NationStates Jolt Archive

That he's long dead.

And lived 2000 years ago.

That he's long dead.

lol.

there is that.

lol.

there is that.

don't leave out this:

And lived 2000 years ago.


Also, he only had 12 close friends?

don't leave out this:




Also, he only had 12 close friends?

were they friends or employees?

were they friends or employees?

Well, that depends. Do members of a pyramid scheme count as friends, or employees?

I'm an aethiest :)

Ah, so you're a scholar of the philosophy of senses (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aesthetics)...I see. :p

geeez how can we sqeeze in 26 more posts? is there some part of this topic that we have left out?

so....

if we grant some credence to the existence of jesus, as most of us seem to, just what can we say about him with any confidence?

Now we're getting somewhere...I tried to start this earlier in the thread but I guess it got lost in all those replies.

Well, let's see. First I'm going to start with stuff the New Testament stories will *not* tell us:

-The year and story of His birth (as there are two completely different birth narratives, both of whom)

-His profession (if I recall correctly, only Matthew actually says He's a carpenter, and that's to fulfill a prophecy)

-His exact stories and parables

-The circumstances surrounding His arrest (Luke gives us a different reason than Matthew, Mark and John do about why Pilate wishes to release Jesus)

-The exact Resurrection narrative

I'm sure I'm missing a few things but that's a start.

Also, he only had 12 close friends?

"Twelve" is a literary device often used in ancient writings to denote any kind of group- in fact, I believe the group of Apostles could be anywhere from 11 (if I remember correctly, "Simon" and "Peter" are seperated in one Gospel and combined in another) to 14 (with Thomas replacing Judas Iscariot and Paul becoming a post-Resurrection Apostle). Plus, reading Scripture, it's plainly evident that Jesus had a lot more than twelve admirers in His day.

So it's possible the writers may have forced the story a little so that Jesus actually did have twelve Apostles when He probably had a lot more.

I contributed 10% of this topic. I helped you get your place in history. You're welcome. So here is what my legend is going to be...

I've occassionally suggested to Christians I'm talking to, that they might ask their church (for me) if they would mind dedicating half of each service to fundamentals of physics... no positive responses yet.

*crickets chirp*

I watched this show that scientists believe that they have found the tomb of Jesus, but who really cares?
The James Cameron cut? :p

So here is what my legend is going to be...
That might not be the only thing. Check peoples' sigs.
<.<
>.>

That might not be the only thing. Check peoples' sigs.
<.<
>.>

400 posts. Hehe. The funny part is half the posts belong to 5 people and there are over 3000 posts.

400 posts. Hehe. The funny part is half the posts belong to 5 people and there are over 3000 posts.

I'm not sure, but i'm considering the wager that this particular topic is almost certainly, from the past and for the future, going to read just about the same as far as statistics ....

oh, and more for your legacy ...:
http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=13376280&postcount=166
http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=13377515&postcount=180
http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=13376284&postcount=167

The James Cameron cut? :p

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

^ That one? I haven't seen it but reading the Wikipedia entry it appears it's a very sensationalist work, extrapolating things that aren't there (like assuming a name must identify a Biblical character when the names (like "Jesus") were common).

There's also this cut (albeit a fictional movie) on the subject of Jesus' Tomb:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Body_%28film%29

I also haven't seen it...though I want to...it's on a very long list. :(

(Ten more posts until the Top 10)

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

^ That one? I haven't seen it but reading the Wikipedia entry it appears it's a very sensationalist work, extrapolating things that aren't there (like assuming a name must identify a Biblical character when the names (like "Jesus") were common).

There's also this cut (albeit a fictional movie) on the subject of Jesus' Tomb:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Body_%28film%29

I also haven't seen it...though I want to...it's on a very long list. :( Yeah, i think that's the one(s) i was talking about. :)

(Ten more posts until the Top 10)It's too bad i can't advocate a thread lock for one reason or another. :p

Out of curiosity where is this list at?

Also, I thought that Cameron movie was pretty funny. It's good evidence but he WAAAAAY jumped the gun.

Is that the "ossuary of James" story as well?

Out of curiosity where is this list at?

Also, I thought that Cameron movie was pretty funny. It's good evidence but he WAAAAAY jumped the gun.

Out of curiosity where is this list at?

Also, I thought that Cameron movie was pretty funny. It's good evidence but he WAAAAAY jumped the gun.

I just went to the NSG main page and clicked the heading where it allows you to group the threads by posts made and counted downards to this one. I'll pull it up in a second:

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/forumdisplay.php?f=1227&daysprune=-1&order=desc&sort=replycount

^ There.

(wait, we're in 12th...crap...I must have miscounted...we're 364 posts behind No. 10...although two threads ahead of us are locked if that means anything)

Also, he only had 12 close friends?13 make a hell of a bang party

Okay, getting back to the OP, I think we've pretty much beat the first part to death, so let's focus on the second part.

My feeling is that Jesus the Christ isn't important as a man. It's not the sacrifice of Jesus that moves me. As such, it's not his existence that matters, but his message. And his message doesn't change based on whether or not he exists.

I came to the message of Jesus because I believe what I believe, not the other way around. What I believe won't change based on his existence (with the exception of my view on his existence).

What do y'all think about it?

Okay, getting back to the OP, I think we've pretty much beat the first part to death, so let's focus on the second part.

My feeling is that Jesus the Christ isn't important as a man. It's not the sacrifice of Jesus that moves me. As such, it's not his existence that matters, but his message. And his message doesn't change based on whether or not he exists.

I came to the message of Jesus because I believe what I believe, not the other way around. What I believe won't change based on his existence (with the exception of my view on his existence).

What do y'all think about it?

But if the man did not exist then the whole of the bible (that deals with his message) is myth or at the very least allegory.

What does that suggest for the rest of the Bible?

The OT? Nothing. It says nothing about the OT. It would make the NT not useful as anything but a message. But what is it useful as now? For me, a message and nothing more. It's historicity doesn't have anything to do with it.

Allegories are very useful. I don't mind if it's just a teaching tool.

Ah, so you're a scholar of the philosophy of senses (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aesthetics)...I see. :p



Now we're getting somewhere...I tried to start this earlier in the thread but I guess it got lost in all those replies.

Well, let's see. First I'm going to start with stuff the New Testament stories will *not* tell us:

-The year and story of His birth (as there are two completely different birth narratives, both of whom)

-His profession (if I recall correctly, only Matthew actually says He's a carpenter, and that's to fulfill a prophecy)

-His exact stories and parables

-The circumstances surrounding His arrest (Luke gives us a different reason than Matthew, Mark and John do about why Pilate wishes to release Jesus)

-The exact Resurrection narrative

I'm sure I'm missing a few things but that's a start.



"Twelve" is a literary device often used in ancient writings to denote any kind of group- in fact, I believe the group of Apostles could be anywhere from 11 (if I remember correctly, "Simon" and "Peter" are seperated in one Gospel and combined in another) to 14 (with Thomas replacing Judas Iscariot and Paul becoming a post-Resurrection Apostle). Plus, reading Scripture, it's plainly evident that Jesus had a lot more than twelve admirers in His day.

So it's possible the writers may have forced the story a little so that Jesus actually did have twelve Apostles when He probably had a lot more.

so what we're left with is "guy who made some amount of a religious splash in the time before the destruction of the temple"

i would suggest a jewish man who was struck by the essential truth of an unknown mystery religion and tried to reconcile that with the essential truths of judaism. probably someone with a reasonably good education and exposure to world thought.

my personal answer to that would be PAUL since he was a hellenized jew who would have a passing knowledge of his jewish roots but would be more interested in the greek mysteries.

The OT? Nothing. It says nothing about the OT. It would make the NT not useful as anything but a message. But what is it useful as now? For me, a message and nothing more. It's historicity doesn't have anything to do with it.

Allegories are very useful. I don't mind if it's just a teaching tool.

Then I can certainly agree with that. Although I doubt very many Christians will.

As to what it means to the OT, does it not mean that we are then actually still awaiting the Messiah?

Then I can certainly agree with that. Although I doubt very many Christians will.

As to what it means to the OT, does it not mean that we are then actually still awaiting the Messiah?

Well, frankly, many would argue that we are anyway. At least if you listen to the actual prophesies of the real OT.

Well, frankly, many would argue that we are anyway. At least if you listen to the actual prophesies of the real OT.

Heh the real OT?

Heh the real OT?

Well, I would argue that the Jewish books are the real OT. Our selective "OT" is just something chosen by a group operating under the direction of a Pagan emperor.

Then I can certainly agree with that. Although I doubt very many Christians will.

As to what it means to the OT, does it not mean that we are then actually still awaiting the Messiah?

not necessarily.

the messiah part is judaism. the personal salvation through the grace of god is the christian part.

maybe we never needed a messiah.

jesus, god and all religions are made by man and all religious texts must be written by run of the mill mortal humans and some are written hundreds of years after the events written about.. not too accurate in my opinion

I noted, earlier in the thread, some derision regarding Christians who would lose their religion if it were somehow demonstrated that Jesus didn't exist. I think that derision is misplaced.

What people seem to forget is that Christianity isn't a philosophy. If you lose Buddha, Buddhism is still perfectly valid because it's a philosophy whose truth is independent of Bhudda. On the other hand, Christianity can NOT exist unless Jesus Christ lives, is the Son of God, and Resurrected after His crucifixion. Why?

Because to be a Christian is to take upon oneself the name of Christ and to follow Him. It is to have one's sins washed away by the Atonement. It is to know that Jesus the Christ is the one and only Savior. It's not simply a philosophy about loving one's neighbor and treating everyoe with love. Of course those are a part of the religion, but without those critical things that Jesus did, and without Jesus Himself, there is no Christianity. It's reduced to a simple philosophy, that anyone with a modicum of common sense and human decency already lives to some degree or another.

not necessarily.

the messiah part is judaism. the personal salvation through the grace of god is the christian part.

maybe we never needed a messiah.

Jesus = the Messiah in accordance with Old Testament prophecy. I don't know if ALL Christian demonimations see it this way, but I heard it from Mormons, Catholics and several Evangelical flavors.

I noted, earlier in the thread, some derision regarding Christians who would lose their religion if it were somehow demonstrated that Jesus didn't exist. I think that derision is misplaced.

What people seem to forget is that Christianity isn't a philosophy. If you lose Buddha, Buddhism is still perfectly valid because it's a philosophy whose truth is independent of Bhudda. On the other hand, Christianity can NOT exist unless Jesus Christ lives, is the Son of God, and Resurrected after His crucifixion. Why?

Because to be a Christian is to take upon oneself the name of Christ and to follow Him. It is to have one's sins washed away by the Atonement. It is to know that Jesus the Christ is the one and only Savior. It's not simply a philosophy about loving one's neighbor and treating everyoe with love. Of course those are a part of the religion, but without those critical things that Jesus did, and without Jesus Himself, there is no Christianity. It's reduced to a simple philosophy, that anyone with a modicum of common sense and human decency already lives to some degree or another.

According to the faith that sprang from the actions of a Pagan emperor. Prior to that, such things were not a necessary part of Christianity, and anyone doesn't adhere to requirements set forth by governmental entities would argue they still aren't.

The divinity of Jesus is not required for the faith. The Savior is not required for the faith. The resurrection is not a required part of the faith. Whether Christianity is teachings of a man who was the Son of God or the combined teachings of a bunch of faithful men and women that somehow got misinterpreted matters only to those who think the important thing about the story is a God "dying" and that somehow being an amazing sacrifice.

Me? I've never understood this. Dying on a cross is no sacrifice that anyone should find miraculous. I'd die on a cross for you and I don't even like you. I'd burn in hell for all eternity to save your soul if such a thing were necessary. The teachings of Jesus the Christ is what should be celebrated, not that a man you believe is a God "suffered" on the cross. Focusing on the death and resurrection is missing the point. They are symbols, but have no intrinsic value.

Jesus = the Messiah in accordance with Old Testament prophecy. I don't know if ALL Christian demonimations see it this way, but I heard it from Mormons, Catholics and several Evangelical flavors.

Yes, unless, of course, you actually read the Old Testament.

Jesus = the Messiah in accordance with Old Testament prophecy. I don't know if ALL Christian demonimations see it this way, but I heard it from Mormons, Catholics and several Evangelical flavors.

oh yes, i agree.

but IF it would be that jesus didnt really exist, does that invalidate everything about christianity?

i think it doesnt.

the stories of the old testament with its origin of sin arent TRUE. they are metaphors. the old testament prophecies are not fulfilled by jesus. without jesus is there no GOD?

not necessarily.

the messiah part is judaism. the personal salvation through the grace of god is the christian part.

maybe we never needed a messiah.

Jewish or Christian, it doesn't really matter to the point at hand. The Bible contains both the OT and the NT, and the question asked was what would it mean for the OT if the NT(the story of Jesus) was just a story.

In effect it would mean that the Messiah had not come, I guess. If though as you assert that the OT is wholly(meaning having no bearing upon Christianity) Jewish then why include it in the texts of the Bible?

According to the faith that sprang from the actions of a Pagan emperor. Prior to that, such things were not a necessary part of Christianity, and anyone doesn't adhere to requirements set forth by governmental entities would argue they still aren't.

The divinity of Jesus is not required for the faith. The Savior is not required for the faith. The resurrection is not a required part of the faith. Whether Christianity is teachings of a man who was the Son of God or the combined teachings of a bunch of faithful men and women that somehow got misinterpreted matters only to those who think the important thing about the story is a God "dying" and that somehow being an amazing sacrifice.

Me? I've never understood this. Dying on a cross is no sacrifice that anyone should find miraculous. I'd die on a cross for you and I don't even like you. I'd burn in hell for all eternity to save your soul if such a thing were necessary. The teachings of Jesus the Christ is what should be celebrated, not that a man you believe is a God "suffered" on the cross. Focusing on the death and resurrection is missing the point. They are symbols, but have no intrinsic value.

Umm but if part of the teachings of Jesus was 'I am the way and the truth' etc... what then does that mean?

Jewish or Christian, it doesn't really matter to the point at hand. The Bible contains both the OT and the NT, and the question asked was what would it mean for the OT if the NT(the story of Jesus) was just a story.

In effect it would mean that the Messiah had not come, I guess. If though as you assert that the OT is wholly(meaning having no bearing upon Christianity) Jewish then why include it in the texts of the Bible?

not to sound crass but without jesus, who cares what the jews believe?

the OT and the NT would be metaphors and guides for living well.

to take a page from our agnostic brothers, we cannot know the truth about god. we can only have a limited human understanding of whatever this thing we call "god" is.

for christians, that understanding is expressed by the OT, the NT, the writings of the church fathers and other theologians. but its never going to be TRUE. it cant be because our limited human minds cannot hold the truth of god.

so perhaps the "messiah coming" was the coming of the understanding of god that christianity represents. the leaving behind of the impersonal son-of-a-bitch god of the OT, the bullies that the greeks and romans believed in, and the receiving of the understanding of a personal god who values each individual and offers each person eternal life.

Umm but if part of the teachings of Jesus was 'I am the way and the truth' etc... what then does that mean?

Well, there's literally a hundred ways to interpret that, frankly. Many of them don't require an actual Jesus at all.

For example, do you recognize what "I am" often refers to?

Well, there's literally a hundred ways to interpret that, frankly. Many of them don't require an actual Jesus at all.

For example, do you recognize what "I am" often refers to?

What when uttered by Jesus or by God? Or are you alluding that they mean the same?

That he's long dead.

Source? ;)

What when uttered by Jesus or by God? Or are you alluding that they mean the same?

If they are just stories, then they certainly could have been intended to be the same. Certainly true of some versions of the story, particularly those chosen for the NT.

I totally agree. I watched this show that scientists believe that they have found the tomb of Jesus, but who really cares? I'm an aethiest :)

No they don't. A crackpot called James Cameron believes that he's found the tomb of Jesus based on a smattering of ambiguous evidence combined with some dubious statistics. :p

I've occassionally suggested to Christians I'm talking to, that they might ask their church (for me) if they would mind dedicating half of each service to fundamentals of physics... no positive responses yet.

I've tried suggesting that they give the Bible and the DaVinci Code equal time, but they don't seem to like that idea either. :(

"Twelve" is a literary device often used in ancient writings to denote any kind of group- in fact, I believe the group of Apostles could be anywhere from 11 (if I remember correctly, "Simon" and "Peter" are seperated in one Gospel and combined in another) to 14 (with Thomas replacing Judas Iscariot and Paul becoming a post-Resurrection Apostle). Plus, reading Scripture, it's plainly evident that Jesus had a lot more than twelve admirers in His day.

So it's possible the writers may have forced the story a little so that Jesus actually did have twelve Apostles when He probably had a lot more.

Twelve also had significance as an echo of the twelve tribes of Israel, representing the passing of the covenent from the Jews to the Christians.

Umm but if part of the teachings of Jesus was 'I am the way and the truth' etc... what then does that mean?

That actually confirms what Jocabia's saying: 'I am the way, the truth and the life' is saying that the man isn't important, only the teachings and ethics matter.[/devil's advocate]

That actually confirms what Jocabia's saying: 'I am the way, the truth and the life' is saying that the man isn't important, only the teachings and ethics matter.[/devil's advocate]

I don't know.... the whole "I am" part seems to suggest that he is talking about himself....

I don't know.... the whole "I am" part seems to suggest that he is talking about himself....

Well I don't know, lets look at it:

Jesus said: 'I am the way, the truth, and the life. No one comes to the Father except through Me'

Nowhere does this explain, whether he means himself, or his teachings.

Is it clear that it means 'through my intercession' or 'only via belief in me' or even 'through following my teachings'

How do you read it?

Of course Jesus really existed the debate is wether he is the son of God or not.

Well I don't know, lets look at it:

Jesus said: 'I am the way, the truth, and the life. No one comes to the Father except through Me'

Nowhere does this explain, whether he means himself, or his teachings.

Is it clear that it means 'through my intercession' or 'only via belief in me' or even 'through following my teachings'

How do you read it?

i read it as being the way whether you believe in it or not.

Twelve also had significance as an echo of the twelve tribes of Israel, representing the passing of the covenent from the Jews to the Christians.

Well, it's kind of like the whole 1000 thing just meaning a really, really long time. Those Jews are lazy. They only really used like 2 numbers and you had to just figure out what they really meant.

*is proud he got the debate revved back up* Top thread here we come.

Of course Jesus really existed the debate is wether he is the son of God or not.

If you had bothered a random selection of pages in this topic you would have seen it is not.

Yeah, don't even get me started on all that 'forty days and forty nights' stuff. Honestly, even if you are a living in the middle of a desert, is counting the number of sunsets really so difficult? :D

It will rain for 40 days and 15 nights. Figure that one out, fools!

Well, it's kind of like the whole 1000 thing just meaning a really, really long time. Those Jews are lazy. They only really used like 2 numbers and you had to just figure out what they really meant.

Yeah, don't even get me started on all that 'forty days and forty nights' stuff. Honestly, even if you are a living in the middle of a desert, is counting the number of sunsets really so difficult? :D

What when uttered by Jesus or by God? Or are you alluding that they mean the same?

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

"I am" is the name of God, to put it succintly.

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

"I am" is the name of God, to put it succintly.

I can't read Hebrew, but in the Septuagint it reads:

καὶ εἶπεν ὁ ϑεὸς πρὸς Μωυσῆν ᾽Εγώ εἰμι ὁ ὤν· / καὶ εἶπεν Οὕτως ἐρεῖς τοῖς υἱοῖς Ισραηλ ῾Ο ὢν ἀπέσταλκέν με / πρὸς ὑμᾶς

My Greek's not great, but I think that translates to:

and God said to Moses "I am the existing one (lit. 'the one who is'?)" / and this you will say to Israel "The existing one (lit. 'the one who is'?) sent me / to you"

Hopefully someone will correct me if I've got this wrong, but it doesn't look like 'I am that I am' is the correct translation from this document, rather it seems to be emphasising God's nature as a 'necessary' being. Can anyone read here read Hebrew?

I can't read Hebrew, but in the Septuagint it reads:



My Greek's not great, but I think that translates to:



Hopefully someone will correct me if I've got this wrong, but it doesn't look like 'I am that I am' is the correct translation from this document, rather it seems to be emphasising God's nature as a 'necessary' being. Can anyone read here read Hebrew?

The issue is that Greek has different rules than Hebrew. The Hebrew word gives the implication of existence, but because of the way it's formed you get the impression that it's suggestion that existence is eternal. Jesus uses that phrasing in the NT "I am" and many see that as a reference to the name "I am" or "the one who exists" if you like, or any other way of looking at it. Is it necessarily? No. But it's one way of looking at it. The further implication from that view is that Jesus is driving that point home with all the other things, the many, many things he says starting with "I am" and then referencing the various things that describe God. It could be taken as a reference to Jesus and God being one and the same, or simply Jesus describing God using His (God's) name.

The issue is that Greek has different rules than Hebrew. The Hebrew word gives the implication of existence, but because of the way it's formed you get the impression that it's suggestion that existence is eternal. Jesus uses that phrasing in the NT "I am" and many see that as a reference to the name "I am" or "the one who exists" if you like, or any other way of looking at it. Is it necessarily? No. But it's one way of looking at it. The further implication from that view is that Jesus is driving that point home with all the other things, the many, many things he says starting with "I am" and then referencing the various things that describe God. It could be taken as a reference to Jesus and God being one and the same, or simply Jesus describing God using His (God's) name.

Thanks.

Thanks.

For the record, it's hotly debated, but there are more than a lot who believe the Greek Septuagint isn't all that accurate of a way to portray it. For us, and for most languages, it's odd that a statement of fact, more or less, becomes the name of the entity it refers to. It would be like naming me "I wear shoes".

If you had bothered a random selection of pages in this topic you would have seen it is not.

Guess I deserved that.

I contributed 10% of this topic. I helped you get your place in history. You're welcome. So here is what my legend is going to be...

*gives cookies to Jocabia, Balderdash, and Grave-n-Idle for keeping the thread going*

Source? ;)

The bible

This is still going on? Jesus Christ...

This is still going on? Jesus Christ...

It has been going on for about 2000 years ;)

This is still going on? Jesus Christ...

LOL...we have a record (largest thread) to catch. :D

Of course Jesus really existed the debate is wether he is the son of God or not.

Proof?

so what we're left with is "guy who made some amount of a religious splash in the time before the destruction of the temple"

i would suggest a jewish man who was struck by the essential truth of an unknown mystery religion and tried to reconcile that with the essential truths of judaism. probably someone with a reasonably good education and exposure to world thought.

my personal answer to that would be PAUL since he was a hellenized jew who would have a passing knowledge of his jewish roots but would be more interested in the greek mysteries.

I think some have actually theorized that Christianity was Paul's idea all along...let's not forget, in Acts it is written that he *did* have a vision of Jesus Christ which led him to convert...maybe this vision was nothing but a dream?

*just spinning my wheels*

I think some have actually theorized that Christianity was Paul's idea all along...let's not forget, in Acts it is written that he *did* have a vision of Jesus Christ which led him to convert...maybe this vision was nothing but a dream?

*just spinning my wheels*

It's an interesting theory, but I'm not sure it holds water. Mostly because, on its face, the morality espoused by Jesus in the gospels (love thy neighbor, turn the other cheek, let he who is without sin..., etc.) differs so greatly from the morality espoused by Paul in Jesus' name in his own writings.

I noted, earlier in the thread, some derision regarding Christians who would lose their religion if it were somehow demonstrated that Jesus didn't exist. I think that derision is misplaced.

What people seem to forget is that Christianity isn't a philosophy. If you lose Buddha, Buddhism is still perfectly valid because it's a philosophy whose truth is independent of Bhudda. On the other hand, Christianity can NOT exist unless Jesus Christ lives, is the Son of God, and Resurrected after His crucifixion. Why?

Because to be a Christian is to take upon oneself the name of Christ and to follow Him. It is to have one's sins washed away by the Atonement. It is to know that Jesus the Christ is the one and only Savior. It's not simply a philosophy about loving one's neighbor and treating everyoe with love. Of course those are a part of the religion, but without those critical things that Jesus did, and without Jesus Himself, there is no Christianity. It's reduced to a simple philosophy, that anyone with a modicum of common sense and human decency already lives to some degree or another.

Does Jesus *have* to exist for the story to be relevant? Does the text (and its meaning) change just because the character isn't historical? Why can't the story just be an inspirational legend like the story of Hercules or Paul Bunyan? What you seem to be forgetting is the possibility that a story can be written to prove a point and that the figures present in the story can be representative of whatever message the author is trying to get across (even if it's a moral one). The inherent core of Christianity is to follow yourself based on the model of Jesus Christ, which still exists even if it's "just a story".

Twelve also had significance as an echo of the twelve tribes of Israel, representing the passing of the covenent from the Jews to the Christians.

You'll also notice there that Israel really has thirteen tribes, as one son of Jacob (Levi) bore the priestly caste and thus would receive no land, with two of Joseph's sons (Ephraim and Manasseh) making up the difference in the "Twelve Tribes".

It will rain for 40 days and 15 nights. Figure that one out, fools!

Erm, Noah was an avid stargazer and thus he didn't want rain every night? :confused:

It's an interesting theory, but I'm not sure it holds water. Mostly because, on its face, the morality espoused by Jesus in the gospels (love thy neighbor, turn the other cheek, let he who is without sin..., etc.) differs so greatly from the morality espoused by Paul in Jesus' name in his own writings.

That is true...but maybe the Gospel writers composed their Gospels as a response to Paul (who, as I understand it, wrote of a rather retributive Jesus). Let's not forget all the divisions Christianity went through up to the Council of Nicaea in 324...this idea ("Jesus the Disciplinarian" vs. "Jesus the Father Figure") could have been one of them.

I'd also like to note the "strict Jesus" idea mirrors Judaism in that Yahweh is presented in much the same way...so it's also possible that the Gospels were written in an effort to differentiate and distance themselves from Judaism (especially considering they peg the blame for Jesus' death on the Jewish High Priests).

That is true...but maybe the Gospel writers composed their Gospels as a response to Paul (who, as I understand it, wrote of a rather retributive Jesus). Let's not forget all the divisions Christianity went through up to the Council of Nicaea in 324...this idea ("Jesus the Disciplinarian" vs. "Jesus the Father Figure") could have been one of them.

I'd also like to note the "strict Jesus" idea mirrors Judaism in that Yahweh is presented in much the same way...so it's also possible that the Gospels were written in an effort to differentiate and distance themselves from Judaism (especially considering they peg the blame for Jesus' death on the Jewish High Priests).

Well wouldn't this imply then that the Jesus figure wasn't so much made up by Paul as it was made up by a large group of thinkers of that time period? With their individual philosophical musings woven together to form what would later become the NT?

Well wouldn't this imply then that the Jesus figure wasn't so much made up by Paul as it was made up by a large group of thinkers of that time period? With their individual philosophical musings woven together to form what would later become the NT?

In truth, yeah, but it still doesn't necessarily mean that Paul didn't start it. He could have had his dream, told people about it and, at some point while he was preaching, someone else (Peter?) thought "I don't like this idea of a nasty Saviour, but I like the idea of having a Saviour. I think He should be a nicer, more gentler Man." Peter's version of Jesus (maybe the Book of Matthew, which does feature Peter prominently, or maybe Mark since it appears to be the Gospel on which the others add to) caught like wildfire, causing Paul to get upset (I recall Peter and Paul had a verbal spat in the Epistles) considering his idea of Jesus was thwarted by an upstart's version. Eventually they made amends (confirmed maybe with an Epistle we haven't found yet), which is why the Epistles appear in the New Testament.

In truth, yeah, but it still doesn't necessarily mean that Paul didn't start it. He could have had his dream, told people about it and, at some point while he was preaching, someone else (Peter?) thought "I don't like this idea of a nasty Saviour, but I like the idea of having a Saviour. I think He should be a nicer, more gentler Man." Peter's version of Jesus (maybe the Book of Matthew, which does feature Peter prominently, or maybe Mark since it appears to be the Gospel on which the others add to) caught like wildfire, causing Paul to get upset (I recall Peter and Paul had a verbal spat in the Epistles) considering his idea of Jesus was thwarted by an upstart's version. Eventually they made amends (confirmed maybe with an Epistle we haven't found yet), which is why the Epistles appear in the New Testament.

It's possible. I'm not all that sure there's much to support it, but it's possible.

It's possible. I'm not all that sure there's much to support it, but it's possible.

I know, it's all speculation, but if you ask me, it all just seems to add up.

id quote but there were too many posts...

if you look at what paul wrote about jesus, it isnt much. he is more involved in the spiritual vision he had and the direct revelation from god that it included.

he quotes none of the big parables of jesus, he uses none if the incidents of his life (outside of the crucifiction) as examples, he even overlooks (i read this part, im not an expert on paul) jesus stories he could have used to great effect in his letters for lesserly useful examples.

he isnt much interested in the man of the gospels at all.

i think they were made up afterwards by some one (or several some ones) else.

id quote but there were too many posts...

Aw, man you should have...we have a record to catch. :D

if you look at what paul wrote about jesus, it isnt much. he is more involved in the spiritual vision he had and the direct revelation from god that it included.

he quotes none of the big parables of jesus, he uses none if the incidents of his life (outside of the crucifiction) as examples, he even overlooks (i read this part, im not an expert on paul) jesus stories he could have used to great effect in his letters for lesserly useful examples.

he isnt much interested in the man of the gospels at all.

i think they were made up afterwards by some one (or several some ones) else.

I got the same idea too...I don't think he actually uses the word "Jesus" in his writings- he just refers to "Christ".

Do you still have that link to the "Jesus Myth vs. Historical Jesus" article from Earl Doherty? I know you posted it the last time we had that discussion but my computer crashed before I could bookmark it. :(

Aw, man you should have...we have a record to catch. :D



I got the same idea too...I don't think he actually uses the word "Jesus" in his writings- he just refers to "Christ".

Do you still have that link to the "Jesus Myth vs. Historical Jesus" article from Earl Doherty? I know you posted it the last time we had that discussion but my computer crashed before I could bookmark it. :(

if only i could remember which one that was. ive been looking at many many fascinating articles about jesus online. the link i have in my bookmarks is from early christian writings but i dont know if thats what you are referring to.

http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/theories.html#doherty

ive found authors who thought that jesus was derived from mithras, from jesus pandera (sp?), that jesus and barabbas were the same person, that christ and krishna come from the same root word, all sorts of cool stuff.

if only i could remember which one that was. ive been looking at many many fascinating articles about jesus online. the link i have in my bookmarks is from early christian writings but i dont know if thats what you are referring to.

http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/theories.html#doherty

ive found authors who thought that jesus was derived from mithras, from jesus pandera (sp?), that jesus and barabbas were the same person, that christ and krishna come from the same root word, all sorts of cool stuff.

That last part is actually plausible. Latin and Sanskrit both come from the same language family. However, a) Krishna predates Christ by a good 3000 years, and b) Krishna was his name, rather than a bestowed title.

Yay for irresolvable arguments!

if only i could remember which one that was. ive been looking at many many fascinating articles about jesus online. the link i have in my bookmarks is from early christian writings but i dont know if thats what you are referring to.

http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/theories.html#doherty

ive found authors who thought that jesus was derived from mithras, from jesus pandera (sp?), that jesus and barabbas were the same person, that christ and krishna come from the same root word, all sorts of cool stuff.

Found it:

http://pages.ca.inter.net/~oblio/jesus.html

^ It's among the links provided in the section for Doherty. Thanks. :)

That last part is actually plausible. Latin and Sanskrit both come from the same language family. However, a) Krishna predates Christ by a good 3000 years, and b) Krishna was his name, rather than a bestowed title.

yeah

the implication of the article (that im looking for but i dont think i bookmarked it) was that the IDEA of krishna moved west after alexander and that it was the mix of hindu ideas with greek mysteries (or perhaps hinduism that inspired the greek mysteries?) that ended up inspiring the title and notion of the christ.

its hard to make a coherent point and play poker online at the same time.

I wouldnt be shocked if he was just a mythe, after all, 90% of all bible stories are taken from other, older cultures mythes and legends, most notibly the flood story (taken from the Epic of Gilgamesh) and the story of Moses's early years, the whole put on a basket, sent down river, and picked up by a princess thing (was the legend that was told about Sargon of Akkid).

You realize what you just said doesn't speak to the existence of Jesus at all. Whether or not the Bible stories were absorbed from old myths, it's pretty clear that Jews believed it around the time of Christ. The entire OT could be a myth without speaking to the existence of Jesus.

The real question is... was Jesus crucified naked.

Well I don't know, lets look at it:

Jesus said: 'I am the way, the truth, and the life. No one comes to the Father except through Me'

Nowhere does this explain, whether he means himself, or his teachings.

Is it clear that it means 'through my intercession' or 'only via belief in me' or even 'through following my teachings'

How do you read it?

Another possible reading is: 'because of me' - which doesn't intrinsically necessitate belief, faith, or even following Jesus - just the fact that a door was closed, and now it's open.

The issue is that Greek has different rules than Hebrew. The Hebrew word gives the implication of existence, but because of the way it's formed you get the impression that it's suggestion that existence is eternal. Jesus uses that phrasing in the NT "I am" and many see that as a reference to the name "I am" or "the one who exists" if you like, or any other way of looking at it. Is it necessarily? No. But it's one way of looking at it. The further implication from that view is that Jesus is driving that point home with all the other things, the many, many things he says starting with "I am" and then referencing the various things that describe God. It could be taken as a reference to Jesus and God being one and the same, or simply Jesus describing God using His (God's) name.

Exactly - if you use Greek, the structure of the Hebrew name becomes somewhat irrelevent - you instantly lose 'depth' as soon as you translate or transliterate.

So - in Hebrew, you can use "I AM" and it has a world of attachments... and when you try to translate it into Greek, you lose all the implication, and are left with something that is somewhere between a name (westernised, as we do now - meaning, that it becomes JUST a name), and a statement of contemporary existence.


"I AM", in Hebrew... a world of implication of eternity, omnipresence, and consistency.

"I am", In Greek... a current state of being - maybe a name.

*gives cookies to Jocabia, Balderdash, and Grave-n-Idle for keeping the thread going*

Balders should come back. He was the only serious voice of 'opposition'.

(Yes, a curious phrase to be using in a debate where atheist and believers are scattered across both sides of the trenches, but I think everyone knows what I mean).

I think some have actually theorized that Christianity was Paul's idea all along...let's not forget, in Acts it is written that he *did* have a vision of Jesus Christ which led him to convert...maybe this vision was nothing but a dream?

*just spinning my wheels*

Probably, someone has already beaten me to this (should have read the WHOLE thread before I replied... I beg special allowance, I got snowed in at work, and this is the first time I've been near my computer in two days...), but there are two accounts of Paul's 'encounter' with Jesus, and they disagree on the details.

Paul is certainly the originator of the current FORM of Christianity - which is basically to take the teachings of the living ministry of Jesus, and reapply the basic accoutrements that would have been expected of Pharisees... the traditions, the ritual, the community, the letter of the law in place of the spirit.

The debate has raged almost as long as the whole Christ argument - was Paul the saviour of the nascent Christian movement, or was he Antichrist?

I just went to the NSG main page and clicked the heading where it allows you to group the threads by posts made and counted downards to this one. I'll pull it up in a second:

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/forumdisplay.php?f=1227&daysprune=-1&order=desc&sort=replycount

^ There.

(wait, we're in 12th...crap...I must have miscounted...we're 364 posts behind No. 10...although two threads ahead of us are locked if that means anything)

The scary thing is - I was in three of those too... 699 posts in one of them, 299 in another... 202 in the third.

274 in this one - almost 1500 of my posts in just four threads....

Were you including 'moved' threads?

Okay, getting back to the OP, I think we've pretty much beat the first part to death, so let's focus on the second part.

My feeling is that Jesus the Christ isn't important as a man. It's not the sacrifice of Jesus that moves me. As such, it's not his existence that matters, but his message. And his message doesn't change based on whether or not he exists.

I came to the message of Jesus because I believe what I believe, not the other way around. What I believe won't change based on his existence (with the exception of my view on his existence).

What do y'all think about it?

I was always of the thought that the Jesus story is actually better if he's NOT God. If his sacrifice on the Cross is ultimate and eternal... if he risks being 'dead' like all the rest? It seems to me that if you ARE god, popping your clogs and taking three days to get right-side-up isn't that much of a burden.

Otrher than that, I am inclined to suspect that the message is more important than the messenger. Even if it turned out that 'Jesus' was an amalgamation of myth, that doesn't make 'his teachings' any less cromulent.

the messiah part is judaism. the personal salvation through the grace of god is the christian part.


Not strictly true... the assurance of salvation, maybe... but there are a few examples of people being 'saved' (taken into God's hand, effectively), which can ONLY be by the Grace of God, even in the OT - like Enoch.

Just as the original Elysian ideal was reserved for the gods and demi-gods, ut eventually transforms (over the decades) into a more accessibly paradise... so Jesus is democritisation of the rarely bestowed apotheosis in the hands of the Great I AM.

Jesus = the Messiah in accordance with Old Testament prophecy.

Rather depends how you read your prophecy.

Not being annointed as a mortal king of Israel is a bit of a kicker. Not returning the People of Israel, to Israel, is a bit of a blow. Not rebuilding the temple in Jerusalem didn't help his case. Not bringing peace to the world and ending all war is a bit of a thorn in his side. Not bringing the knowledge of God to the entirety of the world, is not helping any. And that's before you even start looking at the (several) suggested reasons why Jesus cannot qualify for 'messiah-ship' based on geneology.

Of course, if you aren't worried about those things, and prefer the 'let's pretend this is a prophecy' school of thought... well, claiming that Jesus fulfills a prophecy you invented isn't much of a claim.

Jewish or Christian, it doesn't really matter to the point at hand. The Bible contains both the OT and the NT, and the question asked was what would it mean for the OT if the NT(the story of Jesus) was just a story.

In effect it would mean that the Messiah had not come, I guess. If though as you assert that the OT is wholly(meaning having no bearing upon Christianity) Jewish then why include it in the texts of the Bible?

Jews are still waiting for Messiah.

Probably, someone has already beaten me to this (should have read the WHOLE thread before I replied... I beg special allowance, I got snowed in at work, and this is the first time I've been near my computer in two days...), but there are two accounts of Paul's 'encounter' with Jesus, and they disagree on the details.

Paul is certainly the originator of the current FORM of Christianity - which is basically to take the teachings of the living ministry of Jesus, and reapply the basic accoutrements that would have been expected of Pharisees... the traditions, the ritual, the community, the letter of the law in place of the spirit.

The debate has raged almost as long as the whole Christ argument - was Paul the saviour of the nascent Christian movement, or was he Antichrist?

Can we actually show that Christianity existed before Paul though? That's the bigger question. From how I understand it, Paul's writings were the first Christian writings we have- everything else is theoretical.

The scary thing is - I was in three of those too... 699 posts in one of them, 299 in another... 202 in the third.

274 in this one - almost 1500 of my posts in just four threads....

Were you including 'moved' threads?

I'd have to check, but I believe this thread is the only one I'm in although I do remember some of the other threads when they floated around, like "Is homosexuality a sin?".

I didn't count the moved threads because they're not technically a part of General...that, and I assume quite a few of those posts had to have been made after they left.

Can we actually show that Christianity existed before Paul though? That's the bigger question. From how I understand it, Paul's writings were the first Christian writings we have- everything else is theoretical.

We can't really show much of anything. A few scraps of material here and there... my suspicion that Paul came later is based mainly on one thing - his insistence that he communicated with the risen christ.

He could have been making that up, obviously - most of us would suspect as much of anyone trying to convince us of the same - or he could have had some kind of divine revelation. The important detail for me, though, is the existence of the already-dead-Jesus in his story.

The evidence seems to suggest that the Great Commission is a later addition to the earliest Christian scriptures - that the resurrection texts (especially the stuff about witnessing to Gentiles) were 'additional' material... which certainly makes sense of the apparent Gentile-v's-Jew conflict in the nature of the Gospel of Matthew.

So - if Paul is written featuring an already resurrected Jesus, and/or ministration to the heathen? Wouldn't that (possibly?) suggest it came after the earlier incarnations of the other Gopels, but preceded the latter amendments?

We can't really show much of anything. A few scraps of material here and there... my suspicion that Paul came later is based mainly on one thing - his insistence that he communicated with the risen christ.

He could have been making that up, obviously - most of us would suspect as much of anyone trying to convince us of the same - or he could have had some kind of divine revelation. The important detail for me, though, is the existence of the already-dead-Jesus in his story.

The evidence seems to suggest that the Great Commission is a later addition to the earliest Christian scriptures - that the resurrection texts (especially the stuff about witnessing to Gentiles) were 'additional' material... which certainly makes sense of the apparent Gentile-v's-Jew conflict in the nature of the Gospel of Matthew.

So - if Paul is written featuring an already resurrected Jesus, and/or ministration to the heathen? Wouldn't that (possibly?) suggest it came after the earlier incarnations of the other Gopels, but preceded the latter amendments?

How do you know, though, that Paul didn't "dream up" that Jesus had died and been resurrected? Yeah, those are ideas inherent to Christianity, but maybe they came right from Paul. Just because his vision made overtures to him that he was real doesn't mean that the visionary figure actually was real- maybe Paul preached that this person was a real but forgotten man (even though all he experienced was a vision) but it got lost in the details somewhat until the Gospels came around to solidify a "real" person. Certainly from a historical standpoint, if one was to make the case for a mythical creation of Jesus one has to start at Paul, at least for now, since we've got no writers that predate him.

Can we actually show that Christianity existed before Paul though? That's the bigger question. From how I understand it, Paul's writings were the first Christian writings we have- everything else is theoretical.

Even Paul's corpus has undergone revision at Nycaea, iirc. I think that our general knowledge of christianity, as for christian documents and sources, stops there. Before Nycaea, we'll have to resort to roman accounts, which, of course, are quite anti-christian biased before MLXVI ab Urbe condita and quite pro-christian after.

btw, I think that this thread is setting some records as for time going and number of posts.

Balders should come back. He was the only serious voice of 'opposition'.

(Yes, a curious phrase to be using in a debate where atheist and believers are scattered across both sides of the trenches, but I think everyone knows what I mean).

And his arguments are always interesting, even if a lot of the time they're circular :p

And his arguments are always interesting, even if a lot of the time they're circular :p

I liked his passion and his intent was to make an actual historic argument even if he was entirely sure what that was, which I liked. That's why I found the last bit so disappointing. It was the first time he seemed to just skip over due diligence and just through out some propaganda. For the most part, that wasn't his way. He really did make a giant effort to keep his argument in the realm of that which could be examined.

We can't really show much of anything. A few scraps of material here and there... my suspicion that Paul came later is based mainly on one thing - his insistence that he communicated with the risen christ.

He could have been making that up, obviously - most of us would suspect as much of anyone trying to convince us of the same - or he could have had some kind of divine revelation. The important detail for me, though, is the existence of the already-dead-Jesus in his story.

The evidence seems to suggest that the Great Commission is a later addition to the earliest Christian scriptures - that the resurrection texts (especially the stuff about witnessing to Gentiles) were 'additional' material... which certainly makes sense of the apparent Gentile-v's-Jew conflict in the nature of the Gospel of Matthew.

So - if Paul is written featuring an already resurrected Jesus, and/or ministration to the heathen? Wouldn't that (possibly?) suggest it came after the earlier incarnations of the other Gopels, but preceded the latter amendments?

paul met the risen christ in a vision. he didnt meet jesus and was never particularly interested in the mortal jesus.

he had one of those intense brain storm visions where you feel like god is speaking to you directly into your brain. i dont remember what thats called. he wasnt lying, he didnt make anything up. he had the same kind of experience that thousands of others have had in the centuries since.

the question is WHY did he label this vision "christ"? where did the concept come from? did it already exist or did he invent the label himself to describe the vision he had?

how many posts do we need?

delusion.

noooo

im thinking "epiphany" but that can happen to anyone. this is a much more intense experience.

how many posts do we need?always more.

i dont remember what thats called.delusion.

noooo

im thinking "epiphany" but that can happen to anyone. this is a much more intense experience.yeah, when you hit your head ;)

noooo

im thinking "epiphany" but that can happen to anyone. this is a much more intense experience.

Revelation?

You realize what you just said doesn't speak to the existence of Jesus at all. Whether or not the Bible stories were absorbed from old myths, it's pretty clear that Jews believed it around the time of Christ. The entire OT could be a myth without speaking to the existence of Jesus.

All Im saying is, the more stories you steal from other cultures, the more likely it is that every story is stolen from another culture.

All Im saying is, the more stories you steal from other cultures, the more likely it is that every story is stolen from another culture.

Not when you're talking about two entirely different groups. You were speaking about people who had nothing to do with the origins of Christ stories in your example. It would be like me claiming that because Washington didn't chop down a cherry tree and say, "I cannot tell a lie," that the stories about Kennedy are false as well. There is no relationship.

All Im saying is, the more stories you steal from other cultures, the more likely it is that every story is stolen from another culture.

and the more the same story is stolen, the more "true" it is.

and the more the same story is stolen, the more "true" it is.

That's where it gets complicated. Because sometimes the story isn't stolen. It comes from so many places because it is true. The stories about dragons and giant lizards that pervade many cultures around the world might be derivative or they might be coincidence or they might the result of encountering dinosaur bones and deciding they were "dragons" or "wyrms" or any number of giant creatures. That a story persists really doesn't speak to it's truth at all.

Revelation?

i dont think so.

remember a few months back there was a book of the letter of mother theresa where she said that she hadnt felt the presence of god for decades and everyone thought that she meant she had become an atheist?

turns out that when she was a young woman she had had one of these intense religious visions that led her to the convent. living the rest of her life as a normal person who never got to get direct revelations from god made her feel abandoned.

anyway they are not uncommon through the ages. im thinking that mohammed had a similar kind of vision that led him to start islam.

That's where it gets complicated. Because sometimes the story isn't stolen. It comes from so many places because it is true. The stories about dragons and giant lizards that pervade many cultures around the world might be derivative or they might be coincidence or they might the result of encountering dinosaur bones and deciding they were "dragons" or "wyrms" or any number of giant creatures. That a story persists really doesn't speak to it's truth at all.

yes but when we are speaking of religion "truth" doesnt have to reflect something that happened and can be verified. religious truth speaks deeper to our psyche and is true or not based on its spiritual effect on us.

and the more the same story is stolen, the more "true" it is.How so?

i dont think so.

remember a few months back there was a book of the letter of mother theresa where she said that she hadnt felt the presence of god for decades and everyone thought that she meant she had become an atheist?

turns out that when she was a young woman she had had one of these intense religious visions that led her to the convent. living the rest of her life as a normal person who never got to get direct revelations from god made her feel abandoned.

anyway they are not uncommon through the ages. im thinking that mohammed had a similar kind of vision that led him to start islam.

A while ago someone posted an article that strongly suggested these "revelations" are in fact a form of epileptic seizure. It involved the famous brainhelmet ;)

yes but when we are speaking of religion "truth" doesnt have to reflect something that happened and can be verified. religious truth speaks deeper to our psyche and is true or not based on its spiritual effect on us.

Ah. Well I would agree that the more universal something is, the more likely it is that it speaks to us in some important way, even if such a way is not emperical.

noooo

im thinking "epiphany" but that can happen to anyone. this is a much more intense experience.

It could have been a mystical (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mysticism) experience, but I think it was more of a numinous (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Numinous) one.

The difference is that the mystic experiences unity with the godhead, while the numinous experience is one of being witness to something wholly other.

It could have been a mystical (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mysticism) experience, but I think it was more of a numinous (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Numinous) one.

The difference is that the mystic experiences unity with the godhead, while the numinous experience is one of being witness to something wholly other.

seems to be some of each eh?

the mystics of the middle ages used fasting, prayer, and isolation to bring on this kind of vision.

seems to be some of each eh?

the mystics of the middle ages used fasting, prayer, and isolation to bring on this kind of vision.

You mean an epiphany. Look it up. It's the right word. It's a religious experience and carries the connotation of being right (particularly to the person having one), but it's a moving, inciteful religious experience. There actually used to be a festival with that name because it is specifically considered to be the act of seeing Christ.

You mean an epiphany. Look it up. It's the right word. It's a religious experience and carries the connotation of being right (particularly to the person having one), but it's a moving, inciteful religious experience. There actually used to be a festival with that name because it is specifically considered to be the act of seeing Christ.

The feast of Epiphany is on Jan. 6th, if I recall correctly. It is supposed to represent the day when the three wise kings saw the Christ child. Many Christians around the world exchange gifts on this day rather than Christmas for this reason.

I thought an epiphany was a more run of the mill 'eureka' moment, e.g. I just had an epiphany about how to fix my rear axle.

Was Jesus a real person? Does it matter?

Yes.
There are 80 different sources, many of which are writings from people who weren't followers of Jesus, that all suggest he existed.

But whether he was the Son of God or not is a completely different question.

Yes.
There are 80 different sources, many of which are writings from people who weren't followers of Jesus, that all suggest he existed.

Quick ! Before you leave forever, where on earth do all of you post-and-run people get this bullshit from ?

seems to be some of each eh?

the mystics of the middle ages used fasting, prayer, and isolation to bring on this kind of vision.and you wouldn't characterize that as a delusional state ??

and you wouldn't characterize that as a delusional state ??

i dont know that it qualifies as a delusional state. there is something going on mentally but *shrug* i dont really know enough about it or about psychology to say.

i dont know that it qualifies as a delusional state. there is something going on mentally but *shrug* i dont really know enough about it or about psychology to say.

Epilepsy ;)
Seriously, people always assume that brain malfunctions feel unpleasant. That is simply not true. Some veneral diseases have very pleasant sideeffects for instance- until the pain starts and you die of course.

The feast of Epiphany is on Jan. 6th, if I recall correctly. It is supposed to represent the day when the three wise kings saw the Christ child. Many Christians around the world exchange gifts on this day rather than Christmas for this reason.

I thought an epiphany was a more run of the mill 'eureka' moment, e.g. I just had an epiphany about how to fix my rear axle.

It can be, but it's original meaning and a meaning it still carries relates to religious-type 'eureka' moments. And, yes, it can involve seeing a vision you believe is true, or may even actually be true.

Epilepsy ;)
Seriously, people always assume that brain malfunctions feel unpleasant. That is simply not true. Some veneral diseases have very pleasant sideeffects for instance- until the pain starts and you die of course.

Personal experience?

Yes.
There are 80 different sources, many of which are writings from people who weren't followers of Jesus, that all suggest he existed.

But whether he was the Son of God or not is a completely different question.

Please list them.

Please list them.

Let's just quit poking the one-shot wonders, and discuss the second part of the question. Does it matter? We've heard from a couple of people on the subject and we seem to be all over the board but we keep failing to argue about it. What the hell?

Let's just quit poking the one-shot wonders, and discuss the second part of the question. Does it matter? We've heard from a couple of people on the subject and we seem to be all over the board but we keep failing to argue about it. What the hell?

while i find the non-existence of jesus strangely comforting -- no crazy man claiming to be god, no puffed up followers exaggerating the masters accomplishments--in the end i find that his non-existence to be the nail in the coffin of belief.

if its not literally true, i have no reason to deal with it at all.

while i find the non-existence of jesus strangely comforting -- no crazy man claiming to be god, no puffed up followers exaggerating the masters accomplishments--in the end i find that his non-existence to be the nail in the coffin of belief.

if its not literally true, i have no reason to deal with it at all.The answer to the second question "does it matter?" is simple: it does not. Even if Jesus existed, he is not the son of the biblical god, because that one is a fabrication. If he existed, he was just another fanatical Jew with a severe lack of understanding for human reality.

The answer to the second question "does it matter?" is simple: it does not. Even if Jesus existed, he is not the son of the biblical god, because that one is a fabrication. If he existed, he was just another fanatical Jew with a severe lack of understanding for human reality.

I have yet to see you prove that assertion. Demonstrate conclusively there is no God, or maybe you could start using non-fallacies as the basis for your argument. Either/Or. See rational people don't consider writing something in really big, bolded text to be an argument. You have to actually demonstrate your claims are true.

Quick ! Before you leave forever, where on earth do all of you post-and-run people get this bullshit from ?

Meh, you'll never be back to respond, but...

Name one that we haven't already dealt with

while i find the non-existence of jesus strangely comforting -- no crazy man claiming to be god, no puffed up followers exaggerating the masters accomplishments--in the end i find that his non-existence to be the nail in the coffin of belief.

if its not literally true, i have no reason to deal with it at all.

Why would that comfort you? The rational people who are Christians do generally require a literal Jesus to get the same things from the faith, and the ones who require this super being probably aren't going to be swayed by evidence either. You'd still have the same "puffed up followers" and, worse, there is no way to address those followers.

If we found, say, supportable documents from the actual Jesus explaining his views, you'd certainly see a change among many in the faith. Fanatical Christians tend to like to be told exactly what to believe. However, absent such documents, and particularly with what such Christians view to be an attack on their faith, you're not likelly to sway them toward moderation at all.

The answer to the second question "does it matter?" is simple: it does not. Even if Jesus existed, he is not the son of the biblical god, because that one is a fabrication. If he existed, he was just another fanatical Jew with a severe lack of understanding for human reality.

well 3 things

if he did exist and was just a cool guy whose followers got out of hand with the buildup--peter went to rome only to find that every other person knew some religious philospher or other so he started building HIS guy up--then it might be nice for everyone to know that its a freaking metaphor and is all stolen from the greek and roman mystery religions. then we can all back off and understand that every modern religion is stolen from the past in some way and we should just calm down.

if he didnt exist and was made up whole cloth--similar to the above but more of a metaphor and too bad that we didnt understand that centuries ago.

if he DID exist and was the actual messiah and son of the jewish god who does exist pretty much as outlined in the bible--well you and i are in deep shit.

if he DID exist and got it wrong and led people away from the proper worship of the actual god or gods, it might be a good thing to drop that and start looking for the real gods so we can suck up to them while we have the time.

ok that was 4 but i didnt know where i was going with the post.

Why would that comfort you? The rational people who are Christians do generally require a literal Jesus to get the same things from the faith, and the ones who require this super being probably aren't going to be swayed by evidence either. You'd still have the same "puffed up followers" and, worse, there is no way to address those followers.

If we found, say, supportable documents from the actual Jesus explaining his views, you'd certainly see a change among many in the faith. Fanatical Christians tend to like to be told exactly what to believe. However, absent such documents, and particularly with what such Christians view to be an attack on their faith, you're not likelly to sway them toward moderation at all.

i find it personally comforting. before being introduced to this idea that jesus is a complete fabrication it bothered me that there was this guy who must have said/done SOME of this stuff.

the jesus of the NT is a pretty cool guy. i didnt like having to think that he was crazy. isnt that the cs lewis idea that gets posted here now and then? if jesus wasnt god then christianity is worthless because it was founded by a nut?

Why would that comfort you? The rational people who are Christians do generally require a literal Jesus to get the same things from the faith, and the ones who require this super being probably aren't going to be swayed by evidence either. You'd still have the same "puffed up followers" and, worse, there is no way to address those followers.

If we found, say, supportable documents from the actual Jesus explaining his views, you'd certainly see a change among many in the faith. Fanatical Christians tend to like to be told exactly what to believe. However, absent such documents, and particularly with what such Christians view to be an attack on their faith, you're not likelly to sway them toward moderation at all.

oh and not THOSE followers.

i mean his literal followers. peter, james, john, and the rest. those guys who after the crucifiction went out preaching this gospel WITHOUT the miracles of the bible to back them up.

i imagine them faced with the utter lack of interest in the rest of the world. who is this jewish religious philosopher compared to the other guys' religioius figure who was born of a virgin and a god, who raised people from the dead, who came back from death themselves, who performed dozens of miracles, who can guarantee you a place in paradise?

nobody.

so they secured a place for themselves in the area by making up stories of miracles and marvels that put them in a better light with those they were preaching to.

(IF jesus did exist but wasnt the son of god)

i find it personally comforting. before being introduced to this idea that jesus is a complete fabrication it bothered me that there was this guy who must have said/done SOME of this stuff.

the jesus of the NT is a pretty cool guy. i didnt like having to think that he was crazy. isnt that the cs lewis idea that gets posted here now and then? if jesus wasnt god then christianity is worthless because it was founded by a nut?

Well, there's always another option. Jesus wasn't a nut and the authors of some or all of the documents were. I really don't think that it's all that strange that legends merge even over a very short time. If they make sense (make sense in this case really just meaning if it fits the way people think), we tend to accept them whole hog even if we know better (like me thinking the ring around the rosy rhyme referenced the plague).

We're really flawed that way. This tendency to mix things together.

I've had people swear to me, to the point of getting mad, that something happened to me that never happened. Either I'm wrong or they are, but neither of us is crazy. Sometimes people just lie until they believe it. Sometimes people just really, really want something to have another way.

However, I tend toward the idea that the myth built up in the telling. By the time we see the version we do, even if the original texts were much more credible, people mix the written version with their personal understanding or things they've heard that might be the same guy, or something they misheard and, viola, you've got a guy walking on water and scourging money lenders.

Does it matte if Jesus existed?

It depends on what you use Jesus for, doesn't it?

If he's a moral compass or role model, then his existence, or lack thereof, is unimportant. One could use Yoda or Superman to do the same thing. The result would be the same despite the fact that we know these characters never existed.

If you believe he is an actual, physical door that you have to actually physically pass through to get into an actual, physical heaven where you spend eternity hanging out with an actual physical god, then you would be pretty pissed to find out Jesus never existed.

Of course, many Christians see Jesus in a completely different way, and the importance of his existence would depend greatly on the context of the individual believer.

What would be more interesting would be those institutions who have a vested interest in having people believe their particular version of the events. The Catholic Church would be far more upset than the United Church in that respect.

*snip*

By the way, the God who condemns you to hell for being wrong gets the finger as I head down to hell on principle. There isn't any amound of suffering one could threaten me with that would encourage to endorse such an entity. If Christians were truly doing what's right, they wouldn't change their beliefs even if they reversed the carrot and the stick. Unfortunately, so many would, which is why they have the kinds of arguments that tell you to take the "safe" route and become a believer.

By the way, the God who condemns you to hell for being wrong gets the finger as I head down to hell on principle. There isn't any amound of suffering one could threaten me with that would encourage to endorse such an entity. If Christians were truly doing what's right, they wouldn't change their beliefs even if they reversed the carrot and the stick. Unfortunately, so many would, which is why they have the kinds of arguments that tell you to take the "safe" route and become a believer.

But that always comes down to the fact that the people who believe god condemns for immorality really mean that they WISH god would condemn for immorality.

But that always comes down to the fact that the people who believe god condemns for immorality really mean that they WISH god would condemn for immorality.

and dont we all?

dont we all long for a greater power that would give the bad guys what they have coming, if not in this life then in the next?

but noooo we have to live in the real world where bad guys often prosper and the good are left to struggle and die.

and dont we all?

dont we all long for a greater power that would give the bad guys what they have coming, if not in this life then in the next?

but noooo we have to live in the real world where bad guys often prosper and the good are left to struggle and die.

I don't. That's a horrible thing to believe.

I don't pray that the guy who cut me off's car flips over and lights on fire once he arrives at his destination. Why would I pray that a god exists to punish people who do "bad things." Especially when I am guilty of so many bad things myself.

I don't. That's a horrible thing to believe.

I don't pray that the guy who cut me off's car flips over and lights on fire once he arrives at his destination. Why would I pray that a god exists to punish people who do "bad things." Especially when I am guilty of so many bad things myself.

im not talking about the guy who cuts you off. what kind of nut wishes that he would get some horrible punishment for bad driving?

i mean the pol pots of the world or those who spend their lives taking advantage of the powerless and weak. the guy for whom there never seems to be a downside to his bad behavior.

I don't know if this came up but the Jesus tomb was back in an article....

http://www.time.com/time/world/article/0,8599,1704299,00.html

*gives cookies to Jocabia, Balderdash, and Grave-n-Idle for keeping the thread going*

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=13372768&postcount=2986
:p

and dont we all?

dont we all long for a greater power that would give the bad guys what they have coming, if not in this life then in the next?

but noooo we have to live in the real world where bad guys often prosper and the good are left to struggle and die.

I don't long for that. I long for the bad guys to realize it's wrong and change. No more, no less. To me, I don't care how much they WERE rewarded for their behavior provided they change it.

How do you know, though, that Paul didn't "dream up" that Jesus had died and been resurrected? Yeah, those are ideas inherent to Christianity, but maybe they came right from Paul. Just because his vision made overtures to him that he was real doesn't mean that the visionary figure actually was real- maybe Paul preached that this person was a real but forgotten man (even though all he experienced was a vision) but it got lost in the details somewhat until the Gospels came around to solidify a "real" person. Certainly from a historical standpoint, if one was to make the case for a mythical creation of Jesus one has to start at Paul, at least for now, since we've got no writers that predate him.

No argument. I don't 'know' Paul didn't dream it up, and I wouldn't really care to argue it either way.

Speculatively, Paul's 'version' seems to fit between the pre-Commission gospels, and the redacted gospels - but I've really no idea in which order they might have actually been composed, or what influenced which.

the jesus of the NT is a pretty cool guy.how so? he postulates that the condition for god's (and therefore his) love is the complete submission under this god. how is that cool?

(IF jesus did exist but wasnt the son of god)Which is a given.

paul met the risen christ in a vision. he didnt meet jesus and was never particularly interested in the mortal jesus.

he had one of those intense brain storm visions where you feel like god is speaking to you directly into your brain. i dont remember what thats called. he wasnt lying, he didnt make anything up. he had the same kind of experience that thousands of others have had in the centuries since.

the question is WHY did he label this vision "christ"? where did the concept come from? did it already exist or did he invent the label himself to describe the vision he had?

I think you're referring to theophany.

If the Paul testimony is based on fact, it seems most likely (to me) that his 'vision' was some kind of epileptic episode. Perhaps he labelled the vision Christ in reference to a current story, or perhaps he believed he was viewing an incarnation of messiah - it seems 'messiahs' were pretty common commodities in his locale.

The problems I have, are in the accounts of his 'vision'.

Contrast:

Acts 9 "And as he journeyed, he came near Damascus: and suddenly there shined round about him a light from heaven... And the men which journeyed with him stood speechless, hearing a voice, but seeing no man".

Acts 22 "And it came to pass, that, as I made my journey, and was come nigh unto Damascus about noon, suddenly there shone from heaven a great light round about me... And they that were with me saw indeed the light, and were afraid; but they heard not the voice of him that spake to me".

Acts 26 "At midday, O king, I saw in the way a light from heaven, above the brightness of the sun, shining round about me and them which journeyed with me".

Even these accounts don't match up... I find it hard to put any store in Paul's story, at all. To be frank, I think he faked it.

how so? he postulates that the condition for god's (and therefore his) love is the complete submission under this god. how is that cool?


Well, if that one god IS the real god, and his conditions for salvation through grace ARE complete submission... well, Jesus is the messenger.

If he's cool, he's cool. Separate the messenger from the message.


Which is a given.

To you. It always amuses me how much faith you have in these truths you seem so fond of.

Contrast:

Acts 9 "And as he journeyed, he came near Damascus: and suddenly there shined round about him a light from heaven... And the men which journeyed with him stood speechless, hearing a voice, but seeing no man".

Acts 22 "And it came to pass, that, as I made my journey, and was come nigh unto Damascus about noon, suddenly there shone from heaven a great light round about me... And they that were with me saw indeed the light, and were afraid; but they heard not the voice of him that spake to me".

Acts 26 "At midday, O king, I saw in the way a light from heaven, above the brightness of the sun, shining round about me and them which journeyed with me".That one didn't even have to go far to contradict. :)
I think he faked it. ;)

That one didn't even have to go far to contradict. :)
;)

How did it contradict itself?

Separate the messenger from the message.Not if the messenger is the originator of the message.


To you.And anyone else who is immune to the judeochristian bullshit.

How did it contradict itself?

Read it again.
And then one more time.
And the men which journeyed with him stood speechless, hearing a voice, but seeing no man".

Acts 22 "And it came to pass, that, as I made my journey, and was come nigh unto Damascus about noon, suddenly there shone from heaven a great light round about me... And they that were with me saw indeed the light, and were afraid; but they heard not the voice of him that spake to me" ...
you slow, inattentive, argumentative, or intending to bear false witness?

That one didn't even have to go far to contradict. :)
;)

It's one of my faves.

Not quite as compact as the Proverbs duo (Proverbs 26:4 and 5):

Proverbs 26:4 "Answer not a fool according to his folly, lest thou also be like unto him".

Proverbs 26:5 "Answer a fool according to his folly, lest he be wise in his own conceit".

But still pretty good. Saves you time having to look anywhere else, anyway.

Not if the messenger is the originator of the message.


I think you'll find there's (at least some) evidence that suggests the Hebrew scripture god was a subject of discussion before 'Jesus' (the living incarnation) ever utetred a word (if he did).

It's curious - you seem to believe the Judeo-Christian story to be false, but can't seem to separate Jesus and God in your own mind.

Why would you believe that 'Jesus' was the "originator of the message"?


And anyone else who is immune to the judeochristian bullshit.

Not at all. You haven't any means to prove that 'Jesus' wasn't the 'son of god'. Hell, we can't even prove either of them exists - much less what their relationship might be.

Your protestations about the 'nonexistence of god' are a kind of faith I can only envy.

It's one of my faves.

Not quite as compact as the Proverbs duo (Proverbs 26:4 and 5):

Proverbs 26:4 "Answer not a fool according to his folly, lest thou also be like unto him".

Proverbs 26:5 "Answer a fool according to his folly, lest he be wise in his own conceit".

But still pretty good. Saves you time having to look anywhere else, anyway.
Odd that this isn't already in a sig somewhere. It, in my estimation, would well summate so ... SO many quips here. :p

Why would you believe that 'Jesus' was the "originator of the message"?The Jesus-message (you know: love, peace, and all that crap) ? Well. it might indeed as well have been someone else later on.

You haven't any means to prove that 'Jesus' wasn't the 'son of god'.I don't need any means. Since there is not the slightest indication, let alone evidence, for the existence of the Jewish god in the first place, there is no need at all to determine of what nature the relationship between Jesus and this god might have been.

The Jesus-message (you know: love, peace, and all that crap) ? Well. it might indeed as well have been someone else later on.


Or someone much earlier. There are a number of potential inspirations, even in that area.


I don't need any means. Since there is not the slightest indication, let alone evidence, for the existence of the Jewish god in the first place, there is no need at all to determine of what nature the relationship between Jesus and this god might have been.

Actually, there is a lot of evidence for the existence of the "Jewish god". You just don't accept it.

Is it worth pointing out to you that 'lack of evidence' is not 'evidence of lack', anyway?

Given a lack of (reliable) evidence about the existence of god, the logical position, is one of skepticism - not faith in his/her/it's NON-existence.

Actually, there is a lot of evidence for the existence of the "Jewish god". You just don't accept it.There is no such evidence. If there were, we wouldn't have this thread or others like it.

Is it worth pointing out to you that 'lack of evidence' is not 'evidence of lack', anyway?if there is no reason to suspect existence in the first place and no whatsoever evidence exists then that's as good as evidence of lack.

Given a lack of (reliable) evidence about the existence of god, the logical position, is one of skepticism - not faith in his/her/it's NON-existence.No. The logical (or maybe not logical but based on experience and knowledge of humans, especially fanatical ones) position would be to assume that someone pulled the story out of his butt.

There is no such evidence. If there were, we wouldn't have this thread or others like it.

if there is no reason to suspect existence in the first place and no whatsoever evidence exists then that's as good as evidence of lack.

No. The logical (or maybe not logical but based on experience and knowledge of humans, especially fanatical ones) position would be to assume that someone pulled the story out of his butt.

If that's the logical position one wonders why logic has an argument from ignorance, given it specifically requires an altogether different conclusion from the one you're claiming.

Let's see, should I use the rules of logic to determin what is logical and what is not, or UB's rules? Such a tough decision.

No reason to suspect existence is not equal to reason to conclude non-existence.

I think you're referring to theophany.

If the Paul testimony is based on fact, it seems most likely (to me) that his 'vision' was some kind of epileptic episode. Perhaps he labelled the vision Christ in reference to a current story, or perhaps he believed he was viewing an incarnation of messiah - it seems 'messiahs' were pretty common commodities in his locale.

The problems I have, are in the accounts of his 'vision'.

Contrast:

Acts 9 "And as he journeyed, he came near Damascus: and suddenly there shined round about him a light from heaven... And the men which journeyed with him stood speechless, hearing a voice, but seeing no man".

Acts 22 "And it came to pass, that, as I made my journey, and was come nigh unto Damascus about noon, suddenly there shone from heaven a great light round about me... And they that were with me saw indeed the light, and were afraid; but they heard not the voice of him that spake to me".

Acts 26 "At midday, O king, I saw in the way a light from heaven, above the brightness of the sun, shining round about me and them which journeyed with me".

Even these accounts don't match up... I find it hard to put any store in Paul's story, at all. To be frank, I think he faked it.

theophany eh? ive never heard that word but it seems to be right.

the problem with paul faking it is WHY? what upside is there to wedging yourself into a new but hated sect? there doesnt seem to me to be much of one unless you are a true believer.

the whole story of paul is pretty sketchy. the idea that "the jews" decided right off that they needed to squash this new religion and that some hellenized jew from tarsus should be their point man--not particularly convincing.

as to the differing accounts, i dont see that it shouldnt end up a bit garbled over time and the telling of it. its hard to put such an intense episode into words and its probably hard to keep the surrounding details straight.

christianity as distinct from the other mystery and gnostic religions had to start somewhere. it would be a bit odd if the actual guy who pulled it all together is lost to us completely. it may be that the stories of paul are the ones that contain the grain of truth that got exaggerated over time with the jesus stories having been made up whole cloth without any grain of truth.

theophany eh? ive never heard that word but it seems to be right.

the problem with paul faking it is WHY? what upside is there to wedging yourself into a new but hated sect? there doesnt seem to me to be much of one unless you are a true believer.

the whole story of paul is pretty sketchy. the idea that "the jews" decided right off that they needed to squash this new religion and that some hellenized jew from tarsus should be their point man--not particularly convincing.

as to the differing accounts, i dont see that it shouldnt end up a bit garbled over time and the telling of it. its hard to put such an intense episode into words and its probably hard to keep the surrounding details straight.

christianity as distinct from the other mystery and gnostic religions had to start somewhere. it would be a bit odd if the actual guy who pulled it all together is lost to us completely. it may be that the stories of paul are the ones that contain the grain of truth that got exaggerated over time with the jesus stories having been made up whole cloth without any grain of truth.

http://www.m-w.com/dictionary/theophany
http://www.m-w.com/dictionary/epiphany

I still say epiphany is what you described and has the particular advantage of being a word you're familiar with, which when it's a word you can't remember is a general requirement.

As to the rest, I think Paul hijacked the religion. I think it already existed and he had an epiphany that resulted in him thinking he knew what was best for it. Unsurpisingly, he ended up going with what he knew and it ended up looking very much like Judaism. The oddest bit there being the idea that Jesus was a Jew, yet Jews are the bad guys and the move away from the being a Jew first requirement. Then, like magic, we get the go preach it to the world addendum to the Gospels as a very odd way of making sense out of his move away from Jews.

As to the rest, I think Paul hijacked the religion. I think it already existed and he had an epiphany that resulted in him thinking he knew what was best for it. Unsurpisingly, he ended up going with what he knew and it ended up looking very much like Judaism. The oddest bit there being the idea that Jesus was a Jew, yet Jews are the bad guys and the move away from the being a Jew first requirement. Then, like magic, we get the go preach it to the world addendum to the Gospels as a very odd way of making sense out of his move away from Jews.


even biblically paul hijacked the religion. where does he get off never quoting the sayings of jesus? werent they IMPORTANT?

even biblically paul hijacked the religion. where does he get off never quoting the sayings of jesus? werent they IMPORTANT?

Worse, he amended the words of Jesus. That's why if you want to talk about what Jesus said, people are constantly correct you with the words of Paul. Try making a thread about judgement and you'll get a ton of Christians correcting the Jesus quotes using Paul.

What I find particularly inciminating about Paul is that he calls things abominations to attack Jews (like long hair) when Jesus was a Jew and almost surely adhered to such rules.

Worse, he amended the words of Jesus. That's why if you want to talk about what Jesus said, people are constantly correct you with the words of Paul. Try making a thread about judgement and you'll get a ton of Christians correcting the Jesus quotes using Paul.

What I find particularly inciminating about Paul is that he calls things abominations to attack Jews (like long hair) when Jesus was a Jew and almost surely adhered to such rules.

yeah. it really bugs me that the apostles didnt tell paul to STFU because they knew jesus and he didnt.

i guess the vision was far more impressive than it should have been.

yeah. it really bugs me that the apostles didnt tell paul to STFU because they knew jesus and he didnt.

i guess the vision was far more impressive than it should have been.

Who says they didn't? Paul?

Who says they didn't? Paul?

hmmmm

he who writes the history wins the fight?

hmmmm

he who writes the history wins the fight?

Usually

even biblically paul hijacked the religion. where does he get off never quoting the sayings of jesus? werent they IMPORTANT?

True dat. It seems that Paul synthesized Christianity with Greek Philosophy, distorting the original religion.

True dat. It seems that Paul synthesized Christianity with Greek Philosophy, distorting the original religion.

well now, while that might be true..

what is the original christianity that he distorted?

There is no such evidence. If there were, we wouldn't have this thread or others like it.


I thought you claimed to be a historian?

There is a wealth of evidence.

You appear to be confusing 'evidence' with 'proof'.


if there is no reason to suspect existence in the first place and no whatsoever evidence exists then that's as good as evidence of lack.


There is a reason to suspect existence in the first place.

Regardless of which - you are still (utterly) wrong - 'absence of proof' is still never 'proof of absence'.


No. The logical (or maybe not logical but based on experience and knowledge of humans, especially fanatical ones) position would be to assume that someone pulled the story out of his butt.

Which is irrelevent. Even a work of fiction could be true.

Just because you lack proof, or don't accept the evidence, doesn't mean the claim is false.

To claim that you KNOW something that cannot be proved either way, that's faith, my friend. In your case, Atheism is a religion.

theophany eh? ive never heard that word but it seems to be right.

the problem with paul faking it is WHY? what upside is there to wedging yourself into a new but hated sect? there doesnt seem to me to be much of one unless you are a true believer.

the whole story of paul is pretty sketchy. the idea that "the jews" decided right off that they needed to squash this new religion and that some hellenized jew from tarsus should be their point man--not particularly convincing.

as to the differing accounts, i dont see that it shouldnt end up a bit garbled over time and the telling of it. its hard to put such an intense episode into words and its probably hard to keep the surrounding details straight.

christianity as distinct from the other mystery and gnostic religions had to start somewhere. it would be a bit odd if the actual guy who pulled it all together is lost to us completely. it may be that the stories of paul are the ones that contain the grain of truth that got exaggerated over time with the jesus stories having been made up whole cloth without any grain of truth.

Well - a couple of thoughts.

If Paul claimed to see 'the christ', that would just be a retelling of the Hebrew vision of messiah... and we know that messianic episodes were hardly uncommon, in that place and time. He might not have intended any SPECIFIC 'christ', and might have been kind of surprised when he found himself identified with an already established movement.

In which case - maybe he would then assume his own 'revelation' connected to theirs - and the two 'christ' stories become one.

Or - alternatively, he may have fabricated his vision from wholecloth, on discovering this nascent Christian movement - as a way of getting ahead. Better to reign in hell, and all that.

As to the conflicting accounts... why would Paul relate the stories of his OWN visitation differently? They all appear in Acts, so they are all (most likely) written by, or dictated to, a common author - how is it they lack consistency? It's unlikely that they were being in chronological 'real time', more likely they are being related or remembered at some later occassion.

To me - this lack of consistency suggests that the story is being (mostly?) created AS it is being written.

Maybe he did maybe he didnt. I think it is all up to what you believe yourself. I personally think its all a bunch of hype.

even biblically paul hijacked the religion. where does he get off never quoting the sayings of jesus? werent they IMPORTANT?

Not if all you needed from the 'Jesus' character was a foundation on which to base your church.

True dat. It seems that Paul synthesized Christianity with Greek Philosophy, distorting the original religion.

Christianity seems a lot like a version of Judaism, syncretised with Greek influences, anyway.

The 'old' idea that you basically died, except for a key few (like Enoch and Elijah) that were 'translated' to be with God... very reminiscent of the original Greek idea of Elysium as the goal of gods and demi-gods. Then, as Greek thought evolves to a more punitive Hades, and a more democratic Elysium - so the formless 'Sheol' of the Hebrew scripture evolves into 'hell' and the bosom of God becomes a more universal 'heaven'.

Maybe he did maybe he didnt. I think it is all up to what you believe yourself. I personally think its all a bunch of hype.

First post?
Welcome to NS. :)

There is no whatsoever evidence for the existence of the Jewish god. All there is is evidence for poorly copying older non-Jewish traditions and fabricating a "deity" that Jews could call their own.
What evidence is there of any of the major religions' gods?
Statues? Costumes? Poems?

<snip/>There is no whatsoever evidence for the existence of the Jewish god. All there is is evidence for poorly copying older non-Jewish traditions and fabricating a "deity" that Jews could call their own.

There is no whatsoever evidence for the existence of the Jewish god. All there is is evidence for poorly copying older non-Jewish traditions and fabricating a "deity" that Jews could call their own.

I think you fail to understand the meaning of the word 'evidence'.

Are you an Atheist? I'm pretty sure you said you were... so, I'm confused - why do you think that the 'non-Jewish' god is 'different' to the 'Jewish god'? If you're an Atheist, don't you identify all those apotheotic beings as variants on the same story, anyway?

And - back to Logic 101 - just because it looks like the 'Jewish god' is based on other gods... doesn't go any distance towards PROVING that such a god is non-existant.

What evidence is there of any of the major religions' gods?
Statues? Costumes? Poems?How is that relevant when looking at/for the Jewish god? Other gods' possible/probable non-existence does not make the Jewish one exist.

How is that relevant when looking at/for the Jewish god? Other gods' possible/probable non-existence does not make the Jewish one exist.

I think the point is... what do YOU think 'evidence' would look like?

How is that relevant when looking at/for the Jewish god? Other gods' possible/probable non-existence does not make the Jewish one exist.
That wasn't the question. If you ask an absurd question and get a response that might, perhaps, give an example of putting said absurdity in check, you should reconsider the whole thing perhaps.
Where's this history website you were talking about?

And, as usual, Grave_n_idle gets it:
http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=13384555&postcount=3184
...that's why i'd provided examples.

That wasn't the question. If you ask an absurd question and get a response that might, perhaps, give an example of putting said absurdity in check, you should reconsider the whole thing perhaps.
Where's this history website you were talking about?

And, as usual, Grave_n_idle gets it:
http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=13384555&postcount=3184
...that's why i'd provided examples.

I don't know... maybe he expects divine DNA, or some kind of 'god-print'...

I don't know... maybe he expects divine DNA, or some kind of 'god-print'...

There's any number of Zeus wanna-be's who might have an interest in giving them the good ol' golden shower of god ...

I don't know if this came up but the Jesus tomb was back in an article....

http://www.time.com/time/world/article/0,8599,1704299,00.html

The Talpiot Tomb has its own set of problems, namely it doesn't fit with where Jesus was held to have been buried and the infiltration of the Tomb by humans over time (including the Israelis' own bungling of the place) seems to compromise what we can actually gain historically from the Site as some artifacts (including an ossuary box, held to the James Ossuary). Of course, the other problem it presents- if all the artifacts claimed to have been present at the tomb can actually be attested- is that it's still not indisputable proof of the historical existence of Jesus Christ, in that the Tomb says nothing specific about His life- therefore, one can't know for sure if they're referring to a "Jesus" or Jesus Christ.

he had one of those intense brain storm visions where you feel like god is speaking to you directly into your brain. i dont remember what thats called.

I know what you're referring to Ashmoria, but I can't seem to recall the specific word either. I don't think it's either "epiphany" or "theophany" because that's not how I remember the word.

Anyway, Internet searches drew me to "religious calling" and "divine revelation", or maybe "divine inspiration"...they all ring some bells but not all of them. Don't know if that helps.

The Talpiot Tomb has its own set of problems, namely it doesn't fit with where Jesus was held to have been buried and the infiltration of the Tomb by humans over time (including the Israelis' own bungling of the place) seems to compromise what we can actually gain historically from the Site as some artifacts (including an ossuary box, held to the James Ossuary). Of course, the other problem it presents- if all the artifacts claimed to have been present at the tomb can actually be attested- is that it's still not indisputable proof of the historical existence of Jesus Christ, in that the Tomb says nothing specific about His life- therefore, one can't know for sure if they're referring to a "Jesus" or Jesus Christ.

According to the new U.S. News publication on christianity, the following:
...
Amos Kloner, author of one of the first articles about the tomb, has pointed out that the name Jesus was found 71 times on objects from some 9,000 burial caves unearthed in the same general area. And there was even one other instance of "Jesus son of Joseph." Kloner and others have also noted that the crypt in question bore signs of belonging to a comfortable Jerusalem middle-class family - something that Jesus's humble Nazarene family definitely was not.
p.30

Caught my eye.

how many posts do we need?

No. 10 has 3,480...that's the target. For now, anyway. :D

I know what you're referring to Ashmoria, but I can't seem to recall the specific word either. I don't think it's either "epiphany" or "theophany" because that's not how I remember the word.

Again: it is probably "epileptic seizure". That describes the physical aspect quite well.
If it is caused by a natural temporal malfunction of the brain or by a deity poking its finger in is another question ;)

If the Paul testimony is based on fact, it seems most likely (to me) that his 'vision' was some kind of epileptic episode. Perhaps he labelled the vision Christ in reference to a current story, or perhaps he believed he was viewing an incarnation of messiah - it seems 'messiahs' were pretty common commodities in his locale.

The problems I have, are in the accounts of his 'vision'.

Contrast:

Acts 9 "And as he journeyed, he came near Damascus: and suddenly there shined round about him a light from heaven... And the men which journeyed with him stood speechless, hearing a voice, but seeing no man".

Acts 22 "And it came to pass, that, as I made my journey, and was come nigh unto Damascus about noon, suddenly there shone from heaven a great light round about me... And they that were with me saw indeed the light, and were afraid; but they heard not the voice of him that spake to me".

Acts 26 "At midday, O king, I saw in the way a light from heaven, above the brightness of the sun, shining round about me and them which journeyed with me".

Even these accounts don't match up... I find it hard to put any store in Paul's story, at all. To be frank, I think he faked it.

I see...but maybe the experience was so traumatic (I suspect such an experience would be) that he remembered the event but it struck him so much that he forgot the details. I doubt such a "shocking" experience would see him thinking and reacting clearly here.

Why would that comfort you? The rational people who are Christians do generally require a literal Jesus to get the same things from the faith, and the ones who require this super being probably aren't going to be swayed by evidence either. You'd still have the same "puffed up followers" and, worse, there is no way to address those followers.

If we found, say, supportable documents from the actual Jesus explaining his views, you'd certainly see a change among many in the faith. Fanatical Christians tend to like to be told exactly what to believe. However, absent such documents, and particularly with what such Christians view to be an attack on their faith, you're not likelly to sway them toward moderation at all.

That is a good point- if Jesus actually clarified what He said then alll our different interpretations would be redundant since we know how the Word is supposed to be taken. Frankly, such a shakeup is dearly needed anyway, since it appears to me that the institutions claiming to be Christian are too far away from the Word for their claim to be valid.

Again: it is probably "epileptic seizure". That describes the physical aspect quite well.
If it is caused by a natural temporal malfunction of the brain or by a deity poking its finger in is another question ;)

Yeah, but we're looking for the religiously-accepted term. :p

Not if all you needed from the 'Jesus' character was a foundation on which to base your church.

AND if the stories of jesus werent set in stone yet.

otherwise to fit into the religion you have to know the common stories of the guy you are claiming to have met on the road to damascus. something more than he preached, fell afoul of "the jews" and got crucified.

but if the stories are made up later or at the same time but arent well known, he cant be expected to know them.

I thought you claimed to be a historian?

There is a wealth of evidence.

You appear to be confusing 'evidence' with 'proof'.



There is a reason to suspect existence in the first place.

Regardless of which - you are still (utterly) wrong - 'absence of proof' is still never 'proof of absence'.



Which is irrelevent. Even a work of fiction could be true.

Just because you lack proof, or don't accept the evidence, doesn't mean the claim is false.

To claim that you KNOW something that cannot be proved either way, that's faith, my friend. In your case, Atheism is a religion.

Ding. Ding. Ding. Looks like someone understands one of the most basic rules of logic. But, hey, let's let UB tell us again that logic dictates that we violate the rules of logic.

No. 10 has 3,480...that's the target. For now, anyway. :D

oh my

thats more yet than most threads ever go. i dont have much else to say about the subject.

this is brutal.

maybe if we started posting in dutch....

AND if the stories of jesus werent set in stone yet.

otherwise to fit into the religion you have to know the common stories of the guy you are claiming to have met on the road to damascus. something more than he preached, fell afoul of "the jews" and got crucified.

but if the stories are made up later or at the same time but arent well known, he cant be expected to know them.

Or perhaps the stories weren't that popular yet, or there were so many conflicting versions that he avoided the problem so he could treat it as a unified movement. There are tons of ways the Paul problem can be solved.

As to Paul's conflicting accounts, if he were fabricating the story on purpose, with the intent of tricking people, it's MORE likely he would be consistent about the wholly made up event, not less. I find the differences in the stories to be evidence that he believed what he was saying but didn't view those details as wholly important. I mean, afterall, the experiences of the people around him aren't really memories so much as stuff people told him later. Maybe at first he thought they didn't hear the voice but they did or thought they did but they didn't or many variations. It certainly is a problem that it conflicts but it's probably present in stories you've been telling for years that are entirely true.

Or perhaps the stories weren't that popular yet, or there were so many conflicting versions that he avoided the problem so he could treat it as a unified movement. There are tons of ways the Paul problem can be solved.

As to Paul's conflicting accounts, if he were fabricating the story on purpose, with the intent of tricking people, it's MORE likely he would be consistent about the wholly made up event, not less. I find the differences in the stories to be evidence that he believed what he was saying but didn't view those details as wholly important. I mean, afterall, the experiences of the people around him aren't really memories so much as stuff people told him later. Maybe at first he thought they didn't hear the voice but they did or thought they did but they didn't or many variations. It certainly is a problem that it conflicts but it's probably present in stories you've been telling for years that are entirely true.

i find the other people seeing or hearing part to be evidence that he didnt really know what happened physically.

i dont think that anyone else would have seen anything. it would have all happened in his brain. he would just assume that such an extreme event was obvious to everyone and when they didnt know what he was talking about he "made up" the details of what happened to them.

i put "made up" in quotes because its an automatic function of the brain to fill in details in situations like that. its not a conscious thing unless he made it all up.

i find the other people seeing or hearing part to be evidence that he didnt really know what happened physically.

i dont think that anyone else would have seen anything. it would have all happened in his brain. he would just assume that such an extreme event was obvious to everyone and when they didnt know what he was talking about he "made up" the details of what happened to them.

i put "made up" in quotes because its an automatic function of the brain to fill in details in situations like that. its not a conscious thing unless he made it all up.

Oh. I'll agree with that.

I think you fail to understand the meaning of the word 'evidence'.

Are you an Atheist? I'm pretty sure you said you were... so, I'm confused - why do you think that the 'non-Jewish' god is 'different' to the 'Jewish god'? If you're an Atheist, don't you identify all those apotheotic beings as variants on the same story, anyway?

And - back to Logic 101 - just because it looks like the 'Jewish god' is based on other gods... doesn't go any distance towards PROVING that such a god is non-existant.There is no need to prove any god's non-existence. That's not how it works, and you know it. First you need to show that there are hints and indications for a thing's existence and then you go to search for the evidence. But there is no need to do that in the case of the biblical deity, as we all know already that it has been pieced together arbitrarily out of other beliefs and traditions.
If you take pieces of traditions and pantheons and create a myth to convey your own message and have your own god, then I know nothing about the veracity of your sources but I know that your story is made up and your god is inexistent. I don't know about the actual existence of Sumerian/Mesopotamian, Levantine, Egyptian gods, but I know that the Jewish god was fabricated out of those and that the biblical stories were stolen from earlier sources. Take the Flood story, it's been stolen and reshaped to fit Judaism. Almost everybody knows that, but yet you in your Hebrewphile folly trust the bible? If the biblical god exists, why has nobody worshiped him in really ancient times and wrote it down? Where is Yhvh in Sumerian, Akkadian, Egyptian, Anatolian scripture? And the biblical god does not come alone, but with the story of a worshiping and believing people attached, so where are the sources to confirm anything that the bible claims? Where are all the remains and traces of writings and temples and holy places out of pre-Jewish and pre-Israelite times all over the ancient Middle East? Why this complete absence in the historical and archaeological record? I tell you why: it's been made up much later.
And since the Jewish god is a fabrication the question of Jesus' existence may be interesting but irrelevant in the end because the message ascribed to him becomes empty and pointless.

There is no need to prove any god's non-existence. That's not how it works, and you know it. First you need to show that there are hints and indications for a thing's existence and then you go to search for the evidence. But there is no need to do that in the case of the biblical deity, as we all know already that it has been pieced together arbitrarily out of other beliefs and traditions.
If you take pieces of traditions and pantheons and create a myth to convey your own message and have your own god, then I know nothing about the veracity of your sources but I know that your story is made up and your god is inexistent. I don't know about the actual existence of Sumerian/Mesopotamian, Levantine, Egyptian gods, but I know that the Jewish god was fabricated out of those and that the biblical stories were stolen from earlier sources. Take the Flood story, it's been stolen and reshaped to fit Judaism. Almost everybody knows that, but yet you in your Hebrewphile folly trust the bible? If the biblical god exists, why has nobody worshiped him in really ancient times and wrote it down? Where is Yhvh in Sumerian, Akkadian, Egyptian, Anatolian scripture? And the biblical god does not come alone, but with the story of a worshiping and believing people attached, so where are the sources to confirm anything that the bible claims? Where are all the remains and traces of writings and temples and holy places out of pre-Jewish and pre-Israelite times all over the ancient Middle East? Why this complete absence in the historical and archaeological record? I tell you why: it's been made up much later.
And since the Jewish god is a fabrication the question of Jesus' existence may be interesting but irrelevant in the end because the message ascribed to him becomes empty and pointless.

Really? We all KNOW that? You start with your conclusion that we all know it was cobbled together and use that as evidence for your claim. How amusing and wildly illogical.

Your theory is flawed. Many of the stories associated with Leif Erikson were stolen or are completely fantastic. However the historicity of Leif is pretty widely accepted. Having false or fabricating stories about you doesn't speak to your existence or non-existence. Having a truth be unknown prior to a period of time doesn't speak to non-existence either (particularly when knowing about a Biblical God wouldn't be a requiement). Having common elements with other myths doesn't speak to your non-existence either. If God were real and predated the original myths, the myths could come from Him and not the other way around. You're starting with conclusion in hand.

Meanwhile, you keep saying "that's not how it works and you know it". Interesting that the very basic rules of logic say it is how it works. Not only does logic require it, but so does science.

Here's what you have to do. When claiming that there is no evidence so it doesn't exist, you have to show what evidence would exist if the entity existed. What specific evidence should be there and isn't is how you build your case. You want to jump over all the work and make a conclusion you simply aren't allowed to make without making a leap of faith. And feel free, but we'll be giggling while you do it.

You've shown demonstrable reasons why one might disregard God and stories about Him, but you've not shown the first understanding of what would be required to conclude he is a fabrication or that he does not exist.

I do find it interesting that anyone who doesn't jump to your conclusions is a "Hebrewphile". It's a general tactic of people of faith to paint an "us and them" scenario. It's an excellent way to get around the argument. Because he won't ignore the rules of logic like you, it's obviously because science, logic, and basically ever rule of rational thought has a pro-Hebrew bias. Silly us for not noticing it.

oh my

thats more yet than most threads ever go. i dont have much else to say about the subject.

this is brutal.

maybe if we started posting in dutch....

Haha...maybe that's the trick...another language...although I'd be out since I only know English that well. :(

I'm sure there's more you can say still...there's only 270 more posts to go. Think we need Balderdash71964 to come back, now that the topic has changed?

Haha...maybe that's the trick...another language...although I'd be out since I only know English that well. :(

I'm sure there's more you can say still...there's only 270 more posts to go. Think we need Balderdash71964 to come back, now that the topic has changed?

no

baldy has done his part and it was a valiant fight.

we need some other poor unsuspecting soul to come in and make the mistake of challenging the group.

no

baldy has done his part and it was a valiant fight.

we need some other poor unsuspecting soul to come in and make the mistake of challenging the group.

Well, I think it would be interesting to talk about what evidence would make us conclude Jesus didn't exist. We've discussed positive evidence, but what about negative evidence.

What would convince someone that he didn't exist?

Well, I think it would be interesting to talk about what evidence would make us conclude Jesus didn't exist. We've discussed positive evidence, but what about negative evidence.

What would convince someone that he didn't exist?

hmmmm i dont know.

how much existence does he have to have before he exists?

is it enough that there was a radical preacher who got executed? i think there are some of those.

would it be enough if it were shown that none of his sayings were his? say by finding a letter than contained all or most of them that was written seperately from what could have been his ministiry?

to me it should be enough to show that the stories of his life as outlined in the bible are not true--cannot be true. the parables and sayings of jesus can easily be a collection of cool stories picked up from various preachers and philosophers that got incorrectly ascribed to a single man when it was decided that they represent the ideals of the new religion.

hmmmm i dont know.

how much existence does he have to have before he exists?

is it enough that there was a radical preacher who got executed? i think there are some of those.

would it be enough if it were shown that none of his sayings were his? say by finding a letter than contained all or most of them that was written seperately from what could have been his ministiry?

to me it should be enough to show that the stories of his life as outlined in the bible are not true--cannot be true. the parables and sayings of jesus can easily be a collection of cool stories picked up from various preachers and philosophers that got incorrectly ascribed to a single man when it was decided that they represent the ideals of the new religion.


I would say you get to a point where it simply doesn't matter. However, existence is one of those things that you can't really answer without defining what you're looking for. I think that's what you're hitting.

I can't say whether a unicorn exists without defining what a unicorn is. If for example it's allowed to be immeasurable, there could be one in the room with me now.

I'd say for Jesus to be the Jesus we're talking about he'd have to at least be a popular preacher by that name whose story eventually involved into the Gospels. I'd say that if it turns out that each Gospel was a different preacher or at least there were many different preachers, then I would say that disproves a single personal source, which is more or less what we're discussing.

I would say you get to a point where it simply doesn't matter. However, existence is one of those things that you can't really answer without defining what you're looking for. I think that's what you're hitting.

I can't say whether a unicorn exists without defining what a unicorn is. If for example it's allowed to be immeasurable, there could be one in the room with me now.

I'd say for Jesus to be the Jesus we're talking about he'd have to at least be a popular preacher by that name whose story eventually involved into the Gospels. I'd say that if it turns out that each Gospel was a different preacher or at least there were many different preachers, then I would say that disproves a single personal source, which is more or less what we're discussing.

then i would say that the only way to prove his non-existence is to prove that what he did and said was done and said by someone else or verifiably made up later.

so... a newly found set of papers that included writings by jerusalemites at the proper time discussing this theology being preached by a man or men who could not possibly be jesus.

There's the potential of finding that the inspiration for the Gospels was actually a Jesus that came much later than is claimed by most Christian groups. Essentially placing him alongside of Paul, which would basically tear the Nicean Christianity right down the center.

There's the potential of finding that the inspiration for the Gospels was actually a Jesus that came much later than is claimed by most Christian groups. Essentially placing him alongside of Paul, which would basically tear the Nicean Christianity right down the center.

hmmm you mean like a jesus who lived in 100 ad? after the destruction of the temple?

hmmm you mean like a jesus who lived in 100 ad? after the destruction of the temple?

Well, it would essentially prove that there were multipled religions that absorbed on another. Because there was likely something earlier, but if Jesus did live after or around the time of Paul, then it would mean that the actual origin got overshadowed by this new character and confused with whoever or whatever Paul was talking about. Basically, at that point, it would be impossible to claim that there was a direct origin with which Christianity as a whole could be related.

Well, it would essentially prove that there were multipled religions that absorbed on another. Because there was likely something earlier, but if Jesus did live after or around the time of Paul, then it would mean that the actual origin got overshadowed by this new character and confused with whoever or whatever Paul was talking about. Basically, at that point, it would be impossible to claim that there was a direct origin with which Christianity as a whole could be related.

hmmm so... paul is preaching about "the christ" who is already back into heaven and at the same time or a little later this jesus guy gets out there preaching about love and peace and a personal relationship with god and over time the 2 figures got mixed together?

hmmm so... paul is preaching about "the christ" who is already back into heaven and at the same time or a little later this jesus guy gets out there preaching about love and peace and a personal relationship with god and over time the 2 figures got mixed together?

Sure. Someone thought they were talking about the same guy. Multiple stories all melding into one. I wouldn't say it's all that likely that it happened the way I'm saying, but it would definitely prove non-existence.

Sure. Someone thought they were talking about the same guy. Multiple stories all melding into one. I wouldn't say it's all that likely that it happened the way I'm saying, but it would definitely prove non-existence.

and what would be good enough evidence that it happened that way?

i can see where it might happen just that way.

and what would be good enough evidence that it happened that way?

i can see where it might happen just that way.

Well, finding original documents would help, particularly if the originals had information that didn't end up in what we have today. I think it wouldn't take much to demonstrate that Paul's vision of Christ didn't really marry up well with the Jesus of the Gospels, even in the versions we have today.

Well, finding original documents would help, particularly if the originals had information that didn't end up in what we have today. I think it wouldn't take much to demonstrate that Paul's vision of Christ didn't really marry up well with the Jesus of the Gospels, even in the versions we have today.

yeah as it is its only faith that allows people to wed both visions of jesus together.

i do like the idea of a jesus who caught the christ fever and began preaching after hearing about it. i wish there were some reason to believe it.

i do like the idea of a jesus who caught the christ fever and began preaching after hearing about it. i wish there were some reason to believe it.and wouldn't it be hilariously ironic and also render the whole thing pointless and untrue? ;)

and wouldn't it be hilariously ironic and also render the whole thing pointless and untrue? ;)

it would be interesting to see the scramble to deny it or to incorporate it into the existing denominations

I see...but maybe the experience was so traumatic (I suspect such an experience would be) that he remembered the event but it struck him so much that he forgot the details. I doubt such a "shocking" experience would see him thinking and reacting clearly here.

The problem with that idea - the details he seems so confused about, are those he could easily have corroborated, one assumes - since they were the details about which parts of his 'vision' episode where witnessed by his companions.

I can understand him being confused at the time, and immediately after... but it seems unlikely that Acts was composed in the interim... more likely, it was composed in a fairly short period, a long time after the events it is supposed to describe.

So... why are the Acts accounts so dis-similar?

The problem with that idea - the details he seems so confused about, are those he could easily have corroborated, one assumes - since they were the details about which parts of his 'vision' episode where witnessed by his companions.

I can understand him being confused at the time, and immediately after... but it seems unlikely that Acts was composed in the interim... more likely, it was composed in a fairly short period, a long time after the events it is supposed to describe.

So... why are the Acts accounts so dis-similar?

*raises hand*

Ooo!!

Um, becuase Paul was a lying bastard, who made whole fraggin thing up, as a way of sponging off the newly forming Church?

AND if the stories of jesus werent set in stone yet.

otherwise to fit into the religion you have to know the common stories of the guy you are claiming to have met on the road to damascus. something more than he preached, fell afoul of "the jews" and got crucified.

but if the stories are made up later or at the same time but arent well known, he cant be expected to know them.

Couple of thoughts (again). :)

1.. There is actually no reason why Paul's testimony, and those of the gospel writers (for example) could not be mutual influences. My favourite example of mythic accretion is Batman, (although King Arthur and Robin Hood are perhaps better known) a figure about whom many of us know prodigious amounts - including the kind of perfectly conflicting stories that just SCREAM realistic witness testimony - that has ben collected together from numerous sources, and inspired by even more.

2.. another thought might be that the crucifixion stories, etc... weren't new at that time. Our Jesus occurs in the midst of a swathe of messiahs, and in the wake of some strong and potent messiah-type figures from other 'stories'. It is not entirely unlikely that Paul's account AND the mainstream 'Jesus' theme, are influence by the same, earlier, source.

He supposedly did exist and was a Jewish teacher. All the other stuff is 99.999% made up by someone or possibly the Jewish teacher himself. Actually scratch that, there is 0% chance of him having performed miracles or having resurrected.

Seriously, you still insist you're a historian?

There is no need to prove any god's non-existence.


No need, no.


That's not how it works, and you know it. First you need to show that there are hints and indications for a thing's existence and then you go to search for the evidence.


Evidence of a god's existence?

Like what? His godly footprints, and a postcard saying "I woz here - God"?

There are hints and indications of the existecne of the Hebrew god... but I wonder what sort of evidence you would find compelling?


But there is no need to do that in the case of the biblical deity, as we all know already that it has been pieced together arbitrarily out of other beliefs and traditions.


It certainly appears that way, no?


If you take pieces of traditions and pantheons and create a myth to convey your own message and have your own god, then I know nothing about the veracity of your sources but I know that your story is made up and your god is inexistent.


I like the admission that you "nothing about the veracity of your sources".

It's a good admission, and true - you don't know, for example - that (what WE consider) the earlier myths aren't ACTUALLY based on lost evidence of the Hebrew god.


I don't know about the actual existence of Sumerian/Mesopotamian, Levantine, Egyptian gods,


Another good admission. One wonders why the hollow vessel makes so much noise, yes?


...but I know that the Jewish god was fabricated out of those and that the biblical stories were stolen from earlier sources.


You know no such thing.

You can draw that conclusion from the evidence - but you don't know what evidence might be missing. That's the problem with claiming to 'know' anything.

Seriously, once again you cross the line from reason to faith.


Take the Flood story, it's been stolen and reshaped to fit Judaism.


It certainly appears that way.


Almost everybody knows that, but yet you in your Hebrewphile folly trust the bible?


Hebrewphile folly? I like it - it's cute. Reminds me of my use of 'phallotheistic' to describe Judeo-christian mythology.

Where did you get the idea that I 'trust the bible'?


If the biblical god exists, why has nobody worshiped him in really ancient times and wrote it down? Where is Yhvh in Sumerian, Akkadian, Egyptian, Anatolian scripture? And the biblical god does not come alone, but with the story of a worshiping and believing people attached, so where are the sources to confirm anything that the bible claims? Where are all the remains and traces of writings and temples and holy places out of pre-Jewish and pre-Israelite times all over the ancient Middle East? Why this complete absence in the historical and archaeological record? I tell you why: it's been made up much later.


Or, alternatively, like the Hyksos pharaohs (and consistent with their own accounts), the earliest followers of the Hebrew god(s) simply didn't create artifacts or records.


And since the Jewish god is a fabrication the question of Jesus' existence may be interesting but irrelevant in the end because the message ascribed to him becomes empty and pointless.

Not at all. Again, your logic is loose. Just because the Hebrew accounts of their god cannot be shown to be watertight, does NOT mean they refer to an invented god... only that THOSE SOURCES are flawed.

Well, I think it would be interesting to talk about what evidence would make us conclude Jesus didn't exist. We've discussed positive evidence, but what about negative evidence.

What would convince someone that he didn't exist?

Evidence that all of the stories attributed to 'him' actually happened to someone else?

Maybe not enough... I've encountered a number of sources that show a large proportion of the 'Jesus' story that can be sugegsted as being drawn from earlier sources.

*raises hand*

Ooo!!

Um, becuase Paul was a lying bastard, who made whole fraggin thing up, as a way of sponging off the newly forming Church?

I can't prove it, of course... but it certainly made me laugh. :D

And.. not entirely beyond belief.

hmmm you mean like a jesus who lived in 100 ad? after the destruction of the temple?

Certainly makes writing prophecies easier... if they predict things that had already happened, when you write them...

yeah as it is its only faith that allows people to wed both visions of jesus together.

i do like the idea of a jesus who caught the christ fever and began preaching after hearing about it. i wish there were some reason to believe it.

It's not something you need to 'believe'... it's not an entirely unconvincing alternative... and there's no real way to verify the accepted version, so just about any compelling explanation is about as likely as any other.

Believing any one of them to be TRUE may be folly, of course... since there's the lack of convicting evidence... but the same is basically true of the received version, no?

Evidence of a god's existence?

Like what? His godly footprints, and a postcard saying "I woz here - God"?

"We apologise for the inconvenience", God's Final Message to His Creation, written in letters of fire on the side of the Quentulus Quazgar Mountains, Sevorbeupstry, on planet Preliumtarn, Galactic Sector QQ7 Active J Gamma. - c. 40 (the message is spelled out letter by letter over several paragraphs)
:p

would it be enough if it were shown that none of his sayings were his? say by finding a letter than contained all or most of them that was written seperately from what could have been his ministiry?

I don't think so, especially considering there are a lot who theorize that the Gospel writers inserted other thinkers' words in Jesus' mouth in the first place (the one I know the best being that Socrates was used for Jesus' sayings). For me, negative evidence would be showing that the stories themselves demonstrably never happened (even the "more reasonable" versions), such as finding all of Herod The Great's administrative records and not seeing any order for the Massacre of the Innocents or Quirinius' actual census and not seeing Joseph's name on it; or even a document saying that Peter and/or Paul (or someone else) actually "made up" the stories (and not necessarily in the malicious way- they could have just tried making an inspirational epic to rival the works of Virgil or Homer that they probably knew very well (and perhaps appreciated)). As much as there's contradictions in the Jesus story, there's still enough to make a cohesive narrative- He was born, told a lot of Parables, performed miracles, got caught on the wrong end of a "political dispute", died as a result of a conspiracy against Him and reappeared to His followers days after His death. The only points the Gospels seem to differ on are the details and that's not enough to say the stories *didn't* happen.

I can't prove it, of course... but it certainly made me laugh. :D

And.. not entirely beyond belief.

Then I propose to you that the entirety of Christianity as we now know it was the collaborative conjecture of a few men like Polycarp, centered around a messianic Miracle Worker, that amalgamated popular myths, and whose main goal was money and power.

Later, when this group factioned off, each one claiming to be the "Rightful Hier"

Then I propose to you that the entirety of Christianity as we now know it was the collaborative conjecture of a few men like Polycarp, centered around a messianic Miracle Worker, that amalgamated popular myths, and whose main goal was money and power.

Later, when this group factioned off, each one claiming to be the "Rightful Hier"

In blackjack, isn't this where you split? :p

In blackjack, isn't this where you split? :p

Heh, I'd bet on that.

Then I propose to you that the entirety of Christianity as we now know it was the collaborative conjecture of a few men like Polycarp, centered around a messianic Miracle Worker, that amalgamated popular myths, and whose main goal was money and power.

Later, when this group factioned off, each one claiming to be the "Rightful Hier"

Do you think any of them believed? When did the mythology take over and become the truth?

I for one, welcome our new Jesus Overlord.

Do you think any of them believed? When did the mythology take over and become the truth?

If there is something to the idea, then it's hard to say. Did Joseph Smith believe what he sold? It certainly wouldn't fit what appears to be his profile... one would be forced to assume he held no more belief in one of his schemes than he ever had in his others. But, it's not impossible that early writers might have found truth in what they were peddling.

But, that's largely irrelevent to the religion... adherents would have been attracted to a 'convincing' messiah story. People always have wants and needs, and the idea of a personal saviour that ministers to every individual... a redeemer, a defender, solace and consolation, relief and respite... those kinds of things will always find an audience.

No matter if the origins of Christianity were real or imagined, the message would quickly become 'truth' to some.

I don't think so, especially considering there are a lot who theorize that the Gospel writers inserted other thinkers' words in Jesus' mouth in the first place (the one I know the best being that Socrates was used for Jesus' sayings). For me, negative evidence would be showing that the stories themselves demonstrably never happened (even the "more reasonable" versions), such as finding all of Herod The Great's administrative records and not seeing any order for the Massacre of the Innocents or Quirinius' actual census and not seeing Joseph's name on it; or even a document saying that Peter and/or Paul (or someone else) actually "made up" the stories (and not necessarily in the malicious way- they could have just tried making an inspirational epic to rival the works of Virgil or Homer that they probably knew very well (and perhaps appreciated)). As much as there's contradictions in the Jesus story, there's still enough to make a cohesive narrative- He was born, told a lot of Parables, performed miracles, got caught on the wrong end of a "political dispute", died as a result of a conspiracy against Him and reappeared to His followers days after His death. The only points the Gospels seem to differ on are the details and that's not enough to say the stories *didn't* happen.

On the other hand, it's not particularly good evidence that they *did* happen.

So - where is that line? What would be the smoking gun that would 'prove' the stories true? And what the silver bullet that would finally put the stories to rest?

:p

"Good evening. Here is the news on Friday, the 27th of Geldof. Archeologists near mount Sinai have discovered what is believed to be a missing page from the Bible. The page is currently being carbon dated in Bonn. If genuine it belongs at the beginning of the Bible and is believed to read "To my darling Candy. All characters portrayed within this book are fictitous and any resemblance to persons living or dead is purely coincidental." The page has been universally condemned by church leaders.

:D

I don't think so, especially considering there are a lot who theorize that the Gospel writers inserted other thinkers' words in Jesus' mouth in the first place (the one I know the best being that Socrates was used for Jesus' sayings). For me, negative evidence would be showing that the stories themselves demonstrably never happened (even the "more reasonable" versions), such as finding all of Herod The Great's administrative records and not seeing any order for the Massacre of the Innocents or Quirinius' actual census and not seeing Joseph's name on it; or even a document saying that Peter and/or Paul (or someone else) actually "made up" the stories (and not necessarily in the malicious way- they could have just tried making an inspirational epic to rival the works of Virgil or Homer that they probably knew very well (and perhaps appreciated)). As much as there's contradictions in the Jesus story, there's still enough to make a cohesive narrative- He was born, told a lot of Parables, performed miracles, got caught on the wrong end of a "political dispute", died as a result of a conspiracy against Him and reappeared to His followers days after His death. The only points the Gospels seem to differ on are the details and that's not enough to say the stories *didn't* happen.

so what WOULD be enough? at least enough to get secular historians to agree that jesus was not a real person in any meaningful way.

theologians and true believers wouldnt believe it if they found jesus' last will and testament willing his book of "how to dupe people into believing you are god" to his grandson.

The problem with that idea - the details he seems so confused about, are those he could easily have corroborated, one assumes - since they were the details about which parts of his 'vision' episode where witnessed by his companions.

I can understand him being confused at the time, and immediately after... but it seems unlikely that Acts was composed in the interim... more likely, it was composed in a fairly short period, a long time after the events it is supposed to describe.

So... why are the Acts accounts so dis-similar?

perhaps they are dissimilar because they werent meant to be disected. if it seemed important to whoever wrote acts wouldnt he have NOTICED that he gave differing accounts? seems kinda stupid doesnt it?

maybe if you dont know that you are writing for the ages you arent too concerned with continuity and its more like hearing your grandfather tell stories of when he was a kid. every time it might be a little bit different but its the overall story that is important.

perhaps they are dissimilar because they werent meant to be disected. if it seemed important to whoever wrote acts wouldnt he have NOTICED that he gave differing accounts? seems kinda stupid doesnt it?

maybe if you dont know that you are writing for the ages you arent too concerned with continuity and its more like hearing your grandfather tell stories of when he was a kid. every time it might be a little bit different but its the overall story that is important.

The problem with this idea is... it implies there is a standard we should be applying here... a kind of 'version of' filter we should look through. Paul apparently can't remember the details. Perhaps they don't matter? Perhaps it's okay that his OWN testimony of the event that is probably the MOST important moment in his life (if genuine), is somewhere between vague and contradictory?

Maybe the important thing is just that he had a vision, and the nature isn't important - well, maybe - but why would we assume it had anything to do with divinity then? Lots of people have visions... most of them should probably be using medication.

It's not something you need to 'believe'... it's not an entirely unconvincing alternative... and there's no real way to verify the accepted version, so just about any compelling explanation is about as likely as any other.

Believing any one of them to be TRUE may be folly, of course... since there's the lack of convicting evidence... but the same is basically true of the received version, no?

yes

and its interesting that in the early years of christianity people felt at ease with making up whatever version of jesus they felt best represented their take on the situation.

was that wrong of them? how would we ever know that the final version decided on by the council at nicaea was the right one? maybe it was just the most powerful faction but had the wrong stories.

The problem with this idea is... it implies there is a standard we should be applying here... a kind of 'version of' filter we should look through. Paul apparently can't remember the details. Perhaps they don't matter? Perhaps it's okay that his OWN testimony of the event that is probably the MOST important moment in his life (if genuine), is somewhere between vague and contradictory?

Maybe the important thing is just that he had a vision, and the nature isn't important - well, maybe - but why would we assume it had anything to do with divinity then? Lots of people have visions... most of them should probably be using medication.

are the words of acts the testimony of paul? they arent supposed to be are they? only what he wrote in his own letters should count (not that i would remember what he might have written)

why should the stories of the vision and conversion of paul be more consistent than the gospels are?

none of which matters to me. im thinking that the stories of paul arent particularly accurate anyway. there are just as many problems with the details of pauls life as there are with jesus' life. the difference being that pauls' stories didnt steal from the god-man myths of other religions.

the biblical writers were very convinced by visions. not just paul's but the visitation of the holy spirit on the apostles at pentacost. peter was convinced that it was OK to preach to the gentiles because he saw that they were also being visited by the holy spirit.

paul could have made it all up but i really dont see WHY he would bother to wedge himself into a new religion that brought its believers nothing but trouble.

was that wrong of them? how would we ever know that the final version decided on by the council at nicaea was the right one? maybe it was just the most powerful faction but had the wrong stories.

How dare you suggest that. Do you not care if you make baby Jesus cry ? ;)

http://cectic.com/comics/097.png

Guys im guessing that if 217 pages of posts didnt answer this question, nothing will. Can we please nail this thread to a cross and all pray that it doesnt return in three days?

Guys im guessing that if 217 pages of posts didnt answer this question, nothing will. Can we please nail this thread to a cross and all pray that it doesnt return in three days?

after another 240 posts.

Guys im guessing that if 217 pages of posts didnt answer this question, nothing will. Can we please nail this thread to a cross and all pray that it doesnt return in three days?

besides

if you took 40 posts per page (as you should) its only 82 pages

no more posts! please, it's been finished, there's not enough words in the English language.

And, yet...

I like the posts on what would qualify as positive and negative evidence. That's the struggle with stories that are this old. How could any possibly conclusively evidence them either way? There is pretty good evidence in both directions considering the age of the story, but I don't think we'll ever get more sure than we are now without a time machine.