NationStates Jolt Archive

What was Jesus really? Was he the Son of God? Was he God? Was he just a man that has been given all these attributes to make him appear as God?

I want to see what you all think. I believe Jesus was OF God, meaning that he wasn't God himself, but he got his power through God.

I will post more on what I mean as I get my paper done. Which will be tommorrow. But I wanna see what the great minds of NSG think.


***Note*** I am writing a paper about this, yes, but this thread was not made in order to get help with it. I just had the idea on my mind, and wanted to put it to use on the forums :)

mythic fiction

mythic fiction

and why do you say that sir?

Jesus Christ by Woodie Guthrie:

Jesus Christ was a man who traveled through the land
A hard-working man and brave
He said to the rich, "Give your money to the poor,"
But they laid Jesus Christ in His grave

Jesus was a man, a carpenter by hand
His followers true and brave
One dirty little coward called Judas Iscariot
Has laid Jesus Christ in His Grave

He went to the preacher, He went to the sheriff
He told them all the same
"Sell all of your jewelry and give it to the poor,"
And they laid Jesus Christ in His grave.

When Jesus come to town, all the working folks around
Believed what he did say
But the bankers and the preachers, they nailed Him on the cross,
And they laid Jesus Christ in his grave.

And the people held their breath when they heard about his death
Everybody wondered why
It was the big landlord and the soldiers that they hired
To nail Jesus Christ in the sky

This song was written in New York City
Of rich man, preacher, and slave
If Jesus was to preach what He preached in Galilee,
They would lay poor Jesus in His grave.

^^^

Wasn't that guy a socialist hippy?

^^^

Wasn't that guy a socialist hippy?

Who was a socialist hippy -- Woody Guthrie or Jesus Christ? Both?

and why do you say that sir?

Beyond the Bible, which is at best suspect, there's no proof such a character ever existed. Similar mythologies surrounded roughly contemporary characters, though, so it's perhaps not completely unreasonable to speculate "Jesus" is an amalgamation of several popular "holy" people. So.. Fictional character.

Given Rome was the dominant power in those days, which 300 years after the birth of Christ turned to Christianity then crumbled thus sending the Western world into the dark ages...

Is it possible that - taking in the highly hypothetical collapse of the West and rising dominance of Islam, imagine technology was dismantled and a 'burning of the books' occurred in respect to Western history, which would be seen as ungodly?

Given that, imagine that Osama bin Laden would then be seen as a freedom fighter a la Robin Hood, and then possibly deified to be a Son of Mohammed. The miracle of the 2 towers, the years in the wilderness...

In 2000 years will we be celebrating Osamamas?

Point being, could Jesus have been a local Jewish rebel, who, in the sense of Braveheart (apologies for use of a film), came to be attributed with godly, goodly powers as a banner against Roman rule? Wasn't the Fish symbol both for Christianity and against Roman rule during the persecution of said early Christians?

Merry Osamamas to you all!

To be a lunatic, liar, or lord you have to be real. There's absoutely no reason to believe that the Christian savior-figure is real, and so the question itself is moot.

When you can provide convincing primary documents that demonstrate that a christ figure existed, let alone one that corroborates the bible's, which wasn't written for another 100+ years after it claims it's events took place, claims about it, then we can talk specifics.

Beyond the Bible, which is at best suspect, there's no proof such a character ever existed. Similar mythologies surrounded roughly contemporary characters, though, so it's perhaps not completely unreasonable to speculate "Jesus" is an amalgamation of several popular "holy" people. So.. Fictional character.

Here is why I believe Jesus was a real character. In that day and age the were many people going around trying to be the Messiah to free the Jews from the hands of Rome. However, when those leaders died, so did their movements. Their people dispersed and found something else to waste their life doing. After Jesus died, wouldn't it be likely that his "cult" would have just dispersed like the others? Instead, it grew in leaps and bounds despite constant persecution from Jewish and Roman authorities. Why would such a occurence happen if the whole thing was made up? Are people really going to sit there and die because they think that maybe a guy was born and he could be messiah, and he might have existed and could have be son of God or whatever...That's insane. Now it would make sense that people were willing to suffer jail and death, if indeed this was a real man with real ideas.

What was Jesus really? Was he the Son of God? Was he God? Was he just a man that has been given all these attributes to make him appear as God?

My own opinion is that the charachter of Jesus was based on some vague religious figure that lived 2000+ years ago who possesed an understanding of ethics and morality advanced for his time.

I want to see what you all think. I believe Jesus was OF God, meaning that he wasn't God himself, but he got his power through God.

Hmmm, that sounds close to the Islamic interpretation of Jesus (Or Eesa, as he is called in Arabic). Are you Muslim by any chance? Hope you dont mind me asking.

To be a lunatic, liar, or lord you have to be real. There's absoutely no reason to believe that the Christian savior-figure is real, and so the question itself is moot.

When you can provide convincing primary documents that demonstrate that a christ figure existed, let alone one that corroborates the bible's, which wasn't written for another 100+ years after it claims it's events took place, claims about it, then we can talk specifics.

I believe that the earliest Christian writings, Paul's epistles were just about 20 yrs or so after the death of Christ. That is rather decent considering the fact that so much was happening to the Christians at the time, ie being stoned and martyred and such.

Jesus Christ by Woodie Guthrie:

Jesus Christ was a man who traveled through the land
A hard-working man and brave
He said to the rich, "Give your money to the poor,"
But they laid Jesus Christ in His grave

Jesus was a man, a carpenter by hand
His followers true and brave
One dirty little coward called Judas Iscariot
Has laid Jesus Christ in His Grave

He went to the preacher, He went to the sheriff
He told them all the same
"Sell all of your jewelry and give it to the poor,"
And they laid Jesus Christ in His grave.

When Jesus come to town, all the working folks around
Believed what he did say
But the bankers and the preachers, they nailed Him on the cross,
And they laid Jesus Christ in his grave.

And the people held their breath when they heard about his death
Everybody wondered why
It was the big landlord and the soldiers that they hired
To nail Jesus Christ in the sky

This song was written in New York City
Of rich man, preacher, and slave
If Jesus was to preach what He preached in Galilee,
They would lay poor Jesus in His grave.

I can top that! :p

The Ballad of The Carpenter
By Phil Ochs

Jesus was a working man
And a hero you will hear
Born in the town of Bethlehem
At the turning of the year
At the turning of the year

When Jesus was a little lad
Streets rang with his name
For he argued with the older men
And put them all to shame
He put them all to shame

He became a wandering journeyman
And he traveled far and wide
And he noticed how wealth and poverty
Live always side by side
Live always side by side

So he said "Come you working men
Farmers and weavers too
If you would only stand as one
This world belongs to you
This world belongs to you"

When the rich men heard what the carpenter had done
To the Roman troops they ran
Saying put this rebel Jesus down
He's a menace to God and man
He's a menace to God and man

The commander of the occupying troops
Just laughed and then he said
"There's a cross to spare on Calvaries hill
By the weekend he'll be dead
By the weekend he'll be dead"

Now Jesus walked among the poor
For the poor were his own kind
And they'd never let them get near enough
To take him from behind
To take him from behind

So they hired one of the traders trade
And an informer was he
And he sold his brother to the butchers men
For a fistful of silver money
For a fistful of silver money

And Jesus sat in the prison cell
And they beat him and offered him bribes
To desert the cause of his fellow man
And work for the rich men's tribe,
To work for the rich men's tribe

And the sweat stood out on Jesus' brow
And the blood was in his eye
When they nailed his body to the Roman cross
And they laughed as they watched him die
They laughed as they watched him die

Two thousand years have passed and gone
Many a hero too
But the dream of this poor carpenter
Remains in the hands of you
Remains in the hands of you

And rest assured that Phil Ochs was no Socialist Hippy...

He was a full blown Communist Yippie, thank-you-very-much.

My own opinion is that the charachter of Jesus was based on some vague religious figure that lived 2000+ years ago who possesed an understanding of ethics and morality advanced for his time.



Hmmm, that sounds close to the Islamic interpretation of Jesus (Or Eesa, as he is called in Arabic). Are you Muslim by any chance? Hope you dont mind me asking.

No, I am a Christian seeking to find the Jewish Jesus, instead of the Pagan Jesus that most Christians know today. However, I have spent alot of muslims lately, so that could affect my thinking a bit. :)

I believe that the earliest Christian writings, Paul's epistles were just about 20 yrs or so after the death of Christ. That is rather decent considering the fact that so much was happening to the Christians at the time, ie being stoned and martyred and such.

Once again, corroborate the existence of Paul with a primary document. The only proof we have that Paul was real is the Bible's claim. The Bible is a religious text, not a history book.

King of Kings and Lord of Lords. The Son of God, the Son of Man, the Christ.

It's a matter of faith, and one whose certainty I cannot really share with you because it is MY faith, not yours.

Once again, corroborate the existence of Paul with a primary document. The only proof we have that Paul was real is the Bible's claim. The Bible is a religious text, not a history book.


So you are saying Paul is not real? Dear lord, he is only one of the major reasons christianity is in existence today. You want proof of Paul's existence? Look at the Church...Look at the world..that's proof. He helped create the church, which changed the world forever. But you are entitled to you uneducated opinion :)

So you are saying Paul is not real? Dear lord, he is only one of the major reasons christianity is in existence today. You want proof of Paul's existence? Look at the Church...Look at the world..that's proof. He helped create the church, which changed the world forever. But you are entitled to you uneducated opinion :)

The Church claims Paul existed and created the church, therefore Paul existed and created the church. That's circular logic if I've ever heard it. You may call me uneducated when you can show me proof that Paul existed. Come on, show me one real document showing that Paul existed. Surely, if he is as important as you claim, there's a census showing him? Surely there is public record of his speaches? Surely there are mentions of him in contemporary scholar's works?

No? Well... I wonder who is uneducated.

Don't go throwing around words like 'uneducated' when you open the discussion by obfuscating the issue and ruling out a perfectly viable response to the question. Lewis' dillema, which is to say the idea that the Christ must have been either a Lunatic, a Liar, or a Lord is a useless question, because it ignores the other answer. Do not ask what Jesus was until you ask if Jesus was, because otherwise you're muddying the waters and engaging in twisting the terms of the debate.

I believe that the earliest Christian writings, Paul's epistles were just about 20 yrs or so after the death of Christ.

of course, a good proportion of the epistles supposedly written by paul were not, in fact.

what i want to know is what were people doing for those decades between? surely somebody would have thought to themselves "hey, maybe we should write some of this down."

Why not all three?

Parallels between Jesus and Horus, an Egyptian God (http://www.religioustolerance.org/chr_jcpa5.htm)

Once again, corroborate the existence of Paul with a primary document. The only proof we have that Paul was real is the Bible's claim. The Bible is a religious text, not a history book.
Well, whether or not it was actually some guy who saw Jesus's etherial form some 10 years after his death or just someone a long while later, Christianity as the construct it is today has its origins in the ideas of a group of people headed by a particularly dogmatic individual. We can question the details of whether or not Jesus was a real figure, and we can question whether or not the Paul in the Bible is actually the source of the Christian message, but somewhere in history must exist a "Paul" to instantiate the religion we know today.

Rather like the Jewish historical accounts, it is often best to treat the records as mythological, though not necessarily false. We can take the Biblical account of Paul to be the definitive account of how Christians understand the origins of the Christian Organisation, which may or may not be perfectly historically accurate but does either way tell us quite a lot about how they see themselves in the world today.

This approach, I feel, is the one to take with religious texts in general - A stance that requires no sense of trust at all in the accuracy of the work or lack thereof.

My opinion of the character of Jesus Christ takes the 4th L - Legend. He probably was a real person, or many real people, who had a lot of wisdom to bring to the world. However, in spite of what he had to say, the people who followed him have managed to monopolise interpretation of him and have created a mythological veil about him, allowing us only to see what they want us to see in the way they want us to see it. The tales spun from his aftermath have served to distort any perception of reality that may have given us an objective stance on the figure himself.

As such, I am forced to treat Jesus as the simplified character portrayed in the Christian message above and beyond any sense of genuine humanity or divinity, which is a great shame, really. It's certainly a good story, with some interesting insights, but to treat it as anything more than parable would be unwise.

That's insane. Now it would make sense that people were willing to suffer jail and death, if indeed this was a real man with real ideas.Lots of isms have spread like plague within relatively short periods of time, without any central leadership. There's nothing terribly unusual about that. The endurance of the beliefs is more surprising, but that too happens on a regular basis.

Beyond the Bible, which is at best suspect, there's no proof such a character ever existed. ... Fictional character.

Well, actually there is some archaeological proof for the existance of the jew "Iesus", coming from Nazareth and crucifixed in Jerusalem, in Roman records of that time. Looks like he was a radical, reformist rabbi.
Of course, no proof (in historical, not religious meaning) can be found about Iesus being the Messiah... but, then again, I'm an atheist, so I might have a slight bias about that.;)

Well, whether or not it was actually some guy who saw Jesus's etherial form some 10 years after his death or just someone a long while later, Christianity as the construct it is today has its origins in the ideas of a group of people headed by a particularly dogmatic individual. We can question the details of whether or not Jesus was a real figure, and we can question whether or not the Paul in the Bible is actually the source of the Christian message, but somewhere in history must exist a "Paul" to instantiate the religion we know today.

I can accept the idea that someone had to start the religion, but that someone doesn't have to be a thing like the Paul figure you suggest. He made the specific claim that Paul wrote his portion of scripture 20 years after Christ's supposed death. However, he had no corroborating information that there was ever a man similar enough to this Paul to write or distribute said writings. What if Paul was merely a group of people trying to codify what their cult worshipped? What if "Paul" was written at the council called to codify Christian beliefs?

Rather like the Jewish historical accounts, it is often best to treat the records as mythological, though not necessarily false. We can take the Biblical account of Paul to be the definitive account of how Christians understand the origins of the Christian Organisation, which may or may not be perfectly historically accurate but does either way tell us quite a lot about how they see themselves in the world today.

Fine. As a study of Christianity, Paul's story has a value. That doesn't, in any way, validate offering his story as historical proof of the existence of a Christ.

As such, I am forced to treat Jesus as the simplified character portrayed in the Christian message above and beyond any sense of genuine humanity or divinity, which is a great shame, really. It's certainly a good story, with some interesting insights, but to treat it as anything more than parable would be unwise.

I have to admit that my wish to understand the Christ figure extends as far as, "As long as you don't try to make me deal with him, you can believe whatever the fuck you want, but if you're gonna try to play games with me, I'm gonna give as good as I get." So, really, I'm the last person to discuss what the Christ figure actually was (being an Ignostic, and hardly interested in the actual religious code).

Edit: Dear God! Reading comprehension. My bad.

Assuming that the Biblical record of Jesus is reasonably accurate (in terms of what he said), I think that he was a very wise and noble man with some delusions of grandeur. Still worth listening to, though.

No, I am a Christian seeking to find the Jewish Jesus, instead of the Pagan Jesus that most Christians know today. However, I have spent alot of muslims lately, so that could affect my thinking a bit. :)

I wonder: is this question of so great importance? I mean, I think that a christian should focus on the "message" of Jesus (love thy neighbour etc) a lot more than on the actual existance of the man Jesus - I think that this is a matter of least importance.

Assuming that the Biblical record of Jesus is reasonably accurate (in terms of what he said), I think that he was a very wise and noble man with some delusions of grandeur. Still worth listening to, though.

The only place HE is said to refer to himself in such a tone is in John, which is why I really discredit that gospel.

To be a lunatic, liar, or lord you have to be real. There's absoutely no reason to believe that the Christian savior-figure is real, and so the question itself is moot.

When you can provide convincing primary documents that demonstrate that a christ figure existed, let alone one that corroborates the bible's, which wasn't written for another 100+ years after it claims it's events took place, claims about it, then we can talk specifics.

Non-Christian sources for Jesus

• Tacitus (AD 55-120), a renowned historical of ancient Rome, wrote in the latter half of the first century that ‘Christus ... was put to death by Pontius Pilate, procurator of Judea in the reign of Tiberius: but the pernicious superstition, repressed for a time, broke out again, not only through Judea, where the mischief originated, but through the city of Rome also.’ (Annals 15: 44).

• Suetonius writing around AD 120 tells of disturbances of the Jews at the ‘instigation of Chrestus’, during the time of the emperor Claudius. This could refer to Jesus, and appears to relate to the events of Acts 18:2, which took place in AD 49.

• Thallus, a secular historian writing perhaps around AD 52 refers to the death of Jesus in a discussion of the darkness over the land after his death. The original is lost, but Thallus’ arguments — explaining what happened as a solar eclipse — are referred to by Julius Africanus in the early 3rd century.

• Mara Bar-Serapion, a Syrian writing after the destruction of the Temple in AD 70, mentions the earlier execution of Jesus, whom he calls a ‘King’.

• The Babylonian Talmud refers to the crucifixion (calling it a hanging) of Jesus the Nazarene on the eve of the Passover. In the Talmud Jesus is also called the illegitimate son of Mary.

• The Jewish historian Josephus describes Jesus’ crucifixion under Pilate in his Antiquities, written about AD 93/94. Josephus also refers to James the brother of Jesus and his execution during the time of Ananus (or Annas) the high priest.

Paul’s Epistles

• Paul’s epistles were written in the interval 20-30 years after Jesus’ death. They are valuable historical documents, not least because they contain credal confessions which undoubtedly date to the first few decades of the Christian community.

Paul became a believer in Jesus within a few years of Jesus’ crucifixion. He writes in his first letter to the Corinthians ‘For I delivered to you first of all that which I also received: that Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures, and that He was buried, and that He rose again on the third day according to the Scriptures, and that he was seen by Cephas (Peter), then by the twelve.’ This makes clear that belief in the death of Jesus was there from the beginning of Christianity.

The four gospels

• The four gospels were written down in the period 20-60 years after Jesus’ death, within living memory of the events they describe.

The events which the gospels describe for the most part took place in the full light of public scrutiny. Jesus’ teaching was followed by large crowds. There were very many witnesses to the events of his life. His death was a public execution.

Manuscript evidence for the Bible and its transmission

The manuscript evidence for the Greek scriptures is overwhelming, far greater than for all other ancient texts. Over 20,000 manuscripts attest to them. While there are copying errors, as might be expected from the hand of copyists, these are almost all comparatively minor and the basic integrity of the copying process is richly supported.

Futhermore, when Western Christians study the Hebrew scriptures during the Renaissance, they found them to agree remarkably closely with their Greek and Latin translations which had been copied again and again over a thousand years. There were copying errors, and some other minor changes, but no significant fabrications of the stupendous scale which would be required to concoct the story of Jesus’ death.

Likewise when the Dead Sea Scrolls were discovered they included Hebrew Biblical scrolls dating from before the time of Jesus. These too agreed very closely with the oldest Hebrew Masoretic manuscripts of more than a thousand years later. Again, no fabrications, but evidence of remarkably faithful copying.

Conclusion: Jesus of Nazareth is a figure of history

Clearly there are events recorded in connection with Jesus’ life that non-Christians will not accept, such as the miracles, the virgin birth, and the resurrection. However what is beyond dispute is that Yeshua (‘Jesus’) of Nazareth was a figure of history, who lived, attracted a following in his life time amongst his fellow Jews and was executed by crucifixion by the Roman authorities, after which his followers spread rapidly. Both secular and Christian sources of the period agree on this.

The primary sources for the history of Jesus’ public life are the gospels. These were written down relatively soon after his death — within living memory — and we have every indication that these sources were accepted as reliable in the early Christian community, during a period when first and second hand witnesses to Jesus’ life were still available.
Resurrection proofs - Is there historical evidence?

Christianity has many extraordinary claims but they all rest on one event, the resurrection of our Lord. If this event did not come to pass, Christianity is of no use. 1 Corinthians 15:14 says, "And if Christ has not been raised, our preaching is useless and so is your faith."

The Christians of the early Church agreed with the Apostle Paul's statement. The Church would have come to nothing had the resurrection been discredited. Yet when the Church was experiencing growth, the Romans did not debunk the resurrection. There were certainly a plethora of hostile witnesses to the events of the Gospels, but not a single Roman came forward to expose supposed fallacies. Many Roman critics attacked the philosophy of Christianity, but they were unable to attack its historical accuracy, as they were witness to the events of the New Testament. The Church could not have grown in Jerusalem if Jesus' own generation (who had Him put to death) could have immediately exposed the resurrection as lies.

The resurrection is not a lie. Christ died. Roman soldiers were experts at execution. They plunged a spear into Christ's side, and resultant blood and water flowed through the wound. This was recorded in the gospels, however they did not understand the medical connotations as we do today. The fluid was flowing from the pericardium and Christ could not have survived.

Many historians readily accept the writings of Plato, Aristotle, Thucydides, and Caesar. Plato wrote between 427-347 B.C., with our earliest copies of his works dating from the 900s (1200 year span), of which 7 copies have survived. Aristotle wrote between 384-322 B.C., and his earliest works are dated from the 1100s (1400 year span), with 49 surviving copies. Thucydides wrote around 460-400 B.C.; our copies of his works are from the 900s (1300 year span), with 8 copies in existence. Caesar's life was chronicled from 100-44 B.C. Our earliest copies of the chronicles of Julius Caesar date from the 900s (1000 years) and we have 10 surviving copies.

The New Testament, on the other hand, was written between 40-100 AD and our earliest copies of the New Testament manuscripts are from the 130s (less than 100 years) and we have 5000 Greek copies, 10,000 Latin copies and 9300 copies in other languages.

The New Testament stands alone in historical accuracy. It is the greatest of the resurrection proofs. The gospels themselves are the most reliable historical books in existence. However there are secular sources to confirm the gospels' claims. Josephus, a prominent Jewish historian, corroborated the prophecies, miracles, and crucifixion of Jesus. Tacitus, a Roman historian, goes as far as to say, "Christus…suffered the extreme penalty during the reign of Tiberius at the hands of one of our procurators, Pontius Pilate, and a most mischievous superstition, thus checked for the moment, again broke out not only in Judea. . .but even in Rome." (Tacitus, Annals 15.44 as quoted in Case for Christ)

Scholars assert that when Tacitus says Jesus, "checked for the moment" it indicates Jesus' death, and, "again broke out" refers to the resurrection.

The Bible also says the Earth went dark for three days. This is supported in the writings of Thallus, a mid-eastern historian, who noted the darkness, which was parallel with the time of the crucifixion. Phlegon also wrote about a great earthquake and the greatest eclipse in the 202nd Olympiad, which is the year A.D. 33.

These miraculous historical events mysteriously come together and are explained in the Bible. There is undoubtedly an abundance of resurrection proofs to confirm the claims of the resurrection. We don't have to take a blind leap of faith, to follow assorted stories from a 2000-year-old book. We can accept the most significant event in history, which coincidentally is the most well documented event in history.


Ready to talk specifics?

[QUOTE=Geppeto;12356524That's insane. Now it would make sense that people were willing to suffer jail and death, if indeed this was a real man with real ideas.[/QUOTE]

Anarchism, Communism, Mercantilism, Colonialism, Manifest Destiny, Social Darwinism, Any of a hundred other "One True" religions, and Pacifism, to name just a few examples of people dying for a futile or completely false cause.

I'd have to agree that he was simply a person (or persons) whose image was later distorted by the church. What clinches it for me was that in about the 4th century, the church gathered and decided which would be the official views of the church. Among these questions was the issue of whether Jesus was really the son of God. While he may have been a real person (and there is some evidence to support that) he was probably just a man who developed a following and was killed by the Romans for his opposition. The only evidence to support the bible is the bible itself, which makes it useless as proof. On top of that, if the church decided that he was divine 400 years after his death, it was not based on observation, but rather on either legend or politics.
I don't mean to suggest that there is no value to what he taught, as he had some good lessons to teach (assuming that his teachings were really his) but there is a difference between a mortal with ethical and moral teachings and the son of god.


P.S. - I just want to add a vaguely related note here. I have my personal beliefs, but frankly, I don't care what you believe as long as it makes you a good person. If you believe that your toenail clippings are the almighty ruler of the universe, that's fine with me, as long as they tell you to be a good person, do unto others as you'd have them do to you, etc. So if believing that Jesus was the son of God makes you more likely to be a good, kind person, then go for it. The problem comes in when people must insist that they are right beyond any doubt and are willing to harm others over it. (and I'd like to thank the posters on this thread for managing to keep things civil and intelligent - it's refreshing.)

Anarchism, Communism, Mercantilism, Colonialism, Manifest Destiny, Social Darwinism, Any of a hundred other "One True" religions, and Pacifism, to name just a few examples of people dying for a futile or completely false cause.

Those are based on ideas, that's different than a movement based on a man. Ideas can never be proven or disproven either way. A man is a physical thing. It can be proven.

We can all quote

Here's debunking your first fact.

"Tacitus is considered the most reliable scholar of his time. He had access to Roman archives, and his only mistakes arose from occasional reliance on secondary sources. In this case he could have been using either Christian sources or Roman archives. It is argued that if he had been using Roman archives, he should have identified Pontius Pilate as a "prefect" rather than a "procurator," since Pilate is known from a surviving inscription to have been prefect (i.e. governor), as is also stated in the Gospels (although it is possible that the original might have used the abbreviation "Pr." which Tacitus then misinterpreted, or that Pilate held both offices, which was common). The more serious criticism is that the records would have identified Jesus by his given name rather than "Christus." In addition, Christian accounts were readily available while centuries of inquiry have turned up no authentic contemporaneous Roman documents related to a historical Jesus."

Ready to talk specifics?

Yup. None of those people was even alive at the time of the claimed crucifiction. Many of the Roman scholars were polytheists, and not given to questioning religious beliefs. The second document is chock-full of errors and bias, not the least of which being the claim that the New Testament was written within 100 years of Christ's death. That claim is patently false, as we know that the Christian creed is not brought together until AD 180. The claims of the "writers" of the gospels actually existing are un-corroborated. Etc. Etc.

Neither of you documents is cited, and almost every one of their claims is contested one place or another. I'm busy right now, so I'm gonna be lazy and not find the quotes (I don't have time for an hour of googling to convince you of nothing anyway), but I will say that I've definitely seen the Tacitus quote challenged.

Once again, corroborate the existence of Paul with a primary document. The only proof we have that Paul was real is the Bible's claim. The Bible is a religious text, not a history book.

Are you serious? The Bible is definitley a religious text first and foremost, but it contains tons of history, much of which has been varified by sources outside of it.

The majority of historians all agree that Jesus existed. I've been to Israel, and I've seen the places he visited, and I've seen his grave. If He wasn't real, then over the past 2,000 years there have been 2 billion really dumb people.

I don't get why some atheists try to point out that Jesus wasn't real. If you're an atheist, fine, be an atheist. But it's sad when you deny the existence of an actual historical figure. That shows a phobia of theism that is kind of strange. If you don't believe God is real, then why do you care if Jesus existed or not? It shouldn't matter either way.

But most of the atheists on here are probably 17 and are atheist so their parents will pay attention to them.

By the way, I'm not disagreeing that Jesus existing, I just don't enjoy uncredited mass quotes

Since there's no evidence the man actually existed in the first place, no contemporary records or anything like that, it seems likely to me that he was just an amalgamation of ancient saviour diety myths and jewish messianistic prophesies.

Are you serious? The Bible is definitley a religious text first and foremost, but it contains tons of history, much of which has been varified by sources outside of it.

The majority of historians all agree that Jesus existed. I've been to Israel, and I've seen the places he visited, and I've seen his grave. If He wasn't real, then over the past 2,000 years there have been 2 billion really dumb people.

I don't get why some atheists try to point out that Jesus wasn't real. If you're an atheist, fine, be an atheist. But it's sad when you deny the existence of an actual historical figure. That shows a phobia of theism that is kind of strange. If you don't believe God is real, then why do you care if Jesus existed or not? It shouldn't matter either way.

But most of the atheists on here are probably 17 and are atheist so their parents will pay attention to them.

There's Absolutely no proof that Jesus existed. Don't babble at me in soft, and empty rhetoric. Don't offer me logical fallacies in place of solid fact. Show me documents and show me information. Don't show me empty groupthink or unsubstantiated claims about historians.

Show me numbers. Show me documents. Show me sources.

I'm not an atheist, buddy, so get your most-hated group straight for today. I'm an ignostic. I actually don't care if God exists or not. I just am totally annoyed by the way that Christians skew the issue on this question, and so I reply to these threads. You'll actually find that I don't ever debate God's existence or lack of existence ever. It's not my problem. I just don't want to see false claims that contradict evidence slipped into public discourse through logical fallacies and the stupid Lewis "Question".

Are you serious? The Bible is definitley a religious text first and foremost, but it contains tons of history, much of which has been varified by sources outside of it.

The majority of historians all agree that Jesus existed. I've been to Israel, and I've seen the places he visited, and I've seen his grave. If He wasn't real, then over the past 2,000 years there have been 2 billion really dumb people.

I don't get why some atheists try to point out that Jesus wasn't real. If you're an atheist, fine, be an atheist. But it's sad when you deny the existence of an actual historical figure. That shows a phobia of theism that is kind of strange. If you don't believe God is real, then why do you care if Jesus existed or not? It shouldn't matter either way.

But most of the atheists on here are probably 17 and are atheist so their parents will pay attention to them.

Quoted not for truth, but for sheer laughter :)

Im sigging that last part :)

Lewis' dillema, which is to say the idea that the Christ must have been either a Lunatic, a Liar, or a Lord is a useless question, because it ignores the other answer.

I'd go further than that. The CS Lewis Fallacy, like its offspring the Nicky Gumble Nonsense, and every other attempt to present Christianity as a logical lifestyle choice, makes a few odd assumptions.

My favourite one is the idea that 'Jesus couldn't have been mad - look at his words and achievements.' As if mental illness renders a person totally incapable of achieving anything. Besides, Julius Caesar claimed to be descended from Mars on one side of his family, and Venus on the other. Alexander the Great claimed to be a god, and Mohammad claimed to have been taking dictation from god.

Are you serious? The Bible is definitley a religious text first and foremost, but it contains tons of history, much of which has been varified by sources outside of it.
Yes, just like how the flood happened. How Herod had a census called, how Herod tried to execute male infants. Yep, lots of stuff in the Bible definitely happened alright.

The majority of historians all agree that Jesus existed.
A growing number are questioning that assumption.

I've been to Israel, and I've seen the places he visited, and I've seen his grave. If He wasn't real, then over the past 2,000 years there have been 2 billion really dumb people.
They marked out his grave? Really now?

I don't get why some atheists try to point out that Jesus wasn't real. If you're an atheist, fine, be an atheist. But it's sad when you deny the existence of an actual historical figure. That shows a phobia of theism that is kind of strange. If you don't believe God is real, then why do you care if Jesus existed or not? It shouldn't matter either way.
I'm an agnostic and I think it's unlikely that Jesus as a historical figure resembled in any way shape or form the Jesus in the bible. I think it's more likely that the Jesus of the bible is a combination of ancient myths and various claims of messiahs at the time (there were a number of them) and if you look at the evolution of the church doctrine, what was chosen to go into the bible, what was left out et c. the religion as it is now doesn't resemble the early church at all really.

But most of the atheists on here are probably 17 and are atheist so their parents will pay attention to them.
If you want to start in with stereotypes: Most christians on here are probably 13 and are only christians because they're too blind and sheepish to think for themselves.

How does that feel?

Quoted not for truth, but for sheer laughter :)

Im sigging that last part :)

Hey, I think everyone has a right to be an atheist, but it's probably true.

Hey, I think everyone has a right to be an atheist, but it's probably true.

Oh I totally agree. Believe in what ever you want. Im not going to stop ya. That whole thing just made me giggle a little, that's all. :)

Hey, I think everyone has a right to be an atheist, but it's probably true.

Well aren't we smug and self righteous. :rolleyes:

"You have a right to believe what you want, but if you dissagree with me you're an attention-starved faux-rebellious child who doesn't actually believe what they say."

You'd make a more convincing case if you did something other than use vague rhetoric and ad hominems to debate.

Well, actually there is some archaeological proof for the existance of the jew "Iesus", coming from Nazareth and crucifixed in Jerusalem, in Roman records of that time. Looks like he was a radical, reformist rabbi.
Do you have a source on this information? I seem to remember reading that they'd only found one execution order for a Jesus, and it was a Jesus of Barrabbas.

Yes, just like how the flood happened. How Herod had a census called, how Herod tried to execute male infants. Yep, lots of stuff in the Bible definitely happened alright.

You do know there are a ton of ancient flood myths right? I'm not saying it was certainly a worldwide flood, but since you were around back then, you'd know best.

A growing number are questioning that assumption.

Gotcha. Let me know when that number hits THE MAJORITY.

For now, consider this: a growing number of people are questiong the assumption that global warming exists.


They marked out his grave? Really now?

Yeah, they did actually. I've got pictures if you wanna see.


I'm an agnostic and I think it's unlikely that Jesus as a historical figure resembled in any way shape or form the Jesus in the bible. I think it's more likely that the Jesus of the bible is a combination of ancient myths and various claims of messiahs at the time (there were a number of them) and if you look at the evolution of the church doctrine, what was chosen to go into the bible, what was left out et c. the religion as it is now doesn't resemble the early church at all really.

Ok.


If you want to start in with stereotypes: Most christians on here are probably 13 and are only christians because they're too blind and sheepish to think for themselves.

How does that feel?

Pretty damn good.

Well aren't we smug and self righteous. :rolleyes:

"You have a right to believe what you want, but if you dissagree with me you're an attention-starved faux-rebellious child who doesn't actually believe what they say."

You'd make a more convincing case if you did something other than use vague rhetoric and ad hominems to debate.

I don't remember saying all that. Hey, it's probably true of all the Christians on here too, but they're just believing what they do so their parents will still like them. Seriously is the idea that a messageboard is populated by teenagers who believe what they do largely for the sake of believing all that hard to believe?

You do know there are a ton of ancient flood myths right? I'm not saying it was certainly a worldwide flood, but since you were around back then, you'd know best.

Gee. In fact, there was a fairly significant flood in the region at the time, when an ice-dam broke, flooding a large portion of what is now the Black Sea, If I remember the location correctly. Could a superstitious group of tribesmen have made it a religious thing when it wasn't? Nah... :rolleyes:

Gotcha. Let me know when that number hits THE MAJORITY.

The Majority of Americans can't find Iraq on a map. Does that mean that Iraq doesn't exist?

For now, consider this: a growing number of people are questiong the assumption that global warming exists.

This claim is actually false, but it makes my point for me anyway.



Yeah, they did actually. I've got pictures if you wanna see.

If by "they" you mean a group who invaded during the crusades a thousand years later.

Do you have a source on this information? I seem to remember reading that they'd only found one execution order for a Jesus, and it was a Jesus of Barrabbas.


I think you are refering to Yeshua Bar-Abba, which is the same as Jesus Barabbas....and I don't remember where i was going to go with that.


dang late night debates!:(

Are you serious? The Bible is definitley a religious text first and foremost, but it contains tons of history, much of which has been varified by sources outside of it. Just like the Harry Potter books are primarily fiction, but definitly contain tonnes of historical facts, like the existence of certain cities, vehicles & the like. And that, of course, proves Harry Potter's a real person.The majority of historians all agree that Jesus existed. I've been to Israel, and I've seen the places he visited, and I've seen his grave. If He wasn't real, then over the past 2,000 years there have been 2 billion really dumb people.The popularity of an idea has no bearing on it's accuracy. I'm sure you're aware most of humanity throughout known history, believed the planet to be significantly smaller & a hell of a lot flatter than it is.I don't get why some atheists try to point out that Jesus wasn't real. If you're an atheist, fine, be an atheist. But it's sad when you deny the existence of an actual historical figure. That shows a phobia of theism that is kind of strange. If you don't believe God is real, then why do you care if Jesus existed or not? It shouldn't matter either way.Why does the Jesus character need to be real for you to hold on to your beliefs? Your seem to have no such need when it comes to your deity...
That was sarcasm, in case you missed it. Atheists generally don't make any claims regarding Jesus as a historical figure. Some of us just aren't afraid to question the claim. To me personally, it is completely inconsequential. I'm here to kill time, not to validate your superstitions.But most of the atheists on here are probably 17 and are atheist so their parents will pay attention to them.I've seen a number of polls on age & religious persuasion on here. It seems the majority of NSGers are atheists, and a slight majority are 25+ years old. While I don't know exactly how those numbers break down, I'd be surprised to learn you're correct, and at the very least, you're not correct in my case. Regardless, this is a debate forum. If you dislike the debate, steer clear of it.

You do know there are a ton of ancient flood myths right? I'm not saying it was certainly a worldwide flood, but since you were around back then, you'd know best.
Yes, good thing that the geological record has a better memory than human socieities, isn't it?

Gotcha. Let me know when that number hits THE MAJORITY.
Yes, because the majority is always correct.

For now, consider this: a growing number of people are questiong the assumption that global warming exists.
But a growing number of scientists, you know, people who actually study global warming, still agree that it is happening. In fact, all credible scientistis agree with this and the data backs them up.

Yeah, they did actually. I've got pictures if you wanna see.
And how do you know this was Jesus' grave? It's rather funny that his grave is clearly marked when nothing else about the man survived outside the bible, isn't it? Sorta like the pieces of the true cross floating about?

Pretty damn good.
So I should baa at you as that is a language you'll recognize? Good, glad we have that settled.

I don't remember saying all that. Hey, it's probably true of all the Christians on here too, but they're just believing what they do so their parents will still like them. Seriously is the idea that a messageboard is populated by teenagers who believe what they do largely for the sake of believing all that hard to believe?
Just because you're a kid who believes things his parents tell him and see his friends disbelieving things to rebel doesn't mean that's what everyone's doing. Some of us grown ups (or mostly grown ups) can make informed decisions for ourselves.

I think you are refering to Yeshua Bar-Abba, which is the same as Jesus Barabbas....and I don't remember where i was going to go with that.


dang late night debates!:(
Well, the thing that's funny about that is that Barrabbas was the guy the jewish mob set free. I also don't recall anything about him being a prophet or claiming to be a messiah in the roman execution order.

Gee. In fact, there was a fairly significant flood in the region at the time, when an ice-dam broke, flooding a large portion of what is now the Black Sea, If I remember the location correctly. Could a superstitious group of tribesmen have made it a religious thing when it wasn't? Nah... :rolleyes:

Right. I never said it was a worldwide flood. There are Christians out there who do believe it was a local flood.

The Majority of Americans can't find Iraq on a map. Does that mean that Iraq doesn't exist?

No, it means the majority of Americans can't find Iraq on a map.

This claim is actually false, but it makes my point for me anyway.

No, it's not, and even if it is false, it doesn't help your point. A majority of experts believe global warming is happening. That is reason to believe that it is. A majority of experts believe Jesus existed. That's a pretty good reason to believe that He did. Remember, I'm not arguing that Jesus was God, I'm simply arguing that He existed.

*And just for clarification, by "global warming" I mean that the growing temperature of the earth is going to adversely affect our lives. Almost everyone on the planet agrees that the earth is getting warmer.

If by "they" you mean a group who invaded during the crusades a thousand years later.

They told us that it was right when Constantine heard a Pat Robertson sermon and got saved. I believed them.

I don't remember saying all that. Hey, it's probably true of all the Christians on here too, but they're just believing what they do so their parents will still like them. Seriously is the idea that a messageboard is populated by teenagers who believe what they do largely for the sake of believing all that hard to believe?

It's exactly what you said, stripped of pretty language. This particular messageboard is actually populated by 20-somethings for the most part.

What you said was that the atheists on this forum were all children who believed what they believed for attention from their parents. Now, not only is this not what you claim to have said in your post, it is also demonstrably false.

Well, the thing that's funny about that is that Barrabbas was the guy the jewish mob set free. I also don't recall anything about him being a prophet or claiming to be a messiah in the roman execution order.

Whats funny abuot that? Is it the fact that he had the name Yeshua? Why is it funny that a common name was given to that man?

Some people think that Barabbas was actually a parable about how man was set free from his rightful death, while Jesus took it for us.

And I believe Barabbas, if proven to be real, and not made up for the purpose of above, was a zealot, that killed a roman soldier, maybe a tax collector..or something like that.. I forget :(

A majority of experts believe Jesus existed.

Please provide support for this assertion.

Right. I never said it was a worldwide flood. There are Christians out there who do believe it was a local flood.

I don't care either way, actually. To be blunt, I was just offering a purely technical opinion based on a single Nova I saw a decade ago.


No, it means the majority of Americans can't find Iraq on a map.

So you acknowledge that the beliefs of billions are not in any way a validation of a fact? If not, I've got plenty of other widely-believed untruths to offer up.

No, it's not, and even if it is false, it doesn't help your point. A majority of experts believe global warming is happening. That is reason to believe that it is. A majority of experts believe Jesus existed. That's a pretty good reason to believe that He did. Remember, I'm not arguing that Jesus was God, I'm simply arguing that He existed.

Show me proof about your claim about your "experts". I'd like to see it in numbers from a reliable source, with the actual polling method, a proof for the method, and repetition to proove the claim.

They told us that it was right when Constantine heard a Pat Robertson sermon and got saved. I believed them.

Um... Was this a joke? 'Cuz if so, it went over my head. If not... Well... I have more faith in humanity than to even suggest that.

No, it's not, and even if it is false, it doesn't help your point. A majority of experts believe global warming is happening. That is reason to believe that it is. A majority of experts believe Jesus existed. That's a pretty good reason to believe that He did. Remember, I'm not arguing that Jesus was God, I'm simply arguing that He existed.
However, most experts agree that Jesus existed because they haven't questioned that belief. It was generally taken to be true. However, there is a total lack of contemporary historical evidence for his existence, which makes it more and more doubtful or at the very least, unprovable.

Whats funny abuot that? Is it the fact that he had the name Yeshua? Why is it funny that a common name was given to that man?

Some people think that Barabbas was actually a parable about how man was set free from his rightful death, while Jesus took it for us.

And I believe Barabbas, if proven to be real, and not made up for the purpose of above, was a zealot, that killed a roman soldier, maybe a tax collector..or something like that.. I forget :(
I'm saying that the only Jesus the romans tried to execute has the same name as the man set free by the jewish mob.

Just like the Harry Potter books are primarily fiction, but definitly contain tonnes of historical facts, like the existence of certain cities, vehicles & the like. And that, of course, proves Harry Potter's a real person.

But if Tony Blair spent a couple billion on a hunt for Voldermort, that'd be pretty weird right? Because Constantine kind of believed it. If Jesus wasn't a real person, a large number of people got obsessed with Him real quickly for no good reason. I personally wouldn't die for someone who I made up.

The popularity of an idea has no bearing on it's accuracy. I'm sure you're aware most of humanity throughout known history, believed the planet to be significantly smaller & a hell of a lot flatter than it is.

Again, we rely on the consensus of experts on certain matters to give us our information. That's why we believe Evolution and Global Warming are both real. This isn't an "the earth is flat" kind of thing, most historians (experts) believe Jesus existed.

Why does the Jesus character need to be real for you to hold on to your beliefs?

Well, you know He's kind of the founder of the religion. It'd be shitty if L. Ron Hubbard turned out to be a figure made up by Tom Cruise.

And I got your atheist joke. Cute.

I've seen a number of polls on age & religious persuasion on here. It seems the majority of NSGers are atheists, and a slight majority are 25+ years old. While I don't know exactly how those numbers break down, I'd be surprised to learn you're correct, and at the very least, you're not correct in my case. Regardless, this is a debate forum. If you dislike the debate, steer clear of it.

If I'm not correct, fine. I obviously don't mind the debate, since I'm responding to you and to others as well.

I'm here because I like to kill time.

I'm here because I can't sleep.

I'm saying that the only Jesus the romans tried to execute has the same name as the man set free by the jewish mob.

What was that document called? Can I have a link please. I am interested in this :)

What was that document called? Can I have a link please. I am interested in this :)
I'll have to dig it up... I found it a while ago.

I found a site that mentions that there aren't any execution orders for Jesus: http://www.scu.edu/scm/exclusives/passion-baker.cfm I'm not sure how reliable that site is since it seems to disagree with other things I've read...

But if Tony Blair spent a couple billion on a hunt for Voldermort, that'd be pretty weird right? Because Constantine kind of believed it. If Jesus wasn't a real person, a large number of people got obsessed with Him real quickly for no good reason. I personally wouldn't die for someone who I made up.

Nero sent his troops to the Sea and had them collect seashells, claiming that they were proof of his great victory over the God of the Sea, and he was far from being the craziest Roman emporer.

Again, we rely on the consensus of experts on certain matters to give us our information. That's why we believe Evolution and Global Warming are both real. This isn't an "the earth is flat" kind of thing, most historians (experts) believe Jesus existed.

Source this or stop claiming it.

Again, we rely on the consensus of experts on certain matters to give us our information. That's why we believe Evolution and Global Warming are both real. This isn't an "the earth is flat" kind of thing, most historians (experts) believe Jesus existed.

Fallacious appeal to authority.

Now, not only is this not what you claim to have said in your post, it is also demonstrably false.

Well, that's great then.

But seriously, this is the internet. I made a generalization. Are you 17? No? Then don't worry about it. So my generalization was false. Who cares? Go to an average messageboard, it'd probably be true.

THE INTERNET IS SERIOUS BUSINESS.

I am a dumb Christian from New York, miles away from where you are. DO NOT let me get you up in arms about anything. Seriously.

Well, that's great then.

But seriously, this is the internet. I made a generalization. Are you 17? No? Then don't worry about it. So my generalization was false. Who cares? Go to an average messageboard, it'd probably be true.

THE INTERNET IS SERIOUS BUSINESS.

I am a dumb Christian from New York, miles away from where you are. DO NOT let me get you up in arms about anything. Seriously.

Was I up in arms? I can be pretty gruff, and I'm definitely very curt, but I was in no way up in arms. Your sheer arrogance in attacking atheism as a religion of faux-rebellious teenagers is exactly the arrogance I engage in these specific debates to combat.

Please provide support for this assertion.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historicity_of_Jesus

Wiki, with sources listed, is quoting the same, that the majority of historians believe that Jesus did exist as an historical person.

The part about being the Christ though...

I can accept the idea that someone had to start the religion, but that someone doesn't have to be a thing like the Paul figure you suggest. You made the specific claim that Paul wrote his portion of scripture 20 years after Christ's supposed death. However, you have no corroborating information that there was ever a man similar enough to this Paul to write or distribute said writings. What if Paul was merely a group of people trying to codify what their cult worshipped? What if "Paul" was written at the council called to codify Christian beliefs?
I'm not doubting that the figure of Paul may itself be largely legendary; perhaps as much so as Jesus. The suggestion I am making is that it is almost certain that at some point, this Paul was written to either replace or explain an existing leader. Without the existence of a sufficiently authoritive instigator in Christianity, nothing would have been started. That's how people work. Synergetic structures might seem fine and good on paper, but there has never been a successful organisation that has not at some stage depended on a top-down management structure.

Okay, the higher levels of this structure can be entirely fictional, a-la Big Brother or Father; however, you need to first create the structure, and this requires someone to take charge and implement it. The Biblical Paul might not fairly reflect on anything whatsoever to do with the one who originally created the council, and might have been written by it to pad out these higher levels, but the council can only have been created as a result of someone taking charge.

Of course, it doesn't really matter whether the Paul character itself is the result of a single real individual or a communal gathering, or whether the works were written 20 years or 200 years after the events they describe. In either case, Paul is part of the mythology of Christianity, and as such is something separate to History. I'm just making this point to note that while myth can be used to replace historical fact, it need not necessarily do so entirely, and the presence of mythological aspects in a tale doesn't deny a basis in genuine past experience.

Fine. As a study of Christianity, Paul's story has a value. That doesn't, in any way, validate offering his story as historical proof of the existence of a Christ.
No, you're right. It doesn't even try to; Acts and the Epistles are not about the historical evidence but about an emotional response to the mythos of Christ.

By and large, Paul's is a story about a tribute to a subjective, conceptual Christ which, in its telling, it creates and/or affirms itself. The Christ in the works and tales of Paul is thus self-evident, in that it has basis not in history but in personal experience and perspective. Which is pretty interesting, if a bit too subtle for your average Joe Heavengrabber.

I have to admit that my wish to understand the Christ figure extends as far as, "As long as you don't try to make me deal with him, you can believe whatever the fuck you want, but if you're gonna try to play games with me, I'm gonna give as good as I get." So, really, I'm the last person to discuss what the Christ figure actually was (being an Ignostic, and hardly interested in the actual religious code).
I'm probably not far in front of you, being something of a mystic myself. In my mind, Christ (or the idea of Christ) isn't actually any one thing, and it would be overly simplistic to try to reduce it to a manageable doctrine. I do think, however, that it is important to learn how to deal constructively with the questions that Religion asks. Organised systems of morality and thought are perhaps the greatest challenge that humanity has ever faced, and we as a people need to learn how to respond to them when they reveal themselves in our own lives. If the only ways of dealing with organised Religion are Beat 'em or Join 'em, we're pretty screwed in the long run.

Nero sent his troops to the Sea and had them collect seashells, claiming that they were proof of his great victory over the God of the Sea, and he was far from being the craziest Roman emporer.

?



Source this or stop claiming it.

You know, you could just look up "Jesus" on Wikipedia.

Most scholars in the fields of history and biblical studies agree that Jesus was a Jewish teacher from Galilee, who was regarded as a healer, was baptized by John the Baptist, and was crucified in Jerusalem on orders of the Roman Governor Pontius Pilate under the accusation of sedition against the Roman Empire

Or you could watch the History Channel? That's what I do. They've got a ton of stuff on Jesus. And SEX IN THE BIBLE OMGZ.

But if Tony Blair spent a couple billion on a hunt for Voldermort, that'd be pretty weird right? Because Constantine kind of believed it. If Jesus wasn't a real person, a large number of people got obsessed with Him real quickly for no good reason. I personally wouldn't die for someone who I made up.
But you might die for someone someone else made up and you believed existed.

This isn't an "the earth is flat" kind of thing, most historians (experts) believe Jesus existed.
Except that evolution and global warming have evidence to support their existence.

Well, you know He's kind of the founder of the religion. It'd be shitty if L. Ron Hubbard turned out to be a figure made up by Tom Cruise.
It doesn't matter to the Buddhists if the Buddha existed...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historicity_of_Jesus

Wiki, with sources listed, is quoting the same, that the majority of historians believe that Jesus did exist as an historical person.

The part about being the Christ though...

Eh... Not attacking you, but I'm gonna shred the source.

A) Wiki is about as reliable a source as hearsay.

B) The actual article says the "Majority of Biblical Scholars and Historians", which isn't exactly the same.

C) The entire article appears to be written from a biased standpoint. I'd check the citations, but they're all books.

Fallacious appeal to authority.

HELL YES.

Evolution?

Global Warming?

MATHEMATICAL THEORY?

Was I up in arms? I can be pretty gruff, and I'm definitely very curt, but I was in no way up in arms. Your sheer arrogance in attacking atheism as a religion of faux-rebellious teenagers is exactly the arrogance I engage in these specific debates to combat.

Well, I wasn't singling you out entirely. Whenever I'm on a messageboard I'm amazed at how quickly it gets personal.

And I sound arrogant probably because I am arrogant (I think). But you'd probably like me in person.

And if you think I'm bad about religion, you should talk to me about music.

Edit: Oh and I should probably repeat myself. I wasn't generalizing Atheism, I was generalizing messageboards.

Eh... Not attacking you, but I'm gonna shred the source.

A) Wiki is about as reliable a source as hearsay.

B) The actual article says the "Majority of Biblical Scholars and Historians", which isn't exactly the same.

C) The entire article appears to be written from a biased standpoint. I'd check the citations, but they're all books.

Damnit. Looks like you won the debate then.

You should note that it's not Biblical Scholars and Biblical Historians. And it's hard for an ENTIRE article to be from a biased standpoint. Hell, in the introduction it says that some scholars don't think Jesus existed. Maybe it's Fox News Fair and Balanced, but maybe you should change it to make it more balanced. I'll even help.

Does the Koran count as an outside source? Because Mary (Jesus' Mom) is mentioned more in there than she is in the Bible.

?

Just because someone was a Roman Emporer doesn't make them a viable source for anything. Rome's Emporers generally make George Bush look competant and sane.

You know, you could just look up "Jesus" on Wikipedia.

I want to see the study, the methodology for the study, and sucessful repetition of the study, and not a poorly written Wikipedia article. Either way, proof is your job, since you made the claim.



Or you could watch the History Channel? That's what I do. They've got a ton of stuff on Jesus. And SEX IN THE BIBLE OMGZ.


I don't watch television. Like. At all. If I wanted my brain forcibly torn from my skull, I'd have it done faster than T.V. does it. It wouldn't be as painful.

Eh... Not attacking you, but I'm gonna shred the source.

A) Wiki is about as reliable a source as hearsay.
Normally I would agree, but it is all the source I have, since I'm not really interested in the topic and don't have first source available. However, given that this particular article is heavily sourced...

B) The actual article says the "Majority of Biblical Scholars and Historians", which isn't exactly the same.
How so? I would doubt a Civil War Historian would render an opinion on the subject after all. Be careful you're not confusing Bible scholar with theologian.

C) The entire article appears to be written from a biased standpoint. I'd check the citations, but they're all books.
Wiki's pretty good with noting that, especially on an article like this, AND it goes out of its way to talk about the opposing side.

But I agree with checking the sources, but I don't happen to have a good English library available. I've got a really good Buddhist one in Japanese if that helps though. ;)

HELL YES.

Evolution?

Global Warming?

MATHEMATICAL THEORY?

1. Someone needs to learn the difference between a fallacious appeal to authority and a proper use of an authority.

2. With varying degrees of difficulty, the subject you point to do not rely purely on authority for their support. They are observable, testable, etc. The relevant facts may be put forth and examined, as opposed to your "well, the majority of experts say ..."

MATHEMATICAL THEORY?
Maths is distinct in that it is not authority but Convention. Axioms are conventionally agreed upon in order to permit logical analysis and deductive reasoning on those conventions.

1+1=2 is true because that is what 1, 2, + and = mean in the scope of conventional mathematical truth. You could, if you wish, construct a number system where 1+1=-5 and, provided that you'd laid down definitions of syntax and semantics appropriately, be entirely justified in doing so.

Sorry, pet peeve there. Carry on. =)

HELL YES.

Evolution?

Global Warming?

MATHEMATICAL THEORY?

No, evolution is absolutely not mathematical theory. That the earth is getting warmer is also not mathematical theory. They are both established in fact and all experts understand these facts. It's not that they believe, it's that the evidence is indisputable.

The majority of historians do believe Jesus was a factual figure but then the majority of historians cited accepted Christianity as a matter of faith first before clinically looking at the facts.

There is no historical evidence for Jesus other than that cited by Christians. He may well have existed, it's hard to believe such a movement was not originally based around someone, biut there's no real evidence.

Normally I would agree, but it is all the source I have, since I'm not really interested in the topic and don't have first source available. However, given that this particular article is heavily sourced...

One of the sayings that my Political Science teacher has pounded into my head over the last couple years is that you can find a source to say just about anything, if you look in the right places. Wiki is fine, for good general information, and for information on things like when a record was released, or what a term means, in general, but I don't trust it on issues where bias can come into play.

How so? I would doubt a Civil War Historian would render an opinion on the subject after all. Be careful you're not confusing Bible scholar with theologian.

Now I certainly don't have the expertice on what a Biblical scholar may or may not study, but I would suggest that a biblical scholar probably is going to have at the very least a slight bias towards believing what the bible says.


Wiki's pretty good with noting that, especially on an article like this, AND it goes out of its way to talk about the opposing side.

It does, but some of the phrasing raises my hackles. I may just be over-responding. It does mention Durant, so I'm going to go crack open my mother's copy of Ceasar and Christ tommorrow and take a gander at the aforementioned chapter.

But I agree with checking the sources, but I don't happen to have a good English library available. I've got a really good Buddhist one in Japanese if that helps though. ;)

If I ever have need for material on Buddhism, or examples for my vocabulary in Japanese, I'll ask you, then. :p

Now if your materials have a technique for memorizing 50 different vocab words and 20 kanji in 24 hours, I may declare you to be God, and give up this whole ignosticism thing, because that would be a miracle. :p

The majority of historians all agree that Jesus existed. I've been to Israel, and I've seen the places he visited, and I've seen his grave. If He wasn't real, then over the past 2,000 years there have been 2 billion really dumb people.

Theres a scene in the film "Darby O gill and the little people" where Darby O'Gill goes to the pub and gives the Leprachaun he has in a box a drink. The bar man then puts the empty glass up on the shelf as indisputable proof that a leprachaun had a drink in his pub.

By the way, does your logic also apply to Ganesh, Lord Brahma, Shiva etc?

Does the Koran count as an outside source? Because Mary (Jesus' Mom) is mentioned more in there than she is in the Bible.
The Koran was written how long after Jesus was supposed to have lived exactly?

1. Someone needs to learn the difference between a fallacious appeal to authority and a proper use of an authority.

2. With varying degrees of difficulty, the subject you point to do not rely purely on authority for their support. They are observable, testable, etc. The relevant facts may be put forth and examined, as opposed to your "well, the majority of experts say ..."

Historians study....history. I assume that Nero was emperor because those who have collected documents surrounding him have studied them and come to the conclusion that he was emperor. History is observable, and testable, and those who have studied believe the Jesus existed.

Historians study....history. I assume that Nero was emperor because those who have collected documents surrounding him have studied them and come to the conclusion that he was emperor. History is observable, and testable, and those who have studied believe the Jesus existed.

I. Want. To. See. The. Study. Proving. This. If you can show me said study, my incredulity towards the people who write history books will increase ten-million fold, or they must know something I don't.

Maths is distinct in that it is not authority but Convention. Axioms are conventionally agreed upon in order to permit logical analysis and deductive reasoning on those conventions.

1+1=2 is true because that is what 1, 2, + and = mean in the scope of conventional mathematical truth. You could, if you wish, construct a number system where 1+1=-5 and, provided that you'd laid down definitions of syntax and semantics appropriately, be entirely justified in doing so.

Sorry, pet peeve there. Carry on. =)

It's okay, I thought of math because I watched Goodwill Hunting tonight.

Theres a scene in the film "Darby O gill and the little people" where Darby O'Gill goes to the pub and gives the Leprachaun he has in a box a drink. The bar man then puts the empty glass up on the shelf as indisputable proof that a leprachaun had a drink in his pub.

By the way, does your logic also apply to Ganesh, Lord Brahma, Shiva etc?

I'm not Irish.

And if you think I'm bad about religion, you should talk to me about music.



If arrogance over taste in music is wrong, then I don't want to be right. I've infuriated my fair share of sane and stable generalites (if such a creature truly exists) over music issues too.

The Koran was written how long after Jesus was supposed to have lived exactly?

That was more of a joke, but I think it was in the 7th Century, so quite a few years after Jesus died.

But Muhammed was born in the 6th century, so maybe he wrote it then? I don't know. I should become a historian just so I can win all messageboard debates.

I. Want. To. See. The. Study. Proving. This. If you can show me said study, my incredulity towards the people who write history books will increase ten-million fold, or they must know something I don't.

In the few minutes I spent searching, I found some things, but none of it seemed concrete enough for me. Personally, I think the internet is bullshit and almost always cite books, newspapers, JSTOR, when writing papers. I suppose I could quote you a passage from a book that I find later in the week, but I somehow doubt I'll do that.

Mostly because if I did, I'd dread the moment anyone asked me what I was doing: "Um...I'm just doing some research for a debate I'm having on a messageboard. A multiplayer gaming messageboard. Yes, I do know I'll be single for a long time."

If arrogance over taste in music is wrong, then I don't want to be right.

Ain't that the truth.

One of the sayings that my Political Science teacher has pounded into my head over the last couple years is that you can find a source to say just about anything, if you look in the right places. Wiki is fine, for good general information, and for information on things like when a record was released, or what a term means, in general, but I don't trust it on issues where bias can come into play.
True, but I was using the citated sources from that article.

Now I certainly don't have the expertice on what a Biblical scholar may or may not study, but I would suggest that a biblical scholar probably is going to have at the very least a slight bias towards believing what the bible says.
Really? I always assumed a bible scholar or historian was one who was looking at the text as a text, not a religious document. The same as any other historian. A theologian though would indeed have a bias.

It does, but some of the phrasing raises my hackles. I may just be over-responding. It does mention Durant, so I'm going to go crack open my mother's copy of Ceasar and Christ tommorrow and take a gander at the aforementioned chapter.
Any clarification would be well accepted. Like I said, I have NOTHING right now so...

Now if your materials have a technique for memorizing 50 different vocab words and 20 kanji in 24 hours, I may declare you to be God, and give up this whole ignosticism thing, because that would be a miracle. :p
Break your kanji down into the radicals and memorize them (they're usually easier) and make memnomics for the vocab. Use some flash card drills and over the next 24 write them down any time you get a chance.

History is observable, and testable...
This in itself is an issue of contention. History as a means of determining the past relies on human memory and writings that cannot be treated objectively. The only way history can succeed is by creating a web of the different subjective readings of the events that have transpired, and given the amount that is lost or changed over time, this can yield at best a limited subset of understanding.

What was Jesus really? Was he the Son of God? Was he God? Was he just a man that has been given all these attributes to make him appear as God?

I want to see what you all think. I believe Jesus was OF God, meaning that he wasn't God himself, but he got his power through God.

I will post more on what I mean as I get my paper done. Which will be tommorrow. But I wanna see what the great minds of NSG think.


***Note*** I am writing a paper about this, yes, but this thread was not made in order to get help with it. I just had the idea on my mind, and wanted to put it to use on the forums :)

Most likely, he was an amalgamation of various historical and mythical figures.

If He wasn't real, then over the past 2,000 years there have been 2 billion really dumb people.

Thank you for that. It has given me much harmless amusement on an otherwise stressful morning.

Add: I liked it so much, I've made it my signature.

For the record, I think the stories about Jesus might well refer to a real person. But so might the stories about King Arthur, and most of them are wildly anachronistic, having been made up centuries later.

I reckon he was some hippie Jew wandering around and spouting anarcho-socialist politics and mystical religion and when people got around to writing down accounts of his life they exaggerated his deeds and put words into his mouth claiming he was god.

Personally: liar about the son of god thing, but well intentioned in his lies. He had a lot of good ideas, and had to get people to listen to him somehow.

jesus is an archetypal figure sewn together from a modest knowledge of jewish messianic theology, gnostic religions that were popular in the 100s AD and philosophical thought going around at the same time

his life story is bits and pieces of other myths that were told of pagan gods, heros and legends of actual people. its slapped onto a vaguely correct understanding of roman occupied palestine in 1 AD.

none of the verifiable details are correct. none. no star, no census, no slaughter of innocents, no wise men, no earthquakes or eclipses anywhere near the time of the supposed crucifiction, no execution orders (not that i would expect one), no eyewitness accounts.


let me repeat that. NO EYEWITNESS ACCOUNTS.

the new testament that we have today was selected from hundreds of christian wrtitings including dozens of accounts of the life of christ, hundred of letters and serveral apocolypses. the 4 gospels and the book of acts were chosen by committee after 300 years of infighting over what interpretation of jesus was correct. after pauline christianity won out, the rest of the christian sects were ruthlessly and murderously suppressed leaving only a handful of small sects in the middle east like the coptic christians of egypt who are outside of that consensus.

none of the gospels were written by anyone who knew jesus. the 4 names of the gospels were added on later. they were written somewhere between 50 and 100 years after the purported death of jesus. there were also edited over time to conform to the beliefs of whoever had the wherewithall to get them copied. every book was copied by hand by beleivers who happened to know how to write. quite often they took the opportunity to change things here and there to better match their own group's idea of christianity. there is no way to know exactly what the original gospels said and no reason to believe that even if we had the originals that they would in any way reflect the truth.

Lunatic, Liar, or Lord? I choose none of the above. Lich.

So you are saying Paul is not real? Dear lord, he is only one of the major reasons christianity is in existence today. You want proof of Paul's existence? Look at the Church...Look at the world..that's proof. He helped create the church, which changed the world forever. But you are entitled to you uneducated opinion :)

So you are saying that Xenu and his Galactic Confederacy were real because the Church of Scientology is in existance today? Or do you only accept that kind of fallacious argument when it suits you?

In my opinion the Gospel stories were largely borrowed from the Old Testament; the life of Jesus is presented as an amalgamation of OT prophets like Joseph and Moses. While the Gospel writers weren't liars per se, they had little or no interest in writing accurate, biographical accounts.

In my opinion the Gospel stories were largely borrowed from the Old Testament; the life of Jesus is presented as an amalgamation of OT prophets like Joseph and Moses. While the Gospel writers weren't liars per se, they had little or no interest in writing accurate, biographical accounts.

the people of that time did not have the same standards of biographical accuracy that we have today. it just wasnt a concept at that time.

so you have known historical figures like alexander the great (who died at age 33) with tales of divine origins tacked onto their biographies. obviously alexander was NOT the product of a sexual episode between a mortal woman and a god. and yet the biographers of that time thought nothing of adding it in.

*per topic line*Lord ... lord of the dance.
Lord of the flies.

.... lord of the dance of the flies.
*nods*


What if someone threw a worship and nobody came?
No more barn-burning, two-step genuflection, drunk on sacrament ....

King Arthur: I am your king.
Woman: Well I didn't vote for you.
King Arthur: You don't vote for kings.
Woman: Well how'd you become king then?
[Angelic music plays... ]
King Arthur: The Lady of the Lake, her arm clad in the purest shimmering samite held aloft Excalibur from the bosom of the water, signifying by divine providence that I, Arthur, was to carry Excalibur. THAT is why I am your king.
Dennis: [interrupting] Listen, strange women lyin' in ponds distributin' swords is no basis for a system of government. Supreme executive power derives from a mandate from the masses, not from some farcical aquatic ceremony.
Dennis: Oh, but you can't expect to wield supreme executive power just because some watery tart threw a sword at you.
Dennis: Oh but if I went 'round sayin' I was Emperor, just because some moistened bint lobbed a scimitar at me, they'd put me away.
http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=12357065&postcount=94

I reckon he was some hippie Jew wandering around and spouting anarcho-socialist politics and mystical religion and when people got around to writing down accounts of his life they exaggerated his deeds and put words into his mouth claiming he was god.
And you know that's EXACTLY what NS is gonna do to you.
:)

i reckon jesus is a mythical figure derived from an amalgamation of real and fictional characters that have emerged from a folk movement that has operated with varying levels of influence and credibility throughout the last >2000 years.

the people of that time did not have the same standards of biographical accuracy that we have today. it just wasnt a concept at that time.

so you have known historical figures like alexander the great (who died at age 33) with tales of divine origins tacked onto their biographies. obviously alexander was NOT the product of a sexual episode between a mortal woman and a god. and yet the biographers of that time thought nothing of adding it in.

Agreed. :)

i reckon jesus is a mythical figure derived from an amalgamation of real and fictional characters that have emerged from a folk movement that has operated with varying levels of influence and credibility throughout the last >2000 years.

That's pretty similar to what I said. It's worth keeping in mind that the current version of the story was put together in Rome a long time after Jesus is believed to have lived.

That's pretty similar to what I said.
*checks thread*

...

i used more flowery language though :p

it makes me feel clever... =D

That's pretty similar to what I said. It's worth keeping in mind that the current version of the story was put together in Rome a long time after Jesus is believed to have lived.

Does anybody know of any historical sources for the man?

Does anybody know of any historical sources for the man?

yup

the pagan origins of the christ myth webpages have tons of historical sources many with links to the original writing on the net.

http://www.medmalexperts.com/POCM/getting_started_pocm.html

its a big site that goes on and on but there is lots of information on it besides the authors personal viewpoint and conclusions.

Some combination of lunatic, liar, and subject of others' lies.

What was Jesus really? Was he the Son of God? Was he God? Was he just a man that has been given all these attributes to make him appear as God?



This is an old, old, old Fundie argument. What it fails to recognize is we don't have any actual recording. The Bible was written by people with an agenda so we don't know if he said he was God. And by far the biggest share of the time they recorded him as saying he was "son of man".

So the answer is he doesn't need to be any of the above.

The gospel of John was written by an eyewitness. Some also say the gospel of Matthew, but less dispute the gospel of John as an eyewitness account.

*Just sayin'.

The gospel of John was written by an eyewitness. Some also say the gospel of Matthew, but less dispute the gospel of John as an eyewitness account.

*Just sayin'.
Au contraire; John is probably the most contentious of the 4 gospels since it was almost certainly written the latest. What's more, it also appears to have more of a charged agenda when compared to the other three, as well as material that sees no further mention in the remaining gospels.

Jesus in fact did exist, it is just a matter of believing he was Christ or not. His message is the best message, that is why Christianity is so big.

Jesus in fact did exist, it is just a matter of believing he was Christ or not. His message is the best message, that is why Christianity is so big.

This implies that Islam is the second best message, and that Judaism is a truly loathsome message?

Jesus in fact did exist, it is just a matter of believing he was Christ or not. His message is the best message, that is why Christianity is so big.

Heh surely 'Best' is a subjective vaule statement? Best for who, at which time?

Jesus in fact did exist, it is just a matter of believing he was Christ or not. His message is the best message, that is why Christianity is so big.

in what fact? are you claiming fact is a matter of faith?

as to it being the best message, why is it better than buddha's message?

Jesus in fact did exist

show me dental records and i might concede a point.

as to it being the best message, why is it better than buddha's message?
Well, Buddha's message was slightly more pessimistic. Both claimed the world was inherently evil, both preached a sort of moral distinction from this evil, but Jesus' message is one of an engaging Love with the World in contradiction to Buddha's message of a clean separation from it. I think there's more hope in the former, really.

Well, Buddha's message was slightly more pessimistic. Both claimed the world was inherently evil, both preached a sort of moral distinction from this evil, but Jesus' message is one of an engaging Love with the World in contradiction to Buddha's message of a clean separation from it. I think there's more hope in the former, really.

i suppose. ive never been particularly enamored of the buddhist approach to the world. but buddhism is a much more peaceful religion in practice than christianity is. to me, that suggests a some area of moral superiority that i have not yet identified.

in what fact? are you claiming fact is a matter of faith?

as to it being the best message, why is it better than buddha's message?


Yeah good question.

I would argue that all religoins apreach the same message, so I guess the message of Jesus and Buddha where the same.

i suppose. ive never been particularly enamored of the buddhist approach to the world. but buddhism is a much more peaceful religion in practice than christianity is. to me, that suggests a some area of moral superiority that i have not yet identified.
It probably is morally superior. Where Buddhists are generally known to keep a cool head about them and think things through according to reason, Christians are regularly known to throw aside their moral code in favour of what feels right. This can be appropriate from time to time. Cool, rational ethics is not necessarily the be all and end all of how to relate to each other; that we can perfectly codify the complex web of human relationships into rules of conduct seems hard to believe. Sometimes, instinct based on empathy can be a far more effective tool.

On the other hand, it is considerably harder to get Jesus's way right, since it relies on an ongoing sense of unconditional love that few have ever really managed to achieve. And the side-effects of using morality as a rough guideline rather than a series of strict tenates can be seen plainly in much of what is today called Christianity.

I think Buddhism has taken for granted that people cannot maintain this in the long run, and that it is thus best to set aside emotion and intuition completely when making our ethical decisions. It's probably entirely reasonable in doing so, too. However, I also think that this assumption is worth challenging, simply because if we can actually make it work, the Jesus way would be far more rewarding.

It probably is morally superior. Where Buddhists are generally known to keep a cool head about them and think things through according to reason, Christians are regularly known to throw aside their moral code in favour of what feels right. This can be appropriate from time to time. Cool, rational ethics is not necessarily the be all and end all of how to relate to each other; that we can perfectly codify the complex web of human relationships into rules of conduct seems hard to believe. Sometimes, instinct based on empathy can be a far more effective tool.

On the other hand, it is considerably harder to get Jesus's way right, since it relies on an ongoing sense of unconditional love that few have ever really managed to achieve. And the side-effects of using morality as a rough guideline rather than a series of strict tenates can be seen plainly in much of what is today called Christianity.

I think Buddhism has taken for granted that people cannot maintain this in the long run, and that it is thus best to set aside emotion and intuition completely when making our ethical decisions. It's probably entirely reasonable in doing so, too. However, I also think that this assumption is worth challenging, simply because if we can actually make it work, the Jesus way would be far more rewarding.


Heheh and I would ask what do we really know of what Jesus taught? what was his way, anybody.....?

Heheh and I would ask what do we really know of what Jesus taught? what was his way, anybody.....?

since this thread doesnt require my posting as if i were a believer...

there is no way to know. especially since jesus most likely didnt exist and if he did was a minor figure onto which much theology has been heaped

HOWEVER

christianity is based on something. mostly the religious writings of big thinkers in the christianity movement of the 1st-3rd centuries. the "best" of these have been placed into the new testament and the rest mostly suppressed so that we dont get misled into believing something unorthodox.

these basic understandings of christianity are in the new testament and as far as i can tell are best taken as a rough whole rather than trying to make every single verse fit into your personal theology.

so love, forgiveness, a childlike accpetance of god, generousity, perhaps a reununciation of the proirities of the wider world, maybe a bit of servility (other things that arent coming immediately to mind), are all parts of what jesus taught us.

Heheh and I would ask what do we really know of what Jesus taught? what was his way, anybody.....?
Well, what Jesus "really" taught isn't that important. At least, it had better not be! We only have subjective accounts from which we can only derive subjective interpretation, after all. Hence why I use the 4th L as my descriptor of Jesus - Legend.

I think one thing that is uniform to any coherent understanding of the Jesus way, however, is the notion of the importance of Love. Love for your fellow man and Love for the spirit of creation runs as central to his message, and this seems to me to be the core focus of what he's saying. And Love is not just a sort of a mix of positive feelings; it is an engagement: a wish to share in the experiences and burdens of the other through whatever trials and faults come our way. It is about going above and beyond all moral and social commitments and beyond all promise of reward, including that of any Religious organisation.

What does it matter if this isn't what was originally intended?

Yeshua ben Yosef is likely an almalgation of multiple entities, most prominently Yeshua ben Pantera, an entity who may be a fabrication in his own right, but appears to predate Yeshua ben Yosef, the Greek god Dionysus, and Mithras, the central figure of Mithraism.

I'm not Irish.

Thats rather irrelevant to the point.

Isa Ibn Maryam was a Jewish Rabbi and a prophet of Islam, who after his death was misrepresented by Saul of Tarsus as being the Son of God/Messiah.

Isa Ibn Maryam was a Jewish Rabbi and a prophet of Islam, who after his death was misrepresented by Saul of Tarsus as being the Son of God/Messiah.

Islam originated after Christianity.

If he existed -- and most of the historical 'proof' for his existence was first encountered either long after his death or taken from the Christian scriptures -- his exploits have been greatly exaggerated. It is likely that he was simply a more liberal rabbi ("Teacher" in the most common translations) who after his death was written in as the Son of God to gain more credibility among those who formerly did not follow his teachings.

But most of the atheists on here are probably 17 and are atheist so their parents will pay attention to them.
The irony in this post kills. :-P

And since I for one was already living on my own and was fully mature by the age of 17, and the majority of atheists on this forum are over 20 (in fact, the majority of posters in general), I think this says a good deal more about the messageboards you hang out in.

No, it's not, and even if it is false, it doesn't help your point. A majority of experts believe global warming is happening. That is reason to believe that it is. A majority of experts believe Jesus existed. That's a pretty good reason to believe that He did. Remember, I'm not arguing that Jesus was God, I'm simply arguing that He existed.
The good reason to believe global warming is happening is because we have scientific proof that it is; the good reason to believe Jesus existed is some variation of "Two billion people can't all be wrong"?

You know, you could just look up "Jesus" on Wikipedia.
Ah yes, Wikipedia, that most reliable and unbiased of internet sources.

Islam originated after Christianity.

But Muslims could use the Sacred Orb of Time afterwards to find out that Jesus's body was actually inhabited by one of the Prophets, for whom there is no linear time anyway, so it wouldn't matter whether the religion itself existed at that time.

Ok, so maybe this was the wrong place to bring that up..... :oops:

Christians are regularly known to throw aside their moral code in favour of what feels right.

Like Isaac?

That story always struck me as odd. I mean, if you hear a voice in your head claiming to be God and telling you to be nice to people, well okay. But when the voice in your head tells you to sacrifice your son, and you are actually willing to go through with it...

in what fact? are you claiming fact is a matter of faith?

as to it being the best message, why is it better than buddha's message?
Jesus was a real person and preached those messages, but believing if he was the Son of God or not is the faith part. And for being the best message, well that is a opinion, but it shows today how many followers there are.

I find it odd looking back at old testament stories too. I mean, Job and Isaac both present a god that's nowhere near as benevolent as church used to tell me. In fact, I wonder if Job is a kind of black comedy where humans are hopelessly trying to rationalise random fortunes.

Back on topic, I don't think it follows that Jesus must be precisely one of Lunatic, Liar or Lord - I'd be interested if you could justify that implication.

For one thing, John's gospel is very different to the other three, and is the one that has all the explicit claims about divinity.

Like Isaac?

That story always struck me as odd. I mean, if you hear a voice in your head claiming to be God and telling you to be nice to people, well okay. But when the voice in your head tells you to sacrifice your son, and you are actually willing to go through with it...
Well, Abraham was pre-Jesus, wasn't he?

Actually, I've recently heard a really interesting rationalisation of the Jewish texts. It goes something like this: the history of God portrayed therein is designed to deliberately depict a God that twists and turns, that says one thing one minute and contradicts it the next, in order to make a point about the impossibility of the rationalisation of divinity or any conceptualisation of it. Basically, we cannot fathom the complete God at all, and our attempts to explain it and its position relative to us (whether through history or mythology) must at some essential level maintain this property. What's more, to try to make such an explanation or visualisation is itself made both essential and forbidden by the text in the commandments by simultaneously giving himself an Identity to be worshipped and prohibiting Idolatry of any sort (including that of the mind's eye).

In other words, the Bible is a source in which every possible assertion about God is true, and deliberately so, in order to prevent people from claiming to know exactly what God is all about.

Neat, huh? :D

Islam originated after Christianity.

What does that have to do with what he posted?

Isa ibn Maryam just means "jesus son of mary."

?????

I don't think he was God or the son of, as he has no partners. Though I think he was a prophet.

What does that have to do with what he posted?

Isa ibn Maryam just means "jesus son of mary."

?????
I think the assertion was that Jesus couldn't have been a prophet of Islam if Islam did not exist. Calling Jesus a prophet of Islam in that context is rather like calling Moses a prophet of Christianity.

Discrediting entire arguments because they quote Wikipedia is idiotic. Wikipedia is no more biased or less factual than your Encyclopedia Britannica. Stop using the excuse "it's wikipedia" as a rebuttal to any source unless the source is specifically disputed or you've actually read it (I doubt any of the posters besides Kinda actually read the article).

as for the historicity of Jesus, I don't know. I've personally doubted it. But no one is providing any concrete data to this debate...just personal beliefs or a few cited sources.

as for the historicity of Jesus, I don't know. I've personally doubted it. But no one is providing any concrete data to this debate...just personal beliefs or a few cited sources.
If the proposition is that the adoptation of a stance that relies on concrete data or objective sources in the face of a definitive absence of any such data or objectivity is what causes the problems, it seems reasonable that such a statement is unlikely to have a use for concrete data or objective sources.

I think the assertion was that Jesus couldn't have been a prophet of Islam if Islam did not exist. Calling Jesus a prophet of Islam in that context is rather like calling Moses a prophet of Christianity.

Yes, and also all of the other prophets of the OT. Islam is a sister religion to Christianity.

To my mind, Jesus can only be established as a Rabbi in first century Judea who, rather like most of his contemporaries, ired the Roman occupying forces. Beyond that, the only idiosyncracy of note is that he extolled the virtues of inclusive pacifism, and thus met greater success than those of his contemporaries who simply exhorted the Jews to remove the Gentile occupiers.

To my mind, Jesus can only be established as a Rabbi in first century Judea who, rather like most of his contemporaries, ired the Roman occupying forces. Beyond that, the only idiosyncracy of note is that he extolled the virtues of inclusive pacifism, and thus met greater success than those of his contemporaries who simply exhorted the Jews to remove the Gentile occupiers.
0_o

Sensible, articulate, informed and, while probably self-evident, still rather insightful.

Alright, who are you and what have you done with Chris?

:p

I think the assertion was that Jesus couldn't have been a prophet of Islam if Islam did not exist. Calling Jesus a prophet of Islam in that context is rather like calling Moses a prophet of Christianity.

Moses is considered by christians to be just that. This doesnt violate the religion's internal logic, or any sort of logic at all.

Assuming that christianity is true, moses was a prophet of christianity, because god's religion on earth has changed over time with successive revelations.

Assuming that islam is true, jesus was a muslim prophet, because god's religion has changed over time with successive revelations.

If this was indeed what he intended to say, then it still doesn't bear at all on the quoted post.

Jesus was both a lunatic and a liar. He was not the son of god, as there is no god.

What was Jesus really? Was he the Son of God? Was he God? Was he just a man that has been given all these attributes to make him appear as God?

I want to see what you all think. I believe Jesus was OF God, meaning that he wasn't God himself, but he got his power through God.

I will post more on what I mean as I get my paper done. Which will be tommorrow. But I wanna see what the great minds of NSG think.


***Note*** I am writing a paper about this, yes, but this thread was not made in order to get help with it. I just had the idea on my mind, and wanted to put it to use on the forums :)

He is the only begotten son of God, and will save you if you ask.

Jesus was both a lunatic and a liar. He was not the son of god, as there is no god.


You are wrong, there is a God, and Jesus is his son. Stop trying to start trouble.

He is the only begotten son of God, and will save you if you ask.

I asked him to save me once, but he didn't. Larry had to do it. Nice guy, Larry. Would've drowned without him.

You are wrong, there is a God, and Jesus is his son. Stop trying to start trouble.

Stating one's opinion is "trying to start trouble" now?

Moses is considered by christians to be just that. This doesnt violate the religion's internal logic, or any sort of logic at all.

Assuming that christianity is true, moses was a prophet of christianity, because god's religion on earth has changed over time with successive revelations.

Assuming that islam is true, jesus was a muslim prophet, because god's religion has changed over time with successive revelations.

If this was indeed what he intended to say, then it still doesn't bear at all on the quoted post.
This makes no sense to me. The choice of religion is made by the individual (or by the direct cultural background of the individual), not by other people. Regardless of what religion is true, Moses liberated and prophesised for the Jewish people as one of their number, and to call him anything other than Jewish is to try to posthumously change his religious affiliation. This would be deceptive in nature, and to be wholly discouraged, presumably.

Whatever Jesus' role in other religions (he generally prescribed to a mystical Judaism himself), we cannot attribute to him an affiliation to any organisation or doctrine other than that which he personally held. Now, we can certainly note that the ideas that led on from Jesus were a precursor to Islam, and in that sense he was an important figure in Muslim history, but he cannot be a "Muslim" anything since he would not himself have accepted that definition, just as the same would be true of a "Christian" labelling of him.

Unless, of course, the Muslim Jesus and the Christian Jesus / the Christian Moses and the Jewish Moses, are in fact separate figures?

This makes no sense to me. The choice of religion is made by the individual (or by the direct cultural background of the individual), not by other people. Regardless of what religion is true, Moses liberated and prophesised for the Jewish people as one of their number, and to call him anything other than Jewish is to try to posthumously change his religious affiliation. This would be deceptive in nature, and to be wholly discouraged, presumably.

Whatever Jesus' role in other religions (he generally prescribed to a mystical Judaism himself), we cannot attribute to him an affiliation to any organisation or doctrine other than that which he personally held. Now, we can certainly note that the ideas that led on from Jesus were a precursor to Islam, and in that sense he was an important figure in Muslim history, but he cannot be a "Muslim" anything since he would not himself have accepted that definition, just as the same would be true of a "Christian" labelling of him.

Unless, of course, the Muslim Jesus and the Christian Jesus / the Christian Moses and the Jewish Moses, are in fact separate figures?

no no

the chain goes backwards but not forwards.

or something.

so we have

jewish prophets--------jesus and christian writers----mohammed

if you are moslem, you can recognize the jewish prophets and jesus (and whatever christian saints seem worth the trouble) and of course mohammed.

if you are christian you recognize the jewish prophets and jesus but not mohammed.

if you are jewish you recognize only the jewish prophets.

same as with the mormons

jewish prophets---jesus and the apostles----joseph smith, brigham young and more....

You are wrong, there is a God, and Jesus is his son. Stop trying to start trouble.
I am simply stating my opinion. If it offends some people, well, then it offens some. You can't keep everyone happy.

However, if you continue to insist that your god exists, and that jesus was (not is, as he died over 2000 years ago) why don't you prove it.

Who knows? Honestly, nobody can be sure about it, and all of our speculation isn't going to make it more or less true. Either you believe or you don't...it's that simple, and it's been that way for thousands of years.

The only way we'll know for sure is either when we die or if Jesus comes back. And since I don't plan on the former, I'll have no problem waiting for the latter.

Lunatic or liar... or other people lied about him.

Well, Abraham was pre-Jesus, wasn't he?


Ah - listening to your imaginary friend when he tells you to kill someone is okay, provided you were born before Jesus.
I've never seen a copy of The Bible with a little note to say: "This is your holy book and the word of God... except for the bits you don't like the look of, just pretend they're not there."

This makes no sense to me. The choice of religion is made by the individual (or by the direct cultural background of the individual), not by other people. Regardless of what religion is true, Moses liberated and prophesised for the Jewish people as one of their number, and to call him anything other than Jewish is to try to posthumously change his religious affiliation. This would be deceptive in nature, and to be wholly discouraged, presumably.

Whatever Jesus' role in other religions (he generally prescribed to a mystical Judaism himself), we cannot attribute to him an affiliation to any organisation or doctrine other than that which he personally held. Now, we can certainly note that the ideas that led on from Jesus were a precursor to Islam, and in that sense he was an important figure in Muslim history, but he cannot be a "Muslim" anything since he would not himself have accepted that definition, just as the same would be true of a "Christian" labelling of him.

Unless, of course, the Muslim Jesus and the Christian Jesus / the Christian Moses and the Jewish Moses, are in fact separate figures?

Under your logic your mother's mother isn't related to you because she has a different name.

In actuality Jews, Christians and Muslims are all related. They are all one family. They all came from Abraham. Jewish is the Grandmother religion, Christianity is the mother religion, Islam is the child religion. Even though they have different names and some different beliefs, the foundation that they are built on is the same. They all have the same God. They all have the same founder in Abraham. They all have the same history, except a child has more history than a daughter, a daughter and child have more history than a Grandmother. Simply because the history of the grandmother is a part of the daughter and child. The history of the daughter is a part of the family history of the child.

Ah - listening to your imaginary friend when he tells you to kill someone is okay, provided you were born before Jesus.
I've never seen a copy of The Bible with a little note to say: "This is your holy book and the word of God... except for the bits you don't like the look of, just pretend they're not there."

it might not come with a note but everyone treats it like it does.

i dont have a problem with that. its a big book.

Au contraire; John is probably the most contentious of the 4 gospels since it was almost certainly written the latest. What's more, it also appears to have more of a charged agenda when compared to the other three, as well as material that sees no further mention in the remaining gospels.

But it was written before John's death, which was possibly in the late first century, so it couldn't have been written more than like 50 years after Jesus' death. And that's IF John lived to like 60, remember, people didn't live that long back then.

But it was written before John's death, which was possibly in the late first century, so it couldn't have been written more than like 50 years after Jesus' death. And that's IF John lived to like 60, remember, people didn't live that long back then.

It's tradition that "John" was written by the Apostle John. But, most scholars don't think that was the John that wrote it.

Crappy story characer.

Humans don't walk on water, humans cannot 'revive' as Jesus did without medical attention, and humans certainly don't ascend into the sky.

God has shown that it has refused to show itself, so why is it we accept its display of power in a time we don't remember first hand? Why do miracles and divine proof only happen in stories? Because it doesn't happen.

It's tradition that "John" was written by the Apostle John. But, most scholars don't think that was the John that wrote it.

AH, as we've learned from this thread, you can't just say "most scholars," you need proof. And besides, most scholars disagree on who wrote it.

And John (the apostle)claims authorship in a few different places. But this may not be the same "John" that wrote Revelation.

AH, as we've learned from this thread, you can't just say "most scholars," you need proof. And besides, most scholars disagree on who wrote it.

And John (the apostle)claims authorship in a few different places. But this may not be the same "John" that wrote Revelation.

what proof do you want? the earliest texts are unattributed. the book of john implies that its about the apostle john but that doesnt mean much.

But it was written before John's death, which was possibly in the late first century, so it couldn't have been written more than like 50 years after Jesus' death. And that's IF John lived to like 60, remember, people didn't live that long back then.

John was written after 100 CE, last I checked.

it might not come with a note but everyone treats it like it does.

Yes, that's the problem. It's hypocritical for people to say: "This is my holy book, it justifies my actions," while ignoring the bits they don't like.


i dont have a problem with that. its a big book.

You don't have a problem with people living their lives by a pick-and-mix moral code? One which revolves around a person's ability to find a passage in the book which could be interpreted as supporting their actions? I prefer to make a moral choice (or an immoral one, from time to time) and accept the consequences, whether they are good or bad.

Mitch!

You don't have a problem with people living their lives by a pick-and-mix moral code? One which revolves around a person's ability to find a passage in the book which could be interpreted as supporting their actions? I prefer to make a moral choice (or an immoral one, from time to time) and accept the consequences, whether they are good or bad.I think you're contradicting yourself. If people twists bits & peices of a moral code to justify their actions, they're indeed moral. Hypocrites all, but moral none the less. After all, they don't go hunting for bits & peices to justify actions they themselves consider wrong.

It's the amoral ones that really bug me. Those that don't twist moral codes around, but uncritically adopt them fully. Those fuckers scare me, and I do not for a moment think they can be considered sane in a legal context. How can they? They obviously don't know right from wrong.

I am simply stating my opinion. If it offends some people, well, then it offens some. You can't keep everyone happy.

However, if you continue to insist that your god exists, and that jesus was (not is, as he died over 2000 years ago) why don't you prove it.


Read the Bible, thats all the proof I need. Why don't you prove he doesn't exist if thats what you believe. But regardless of your belief, you have a very rude awaking coming because Jesus is real and he will soon return. Will you be ready?

I think you're contradicting yourself. If people twists bits & peices of a moral code to justify their actions, they're indeed moral. Hypocrites all, but moral none the less. After all, they don't go hunting for bits & peices to justify actions they themselves consider wrong.

Not sure I follow what you're saying. I'm saying that when a person proclaims: 'My moral code is the Bible; my actions are right because God says so,' they are in fact opting out of morality altogether. Effectively saying: 'Hey, I don't make the rules - complain to the big guy in the sky.'

For instance - if a Christian is homophobic, they look for a passage in the Bible that supports them. Then they say: 'I'm not prejudiced - it's just that God happens to hate gays.'
On the other hand, if you ask a Christian whether they would support the reintroduction of slavery, they'll probably say no. Point them to the 'Slaves, obey your masters...' bit and they start coming up with answers like: 'Oh well, you have to understand that this book of the Bible was written by someone who...'


It's the amoral ones that really bug me. Those that don't twist moral codes around, but uncritically adopt them fully. Those fuckers scare me, and I do not for a moment think they can be considered sane in a legal context. How can they? They obviously don't know right from wrong.

Amoral means 'without morality', which is kind of what I was complaining about above. Besides, even the Christian fundies don't follow everything in the Bible - they pick and choose just the same as everyone else.

Yes, that's the problem. It's hypocritical for people to say: "This is my holy book, it justifies my actions," while ignoring the bits they don't like.



You don't have a problem with people living their lives by a pick-and-mix moral code? One which revolves around a person's ability to find a passage in the book which could be interpreted as supporting their actions? I prefer to make a moral choice (or an immoral one, from time to time) and accept the consequences, whether they are good or bad.

everyone lives their lives by a pick-and-mix moral code. it would be counterproductive for me to have a problem with that.

all that i require to not think of a person as a hypocrit (or an idiot) is that they be consistent.

some people who claim to base their morality on the bible are doing no such thing., they are rather using bits and pieces of the bible to justify a morality that comes from their family, prejudices and general society around them.

some people choose a moral outlook based on a reading of the gospels and have to overlook some extremely harsh passages from the old testament. thats fine by me.

and of course some people base their morality on the old testament (lets call them jews) that requires extensive study, understanding, and interpretation to make work in the modern world.

What was Jesus really? Was he the Son of God? Was he God? Was he just a man that has been given all these attributes to make him appear as God?

I want to see what you all think. I believe Jesus was OF God, meaning that he wasn't God himself, but he got his power through God.

I will post more on what I mean as I get my paper done. Which will be tommorrow. But I wanna see what the great minds of NSG think.


***Note*** I am writing a paper about this, yes, but this thread was not made in order to get help with it. I just had the idea on my mind, and wanted to put it to use on the forums :)

none of the above. it was always other people that claimed Jesus was God. He called himself the son of God (which btw, there are no CAPS in Aramaic), but people in general are referred to as the sons and daughters of God in the Bible. Adam was also specifically called the son of God at one point. So yeah, Jesus was a Prophet. He wasn't a liar, he wasn't crazy, and he isn't Lord.

Why don't you prove he doesn't exist if thats what you believe?
What many believe is that whether or not God is Real, Jesus is God or Jesus will return, it is unloving to do anything other than challenge these assertions when they get in the way of our relationship with and respect for creation and our fellow man in the here and now. A disproof of the existence of God is not necessary for an assertion of this stance.

Under your logic your mother's mother isn't related to you because she has a different name.

In actuality Jews, Christians and Muslims are all related. They are all one family. They all came from Abraham. Jewish is the Grandmother religion, Christianity is the mother religion, Islam is the child religion. Even though they have different names and some different beliefs, the foundation that they are built on is the same. They all have the same God. They all have the same founder in Abraham. They all have the same history, except a child has more history than a daughter, a daughter and child have more history than a Grandmother. Simply because the history of the grandmother is a part of the daughter and child. The history of the daughter is a part of the family history of the child.
This isn't about an assertion of the generational nature of the religions; this is about an assertion of the identity of an individual. To specifically identify the historical Moses as a Christian Prophet is to assert that he was a Christian Prophet; not just that he is currently considered a prophet by Christianity at this present time.

Let's look at it another way. The historical figure of my Great Great Grandmother, given that she died before I was born, was not ever identified in life as such. To say that she was my Great Great Grandmother is therefore false. How can she have been?

Now, in her aftermath there exists a building mythos that continues to grow and expand in identity; a sort of posthumous Legend of her. In this sense, I can create a pointer to the person to whom "my GGM" refers to, just like we can with Moses and Jesus. However, it is a mistake to assume that things being tractable about this conceptual structure, like Religious or familial offspring, can in any way affect the historical entity that it points to.

We can refer to Moses and Jesus as prophets in Islam or Christianity or Judaism, since their legend has been taken in many different ways to different ends, but to call the historical Moses a Christian Prophet is mistaken. This is a property that cannot possibly have been true of Moses at the time and is one that therefore cannot possibly be true in hindsight.

Read the Bible, thats all the proof I need. Why don't you prove he doesn't exist if thats what you believe. But regardless of your belief, you have a very rude awaking coming because Jesus is real and he will soon return. Will you be ready?

Oh the classic circular logic of the Bible proves God exists because the Bible says he does and the Bible is the word of God who exists because the Bible says he does....

Ah - listening to your imaginary friend when he tells you to kill someone is okay, provided you were born before Jesus.
Okay? Heck no. In my opinion, it was a test that Abraham failed miserably.

Throughout the Bible, the contradictory and ludicrous proposals by God seem to suggest that here we have a figure that wants to be questioned; that wants people to seriously think about what he has to say rather than just blindly accept the rules and live a life of what is ultimately selfish ambition.

This idea of raw adherence of God's law being secondary to a genuine concern for everyone and everything at the denial of one's self, even in front of God where necessary, was only really made explicit in human circles by Jesus, but it has always been there, underlying the assertions of the laws themselves. At least, that's one way of looking at it.

I've never seen a copy of The Bible with a little note to say: "This is your holy book and the word of God... except for the bits you don't like the look of, just pretend they're not there."
Well, that's because people still think the Bible can be taken wholly literally. The sellers of Bibles have a lot riding on the fact that it is possible to derive a single objective truth of what the Bible is trying to say.

A complete, coherent picture of Biblical scripture using classical rationalism is impossible. It is only when you look at the book as a mesh of transfinite meaning that this makes sense; readers are driven to this sort of picking and choosing by the nature of the book itself.

everyone lives their lives by a pick-and-mix moral code. it would be counterproductive for me to have a problem with that.

Your ideas are very interesting, but I don't have time to give them due consideration right now.
Just quickly though - my problem (one of my problems) with Biblical moralists is that they don't admit what they're doing - they claim they are using the Bible, the whole Bible, and nothing but the Bible.

Back for a bit.

everyone lives their lives by a pick-and-mix moral code. it would be counterproductive for me to have a problem with that.

Yes we choose our own morality, albeit influenced by peer groups and general society. But, to claim that the morality is from an external source, which is absolute for everybody and cannot be argued with?

You ask for consistency - that's fine. But how is it consistent to accept some parts of the Bible and not others? Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying the world would be a better place if we had a few billion more religious fundamentalists, I just can't see why people think they can have it both ways. If the Bible isn't the word of God, how can it be reliable?

I've met plenty of Christians who will argue the case for 'Bible is the word of God', but then later will admit there are some bits that don't apply any more, or can be overlooked because of some issue with the author.
NB It's not hyperbole when I say 'met plenty' - I'm talking about a few dozen. None of them could explain it to me, which I found frustrating because I like to understand where people are coming from, even if I happen to think they are wrong.

Let's look at it another way. The historical figure of my Great Great Grandmother, given that she died before I was born, was not ever identified in life as such. To say that she was my Great Great Grandmother is therefore false. How can she have been?

Now, in her aftermath there exists a building mythos that continues to grow and expand in identity; a sort of posthumous Legend of her. In this sense, I can create a pointer to the person to whom "my GGM" refers to, just like we can with Moses and Jesus. However, it is a mistake to assume that things being tractable about this conceptual structure, like Religious or familial offspring, can in any way affect the historical entity that it points to.

We can refer to Moses and Jesus as prophets in Islam or Christianity or Judaism, since their legend has been taken in many different ways to different ends, but to call the historical Moses a Christian Prophet is mistaken. This is a property that cannot possibly have been true of Moses at the time and is one that therefore cannot possibly be true in hindsight.

Ok, you're not arguing the meaning of the communication, you are arguing the difference between proper English and common English. You want to make it clear that at her death your Great-Great-Grandmother wasn't a Great-Great-Grandmother therefore you shouldn't refer to her as a Great-Great Grandmother because she didn't become one until you or a cousin of your generation was born, long after she was dead. So you don't have a Great-Great Grandmother, just some woman who passed her genes (and philosophies) on to someone who happens to be alive today. So what is she to you? If she's not a Great-Great Grandmother because she wasn't when she died, how do you refer to her? My Mother's, Mother's, Mother's, mother seems rather awkward.

A basic of language theory-----Words don't have meaning, the meaning only is in the mind of the sender and receiver. If they agree on meaning communication has taken place. Words are just symbols used to transmit that meaning.

If you don't like Moses to be called a Christian Prophet, how would you refer to him in this context in an efficient way that doesn't require massive explanation every time it is used?

Okay? Heck no. In my opinion, it was a test that Abraham failed miserably.

I totally agree with that, just as I did as a young lad in RE class. However, both the teacher and the Bible seem to think Abraham passed with flying colours.

Throughout the Bible, the contradictory and ludicrous proposals by God seem to suggest that here we have a figure that wants to be questioned; that wants people to seriously think about what he has to say rather than just blindly accept the rules and live a life of what is ultimately selfish ambition.

That is a fascinating idea, though raising it would have got you burned at the stake not so long ago. Still, I think it's a pretty dramatic conclusion to draw from quite nebulous evidence. We can't make sense of the rules, therefore they must have been written with the intention of forcing us to reject them. Is that what you are saying?

If the gospels are reliable, then Jesus was indeed attempting to overcome a general obsession people seem to have had with rules and regulations and rituals. (What types of field you were or weren't allowed to walk across on the Sabbath, that kind of thing) However, that's not the same as throwing the rule book away. If he was trying to do that, then the idea didn't last long.


A complete, coherent picture of Biblical scripture using classical rationalism is impossible. It is only when you look at the book as a mesh of transfinite meaning that this makes sense; readers are driven to this sort of picking and choosing by the nature of the book itself.

True, and well argued. But why won't more of the readers admit this? In a way, that's my bugbear - people seem to be indulging in self-deception, which I never like to see. If I pick up a book of philosophy or a religious text, I fully expect not to agree with everything in it. I may disagree with most or all of it. Jesus (going by what texts we have) had some great ideas, but thinking that doesn't require me to base my life and world view on them.

Got to go, but I'd be interested to discuss it further sometime.

If you don't like Moses to be called a Christian Prophet, how would you refer to him in this context in an efficient way that doesn't require massive explanation every time it is used?

I tend to agree with that - Christianity regards Moses as a prophet, therefore there is a case for calling him 'a Christian prophet' just as Muslims can regard Jesus as a prophet of Islam, even though he wasn't a Muslim.

In fact, when Jesus was alive there was no such thing as Christianity.

Read the Bible, thats all the proof I need.

Read it, it didn't justify the hype.

Why don't you prove he doesn't exist if thats what you believe. But regardless of your belief, you have a very rude awaking coming because Jesus is real and he will soon return. Will you be ready?

Christians have the been screaming about the Apocalypse for nearly two milenia now; why should I take you seriously?

You may find this interesting: A brief history of the apocalypse (http://www.abhota.info/end1.htm)

Read the Bible, thats all the proof I need. Why don't you prove he doesn't exist if thats what you believe. But regardless of your belief, you have a very rude awaking coming because Jesus is real and he will soon return. Will you be ready?The Bible is no proof. It's a book written by fatuous folks who just didn't know better.
And Jesus was nothing but a worshiper of a non-existing Jewish god who then was made famous by fanatics long after his death.
You know, since Jewish teachings of the OT are not worth a penny, the teachings of the NT are equally invaluable.
There is nothing to be ready for.

readers are driven to this sort of picking and choosing by the nature of the book itself.

That's because it is not a homogeneous book, it is rather a collection of often unrelated texts edited to gain superficial coherence.
The general problem with the bible is that there simply is not a single non-biblical source to confirm any of the theological aspects of the bible.

Read the Bible, thats all the proof I need.

this actually works as a logical argument. you see, the bible contradicts itself. and anything follows from a contradiction...

this actually works as a logical argument. you see, the bible contradicts itself. and anything follows from a contradiction...anything such as?

anything such as?

absolutely anything. jesus exists, jesus is a magical pony, i am a barack obama, the universe doesn't exist. you name it, it follows from the premise "the bible is true"

.

Yes we choose our own morality, albeit influenced by peer groups and general society. But, to claim that the morality is from an external source, which is absolute for everybody and cannot be argued with?

You ask for consistency - that's fine. But how is it consistent to accept some parts of the Bible and not others? Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying the world would be a better place if we had a few billion more religious fundamentalists, I just can't see why people think they can have it both ways. If the Bible isn't the word of God, how can it be reliable?

I've met plenty of Christians who will argue the case for 'Bible is the word of God', but then later will admit there are some bits that don't apply any more, or can be overlooked because of some issue with the author.
NB It's not hyperbole when I say 'met plenty' - I'm talking about a few dozen. None of them could explain it to me, which I found frustrating because I like to understand where people are coming from, even if I happen to think they are wrong.

youre broadening the argument on me here into things that i dont disagree with you on. and youre making me write too much and be boring.

if you are going to take the bible as a source of your own morality you have to pick and choose because the bible isnt consistent itself. and as far as im concerned thats OK because the writers of the bible made it up, in essence, so why cant YOU? if you stay true to the spirit of the new testament--love god with all your heart and your neighbor as yourself among other things, you are doing more that most people do.


the machinations necessary to reconcile the god of the old testament with the god of the new testament takes too much work (and delusion). so christians just dump whatever rules of the old testament they find too inconvenient. did you know that there was an early christian sect that believed that the god of the jews was a different god than the god of jesus?

people who claim the universality of biblically based morality are too involved in their own religion to see past it. as are those who claim to have a lock on the one true interpretation of christian morality. that still doesnt make them all that different from the rest of us.

So what is she to you? If she's not a Great-Great Grandmother because she wasn't when she died, how do you refer to her? My Mother's, Mother's, Mother's, mother seems rather awkward.
...
If you don't like Moses to be called a Christian Prophet, how would you refer to him in this context in an efficient way that doesn't require massive explanation every time it is used?
It is the apparent fusing of Subjectivity with Objectivity that says we can treat the subjective stance as objective that I have problems with. Saying that the Historical Jesus was a Muslim Prophet because we see how he has been understood by Islam is saying that, in our understanding of things that happened after he was around, we can decide what he "really" stood for.

It essentially boils down to the notion of Name as Subjective Construct. I make use of the reference "My Great Great Grandmother" precisely as a reference relative to myself, not to make any statements about the individual. It is a conscious awareness that I am invoking a specific mythos rather than claiming an objective hold on an actual person, while at the same time identifying the person behind that legend.

As long as we acknowledge that the reality of Moses as an individual, whether he existed as a human being, an amalgamation of several or as no living entity at all, is distinct from the role of Moses within any given Legend or written history, then I guess you should feel free to call the Legend by whatever name you want as long as you don't try to assign the actual object of the Legend any attributations that are solely the result of subjective analysis.

I would suggest referring to "The Christian Moses" (capitals intentional) to analyse Moses in reference to Christian Legend. This both retains a sense of identity relative to the scope in question and an acknowledgement that the Moses we are looking at here is one of many different subjective perspectives rather than any attempt to define an objective truth.

John was written after 100 CE, last I checked.

From Wikipedia:

"Date
Most scholars agree on a range of c. 90-100 for when the gospel was written, though dates as early as the 60s or as late as the 140s have been advanced by a small number of scholars."

Seems like it could go either way.

It is the apparent fusing of Subjectivity with Objectivity that says we can treat the subjective stance as objective that I have problems with. Saying that the Historical Jesus was a Muslim Prophet because we see how he has been understood by Islam is saying that, in our understanding of things that happened after he was around, we can decide what he "really" stood for.

It essentially boils down to the notion of Name as Subjective Construct. I make use of the reference "My Great Great Grandmother" precisely as a reference relative to myself, not to make any statements about the individual. It is a conscious awareness that I am invoking a specific mythos rather than claiming an objective hold on an actual person, while at the same time identifying the person behind that legend.

As long as we acknowledge that the reality of Moses as an individual, whether he existed as a human being, an amalgamation of several or as no living entity at all, is distinct from the role of Moses within any given Legend or written history, then I guess you should feel free to call the Legend by whatever name you want as long as you don't try to assign the actual object of the Legend any attributations that are solely the result of subjective analysis.

I would suggest referring to "The Christian Moses" (capitals intentional) to analyse Moses in reference to Christian Legend. This both retains a sense of identity relative to the scope in question and an acknowledgement that the Moses we are looking at here is one of many different subjective perspectives rather than any attempt to define an objective truth.

This whole analysis goes back to the fact that a word (name) has no inherent meaning. It only has an agreed upon meaning to the sender and receiver. No agreement=miscommunication. The prime example is there was no "Jesus Christ" under that name. Probably Yashua ben David or possibly Yashua ben Yosef. But those talking of the man today are is agreement to use the symbol Jesus Christ to transfer meaning from one brain to another.

There is a certain disagreement of abstract level in your argument also. Moses the Jewish Prophet is less abstract than Moses the Prophet of Jewish, Christian, and Islam. There needs also to be agreement on the abstract level being communicated.

youre broadening the argument on me here into things that i dont disagree with you on. and youre making me write too much and be boring.

Oops, my bad. Please understand that I'm not arguing against you as such, I'm looking for understanding and clarification. Part of the problem, as I suddenly realised just before I switched the computer on, is that I've been forgetting to distinguish between subjective morality and objective morality.

I actually agree with everything you said in that last post, but look at it like this:

if you are going to take the bible as a source of your own morality you have to pick and choose because the bible isnt consistent itself. and as far as im concerned thats OK because the writers of the bible made it up, in essence, so why cant YOU?

What I'm saying is that people are not really using the Bible as a source - they are following their own path, while using the Bible to justify it. Not necessarily a problem, except that they then use the Bible as an excuse for their own reluctance to re-assess their sense of what's right and wrong. They are taking their subjective moral viewpoint and saying: 'It's the truth - God says so, therefore it's not open to debate and I can't ever reconsider it.' To me that's hypocritical, and also prevents a person from growing and learning.

Oops, my bad. Please understand that I'm not arguing against you as such, I'm looking for understanding and clarification. Part of the problem, as I suddenly realised just before I switched the computer on, is that I've been forgetting to distinguish between subjective morality and objective morality.


no problem. its just that i often argue religion from religions point of view so that when its just MY own rather chaotic opinion im putting forth, i tend to forget what my points are.


What I'm saying is that people are not really using the Bible as a source - they are following their own path, while using the Bible to justify it. Not necessarily a problem, except that they then use the Bible as an excuse for their own reluctance to re-assess their sense of what's right and wrong. They are taking their subjective moral viewpoint and saying: 'It's the truth - God says so, therefore it's not open to debate and I can't ever reconsider it.' To me that's hypocritical, and also prevents a person from growing and learning.

very true. for most people who dont think about these things too too much, they think the morality that they got from their parents that has been somewhat enforced at church is completely backed up by the bible. they arent bothered by inconsistencies in themselves, the bible, or the morality that they have been handed because they never think about them at all.

its only a "problem" when they insist that their own ragged moral code is the only possible christian morality. i prefer hypocrits (which is most of us) who dont try to cover it up with cherry picked verses from the bible.

no problem. its just that i often argue religion from religions point of view so that when its just MY own rather chaotic opinion im putting forth, i tend to forget what my points are.

I kind of guessed that's what was happening, but wasn't sure. It's a real pleasure to find someone out there who seems to understand what's what.