 9:00:58 AM, ApostateAbe wrote:
At 7/13/2011 5:08:27 AM, DATCMOTO wrote:
At 7/4/2011 9:15:20 AM, ApostateAbe wrote:
At 7/4/2011 5:20:39 AM, DATCMOTO wrote:
At 6/29/2011 10:46:44 AM, ApostateAbe wrote:
At 6/29/2011 5:50:59 AM, DATCMOTO wrote:
At 6/24/2011 9:30:54 AM, ApostateAbe wrote:
...and the historical Jesus was NOT a commendable moral teacher, mere myth, nor Messiah. Or so I propose.

http://www.debate.org...

The first round of arguments have been completed arguing for and against the proposition that "The historical Jesus Christ was a doomsday cult leader," and it is looking like an interesting debate. The contended alternative is that Jesus was a commendable moral teacher and maybe the world's first Marxist.

I am itching to hold a similar debate with those of other perspectives, such as Jesus as mere myth or Jesus the Messiah Son of God.

Who was Jesus, in your opinion? And, how do you know?

What is your source material?

mine is the Gospels; 1st hand accounts by those who new Him best.. His friends..

Also they contain many many quotations from the man Himself..

A 'good moral teacher' would not say that He was " the only begotten Son of God " and that He was " the ONLY way to eternal life " IF He were lying about those things, or even if He were deluded..

His predictions about the end of time etc were COMMON KNOWLEDGE to the Jewish people and have nothing to do whatsoever with any cults or secret knowledge:

John 11:23-25
New International Version 1984 (NIV1984)

23 Jesus said to her, "Your brother will rise again."

24 Martha answered, "I know he will rise again in the resurrection at the last day."

25 Jesus said to her, "I am the resurrection and the life. He who believes in me will live, even though he dies;


I also use the gospels, but my theory rests on the apparent reality that the gospels are NOT firsthand accounts. Jesus was a lowerclass Aramaic-speaking Jew, and everyone in his circle was a lowerclass Aramaic-speaking Jew. The gospels were written by and for Greek speakers by fluently-Greek-speaking converts. None of the gospels claim to be eyewitness accounts, and one of them claims the contrary--the gospel of Luke (1:1-4). The gospels of Matthew and Luke sourced their material from two prior written texts--Mark and Q. The gospel of John likewise sourced its material from prior written texts, given its stark literary seams. The belief that the gospel were written by the authors of their current namesakes is late Christian myth of the second-century. None of the gospels themselves identified their own authorship, but it was an unlikely claim made by a Christian of the second century (Papias). The gospels are the products of myths.

Anyway, I would appreciate it if you would go to that debate and cast your vote. You disagree with both of us, so you are little more fair regarding who won and who lost.

" None of the gospels claim to be eyewitness accounts "

John 21:24
This is the disciple who testifies to these things and who wrote them down. We know that his testimony is true.


OH, as they say, DEAR..

Yes, the author of the gospel of John claims to be sourcing from the written account of the disciple John, and I know that Christian tradition interprets that claim to be referring to the gospel author's own self, but I don't think that is a plausible interpretation. Writers generally didn't refer to themselves in the third person word form instead of the first person word form, not even ancient Greek writers, and we know that the gospel of John most certainly did source from prior written materials given its stark literary seams within the text.

"None of the gospels themselves identified their own authorship"

"Yes, the author of the gospel of John claims to be sourcing from the written account of the disciple John,"

The second statement CLEARLY contradicts the first.

What is your source material for your claim of 2nd century authourship? as you do NOT (as previously stated) take the Gospels, as gospel.

To be clear, I did not claim that the gospels were written in the 2nd century. I claimed that their reputed authors (the saints Matthew, Mark, Luke and John) were attributed in the 2nd century. The gospels were actually written by anonymous authors of the late 1st century, and they ultimately sourced oral myths. I have a debate going on right now about it:

http://www.debate.org...

You said none of the Gospels claimed to be first hand accounts, (whether or NOT they actually, objectively ARE) this has been refuted; are you too proud to acknowledge this?

AGAIN, what is your SOURCE for your (ever changing) 'first century oral tradition' theory?
The Cross.. the Cross.
ApostateAbe
Posts: 236
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/15/2011 8:52:28 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 7/15/2011 5:35:21 AM, DATCMOTO wrote:
At 7/13/2011 9:00:58 AM, ApostateAbe wrote:
At 7/13/2011 5:08:27 AM, DATCMOTO wrote:

"None of the gospels themselves identified their own authorship"

"Yes, the author of the gospel of John claims to be sourcing from the written account of the disciple John,"

The second statement CLEARLY contradicts the first.

What is your source material for your claim of 2nd century authourship? as you do NOT (as previously stated) take the Gospels, as gospel.

To be clear, I did not claim that the gospels were written in the 2nd century. I claimed that their reputed authors (the saints Matthew, Mark, Luke and John) were attributed in the 2nd century. The gospels were actually written by anonymous authors of the late 1st century, and they ultimately sourced oral myths. I have a debate going on right now about it:

http://www.debate.org...

You said none of the Gospels claimed to be first hand accounts, (whether or NOT they actually, objectively ARE) this has been refuted; are you too proud to acknowledge this?

AGAIN, what is your SOURCE for your (ever changing) 'first century oral tradition' theory?

A first-hand account would be an account where someone observes an event and tells it. A second-hand account would be where someone observes the first-hand account of an event and retells the event. The gospel of John seemingly claims to be a second-hand account, the gospel of Luke is ambiguous but claims to be not first-hand, and the gospels of Matthew and Mark are silent on the claim. If, at any point, I contradicted myself, then I am sorry.

The hypothesis has been around since the ancient times, but the theory was developed fully among critical scholars of modernity. Their sources would be primarily the gospels themselves, but also analogous evidence in ancient history, and the conclusion is derived by analysis of the best explanation for the evidence. See Round 2 of this debate for the details:

http://www.debate.org...
jharry
Posts: 4,984
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/15/2011 9:12:22 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
Is it of any importance whether the Gospels were first hand account?

And back to the Jews memorizing scriptures. Is it impossible for ancient Jews to memorize scripture? I would think it was easier back in the day. Now we are bombarded with information, everything important (and a lot that isn't) is written down. Back in the day there want constant info flowing in and out of their lives. If I'm correct scripture was one of the only "learning" they had in what we would consider schooling.

Have you ever looked it up? You might be surprised.

And where were we on the debate?
In nomine Patris, et Filii, et Spiritus Sancti. Amen
ApostateAbe
Posts: 236
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/15/2011 9:07:14 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 7/15/2011 9:12:22 AM, jharry wrote:
Is it of any importance whether the Gospels were first hand account?

It is as important as you make it to be. A lot of Christians take the premise that the gospels are eyewitness accounts as reasons to trust in their historical reliability.

And back to the Jews memorizing scriptures. Is it impossible for ancient Jews to memorize scripture? I would think it was easier back in the day. Now we are bombarded with information, everything important (and a lot that isn't) is written down. Back in the day there want constant info flowing in and out of their lives. If I'm correct scripture was one of the only "learning" they had in what we would consider schooling.

Have you ever looked it up? You might be surprised.

I would love to learn more, sure.

And where were we on the debate?

I thought that you had declined, but if you are up for another then so am I. Just give me a resolution.