JAK wrote:The writings and statements on record from T. Paine are evidence that he rejected religion.
If one wishes to document that Thomas Paine believed in the historicity of Jesus, it is that person who is obligated to establish such a claim. It has not been established in these discussions.
I documented Paine's own words on Jesus. He did not deny Jesus as a historical figure and thought it quite possible he was actually a man. He did not like that the "historians" that wrote the New Testament created a supernatural aspect of him. Paine actually liked the historical idea of Jesus and was compelled by many of his teachings -- yet, rejected Christianity. It's not in dispute that Paine rejected all organized religion -- yet, he certainly left open the possibility of a historical Jesus and even praises him.
dartagnan wrote:"Myth" isn't the issue. The issue is the existence of Jesus. Historical evidence proves beyond a reasonable doubt that he existed as a real person.
This is news to me. Historical evidence? Beyond a reasonable doubt?
Are you referring to evidence other than the unreliable New Testament?
It's been demonstrated here that many people have faith in the New Testament, but how could anyone consider it evidence strong enough to prove anything beyond a reasonable doubt.
JAK:
“Myth” is an issue with regard to story-telling that lacks reliable, skeptically reviewed analysis.
As you observe, the New Testament is “unreliable.” We know that from multiple sources and from the time-frame of the construction of the New Testament itself.
The New Testament would certainly not hold up in modern court if it could possibly be used in a current case. The opposing side would point out the contradictions and failed reliability in a second.
Christian mythology is clearly an issue. Repeated stories later written, then lost, then reconstructed produced mythology.
Claimed defiance of physics is an extraordinary claim. To be sustained, it would require extraordinary evidence. There is none. Story-telling and later story writing fails to establish extraordinary evidence.
“Faith” is irrelevant to historical fact in the question at issue “…not all historians accept Jesus’ existence.”
JAK
Jak,
I see we've both stumbled upon the same website for Paine quotes. Apparently Paine was not being clear enough when he said "I detest the Bible" or said that it was "blasphemy to call the New Testament revealed religion" for Kevin.
I don't think we'll ever find a quote where Thomas Paine says he "denies the historical Jesus" so where do we go from there?
If the New Testament is the only "evidence" for Jesus, I think Paine belongs on the long list I provided.
JAK wrote:The writings and statements on record from T. Paine are evidence that he rejected religion.
If one wishes to document that Thomas Paine believed in the historicity of Jesus, it is that person who is obligated to establish such a claim. It has not been established in these discussions.
I documented Paine's own words on Jesus. He did not deny Jesus as a historical figure and thought it quite possible he was actually a man. He did not like that the "historians" that wrote the New Testament created a supernatural aspect of him. Paine actually liked the historical idea of Jesus and was compelled by many of his teachings -- yet, rejected Christianity. It's not in dispute that Paine rejected all organized religion -- yet, he certainly left open the possibility of a historical Jesus and even praises him.
I see in your post that he detested the claim Jesus was born of a virgin, and would have rather Joseph got the credit for his birth. Does that mean that he really believes in a historical Jesus figure, or is this just another criticism of the New Testament? Am I missing something else from his words, Moniker?
Do you know if Paine confirmed anywhere that he did believe in the historical Jesus?
dartagnan wrote:"Myth" isn't the issue. The issue is the existence of Jesus. Historical evidence proves beyond a reasonable doubt that he existed as a real person.
This is news to me. Historical evidence? Beyond a reasonable doubt?
Are you referring to evidence other than the unreliable New Testament?
It's been demonstrated here that many people have faith in the New Testament, but how could anyone consider it evidence strong enough to prove anything beyond a reasonable doubt.
JAK:
“Myth” is an issue with regard to story-telling that lacks reliable, skeptically reviewed analysis.
As you observe, the New Testament is “unreliable.” We know that from multiple sources and from the time-frame of the construction of the New Testament itself.
The New Testament would certainly not hold up in modern court if it could possibly be used in a current case. The opposing side would point out the contradictions and failed reliability in a second.
Christian mythology is clearly an issue. Repeated stories later written, then lost, then reconstructed produced mythology.
Claimed defiance of physics is an extraordinary claim. To be sustained, it would require extraordinary evidence. There is none. Story-telling and later story writing fails to establish extraordinary evidence.
“Faith” is irrelevant to historical fact in the question at issue “…not all historians accept Jesus’ existence.”
JAK
Jak,
I see we've both stumbled upon the same website for Paine quotes. Apparently Paine was not being clear enough when he said "I detest the Bible" or said that it was "blasphemy to call the New Testament revealed religion" for Kevin.
I don't think we'll ever find a quote where Thomas Paine says he "denies the historical Jesus" so where do we go from there?
If the New Testament is the only "evidence" for Jesus, I think Paine belongs on the long list I provided.
What are your thoughts?
Well, it's not enough for me either. Rejecting of Christianity is not the same as rejecting the historical aspect of Jesus as a man -- hell I fall into that category. I don't know if Jesus was or was not a historical figure -- yet, it is possible. I do know THIS for certain -- Paine felt it possible that Jesus was an actual person that was given supernatural aspects by those that wanted to start a religion. THIS is what Paine said!
Paine does not fall on your list at all GoodK, unless your list is for those that only reject Christianity. Your list was supposed to be for those that rejected a historical Jesus. Paine certainly does not do so. His writings on Jesus, God, and his condemnation of religion can be found in The Age of Reason.
JAK wrote:The writings and statements on record from T. Paine are evidence that he rejected religion.
If one wishes to document that Thomas Paine believed in the historicity of Jesus, it is that person who is obligated to establish such a claim. It has not been established in these discussions.
I documented Paine's own words on Jesus. He did not deny Jesus as a historical figure and thought it quite possible he was actually a man. He did not like that the "historians" that wrote the New Testament created a supernatural aspect of him. Paine actually liked the historical idea of Jesus and was compelled by many of his teachings -- yet, rejected Christianity. It's not in dispute that Paine rejected all organized religion -- yet, he certainly left open the possibility of a historical Jesus and even praises him.
I see in your post that he detested the claim Jesus was born of a virgin, and would have rather Joseph got the credit for his birth. Does that mean that he really believes in a historical Jesus figure, or is this just another criticism of the New Testament? Am I missing something else from his words, Moniker?
Do you know if Paine confirmed anywhere that he did believe in the historical Jesus?
He detested the SUPERNATURAL aspects of Jesus by the "myth" makers. He criticizes the New Testament and the Old Testament repeatedly. Yet, he praises Jesus and here:
That such a person as Jesus Christ existed, and that he was crucified, which was the mode of execution at that day, are historical relations strictly within the limits of probability. He preached most excellent morality and the equality of man; but he preached also against the corruptions and avarice of the Jewish priests, and this brought upon him the hatred and vengeance of the whole order of priesthood. The accusation which those priests brought against him was that of sedition and conspiracy against the Roman government, to which the Jews were then subject and tributary; and it is not improbable that the Roman government might have some secret apprehensions of the effects of his doctrine, as well as the Jewish priests; neither is it improbable that Jesus Christ had in contemplation the delivery of the Jewish nation from the bondage of the Romans. Between the two, however, this virtuous reformer and revolutionist lost his life.
How can that possibly be construed to mean that he didn't believe Jesus was an actual historical figure? Paine rejects the supernatural aspect.
dartagnan wrote:"Myth" isn't the issue. The issue is the existence of Jesus. Historical evidence proves beyond a reasonable doubt that he existed as a real person.
This is news to me. Historical evidence? Beyond a reasonable doubt?
Are you referring to evidence other than the unreliable New Testament?
It's been demonstrated here that many people have faith in the New Testament, but how could anyone consider it evidence strong enough to prove anything beyond a reasonable doubt.
JAK:
“Myth” is an issue with regard to story-telling that lacks reliable, skeptically reviewed analysis.
As you observe, the New Testament is “unreliable.” We know that from multiple sources and from the time-frame of the construction of the New Testament itself.
The New Testament would certainly not hold up in modern court if it could possibly be used in a current case. The opposing side would point out the contradictions and failed reliability in a second.
Christian mythology is clearly an issue. Repeated stories later written, then lost, then reconstructed produced mythology.
Claimed defiance of physics is an extraordinary claim. To be sustained, it would require extraordinary evidence. There is none. Story-telling and later story writing fails to establish extraordinary evidence.
“Faith” is irrelevant to historical fact in the question at issue “…not all historians accept Jesus’ existence.”
JAK
Jak,
I see we've both stumbled upon the same website for Paine quotes. Apparently Paine was not being clear enough when he said "I detest the Bible" or said that it was "blasphemy to call the New Testament revealed religion" for Kevin.
I don't think we'll ever find a quote where Thomas Paine says he "denies the historical Jesus" so where do we go from there?
If the New Testament is the only "evidence" for Jesus, I think Paine belongs on the long list I provided.
What are your thoughts?
Well, it's not enough for me either. Rejecting of Christianity is not the same as rejecting the historical aspect of Jesus as a man -- hell I fall into that category. I don't know if Jesus was or was not a historical figure -- yet, it is possible. I do know THIS for certain -- Paine felt it possible that Jesus was an actual person that was given supernatural aspects by those that wanted to start a religion. THIS is what Paine said!
Paine does not fall on your list at all GoodK, unless your list is for those that only reject Christianity. Your list was supposed to be for those that rejected a historical Jesus. Paine certainly does not do so. His writings on Jesus, God, and his condemnation of religion can be found in The Age of Reason.
My list (not my list, but I posted it) was for scholars that "challenged" the assumption that Jesus was a historical figure.
I think "detesting" and accusing the Bible of dishonesty - the only evidence for a historical Jesus - is pretty clear. Maybe not as clear as I thought.
Moniker wrote:How can that possibly be construed to mean that he didn't believe Jesus was an actual historical figure? Paine rejects the supernatural aspect.
Because we would know nothing of Jesus if it weren't for the New Testament, and Paine clearly states he does not trust the New Testament.
Last edited by _GoodK on Tue Apr 01, 2008 5:30 pm, edited 1 time in total.
I'm interested in hearing the responses too. Just because some make the connection with despising the New Testament and rejecting a historical Jesus does not mean Paine did.
I could care less about this conversation -- I'm just here 'cause Paine is. I'm just a Paine gal -- he's my man! :)
Moniker wrote:How can that possibly be construed to mean that he didn't believe Jesus was an actual historical figure? Paine rejects the supernatural aspect.
Because we would know nothing of Jesus if it weren't for the New Testament, and Paine clearly states he does not trust the New Testament.
How can you just clue in on one aspect of what Paine wrote and reject the other part that he wrote about Jesus? I do NOT care about the other people on the list -- no interest of mine. But, anyone saying that Paine rejected a historical Jesus on the basis of what he wrote about the Old Testament and New Testament is cherry picking.
Paine does NOT trust the New Testament -- yet, he writes in a way that leaves open the possibility of Jesus being a historical figure.
JAK wrote:It’s an interesting thought and appears to have prima facie value.
However, it seems today at least in the US, when people have a narrow escape from death or serious injury, they say: Thank God.
When the tragedy hits, they don’t credit God, but default to: All things work together for good, or I guess it’s just how it’s supposed to be, or some other cliché which denies God credit.
JAK
I think the problem with people today is that alot of religious dogma has been fleshed out quite explicitly (well relatively speaking) and that they have this given narrative of Jesus-God who is tolerant and is responsible for the nice stuff, and the bad stuff doesn't really REALLY matter because Heaven awaits.
This well defined story probably stands in contrast to a bunch of Bronze Age nomads hanging around the desert irritated at the lightning and sandstorms and blaming it all on the "Weather God".
"Whatever appears to be against the Book of Mormon is going to be overturned at some time in the future. So we can be pretty open minded."-charity 3/7/07