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
20-05-2014, 11:46 AM
RE: What is the more likely explanation of Jesus?
(20-05-2014 11:25 AM)Deltabravo Wrote:  Elmer Fud.

Elmer's surname is spelled "Fudd."

We have enough youth. How about looking for the Fountain of Smart?
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
20-05-2014, 12:21 PM
RE: What is the more likely explanation of Jesus?
(20-05-2014 11:25 AM)Deltabravo Wrote:  It is sort of like the Republican party deciding to adopt as its philosophy the teachings of Elmer Fud. And, no one noticing that he didn't ever exist. Then, two thousand years later, people arguing over whether he was this guy or that guy or no one or maybe a lot of different people all rolled up together in to one guy. Of course, on an internet forum were incredulity reigns, it is par for the course to assume that a long time ago, people were all just stupid and couldn't recognize a fairy tale for what it was and didn't know if there was a real person behind a name.
You're not accounting for the differences between the times. Back then, it was much harder to travel and much harder to communicate over distances. If someone told you about a miracle worker named Jesus in a place that was 200 miles away who was crucified, how would a person validate this claim back then? Today, you would expect witnesses and you could get on the internet to check out what information is available and who are the sources. You could hop in your car and go check it out personally within a few hours. Back then, most would either take someone's word for it or dismiss it because there were no other practical options available to them. And, with such little understanding of the world and the universe compared with what we have today, they were all too ready to believe in magic. So, when someone came along claiming Jesus did magic - even more especially if the "someone" was a person already trusted - what would cause a person to disbelieve?

You may think it's "incredulous", but I'm guessing you don't have the same opinion about people who believed in, for example, the Greek gods of mythology. Why would Jesus be any different?

I am not accountable to any God. I am accountable to myself - and not because I think I am God as some theists would try to assert - but because, no matter what actions I take, thoughts I think, or words I utter, I have to be able to live with myself.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Impulse's post
21-05-2014, 11:40 AM
RE: What is the more likely explanation of Jesus?
(20-05-2014 12:21 PM)Impulse Wrote:  
(20-05-2014 11:25 AM)Deltabravo Wrote:  It is sort of like the Republican party deciding to adopt as its philosophy the teachings of Elmer Fud. And, no one noticing that he didn't ever exist. Then, two thousand years later, people arguing over whether he was this guy or that guy or no one or maybe a lot of different people all rolled up together in to one guy. Of course, on an internet forum were incredulity reigns, it is par for the course to assume that a long time ago, people were all just stupid and couldn't recognize a fairy tale for what it was and didn't know if there was a real person behind a name.
You're not accounting for the differences between the times. Back then, it was much harder to travel and much harder to communicate over distances. If someone told you about a miracle worker named Jesus in a place that was 200 miles away who was crucified, how would a person validate this claim back then? Today, you would expect witnesses and you could get on the internet to check out what information is available and who are the sources. You could hop in your car and go check it out personally within a few hours. Back then, most would either take someone's word for it or dismiss it because there were no other practical options available to them. And, with such little understanding of the world and the universe compared with what we have today, they were all too ready to believe in magic. So, when someone came along claiming Jesus did magic - even more especially if the "someone" was a person already trusted - what would cause a person to disbelieve?

You may think it's "incredulous", but I'm guessing you don't have the same opinion about people who believed in, for example, the Greek gods of mythology. Why would Jesus be any different?
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
21-05-2014, 11:46 AM
RE: What is the more likely explanation of Jesus?
(21-05-2014 11:40 AM)Deltabravo Wrote:  
(20-05-2014 12:21 PM)Impulse Wrote:  You're not accounting for the differences between the times. Back then, it was much harder to travel and much harder to communicate over distances. If someone told you about a miracle worker named Jesus in a place that was 200 miles away who was crucified, how would a person validate this claim back then? Today, you would expect witnesses and you could get on the internet to check out what information is available and who are the sources. You could hop in your car and go check it out personally within a few hours. Back then, most would either take someone's word for it or dismiss it because there were no other practical options available to them. And, with such little understanding of the world and the universe compared with what we have today, they were all too ready to believe in magic. So, when someone came along claiming Jesus did magic - even more especially if the "someone" was a person already trusted - what would cause a person to disbelieve?

You may think it's "incredulous", but I'm guessing you don't have the same opinion about people who believed in, for example, the Greek gods of mythology. Why would Jesus be any different?
Apparently, I left you speechless.

I am not accountable to any God. I am accountable to myself - and not because I think I am God as some theists would try to assert - but because, no matter what actions I take, thoughts I think, or words I utter, I have to be able to live with myself.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Impulse's post
21-05-2014, 12:15 PM
RE: What is the more likely explanation of Jesus?
(21-05-2014 11:46 AM)Impulse Wrote:  
(21-05-2014 11:40 AM)Deltabravo Wrote:  
Apparently, I left you speechless.

No, I keep getting timed out and my post gets erasedEvil_monsterCensored
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
21-05-2014, 12:30 PM
RE: What is the more likely explanation of Jesus?
First, it is nihil ad rem to Christian moral philosophy who Jesus was.

If those who developed that philosophy were sophisticated enough to develop a moral philosophy, or even adopt it, which was later endorsed by Immanual Kant, then my guess is they were also intelligent enough to know that the Jesus narrative was nonsense and fiction made up to appeal to a certain "audience".

Whether there was a real Jesus is, I think, largely irrelevant, except to those who need to have a god tell them what to do, rather than to act on the basis of a morality derived from reason. Christianity very cleverly works on several levels.

I think there are too many different Jesus stories for them to have been made up out of nothing about a completely non existent character.

The side issue, which is historical, is "Who is Jesus of Gamala". Apparently, though, one gets called a "dolt" for having an interest in this historical person. David Donnini has written about him and says he is the basis for Jesus. I tend to agree with him. That doesn't involve belief in virgin birth or resurrection. Quite the opposite. It identifies a real person who was flesh and blood, which I think is a good thing.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
21-05-2014, 01:11 PM
RE: What is the more likely explanation of Jesus?
(21-05-2014 12:30 PM)Deltabravo Wrote:  First, it is nihil ad rem to Christian moral philosophy who Jesus was.

If those who developed that philosophy were sophisticated enough to develop a moral philosophy, or even adopt it, which was later endorsed by Immanual Kant, then my guess is they were also intelligent enough to know that the Jesus narrative was nonsense and fiction made up to appeal to a certain "audience".

Whether there was a real Jesus is, I think, largely irrelevant, except to those who need to have a god tell them what to do, rather than to act on the basis of a morality derived from reason. Christianity very cleverly works on several levels.

I think there are too many different Jesus stories for them to have been made up out of nothing about a completely non existent character.

The side issue, which is historical, is "Who is Jesus of Gamala". Apparently, though, one gets called a "dolt" for having an interest in this historical person. David Donnini has written about him and says he is the basis for Jesus. I tend to agree with him. That doesn't involve belief in virgin birth or resurrection. Quite the opposite. It identifies a real person who was flesh and blood, which I think is a good thing.
Sophistication and intelligence are irrelevant as evidenced by the number of people today that have both traits and believe in one faith or another. Neither prevents people from embracing myths as reality. All it takes is a need to believe and there are a variety of reasons why people have that need which would have been just as true at any point in history (probably even more so back when knowledge was far more limited).

Ever play or hear of the "telephone" game where a line of people whisper something from person to person and, by the time it gets to the last person, it's nothing like what the first person originally said? That's probably why there are so many Jesus stories. What people hear isn't always what was said or intended and stories get embellished and changed as they are passed along (which is why the oral tradition makes the Bible automatically nonsensical, but I digress). If I start telling you Jesus walked on water and 20 people later it has been changed to Jesus made wine from water, well now there are two miracles being told about Jesus.

I am not accountable to any God. I am accountable to myself - and not because I think I am God as some theists would try to assert - but because, no matter what actions I take, thoughts I think, or words I utter, I have to be able to live with myself.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 3 users Like Impulse's post
22-05-2014, 06:52 AM
RE: What is the more likely explanation of Jesus?
(21-05-2014 01:11 PM)Impulse Wrote:  
(21-05-2014 12:30 PM)Deltabravo Wrote:  First, it is nihil ad rem to Christian moral philosophy who Jesus was.

If those who developed that philosophy were sophisticated enough to develop a moral philosophy, or even adopt it, which was later endorsed by Immanual Kant, then my guess is they were also intelligent enough to know that the Jesus narrative was nonsense and fiction made up to appeal to a certain "audience".

Whether there was a real Jesus is, I think, largely irrelevant, except to those who need to have a god tell them what to do, rather than to act on the basis of a morality derived from reason. Christianity very cleverly works on several levels.

I think there are too many different Jesus stories for them to have been made up out of nothing about a completely non existent character.

The side issue, which is historical, is "Who is Jesus of Gamala". Apparently, though, one gets called a "dolt" for having an interest in this historical person. David Donnini has written about him and says he is the basis for Jesus. I tend to agree with him. That doesn't involve belief in virgin birth or resurrection. Quite the opposite. It identifies a real person who was flesh and blood, which I think is a good thing.
Sophistication and intelligence are irrelevant as evidenced by the number of people today that have both traits and believe in one faith or another. Neither prevents people from embracing myths as reality. All it takes is a need to believe and there are a variety of reasons why people have that need which would have been just as true at any point in history (probably even more so back when knowledge was far more limited).

Ever play or hear of the "telephone" game where a line of people whisper something from person to person and, by the time it gets to the last person, it's nothing like what the first person originally said? That's probably why there are so many Jesus stories. What people hear isn't always what was said or intended and stories get embellished and changed as they are passed along (which is why the oral tradition makes the Bible automatically nonsensical, but I digress). If I start telling you Jesus walked on water and 20 people later it has been changed to Jesus made wine from water, well now there are two miracles being told about Jesus.


Except that the entire "civilized world" was ruled by a pagan Roman government which was so awful that the "god" Julius Caesar" was stabbed to death because he was so corrupt and hated. He believed that "crime" was "noble". The history of the Caesars is about how some of them were like that, and others were less hated. I think it is naive to think that Christianity was adopted as the imperial cult with the synoptic gospels rammed down the throats of the clergy on pain of death and it all just popped out of thin air and wasn't based on something. There was no one in Rome who was making a good claim to be emperor and then Vespasian goes to Jerusalem and destroys it because there is talk of the possibility of the next ruler of the world coming from Judea. And Vespasian crucifies a Jewish leader and wins, then takes the title of Emperor.

hmmmm.....

That is really all I can say. I am going to try to get hold of some books about it. It is pointless speculating and apart from it being of some historical interest, it doesn't change the underlying philosophy.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
22-05-2014, 08:08 AM (This post was last modified: 22-05-2014 08:12 AM by TrainWreck.)
RE: What is the more likely explanation of Jesus?
(20-05-2014 12:21 PM)Impulse Wrote:  You're not accounting for the differences between the times. Back then, it was much harder to travel and much harder to communicate over distances.

It would be refreshing if atheists could apply this reasoning to all matters concerning social organization, and recognize that we are still encapsulated in mismatched information that perpetuates the "shadows on the cave" theory.

And the solution is standardizing knowledge classification - making sure everyone agrees what words mean what, and that everything is systematically described in the approach to perfection.

Humanism - ontological doctrine that posits that humans define reality
Theism - ontological doctrine that posits a supernatural entity creates and defines reality
Atheism - political doctrine opposed to theist doctrine in public policy
I am right, and you are wrong - I hope you die peacefullyCool
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
22-05-2014, 08:13 AM
RE: What is the more likely explanation of Jesus?
(22-05-2014 08:08 AM)TrainWreck Wrote:  
(20-05-2014 12:21 PM)Impulse Wrote:  You're not accounting for the differences between the times. Back then, it was much harder to travel and much harder to communicate over distances.

It would be refreshing if atheists could apply this reasoning to all matters concerning social organization, and recognize that we are still encapsulated in mismatched information that perpetuates the "shadows on the cave" theory.

And the solution is standardizing knowledge classification - making sure everyone agrees what words mean what, and that everything is systematically described in the approach to perfection.

Just who is this "WE", Kemosabe?

You don't speak for "atheists" at all.

You don't speak for ANY of us.

It's Special Pleadings all the way down!


Magic Talking Snakes STFU -- revenantx77


You can't have your special pleading and eat it too. -- WillHop
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Taqiyya Mockingbird's post
Post Reply
Forum Jump: