Poll: What's Jesus about?
Son of God, etc
Lowly preacher bigged up
Total myth, never existed
Based on real people and events to create a religion
King Arthur
[Show Results]
 
What is the more likely explanation of Jesus?
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
26-04-2014, 11:56 PM
RE: What is the more likely explanation of Jesus?
A bit of #2 and #4, it seems. I haven't taken an interest that delves into it any further though. Personally I love him as a hippie, not so much as this God-thing.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
27-04-2014, 12:00 AM
RE: What is the more likely explanation of Jesus?
(26-04-2014 11:45 PM)DemonicLemon Wrote:  
(26-04-2014 11:34 PM)Alex_Leonardo Wrote:  Wait, does that mean I'm jesus?

Our lord and savior!Bowing

Whoa.

.... why isn't there an "I don't know" option? I'm certainly not gonna vote for "Son of God" or "King Arthur", but really, all the other explanations are fairly plausible. There might've been an itinerant preacher that was a basis for the fables. There might've been five different preachers who were conflated into a single legend. Maybe there's no historical basis at all. Maybe the myth constructed itself naturally, or maybe it was a deliberate construction by the priesthood but ALSO had a historical basis in one or more non-supernatural humans. All of these seem plausible to me, and I can't say with any degree of confidence that one is right and the others are wrong.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like Reltzik's post
27-04-2014, 12:03 AM
RE: What is the more likely explanation of Jesus?
(27-04-2014 12:00 AM)Reltzik Wrote:  
(26-04-2014 11:45 PM)DemonicLemon Wrote:  Our lord and savior!Bowing

Whoa.

.... why isn't there an "I don't know" option? I'm certainly not gonna vote for "Son of God" or "King Arthur", but really, all the other explanations are fairly plausible. There might've been an itinerant preacher that was a basis for the fables. There might've been five different preachers who were conflated into a single legend. Maybe there's no historical basis at all. Maybe the myth constructed itself naturally, or maybe it was a deliberate construction by the priesthood but ALSO had a historical basis in one or more non-supernatural humans. All of these seem plausible to me, and I can't say with any degree of confidence that one is right and the others are wrong.


The poll may be limited, I didn't answer because I think possibly a combo- but key word here in the question is 'likely'. Smile It's just shooting-the-shit, whaddya think? kind of stuff.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
27-04-2014, 12:58 AM (This post was last modified: 27-04-2014 06:51 PM by Free Thought.)
RE: What is the more likely explanation of Jesus?
My money goes that our good mate Yeshua was little more than an average illiterate, unhygienic, 5' nothing, Arab Jew who got blown way out of proportion.

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
27-04-2014, 01:00 AM
RE: What is the more likely explanation of Jesus?
(26-04-2014 11:32 PM)Deltabravo Wrote:  
(26-04-2014 05:50 PM)Mark Fulton Wrote:  No 4 is closest for me.

I think "he" probably existed, and was a political insurgent who failed miserably to achieve anything. I think that the mythology that surrounds him now was a product of Roman government propaganda originally designed to undermine the messianic expectations of Jews. Constantine and others in the fourth century turned him into something else again.

There's a good chance I'm wrong. "He" may be 100% myth.


I don't think it is just a myth but the myths are part of what was done in writing down the story.



The characters of Rabbi Eleazar ben Azarias, Queen Helena and Izats are very interesting and overlooked. I think you are right about being a political insurgent and Izats fits this description. They were Nazareens which is a lot like Christianity. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eleazar_ben_Azariah

I think we get hung up on silly problems when we look at this. We say the whole thing is obviously nonsense and myth, but when we come to look for a foundation for it in a real person, some people just have to insist on looking in the 30s AD. If you look 30 years later, then you see this story of Izats which has a lot of similarities and provides a rational explanation of the crucifixion and resurrection story.


The other thing people have to do, first of all, is to stop calling him Jesus because there was no letter "J" back then, so he was "Izaz". That is the starting point. Was there a priest called Izaz? Yes. Was he crucified by the Romans? Most likely.

RE "The characters of Rabbi Eleazar ben Azarias, Queen Helena and Izats are very interesting and overlooked....They were Nazareens..."

Can you link me to a source stating this? (preferably not Ralph, but he'll do if you don't have another)
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
27-04-2014, 11:45 AM
RE: What is the more likely explanation of Jesus?
(27-04-2014 01:00 AM)Mark Fulton Wrote:  
(26-04-2014 11:32 PM)Deltabravo Wrote:  I don't think it is just a myth but the myths are part of what was done in writing down the story.



The characters of Rabbi Eleazar ben Azarias, Queen Helena and Izats are very interesting and overlooked. I think you are right about being a political insurgent and Izats fits this description. They were Nazareens which is a lot like Christianity. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eleazar_ben_Azariah

I think we get hung up on silly problems when we look at this. We say the whole thing is obviously nonsense and myth, but when we come to look for a foundation for it in a real person, some people just have to insist on looking in the 30s AD. If you look 30 years later, then you see this story of Izats which has a lot of similarities and provides a rational explanation of the crucifixion and resurrection story.


The other thing people have to do, first of all, is to stop calling him Jesus because there was no letter "J" back then, so he was "Izaz". That is the starting point. Was there a priest called Izaz? Yes. Was he crucified by the Romans? Most likely.

RE "The characters of Rabbi Eleazar ben Azarias, Queen Helena and Izats are very interesting and overlooked....They were Nazareens..."

Can you link me to a source stating this? (preferably not Ralph, but he'll do if you don't have another)


Not really, Mark. I am posting as I go along, in real time. I have never heard of these people before. They are referred to in wiki https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Helena_of_Adiabene and https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eleazar_ben_azariah. Queen Helena is well known for her benevolence. She and her son Izates fed the poor. Izates set up schools for children from the age of six when he was high priest of Jerusalem. His name is similar to Jesus Immanual, ie., Izates Manu. I would have to get Ralph's book to say more.

I am coming to the view that St. George is also this person. The muslims have a Jesus figure who they believed would return on horseback and slay the false messiah at Lydda, which is where St. George is said to have been born and St. George was supposed to have refused to give up his faith, just like Izates, and then been tortured and killed by the Romans. He is also, according to myth, supposed to have travelled to have travelled to England, just like Arthur and Arthur is supposed, according to myth, not to have died. He is just asleep, waiting to return... It is all to similar. It is a bit like Atwill in that these stories are from all sorts of different places but they have an underlying theme of a warrior messiah. It is all quite worrying in a way because it obviously upsets and annoys people for all sorts of reasons and results in a lot of name calling, just because one is interested in there possibly being a figure in history who has been black balled by the Romans.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
27-04-2014, 11:59 AM (This post was last modified: 27-04-2014 12:04 PM by Deltabravo.)
RE: What is the more likely explanation of Jesus?
(27-04-2014 12:03 AM)LadyJane Wrote:  
(27-04-2014 12:00 AM)Reltzik Wrote:  Whoa.

.... why isn't there an "I don't know" option? I'm certainly not gonna vote for "Son of God" or "King Arthur", but really, all the other explanations are fairly plausible. There might've been an itinerant preacher that was a basis for the fables. There might've been five different preachers who were conflated into a single legend. Maybe there's no historical basis at all. Maybe the myth constructed itself naturally, or maybe it was a deliberate construction by the priesthood but ALSO had a historical basis in one or more non-supernatural humans. All of these seem plausible to me, and I can't say with any degree of confidence that one is right and the others are wrong.



The poll may be limited, I didn't answer because I think possibly a combo- but key word here in the question is 'likely'. Smile It's just shooting-the-shit, whaddya think? kind of stuff.

Obviously, I am hoping for King Arthur to win. Laugh out load

The point was just to get people to focus because I find there to be a lot of loose thinking on the subject. If he was a real hippie preacher dude and people just built him up, that is kind of extraordinary. I don't like the odds on that happening. It seems unlikely there was such a charismatic person from a humble background. People in my experience don't find impoverished hippy types that compelling as leaders. That only leaves an invented religion based on some rabbi and or some political figures such as Titus and Izates. Remember the Ellis and Atwill position is the same, that this all happened during a year when Nero committed suicide and there were four Emperors in Rome, and a Jewish uprising resulting in the destruction of Jerusalem. These were huge events and they are supposedly prophesied by Jesus forty years earlier. Then you get a Roman general in Judea becoming Emperor. There was some sort of struggle going on. Who was the opposing leader of the Jews? What happened to him? Izates according to Ellis was a descendant of Julius Caesar so he had the credentials to be "king of the World" and he became a Nazareen. Josephus found his friend being crucified and took him down from the cross...

I don't understand the antipathy towards people who want to find out about this. One view of history is that life on earth was created about 4000BC and we have had that forced on us by the church in Rome for 1500 years. A lot of people are happy to go through life thinking Jesus was the son of god and they are going to heaven. Is all this a result of honest reporting of history. We are still stuck with it as atheists in largely Christian communities.

So, I want to know what the view of atheists is. What is more cogent, rational and intelligible. That all these hundreds of years of domination of the West and the Americas by Christianity resulted from a guy in sandles preaching peace. Or is it more likely this is a very heavy political rewriting of what happened in Judea after the Jews were crushed. The victors write the history books...
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
27-04-2014, 12:32 PM
RE: What is the more likely explanation of Jesus?
I found this article about the Muslim view of Jesus. http://www.islamreligion.com/articles/365/

It says that Jesus was going to come back on a horse with a spear and slay the "false messiah" at Lydda, which is where St. George is supposed to have come from. So, even Muslims have the same view, that the hippy peacenik messiah is a false messiah and that the real Jesus was a warrior who fought against evil.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
27-04-2014, 01:57 PM
RE: What is the more likely explanation of Jesus?
#3 - without the Mithra/Horus bullshit.

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
27-04-2014, 03:47 PM
RE: What is the more likely explanation of Jesus?
I'll say a bit of #2. I was looking through newspaper archives at my college. A guy came to campus in the 1970s and gave a lecture on an idea which, I guess, didn't get much traction.

Basically, his take on it was that Jesus was a real mortal man, did get crucified, etc. But, he was one of the many, many people in the middle east who made a living doing magic tricks and other entertainments. He realized that he needed a new angle and, rather than being a juggler, he came up with the messiah character.

The other piece I'll add is that I think he was a bit of an L. Ron Hubbard character. In the excellent, excellent book "Going Clear", the author points out that Hubbard got pretty damn famous and pretty damn rich through Scientology. At a certain point, he lost interest in both but continued to be fascinated with the church he was creating. Also, there's a lot of evidence that he started to believe his own bullshit.

Jesus strikes me as maybe being a similar story.

"The truth must dazzle gradually / or every man be blind." Emily Dickinson
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: