Jesus was NOT the Messiah
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
26-10-2014, 07:42 AM (This post was last modified: 26-10-2014 08:29 AM by Bucky Ball.)
RE: Jesus was NOT the Messiah
(25-10-2014 09:25 AM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  There is no way to sort out all the messiah figures extant at the time. There is not a shred of evidence that a Jesus of Nazareth ever existed, and the fact that not one of the fantastic claims about him, or the events surrounding him, (that many of them are impossible and could not have happened), or were recorded by any of the writers of the time who recorded many other less important happenings, the fact that the "preaching" of Jesus reflects the concerns of the "simplification" paradigm of the Jewish Diaspora from 50 -100 years later than when he was supposed to have existed, the fact that Mark knew of the temple destruction, and all the MUCH more developed theological themes apparent in both the gospels and Acts, ... all lead me to think, while we will never know for sure, Jesus probably never existed, and he was a conflated "meme" invented later.

Post #33.

The lying bitch, who *calls* herself a Christian, who never even read the entire thread, who picked and chose what she would answer, as she is incompetent to even begin discusing any of this, as she proved by her quoting, MIS-CHARACTERIZED my position as a "myther". I said I think we will never know.

It makes no difference. The entire edifice of Christianity is entirely made of false assumptions and things that have been proven false about what preceded it, in Hebrew culture. As the Rabbi said, the first followers of the "Way" sub-sect of Jews, who came to be called "Christians" were all Jews. Then Christianity met the larger world and humans changed it all so it would sell.

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
26-10-2014, 07:48 AM
RE: Jesus was NOT the Messiah
(26-10-2014 07:22 AM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  The gospels are not "biographies".

No they are 1st century "biographies", they share all the same elements as other "biographies" written of religious figures figures at the time. In fact they incorporate much of the same elements found in biographies of any historical person at the time. If you believe this is not the case, please describe what qualities of these texts exclude them from this categorization?

Quote:No dear. One can argue here for anything we want.

Of course you can, but that wasn't my point.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
26-10-2014, 07:51 AM (This post was last modified: 26-10-2014 08:01 AM by Bucky Ball.)
RE: Jesus was NOT the Messiah
(26-10-2014 07:48 AM)Tomasia Wrote:  
(26-10-2014 07:22 AM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  The gospels are not "biographies".

No they are 1st century "biographies", they share all the same elements as other "biographies" written of religious figures figures at the time. In fact they incorporate much of the same elements found in biographies of any historical person at the time. If you believe this is not the case, please describe what qualities of these texts exclude them from this categorization?

Quote:No dear. One can argue here for anything we want.

Of course you can, but that wasn't my point.

Prove it. With scholarly references. Ignorant people like you cannot claim anything without scholarly references. Carrier clearly demonstrates, (which you obviously never even read) how they follow a mythic structure. The Greek word used to describe them is "εὐαγγέλιον" (euangélion) which is translated "gospel", "the good news" which is an inherently BIASED view of a believer about someone they never met concerning their BELIEF that Jebus heralded "the coming of the Kingdom of God". The fact that you claim they *may* contain some elements common to other figures IN NO WAY makes them reliable as "historical biography" as it is thought of TODAY.

http://www.amazon.com/The-Power-Parable-...0061875708



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
26-10-2014, 08:04 AM
RE: Jesus was NOT the Messiah
(26-10-2014 07:42 AM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  Post #33.

The lying bitch, who *calls* herself a Christian, who never even read the entire thread, who picked and chose what she would answer, as she is incompetent to even begin disusing any of this, as she proved by her quoting, MIS-CHARACTERIZED my position as a "myther". I said I think we will never know.

Was this directed at me? I wasn't too sure, since you were refering to a female? Or were you using female as an insult?

If it was directed at me, you should probably step away from the computer for bit, make yourself a nice warm cup of tea, with a nice buttery biscuit, unless of course you have high cholesterol, because then I wouldn't suggest the butter, and find someone that will give you a hug, because you're clearly going through some fucked up shit that has nothing to do with anything here.

I apologize if I mislabeled you a mythicist, but your tantrum was totally uncalled for.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
26-10-2014, 08:16 AM (This post was last modified: 26-10-2014 09:07 AM by Bucky Ball.)
RE: Jesus was NOT the Messiah
(26-10-2014 08:04 AM)Tomasia Wrote:  
(26-10-2014 07:42 AM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  Post #33.

The lying bitch, who *calls* herself a Christian, who never even read the entire thread, who picked and chose what she would answer, as she is incompetent to even begin disusing any of this, as she proved by her quoting, MIS-CHARACTERIZED my position as a "myther". I said I think we will never know.

Was this directed at me? I wasn't too sure, since you were refering to a female? Or were you using female as an insult?

If it was directed at me, you should probably step away from the computer for bit, make yourself a nice warm cup of tea, with a nice buttery biscuit, unless of course you have high cholesterol, because then I wouldn't suggest the butter, and find someone that will give you a hug, because you're clearly going through some fucked up shit that has nothing to do with anything here.

I apologize if I mislabeled you a mythicist, but your tantrum was totally uncalled for.

If I need any advice from the likes of fools who don't know the difference between "illusions" and "allusions", or know how to use a spell-cheker, or how to argue anything from their own base of knowledge, I'll be sure and ask.

And you're totally wrong dear. Don't make any assumptions.
I simply don't suffer fools.

Your attempt to deflect attention from the fact you have answered NOT ONE legitimate point has been noted.
http://www.biblicalstudies.org.uk/pdf/jb...llison.pdf

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
26-10-2014, 08:40 AM
RE: Jesus was NOT the Messiah
(26-10-2014 12:08 AM)Tomasia Wrote:  
(25-10-2014 10:12 AM)unfogged Wrote:  Do you see any possibility that the writers of the NT gospels used the OT stories as inspiration for their own works?

Well clearly they did in many parts of their own work, particularly in aspects of Jesus's life outside of his short few years of ministry, like when it came to his birth narratives. The writers, and likely jesus's own followers new very few biographical details of his earlier life, and that's likely why Mark left a birth narrative out completely from his gospel.

It's evident that the whole story of Mary and Joseph fleeing from Egypt, and Herod's killing of the innocent, rather than expressing historical facts, were adapted from the story of Moses. So yes in some parts, the writers did exactly this.

OK, so you accept that at least part of the gospels are fiction. From other posts I gather that you accept that much of the bible in general is men trying to explain their understanding of the god they believe in.

Why do you believe any of it? I've been trying to understand what exactly you do believe but it all seems very nebulous.

On the historicity question, it is misleading at best to say that there are 4 "biographies". Matthew, Luke, and John are just revised editions of Mark and read more like some sort of fan fiction or competing views by members of a newly forming religion that haven't completely formalized their canon. Whether or not Mark is based on a historical figure is irrelevant to discarding the rest. The idea that Mark is a euhemerization of the earlier supernatural Jesus myth does not strike me as improbable which leaves the case for mythicism as least as strong as the case for historicity based on the gospels.

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
[+] 1 user Likes unfogged's post
26-10-2014, 08:55 AM
RE: Jesus was NOT the Messiah
(26-10-2014 08:16 AM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  Your attempt to deflect attention from the fact you have answered NOT ONE legitimate point has been noted.

But still, I'm bored, so lets not break the chew-toy yet shall we?

[Image: E3WvRwZ.gif]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
26-10-2014, 10:27 AM
RE: Jesus was NOT the Messiah
(26-10-2014 08:55 AM)EvolutionKills Wrote:  
(26-10-2014 08:16 AM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  Your attempt to deflect attention from the fact you have answered NOT ONE legitimate point has been noted.

But still, I'm bored, so lets not break the chew-toy yet shall we?

It was broken before it got here, though I kind of agree it's nice to have something other then diddo or MozartLink thrashing about.

When valour preys on reason, it eats the sword it fights with.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
26-10-2014, 11:40 AM
RE: Jesus was NOT the Messiah
(26-10-2014 06:08 AM)Tomasia Wrote:  
(26-10-2014 03:51 AM)EvolutionKills Wrote:  The default position is 'we don't know', and from there, mythicisim answer a lot of questions far better with far less jumps in logic and probability.
Perhaps this would be a good point of reference for us. Rather than settling on “we don’t know”, let’s see if we can settle on a view, that answers a lot of questions better and involves far less jumps in logic and probability. I’d like to summarize this, as that we are seeking the view the holds the greater explanatory capacity.

Just remember that anything more positive than 'I don't know' will require evidence, and mere assertions or logical conjectures won't suffice.



(26-10-2014 06:08 AM)Tomasia Wrote:  My rejection of mythicism is exactly for the reasons you claim to reject historicity, that it requires me to take the sort of leaps in logic, that certain Christians require me to take to accept inerrancy. That it raises far more questions than answers, and is such as unadulterated violation of Occam’s Razor.

The view i’m arguing is not a Christian one, but a purely secular one, like the sort argued by Bart Ehrman. I’m just going to copy and paste what I mean by a historical Jesus, that i posted somewhere else:

“For brevity, a Jesus who had at least four greco-roman biographies, written about him, of what we traditionally refer to as the Gospels, who existed in the first century, as a jewish preacher, who may have believed he was the messiah, or at least someone who his followers believed was; who preached a message of the kingdom of God, and was later crucified by the Romans. Who preached with a style that incorporated irony, reversal, and frustration of expectations, and at the bare minimum the source of the sayings and teachings that are multiply attested, or at least the ones the Jesus seminar, marked with pink and red beans, indicating they the very likely, or probably were things he said. The Jesus who spoke of non-violent resistance in the Jewish context in the Sermon of the Mount, such as the going the extra mile and Roman Law of Angaria, and parables such as the Good Samaritan, Dishonest Steward, Mustard Seed etc.

A Jesus who had possible delusions of grandeur. A Jesus who had at least 4 greco-roman biographies written of him, that incorporated both fact and fictions just like every other first century bio, to not only convey events in his life, but more importantly the meaning and purpose of it. Who had a mother that that was referred to as Mary, and a brother named James. A Jesus who his followers after his humiliating death, attempted to come to terms with it by reading the events of his life back into the jewish scriptures, trying to convey the unexpected death of their messiah as the God’s ultimate will and plan. “

Already one sentence in and you're claiming the Gospels count as biographies? I should, by all rights, stop right here and demand that you go home and actually study before posting any further. But that would require a sporting man, and I don't mind taking advantage of a handicap. Calling the Gospels biographies, instead of the incredibly biased propaganda they where and are, is both laughable and naive. They were faith documents, not historical documents as we would understand them today.

"Many scholars doubt that the Gospels were written by eye-witnesses as their attributions seem to suggest: there is too much evidence of reworking oral traditions and of straight borrowing from other Gospels to make this likely." -Riches, John (2000). The Bible: A Very Short Introduction.



(26-10-2014 06:08 AM)Tomasia Wrote:  Now, you believe this portrait of a historical Jesus, raises far more questions, involves far greater leaps in logic, than the mythicist position?

Correct? I didn’t want to continue with this part, until we can at least agree on this starting point.

Correct. Now considering that I don't take the Gospels as historical biographies (because all of the evidence points to the contrary), you have already dug yourself a monstrous hole.

Good luck with that.



(26-10-2014 06:08 AM)Tomasia Wrote:  
(26-10-2014 03:51 AM)EvolutionKills Wrote:  Which is more probable?

That a real historical Jesus actually made the zig-zag journey across Galilee on foot and was born under the most unusual of circumstances so that he could be from Nazareth and born in Bethlehem?

Or that someone later, with little to no first hand knowledge or context, created a story which they later attempted to pigeonhole Jesus into history? Thus explaining the schizophrenic path of Jesus's journey, along with most other historical inconsistencies; because the Gospels weren't created or even intended to be historically accurate. The point was the story, the narrative, the parables, the message; not the actual places and dates.
Both explanation are pretty convoluted.

It is far easier to make up a convoluted story than it is to actually go out and do it, so there is that.



(26-10-2014 03:51 AM)EvolutionKills Wrote:  The most probable one, is that there was a historical Jesus believed to have been the messiah by his early followers, and who was known at the time to have been from Nazareth. And this created a dilemma for his early followers, because the messiah was supposed to be from Bethlehem. The writer of Luke attempted to resolve this, by making up a story of a census, tying Jesus to Bethlehem. While the writer of Mathew attempts to resolve this by claiming that it was prophesied from the beginning, that the Messiah would be from Nazareth, using a vague reference from Isaiah that stretched credulity on it’s own.

An assertion. How is that more probable than a story made up whole cloth just like all of the other dying and rising sons-of-god that were in circulation durring that time? What evidence do you have to say that Jesus, alone among divine spiritual saviors, had a real historical person at it's core?

So far I see claims, but no evidence.



(26-10-2014 06:08 AM)Tomasia Wrote:  Mathew is the only one to claim Jesus being from Nazareth was prophesied. The absence of this in the other narratives, indicate that the notion of Jesus being from Nazareth, didn’t derive from any OT prophecies. If it did than the other writers likely would have mentioned this, to help support their purported Messiah. But rather this was Mathew’s attempt to resolve a dilemma that Jesus being from Nazareth raised.


Matthew 2:23 (NASB)
"...and came and lived in a city called Nazareth. This was to fulfill what was spoken through the prophets: "He shall be called a Nazarene."

First problem, that passage doesn't appear anywhere in the Hebrew scriptures. Neither the city, nor anyone from it, is ever mentioned anywhere in the Old Testament; but that doesn't stop the author from claiming that it was so "to fulfill what was spoken through the prophets". Put plainly, the author of Matthew doesn't appear to have been above making shit up to suit his needs. So how does the author lying about attribution of a prophesy make a historical Jesus more probable than an entirely fictitious one again? How is someone lying about a real person more probable than lying about a fictitious one?

You reasoning simply doesn't follow.



(26-10-2014 06:08 AM)Tomasia Wrote:  Jesus being born in Nazareth created more problems than it raised. It lead to doubts about his messianic title, than support. Mathew and Luke resort to two different methods to get around this. If they you were attempting to create a purely fictional Jesus, to be sold as the Jewish Messiah, you would’t have him born in Nazareth, you would have just placed him in a less problematic region such as Bethlehem and left it at that.

Well, that's assuming that was the original intent of the author of Mark, whose Gospel the authors of Matthew and Luke largely copied, and which originally ended without the resurrection and ascension. Remember also that the nativity stories, which placed Jesus in Bethlehem, were also added in Matthew and Luke (not that either agrees with the other) and not present in their precursor Mark. Not only that, but it's very probably that even the nativity story was not part of the earliest forms of Matthew and Luke, meaning that the 'location' problem introduced by Bethlehem and Nazareth were the product of later edits to the texts anyways. It's simply errors and inconsistencies introduced by later authors and editors making shit up, not the convoluted telling of what actually happened to one dude in Judea.



(26-10-2014 06:08 AM)Tomasia Wrote:  It does appear quite evident that the writers were forced to confess Nazareth as Jesus’s birth place, rather than this attribute merely being a product of creative choice, or because they needed to address a supposed messianic prophecy.

Do I also need to remind you of Matthew 1:23, where the author entirely misappropriates the passage of Isaiah 7:14?

Matthew 1:23 (NASB)
"BEHOLD, THE VIRGIN SHALL BE WITH CHILD AND SHALL BEAR A SON, AND THEY SHALL CALL HIS NAME IMMANUEL," which translated means, "GOD WITH US."

Isaiah 7:14 (NASB)
Therefore the Lord Himself will give you a sign: Behold, a virgin will be with child and bear a son, and she will call His name Immanuel.

When is Jesus ever referred to as Immanuel? Oh, right, never. If the author is willing to go to these kind of lengths to lie (purposefully or not), what about that makes a historical Jesus more probable than a fictitious one? What is it about lying about a person's past that makes Jesus more likely to be a historical person, rather than one make entirely out of lies? Once again, your logic doesn't follow. I can show the Gospels have a propensity for misappropriation, misquotation, and misapplication of other passages. How is this at all an argument in your favor? People make up shit about made up people all the time, and especially in the time the Gospels originated.



(26-10-2014 06:08 AM)Tomasia Wrote:  I provided a concise, but thorough view here, addressing numerous aspects of the Nazareth question, that took into account the differences between the Gospel narratives, etc….

I showed exactly why this puzzle piece better fits a historical Jesus, than a mythicist one.

Nope, not at all. Not even remotely. But it kind of cute that you think you did.



(26-10-2014 06:08 AM)Tomasia Wrote:  And I don’t see how this particular point involves any leaps in logic, or convoluted reasoning, in fact I think it’s a very sound argument.

Only because you don't know enough to understand why your jumps in logic are just that: jumps. You've made assertions, but utterly failed to justify them.



(26-10-2014 06:08 AM)Tomasia Wrote:  I think than any counter argument from Mythicists on this point, will sound like a great deal like verbal diarrhea, with little depth of substance, at least that’s been my experience.

Wait, what was that? Come again?

(26-10-2014 02:35 AM)Tomasia Wrote:  Now, this is where you troll, when you move from jesting into remarks that are a bit more personal. I understand that when two people who don't really know each other, are communicating online, these sorts of lines get crossed all the time, and I would like to not go there. I'm hoping that in good faith, that we can have a discussion without having to cross this line again.

Thank you

Yeah, fuck you too... Drinking Beverage



(26-10-2014 06:08 AM)Tomasia Wrote:  If you think this puzzle piece fits the Mythicist perspective better, makes better sense, involves less leaps in logic, than the case I just proposed, I would seriously like to hear it.

Oh really?



(26-10-2014 06:08 AM)Tomasia Wrote:  
(26-10-2014 03:51 AM)EvolutionKills Wrote:  ProTip: Gospels are not evidence for the Gospels
Of course the Gospels are not evidence for the Gospels. They are four greco-roman biographies that serve as evidence for the existence of Jesus, or if the mythicist view turns up to be true, they would be evidence suggesting a purely fictional one.

FAIL. The Gospels are not biographies.

Go directly to Jail. Do not pass GO. Do not collect $200.



(26-10-2014 06:08 AM)Tomasia Wrote:  I can use the Gospels for a wide variety of things, such as beliefs in circulation around that period in time. And the text are often used to establish the existence of such figures like Pilate.

We have other sources for the existence of Pilate, which ironically enough, don't mesh at all with his portrayal in the Gospels. Pilate had to be recalled back to Rome for being too brutal to the local population, which is a far stretch from the man he is portrayed in the Gospels; where he allows the Jewish crowd to let a murderer go free in a tradition that there is simply no other outside reference for? So did Pilate act very uncharacteristically generous to the Jews in regard to their handling of Jesus? Or is it more likely that while the authors where making everything up, they fudged Pilate's involvement too? Considering the thematic overtones of the story, it is more probable that what is described didn't actually happen, but was created for the purpose of the author attempting to tell their story. Watch that Richard Carrier clip that Bucky posted, he explains it in far greater detail there.

Actually, I'll save you some trouble.







(26-10-2014 06:08 AM)Tomasia Wrote:  It’s important to realize there’s nothing unusual about the Gospels, as understand as a biography written in the 1st century, of a religious figure.

[Image: 19789999.jpg]

Once again, not biographies.

While you are right in that they are not atypical, you fail to get the point. While the story of Jesus is not unique, that's because it's essentially a Jewish version of the popular Mystery cults of the time. If you take the recurring themes of all of the mystery cults (syncretism, monotheism, individualism, cosmopolitanism), then splice that with Judaism, you essentially get the basis of Christianity.

They were all 'savior gods'.

They are all the 'son' or 'daughter' of God.

They all undergo a Passion.

They all obtain victory over death, which they share with their followers.

They all have stories about them set in human history on earth.

Yet non of them actually existed. (Well, except for Jesus, right? Rolleyes )



(26-10-2014 06:08 AM)Tomasia Wrote:  It might be unusual for a biography written in our time, where we have a different purposes in mind when writing history. But for the greco-roman world, the Gospels being a biography and being written to convey a message, and moral, are not mutually exclusive.

See also: Making shit up wholesale.

The Greco-Romans did this for all of their other dying-and-rising sons and daughters of gods, so once again, why is Jesus the lone historical exception here? Why is Jesus a real historical figure, but not Romulus, Bacchus, Mithras, Zalmoxis, etc.?



(26-10-2014 06:08 AM)Tomasia Wrote:  
(26-10-2014 03:51 AM)EvolutionKills Wrote:  What makes you think that historicity is the default position?
I don’t think it’s the default position, but it’s rather the position with the greater explanatory power, meaning it makes better sense of all the various puzzle pieces, than any competing non-historicity account.

So far you've utterly failed to show it's anything more than the traditional default position, and that most people simply don't seem to be aware of just how nonexistent the foundation of its justifications truly are.



(26-10-2014 06:08 AM)Tomasia Wrote:  I myself used to be a quasi-mythicist, when I knew very little about historical study. I used to hear all those pagan comparisons, and was completely taken away, before I even started to question these things. Then I started looking into it and I realized that a lot of the stuff out there was junk, and this was even noted as such by other mythicist.

Bad explanations or myth theories still don't magically poof into existence evidence for a historical Jesus, which you are still lacking.



(26-10-2014 06:08 AM)Tomasia Wrote:  I have explored the topic quite a bit, but purely as a hobbyist more so than an academic. I have sat through a few electives in college, some free courses, and read a good deal on this as well. And I’ve been discussing this topic online with non-believers for close to a decade now. The discussions have always interested me. It’s nice to study something, and a have an outlet to go back and forth with your own views with honest supporters and opponents, except of course when the dialogue turns ugly.

The reason I’m saying all this, is so that it’s understand that I’m not attempting to be dogmatic about any of the views I expressed here, and would like to actually have a reasonable discussion, more so than anything else, and I hope you can commit to the same.

Drinking Beverage

[Image: E3WvRwZ.gif]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 5 users Like EvolutionKills's post
26-10-2014, 11:43 AM
RE: Jesus was NOT the Messiah
(26-10-2014 08:16 AM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  
(26-10-2014 08:04 AM)Tomasia Wrote:  Was this directed at me? I wasn't too sure, since you were refering to a female? Or were you using female as an insult?

If it was directed at me, you should probably step away from the computer for bit, make yourself a nice warm cup of tea, with a nice buttery biscuit, unless of course you have high cholesterol, because then I wouldn't suggest the butter, and find someone that will give you a hug, because you're clearly going through some fucked up shit that has nothing to do with anything here.

I apologize if I mislabeled you a mythicist, but your tantrum was totally uncalled for.

If I need any advice from the likes of fools who don't know the difference between "illusions" and "allusions", or know how to use a spell-cheker, or how to argue anything from their own base of knowledge, I'll be sure and ask.

And you're totally wrong dear. Don't make any assumptions.
I simply don't suffer fools.

Your attempt to deflect attention from the fact you have answered NOT ONE legitimate point has been noted.
http://www.biblicalstudies.org.uk/pdf/jb...llison.pdf

*spell-checker.
Oh the irony.

I'm homophobic in the same way that I'm arachnophobic. I'm not scared of gay people but I'm going to scream if I find one in my bath.

I'm. Also homophobic in the same way I'm arachnophobic. I'm scared of spiders but I'd still fuck'em.
- my friend Marc
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes TarzanSmith's post
Post Reply
Forum Jump: