Historical Jesus

RealityRules · **#40361** by **RealityRules** » Jun 30, 2015 1:03 pm

Two controversies divided the mid-[late 2nd] century Roman Christian communities. One was Montanism, the ecstatic inspired outpourings of continuing pentecostal revelations, such as the visions recorded in the Shepherd may have appeared to encourage. The other was Docetism that taught that the Christ had existed since the beginning and the corporeal reality of Jesus the man was simply an apparition.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Sheph ... literature

Owdhat · **#40362** by **Owdhat** » Jun 30, 2015 2:26 pm

IanS wrote:
Owdhat wrote:
IanS wrote:[
And of course, it's not exactly unknown for religious beliefs to be mistaken. In fact afaik, out of all the many billions of such religious beliefs in human history, it appears that not a single one of them was ever true!

Except of course of all these other billions of religions none of them ever had at their heart a mundane backwoods preacher who was so ineffective he managed to get executed after the shortest reign of any supposed god ever, the elephant in the room will have to be dealt with at some point.

I don't think there were "billions of religions". What I said was "billions of religious beliefs", i.e. countless beliefs and claims within each of those many religions all throughout mans history.

However, your so-called "elephant in the room", who you just said was a human person who was executed, as if that was a fact (look at your own words please), is NOT an elephant in any room at all. And your own words (look at them!) are assuming his existence as a starting point! That is completely unacceptable. Because the whole point here is that his existence is the very thing which is in dispute! ... so you cannot just assume, as you just did (i.e. above) that he was indeed "an ineffective person who was executed" ... such that he therefore becomes your "elephant in the room".

The actual elephant in the room here, which believers like you "have to deal with" (to use all your words), is that over the last 200 years or so, indisputable evidence has been discovered to show that the figure described as Jesus in the bible could not possible have been true, and that the biblical authors were seriously unreliable and not remotely credible as writers of historical facts. And in particular, it turns out that they were all anonymous religious writers who had never known any such person as Jesus, and who were writing centuries after the events (and probably writing in Egypt!).

And if you needed any more than that, it also turns out that the gospel writers were certainly doing exactly what Paul repeatedly insisted he had done to learn about Jesus, and that was to use "fulfilment citation" by searching the OT scriptures for any stories they wished to re-cast as referring to Paul's figure called "Iesous" (actually "Yehoshua", i.e. in modern /middle English "Jesus"), who according to Paul was known to him from divine revelation confirmed in ancient scripture.

And unlike your Jesus speculations, the above is apparently (even acceding to the most religious of Christian bible scholar academics), actual FACT.

I did not say he existed as a fact, I said the religion that at its heart had.... There's a difference.

His existence is the best explanation of the material that we have - is my position .

Stein · **#40363** by **Stein** » Jun 30, 2015 3:29 pm

proudfootz wrote:
Owdhat wrote:
IanS wrote:[
And of course, it's not exactly unknown for religious beliefs to be mistaken. In fact afaik, out of all the many billions of such religious beliefs in human history, it appears that not a single one of them was ever true!

Except of course of all these other billions of religions none of them ever had at their heart a mundane backwoods preacher who was so ineffective he managed to get executed after the shortest reign of any supposed god ever, the elephant in the room will have to be dealt with at some point.

Yes, since the 18th century some would-be historians have been trying to gin up a religion around that idea. to supplant christianity.

Except of course, modern historians today are NOT the least bit interested in some replacement religion. That old tired myther meme is a fucking ignoramus canard, and you fucking well know it.

:thumbup:

Stein

iskander · **#40364** by **iskander** » Jun 30, 2015 3:38 pm

We seem to be playing a game of table tennis , aka ping-pong.

proudfootz · **#40365** by **proudfootz** » Jun 30, 2015 4:14 pm

Stein wrote:
proudfootz wrote:
Owdhat wrote:
IanS wrote:[
And of course, it's not exactly unknown for religious beliefs to be mistaken. In fact afaik, out of all the many billions of such religious beliefs in human history, it appears that not a single one of them was ever true!

Except of course of all these other billions of religions none of them ever had at their heart a mundane backwoods preacher who was so ineffective he managed to get executed after the shortest reign of any supposed god ever, the elephant in the room will have to be dealt with at some point.

Yes, since the 18th century some would-be historians have been trying to gin up a religion around that idea. to supplant christianity.

Except of course, modern historians today are NOT the least bit interested in some replacement religion. That old tired myther meme is a fucking ignoramus canard, and you fucking well know it.

Stein

Early christians didn't worship an ineffective backwoods preacher, that tired old meme is a fucking ignoramus canard and you fucking well know it.

That notion didn't get invented until the 18th century AD.

Kind regards,

Proudfootz

proudfootz · **#40366** by **proudfootz** » Jun 30, 2015 4:16 pm

iskander wrote:We seem to be playing a game of table tennis , aka ping-pong.

There is an element of tit-for-tat on every thread.

Meanwhile I've just received a book on the historicity of Jesus by a modern historian.

We'll see if anyone's interested in discussing that... :cheers:

Ducktown · **#40367** by **Ducktown** » Jun 30, 2015 4:21 pm

Owdhat wrote:His existence is the best explanation of the material that we have - is my position.

The existence of religion is a much better explanation.

IanS · **#40368** by **IanS** » Jun 30, 2015 5:14 pm

Owdhat wrote:
IanS wrote:
Owdhat wrote:
IanS wrote:[
And of course, it's not exactly unknown for religious beliefs to be mistaken. In fact afaik, out of all the many billions of such religious beliefs in human history, it appears that not a single one of them was ever true!

Except of course of all these other billions of religions none of them ever had at their heart a mundane backwoods preacher who was so ineffective he managed to get executed after the shortest reign of any supposed god ever, the elephant in the room will have to be dealt with at some point.

I don't think there were "billions of religions". What I said was "billions of religious beliefs", i.e. countless beliefs and claims within each of those many religions all throughout mans history.

However, your so-called "elephant in the room", who you just said was a human person who was executed, as if that was a fact (look at your own words please), is NOT an elephant in any room at all. And your own words (look at them!) are assuming his existence as a starting point! That is completely unacceptable. Because the whole point here is that his existence is the very thing which is in dispute! ... so you cannot just assume, as you just did (i.e. above) that he was indeed "an ineffective person who was executed" ... such that he therefore becomes your "elephant in the room".

The actual elephant in the room here, which believers like you "have to deal with" (to use all your words), is that over the last 200 years or so, indisputable evidence has been discovered to show that the figure described as Jesus in the bible could not possible have been true, and that the biblical authors were seriously unreliable and not remotely credible as writers of historical facts. And in particular, it turns out that they were all anonymous religious writers who had never known any such person as Jesus, and who were writing centuries after the events (and probably writing in Egypt!).

And if you needed any more than that, it also turns out that the gospel writers were certainly doing exactly what Paul repeatedly insisted he had done to learn about Jesus, and that was to use "fulfilment citation" by searching the OT scriptures for any stories they wished to re-cast as referring to Paul's figure called "Iesous" (actually "Yehoshua", i.e. in modern /middle English "Jesus"), who according to Paul was known to him from divine revelation confirmed in ancient scripture.

And unlike your Jesus speculations, the above is apparently (even acceding to the most religious of Christian bible scholar academics), actual FACT.

I did not say he existed as a fact, I said the religion that at its heart had.... There's a difference.

His existence is the best explanation of the material that we have - is my position .

If he did not actually exist, then where is this "elephant in the room"?

There is only an elephant in that room if he did indeed exist. But that's the issue we are trying to decide! You can't begin by assuming he did exist.

But when you talk about "the best explanation of the material that we have ", the fact of the matter is that (a) the material you have is absolutely awful and it's anonymous late religious fanatic authors are not remotely credible at all, and (b) what those unknown religious fanatics wrote about an unknown Jesus figure (unknown to anyone who ever wrote a single word about him) has since been proved to be choc-a-block full of manifestly untrue fiction filling virtually every page! ... and you are really presenting that manifest nonsense of the biblical writing as persuading you that Jesus existed??

Ducktown · **#40369** by **Ducktown** » Jun 30, 2015 5:35 pm

proudfootz wrote:Early christians didn't worship an ineffective backwoods preacher, that tired old meme is a fucking ignoramus canard and you fucking well know it.

That notion didn't get invented until the 18th century AD.

Kind regards,

Proudfootz

Stein uses the f-bomb more than any poster I've known. The more dogmatic, the more f-bombs.

Bumbling, well-intentioned, Hillbilly Jesus is certainly popular these days among people trying to distance themselves from religion.

IanS · **#40370** by **IanS** » Jun 30, 2015 6:13 pm

Stein wrote:
proudfootz wrote:
Owdhat wrote:
Except of course of all these other billions of religions none of them ever had at their heart a mundane backwoods preacher who was so ineffective he managed to get executed after the shortest reign of any supposed god ever, the elephant in the room will have to be dealt with at some point.

Yes, since the 18th century some would-be historians have been trying to gin up a religion around that idea. to supplant christianity.

Except of course, modern historians today are NOT the least bit interested in some replacement religion. That old tired myther meme is a fucking ignoramus canard, and you fucking well know it.

Stein

According to the bible, they worshipped a supernatural being who arrived on earth from heaven assuming human form!

And what's more - as far as anyone can honestly tell, all non-biblical writing was almost certainly drawn from that same biblical writing/preaching as it's source. So in fact your source is probably just the holy bible.

Owdhat · **#40371** by **Owdhat** » Jun 30, 2015 10:20 pm

proudfootz wrote:
Stein wrote:
proudfootz wrote:
Owdhat wrote:
Except of course of all these other billions of religions none of them ever had at their heart a mundane backwoods preacher who was so ineffective he managed to get executed after the shortest reign of any supposed god ever, the elephant in the room will have to be dealt with at some point.

Yes, since the 18th century some would-be historians have been trying to gin up a religion around that idea. to supplant christianity.

Except of course, modern historians today are NOT the least bit interested in some replacement religion. That old tired myther meme is a fucking ignoramus canard, and you fucking well know it.

Stein

Early christians didn't worship an ineffective backwoods preacher, that tired old meme is a fucking ignoramus canard and you fucking well know it.

That notion didn't get invented until the 18th century AD.

Kind regards,

Proudfootz

Who in their right minds would worship an ineffective backwoods preacher? nobody is suggesting that.

They may have listened to a backwoods preacher.
They may have exaggerated tales about a backwoods preacher.
The backwoods preacher got himself executed and became a legend in his own province.
The legend turned into a divine being.
and that got worshiped, simples, no sub lunar soup or the devious text control Agent Eusebius of the great Constantine syndicate necessary.

proudfootz · **#40372** by **proudfootz** » Jun 30, 2015 10:34 pm

Owdhat wrote:
proudfootz wrote:
Stein wrote:
proudfootz wrote:

Yes, since the 18th century some would-be historians have been trying to gin up a religion around that idea. to supplant christianity.

Except of course, modern historians today are NOT the least bit interested in some replacement religion. That old tired myther meme is a fucking ignoramus canard, and you fucking well know it.

Stein

Early christians didn't worship an ineffective backwoods preacher, that tired old meme is a fucking ignoramus canard and you fucking well know it.

That notion didn't get invented until the 18th century AD.

Kind regards,

Proudfootz

Who in their right minds would worship an ineffective backwoods preacher? nobody is suggesting that.

That's what this seems to suggest:

"...of all these other billions of religions none of them ever had at their heart a mundane backwoods preacher who was so ineffective he managed to get executed ..."

And people have been pointing out this is not what is at the heart of any christian cult, ever.

They may have listened to a backwoods preacher.
They may have exaggerated tales about a backwoods preacher.
The backwoods preacher got himself executed and became a legend in his own province.
The legend turned into a divine being.
and that got worshiped, simples

While it's possible some of this stuff might have happened, it is not the 'heart' of any christian cult, ever.

If you're going to try and imagine things that might have happened, then any of those 'billions' of religions you mention could easily be tales about ordinary folks that got exaggerated - in which case your point about christianity being 'unique' sinks like a stone.

Either way, it rather looks like another self-refuting argument. :popcorn:

MS2 · **#40373** by **MS2** » Jun 30, 2015 10:35 pm

Owdhat wrote:
proudfootz wrote:
Stein wrote:
proudfootz wrote:

Yes, since the 18th century some would-be historians have been trying to gin up a religion around that idea. to supplant christianity.

Except of course, modern historians today are NOT the least bit interested in some replacement religion. That old tired myther meme is a fucking ignoramus canard, and you fucking well know it.

Stein

Early christians didn't worship an ineffective backwoods preacher, that tired old meme is a fucking ignoramus canard and you fucking well know it.

That notion didn't get invented until the 18th century AD.

Kind regards,

Proudfootz

Who in their right minds would worship an ineffective backwoods preacher? nobody is suggesting that.

They may have listened to a backwoods preacher.
They may have exaggerated tales about a backwoods preacher.
The backwoods preacher got himself executed and became a legend in his own province.
The legend turned into a divine being.
and that got worshiped, simples, no sub lunar soup or the devious text control Agent Eusebius of the great Constantine syndicate necessary.

RealityRules · **#40374** by **RealityRules** » Jun 30, 2015 11:43 pm

MS2 wrote:
Owdhat wrote:Who in their right minds would worship an ineffective backwoods preacher? nobody is suggesting that.

They may have listened to a backwoods preacher.
They may have exaggerated tales about a backwoods preacher.
The backwoods preacher got himself executed and became a legend in his own province.
The legend turned into a divine being.
and that got worshiped, simples, no sub lunar soup or the devious text control Agent Eusebius of the great Constantine syndicate necessary.

That's somewhat contradictory but, yes, a legend was worshipped.

You're essentially advocating 'adoptionism', which was rejected, and doesn't fit with the various commentaries of the time of "the Word becoming Flesh".

Stein · **#40375** by **Stein** » Jul 01, 2015 12:26 am

MS2 wrote:
Owdhat wrote:
proudfootz wrote:
Stein wrote:

Except of course, modern historians today are NOT the least bit interested in some replacement religion. That old tired myther meme is a fucking ignoramus canard, and you fucking well know it.

Stein

Early christians didn't worship an ineffective backwoods preacher, that tired old meme is a fucking ignoramus canard and you fucking well know it.

That notion didn't get invented until the 18th century AD.

Kind regards,

Proudfootz

Who in their right minds would worship an ineffective backwoods preacher? nobody is suggesting that.

They may have listened to a backwoods preacher.
They may have exaggerated tales about a backwoods preacher.
The backwoods preacher got himself executed and became a legend in his own province.
The legend turned into a divine being.
and that got worshiped, simples, no sub lunar soup or the devious text control Agent Eusebius of the great Constantine syndicate necessary.

Stein

proudfootz · **#40376** by **proudfootz** » Jul 01, 2015 12:28 am

Odd to see so many leaping aboard the bandwagon that's going nowhere.

'Jesus is special because I wish it were so' is a pretty succinct argument, though.

RealityRules · **#40377** by **RealityRules** » Jul 01, 2015 5:23 am

"Jesus is special b/c he wasn't" is an interesting proposition.

Leucius Charinus · **#40378** by **Leucius Charinus** » Jul 01, 2015 6:54 am

Owdhat wrote:The legend turned into a divine being. and that got worshiped, simples, no sub lunar soup or the devious text control Agent Eusebius of the great Constantine syndicate necessary.

"Stories that never happened can be infinitely more powerful than stories that did"

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Rg8n5oGYECE

"Dear King Agbar, Sorry you are feeling sick, and I cant make it right away. I'm booked for ascension.
I'll send one of the apostles over soon to heal you. Thanks for Believing in Me when you haven't
even seen me! That's a really admirable quality! I wish there were more people like that, Jesus."

https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Catholic ... edia_(1913)/Legend_of_Abgar

'Happy art thou who hast believed in Me, not having seen me, for it is written of me that those who shall see me shall not believe in Me, and that those who shall not see Me shall believe in Me. As to that which thou hast written, that I should come to thee, (behold) all that for which I was sent here below is finished, and I ascend again to My Father who sent Me, and when I shall have ascended to Him I will send thee one of My disciples, who shall heal all thy sufferings, and shall give (thee) health again, and shall convert all who are with thee unto life eternal. And thy city shall be blessed forever, and the enemy shall never overcome it.'"

RealityRules · **#40379** by **RealityRules** » Jul 01, 2015 6:58 am

Researchers Say Virgin Mary Actually God’s Second Choice To Bear Son

IanS · **#40380** by **IanS** » Jul 01, 2015 7:39 am

Owdhat wrote:
proudfootz wrote:
Stein wrote:
proudfootz wrote:

Yes, since the 18th century some would-be historians have been trying to gin up a religion around that idea. to supplant christianity.

Except of course, modern historians today are NOT the least bit interested in some replacement religion. That old tired myther meme is a fucking ignoramus canard, and you fucking well know it.

Stein

Early christians didn't worship an ineffective backwoods preacher, that tired old meme is a fucking ignoramus canard and you fucking well know it.

That notion didn't get invented until the 18th century AD.

Kind regards,

Proudfootz

Who in their right minds would worship an ineffective backwoods preacher? nobody is suggesting that.

They also believed that an invisible God lived in the sky and created the entire universe in 7 days. Who in their right might would believe something as silly as that?

They also believed in, and in fact frequently claimed to see, flying angels and demons etc. Vast numbers of people believed that multiple other gods were present on Earth doing all sorts of things (Dionysus, Jupiter, Osiris...etc.). Who in the right mind would believe that.

Owdhat wrote:
They may have listened to a backwoods preacher.
They may have exaggerated tales about a backwoods preacher.
The backwoods preacher got himself executed and became a legend in his own province.
The legend turned into a divine being.
and that got worshiped, simples, no sub lunar soup or the devious text control Agent Eusebius of the great Constantine syndicate necessary.

Anything at all might be true. They may have believed all sorts of legendary messiah stories. In fact, it's certain from the OT that they did believe all sorts of messiah prophecies. No doubt they all believed the prophecies had to be literally certain fact (the prophecies were divine and came from Yahweh himself).

The question is - what is the evidence that any of these people ever knew that any of their Jesus beliefs were actually true? It's a question of evidence. That, as science has long since proved, is always THE crucial factor.

So what is your evidence that anyone who ever wrote about Jesus had ever known any such person?

It's no good you saying there might have been such a person who lived as a "backwoods preacher", and then proceeding to say that other things might then have happened on the basis that this person actually did exist. That's just again assuming he existed in the first place. To repeat - the only relevant factor is what evidence you have to show that Jesus was a real figure, despite the fact that nobody who ever wrote about him had ever known any such person except as an object of fanatical ignorant religious beliefs drawn from ancient OT prophecies.

Historical Jesus

Re: Historical Jesus

Re: Historical Jesus

Re: Historical Jesus

Re: Historical Jesus

Re: Historical Jesus

Re: Historical Jesus

Re: Historical Jesus

Re: Historical Jesus

Re: Historical Jesus

Re: Historical Jesus

Re: Historical Jesus

Re: Historical Jesus

Re: Historical Jesus

Re: Historical Jesus

Re: Historical Jesus

Re: Historical Jesus

Re: Historical Jesus

Re: Historical Jesus

Re: Historical Jesus

Re: Historical Jesus

Who is online