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
01-07-2014, 09:33 AM
RE: What is the more likely explanation of Jesus?
I found jesus!

[Image: 2vw6vwl.jpg]

"Belief is so often the death of reason" - Qyburn, Game of Thrones

"The Christian community continues to exist because the conclusions of the critical study of the Bible are largely withheld from them." -Hans Conzelmann (1915-1989)
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
01-07-2014, 11:05 AM
RE: What is the more likely explanation of Jesus?
(01-07-2014 09:33 AM)goodwithoutgod Wrote:  I found jesus!

[Image: 2vw6vwl.jpg]

Halleluah!

By the way, this is an atheistic forum so if you have found Jesus could you kindly fuck off.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
03-07-2014, 03:32 AM
Human Sacrifice...is this what Jesus is about?
I watched a show on TV a while ago about human sacrifice. Seems that when things weren't going so good, people used to get a high ranking member of the community to go and speak to the god guy: http://www.bbc.co.uk/history/ancient/bri...e_01.shtml

Apparently this happened the world over. Is the story of anointment, betrayal, trial and crucifixion in the NT a reflection of this ancient practice?

Any thoughts?
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
12-07-2014, 06:57 AM
RE: What is the more likely explanation of Jesus?
I should have made it a requirement of voting in this poll that everyone give reasons.

The theory that there was a carpenter/preacher who was crucified and then written about by various others and that this grew into a religion after his crucifixion is no where on this thread supported by any evidence of who this might have been so I have to declare that it fails to meet any rational criteria for consideration as a true interpretation. It might be true, but there is just no evidence for it and in any court or any other tribunal which acted on principles which included "common sense", it would have to be ruled out. What is the most likely explanation of why there is no evidence? Because it is "probably" not true.

The mythological position also fails because no one has posted any explanation or evidence of how or when this myth was created or by whom. The problem for mythicists is one of probability. If a number of people independently write the same story about a person with similar features, similar names, similar experiences, it is highly unlikely that they did so based on their own independent imaginations of a purely mythical character. Horus, for instance, doesn't have a birthplace in Judea or a mother called Mary or specific incidents in Judea leading up to his crucifixion. While the NT may have inconsistencies, there is a general underlying timeline and plot in the story which several people would not have come up with completely independently. This would be "improbable" so again, the theory fails to satisfy common sense principles of proof.

That leaves us with some conclusions which are supported by facts and are likely because of their being plausibly consistent with these facts.

It is likely that there was a person named Jesus in Judea. This is supported by Josephus who clearly says that there was such a person doing good deeds. It is supported by Jewish writing which confirms that there were two characters called Jesus of Gamala and Izates Manu Monobasus. The histories, such as they are known to us are similar in that they were leaders of the Jewish Revolt and were priests. There is evidence in other writings that one or the other was a high priest in Jerusalem and organized famine relief for the people of Judea during a famine, opened schools for children and was thrown to the Romans or crucified and may, according to Josephus, have survived a crucifixion. The NT makes reference to Jesus being of a royal line descending from David and Adam and therefore of a high born class which is consistent with his ambition in the NT to be anointed as King of the Jews and his being characterized as a pretender to that title in the NT.

Whether one accepts that or not, the fact is that this theory is based on facts and that it is consistent, does not involve bald assertions about personalities who do not appear in the historical records or the complete disregarding of all assertions by people who would or could have been told "orally" that this person existed and was not an obvious "Serapis" style invention. Whereas Serapis was clearly and knowingly created as a mythological figure, there are no instances of Jesus being characterized at the time, as far as I know, as a pure fiction or myth.

Thus, had I put a condition on the poll that reasons be provided, I have to say that the "real person" would have been the winner in terms of there being an evidential basis for the theory.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
12-07-2014, 07:17 AM
RE: What is the more likely explanation of Jesus?
(01-07-2014 09:17 AM)Deltabravo Wrote:  Why is there an almost "ideological" opposition to discussing the possibility that Jesus has a historical basis in a figure from the time of the Jewish Revolt? It isn't a theistic position. It's just an historical theory which might have some validity.

I don't have a problem with the proposition, I guess I'll leave it to scholars to figure out. The creation of Christian myth clearly surrounds this figure, it almost seems to me that he was perhaps an amalgam of several historical messianic figures from that time period. An odd blend of historicity and mythologizing....

Gods derive their power from post-hoc rationalizations. -The Inquisition

Using the supernatural to explain events in your life is a failure of the intellect to comprehend the world around you. -The Inquisition
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
12-07-2014, 10:38 AM
RE: What is the more likely explanation of Jesus?
I don't really have any doubts that a person named Jesus existed. (Or Yeshua, or as I like to call him, Josh) I think he was a teacher and a Jewish man who borrowed from the zealots and the Sadducees of his time, and combined it with political imagery. Most of what is read on him in the Bible is myth constructed in the 60-100 years after his death.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
12-07-2014, 10:52 AM
RE: What is the more likely explanation of Jesus?
(12-07-2014 10:38 AM)Nogon Wrote:  I don't really have any doubts that a person named Jesus existed. (Or Yeshua, or as I like to call him, Josh) I think he was a teacher and a Jewish man who borrowed from the zealots and the Sadducees of his time, and combined it with political imagery. Most of what is read on him in the Bible is myth constructed in the 60-100 years after his death.

And how exactly, and by what criteria, have you distinguished between him and Philo's Jesus, Jesus of Gemalla, Simon of Perea, and all the other dying and rising sons of deities, and wandering miracle working preachers ?

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
12-07-2014, 12:16 PM (This post was last modified: 12-07-2014 12:29 PM by Deltabravo.)
RE: What is the more likely explanation of Jesus?
(12-07-2014 10:52 AM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  
(12-07-2014 10:38 AM)Nogon Wrote:  I don't really have any doubts that a person named Jesus existed. (Or Yeshua, or as I like to call him, Josh) I think he was a teacher and a Jewish man who borrowed from the zealots and the Sadducees of his time, and combined it with political imagery. Most of what is read on him in the Bible is myth constructed in the 60-100 years after his death.

And how exactly, and by what criteria, have you distinguished between him and Philo's Jesus, Jesus of Gemalla, Simon of Perea, and all the other dying and rising sons of deities, and wandering miracle working preachers ?


I think Philo's Jesus wasn't called Jesus, wasn't from Judea, didn't feed the poor, wasn't handed over to the Romans, crucified and taken down from the cross by a man called Joseph. I would not distinuguish him from Jesus of Gamala.

Josephus says of Simon of Perea,

""There was also Simon, who had been a slave of king Herod, but in other respects a comely person, of a tall and robust body; he was one that was much superior to others of his order, and had had great things committed to his care. This man was elevated at the disorderly state of things, and was so bold as to put a diadem on his head, while a certain number of the people stood by him, and by them he was declared to be a king, and he thought himself more worthy of that dignity than any one else.""He burnt down the royal palace at Jericho, and plundered what was left in it. He also set fire to many other of the king's houses in several places of the country, utterly destroyed them, and permitted those that were with him to take what was left in them for a prey. He would have done greater things, but care was taken to repress him immediately. [The commander of Herod's infantry] Gratus joined himself to some Roman soldiers, took the forces he had with him, and met Simon. And after a great and a long fight, no small part of those that had come from Peraea (a disordered body of men, fighting rather in a bold than in a skillful manner) were destroyed. Although Simon had saved himself by flying away through a certain valley, Gratus overtook him, and cut off his head."

Which is not the NT story. Why look for someone who is not like the NT Jesus when there is someone who is very similar. Proof is about showing something is "probable" in a common sense way. That suggests that the most likely candidate is the one who is "most like" the figure in story rather than someone who is less like him.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
12-07-2014, 12:37 PM
RE: What is the more likely explanation of Jesus?
(03-07-2014 03:32 AM)Deltabravo Wrote:  I watched a show on TV a while ago about human sacrifice. Seems that when things weren't going so good, people used to get a high ranking member of the community to go and speak to the god guy: http://www.bbc.co.uk/history/ancient/bri...e_01.shtml

Apparently this happened the world over. Is the story of anointment, betrayal, trial and crucifixion in the NT a reflection of this ancient practice?

Any thoughts?

Ya think ?

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
12-07-2014, 12:59 PM
RE: What is the more likely explanation of Jesus?
(12-07-2014 12:37 PM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  
(03-07-2014 03:32 AM)Deltabravo Wrote:  I watched a show on TV a while ago about human sacrifice. Seems that when things weren't going so good, people used to get a high ranking member of the community to go and speak to the god guy: http://www.bbc.co.uk/history/ancient/bri...e_01.shtml

Apparently this happened the world over. Is the story of anointment, betrayal, trial and crucifixion in the NT a reflection of this ancient practice?

Any thoughts?

Ya think ?

You wrote in some other long post that some academics in the 50s did some exhaustive research on the OT and then locked it away. You described some of its conclusions as "shocking". I didn't find them shocking at all.

Why do you think they locked them away?

Is it because, when people put forward an idea which is new, they are abused by people like you who can only muster a "ya think" to a question and at worst engage in venomous hysterical attacks on people..."don't patronize me!!"

Have you read Atwill? Dawkins read his book? Does that qualify him as a nutcase in your books?

You plainly haven't read Ellis because if you did, you would realize that his ideas are well ahead of those in your long post on the OT. Or maybe you think that those who come up with ideas which are not supported by existing "peer reviewed" papers, ie., are outside the "mainstream" should lock their ideas away in a closet rather than deal with the intellectual arrogance and dishonesty of those who purport to be "thinking" but, instead, are closing their eyes, ears, sticking their fingers in their ears and shouting "lalalalalala, I can't her you". As you do.

Not reading something and purporting to 1) know what it says and 2) know it is wrong is the worst kind of intellectual dishonesty and if you find that patronizing, it is. I find engaging with you and some of the others on this forum with your attitude to be like talking to a corpse.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: