Moderators: kiore, Blip, The_Metatron
stijndeloose wrote: A wise decision that anyone can make: if you feel tempted to attack a RatSkep member, take a break.
alienpresence wrote:I never thought of Jesus as a real entity. A name written in a book.
Just about the time when Roman/Ancient Greek civilization goes into decline this 'nowhere sect' takes off.
The stories are filled with soundbites supporting a declining Roman Empire.
Give unto Ceaser what is Ceasers....pay your taxes and be friendly with the tax collectors because you know Jesus was
Yeah. He was real. He was about as real as Bugs Bunny.
Agrippina wrote:For me, not having been raised as a Christian, and having only learned about Christianity as a teenager when my mother became friendly with some SDAs and then a boyfriend who belonged to a Calvinist church, the whole thing just sounded like a mythology story. My studies in Ancient History haven't changed my belief that the story was a made up one of the dozens of preachers who were in the region at the time and that their stories were combined to make up one and about one person.
I know that a lot of historians who are atheists don't agree with either this or the theory that he simply didn't exist, and I'm fine with that. I'm not going to argue. For me to just sounds too far-fetched, too convenient, and too mythological to be the story of a real person who really existed.
alienpresence wrote:It was in decline at the time the books surfaced as 'public moral legislation' in the late 300s.
Like the naughty wiki says.
"By the turn of the 5th century,
the Catholic Church in the west, under Pope Innocent I, recognized a biblical canon including the four gospels of Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John, which had been previously established at a number of regional Synods, namely the Council of Rome (382), the Synod of Hippo (393), and two Synods of Carthage (397 and 419).[10] This canon, which corresponds to the modern Catholic canon, was used in the Vulgate, an early 5th century translation of the Bible made by Jerome[11] under the commission of Pope Damasus I in 382.
I'm not disputing that bits of toiletpaper floated around earlier but using them as a means of social control happened as things fell apart. And the idea that things didn't get put in, then - come on!
TimONeill wrote:Agrippina wrote:For me, not having been raised as a Christian, and having only learned about Christianity as a teenager when my mother became friendly with some SDAs and then a boyfriend who belonged to a Calvinist church, the whole thing just sounded like a mythology story. My studies in Ancient History haven't changed my belief that the story was a made up one of the dozens of preachers who were in the region at the time and that their stories were combined to make up one and about one person.
As an atheist who has no emotional attachment to the idea that Jesus was a single person who lived in the 30s AD (as all the evidence seems to indicate), I regularly ask people who claim he was based on some combination of many people to show me some evidence this was the case. Given we are all rationalists here, I don't regard this as an unreasonable request. I've yet to get an answer.
Can you answer or is this more vague, hopeful, pathetic bullshit?
I know that a lot of historians who are atheists don't agree with either this or the theory that he simply didn't exist, and I'm fine with that. I'm not going to argue. For me to just sounds too far-fetched, too convenient, and too mythological to be the story of a real person who really existed.
TimONeill wrote:Crocodile Gandhi wrote: Sure, this man did a great amount to shape the way that billions of people live their lives ...
Quite by accident. If the historical Yeshua ben Yosef (aka "Jesus") came back to see the weird bloated cult/s that arose in his name he'd probably die again of total horror and revulsion. He was a devout and ferociously monotheistic Jew, yet he would find himself turned into an incarnation of Yahweh. The guy would hardly be able to comprehend the insanity of what his ideas have been transformed into.
Nikos Kazantzakis touched on this in his novel The Last Temptation of Christ and Frank Herbert played with similar themes in his Dune novels, but I've always found the contrast between what the Jewish preacher Yeshua ben Yosef was trying to proclaim (as silly as it was) and the baroque monstrosities Christianity has evolved into to be one of history's most bizarre ironies.
I've toyed with the idea of a short story about a time traveller who rescues Yeshua from the cross and brings him to an intensive care unit in the present to nurse him back to health. When Yeshua recovers and comprehends what Christianity is, he becomes a vociferous preacher against Christianity and ends up being killed by fundamentalist Christians for blasphemy. I might have to write that one.
Agrippina wrote:TimONeill wrote:Agrippina wrote:For me, not having been raised as a Christian, and having only learned about Christianity as a teenager when my mother became friendly with some SDAs and then a boyfriend who belonged to a Calvinist church, the whole thing just sounded like a mythology story. My studies in Ancient History haven't changed my belief that the story was a made up one of the dozens of preachers who were in the region at the time and that their stories were combined to make up one and about one person.
As an atheist who has no emotional attachment to the idea that Jesus was a single person who lived in the 30s AD (as all the evidence seems to indicate), I regularly ask people who claim he was based on some combination of many people to show me some evidence this was the case. Given we are all rationalists here, I don't regard this as an unreasonable request. I've yet to get an answer.
Can you answer or is this more vague, hopeful, pathetic bullshit?
No the pathetic bullshit is a almost cult-like belief that Josephus was telling the truth.
There was no proper 'scientific method' in research at that time.
Anyone could write any amount of crap and call it history and because people believed in mythology, anything that vaguely confirmed their particular brand of mythology was simply acceptable. Give me some evidence that Josephus and Paul and all the mindless bishops of the Empire weren't all repeating 'broken telephone' type stories.
You believe whatever your particular cult tells you to believe and I'll follow what my rational logic tells me.
alienpresence wrote:Jesus is a fictional character. The clue is in the name. A real smoothy that one isn't it? In those days people didn't get out much and scribes needed to make stuff up. Once the name reached some popularity a limited amount of singing to the choirbook, pardon the pun, meant some parts got themselves consistant (believers and unbelievers). No real Jesus required.
alienpresence wrote:I never thought of Jesus as a real entity. A name written in a book. Just about the time when Roman/Ancient Greek civilization goes into decline this 'nowhere sect' takes off. The stories are filled with soundbites supporting a declining Roman Empire. Give unto Ceaser what is Ceasers....pay your taxes and be friendly with the tax collectors because you know Jesus was. Yeah. He was real. He was about as real as Bugs Bunny.
alienpresence wrote:Jesus is a fictional character.
The clue is in the name.
A real smoothy that one isn't it?
TimONeill wrote:
Okay. So your evidence that he was lying (for some unknown reason) would be ... ? Please present it here and now.
Okay. And we could point that out for any statement or claim made by Josephus, or Tacitus, or Polybius, or Suetonius or any ancient historian you care to mention. So do we (a) throw them all out and decide we can't know anything about the ancient world at all or (b) accept what they say unless we have good evidence that indicates we shouldn't?
Every professional historian on the planet goes with (b). Are you going to go with (a) or are you going to make some sense?
Ditto for Tacitus, Suetonius, Polybius or any other ancient source. So what you are seriously trying to say to a forum of intelligent rationalists is that we should reject all ancient sources in particular and all historical sources in general and totally abandon any idea of having any understanding of the past? Is that the rational statement you're making to rational people? Really?
My "cult"? What the fucking fuck? What part of "I'm a fucking atheist" have you failed to grasp, pal? I have no "cult". I do have a whacko devotion to things called "objectivity" and "reason". Perhaps you could acquaint yourself with them.
Do so before you bother me with a reply. Clear?
TimONeill wrote:..
Well our moderator Jerome (*chuckle*) will disagree but Ehrman's take on Jesus is, in my opinion, the one that makes the most sense. Too may conceptions of Jesus are driven by the beliefs of the theorist. Polemical atheist anti-Christians like Carrier and Doherty think he didn't exist at all? Gosh, what a surprise. Moderate Christians like Crossan and Borg believe in a mellow hippy "sage" Jesus? Gosh, what a surprise. Fundamentalists like Craig and McDowell believe in a Jesus who is exactly like the one in the Bible? Gosh, what a surprise.
We should start to pay attention when the Jesus a theorist comes up with doesn't somehow play into that person's expectations and does fit with history. A Jesus who was an apocalyptic Jewish prophet who predicted the immanent end of the world and was clearly wrong doesn't fit anyones' prejudices. Yet it fits the evidence perfectly.
This seems to be who and what he was.
I'd encourage anyone who wants to take a rational and unbiased atheistic look at who "Jesus" (ie Yeshua ben Yosef) was to begin with Ehrman's Jesus: Apocalyptic Prophet of the New Millennium, then Paula Frederiksen's From Jesus to Christ: The Origins of the New Testament Images of Christ and then Geza Vermes' Jesus the Jew. All are top class academic studies by leading scholars and all happen to be by non-Christians. Read those books and you'll get a superb understanding of who Yeshua was and why both fundie Christians and the moronic "Jesus never existed" clowns can be given equal measures of scorn.
Agrippina wrote:TimONeill wrote:
Okay. So your evidence that he was lying (for some unknown reason) would be ... ? Please present it here and now.
Calm down, relax, I didn't say I had evidence, I said it was what I think, Jeez take a chill pill, I'm not your student.
Who knows how much of anything any of them said that can't be verified independently was true. Maybe you should build a time machine and go take a look, seeing you have so much emotional investment in the truth of the story.
Agrippina wrote:..
This is not faith, it is merely observation of the evidence presented. I don't believe that a real person existed, any more than I don't believe the exodus or the flood or the creation happened, to me, from my own personal point of view, it's all the same kind of mythology.
You believe whatever your particular cult tells you to believe and I'll follow what my rational logic tells me.
alienpresence wrote:All written 'religio-historic sources' from such a distant depth in time must be considered suspect.
Users viewing this topic: No registered users and 7 guests