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
30-04-2014, 11:30 AM (This post was last modified: 30-04-2014 11:37 AM by Deltabravo.)
RE: What is the more likely explanation of Jesus?
(30-04-2014 11:01 AM)EvolutionKills Wrote:  I'll take option 6, LEGEND.

I put Jesus in the same category as Hercules (another son of god) and Romulus (the mythic founder of Rome). Legends can have real human origins, but it's certainly not required; nor are the later embellishments limited by their origins or source material.

YouTuber 43alley sums it up nicely here.




Hi EK

I disagree with the video. He says the NT is not a novel written by one person. I think it is a fiction written by one person, or maybe more in collaboration. I say this simply because it is just too big an event for a religion to just happen into existence out of nothing but some guy in a white robe wandering around preaching peace. There is no reason for that to happen and there are too many coincidences which make this more likely to be a story about events at the time of the Jewish Revolt in 67 AD, rather than in 33 AD.

Jesus is in the same category in the sense that the NT uses myth to convey a story. That is what the NT is. Who are the figures it is portraying?? Maybe we will never know for sure. I think they are Mary...Helena, John the Baptist...Eleazar, Jospeph of Arimethea...Josephus Flavius, Pontius Pilate...Titus Flavius. And Jesus? Maybe Jesus or Joshua of Gamala or Izates or maybe both or maybe they are the same person, but what does it matter. What interests me is in looking at religion as a man made construction for controlling people's minds by offering them eternal life or damnation in order to make them behave civilly. I don't see that as true morality because any conduct resulting from it is not genuinely motivated by true feelings of compassion to others, but as a result of self interest. That is what I don't like about religion, that most people who adhere to them are hypocrites and the more religiously dogmatic people are, the more hippocritical they are.

If you watched the video carefully, at one point you see the figure of Hercules crouching with a bow and arrow. That is the star configuration of Orion, which is Horus.

I had an "oh fuck" moment a while ago. I have moved very far south from where I used to live and I had never taken much of an interest in astrology but we rented a house up a mountain and we have very dark clear skies at night here. I all of a sudden noticed this huge star grouping in the southern skies I had never seen before and thought, "what the fuck is that?" I had to get out a book on astronomy and it turned out to be Orion. Behind him and above him is Jupiter which is at the top of a configuration of stars which forms a huge cross so it looks as though Orion or Horus is carrying a cross on his back. This group of stars and planet move across the sky through the night.

That is what Hercules, Horus, Orion and all these gods are about. People looked up and thought they saw something so they made up stories about it. They figured that this figure was a god who was moving across the sky pushing the darkness away until the sun came up. That is all it is. So, then they figured that if there was a human who was like that, then he was the embodiment of this god.

But Jesus, I think he was just a very wealthy Nazarite who rose to prominence during the Jewish revolt and was captured by the Romans. The religion is just a packaging up of the Golden Rule in a fanciful story which is part true and part myth all mixed up to appeal to the gullible.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
30-04-2014, 02:47 PM
RE: What is the more likely explanation of Jesus?
I think the most plausible explanation is that Jesus is the Son of The Living God.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
30-04-2014, 02:50 PM
RE: What is the more likely explanation of Jesus?
The poll is very telling.

Out of the thirty-five votes, ten of them are for total myth never existed.

Second only to the eleven for the lowly preacher bigged up.

I find it odd that these poll results are found on a forum on a website entitled "The Thinking Atheist".

Quite ironic actually.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
30-04-2014, 03:25 PM
RE: What is the more likely explanation of Jesus?
(30-04-2014 02:50 PM)Jeremy E Walker Wrote:  The poll is very telling.

Out of the thirty-five votes, ten of them are for total myth never existed.

Second only to the eleven for the lowly preacher bigged up.

I find it odd that these poll results are found on a forum on a website entitled "The Thinking Atheist".

Quite ironic actually.

No. What is ironic is that you consider yourself a thinking man, yet can write
"I think the most plausible explanation is that Jesus is the Son of The Living God."
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like Mark Fulton's post
30-04-2014, 03:39 PM
RE: What is the more likely explanation of Jesus?
(30-04-2014 06:32 AM)Deltabravo Wrote:  I think I now understand what Christianity is.

When they say Jesus died to save mankind, what is meant is that in the face of the Roman's being victorious, it was better to betray the leader of the Jewish revolt so that everyone else would be spared.

The religion is Essene. The NT is a fictionalization of the events leading up to the crucifixion of the leader of the revolt, who was a Nazarite Essene, probably called Jesus of Gamala. The characters in the NT are fictional versions of real people at the time, ie., 67-70 AD.

Josephus was a secret Essene and he converted Vespasian so they decided to construct the NT to take forward the Essene ideology with Vespasian as the beneficiary of it. It was entirely political but it recognized the strength of the Essene version of Judaism.

Whether Jesus of Gamala is the same person as Izates Manu Monobasus, I don't know. I don't think that is a necessary argument. In writing the NT, the idea was to sell the religion so it is less important that the main character is an accurate reflection of the real person or a combination of two of them.

I have to say, this has been an interesting experience, coming here because I now feel I understand Christianity and believe that Jesus was a real person who was crucified. Hmmm....

I also think that the message which is actually in the NT is a very powerful one and very important and I believe that the Essenes, who were behind it, had a very different idea of who "god" was. I think they had a Gnostic view of god as a "logic" behind life, not as an anthropomorphized cosmic being.

I think that is all I can say.

"When they say Jesus died to save mankind, what is meant is that in the face of the Roman's being victorious, it was better to betray the leader of the Jewish revolt so that everyone else would be spared."

I can buy that.

"The religion is Essene."

No. Not really. It has some similarities with Essenism (which I think is what you mean)

"The NT is a fictionalization of the events leading up to the crucifixion of the leader of the revolt, who was a Nazarite Essene,"

Agreed.

"Josephus was a secret Essene"

Maybe....but what's the evidence?

"and he converted Vespasian"

Extremely unlikely and no evidence.

"so they decided to construct the NT"

Maybe.

"to take forward the Essene ideology"

No. You can't say that. Christianity was something quite different to traditional (including Essenian) Judaism.
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
30-04-2014, 03:40 PM (This post was last modified: 30-04-2014 04:10 PM by Free Thought.)
RE: What is the more likely explanation of Jesus?
(30-04-2014 02:47 PM)Jeremy E Walker Wrote:  I think the most plausible explanation is that Jesus is the Son of The Living God.

On what evidence do you base that assumption?

(30-04-2014 02:50 PM)Jeremy E Walker Wrote:  The poll is very telling.

Out of the thirty-five votes, ten of them are for total myth never existed.

Second only to the eleven for the lowly preacher bigged up.

I find it odd that these poll results are found on a forum on a website entitled "The Thinking Atheist".

Quite ironic actually.

I fail to see the irony; there is, insofar as I am aware, circumstantial evidence that a man named Yeshua was crucified.
There is no evidence suggestion he was a deity, or even magical but rather an irritating Arab Jew who was put down; that is all we can confirm as we already know that the NT is not a reliable document for historical purposes given the nature of its construction.
Some think he was an open Nazarene-like rebel attempting to instigate revolt, others think he was just a crazy preacher made myth. My money is on the later.

It would be ironic to say "Yeah, the most plausible explanation of Jewsus is that he dun be gawd/son-there-of." but nobody is even remotely suggesting that. Aside from you that is.

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
[+] 2 users Like Free Thought's post
01-05-2014, 07:20 AM
RE: What is the more likely explanation of Jesus?
(30-04-2014 03:25 PM)Mark Fulton Wrote:  
(30-04-2014 02:50 PM)Jeremy E Walker Wrote:  The poll is very telling.

Out of the thirty-five votes, ten of them are for total myth never existed.

Second only to the eleven for the lowly preacher bigged up.

I find it odd that these poll results are found on a forum on a website entitled "The Thinking Atheist".

Quite ironic actually.

No. What is ironic is that you consider yourself a thinking man, yet can write
"I think the most plausible explanation is that Jesus is the Son of The Living God."

Care to share with me why you think it is ironic for a thinking man to claim that the most plausible explanation for the data we have regarding Jesus of Nazareth is that He is the Son of the Living God?
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
01-05-2014, 07:28 AM
RE: What is the more likely explanation of Jesus?
(30-04-2014 03:40 PM)Free Thought Wrote:  
(30-04-2014 02:47 PM)Jeremy E Walker Wrote:  I think the most plausible explanation is that Jesus is the Son of The Living God.

On what evidence do you base that assumption?

(30-04-2014 02:50 PM)Jeremy E Walker Wrote:  The poll is very telling.

Out of the thirty-five votes, ten of them are for total myth never existed.

Second only to the eleven for the lowly preacher bigged up.

I find it odd that these poll results are found on a forum on a website entitled "The Thinking Atheist".

Quite ironic actually.

I fail to see the irony; there is, insofar as I am aware, circumstantial evidence that a man named Yeshua was crucified.
There is no evidence suggestion he was a deity, or even magical but rather an irritating Arab Jew who was put down; that is all we can confirm as we already know that the NT is not a reliable document for historical purposes given the nature of its construction.
Some think he was an open Nazarene-like rebel attempting to instigate revolt, others think he was just a crazy preacher made myth. My money is on the later.

It would be ironic to say "Yeah, the most plausible explanation of Jewsus is that he dun be gawd/son-there-of." but nobody is even remotely suggesting that. Aside from you that is.

The evidence utilized by myself to come to the above stated conclusion is of two sorts. The first sort is evidence available to both you and I and exists if anyone cares to look into it. The second sort of evidence is that which is only available for them who know Christ personally. One can have the former without the latter, but if one has the latter, they also attest to the veracity of the former.

Jesus of Nazareth's existence as a first century Jew crucified under Pontius Pilate is accepted as a fact by them in the academy who are knowledgeable on the subject and that is why I stated that it is ironic that nearly one third of the people who voted in this poll maintain that Jesus never existed and that He was a total myth.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
01-05-2014, 07:48 AM
RE: What is the more likely explanation of Jesus?
(01-05-2014 07:28 AM)Jeremy E Walker Wrote:  
(30-04-2014 03:40 PM)Free Thought Wrote:  On what evidence do you base that assumption?


I fail to see the irony; there is, insofar as I am aware, circumstantial evidence that a man named Yeshua was crucified.
There is no evidence suggestion he was a deity, or even magical but rather an irritating Arab Jew who was put down; that is all we can confirm as we already know that the NT is not a reliable document for historical purposes given the nature of its construction.
Some think he was an open Nazarene-like rebel attempting to instigate revolt, others think he was just a crazy preacher made myth. My money is on the later.

It would be ironic to say "Yeah, the most plausible explanation of Jewsus is that he dun be gawd/son-there-of." but nobody is even remotely suggesting that. Aside from you that is.

The evidence utilized by myself to come to the above stated conclusion is of two sorts. The first sort is evidence available to both you and I and exists if anyone cares to look into it.

* ...to both you and me...

Quote:The second sort of evidence is that which is only available for them who know Christ personally. One can have the former without the latter, but if one has the latter, they also attest to the veracity of the former.

That is not evidence.

Skepticism is not a position; it is an approach to claims.
Science is not a subject, but a method.
[Image: flagstiny%206.gif]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Chas's post
01-05-2014, 08:37 AM
RE: What is the more likely explanation of Jesus?
(01-05-2014 07:48 AM)Chas Wrote:  
(01-05-2014 07:28 AM)Jeremy E Walker Wrote:  The evidence utilized by myself to come to the above stated conclusion is of two sorts. The first sort is evidence available to both you and I and exists if anyone cares to look into it.

* ...to both you and me...

Quote:The second sort of evidence is that which is only available for them who know Christ personally. One can have the former without the latter, but if one has the latter, they also attest to the veracity of the former.

That is not evidence.

Thank you for correcting my incorrect usage of the word "I".

With regards to your assertion that the evidence I spoke of is not evidence, you are right, it is not evidence to you nor could it even be evidence for you or any other person that does not know Christ personally because you would have to know Christ personally in order to be privy to it.

However it is evidence for me. Nor can you say it is not evidence for me.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: