Jesus was NOT the Messiah
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
26-10-2014, 11:47 AM
RE: Jesus was NOT the Messiah
Quote:I would recommend Bart Ehrman's book on the existence of Jesus to better understand why one scholar believes Jesus' existence is more plausible than myth. I've read Earl Doherty (and listened to Richard Carrier), and I don't find their work convincing.


I suspect that you actively resist convincing. Ehrman's jesus is not the miracle working godboy of the gospels. I assume we can all agree that this is the tale told by the gospels?

That being the case, where...beyond wishful thinking....does Ehrman come up with evidence for his particular vision. FOr that matter where does Aslan come up with his? No less a figure than J. D. Crossan points out that the sheer variety of historical "jesuses" is a cause for embarrassment.

Much as with early xtian artwork - everyone seems to see what they want to see.


Even if there is nothing to be seen.

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
26-10-2014, 12:55 PM
RE: Jesus was NOT the Messiah
(26-10-2014 11:43 AM)TarzanSmith Wrote:  
(26-10-2014 08:16 AM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  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.

That's it ? That's all you have to contribute ?

There were at least 40 gospels.
They were not "biographies"
No one here can provide one example of another biography from that period that even remotely looks like what the gospels look like.
http://penelope.uchicago.edu/Thayer/E/Ro...lius*.html
http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/ancient/s...-rolfe.asp
Here are a few real scholars. Not one agrees they are "biographies".
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/...spels.html
The reason we ended up with 4 is that the Roman Emperor wanted them cut down to unify the cult so he could use it for political advantage.

Ireneaus : Adversus Haereses:
"The Gospels could not possibly be either more or less in number than they are. Since there are four zones of the world in which we live, and four principal winds, while the Church is spread over all the earth, and the pillar and foundation of the Church is the gospel, and the Spirit of life, it fittingly has four pillars, everywhere breathing out incorruption and revivifying men. From this it is clear that the Word, the artificer of all things, being manifested to men gave us the gospel, fourfold in form but held together by one Spirit. As David said, when asking for his coming, 'O sitter upon the cherubim, show yourself '. For the cherubim have four faces, and their faces are images of the activity of the Son of God. For the first living creature, it says, was like a lion, signifying his active and princely and royal character; the second was like an ox, showing his sacrificial and priestly order; the third had the face of a man, indicating very clearly his coming in human guise; and the fourth was like a flying eagle, making plain the giving of the Spirit who broods over the Church. Now the Gospels, in which Christ is enthroned, are like these. (3.11.8)

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, 03:48 PM
RE: Jesus was NOT the Messiah
(26-10-2014 12:55 PM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  
(26-10-2014 11:43 AM)TarzanSmith Wrote:  *spell-checker.
Oh the irony.

That's it ? That's all you have to contribute ?

Ya more or less. All I have is a cell phone so any longer posts tend to be a major pain in the ass.

Also the historical Jesus is not an area in which I have much experience and the thread had moved more narrowly in that direction so the stuff I was planning on saying has become irrelevant.

However I think it is important to mention that history prior to Ranke was for the most part a subset of rhetoric. Aristotle called history the lowest form of poetry after all. Matthews gospel is very clearly a work of rhetoric pointed towards convincing a group of Jews that Jesus was the messiah. As such his anecdotes are not chronologically organized but rhetorically so but still fit into a narrative.

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
26-10-2014, 04:46 PM
RE: Jesus was NOT the Messiah
(26-10-2014 03:48 PM)TarzanSmith Wrote:  
(26-10-2014 12:55 PM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  That's it ? That's all you have to contribute ?

Ya more or less. All I have is a cell phone so any longer posts tend to be a major pain in the ass.

Also the historical Jesus is not an area in which I have much experience and the thread had moved more narrowly in that direction so the stuff I was planning on saying has become irrelevant.

However I think it is important to mention that history prior to Ranke was for the most part a subset of rhetoric. Aristotle called history the lowest form of poetry after all. Matthews gospel is very clearly a work of rhetoric pointed towards convincing a group of Jews that Jesus was the messiah. As such his anecdotes are not chronologically organized but rhetorically so but still fit into a narrative.

Oh Aristotle... That silly, silly man.

The people closely associated with the namesake of female canines are suffering from a nondescript form of lunacy.
"Anti-environmentalism is like standing in front of a forest and going 'quick kill them they're coming right for us!'" - Jake Farr-Wharton, The Imaginary Friend Show.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Free Thought's post
26-10-2014, 05:21 PM
RE: Jesus was NOT the Messiah
(26-10-2014 04:46 PM)Free Thought Wrote:  
(26-10-2014 03:48 PM)TarzanSmith Wrote:  Ya more or less. All I have is a cell phone so any longer posts tend to be a major pain in the ass.

Also the historical Jesus is not an area in which I have much experience and the thread had moved more narrowly in that direction so the stuff I was planning on saying has become irrelevant.

However I think it is important to mention that history prior to Ranke was for the most part a subset of rhetoric. Aristotle called history the lowest form of poetry after all. Matthews gospel is very clearly a work of rhetoric pointed towards convincing a group of Jews that Jesus was the messiah. As such his anecdotes are not chronologically organized but rhetorically so but still fit into a narrative.

Oh Aristotle... That silly, silly man.

Archaic Hebrew did not have a word for "history".
The foundations of what it even meant to "write" History was an active discussion at the turn of Millennium among Roman authors.. "Objective" writing was not something that was valued. Tacitus claimed he did it, ("sine ira et studio" ..“without anger and partiality”), but he obviously didn't. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roman_historiography

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
26-10-2014, 10:01 PM (This post was last modified: 26-10-2014 10:06 PM by EvolutionKills.)
RE: Jesus was NOT the Messiah
(26-10-2014 06:53 AM)Tomasia Wrote:  
(26-10-2014 04:20 AM)EvolutionKills Wrote:  Or that the story was part of a narrative created by the author who cared more about his story and the message he was trying to convey, over correct historical accuracy or context?
This is kind of the problem when someone wants to argue for a position other than the one they hold, particularly when they want to go back and forth between these two, because it ends up muddying things up a bit.

Uh, what the actual fuck?



(26-10-2014 06:53 AM)Tomasia Wrote:  Either you are arguing with me that Jesus was likely killed solely because of his actions in the temple, or you’re arguing that he didn’t exist at all, and that the whole temple story, and everything else was invented to convey a message.

What I'm saying is, within context, if you take the actions of Jesus in the story at face value they would lead to a different conclusion. Someone who had caused that sort of disruption in the Temple market would have been put down hard on the spot, by the cadre of troops stationed there for that very reason to prevent that very thing. However there is still no good reason to take it at face value. So what is more likely? That a highly improbable event actually happened? Or that somebody made up a story with an improbable event to suit their story?



(26-10-2014 06:53 AM)Tomasia Wrote:  My argument was directed at someone arguing, at least hypothetically, for the former, but not if you’re trying to argue that none of this took place.

If you’re merely arguing the mythicist, non-historicist position, then my comments here about the Temple and why Jesus was killed, were not addressed to you, and we can just let the remarks be, to be picked up by those who want to argue this alternative historicist argument.

Drinking Beverage



(26-10-2014 06:53 AM)Tomasia Wrote:  
(26-10-2014 04:20 AM)EvolutionKills Wrote:  Please be more careful with your phrasing in the future then. So then do please be more specific. Stories of suffering, dying, and rising god or the sons and daughters of god were very common. So which other passion stories also included protagonists killed by mobs? Surely if "nearly all" contain this thematic staple they should be easy to cite, list, and quote; correct?
Dionysius, Oedipus off the top of my head and I’d have to pull out my copy of Violence and Sacred to recall the names of others. But you’re right my phrasing was poor. I didn’t mean just deities figures who died, and rose, but were rather killed as a sort of sacrifice, as a scapegoat, as well. Either way, I don’t feel like digging through all the accounts, providing relevant passages and such for this, since it doesn’t have much to do with the argument for historicity. I rather devote my time to the historicity vs mythicism question for now than anything else.

And still you don't get the point. Once again, why is Jesus the lone exception? Why out of all of the suffering dying and rising again sons of god that both predated and were contemporary, why is Jesus the only historical figure? I'm trying to be consistent here. If there is insufficient evidence to grant Romulus/Bacchus/Mithras/Zalmoxis/etc. footing as a real person in history, then why make an exception for Jesus? The evidence for a historical Jesus is no better, so I am still waiting for sufficient justification for this exception. Either they're all mythic, or you have to concede they were all historical figures; unless you can justify why Jesus is the exception. So far you have utterly failed to do so.

[Image: E3WvRwZ.gif]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes EvolutionKills's post
26-10-2014, 11:47 PM
RE: Jesus was NOT the Messiah
(26-10-2014 11:40 AM)EvolutionKills Wrote:  
(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?

Err?
I’ll take your lack of response to mean that you’re not able to provide a more compelling explanation regarding the whole Nazareth thing.

(26-10-2014 11:40 AM)EvolutionKills Wrote:  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 [….]Calling the Gospels biographies, instead of the incredibly biased propaganda they where and are, is both laughable and naive…"Many scholars doubt that the Gospels were written by eye-witnesses

Well, I think you should take you own advice and study a little harder here. Biographies are rarely ever eye-witness accounts, in fact not a single greco-roman biography of a historical figure was an eye witness account, and were composed a good deal of time after the individuals death. The writers of these biographies were also bias, and engaged in a great deal of propagandizing their characters as well. We get all sort of miraculous attributes being associated with their respective historical figure.

And as I pointed out previously, when pointing out that the gospels were written as greco-roman biographies, it’s in relationship to the style of biographies at the time, not our time.

Of course this alone doesn’t indicate beyond any shadow of a doubt that Jesus existed as a person, even Carrier points out that stories of Romulus and Remus were written in the style of biography as well, though they were purely mythical figures. This is quite evident in the Gospel of Luke, in which the writer intro his narrative by stating he was chronicling the events that took place, and using eye witness accounts that where handed down to him, and also did some very careful investigating himself.

The Gospels at the very least gave up the impression of being biographies, and were written in a style consistent at the time with them.

There could be a number of possibilities here, some of them ones that stick out for our discussion are:

A.) That they were composed in this style purely as a stylistic device, like what was done with Romulus and Remus.

B.) They were composed in this style as an elaborate deception, to fool their readers into thinking that Jesus existed as a historical person.

C.) They were composed in this style because they were dealing with an actual historical person.

Quote: 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”.

Exactly, so why would the author of Mathew make this claim? What likely motivation would he have had? The notion that Jesus was from Nazareth wasn’t his, Mark, an earlier writer already made this point. But Mark doesn’t view Jesus being from Nazareth as a fulfillment of prophecy, it’s only Mathew that does that.

Quote: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 can’t accuse someone of lying unless you first establish intent. If Mathew was creating a fictional narrative of a messiah, and claimed he was from Nazareth, because he misread a new testament passage, we wouldn’t accuse him of lying, just misreading. But of course Matthew didn’t derive the notion of Jesus being from Nazareth from the OT, since we know this was attested to prior to his writing in Mark.

If you want to claim that he was lying, meaning that he wrote the part about the prophecy, to deceive his readers, than you would have to elaborate as to why he would have lied about this?

Quote: How is someone lying about a real person more probable than lying about a fictitious one

Because you can’t lie about the life of a fictitious person, lol. You can’t accuse JK Rowling of lying about the life of Harry Potter. When you’re writing a purely fictional narrative everything is not real already.

You lie for sake of covering something real.

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

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?


Again, if they are all writing fiction, you can’t accuse them of lying, lol.

Lying would only make sense in lieu of a historical person, because then it would mean that they were embellishing certain aspects of his life, attributing certain things to him, that were not a part of the real historical person.

If you want to argue that Mathew misunderstood an Isaiah passage, and this resulted in him writing of Mary as a virgin, than I have nothing to argue with. But of course when it comes to Jesus being from Nazareth, clearly Mathew didn’t get this from the OT prophecies. In fact he attempts to justify Jesus being from Nazareth with a supposed OT prophecies, because of the problem Jesus being from Nazareth raised.

Quote: 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?  )

Actually you have all sort of similarities with Jesus, and numerous historical cult figures, particularly in regards to what their followers believed of them, such as L. Ron Hubbard. Who was conceived by a exception mother, and noted for his intelligence at a very young age akin to boy Jesus in the temple. In fact these similarities are noted by historians as well, such as Dorthe Refslund Christensen who notes that many aspects of the “official version of Hubbard's early life parallel more conventional religious narratives, notably the life of Jesus”

Or taken Kim-Jong-il, who even in his official eulogy was claimed to have been divine, born of heaven, and performed miracles that exceeding those attributed to jesus.

http://oxfordindex.oup.com/view/10.1093/...X.003.0011

Or in regards to Gautama Buddha, we have all sorts of fabulous supernatural tails about him, and in fact we even have less evidence of his existence that we do for Jesus, and yet most people acknowledge that he was a historical person.

Or let’s take a more recent Messiah claimant, like Sabbatai Zevi, when he was forced under penalty of death to convert to Islam, which devastated his followers. They eventually claimed that his conversion was a part of the Messianic scheme, that this was to save thousands of Muslims.

Jesus’s death which was also an unexpected event, has more in common here with the disillusionment of Zevi’s followers, than anything found in myths. The writers all acknowledged that Jesus’s death was an event that took his followers by surprise, and even Paul has to state that the Crucifixion is a stumbling block. This, like Zevi’s conversion to Islam, was a devastating turn of a events for a messiah claimant. In fact when the Roman’s crucified other messiah claimants, their following diminished along with them. They were not able to reconcile this.

The only ones that were able to do so, with any real success, where the followers of Jesus. Who reconciled the utter failure of the cross, with a claim that Jesus conquered the cross through the resurrection.

It easy to remark on the similarity between a Jesus who was believed to be divine , and non-existent divine beings. There’s considerable amount of similarities in what is said about them. A person who is looking at Jesus solely from the lens of these pagan gods, might easily become enchanted by the tale mythicist weave. But all you have to do is add some historical figures, cult leaders, who were also believed to be divine into the mix, and the mythicist tale begins to lose it’s appeal.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
26-10-2014, 11:48 PM
RE: Jesus was NOT the Messiah
(26-10-2014 10:01 PM)EvolutionKills Wrote:  We have other sources for the existence of Pilate, which ironically enough, don't mesh at all with his portrayal in the Gospels.

Actually we only have two sources for Pilate outside the Gospels, and one encryption mentioning his name and title, found about 50 years ago. Those two sources, are Josephus and Philo. He is also mentioned in passing by Tacitus, but only in reference to Jesus being crucified under him.


No other historians at the time mentioned him at all. It is interesting that a roman political figure as important as Pilate, doesn’t appear on the radar of anyone else other than these two Jews, all the accounts of his actions exist no where else.

Quote: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;

The accounts of Pilate present him as a conflicted figure. Pilate goes under the cover of night to place images and effigies on their standards when entering Jerusalem. When the jews protested, Pilate threatened to kill them, but yet he wasn’t willing to follow through on this. When they were willing to die, he had the images removed. To quote Josephus: “Pilate was deeply affected with their firm resolution to keep their laws inviolable, and presently commanded the images to be carried back from Jerusalem to Cesarea.” It’s interesting that Josephus writes of Pilate as “being deeply affected”, which doesn’t bode well for the picture of Pilate as man of sheer wanton cruelty, but rather conflicted in this regard.


In fact the Jews clearly weren’t as afraid of Pilate as he might of liked. On two separate occasions the Jews circumvented his authority by appeals to Tiberius and Vitellius, both of who were sympathetic to the grievances of the Jews.

With these sort of things in mind, you can perhaps see why this picture is a bit more complicated here when attempting to create the sort of person Pilate was. But we know from these sources that Jews did have somewhat of a voice in Rome, and when they used this voice the often were able to get their grievances addressed. In fact we also know that they went to Pilate first “, they came in multitudes to Cesarea, and interceded with Pilate many days that he would remove the images;” and it’s only when Pilate refused to given in to their demands, would they take it to someone higher.

Would the Jewish authorities have taken allegation of a messianic claimant with a fervent following, who opposed takes to Caesar, was attempting to subvert Rome, who they despised, to Pilate? The historical accounts of Pilate, suggest that they likely would have, if they wanted Pilate to act, as they have done so in the past.

Would Pilate have acted on their instigation, particularly knowing that in the past the Jews would have gone to his superiors, causing more trouble for him than what it was worth? It’s clearly in the realm of possibility.

I’m not trying to argue the validity of the whole Pilate narrative here, but I’m merely pointing out that the whole psychology of Pilate in the Gospel, at least in regards to the things I mentioned, does fall in line with the historical portrait of him, as a person who was by these accounts conflicted.

We only have two accounts of Pilate, and know almost next to nothing about his early life, and even though we both are arguing for his psychology, we have to acknowledge that we have little to go off. And I’m merely arguing even with what little we do have, that the Gospel writers portrait of Pilate, even if they were works of fiction, were not so far out of sync with the picture the other accounts paint of him
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
27-10-2014, 01:09 AM
RE: Jesus was NOT the Messiah
(26-10-2014 11:47 PM)Tomasia Wrote:  
(26-10-2014 11:40 AM)EvolutionKills Wrote:  Oh really?
Err?
I’ll take your lack of response to mean that you’re not able to provide a more compelling explanation regarding the whole Nazareth thing.

Context dumbass. You didn't quote the point right before that where you equated mythicism with 'verbal diarrhea', so this was me being credulous of your claim that you would 'seriously like to hear' what I had to say.

Thanks for quote mining, because that's not shady at all. Dodgy



(26-10-2014 11:47 PM)Tomasia Wrote:  
(26-10-2014 11:40 AM)EvolutionKills Wrote:  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 [….]Calling the Gospels biographies, instead of the incredibly biased propaganda they where and are, is both laughable and naive…"Many scholars doubt that the Gospels were written by eye-witnesses
Well, I think you should take you own advice and study a little harder here. Biographies are rarely ever eye-witness accounts, in fact not a single greco-roman biography of a historical figure was an eye witness account, and were composed a good deal of time after the individuals death. The writers of these biographies were also bias, and engaged in a great deal of propagandizing their characters as well. We get all sort of miraculous attributes being associated with their respective historical figure.

The Gospels were not historical biographies, they were faith documents; written by Christians for Christians. They didn't have a concept of objective history as we do now.



(26-10-2014 11:47 PM)Tomasia Wrote:  And as I pointed out previously, when pointing out that the gospels were written as greco-roman biographies, it’s in relationship to the style of biographies at the time, not our time.

Did you at all read the links about euhemerization that I posted earlier?



(26-10-2014 11:47 PM)Tomasia Wrote:  Of course this alone doesn’t indicate beyond any shadow of a doubt that Jesus existed as a person, even Carrier points out that stories of Romulus and Remus were written in the style of biography as well, though they were purely mythical figures.

Right. I'm still waiting for the point where you present the evidence that compels us to make Jesus the lone historical exception.



(26-10-2014 11:47 PM)Tomasia Wrote:  This is quite evident in the Gospel of Luke, in which the writer intro his narrative by stating he was chronicling the events that took place, and using eye witness accounts that where handed down to him, and also did some very careful investigating himself.

Luke is a great historian!

How do we know this?

Luke says so right at the beginning of his Gospel!

Brilliant!

Dodgy



(26-10-2014 11:47 PM)Tomasia Wrote:  The Gospels at the very least gave up the impression of being biographies, and were written in a style consistent at the time with them.

Consistent with euhemerization.



(26-10-2014 11:47 PM)Tomasia Wrote:  There could be a number of possibilities here, some of them ones that stick out for our discussion are:

A.) That they were composed in this style purely as a stylistic device, like what was done with Romulus and Remus.

B.) They were composed in this style as an elaborate deception, to fool their readers into thinking that Jesus existed as a historical person.

C.) They were composed in this style because they were dealing with an actual historical person.

How many other contemporary dying-and-rising sons-of-god fall into category C? So once again, what evidence do you have that would compel us to make Jesus the exception here?



(26-10-2014 11:47 PM)Tomasia Wrote:  
(26-10-2014 11:40 AM)EvolutionKills Wrote:  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”.
Exactly, so why would the author of Mathew make this claim? What likely motivation would he have had?

So I take it you didn't watch the Richard Carrier video that Bucky and I both posted, where he explains the literary and mythic structure the author was using? That it's inclusion is non-sensical in reality, but fits a consistent rhetorical pattern?



(26-10-2014 11:47 PM)Tomasia Wrote:  The notion that Jesus was from Nazareth wasn’t his, Mark, an earlier writer already made this point. But Mark doesn’t view Jesus being from Nazareth as a fulfillment of prophecy, it’s only Mathew that does that.

Mark was the first fiction, Matthew took it and tried to fix some mistakes while introducing other absurdities in his attempt to further shoehorn his Jesus into history. This is not at all hard to imagine. Once again, people make shit up about made up people all the time!



(26-10-2014 11:47 PM)Tomasia Wrote:  
(26-10-2014 11:40 AM)EvolutionKills Wrote:  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 can’t accuse someone of lying unless you first establish intent.

It is a lie; whether through ignorance, omission, or purposeful deceit.



(26-10-2014 11:47 PM)Tomasia Wrote:  If Mathew was creating a fictional narrative of a messiah, and claimed he was from Nazareth, because he misread a new testament passage, we wouldn’t accuse him of lying, just misreading.

A mistake made out of ignorance is still a mistake, an un-truth, a lie.



(26-10-2014 11:47 PM)Tomasia Wrote:  But of course Matthew didn’t derive the notion of Jesus being from Nazareth from the OT, since we know this was attested to prior to his writing in Mark.

If you want to claim that he was lying, meaning that he wrote the part about the prophecy, to deceive his readers, than you would have to elaborate as to why he would have lied about this?

A simple attempt to shore up his Jesus' divine credentials to an audience that wouldn't know any better. Drinking Beverage



(26-10-2014 11:47 PM)Tomasia Wrote:  
(26-10-2014 11:40 AM)EvolutionKills Wrote:  How is someone lying about a real person more probable than lying about a fictitious one?
Because you can’t lie about the life of a fictitious person, lol. You can’t accuse JK Rowling of lying about the life of Harry Potter. When you’re writing a purely fictional narrative everything is not real already.

You lie for sake of covering something real.

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. Because Harry Potter doesn't exist in reality, that's why his story is fiction.

So how is Jesus different from Harry Potter? Why should we believe that Jesus is any more real, has any more presence in history, than Harry Potter?



(26-10-2014 11:47 PM)Tomasia Wrote:  
(26-10-2014 11:40 AM)EvolutionKills Wrote:  Do I also need to remind you of Matthew 1:23, where the author entirely misappropriates the passage of Isaiah 7:14?

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?
Again, if they are all writing fiction, you can’t accuse them of lying, lol.

Writing fiction, and attempting to pass it off as non-fiction, is disingenuous. Why is this a hard concept for you to understand? Facepalm



(26-10-2014 11:47 PM)Tomasia Wrote:  Lying would only make sense in lieu of a historical person, because then it would mean that they were embellishing certain aspects of his life, attributing certain things to him, that were not a part of the real historical person.

Or it could also mean they where making shit up wholesale, for fuck's sake...



(26-10-2014 11:47 PM)Tomasia Wrote:  If you want to argue that Mathew misunderstood an Isaiah passage, and this resulted in him writing of Mary as a virgin, than I have nothing to argue with. But of course when it comes to Jesus being from Nazareth, clearly Mathew didn’t get this from the OT prophecies. In fact he attempts to justify Jesus being from Nazareth with a supposed OT prophecies, because of the problem Jesus being from Nazareth raised.

What part of 'Matthew crimped almost everything from Mark' did you not understand?



(26-10-2014 11:47 PM)Tomasia Wrote:  
(26-10-2014 11:40 AM)EvolutionKills Wrote:  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?  )
Actually you have all sort of similarities with Jesus, and numerous historical cult figures, particularly in regards to what their followers believed of them, such as L. Ron Hubbard. Who was conceived by a exception mother, and noted for his intelligence at a very young age akin to boy Jesus in the temple. In fact these similarities are noted by historians as well, such as Dorthe Refslund Christensen who notes that many aspects of the “official version of Hubbard's early life parallel more conventional religious narratives, notably the life of Jesus”

Way to try and dodge the point. The point being, once again, that these where all contemporaneous cults, most of which predated Christianity.

L. Ron Hubbard was not a dying and rising divine savior. Also, we have his fucking birth certificate. Nice deflection, but an absolute failure. Facepalm



(26-10-2014 11:47 PM)Tomasia Wrote:  Or taken Kim-Jong-il, who even in his official eulogy was claimed to have been divine, born of heaven, and performed miracles that exceeding those attributed to jesus.

For fuck's sake, we have photographic evidence of him you moron. Now you're not even trying...



(26-10-2014 11:47 PM)Tomasia Wrote:  Or in regards to Gautama Buddha, we have all sorts of fabulous supernatural tails about him, and in fact we even have less evidence of his existence that we do for Jesus, and yet most people acknowledge that he was a historical person.

Most people 'acknowledge' that Jesus is historical too, that doesn't make it true. That's precisely what we've been arguing. It could very well be that the 'majority consensus' for the historicity for Buddha is just as weak, or it could in fact be much stronger.

But once again, why do you refuse to compare Jesus to his contemporary examples that most closely resemble him? Why do you continue to insist on making Jesus the lone except when compared to Romulus, Mithras, Bacchus, Zalmoxis, etc.?



(26-10-2014 11:47 PM)Tomasia Wrote:  Or let’s take a more recent Messiah claimant, like Sabbatai Zevi, when he was forced under penalty of death to convert to Islam, which devastated his followers. They eventually claimed that his conversion was a part of the Messianic scheme, that this was to save thousands of Muslims.

You are really grasping at straws here... Dodgy

We have better evidence for Zevi, simple as that. Why do you continue refuse to compare Jesus to his contemporaries?



(26-10-2014 11:47 PM)Tomasia Wrote:  Jesus’s death which was also an unexpected event, has more in common here with the disillusionment of Zevi’s followers, than anything found in myths. The writers all acknowledged that Jesus’s death was an event that took his followers by surprise, and even Paul has to state that the Crucifixion is a stumbling block.

You are, once again, arguing from the assumption of truth and historicity. When you write fiction you can claim anything you want. Apparently this concept is lost upon you. Without evidence for their claims, their probability for actually happening is no better than it not having actually happened. So assuming that Jesus really existed, as did his followers, and comparing them to an instance for which we have far better evidence for, is simply unproductive.

You continue to refuse to compare Jesus within his contemporary context, and I'm left wonder why?



(26-10-2014 11:47 PM)Tomasia Wrote:  This, like Zevi’s conversion to Islam, was a devastating turn of a events for a messiah claimant. In fact when the Roman’s crucified other messiah claimants, their following diminished along with them. They were not able to reconcile this.

The only ones that were able to do so, with any real success, where the followers of Jesus. Who reconciled the utter failure of the cross, with a claim that Jesus conquered the cross through the resurrection.

A simple claim. Where is it required that a historical Jesus be needed for people to believe those claims? It simply isn't needed. A mythic Jesus explains the success of Christianity just as well. The only thing need to explain it's success is the belief in Jesus; whether he was real or not is immaterial, all that was required was the belief. This argument gets you nowhere.



(26-10-2014 11:47 PM)Tomasia Wrote:  It easy to remark on the similarity between a Jesus who was believed to be divine , and non-existent divine beings.

Because, most likely, Jesus is also a "non-existent divine being". Drinking Beverage



(26-10-2014 11:47 PM)Tomasia Wrote:  There’s considerable amount of similarities in what is said about them. A person who is looking at Jesus solely from the lens of these pagan gods, might easily become enchanted by the tale mythicist weave. But all you have to do is add some historical figures, cult leaders, who were also believed to be divine into the mix, and the mythicist tale begins to lose it’s appeal.

But the connection you are drawing with more modern, and far better established figures, does you no good. Comparing Jesus to Zevi, whom we have good evidence actually existed, doesn't mean that Zevi's evidence for existence rubs off onto Jesus by proxy. Zevi existed in a different time and place. You however insist on comparing Jesus with anything and everything but the contemporary mystery cults. I'm trying to compare apples and apples and asking you what makes your apple unique, while you insist on comparing your apple with oranges. The reason for this is pretty clear, because actually comparing Jesus to the other mystery cults (the most applicable comparison available to us) does you no favors.

If the best you can do is point at Kim-Jong-il and Sabbatai Zevi existing, and then claim that Jesus existed because they did too (because reasons), your argument is complete and absolute unfettered bullshit.

[Image: E3WvRwZ.gif]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 3 users Like EvolutionKills's post
27-10-2014, 03:21 AM (This post was last modified: 27-10-2014 03:50 AM by Mark Fulton.)
RE: Jesus was NOT the Messiah
I've just read this entire thread and enjoyed every bit of it.

Time for me to throw in my $.02 worth on a few points.

I'll start with "Nazareth"...
Yeshua was a Nazarene, as stated in the bible: Acts referred to
“Jesus Christ the Nazarene” (Acts 2:22, 3:6, 4:10, 6:14, 22:8, 26:9, NJB.) Most Christians assume the term “Nazarene” referred to the fact that Jesus came from the village of Nazareth. This was, after all, what Matthew claimed, (Matt. 2:23) but Nazareth the place was probably not the real origin of the term. On (almost) every occasion that Jesus was referred to as being “of Nazareth,” the real meaning is “the Nazarene” (http://www.essene.com/What is a Nazarene.htm.) Nazareth the village probably didn’t exist in Yeshua’s time. (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZxEJHO8KIXY). Calling him Jesus “of Nazareth” was a ploy to distract from his sectarian affiliations. The bible made it clear the term “Nazarene” referred to a sect, when in the book of Acts, Paul is accused of being a Nazarene.
“The plain truth is that we find this man a perfect pest; he stirs up trouble among Jews the world over, and is a ringleader of the Nazarene sect.” (Acts 24:5, NJB.) An important religious sect would not have been named after an obscure Galilean village.

Hugh Schonfield, who devoted his life to studying Judaism and Yeshua, claims Nazarenism was an ancient version of Judaism. (http://archive.org/search.php?query=creator%3A”Hugh J.Schonfield” AND subject%3A”Nazarenes”). He thought the original founder of the Nazarene sect may have been a Jewish-Arabian prophet named Essa in approximately 400 BCE. So, if he was right, they were already well established in Jesus’ time.

Many eminent scholars have linked the Nazarenes with the Essenian sect at Qumran. One might consider the Nazarene sect a strongly developed messianic form of “Essenism.” (http://www.essene.com/History&Essenes/TrimmNazars.htm).
John the Baptist, Yeshua’s family, disciples and followers were all Nazarenes. The “pillars” Paul refers to (James, Peter, and John) in his second letter to the Galatians, were the leaders and key figures of this group after Yeshua’s death. They too were Jews, not Christians. They practiced circumcision, believed in baptism, and were strict about the Sabbath. They were vegetarians who didn’t approve of the slaughter of animals, either for food or sacrifice. They developed their own “Halacha,” which was their interpretation of the Torah. They were true believers in the power and glory of Israel, saw themselves as God’s chosen people, and were vehemently opposed to the Romans. I think they were zealots, willing to take the Romans on, which was why the Roman world considered a Nazarene “a pest” who “stirs up trouble among Jews the world over.”

They considered the temple was the house of God, but were opposed to the Sadducees who they regarded as Roman collaborators. They had a broad base of support among Jews throughout Judea and much of the Roman Empire. Many ordinary Jews and Pharisees would have considered the Nazarenes brothers in the struggle against Rome.

Yeshua became their chief after John the Baptist’s death, and he remained in charge for (probably) a few years. Leadership was inherited from blood relations, which explains it passing from John the Baptist to Yeshua, and after Yeshua’s death, on to James, his brother.

James and the other Nazarenes didn’t think Yeshua was the son of God, or that he needed to die to save anyone from their sins (http://www.petahtikvah.com/Articles/nazarenes.htm). They believed he was a (human) prophet who they hoped could be Israel’s messiah.

We read very little about this group in the pages of history because mainly Gentiles wrote that history, and the early Christians ignored the Nazarenes, or wrote them off as heretics, or tried to claim that some of them believed in the divinity of Christ. I think the modern reader interested in Jesus should be interested in their story.
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Mark Fulton's post
Post Reply
Forum Jump: