What is the general opinion on the existence of Jesus?
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
01-06-2016, 09:14 AM
RE: What is the general opinion on the existence of Jesus?
(27-05-2016 07:26 PM)natachan Wrote:  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.

If you take that to its logical conclusion, then you could equally say that George Washington didn't exist "as depicted".

I've posted a number of papers from Jewish sources which recount the history of a man with the same name as Jesus and a similar history including his disappearance for many years in early life, his being a rabbi, being from the so-called "line of David", being considered to be "god chosen", being involved in feeding the poor, teaching children, preaching a religion which was being promulgated at the time which resembled Christian teaching, leading a revolt, converting to this new religion.

What you get, in response to this, when you post Jewish sources for this, here on this forum, is dead silence. If one were to mention that this is something also written about by Ralph Elllis one gets abuse. If one says that David Donnini has written the same thing in Italian, it draws a blank. No one mentions Joe Atwill here.

I am sure, that as a result of this post I will be censored by the forum administrators who think it is in order to diminish people and ideas by demoting their status as though the "truth" has something to do with whether people who use abusive language typical of something out of "Hook" like you.

So, no, it's unlikely that Jesus existed "as depicted". He probably couldn't walk on water and his mum didn't have sex with Yahweh, whatever the F.ck that word actually means.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
01-06-2016, 09:21 AM
RE: What is the general opinion on the existence of Jesus?
(01-06-2016 09:14 AM)Deltabravo Wrote:  What you get, in response to this, when you post Jewish sources for this, here on this forum, is dead silence. If one were to mention that this is something also written about by Ralph Elllis one gets abuse. If one says that David Donnini has written the same thing in Italian, it draws a blank. No one mentions Joe Atwill here.

I am sure, that as a result of this post I will be censored by the forum administrators who think it is in order to diminish people and ideas by demoting their status as though the "truth" has something to do with whether people who use abusive language typical of something out of "Hook" like you.

Tsk tsk. Quite defensive. Peer reviewed papers old bean? I might even be tempted to go follow the links if you can actually affirm that this is the case, and that they're published in a half-decent journal.

But let's not get ahead of ourselves here. Joe Atwill, Ralph Ellis (you smelly old lovable sock you) and the rest need to publish in academia. Otherwise they're just the same as any popular author spinning a yarn. Which is what they are anyway isn't it? Oh right, I forgot, there's some kind of vast conspiracy to suppress the truth Rolleyes

We'll love you just the way you are
If you're perfect -- Alanis Morissette
(06-02-2014 03:47 PM)Momsurroundedbyboys Wrote:  And I'm giving myself a conclusion again from all the facepalming.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes morondog's post
01-06-2016, 09:23 AM
RE: What is the general opinion on the existence of Jesus?
(01-06-2016 09:14 AM)Deltabravo Wrote:  No one mentions Joe Atwill here.

Except that Mark Fulton has written pages and pages and pages about Atwill here. In fact most of his book is based on it. Your head is just so far up your ass, and you are so out of touch with reality, you wouldn't know it, if it slapped you in the face.

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
01-06-2016, 09:24 AM
RE: What is the general opinion on the existence of Jesus?
(01-06-2016 08:56 AM)Deltabravo Wrote:  No, you don't understand.

Actually, I do. The various bullshit arguments repeat themselves ad nauseum.

(01-06-2016 08:56 AM)Deltabravo Wrote:  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.

By "interpreting" you mean "twisting the mistranslated fictional words to mean whatever you need them to mean to support your own agenda".

(01-06-2016 08:56 AM)Deltabravo Wrote:  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.

I call it bullshit. If god wrote the bible, he should have written it so that it didn't need interpretation.

(01-06-2016 08:56 AM)Deltabravo Wrote:  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?

The account written by an omniscient, omnipotent, omnibenevolent deity would be.

(01-06-2016 08:56 AM)Deltabravo Wrote:  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.

If the bible is not the "inspired word of god" then it does not deserve the respect accorded to it and it should be treated the same as any other collection of myths.

(01-06-2016 08:56 AM)Deltabravo Wrote:  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.

Aww, what's the matter? You don't like having your opinions questioned?

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
[+] 3 users Like Fatbaldhobbit's post
01-06-2016, 09:34 AM
RE: What is the general opinion on the existence of Jesus?
(01-06-2016 09:14 AM)Deltabravo Wrote:  If you take that to its logical conclusion, then you could equally say that George Washington didn't exist "as depicted".

No one is murdering anyone in George Washington's name.
No one is molesting children and raping women in George Washington's name.
No one is collecting tithes and monies to support their own parasitic lifestyles in George Washington's name.
No one is starting wars in George Washington's name.
No one is tormenting children with threats of eternal damnation in George Washington's name.

You sensing a theme yet?

(01-06-2016 09:14 AM)Deltabravo Wrote:  I've posted a number of papers from Jewish sources which recount the history of a man with the same name as Jesus and a similar history ...

If there is no divinity, there is no relevance.

(01-06-2016 09:14 AM)Deltabravo Wrote:  I am sure, that as a result of this post I will be censored by the forum administrators who think it is in order to diminish people and ideas by demoting their status as though the "truth" has something to do with whether people who use abusive language typical of something out of "Hook" like you.

Post it. Grab a screen shot and post the image.

(01-06-2016 09:14 AM)Deltabravo Wrote:  So, no, it's unlikely that Jesus existed "as depicted". He probably couldn't walk on water and his mum didn't have sex with Yahweh, whatever the F.ck that word actually means.

Then he is no more relevant than any other figure from antiquity.

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
01-06-2016, 09:44 AM
RE: What is the general opinion on the existence of Jesus?
(01-06-2016 09:14 AM)Deltabravo Wrote:  
(27-05-2016 07:26 PM)natachan Wrote:  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.

If you take that to its logical conclusion, then you could equally say that George Washington didn't exist "as depicted".

He didn't.. and to tens of millions of humans in the last couple centuries of the US he's been taught to and told to about in ways that in no way depicite him as he really existed.

Yet the odd thing is historians actually do know the direct source of many of these misnomers like the Cherry Tree cutting story or Wood teeth exaggeration or many other faulty details. It comes from the fluffing of trying to pull up the anecdotal manners and Hero & Flaws of Washington by Parson Weems in his biography published just 1 year after Washington's death... just 1 year is all it takes and stories are fabricated.

Just a few years of Hitchens death is by and the thing he deliberately said he wouldn't do in unless he was in a not healthy anymore mind, yet knew people would claim it... has happened with the book released about him.

Just given 1-5 years of events things are altered. Give it multiple sources of No direct witnesses being able to write and collecting other details are you're bound to be unable to determine the real existence as depicted of a persons life... especially with a lot of attempted hero making being involved.

"Allow there to be a spectrum in all that you see" - Neil Degrasse Tyson
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes ClydeLee's post
01-06-2016, 09:50 AM
RE: What is the general opinion on the existence of Jesus?
What I find remarkable about this forum is the lack of any feeling that people here have "enquiring, open minds". What I sense is hostility to non-conformity, arrogance, abuse and insulting behaviour with very little presented which is of a whole lot of interest.

The most people want to say about Jesus is that he either existed, as some preacher type, or that he was a myth. If you talk here about the history of the time as recorded by Jospehus, for instance, just by mentioning his name, you get him branded as "mistaken".

Seriously, how could someone recount that a personage existed and was travelling around Judea doing good things, and pull the wool over people's eyes, in an age when virtually no one could read. People would have known about Jesus by word of mouth, not from anything in print so if Jospephus said Jesus existed, and he said this in around 80 AD, this was in the lifetime of people who would have been alive during the life of Jesus. It's not as though Judea was hugely populated at the time, or that people didn't know who their rulers were, what a Rabbi was, and didn't talk about this sort of thing. What they didn't do was communicate in writing, which makes it all the more difficult for anyone to write about something which would have been quite widely talked about, but actually never, ever happened.

I don't see how one can deal with this problem by simply saying that "peer reviewed" works can only be relied on. Richard Carrier was the first person to get a Ph.D. in the subject of the Jesus myth. Atwill, Ellis, Donnini are putting forward newer ideas than Carrier's. Newness doesn't mean they are wrong. If you look at what S. Achyra is writing and what these three are writing it is not far apart. Yes there were myths of Horus, but that was the old religion of an Egyptian sect. The Jews came from Egypt. There is nothing far fetched or outlandish about tracing the descendants of a ruling dynasty of Egypt back from Palmyra and Edessa to Babylon and Egypt. That is a widely accepted historical fact. Jesus goes through something resembling a baptism into a new religion. Look for a prince of the line of David who converts. It's not rocket science.

Also, it has nothing to do with theism or atheism. If a particular historical view is correct, then it helps us understand religion if we can get to grips with it. It doesn't help to ignore or disparage other people just because something seems like an odd idea. In fact, if one can pin down the historical origins of the Jesus story, and it takes us to a real person who was "not" the son of a "god" but the son of someone who thought he was a "god" then this helps us understand the New Testament in its context.

I only bring these ideas here because I have read them. I didn't invent the notion that the Jesus story refers, in outline, to the myth of Horus, nor did I invent the linguistic rules which say that Izates Manu Abgharus, is the same name as Jesus Immanuel Christ. I.N.R.I.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
01-06-2016, 09:58 AM (This post was last modified: 01-06-2016 10:35 AM by Bucky Ball.)
RE: What is the general opinion on the existence of Jesus?
(01-06-2016 09:50 AM)Deltabravo Wrote:  What I find remarkable about this forum is the lack of any feeling that people here have "enquiring, open minds". What I sense is hostility to non-conformity, arrogance, abuse and insulting behaviour with very little presented which is of a whole lot of interest.

The most people want to say about Jesus is that he either existed, as some preacher type, or that he was a myth. If you talk here about the history of the time as recorded by Jospehus, for instance, just by mentioning his name, you get him branded as "mistaken".

Seriously, how could someone recount that a personage existed and was travelling around Judea doing good things, and pull the wool over people's eyes, in an age when virtually no one could read. People would have known about Jesus by word of mouth, not from anything in print so if Jospephus said Jesus existed, and he said this in around 80 AD, this was in the lifetime of people who would have been alive during the life of Jesus. It's not as though Judea was hugely populated at the time, or that people didn't know who their rulers were, what a Rabbi was, and didn't talk about this sort of thing. What they didn't do was communicate in writing, which makes it all the more difficult for anyone to write about something which would have been quite widely talked about, but actually never, ever happened.

I don't see how one can deal with this problem by simply saying that "peer reviewed" works can only be relied on. Richard Carrier was the first person to get a Ph.D. in the subject of the Jesus myth. Atwill, Ellis, Donnini are putting forward newer ideas than Carrier's. Newness doesn't mean they are wrong. If you look at what S. Achyra is writing and what these three are writing it is not far apart. Yes there were myths of Horus, but that was the old religion of an Egyptian sect. The Jews came from Egypt. There is nothing far fetched or outlandish about tracing the descendants of a ruling dynasty of Egypt back from Palmyra and Edessa to Babylon and Egypt. That is a widely accepted historical fact. Jesus goes through something resembling a baptism into a new religion. Look for a prince of the line of David who converts. It's not rocket science.

Also, it has nothing to do with theism or atheism. If a particular historical view is correct, then it helps us understand religion if we can get to grips with it. It doesn't help to ignore or disparage other people just because something seems like an odd idea. In fact, if one can pin down the historical origins of the Jesus story, and it takes us to a real person who was "not" the son of a "god" but the son of someone who thought he was a "god" then this helps us understand the New Testament in its context.

I only bring these ideas here because I have read them. I didn't invent the notion that the Jesus story refers, in outline, to the myth of Horus, nor did I invent the linguistic rules which say that Izates Manu Abgharus, is the same name as Jesus Immanuel Christ. I.N.R.I.

Except you never present ANY support.
INRI :
(in Latin) Jesus of Nazareth, King of the Jews. (iesus nazarenus rex iudaeorum)
It absolutely is NOT the same, Master Dot Connector. There IS actually such a thing as REAL history, and REAL bullshit. You are unable to recognize the difference. What are people supposed to do with your bullshit ? Just accept assertions with no evidence ? If one is really uneducated, (like you and Ellis), ANY made up bullshit flys, as there is NOTHING to test it against.

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
01-06-2016, 09:59 AM
RE: What is the general opinion on the existence of Jesus?
(01-06-2016 09:50 AM)Deltabravo Wrote:  What I find remarkable about this forum is the lack of any feeling that people here have "enquiring, open minds". What I sense is hostility to non-conformity, arrogance, abuse and insulting behaviour with very little presented which is of a whole lot of interest.

The most people want to say about Jesus is that he either existed, as some preacher type, or that he was a myth. If you talk here about the history of the time as recorded by Jospehus, for instance, just by mentioning his name, you get him branded as "mistaken".

Seriously, how could someone recount that a personage existed and was travelling around Judea doing good things, and pull the wool over people's eyes, in an age when virtually no one could read. People would have known about Jesus by word of mouth, not from anything in print so if Jospephus said Jesus existed, and he said this in around 80 AD, this was in the lifetime of people who would have been alive during the life of Jesus. It's not as though Judea was hugely populated at the time, or that people didn't know who their rulers were, what a Rabbi was, and didn't talk about this sort of thing. What they didn't do was communicate in writing, which makes it all the more difficult for anyone to write about something which would have been quite widely talked about, but actually never, ever happened.

I don't see how one can deal with this problem by simply saying that "peer reviewed" works can only be relied on. Richard Carrier was the first person to get a Ph.D. in the subject of the Jesus myth. Atwill, Ellis, Donnini are putting forward newer ideas than Carrier's. Newness doesn't mean they are wrong. If you look at what S. Achyra is writing and what these three are writing it is not far apart. Yes there were myths of Horus, but that was the old religion of an Egyptian sect. The Jews came from Egypt. There is nothing far fetched or outlandish about tracing the descendants of a ruling dynasty of Egypt back from Palmyra and Edessa to Babylon and Egypt. That is a widely accepted historical fact. Jesus goes through something resembling a baptism into a new religion. Look for a prince of the line of David who converts. It's not rocket science.

Also, it has nothing to do with theism or atheism. If a particular historical view is correct, then it helps us understand religion if we can get to grips with it. It doesn't help to ignore or disparage other people just because something seems like an odd idea. In fact, if one can pin down the historical origins of the Jesus story, and it takes us to a real person who was "not" the son of a "god" but the son of someone who thought he was a "god" then this helps us understand the New Testament in its context.

I only bring these ideas here because I have read them. I didn't invent the notion that the Jesus story refers, in outline, to the myth of Horus, nor did I invent the linguistic rules which say that Izates Manu Abgharus, is the same name as Jesus Immanuel Christ. I.N.R.I.

Even by nearly half of the population of Israel in this day and age, that is not accepted as a historical fact... A lot of the reasons is because the archaeological and cultural evidence is highly in contrast to it.

To talk about open minded but then being so focused on pressuring details like anything of that sort is precisely the type of mentality that is scoffed at or not taken seriously. That type of attitude expresses a horrible lack of self doubt in attitude and lacking serious critical thought.

"Allow there to be a spectrum in all that you see" - Neil Degrasse Tyson
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
01-06-2016, 10:21 AM
RE: What is the general opinion on the existence of Jesus?
(27-05-2016 07:36 PM)Aliza Wrote:  
(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.

He was a historical figure, as to whether he was a political, I think getting strung up by the Roman's as an agitator qualifies you for that title, regardless if he fulfilled the political expectations of the messiah or not.

Quote:Jesus was a fuck-up.

I think the unexpected and humiliating death of a the Messiah, classifies as nothing short of a failure.

Quote: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?

Yes, I would love to.

"Tell me, muse, of the storyteller who has been thrust to the edge of the world, both an infant and an ancient, and through him reveal everyman." ---Homer the aged poet.

"In Him was life, and the life was the Light of men. The Light shines in the darkness, and the darkness did not comprehend it."
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: