What is the general opinion on the existence of Jesus?
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
27-05-2016, 10:28 AM (This post was last modified: 27-05-2016 12:33 PM by Bucky Ball.)
RE: What is the general opinion on the existence of Jesus?
(27-05-2016 08:59 AM)Deltabravo Wrote:  
(23-05-2016 04:00 PM)Fatbaldhobbit Wrote:  Supposedly jesus came into Jerusalem on the eve of Passover, when the city was a veritable powderkeg. The powers in charge were worried about rebelling Jews.

By trashing the Jewish temple, he pissed off the priesthood. They grabbed him and sent him to the Romans.

By claiming to be King of the Jews, he was subverting Roman authority. The Romans had installed Herod(?) Or whoever, as the Jewish king. Fucking with the Romans was not a good idea.

That's my understanding.

This is what I've read:


Yes. And he gets as far as to enter the temple courts and began preaching. Whereupon he was asked by the church elders by what authority he did this. Matt:21;23. He then foxes them by asking whether they think John's baptism was from heaven or from men. In either of which care the elders look like doofuses. So they say they don't know. He was leading a poplar uprising. Philo does not mention Jesus because he wrote in an earlier time. Josephus says he existed and travelled around Judea doing good things.

There was a Jewish rabbi preaching a Helenistic Judaism to a "King" called Izates in the region a t the time http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsou...14126.html

There is ample historical information about a host of king figures and preachers upon whom Jesus could be based.

We actually know no such thing. On what basis have you determined the gospels to be reliable, historically ? Your link says nothing about the Rabbi, or what he was preaching. Let's see the evidence, (or of course, we can presume it's more dot connecting). Names, dates, references.
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/...spels.html

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
27-05-2016, 06:21 PM
RE: What is the general opinion on the existence of Jesus?
Bucky, I said that one can read them as factual accounts. By that I mean that one can interpret them. Obviously I don't mean that one can simply read them as "true" in the sense that every word of them in modern English is to be accepted.

For instance, if Mary says she was visited by god then one can interpret this as meaning that she was visited by a man who purported to be a god and whom she accepted was a god, not that she was impregnated by a metaphysical, invisible entity. If the gospels then go on to say that Jesus was the descendant of the royal house of David then presumably one can say that his father was a "king" of this line. Rabbi Gamliel, as you would surely know, is purported to be of the house of David, so perhaps Jesus was the son of this man.

Then we have Jesus converted to Judaism by John. So, look for a royal figure of that time and see if any were converted. You come up with Monobaz and his sone, Izates becomes a Rabbi. The queen, Monobaz's, wife organized famine relief in Jerusalem. There you have the story of Jesus feeding the poor. Izates was well liked by the people and did "righteous" things. His mother converted to the "Nazarite" sect.

Helena's son went to war:
http://www.jewishencyclopedia.com/articles/7525-helena

All of this is out of Jewish history.

The rabbi said to have converted Monobaz was called Eleazar.

Josephus recounts a crucifixion.

Bucky, this is a free thinking atheist forum. Nothing I post is theistic. I am pointing to historical figures who are mentioned in Jewish and Roman history books by people, such as Josephus who were around at the time of these people. I know you can say that the time of this is not during the rule of Pontius Pilate but that doesn't mean that Jesus or Izates was either a god or a fictional character. It merely means that Christians typically interpret the New Testament in one way while debunkers use that interpretation and the lack of a clear historical record of Jesus at the time mentioned in the bible to say that, as Carrier does, he was a myth. Of course there are pre-existing myths of a Karas/Horus figure which, as you may now have figured out, I am saying is based on the Egyptian/Sumerian worship of the god Horus who I say is the God of the Hebrews who Josephus says were Armenians.

Bucky, you say I don't know anything about this region. I live near Tarsus. I speak, Turkish. I studied religion and politics at university 40 years ago in a Jesuit run faculty. I know that Turkish derives directly from Armenian and Sumerian, which are the same languages so if Jesus came from Armenia, which encompassed Syria and Galilee, then he was from a Sumerian line, according to simple analysis and historical sources.

The house of David is nothing more than a euphemism for the royal line of a pagan dynasty of a people who worshipped the phallus or Tao. The Coptic Christian cross is nothing more than a Tao and Yoni. Horus, Orion, has a phallus. This is the religion from which Monobaz converted.

Suck it up, big boy and deal with it.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
27-05-2016, 06:27 PM (This post was last modified: 27-05-2016 07:05 PM by Deltabravo.)
RE: What is the general opinion on the existence of Jesus?
And this is the old religion which prevailed near Edessa, which is where Abraham is supposed to have come from, now Sanliurfu.:

http://gobeklitepe.info/

Of course, no one wants to come out right now and speculate what this religion was. Some are saying this will rewrite the history of civilization: http://gobeklitepe.info/gobeklitepe-news...beklitepe/

This place only came to light twenty years ago so it is now going to start shaping our views of Near East history in ways which, I think, will blow the lid of orthodoxy and our understanding of religions. The old testament is simply a fictionalization of the feudal dynasty of Tao worshipping people who were adept at working with stone. This religious monument is similar to Stone Henge and to the pyramids of Egypt and Ur, in that they all were produced by people who had the technology to move huge stones long distances. Jesus was a "tekton" which is a stone mason, not a carpenter. These people moved from Armenia to Egypt and built the pyramids and then took their technology to Jerusalem where they built the Temple. They then took this technology to Europe. These are proto-Europeans.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
27-05-2016, 06:53 PM
RE: What is the general opinion on the existence of Jesus?
This mentions Helena's conversion by someone called Eleazar or Eliezer:

http://www.haaretz.com/israel-news/a-roy...n-1.316609

Her conversion was probably to rabbinic Judaism.

The main source of information about Helene is from Josephus’s Antiquities (20:17–96). In his rather romantic narrative, Helene is described as the mother of a god-chosen younger son, Izates. She protected him from his older, jealous brothers (her own sons and those of other wives) by sending him into the custody of a king in Charax Spasinu. During her son’s absence, a sage named Hananiah drew her to the teachings of Judaism. Coincidentally another Jewish sage, Eleazar, influenced Izates in the same way. They both converted. At a later stage Helene’s elder son, Monobazus, who eventually inherited Izates’s kingdom, followed their example and similarly embraced Judaism.
http://jwa.org/encyclopedia/article/hele...f-adiabene

And, above we have a reference to a"god-chosen" son who, like Jesus, disappears from an early age for many years.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
27-05-2016, 07:08 PM
RE: What is the general opinion on the existence of Jesus?
(27-05-2016 06:21 PM)Deltabravo Wrote:  Bucky, I said that one can read them as factual accounts. By that I mean that one can interpret them. Obviously I don't mean that one can simply read them as "true" in the sense that every word of them in modern English is to be accepted.

You should not say one thing when you mean another. That is dishonest.

(27-05-2016 06:21 PM)Deltabravo Wrote:  Suck it up, big boy and deal with it.

Deal with dishonesty and half-baked theories and psuedo-history?

Help for the living. Hope for the dead. ~ R.G. Ingersoll

Freedom offers opportunity. Opportunity confers responsibility. Responsibility to use the freedom we enjoy wisely, honestly and humanely. ~ Noam Chomsky
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Fatbaldhobbit's post
27-05-2016, 07:26 PM
RE: What is the general opinion on the existence of Jesus?
The "general opinion" is not relevant. Either he did or he did not.

And the Jesus who is portrayed in the bible pretty clearly did not exist as depicted.

So I've been reading the gospel of mark, the oldest and the one on which the others are based. And it doesn't read to me like a "history" would read. Not only that, but there are bits which clearly are not true. And there are claims in it that should be corroborated by outside sources, and they just are not.

Mental illness is not a result of demons. Dead people don't get up. I don't find this book credible as a source. I have good reason to disbelieve those claims.

So no, I don't think this Jesus existed. It is POSSIBLE that there was a preacher that started the tradition, but the person in the bible clearly did not.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 4 users Like natachan's post
27-05-2016, 07:36 PM
RE: What is the general opinion on the existence of Jesus?
(25-05-2016 06:33 AM)Tomasia Wrote:  Uhm, it's not ridiculous that Jewish messianic expectations at the time, were expecting a historical political figure. Do you believe that they weren't expecting a historical person? That some were expecting a non-historical messiah?

A historical figure, in that it would be a real human whose existence could be verified by future generations historically? Yes.

... A political figure... uh... kind of. Either way, Jesus wasn't either of these things.

Jesus was a fuck-up.

Maybe it's time you and I went in for a nice debate in the boxing ring. Care to try your hand at debate with me?
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 5 users Like Aliza's post
27-05-2016, 10:02 PM
RE: What is the general opinion on the existence of Jesus?
(27-05-2016 07:36 PM)Aliza Wrote:  Maybe it's time you and I went in for a nice debate in the boxing ring. Care to try your hand at debate with me?

A debate with Tomasia?

I can think of less painful things I'd rather spend my time doing. Like slamming my dick in the oven.

Good luck with that.

[Image: E3WvRwZ.gif]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 4 users Like EvolutionKills's post
27-05-2016, 10:24 PM
RE: What is the general opinion on the existence of Jesus?
The technology of Stonehenge:




"Theology made no provision for evolution. The biblical authors had missed the most important revelation of all! Could it be that they were not really privy to the thoughts of God?" - E. O. Wilson
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes RocketSurgeon76's post
01-06-2016, 08:56 AM
RE: What is the general opinion on the existence of Jesus?
(27-05-2016 07:08 PM)Fatbaldhobbit Wrote:  
(27-05-2016 06:21 PM)Deltabravo Wrote:  Bucky, I said that one can read them as factual accounts. By that I mean that one can interpret them. Obviously I don't mean that one can simply read them as "true" in the sense that every word of them in modern English is to be accepted.

You should not say one thing when you mean another. That is dishonest.

(27-05-2016 06:21 PM)Deltabravo Wrote:  Suck it up, big boy and deal with it.

Deal with dishonesty and half-baked theories and psuedo-history?


No, you don't understand.

If you read them as separate works, then they conflict, but if you read them as companion pieces, which were written collaboratively, in reference to each other, then they don't necessarily conflict. That requires "inerpreting" them.

The method of "interpreting" them I am specifically referring to is that which Joe Atwill has put forward. He calls it "intertextual", I think. He sets this out very carefully in his work on the New Testament.

If you read the New Testament that way, I believe, you can discern that much of what is written about "Jesus" is about real people. The whole account may not be entirely and exactly factual, but then what factual account is? I just read Young Stalin and it is about Stalin's youth and is about a real person/people. That doesn't mean the author hasn't taken some liberties because he deals with Stalin's childhood and his parents almost like a novelist, making up conversations, making assumptions, expressing opinions.

If the NT was written as a piece of pedagogy by Roman-directed clerics, then it can be viewed as an account of a "failed" revolt by a Near Eastern princeling/rabbi, and there is ample historical evidence of this sort of person at that time.

Of course, it's difficult to make this sort of argument amidst people who stick their fingers in their ears and shout "lalalalalala" whenever one broaches the subject.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: