If Jesus Never Existed...
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
06-05-2017, 11:28 AM
RE: If Jesus Never Existed...
(06-05-2017 11:00 AM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  They are evidence of nothing, except what communities believed.

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/...spels.html

Where's the LIST ?

I never said that gospels are "objective historical accounts", that's a straw man argument. The gospels are heavily based on the teachings that Jesus gave during his short ministry. Scholars are certain about a few things: 1. he was baptised by John, 2. he called disciples, 3. he gave teachings, 4. he performed healing ceremonies, and 5. he was crucified.

Most of the arguments put forward by your link are irrelevant to the historicity of Jesus. The fact that the gospel writers and for that matter Paul characterise Jesus in different ways is not an indication that they're not talking about a historical person. Historical people are usually characterised differently by different writers. Plus, none of the writers actually knew Jesus, so of course they can't characterise him accurately. Heck, historians characterise Hitler in different ways you know.

There's no eye witness accounts in the Bible, I didn't say there are.

The author claims he knows when the gospels were written - that's a fallacy. No one knows when they were written, it's pure guesswork. We know they were written early - as in before the end of the first century - but that's about it. Any argument based on the gospels being written at "such and such a time" is not based on solid evidence, but on opinion.

I don't disagree that gospel writers modified sayings of Jesus.

I think that's about it, I agree with most of that page, and only disagree with the claim that they know when the gospels were written. But you obviously didn't even read the page you linked as none of them doubt the existence of Jesus, in fact to quote from that page:

"In terms of the execution of Jesus, we know from the Roman historian Tacitus, and the Jewish historian Josephus, that there was a movement, that the founder was executed, and that the movement continued ... three very important things. So, the brute facts, as it were, are as certain as historical things can be." John Dominic Crossan.

My Blog
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
06-05-2017, 11:30 AM
RE: If Jesus Never Existed...
(06-05-2017 10:41 AM)Aractus Wrote:  Shall I go on?

Let's go to the gospels - who came up with the Parable of the Good Samaritan if there was no Jesus? "

Please don't, and especially stop with the arguments from ignorance.
So you use Carrier when it's convenient, and not when you find him otherwise ? LOL

Actually the VERY developed notion, that Jesus (an apocalyptic JEW) "died for anyone's sins" (NOT EVER the role of a messiah) THAT early on is utterly preposterous. It's a HIGHLY developed theological notion.

from:
http://www.thethinkingatheist.com/forum/...other-look

"2. The most extensive passage in the NT about the resurrection, is in 1 Corinthians, Chapter 15. If the gospels are not the first mention of the event, why is it the accounts in Saul's letters not looked at more carefully, or first ? Scholars know why. They were, capriciously put in the canon in the order they are in, for no particular legitimate ordering reason. No one has ever claimed "ordering" was important, or that it enhanced legitimacy claims, or inspiration claims. Opening the NT, one just comes to Mark first. Paul is less well known, also as he is used in liturgy less, in the sense that the gospel stories are used more often, than any one Pauline passage is used. Lastly, the artistic legacy, depicts the gospel story frequently. So visually we *think* of a "risen lord* the way we do. Ask yourself, "When I think of the resurrected lord, what do I think of ?". Probably a Caucasian, adult male around 30 years old, with long hair, and pleasant features". THAT is NOT what the gospels said they saw. The gospels all say they did not recognize him, and they were afraid of what they saw. Our thought has been determined by our culture, not the facts. Next what are the best known stories you remember ? Probably Mary Magdalene being told not to touch, and the doubting Thomas story. If Thomas DID recognize Jesus, why would he HAVE to put his fingers into the wounds ? The problem is not faith, it's "recognition". They do NOT know who or what they see. If it WAS the actual body of Jesus, they would recognize him. We will return to that. The accounts in Paul are brief, and our brains fill in the gaps, with our cultural assumptions. We know the *real* 1 Corinthians is missing, as the letter referenced in 1 Cor 5:9 is unknown. 1 Corinthians is a combo job. The section in 1 Cor 14:33-36 was likely added by a scribe who liked Timothy and Titus.

When Saul first talks about the resurrection, other than himself as a "revealed" thing, he says that he "appeared to Cephas". The word "appeared", is an ok translation but not exactly correct, in context. The Greek word is "ophthe". It has a *passive* element. In English it is an intransitive verb. "Appeared" is a word which means "to become visible", or "was made visible", or "became a[parent". The Greek verb is the past tense of the passive verb "horao", "to see", ("was seen"). The passive translation is "The Anointed has been seen by Cephas". HOWEVER, normally a Greek translation of "by whom" would be translated in Greek using the "hypo" (preposition), to indicate "agency". THAT is not here, in the Greek. It really should be translated as "The Anointed has been seen FOR the advantage of Cephas or to BENEFIT Cephas, or for Cephas' *Advantage*". It does NOT mean "Cephas saw the Anointed". It means the "Anointed was made manifest for Cephas' advantage". That begins to look very different, than Cephas seeing something. It's more like Saul's vision. There are many examples of these kinds of misuse, and mistranslations, due to assumed cultural overlay, which when translated correctly, make the entire picture look very very different, especially in terms of the many "sightings" of various beings, and mysterious things, in both the Old and New Testaments. The most famous of these "shifts" is the sighting of Moses of Yahweh in the burning bush, where the angel shifts into the bush and is also "seen for" Yahweh, when Abraham moves from Ur, (which Philo of Alexandria talks about around 20-50 CE, in "On Abraham". There is NO physical "seeing". The correct translations all mean "seeing in the mind". It's a MENTAL change. Guess what ? SAUL's "blinding", and the "new seeing" is an EXACT correlation of these prior Biblical "manifestations", and any Jew or Christian, or Greek of the day would conflate these various "manifestations", "blindings", "and then seeings" as METAPHOR, for a mental attitude change. The same verbs, and words are used. Sauls blinding and then seeing" was equated, as Abraham's "vision", where his "mind saw again with it's recovered sight". Just like Saul. Saul "saw" with a different "sight". It was NOT a physical thing. It was a metaphor for a mental change. THAT is how he "*saw* the Anointed One". It like we say, "oh, ok, I get it, now". He did not intend to say he physically "saw" the Anointed One. It means "I have come to understand the Anointed One". In 1 Corintians 9:1-2, in defending his apostleship, he appeals to his new "seeing". "Have I not seen the Lord". That means that a requirement for apostleship, one has to have "seen the light Lord". But here he changes the passive past tense, to active verb. He means the "seeing" has an ONGOING present continuing "influence". It's all missed in translation, usually.

So just to emphasize here : Saul's "re-seeing", or "recovery from blindness", (ie THE "conversion event") WAS for him, personally the SAME thing, as the resurrection for him. For him "resurrection" was "re-seeing" the same set of events he already knew about, just "seeing" them in a different light. THAT is what he thought of the same thing as "Have I not *seen* the risen lord" It's metaphor, for a different understanding of events he already knew about. It's NOT a physical resurrection. It means "Have I not come to understand that Jesus was exalted as the anointed one" ?"

Insufferable know-it-all.Einstein God has a plan for us. Please stop screwing it up with your prayers.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
06-05-2017, 11:39 AM
RE: If Jesus Never Existed...
(06-05-2017 11:11 AM)adey67 Wrote:  Seriously? You quote Paul? Paul who's only contact with Jesus was a fucking hallucination on a dirt track ? Since when did hallucinations became evidence based truth ? Paul was nothing more than a misogynistic gynaphobe and possibly a self loathing homosexual who promoted death for people of possibly his own sexuality.

Right, as I've already said I don't think he had a vision - and if he didn't, it was not as described in Acts.

As for your characterisation of Paul - no he wasn't. He was a tentmaker and a zealous Jew who persecuted the early church before converting to it. And he was willing to die for his beliefs. Anyway, he knows about the Last Supper and the Resurrection myth before they are written down in the gospels. Just like James knows about the SotM.

(06-05-2017 11:11 AM)adey67 Wrote:  The other stuff I will look into as it could well have significant merit... See, hardly the actions of a flat earther, please try to be a little more circumspect in your discourse with fellow non believers.

You're still trying to discount Paul wholesale. He didn't know Jesus, but he did know the family of Jesus, and some of the disciples.

My Blog
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
06-05-2017, 11:46 AM
RE: If Jesus Never Existed...
(06-05-2017 11:39 AM)Aractus Wrote:  As for your characterisation of Paul - no he wasn't. He was a tentmaker and a zealous Jew who persecuted the early church before converting to it. And he was willing to die for his beliefs. Anyway, he knows about the Last Supper and the Resurrection myth before they are written down in the gospels. Just like James knows about the SotM.

LOL.
More assertions. No references. YOU can't even prove that PAUL existed.
You really drank the Kool Aide.

Quote:You're still trying to discount Paul wholesale. He didn't know Jesus, but he did know the family of Jesus, and some of the disciples.

So he (or someone) *claimed*.

Insufferable know-it-all.Einstein God has a plan for us. Please stop screwing it up with your prayers.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
06-05-2017, 11:52 AM
RE: If Jesus Never Existed...
(06-05-2017 11:30 AM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  Actually the VERY developed notion, that Jesus (an apocalyptic JEW) "died for anyone's sins" (NOT EVER the role of a messiah) THAT early on is utterly preposterous. It's a HIGHLY developed theological notion.

What does that have to do with anything? That concept doesn't arise until Paul's epistles, and what he taught was radically different to what Jesus taught.

Quote:"2. The most extensive passage in the NT about the resurrection, is in 1 Corinthians, Chapter 15. If the gospels are not the first mention of the event, why is it the accounts in Saul's letters not looked at more carefully, or first ? Scholars know why.

I'm not sure what your point is with all this. The resurrection is not a historical event, but Jesus was seen by his followers after his death in visions. That's actually quite normal, and in our society something like 1 in 6 people has visions of deceased loved ones.

Quote:So just to emphasize here : Saul's "re-seeing", or "recovery from blindness", (ie THE "conversion event") WAS for him, personally the SAME thing, as the resurrection for him. For him "resurrection" was "re-seeing" the same set of events he already knew about, just "seeing" them in a different light. THAT is what he thought of the same thing as "Have I not *seen* the risen lord" It's metaphor, for a different understanding of events he already knew about. It's NOT a physical resurrection. It means "Have I not come to understand that Jesus was exalted as the anointed one" ?"

Right, again I don't know what your point is. Paul believed in a different type of resurrection to that of the gospel writers, that much is true. I don't think Paul was converted because he had a vision, it's much more likely if he had a vision that he had it because he converted.

There's many reasons I can think of that explain Paul's conversion just fine. Perhaps he met some really generous Christians who were merciful to him? Perhaps one of his close friends was secretly a Christian and confronted Paul? Paul might even have killed him and suffered a deep and terrible regret that caused him to leave and "see no one" (as he recounts in Galatians).

My Blog
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
06-05-2017, 11:58 AM (This post was last modified: 06-05-2017 12:17 PM by adey67.)
RE: If Jesus Never Existed...
(06-05-2017 11:39 AM)Aractus Wrote:  
(06-05-2017 11:11 AM)adey67 Wrote:  Seriously? You quote Paul? Paul who's only contact with Jesus was a fucking hallucination on a dirt track ? Since when did hallucinations became evidence based truth ? Paul was nothing more than a misogynistic gynaphobe and possibly a self loathing homosexual who promoted death for people of possibly his own sexuality.

Right, as I've already said I don't think he had a vision - and if he didn't, it was not as described in Acts.

As for your characterisation of Paul - no he wasn't. He was a tentmaker and a zealous Jew who persecuted the early church before converting to it. And he was willing to die for his beliefs. Anyway, he knows about the Last Supper and the Resurrection myth before they are written down in the gospels. Just like James knows about the SotM.

(06-05-2017 11:11 AM)adey67 Wrote:  The other stuff I will look into as it could well have significant merit... See, hardly the actions of a flat earther, please try to be a little more circumspect in your discourse with fellow non believers.

You're still trying to discount Paul wholesale. He didn't know Jesus, but he did know the family of Jesus, and some of the disciples.

And we have defined proof of this family involvement? And I'm surprised you try to defend the gynaephobic misogynist , if you accept his writings then there can be no doubt he was.. Truth is I'm no scholar and I could be wrong I was angry because one of my personal biases is conspiracy theorists like 911, I am happy to be proven wrong and will admit it if the evidence is there but when you lumped all of us mythicists in the same vein as of all conspiracy theorists and especially flat earthers i found that to be deliberately provocative and very galling and lost my cool. Flat earthers are scumbags along wth all other conspiracy theorists mythicists believe there is insufficient evidence and have an innate sense of incredulity, its hardly equalitive.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
06-05-2017, 12:00 PM
RE: If Jesus Never Existed...
(06-05-2017 11:52 AM)Aractus Wrote:  What does that have to do with anything? That concept doesn't arise until Paul's epistles, and what he taught was radically different to what Jesus taught.

Right. You don't get it. The concept arose MANY decades later, AFTER the destruction of the temple didn't bring the "end times" as they expected.
THAT is the point.

Quote:I'm not sure what your point is with all this. The resurrection is not a historical event, but Jesus was seen by his followers after his death in visions. That's actually quite normal, and in our society something like 1 in 6 people has visions of deceased loved ones.

That's NOT what they said they were seeing, and it was GROUPS that did the "seeings". The GREEK words mean they "came to understand", NOT that they "saw" anything.

Quote:Right, again I don't know what your point is. Paul believed in a different type of resurrection to that of the gospel writers, that much is true. I don't think Paul was converted because he had a vision, it's much more likely if he had a vision that he had it because he converted.

You don't know that, and your assertions remain unsupported, (as usual). What you think is irrelevant. You are no scholar.

Where did the Sermon on the Mount come from ? Very simple.
They TOOK it from other well known tales and circulating literature.
http://www.thenazareneway.com/beatitudes_of_christ.htm

Insufferable know-it-all.Einstein God has a plan for us. Please stop screwing it up with your prayers.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like Bucky Ball's post
06-05-2017, 12:11 PM
RE: If Jesus Never Existed...
(06-05-2017 11:28 AM)Aractus Wrote:  The author claims he knows when the gospels were written - that's a fallacy.

You didn't read it. There are many authors mentioned.

Quote:No one knows when they were written, it's pure guesswork.

And yet you CLAIM to know when they were, (see below) with NO references, ONLY assertions.

Quote:We know they were written early - as in before the end of the first century - but that's about it.

Prove it.

Quote:Any argument based on the gospels being written at "such and such a time" is not based on solid evidence, but on opinion.

LOL. JUST like you just did.

Insufferable know-it-all.Einstein God has a plan for us. Please stop screwing it up with your prayers.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
06-05-2017, 12:21 PM
RE: If Jesus Never Existed...
(06-05-2017 11:46 AM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  LOL.
More assertions. No references. YOU can't even prove that PAUL existed.
You really drank the Kool Aide.

Oh Geez, is this really the level of deep critical thought I'm dealing with? Here's the Ehrman-Price debate:





At 1:44: "It's not a question that's debated among scholars. Most scholars don't even think it's worth debating because of the overwhelming evidence". - Ehrman

At 1:49: "I don't think it's a valuable conversation, and I don't think it's contributing anything". - Ehrman

Time for you to post evidence.

My Blog
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Aractus's post
06-05-2017, 12:33 PM
RE: If Jesus Never Existed...
(06-05-2017 12:11 PM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  And yet you CLAIM to know when they were, (see below) with NO references, ONLY assertions.

I believe it's most likely that Matthew and Luke were written c.75-85 AD, but it makes no difference really as to specifically when they were written. They can be written before 70AD, that doesn't bother me. We can certainly say that Luke-Acts is written after the writings of Paul though since Acts ends with Paul under house arrest which is when he sent his last letters.

There are quite valid reasons though to think that Matthew and Luke are written after 70AD - Mark is really difficult to make a case for though. And the Gospel of John - well it could have been written any time as well. Yes it has a highly developed theology - but so does Paul and he wrote in the 50's. Whoever wrote John was less influenced by the Pauline epistles, and again it really doesn't matter to me when it was written, but the claim that it was written in the 90's is guesswork. If I had to guess I would guess that it was written around the same time as Matthew and Luke.

The letters of Paul though can be dated to the 50's AD quite reliably, and I think we can say that James was written before 70AD with a good degree of confidence too. Paul actually writes specifically against the theology put forward by James, which suggests that it may have been written at the same time as the Pauline epistles.

My Blog
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Aractus's post
Post Reply
Forum Jump: