Evidence Against A Historical Jesus
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
22-07-2012, 12:40 AM
RE: Evidence Against A Historical Jesus
(22-07-2012 12:29 AM)houseofcantor Wrote:  Hey, Bucky... today I learned that Tarsus was a hotbed of Mithraic activity. And it mighta been a cult of Perseus too, at the same time, there, at that time. I know you've been looking into Greek mystery cults as the source of the salvation paradigm, but what about Mithra? I found this book -

http://www.amazon.com/The-Origins-Mithra...0195067886

...trying to avoid the Zeitgeist crowd... Dodgy
I did know about the Mithra connections, but I didn't know Tarsus was a center. That's very interesting. Maybe Mark will weigh in. I will have to check this out. Cool

Insufferable know-it-all.Einstein
Those who were seen dancing were thought to be insane by those who could not hear the music - Friedrich Nietzsche
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
22-07-2012, 05:48 PM
RE: Evidence Against A Historical Jesus
(22-07-2012 12:29 AM)houseofcantor Wrote:  Hey, Bucky... today I learned that Tarsus was a hotbed of Mithraic activity. And it mighta been a cult of Perseus too, at the same time, there, at that time. I know you've been looking into Greek mystery cults as the source of the salvation paradigm, but what about Mithra? I found this book -

http://www.amazon.com/The-Origins-Mithra...0195067886

...trying to avoid the Zeitgeist crowd... Dodgy
Looky.
http://jdstone.org/cr/files/paulandthepa...raism.html

Insufferable know-it-all.Einstein
Those who were seen dancing were thought to be insane by those who could not hear the music - Friedrich Nietzsche
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
22-07-2012, 06:05 PM
RE: Evidence Against A Historical Jesus
(22-07-2012 05:48 PM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  
(22-07-2012 12:29 AM)houseofcantor Wrote:  Hey, Bucky... today I learned that Tarsus was a hotbed of Mithraic activity. And it mighta been a cult of Perseus too, at the same time, there, at that time. I know you've been looking into Greek mystery cults as the source of the salvation paradigm, but what about Mithra? I found this book -

http://www.amazon.com/The-Origins-Mithra...0195067886

...trying to avoid the Zeitgeist crowd... Dodgy
Looky.
http://jdstone.org/cr/files/paulandthepa...raism.html
Yeah, I mean, wtf. If I'm gonna start shit about my Gwynnies, there's gonna be some Floyd involved...





Truth, pfft. Like, Sisyphus pushing rocks up the hill of popular conception, it doesn't matter what the reality is, it matters what the real people are ready to accept...

I was so turned off by the Zeitgeist crowd that it became a joke to say, happy Mithras day, but perhaps as always, joke's on me.

[Image: klingon_zps7e68578a.jpg]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes houseofcantor's post
25-07-2012, 01:14 PM
RE: Evidence Against A Historical Jesus
I like Mithras as much as the next guy when it comes to Cheesy Creesy comparisons.... but I gotta say... I'll take an Egyptian over a Persian any day.

Yep, I'm with Horus... he was the sky. Wink
[Image: Horus_as_falcon.svg]

[Image: Horus_standing.svg]

A new type of thinking is essential if mankind is to survive and move to higher levels. ~ Albert Einstein
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes kim's post
27-07-2012, 01:56 AM (This post was last modified: 27-07-2012 02:27 AM by Jeff.)
RE: Evidence Against A Historical Jesus
(15-07-2012 02:07 PM)Thomas Wrote:  The big point in every discussion is that if Jesus existed and was the son of god the Jews would have been all over it from day one.

Based on my reading of historians and scholars such as the Jesus Seminar and Bart Ehrman (who I referenced in a prior post) I accept the idea that Jesus was a real mortal man born of two human parents, who did not perform miracles nor die as a substitute for sinners nor rise bodily from the dead. He was born during the reign of Herod the Great. Paraphrasing here from the Jesus Seminar, Jesus was a traveling Jewish sage and faith healer who preached a gospel of liberation from injustice in parables and aphorisms. Jesus broke with established Jewish theological dogmas and social conventions both in his teachings and behaviors, often by turning common-sense ideas upside down, confounding the expectations of his audience. and eating meals with social outcasts. He practiced faith healing without the use of ancient medicine or magic, relieving afflictions we now consider psychosomatic. Sightings of a risen Jesus were nothing more than the visionary experiences of some of his disciples rather than physical encounters.

After his death, as people told stories about Jesus, they embellished these stories with ideas that had not been claimed about Jesus while he was alive, such as that he was the son of God. That's why he would not have been on the "radar" of the jewish leadership during his life. They also embellished the stories to make Jesus appear to fulfill the prophecies of the old testament, so you get the 40 days/nights, wise men, born in Bethlehem, etc. type of stories. Many of these embellishments were included when, decades later, people started to write-down stories about Jesus. As these writings were copied and re-copied, and eventually became the basis for a church, they were further embellished to increase the apparent credibility of the church.

Jesus would have been one of many travelling teachers/healers/baptisers of his day. Jesus became more extreme and radical near the end of his life, causing his family (brothers and mother) to worry that he was out of his mind. He didn't rise to any prominence in his day until he was arrested in Jerusalem and crucified by the Romans. He was executed as a public nuisance, not for claiming to be the Son of God.

My atheism doesn't stop me from recognizing Jesus as a real person, and appreciating his philosophy. Advocating for "turn the other cheek" in a world then dominated by the Jewish code of "an eye for an eye" was a revolutionary step forward in enlightenment, and that's what I can appreciate from Jesus the man.

I think he would laugh his ass off if he could see how his life and teachings have transmogrified into the churches and believers of today.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like Jeff's post
27-07-2012, 06:17 AM (This post was last modified: 27-07-2012 06:30 AM by Bucky Ball.)
RE: Evidence Against A Historical Jesus
(27-07-2012 01:56 AM)Jeff Wrote:  
(15-07-2012 02:07 PM)Thomas Wrote:  The big point in every discussion is that if Jesus existed and was the son of god the Jews would have been all over it from day one.

Based on my reading of historians and scholars such as the Jesus Seminar and Bart Ehrman (who I referenced in a prior post) I accept the idea that Jesus was a real mortal man born of two human parents, who did not perform miracles nor die as a substitute for sinners nor rise bodily from the dead. He was born during the reign of Herod the Great. Paraphrasing here from the Jesus Seminar, Jesus was a traveling Jewish sage and faith healer who preached a gospel of liberation from injustice in parables and aphorisms. Jesus broke with established Jewish theological dogmas and social conventions both in his teachings and behaviors, often by turning common-sense ideas upside down, confounding the expectations of his audience. and eating meals with social outcasts. He practiced faith healing without the use of ancient medicine or magic, relieving afflictions we now consider psychosomatic. Sightings of a risen Jesus were nothing more than the visionary experiences of some of his disciples rather than physical encounters.

After his death, as people told stories about Jesus, they embellished these stories with ideas that had not been claimed about Jesus while he was alive, such as that he was the son of God. That's why he would not have been on the "radar" of the jewish leadership during his life. They also embellished the stories to make Jesus appear to fulfill the prophecies of the old testament, so you get the 40 days/nights, wise men, born in Bethlehem, etc. type of stories. Many of these embellishments were included when, decades later, people started to write-down stories about Jesus. As these writings were copied and re-copied, and eventually became the basis for a church, they were further embellished to increase the apparent credibility of the church.

Jesus would have been one of many travelling teachers/healers/baptisers of his day. Jesus became more extreme and radical near the end of his life, causing his family (brothers and mother) to worry that he was out of his mind. He didn't rise to any prominence in his day until he was arrested in Jerusalem and crucified by the Romans. He was executed as a public nuisance, not for claiming to be the Son of God.

My atheism doesn't stop me from recognizing Jesus as a real person, and appreciating his philosophy. Advocating for "turn the other cheek" in a world then dominated by the Jewish code of "an eye for an eye" was a revolutionary step forward in enlightenment, and that's what I can appreciate from Jesus the man.

I think he would laugh his ass off if he could see how his life and teachings have transmogrified into the churches and believers of today.

Agree, except for two details . Yeshua NEVER became prominent in his lifetime, ever. The likelihood is that there was no trial, and if there was, it certainly did not happen as the gospels recount. (They all recount what happened during the trial totally differently .. in John he gives a sermon, in the others he says a couple things, in one it says he remains silent . on purpose, to make it appear he fulfilled "as a lamb before the slaughter"). Before the trial they say they all fled. So obviously, no one involved could have witnessed it, and it's written as though a video was running, documenting what happened. It makes no sense, at all, from any perspective. There is NO other event from that period with that sort of internal detail. They just made it up. There was a standing order in the Pax Romana to execute trouble makers. He was a public nuisance, that's it. There most likely was no trial. The cult developed AFTER his death. Yeshua said, (even according to the followers of the Way), "come follow me", NOT "come worship me".) As you mention he was not executed for claiming to be the "Son" of god. First of all, if he had actually claimed divinity in the sense they think of that today, he would have been stoned on the spot. Secondly, the concept of "a" "Son" of god was unknown to that culture. It would not have made any sense to them, in terms of a "trinitarian" theological sense, as that developed later. The title "son of god" was accorded to many people, it just meant they were "good guys". So saying that about someone, in that time, is not a crime, or represent a theological/metaphysical statement. Even the gospels never claim that. The authorities in the gospels, ask him "are you the king of the Jews". Just as the Catholics today would be flat on their faces in front of their tabernacles, 24/7, if they actually really believed that they have Jesus in the sacrament, if anyone actually believed he WAS "the" son of god, they would have been worshiping him. No one thought of him in that way, not even his followers.

Why and how the cult developed, and why it did the way it did, is another matter entirely.

Insufferable know-it-all.Einstein
Those who were seen dancing were thought to be insane by those who could not hear the music - Friedrich Nietzsche
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: