Jesus historicity
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
16-11-2014, 05:50 PM (This post was last modified: 16-11-2014 06:18 PM by Bucky Ball.)
RE: Jesus historicity
(16-11-2014 04:35 PM)Fodder_From_The_Truth Wrote:  Bucky,

Naming all the other Jesus' doesn't help the case for proving that Jesus of Nazareth was the one true Jesus that The Bible was speaking of regarding even a mortal man who was just preaching.

I see no concrete evidence that proves or disproves he existed. Supernatural Jesus is obviously a lie, but I see no compelling evidence to believe in a historical Jesus but I do see Christianity lying about everything else for 2000 years, so why should I believe this?

It does if every one of them, collectively, came with part of the myth that was eventually ascribed to one of them, individually.
I'm not arguing for either side. I'm saying it's mighty suspicious that all the myths that were eventually included in the Jesus of Nazareth myth were separately circulating
related to one of the others.
http://www.jesusneverexisted.com/surfeit.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
16-11-2014, 06:10 PM
RE: Jesus historicity
Bucky,

I see your point, but I think its more plausible that you can't pin it down to one collectively. Also, I thought I read somewhere that Nazareth wasn't a real place or at least not during the early 1st century.

I think a better way for me to explain my opinion is, even putting aside all the magic and obvious bullshit that even the plausible stuff is likely 99% fabrication. So improbable that they could even be wrong about his name (just making a point). Like he coulda be a brother named James. Smile
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
16-11-2014, 06:40 PM
RE: Jesus historicity
(16-11-2014 05:40 PM)kim Wrote:  
(16-11-2014 04:09 PM)Free Wrote:  And the Jews are permitted to worship other gods aside from Jehovah?

You seem to be viewing an historically vast timespan, from a very narrow point of view.

Jews existed in cities throughout the Roman Empire for centuries. Protected by Rome and allowed to continue their religion, everything was fairly ok until rebellion in Judaea led to a major change in the practice of their faith. Philo wrote that they could practice their religion and received the same help as any other Roman, though they were not permitted Roman citizenship.
**

Jews had lived in Rome since the second century BC. Julius Caesar and Augustus supported laws that allowed Jews protection to worship as they chose. Synagogues were classified as colleges to get around Roman laws banning secret societies and the temples were allowed to collect the yearly tax paid by all Jewish men for temple maintenance. Roman leadership had long realized that tolerance was a tremendous benefit.

Yes, there were incidents - Jews had been banished from Rome in 139 BC, again in 19 AD and during the reign of Claudius. However, they were soon allowed to return and continue their independent existence under Roman law.

When Augustus died, the situation became very different, very quickly. In 39 CE, when Caligula was emperor, religious intolerance erupted in Alexandria. Non-Jews had placed statues of human gods in the city’s synagogues. It's a pretty good bet it was most likely political provocation but ... it's been a while since my Roman studies so, I'm unable to provide evidence from my foggy memory. Anyway...

Furious at the desecration of synagogues, the Jews ripped out the "blasphemous imagery" and that's when the violence began. Philo writes of how mobs of men killed Jews and set fire to Jewish properties. It's just not fun until you can get everyone to jump on the bandwagon.

So yea, Jews did worship Jehovah under Roman rule and many certainly survived to see not only their status in Rome change, but also to see their own religion become altered.

I think any speculation on the Jewish position in ancient Rome, must come from a much wider perspective than where you might be perched, at the moment. Shy

Yep, it was one hell of a religious "hate-war" if you ask me.

Monotheists vrs Polytheists.

I just finished refreshing myself on the works of Philo. My opinion remains the same.

Hate is the natural evolution of religious differences.

Having problems with your computer? Visit our Free Tech Support thread for help!
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
16-11-2014, 06:46 PM
RE: Jesus historicity
(16-11-2014 06:10 PM)Fodder_From_The_Truth Wrote:  Bucky,

I see your point, but I think its more plausible that you can't pin it down to one collectively. Also, I thought I read somewhere that Nazareth wasn't a real place or at least not during the early 1st century.

I think a better way for me to explain my opinion is, even putting aside all the magic and obvious bullshit that even the plausible stuff is likely 99% fabrication. So improbable that they could even be wrong about his name (just making a point). Like he coulda be a brother named James. Smile

The "Nazareth never existed" thing is from the http://www.jesusneverexisted.com website.

Ken Humphries takes atheist militantism to a whole different level of absurdity. But hey, he's earning a few bucks off of his endeavors, so why would he care if anyone thinks he's nuts?

Big Grin

Having problems with your computer? Visit our Free Tech Support thread for help!
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
16-11-2014, 06:59 PM
RE: Jesus historicity
(16-11-2014 06:46 PM)Free Wrote:  
(16-11-2014 06:10 PM)Fodder_From_The_Truth Wrote:  Bucky,

I see your point, but I think its more plausible that you can't pin it down to one collectively. Also, I thought I read somewhere that Nazareth wasn't a real place or at least not during the early 1st century.

I think a better way for me to explain my opinion is, even putting aside all the magic and obvious bullshit that even the plausible stuff is likely 99% fabrication. So improbable that they could even be wrong about his name (just making a point). Like he coulda be a brother named James. Smile

The "Nazareth never existed" thing is from the http://www.jesusneverexisted.com website.

Ken Humphries takes atheist militantism to a whole different level of absurdity. But hey, he's earning a few bucks off of his endeavors, so why would he care if anyone thinks he's nuts?

Big Grin

It's started from that one website/guy? I don't think that argument or most arguments/opinions are limited as many people draw up multiple and similar ideas when they begin to explore and research ideas.

I've come across it from older more questioning ideas. I've even seen the questining pointing out there were two Nazareths and that the supposed one was formed later than Jesus's time. I heard those cases from Simcha Jacobovici and some of his investigations and interviews in Jerusalem.

Some people don't seem to care if they're thought of as nuts. I don't care either, one of my favorite posters on this board is a person I think is nutz and I'm glad he came back here. I just like to see people at least question if their nutty convictions.

"Allow there to be a spectrum in all that you see" - Neil Degrasse Tyson
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
16-11-2014, 07:04 PM
RE: Jesus historicity
(16-11-2014 06:40 PM)Free Wrote:  
(16-11-2014 05:40 PM)kim Wrote:  You seem to be viewing an historically vast timespan, from a very narrow point of view.

Jews existed in cities throughout the Roman Empire for centuries. Protected by Rome and allowed to continue their religion, everything was fairly ok until rebellion in Judaea led to a major change in the practice of their faith. Philo wrote that they could practice their religion and received the same help as any other Roman, though they were not permitted Roman citizenship.
**

Jews had lived in Rome since the second century BC. Julius Caesar and Augustus supported laws that allowed Jews protection to worship as they chose. Synagogues were classified as colleges to get around Roman laws banning secret societies and the temples were allowed to collect the yearly tax paid by all Jewish men for temple maintenance. Roman leadership had long realized that tolerance was a tremendous benefit.

Yes, there were incidents - Jews had been banished from Rome in 139 BC, again in 19 AD and during the reign of Claudius. However, they were soon allowed to return and continue their independent existence under Roman law.

When Augustus died, the situation became very different, very quickly. In 39 CE, when Caligula was emperor, religious intolerance erupted in Alexandria. Non-Jews had placed statues of human gods in the city’s synagogues. It's a pretty good bet it was most likely political provocation but ... it's been a while since my Roman studies so, I'm unable to provide evidence from my foggy memory. Anyway...

Furious at the desecration of synagogues, the Jews ripped out the "blasphemous imagery" and that's when the violence began. Philo writes of how mobs of men killed Jews and set fire to Jewish properties. It's just not fun until you can get everyone to jump on the bandwagon.

So yea, Jews did worship Jehovah under Roman rule and many certainly survived to see not only their status in Rome change, but also to see their own religion become altered.

I think any speculation on the Jewish position in ancient Rome, must come from a much wider perspective than where you might be perched, at the moment. Shy

Yep, it was one hell of a religious "hate-war" if you ask me.

Monotheists vrs Polytheists.

I just finished refreshing myself on the works of Philo. My opinion remains the same.

Hate is the natural evolution of religious differences.

Actually it's more complicated than that. Reading Philo's writings on "the word" you could swear you were reading the Gospel of John. (The "Word" existed, according to some, as a separate divine being, and a case can be made it's present in the earliest Hebrew writings). There were all sorts of divine beings (while not in any way equivalent to Yahweh), but nonetheless which existed in the "Heavenly Host" of the Hebrews. "Monotheism" as applied to the Hebrews can be very misleading. At the very least it was "monolaterlist polytheism".

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
16-11-2014, 07:11 PM
RE: Jesus historicity
(16-11-2014 02:59 PM)Free Wrote:  
(16-11-2014 02:25 PM)unfogged Wrote:  According to Paul's writings, he had his revelation and began preaching without meeting with any of the 12 until many years later. What evidence do you have that they ostracized him?

That's already been done on this forum. Start reading at the following link:

http://www.thethinkingatheist.com/forum/...#pid213945

I see more of your interpretation of the writings. I don't come to the same conclusions when I look at them.

I see several possibilities regarding Jesus:
a. there was a historical Jesus preaching around the year 30
b. there was some other individual that was misplaced in time when the stories were written
c. there were multiple sources that were combined into a single person
d. there was a mythological being that was euhemerized
e. multiple mythological beings were merged
e. the character was invented out of whole cloth
f. some combination of the above

You have apparently decided that (a) is the most probable answer given the available evidence. I've looked at the same evidence and think that the probability of (a) is, at best, no higher than some of the others. I don't believe that there is a god because the evidence presented for that claim is insufficient and in that same way I don't believe that there was a historical Jesus also because the evidence presented is insufficient.

I doubt there is much point in continuing because unless you have anything that hasn't already been presented the best we can do is agree to disagree.

Atheism: it's not just for communists any more!
America July 4 1776 - November 8 2016 RIP
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 3 users Like unfogged's post
16-11-2014, 07:25 PM (This post was last modified: 16-11-2014 07:28 PM by Free.)
RE: Jesus historicity
(16-11-2014 07:04 PM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  
(16-11-2014 06:40 PM)Free Wrote:  Yep, it was one hell of a religious "hate-war" if you ask me.

Monotheists vrs Polytheists.

I just finished refreshing myself on the works of Philo. My opinion remains the same.

Hate is the natural evolution of religious differences.

Actually it's more complicated than that. Reading Philo's writings on "the word" you could swear you were reading the Gospel of John. (The "Word" existed, according to some, as a separate divine being, and a case can be made it's present in the earliest Hebrew writings).

Yes, or any Gnostic manuscript from the Nag Hammadi.


Quote: There were all sorts of divine beings (while not in any way equivalent to Yahweh), but nonetheless which existed in the "Heavenly Host" of the Hebrews. "Monotheism" as applied to the Hebrews can be very misleading. At the very least it was "monolaterlist polytheism".

"In the beginning God (Elohim in hebrew, plural meaning "gods") created the heavens and the earth.

"And God said, "Let US make man in OUR image, after OUR likeness."

Thumbsup

But just try to tell the Jews any of this.

Having problems with your computer? Visit our Free Tech Support thread for help!
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
16-11-2014, 07:41 PM
RE: Jesus historicity
(16-11-2014 07:11 PM)unfogged Wrote:  I doubt there is much point in continuing because unless you have anything that hasn't already been presented the best we can do is agree to disagree.

I have much more, but it gets so tedious to constantly argue about it.

My position remains the same.

80% for a historical Jesus.

Having problems with your computer? Visit our Free Tech Support thread for help!
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Free's post
16-11-2014, 07:47 PM
RE: Jesus historicity
Anyone have anything to say on how the Roman's were pretty 'secular' for their time? They probably had the most inclusive empire historically, prior to the reformation. Honestly, they did not ban worship of other deities or place restrictions on worship. As long as it was on your 'own time' and not detrimental to Rome. They seem to be actually more tolerant than other prior and contemporary societies than most people normally think for their time. Having such a overwhelming slave populace and all.

Arguing with a Christian is a lot like playing chess with a pigeon. You can be the greatest player in the world, yet the pigeon will knock over all the pieces, shit on the board and strut away triumphantly.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: