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, 10:56 AM
RE: What is the general opinion on the existence of Jesus?
(01-06-2016 09:58 AM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  
(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.

?? In latin??

"The letter J was first distinguished from 'I' by the Frenchman Pierre Ramus in the 16th century, but did not become common in Modern English until the 17th century, so that early 17th century works such as the first edition of the King James Version of the Bible (1611) continued to print the name with an I."

So there was no "J"esus, or "J"erusalem. Which is why I ended the post with INRI< to see what kind of response it got from any of the "knowitalls". Well done Bucky!

I will precis your post down to what defines your mindset:

"absolutely NOT Master Dot Connector. bullshit. bullshit"

Writing a Ph.D. thesis are we? In how to make bullshit seem plausible.

Why don't you comment on all the historical allusions to Monobaz and Helena from Jewish history books? Or explain exactly what the "Jewish" god was, and how this Jewish sect in Egypt escaped notice and why they built a new temple in a city the named after something called "Heru"?

Go on, I'm waiting for some signs of genius as opposed to a 12 year old's rant.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
01-06-2016, 11:12 AM
RE: What is the general opinion on the existence of Jesus?
So, Bucky, what was the Jewish God. Was he an effervescence? A flying phallus? Maybe a mere chemera? Or was he a real corporeal being existing somewhere?

You only seem able to offer up some other "name" for this "thing" but I haven't seen any post from you where you actually state what "God" was supposed to be. We all think of the Old Testament God as being a big man up in the sky, with flowing white hair, partly clad in flowing white robes, pointing his finger at something off in the distance.

This is really serious, Bucky, cuz, a whole "race" of people out there claim to be descended from him via his having created Adam. While, I suppose, the rest of us are just imaginary, cuz we shouldn't exist. Perhaps you are one of these people who goes around telling people in pubs that only you exist and every other person on the planet is just part of your own perception of the world, and not real.

Am I right?
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
01-06-2016, 12:08 PM
RE: What is the general opinion on the existence of Jesus?
(01-06-2016 11:12 AM)Deltabravo Wrote:  So, Bucky, what was the Jewish God. Was he an effervescence? A flying phallus? Maybe a mere chemera? Or was he a real corporeal being existing somewhere?

You only seem able to offer up some other "name" for this "thing" but I haven't seen any post from you where you actually state what "God" was supposed to be. We all think of the Old Testament God as being a big man up in the sky, with flowing white hair, partly clad in flowing white robes, pointing his finger at something off in the distance.

This is really serious, Bucky, cuz, a whole "race" of people out there claim to be descended from him via his having created Adam. While, I suppose, the rest of us are just imaginary, cuz we shouldn't exist. Perhaps you are one of these people who goes around telling people in pubs that only you exist and every other person on the planet is just part of your own perception of the world, and not real.

Am I right?

LMFAO. Yahweh was a "divine" being. Your sentence "cuz, a whole race of people out there claim to be descended from him via his having created Adam" is utterly meaningless, false, and betrays a PROFOUND ignorance of Hebrew culture. You, as usual provided not ONE reference. You're simply beneath contempt, and a waste
of anyone's time. Connect your fake dots, and fap away. You're a fool. IF you had EVEN ONCE taken ONE class, you might be able to answer your own question. The way it's posed proves you NEVER studied ANYTHING about what you are asking. I see why you NEED to make up shit.

And he says I'm ranting. Facepalm

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
01-06-2016, 12:09 PM
RE: What is the general opinion on the existence of Jesus?
(27-05-2016 09:36 AM)The Organic Chemist Wrote:  Paul didn't write the Timothys. This is more likely an interpolation by a later author to an unsubstantiated legend. Paul never mentions anything about this in any of his authentic letters….You are a completely ignoring a very valid point. You mentioned Timothy before but completely ignore the consensus that Paul did not write Timothy. If it is a forgery, the claims made in it can't be authenticated if we have no idea who wrote it. The fact that it agrees with you does not prove a thing..

You perhaps didn’t read the claim by the poster who I was responding to who, stated that there were no historical references is the pauline Epistles, as well as the quasi-pauline Epistles. Pointing to Timothy would dispute that claim.

Quote:The disputed Pauline epistles were written by people claiming to be Paul and we know nothing about them. It seems more reasonable that they were tailoring the letters to coincide with what they thought, not what they saw seeing as they were not eyewitnesses (which even Paul was not an eyewitness). You are also ignoring the "etc." here. Paul (the undisputed ones) never writes about a miraculous birth, never mentions a single miracle, says flatly that everything he "knows" is by revelation and not by witness testimony, shows contempt for John, James, and Peter, never mentions an empty tomb, never mentions anything that Acts claims he did, and never references a single teaching of Jesus. Not once. You don't even need Carrier to make these points. You just have to read the book and not cherrypick.

There’s a variety of references in both the disputed and undisputed letters of Paul, such as Paul writing of meeting Jesus’s brother James and his disciples. He also references a variety of things Jesus spoke, such as the Last supper (Corinth 11:22), returning good for evil, a variety of Jesus’s ethical teachings, etc…..

Examples:

“ • Jesus was born in human fashion, as a Jew, and had a ministry to the Jews. (Galatians 4:4)
• Jesus was a direct descendent of King David. (Romans 1:3)
• Jesus prayed to God using the term "abba". (Galatians 4:6)
• Jesus expressly forbid divorce. (1 Cor. 7:10)
• • Jesus taught about the end-time. (1 Thess. 4:15)
• Paul refers to Peter by the name Cephas (rock), which was the name Jesus gave to him. (1 Cor. 3:22)
• Jesus had a brother named James. (Galatians 1:19)
• Jesus initiated the Lord's supper and referred to the bread and the cup. (1 Cor. 11:23-25)
• Jesus was betrayed on the night of the Lord's Supper. (1 Cor. 11:23-25)
• Jesus' death was related to the Passover Celebration. (1 Cor. 5:7)
• The death of Jesus was at the hands of earthly rulers. (1 Cor. 2:8)
• Jesus underwent abuse and humiliation. (Romans 15:3)
• Jewish authorities were involved with Jesus' death. (1 Thess. 2:14-16)
• Jesus died by crucifixion. (2 Cor. 13:4 et al)
• Jesus was physically buried. (1 Cor. 15:4)


There’s a variety of things not mentioned by Paul either, primarily because Paul is not writing a Gospel of his own, but rather writing letters to established Christian communities, in regards to issues concerning these unique communities. He wasn’t penning his letters with the thought they’d be preserved and added to a canon, and read by non-believers and believers alike.

Folks who want to claim mythicist accounts, have to interpret all these verses, etc.. away, but they don’t do so because it more reasonable to do, but because of their pathetic and desperate attempt to make an unworkable hypotheses, the mythicist Jesus work.

All atheists who attempt to promote the mythicist view show, is that they’ll stretch credulity for the sake of their anti-religious tendecies.

"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
01-06-2016, 12:25 PM
RE: What is the general opinion on the existence of Jesus?
(01-06-2016 12:09 PM)Tomasia Wrote:  Folks who want to claim mythicist accounts, have to interpret all these verses, etc.. away, but they don’t do so because it more reasonable to do, but because of their pathetic and desperate attempt to make an unworkable hypotheses, the mythicist Jesus work.

Using the bible to prove the existence of the characters in the bible.

Yeah that works.

(01-06-2016 12:09 PM)Tomasia Wrote:  All atheists who attempt to promote the mythicist view show, is that they’ll stretch credulity for the sake of their anti-religious tendecies.

It's called "critical thinking". You should try it.

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
01-06-2016, 12:28 PM
RE: What is the general opinion on the existence of Jesus?
(01-06-2016 12:25 PM)Fatbaldhobbit Wrote:  It's called "critical thinking". You should try it.

No, believing in the mythicist view is not a product of critical thinking, it's a product delusional thinking, it's the mindset of atheists who are willing to favor conclusions that's stretch credulity for the sake of supporting their anti-religious sentiments.

"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
01-06-2016, 12:38 PM
RE: What is the general opinion on the existence of Jesus?
(01-06-2016 12:09 PM)Tomasia Wrote:  Folks who want to claim mythicist accounts, have to interpret all these verses, etc.. away, but they don’t do so because it more reasonable to do, but because of their pathetic and desperate attempt to make an unworkable hypotheses, the mythicist Jesus work.

All atheists who attempt to promote the mythicist view show, is that they’ll stretch credulity for the sake of their anti-religious tendecies.

All atheists ? LMAO. All ? You REALLY get off on this atheist put-down shit, don't you. PROVE IT. More atheist generalizations, and NEVER even an attempt to deal with the real arguments. No one has to interpret anything until you PROVE there was a Paul, and he actually wrote them. Stop repeating your rote nonsense from kindygarden apologetics.

How about you deal with ONE of Carrier's arguments IN DETAIL ? Here. Now.

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, 12:39 PM
RE: What is the general opinion on the existence of Jesus?
(01-06-2016 10:56 AM)Deltabravo Wrote:  
(01-06-2016 09:58 AM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  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.

?? In latin??

"The letter J was first distinguished from 'I' by the Frenchman Pierre Ramus in the 16th century, but did not become common in Modern English until the 17th century, so that early 17th century works such as the first edition of the King James Version of the Bible (1611) continued to print the name with an I."

So there was no "J"esus, or "J"erusalem. Which is why I ended the post with INRI< to see what kind of response it got from any of the "knowitalls". Well done Bucky!

I will precis your post down to what defines your mindset:

"absolutely NOT Master Dot Connector. bullshit. bullshit"

Writing a Ph.D. thesis are we? In how to make bullshit seem plausible.

Why don't you comment on all the historical allusions to Monobaz and Helena from Jewish history books? Or explain exactly what the "Jewish" god was, and how this Jewish sect in Egypt escaped notice and why they built a new temple in a city the named after something called "Heru"?

Go on, I'm waiting for some signs of genius as opposed to a 12 year old's rant.


Yes dear, we know. I wrote the J, so not to confuse you. You who lies about the origins of the name "Jerusalem". Whatever you say dear.

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
01-06-2016, 12:46 PM
RE: What is the general opinion on the existence of Jesus?
(01-06-2016 12:09 PM)Tomasia Wrote:  
(27-05-2016 09:36 AM)The Organic Chemist Wrote:  Paul didn't write the Timothys. This is more likely an interpolation by a later author to an unsubstantiated legend. Paul never mentions anything about this in any of his authentic letters….You are a completely ignoring a very valid point. You mentioned Timothy before but completely ignore the consensus that Paul did not write Timothy. If it is a forgery, the claims made in it can't be authenticated if we have no idea who wrote it. The fact that it agrees with you does not prove a thing..

You perhaps didn’t read the claim by the poster who I was responding to who, stated that there were no historical references is the pauline Epistles, as well as the quasi-pauline Epistles. Pointing to Timothy would dispute that claim.

Quote:The disputed Pauline epistles were written by people claiming to be Paul and we know nothing about them. It seems more reasonable that they were tailoring the letters to coincide with what they thought, not what they saw seeing as they were not eyewitnesses (which even Paul was not an eyewitness). You are also ignoring the "etc." here. Paul (the undisputed ones) never writes about a miraculous birth, never mentions a single miracle, says flatly that everything he "knows" is by revelation and not by witness testimony, shows contempt for John, James, and Peter, never mentions an empty tomb, never mentions anything that Acts claims he did, and never references a single teaching of Jesus. Not once. You don't even need Carrier to make these points. You just have to read the book and not cherrypick.

There’s a variety of references in both the disputed and undisputed letters of Paul, such as Paul writing of meeting Jesus’s brother James and his disciples. He also references a variety of things Jesus spoke, such as the Last supper (Corinth 11:22), returning good for evil, a variety of Jesus’s ethical teachings, etc…..

Examples:

“ • Jesus was born in human fashion, as a Jew, and had a ministry to the Jews. (Galatians 4:4)
• Jesus was a direct descendent of King David. (Romans 1:3)
• Jesus prayed to God using the term "abba". (Galatians 4:6)
• Jesus expressly forbid divorce. (1 Cor. 7:10)
• • Jesus taught about the end-time. (1 Thess. 4:15)
• Paul refers to Peter by the name Cephas (rock), which was the name Jesus gave to him. (1 Cor. 3:22)
• Jesus had a brother named James. (Galatians 1:19)
• Jesus initiated the Lord's supper and referred to the bread and the cup. (1 Cor. 11:23-25)
• Jesus was betrayed on the night of the Lord's Supper. (1 Cor. 11:23-25)
• Jesus' death was related to the Passover Celebration. (1 Cor. 5:7)
• The death of Jesus was at the hands of earthly rulers. (1 Cor. 2:8)
• Jesus underwent abuse and humiliation. (Romans 15:3)
• Jewish authorities were involved with Jesus' death. (1 Thess. 2:14-16)
• Jesus died by crucifixion. (2 Cor. 13:4 et al)
• Jesus was physically buried. (1 Cor. 15:4)


There’s a variety of things not mentioned by Paul either, primarily because Paul is not writing a Gospel of his own, but rather writing letters to established Christian communities, in regards to issues concerning these unique communities. He wasn’t penning his letters with the thought they’d be preserved and added to a canon, and read by non-believers and believers alike.

Folks who want to claim mythicist accounts, have to interpret all these verses, etc.. away, but they don’t do so because it more reasonable to do, but because of their pathetic and desperate attempt to make an unworkable hypotheses, the mythicist Jesus work.

All atheists who attempt to promote the mythicist view show, is that they’ll stretch credulity for the sake of their anti-religious tendecies.

When I hear Christians try to justify their belief system (a belief system that is incredibly oppressive) with a bible that doesn't effectively back into it's supposed "source text", I think to myself "HOLY FUCKING SHIT, DID I DODGE A BULLET!"
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like Aliza's post
01-06-2016, 12:51 PM
RE: What is the general opinion on the existence of Jesus?
(01-06-2016 12:09 PM)Tomasia Wrote:  
(27-05-2016 09:36 AM)The Organic Chemist Wrote:  Paul didn't write the Timothys. This is more likely an interpolation by a later author to an unsubstantiated legend. Paul never mentions anything about this in any of his authentic letters….You are a completely ignoring a very valid point. You mentioned Timothy before but completely ignore the consensus that Paul did not write Timothy. If it is a forgery, the claims made in it can't be authenticated if we have no idea who wrote it. The fact that it agrees with you does not prove a thing..

You perhaps didn’t read the claim by the poster who I was responding to who, stated that there were no historical references is the pauline Epistles, as well as the quasi-pauline Epistles. Pointing to Timothy would dispute that claim.

Quote:The disputed Pauline epistles were written by people claiming to be Paul and we know nothing about them. It seems more reasonable that they were tailoring the letters to coincide with what they thought, not what they saw seeing as they were not eyewitnesses (which even Paul was not an eyewitness). You are also ignoring the "etc." here. Paul (the undisputed ones) never writes about a miraculous birth, never mentions a single miracle, says flatly that everything he "knows" is by revelation and not by witness testimony, shows contempt for John, James, and Peter, never mentions an empty tomb, never mentions anything that Acts claims he did, and never references a single teaching of Jesus. Not once. You don't even need Carrier to make these points. You just have to read the book and not cherrypick.

There’s a variety of references in both the disputed and undisputed letters of Paul, such as Paul writing of meeting Jesus’s brother James and his disciples. He also references a variety of things Jesus spoke, such as the Last supper (Corinth 11:22), returning good for evil, a variety of Jesus’s ethical teachings, etc…..

Examples:

“ • Jesus was born in human fashion, as a Jew, and had a ministry to the Jews. (Galatians 4:4)
• Jesus was a direct descendent of King David. (Romans 1:3)
• Jesus prayed to God using the term "abba". (Galatians 4:6)
• Jesus expressly forbid divorce. (1 Cor. 7:10)
• • Jesus taught about the end-time. (1 Thess. 4:15)
• Paul refers to Peter by the name Cephas (rock), which was the name Jesus gave to him. (1 Cor. 3:22)
• Jesus had a brother named James. (Galatians 1:19)
• Jesus initiated the Lord's supper and referred to the bread and the cup. (1 Cor. 11:23-25)
• Jesus was betrayed on the night of the Lord's Supper. (1 Cor. 11:23-25)
• Jesus' death was related to the Passover Celebration. (1 Cor. 5:7)
• The death of Jesus was at the hands of earthly rulers. (1 Cor. 2:8)
• Jesus underwent abuse and humiliation. (Romans 15:3)
• Jewish authorities were involved with Jesus' death. (1 Thess. 2:14-16)
• Jesus died by crucifixion. (2 Cor. 13:4 et al)
• Jesus was physically buried. (1 Cor. 15:4)


There’s a variety of things not mentioned by Paul either, primarily because Paul is not writing a Gospel of his own, but rather writing letters to established Christian communities, in regards to issues concerning these unique communities. He wasn’t penning his letters with the thought they’d be preserved and added to a canon, and read by non-believers and believers alike.

Folks who want to claim mythicist accounts, have to interpret all these verses, etc.. away, but they don’t do so because it more reasonable to do, but because of their pathetic and desperate attempt to make an unworkable hypotheses, the mythicist Jesus work.

All atheists who attempt to promote the mythicist view show, is that they’ll stretch credulity for the sake of their anti-religious tendecies.

Laugh out load

"If the bible isn't true, then how do you explain all of these things the bible says?! Checkmate, atheists."




Oh man...that's rich Tongue

Being nice is something stupid people do to hedge their bets
-Rick
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 3 users Like TheBeardedDude's post
Post Reply
Forum Jump: