Who was Jesus

[Titan]

Not only was that NOT true of many of the Gnostic religions of the time but that just smacks of "my religion is better than yours (whether dead or alive)" which really isn't something you can justify especially amongst a bunch of rationalists.

How about we drop this, I don't believe we are going to get to this debate anytime soon and we ultimately just end up saying "No" "Yes" "No" "Yes" back and forth forever.

So what? Surely that plays into my argument that there is very little evidence to support the existence of your Jesus?

Why? Because it didn't spread around the globe in an instant?

I'm not arguing for or against the Trojan Wars, I am arguing against the existence of a literal Jesus. And for the record I am not arguing for or against the existence of any other historical figure ... I accept all of those tacitly in part because I don't give a damn whether they did or did not exist whether such events did or did not happen! As it happens I care a great deal about whether there was or was a Jesus Christ and whether the essential claims of Christianity (in particular) are true or not.

But with the claims you are making concerning the validity of events in history you had better be ready to apply said methods to all historical accounts and see what remains. We haven't gotten to whether the essential claims of Christianity are true or not, merely that someone existed around that time and made such an indelible impact on the lives of the commoners that the world was forever changed.

That's indeed what I am arguing; anything, anything at all, leaves a trail of evidence, I don't care if it was done by humans or by a god, there will be evidence ... if there is evidence it can be examined.

I know this is unlikely, but would you ever be interested in visiting Indonesia for a few weeks. I know this sounds weird but if you just pay for the airfare my family will provide food and transportation and everything. The reason I say this is because there are some events that I really would like your explanation on that occur in Indonesia quite frequently, things that have eye witness testimony from multiple accounts. If these things are all easily explained by science I would love to know. But this is an honest proposal, if you are interested.

If someone told me they were wealthy, I'd say good for you ... I genuinely wouldn't care over much. It's irrelevant to the point being made.

I was arguing against the form of logic being used, not the idea of people telling you that they were wealthy.

What can I say? Can you prove the tomb found is actually the tomb of Jesus Christ? It's going to be difficult because you have yet to prove the existence of said Christ

No, I'm talking about when Christianity first started. People simply could have said: "Where was he buried and who was guarding the tomb" and the fraud could have been discovered that simply.

As for the bible, yes I know they are CLAIMED to be shortly after Jesus Christ's death but they don't actually date back that far do they? The oldest bible currently in existence is the Codex Sinaiticus.

Dr. William F. Albright argued "We can already say emphatically that there is no longer any solid basis for dating any book of the New Testament after circa A.D. 80, two full gneerations before the date between 130 and 150 given by the more radical New testament critics today."
Eight years later he stated in an interview that the completion date for all the books in the New Testament was "probably sometime between circa A.D. 50 and 75."
Dr. John A. T. Robinson of Trinity College in Cambridge, concluded that the possible first draft of Matthew was written as early as circa A.D. 4.
It is evident that the Book of Acts was written in approximately A.D. 62 because it doesn't mention the fall of Jerusalem in A.D. 70 an event which would have been impossible to omit since Jerusalem is central to much of Acts. Not only that, but one of the prophecies of Christ came true during the fall of Jerusalem. Nothing is mentioned of Nero's persecution of A.D. 62. The book ends with Paul in Rome under the confinement of Nero. Neither does Acts mention the death of three central figures: James (A.D. 62), Paul (A.D. 64) and Peter (A.D. 65). It included the deaths of Stephen and James, why didn't it include their deaths too?
If the book of Acts was written by Luke in A.D. 62, then the Gospel of Luke must be dated earlier, probably in the late 50s due to the fact that it would have taken some time to write Acts.
Critics argue that Matthew and Mark wrote their gospels prior to Luke, if that is true than it would have made their compositions dated no later than the late 50s.
Furthermore, since much of these accounts were collections of circulations of partially written works, the reports probably circulated in the 40s or 50s, it can be dated back even further.

The concepts argued by William F. Alrbight are pulled from a collection of his works.

That's hardly what I said was it? What I said was that it probably derived from pre-exiting Gnostic religions ... can you not envisage a situation where the members of a given religion split and over time ideologically evolve to become two different religions?

And create a character who existed only a few decades prior? And then die for the make believe character?

In other words he was a shoddy and careless writer (unlike Josephus and Herodotus)? Not very convincing evidence is it?

It is hardly uncommon for historians to utilize modern words to describe titles of the past so that they make more sense or to lump different titles under one title.

No but I can ridicule it from a mythical comparison perspective which is exactly what it deserves and again I refer you to the fact that any event leaves a trail of evidence.

I burped...can you track it? Can you prove it happened? What exactly does a "trail of evidence" entail? I have a few miracles I would like to site but I don't know what you are qualifying as evidence in this case.

Who's claiming Paul was the only route for information to Rome, I'm certainly not.

Do you think the Romans were kept up to date on every sect creation in their entire empire? Honestly?

Well within scope time-wise.

Not for it to have been a major issue in the area yet.

Maybe but Pliny reports numerous such tales believed by many people, even without magic ...one might reasonably suspect he'd report tales of the miraculous Jesus Christ.

Such as?

I wasn't aware I’d mentioned him.

See Arrianus.

Petronius is notable only because one of his works ridicules the idea of resurrection well before any of the known gospels were written (and is believed to have derived from a subject & style of satire much, much older).

So hypothetically, if there weren't any satires of an event by a particular author we can hold that it didn't happen?

For the crucifixion perhaps but not the phenomenon of Jesus Christ itself.

From Rome? Absolutely.

Sorry? You want me to do your job for you? Thank you but no ... I gave you a piece by Remsberg (referenced by Zindler) which listed 40 plus names and of which you criticised maybe 6 that leaves you 30 plus to deal with.

Do you realize what you are suggesting here? I have shown you how many of these people wouldn't have had the chance to hear about Jesus or Christianity or wouldn't have had a reason to write about it. Since Remsberg didn't even do such inquiry I don't hold his works in high regard. But I hold you in high enough regard that if there was one who you believe absolutely should have mentioned Christ I'll definitely look into it.

Yet the "Wish You Were Here" evidence remains ... Josephus simply didn't writer in that way. Also I'm not claiming a massive conspiracy, it's not like you guys need much evidence to base your silly beliefs on is it?

Which part of his texts do not conform to his works as a whole? Besides the line I mentioned?

Karakara

Well, from our 'dreams', we formulate our Myths. From our Myths, we formulate the substance of our religions. When we talk about myths and savior Gods, this is perfectly in accord with what Campbell and Jung were saying.

This...based on the theory that we have these 'dreams?' What evidence do they have so that we can hold this theory in high regards when looking back on the evolution of religions?

"Myths are public dreams. Dreams are private myths."

myth
â€, â€,/mɪθ/ Show Spelled Pronunciation [mith] Show IPA Pronunciation
â€"noun
1.    a traditional or legendary story, usually concerning some being or hero or event, with or without a determinable basis of fact or a natural explanation, esp. one that is concerned with deities or demigods and explains some practice, rite, or phenomenon of nature.

So how do dreams fit this description?

I'm sorry Karakara you threw a LOT of external sources at me. Please give me one or two to investigate first.

[Kyuuketsuki]

How about we drop this, I don't believe we are going to get to this debate anytime soon and we ultimately just end up saying "No" "Yes" "No" "Yes" back and forth forever.

As you wish

So what? Surely that plays into my argument that there is very little evidence to support the existence of your Jesus?

Why? Because it didn't spread around the globe in an instant?

No because if there were relatively few followers the evidence would be far more scarce so it plays into my argument that there is no real evidence for the bloke.

But with the claims you are making concerning the validity of events in history you had better be ready to apply said methods to all historical accounts and see what remains. We haven't gotten to whether the essential claims of Christianity are true or not, merely that someone existed around that time and made such an indelible impact on the lives of the commoners that the world was forever changed.

No, what I am arguing is about the validity of a piece of fiction not history.

I know this is unlikely, but would you ever be interested in visiting Indonesia for a few weeks. I know this sounds weird but if you just pay for the airfare my family will provide food and transportation and everything. The reason I say this is because there are some events that I really would like your explanation on that occur in Indonesia quite frequently, things that have eye witness testimony from multiple accounts. If these things are all easily explained by science I would love to know. But this is an honest proposal, if you are interested.

I would at some point (and if so I genuinely would like to meet you ... not everything has to be about religion) but right now I'm afraid I can't afford it. My next planned trip abroad is to Auschwitz anyway, hopefully next year.

I was arguing against the form of logic being used, not the idea of people telling you that they were wealthy.

Then give a better example.

No, I'm talking about when Christianity first started. People simply could have said: "Where was he buried and who was guarding the tomb" and the fraud could have been discovered that simply.

I'm not sure what your point is ... are you saying it is a fraud or is not and are you only referring to a tomb back then or now?

Dr. William F. Albright argued "We can already say emphatically that there is no longer any solid basis for dating any book of the New Testament after circa A.D. 80, two full generations before the date between 130 and 150 given by the more radical New testament critics today."

Albright was a biblical archaeologist I believe ... his views are fairly outmoded so I'm not sure why I should take the statement of someone so evidently biased towards a particular POV as valid. That said it seems to be a fairly common view that most of the books of the bible were broadly speaking in existence by the 1st Century CE.

It will be very interesting to see what this Codex bible reveals don't you think?

Not only that, but one of the prophecies of Christ came true during the fall of Jerusalem.

A prophecy probably included after the event ... now you may think, "well he would say that" and of course you'd be correct, I would BUT one huge problem with your bible is that there appear to be so many cuts and additions since the books were originally written (Lord knows what they would have done if they'd been able to cut & paste on computers) that it is hard to tell what si genuine and what is not.

Like I say ... the Codex is going to be interesting particularly since it bears directly on key claims made by Christians.

That's hardly what I said was it? What I said was that it probably derived from pre-exiting Gnostic religions ... can you not envisage a situation where the members of a given religion split and over time ideologically evolve to become two different religions?

And create a character who existed only a few decades prior? And then die for the make believe character?

I would assume the books had been in place longer than that in some form even if it was only Gnostic but ultimately, this idea that Christians were the persecuted ones doesn't really hold water does it? Under Roman rule just about everybody but Romans were persecuted.

It is hardly uncommon for historians to utilize modern words to describe titles of the past so that they make more sense or to lump different titles under one title.

The relevant point being?

I burped...can you track it? Can you prove it happened? What exactly does a "trail of evidence" entail? I have a few miracles I would like to site but I don't know what you are qualifying as evidence in this case.

Would I care to want to prove or disprove it? I think not. If there is no evidence for a so -called miracle then it can be dismissed.

Do you think the Romans were kept up to date on every sect creation in their entire empire? Honestly?

I think Roman communications were quite excellent, their record keeping meticulous so yes I would say they were aware of most things in their empire and even if a sect existed almost unknown because of low numbers again it just plays into my basic argument.

Well within scope time-wise.

Not for it to have been a major issue in the area yet.

And the point you're making is?

Maybe but Pliny reports numerous such tales believed by many people, even without magic ...one might reasonably suspect he'd report tales of the miraculous

Jesus Christ.

Such as?

From Infidels.org, "He says Varro reported on two different occasions seeing "a person carried out on a bier to burial who returned home on foot," besides witnessing the apparent resurrection of his uncle-in-law Corfidius."

So hypothetically, if there weren't any satires of an event by a particular author we can hold that it didn't happen?

That's not what I said is it? What I said was essentially saying was that resurrection was a common them for satire at the time so its appearance in biblical stories might not be so unusual.

For the crucifixion perhaps but not the phenomenon of Jesus Christ itself.

From Rome? Absolutely.[/quote]

See above.

Do you realize what you are suggesting here? I have shown you how many of these people wouldn't have had the chance to hear about Jesus or Christianity or wouldn't have had a reason to write about it. Since Remsberg didn't even do such inquiry I don't hold his works in high regard. But I hold you in high enough regard that if there was one who you believe absolutely should have mentioned Christ I'll definitely look into it.

Fine but I'm still not doing your research for you.

Which part of his texts do not conform to his works as a whole? Besides the line I mentioned?

Specifically the part is in occurs in Book 18 of "Antiquities Of The Jews" and is problematic (possibly inserted) because Origen claimed Josephus did not recognise Jesus as any kind of saviour and because the passage concerned is highly pro-Christian and not in keeping with the usual style of Josephus's work (this is the "Wish You Were Here" bit I was referring to). Many historians reject this passage entirely but others maintain the passage was altered not inserted and whilst not pro-Christian did refer to Jesus Christ ... if so that would, I suppose, constitute possible evidence for the existence of a literal Jesus.

Kyu

[Kyuuketsuki]

Kyu, yes, I'm being an annoying jerk, but are you getting that Deja vu feeling? Can you at least try to understand, show some empathy.. you know, EMPATHY and some semblance of respect? What's silly to you can be quite meaningful to others.. you don't get to define 'silly' for believers in a faith.. maybe 'irrational' as you define rationality,  but pls. don't insult.

I will not debate ANYTHING with you until such point as you resolve the other issue between us. I won't repeat this and will only deal with you in that thread until it's resolved.

Kyu

[Sophus]

I believe he existed. There are a few other records of his existence other than the Bible. I think he was a good man and a liar out to change the world for the better. Didn't work out that great though.  

[Jolly Sapper]

I think the name was common enough that somebody with the name existed.

As for the "causation/correlation" issues, Mr. Titan (I'm assuming male, apologies if you're female), I think you are making too much of it.  In my mind, the Jesus depicted in the Bible doesn't have to be 100% original or 100% influenced by earlier myths/beliefs/stories.  If there is a 51/49% chance that the stories are influenced if not solely based off of already existing/known stories, then that is enough to cast doubt on the whole idea that the Jesus of the Bible (exactly as described) existed.

I think I remember my wifey talking about the similarities between Gilgamesh and Jesus, Gilgamesh being one of the oldest literary works found.

As far as geographical boundaries that might/should have kept cultures from cross pollinating, being that the Jesus stories happened in the middle east, and was started by a group of people who spent a long time living in Egypt ( a huge nation that I'm pretty sure had quite a large reach due to trade) I'm sure that geographical barriers were a lot less effective at reducing cultural cross pollination.  

On a side note, from reading other posts by Mr. Titan, I'd like to extend an internet handshake.  You know your stuff and know how to talk to us (or at least have accepted how we non-believers communicate).

[rlrose328]

Just a few comments that burst into my head upon reading Titan's post:  

Mythology tends towards fantasy whereas the Judeo-Christian tradition appears to be a lone belief system that doesn't have such a fantastical nature.

Judeo-Christian "tradition" doesn't have a fantastical nature?  People turning into pillars of salt?  A man who could walk on water?  A man who died and rose from the dead (we call those "zombies" in this house)?  Snakes that talk?  All of these are the stuff of fantasy literature.

Did the Trojan Wars occur? If they didn't just say so, if you believe they did then please provide the list of all the writers who referenced it and the exact dates the materials were written at.

Perhaps, perhaps not... but the Trojan War isn't based on fantasy (as referenced above) or mythological happenings AND those who believe in the Trojan War aren't trying to use the Trojan War and the writing about said war to make laws and discriminate against people in contemporary America.

[Sophus]

Here's a quote for you
 
"Read the Bible as you would Livy or Tacitus. For example, in the book of Joshua we are told the sun stood still for several hours. Were we to read that fact in Livy or Tacitus we should class it with their showers of blood, speaking of their statues, beasts, etc. But it is said that the writer of that book was inspired. Examine, therefore, candidly, what evidence there is of his having been inspired. The pretension is entitled to your inquiry, because millions believe it. On the other hand, you are astronomer enough to know how contrary it is to the law of nature" Thomas Jefferson

Kyu

Don't you think though that if there were a God who created this universe that surely he would be capable of breaking a law of nature every now and then?

[Tom62]

I think that this article http://mama.indstate.edu/users/nizrael/ ... ation.html pretty much sums up, where I think that the Jesus myth came from.

[Kyuuketsuki]

Don't you think though that if there were a God who created this universe that surely he would be capable of breaking a law of nature every now and then?

it's a possibility something with a probability along the lines the FSM mating with the IPU to create a teapot orbiting somehow in the vicinity of Betelgeuse (probably much, much lower) but, let's be honest, we're in fairy gah gah land now aren't we?

Kyu

[DennisK]

Don't you think though that if there were a God who created this universe that surely he would be capable of breaking a law of nature every now and then?

Why did your all powerful personal god who breaks laws of nature at will ever come up with these laws in the first place?  Shouldn't this god you speak of be able to change the laws?  

If I were god and my creations were worshiping the false god of science, I would change all the rules because I could.  That will show those ungrateful little bastards not to question me (by me I mean the few people I've entrusted to dictate my words).  I would then proceed to come down to Earth as a giant striped flying elephant with eight horns (also, because I can) visible to all people at the same time and tell them to write a new book, better yet, create a DVD so that all could see my might for years to come.  The DVD would show my new commandments written in a new language that cannot be misconstrued or mistranslated in any way and would be understood by all.  Scratch that.  Better yet, I would imprint in everyone's DNA (right next to the morals I gave everyone) the unbreakable belief in me rather than let people have a choice (that didn't work as I initially planned).

I would only be able to do this every millennium or so since I would be so busy monitoring every atom in the universe.  It's a lot harder than it sounds and so flipping boring.  Oh crap, why the hell was I controlling the entire universe (and beyond?) anyway?  I think I would start from scratch.  Something less clusterfuckish.

[karakara]

Kyu, yes, I'm being an annoying jerk, but are you getting that Deja vu feeling? Can you at least try to understand, show some empathy.. you know, EMPATHY and some semblance of respect? What's silly to you can be quite meaningful to others.. you don't get to define 'silly' for believers in a faith.. maybe 'irrational' as you define rationality,  but pls. don't insult.

I will not debate ANYTHING with you until such point as you resolve the other issue between us. I won't repeat this and will only deal with you in that thread until it's resolved.

Kyu

LOL , Don't do me any favors!

[myleviathan]

I just want to point out the origination of the "Liar, Lunatic, Lord" argument: C.S. Lewis.

If I've said it once, I'll say it again. C.S. Lewis would have been the Best Damn Defense Attorney in history had he chosen that profession.

However, it's impossible for Jesus to be a liar, a lunatic, or a Lord because he's only a Gospel character based loosly on some forgotten historical figure. The gospel authors were probably a mixture of liars and lunatics.

What's more likely - that a Godman was raised from the dead or that a myth-maker lied about it?

Since Jesus (a literary Character) is silent on the matter - I choose that a myth-maker lied, or was doing his job: making a myth.

Honestly myth-makers aren't necessarily liars. They heard a tale that inspired them and they wrote it down. Then murderous fanatics like Paul found copies and took the Gospel all over the known world.

[Sophus]

Don't you think though that if there were a God who created this universe that surely he would be capable of breaking a law of nature every now and then?

Why did your all powerful personal god who breaks laws of nature at will ever come up with these laws in the first place?  Shouldn't this god you speak of be able to change the laws?  

Umm, I'm an atheist. I don't have a god. I was just trying to point out that what was said really wasn't a valid argument. Theist and atheist have a nasty habit of jumpong on anything that supports them when in fact if it isn't well thought out it only hurts your argument.

[karakara]

Don't you think though that if there were a God who created this universe that surely he would be capable of breaking a law of nature every now and then?

Why did your all powerful personal god who breaks laws of nature at will ever come up with these laws in the first place?  Shouldn't this god you speak of be able to change the laws?  

Umm, I'm an atheist. I don't have a god. I was just trying to point out that what was said really wasn't a valid argument. Theist and atheist have a nasty habit of jumpong on anything that supports them when in fact if it isn't well thought out it only hurts your argument.

Sophus Ji,

I would encourage you to rethink this false leap of logic.. a 'false ergo'.  I take your word that you don't subscribe to any particular theology, but your assertion that you don't have a 'God' is just as unprovable as one who claims to have a God.  My faith teaches a different concept of God ... diffused, omnipresent, without shape or form, and definitely residing in every human soul. Take a close look in the mirror -- this might bring you closer to God than all the wild sermons and threats of 'fire and brimstone' that you .. probably rightly, dismiss.


Sat Nam

[Sophus]

Sophus Ji,

I would encourage you to rethink this false leap of logic.. a 'false ergo'.  I take your word that you don't subscribe to any particular theology, but your assertion that you don't have a 'God' is just as unprovable as one who claims to have a God.  My faith teaches a different concept of God ... diffused, omnipresent, without shape or form, and definitely residing in every human soul. Take a close look in the mirror -- this might bring you closer to God than all the wild sermons and threats of 'fire and brimstone' that you .. probably rightly, dismiss.


Sat Nam

Let me first of all thank you. I had never examined Sikhism before and enjoyed learning about it.

I don't need to prove that I don't have a god to anyone other than myself. It seems to me you are suggesting I go by a feeling rather than a thought. A feeling which I believe can be explained psychologically.

My, my. We are veering from the topic of this thread. Is that bad? lol