Jesus was NOT the Messiah
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
27-10-2014, 07:04 AM
RE: Jesus was NOT the Messiah
(27-10-2014 06:41 AM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  You must not have watched the Carrier video.

Only the first half, because of a lack of time, but i'll try and finish it today.

Quote:How EXACTLY are the gospels "different" ?

To borrow from EK, they are different for the sheer fact that they were writings attempting to be passed off as non-fiction. That these writers were in fact attempting to place Jesus in history. That they were trying to deceive their readers into believing Jesus was an actual historical person, unlike JK Rowling's Harry Potter stories, or Euripides 's The Bacchae. At least according to EK.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
27-10-2014, 07:11 AM
RE: Jesus was NOT the Messiah
(27-10-2014 06:57 AM)Chas Wrote:  You seem to be forgetting the timeline. These were not written contemporaneously; they are derivative and copy some of the original errors.

What original text didn't have Jesus as being from Nazareth of Galilee, but just as Nazarene?
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
27-10-2014, 07:21 AM (This post was last modified: 27-10-2014 07:27 AM by Tomasia.)
RE: Jesus was NOT the Messiah
(27-10-2014 06:58 AM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  • No ancient historian or geographer mentions Nazareth. It is first noted at the beginning of the 4th century.
In his histories, Josephus (a Galilean), has a lot to say about Galilee (an area of barely 900 square miles). During the first Jewish war, in the 60s AD, Josephus led a military campaign back and forth across the tiny province. Josephus mentions 45 cities and villages of Galilee – yet Nazareth not at all. -

For with the measure you use, it will be measured to you.

Let's hear what Richard Carrier has to say on the subject of the Nazareth that wasn't there:

"Josephus says there were hundreds of cities in Galilee. He names only a fraction. The last argument is therefore a non sequitur (typical of Nazareth ahistoricity nonsense circulating on the web, don't fall for this stuff). The first argument is refuted by an inscription of the 3rd or 4th century A.D. establishing the existence of Nazareth as a haven for refugee priests after the Jewish War (and that can only mean the first war, since the temple was then destroyed and unmanned, not later). This inscription was erected by Jews (not Christians) decades before Helena, and certainly reflects data from the 1st century (I can't imagine where else it would have come from).

Your middle claim could be true (some peer reviewed discussions of late seem to concede the possibility that there is no definite evidence of an early 1st-century Nazareth), though there is a difference between not having evidence and the town not being there. Personally, I find it hard to believe the town would suddenly appear and get that name just in time to take in priests after the first Jewish War (entailing a narrow window between 36 and 66 A.D." -Richard Carrier

http://debunkingchristianity.blogspot.co...ce-of.html
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
27-10-2014, 07:35 AM
RE: Jesus was NOT the Messiah
(27-10-2014 07:21 AM)Tomasia Wrote:  For with the measure you use, it will be measured to you.

Oh really. Like all the scholars who disagreed with your claim about "biographies".
which you conveniently ignored.

You couldn't "whoop" an ass if you tried, Miss "Illusion".

But thanks for the additional patronizing attempt at a sermon. You just can't help doing that, can you ?

"For the sheer fact" ?
Really ?
Things are worse than I thought.

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
27-10-2014, 07:41 AM
RE: Jesus was NOT the Messiah
(27-10-2014 07:35 AM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  You couldn't "whoop" an ass if you tried, Miss "Illusion".

So no actual response to what Carrier had to say?
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
27-10-2014, 07:47 AM (This post was last modified: 27-10-2014 08:57 AM by Bucky Ball.)
RE: Jesus was NOT the Messiah
(27-10-2014 07:41 AM)Tomasia Wrote:  
(27-10-2014 07:35 AM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  You couldn't "whoop" an ass if you tried, Miss "Illusion".

So no actual response to what Carrier had to say?

Yes. Good to know you accept him as an authoritative voice.
Thumbsup

I remain in the "we'll never know" camp. But it doesn't matter. The entire Christian edifice is built on sand, whether he existed or not. IF he existed as Dr. B.B. Scott has demonstrated, he was a Jewish Apocalyptic wandering preacher, (one of the many), and the contortions of Hebrew thought and culture by Christians as they cooked up their new cult, to make it appear it flowed organically from Judaism, (which it doesn't in any real way), puts the lie to all of it. There is nothing "original" in Christianity. During the early (post temple destruction period), the Rabbis were trying to change Judaism in ways to keep it relevant and functional, and Christianity is just another off-shoot of that movement, from which they borrowed heavily, and it happened to be useful to Rome politically, or it would have died out. Using religion to unify political empires was a common strategy in the ancient world. Alexander did it, Rome did it, and the Muslims did it.

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
[+] 1 user Likes Bucky Ball's post
27-10-2014, 09:35 AM (This post was last modified: 27-10-2014 09:42 AM by EvolutionKills.)
RE: Jesus was NOT the Messiah
(27-10-2014 06:38 AM)Tomasia Wrote:  
(27-10-2014 01:09 AM)EvolutionKills Wrote:  If one hundred years from now there is a religion that worships Harry Potter, and claims him as a real historical figure, anything that would attempt to place Harry Potter in reality would be a lie from the perspective of historicity.


Writing fiction, and attempting to pass it off as non-fiction, is disingenuous.

Ah, now I get it. The writers were attempting to pass off their gospels as non-fiction!

They were in fact attempting to actively deceive their readers, into believing Jesus was a historical person. Now the accusations of lying make sense. The writers were attempting to cover up the fact that he didn’t exist. I get it.

This little nugget makes sense of a lot of things. It explains why the writers wrote in the style of biographies, to make this elaborate ruse appear more authentic.

This is the view you’re suggesting right?

It also explains why the Gospels are written differently than the narrative of other pagan deities. The writers of the pagan Gods, like the Dionysus narrative were writing fictions along the lines of nursery rhymes, in which they weren’t actually attempting to deceive their readers into thinking these god-men were actual historical persons.

This just may be our first real mark of progress.


Thank you for, once again, showing you haven't looked at anything either Bucky or myself have shown you.


So here it is for posterity once more...


Euhemerism

Euhemerism is a rationalizing method of interpretation, which treats mythological accounts as a reflection of historical events, or mythological characters as historical personages but which were shaped, exaggerated or altered by retelling and traditional mores. It was named for its creator Euhemerus. In more recent literature of myth, such as in Bulfinch's Mythology, Euhemerism is called the "historical interpretation" of mythology. Euhemerism is defined in modern academic literature as the theory that myths are distorted accounts of real historical events. Euhemerus was not the first to attempt to rationalize mythology through history, as euhemeristic views are found in earlier writers, including Xenophanes, Herodotus, Hecataeus of Abdera and Ephorus. However, Euhemerus is credited as having developed the theory in application to all myths, considering mythology to be "history in disguise".

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


This could work both ways, as an explanation of the deification of human leaders and kings, or as a way of inserting existing gods into human history by creating for them mundane origins. If there already existed a celestial being named Jesus (as indicated by Philo of Alexandria), then the Jesus of Christianity could very likely be a Jewish version of Romulus; a Jewish mystery cult along the vein of the mystery cults of Osiris, Bacchus, Mithras, Zalmoxis, etc.

Making shit up was the norm. Early Christians forged epistles and gospels, just look at the sheer mass of work they created, all of the stuff that didn't make it into the various Bibles. Making shit up was the rule, not the exception.

[Image: E3WvRwZ.gif]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
27-10-2014, 10:01 AM
RE: Jesus was NOT the Messiah
(27-10-2014 07:11 AM)Tomasia Wrote:  
(27-10-2014 06:57 AM)Chas Wrote:  You seem to be forgetting the timeline. These were not written contemporaneously; they are derivative and copy some of the original errors.

What original text didn't have Jesus as being from Nazareth of Galilee, but just as Nazarene?

Please try to follow.

You said "Actually all four of the Gospels just like Mathew refer to Nazareth as a place"

I am pointing out why that is not in the least a compelling argument.

Skepticism is not a position; it is an approach to claims.
Science is not a subject, but a method.
[Image: flagstiny%206.gif]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Chas's post
27-10-2014, 11:49 AM
RE: Jesus was NOT the Messiah
Quote: It is interesting that a roman political figure as important as Pilate,

You can't be serious? Pilate was the prefect of a backwater shithole. His appointment in 26 just happens to coincide with the semi-retirement of Emperor Tiberius and the assumption of day to day operation by Lucius Aelius Sejanus. Thus it is fairly safe to say that Pilate was a member of Sejanus' circle. Yes, Pilate was so fucking important that it took Tiberius 5 years to get around to replacing him after Sejanus' attempted coup and execution.

You know, you have inflated Judaea's importance in your own mind because it is portrayed as the setting for your godboy but that does not make it true. Egypt was important. Syria was important. Judaea was a place that the Romans kept trying to foist off on to one Herod or another to run for them. They got stuck with it in 6 AD because Archelaus had run the place into the ground. As soon as Tiberius died in 37 Caligula ( and later Claudius ) found reason after reason to make their old boyhood friend, Herod Agrippa, the king and expand his realm.

But Roman equestrians were not lining up to go to fucking Judaea! Poor Pilate. Stuck for 10 years in that rathole. I guess Sejanus really didn't like him much.

Atheism is NOT a Religion. It's A Personal Relationship With Reality!
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Minimalist's post
27-10-2014, 12:24 PM
RE: Jesus was NOT the Messiah
(27-10-2014 07:21 AM)Tomasia Wrote:  
(27-10-2014 06:58 AM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  • No ancient historian or geographer mentions Nazareth. It is first noted at the beginning of the 4th century.
In his histories, Josephus (a Galilean), has a lot to say about Galilee (an area of barely 900 square miles). During the first Jewish war, in the 60s AD, Josephus led a military campaign back and forth across the tiny province. Josephus mentions 45 cities and villages of Galilee – yet Nazareth not at all. -

For with the measure you use, it will be measured to you.

Let's hear what Richard Carrier has to say on the subject of the Nazareth that wasn't there:

"Josephus says there were hundreds of cities in Galilee. He names only a fraction. The last argument is therefore a non sequitur (typical of Nazareth ahistoricity nonsense circulating on the web, don't fall for this stuff). The first argument is refuted by an inscription of the 3rd or 4th century A.D. establishing the existence of Nazareth as a haven for refugee priests after the Jewish War (and that can only mean the first war, since the temple was then destroyed and unmanned, not later). This inscription was erected by Jews (not Christians) decades before Helena, and certainly reflects data from the 1st century (I can't imagine where else it would have come from).

Your middle claim could be true (some peer reviewed discussions of late seem to concede the possibility that there is no definite evidence of an early 1st-century Nazareth), though there is a difference between not having evidence and the town not being there. Personally, I find it hard to believe the town would suddenly appear and get that name just in time to take in priests after the first Jewish War (entailing a narrow window between 36 and 66 A.D." -Richard Carrier

http://debunkingchristianity.blogspot.co...ce-of.html

The Nazareth part of the story is probably untrue, as there’s little evidence outside Christian literature that a city called Nazareth existed in the first century. Today’s Nazareth was probably only first named as such in the third or fourth century, and there is little good archaeological evidence the place was a town before that (http://www.jesusneverexisted.com/nazareth.html, http://www.nazarethmyth.info). Richard Carrier, a well respected scholar, disagrees in the sense that he thinks Nazareth may have existed in the first century, but doesn’t think Jesus, if he existed, grew up there. (http://freethoughtblogs.com/carrier/arch...pmp_tp=1). So Yeshua may have grown up in one of many small Jewish villages that dotted the countryside in Galilee, but it almost certainly wasn’t today’s Nazareth.
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: