|
|
|
ConsequentAtheist
SFN Regular
641 Posts |
 Posted - 06/03/2002 : 19:01:26 [Permalink]
|
My guess is that he's Basque/Navajo (but I can't prove it). 
I've read folks like Fagan and Redford and Mazar, and everywhere I turn Anatolia crops up (e.g., Catal Hoyuk, etc.). If the Levant/Mesopotamia is viewed as the cradle of civilization, it seems as if Anatolia is the womb. I really need to find something decent about its (pre)history. It's my next history project, but first I want to read those "transcripts" that Computer Org found, i.e.: "There are, today, massive numbers of people who read the transcripts of what Jesus had to say some 2,000 years ago." It's embarrassing to think that "massive numbers of people" have read this stuff and I didn't even know it existed! 
|
 |
|
|
Slater
SFN Regular
USA
1668 Posts |
Posted - 06/05/2002 : 09:50:15 [Permalink]
|
CO you might not actually be following what is being said. We do tend to become sarcastic around here because…well, because it's fun.
The finding Jesus' body in Kashmir story is a hoax. There are already stories of finding Jesus corpse in Jerusalem and in Damascus. What is the sure give away is the pseudo-scientific statement that they were going to identify him by his DNA. You can't do that unless you already have a sample or you have access to close relatives. That's why I made that crack about Yahweh's DNA. The story is set in Kashmir because there is no way to get there. Just like the hoax stories of finding Noah's ark---it was just across the border in the evil Atheistic Soviet Union. Now instead of evil Atheists keeping you from the physical evidence to prove the truth of the bible you have evil Moslems and evil Hindus holding you back. It's just an updated version of the same "urban myth."
The sarcasm over the gospels being a transcript of Jesus' teachings is more involved.
The 4 gospels you are citing date from around 325 CE. There are no copies of them from any earlier date.
Also from that period date quite a few other gospels (Gospel of Thomas, Acts of John, Gospel of Mary, Sophia of Jesus Christ, Apocryphon of John to name only a few) that have the same pedigree and make the same claims of authenticity as the four you know. These books bore only a slight resemblance to today's bible. They were banned by order of the Roman Emperor--who was a Pagan.
The stories about Jesus in the bible are all taken from earlier Pagan myths. All of them. Not just some Pagan myths incorporated to ease converts into the one true religion, the whole thing.
The stories about the Apostles come from myth, pulp fiction and popular plays of the time. None are original.
None of the moral teachings of Jesus are new or unique to Christianity. They were all pre-existing.
There are no records from Jesus' time of him at all. This in a time of almost compulsive record keeping. There are no records by uninvolved reporters of the marvels Jesus was supposed to worked. On the day of the crucifixion no one noticed that darkness covered the land, no one noticed any earthquakes, no one saw the dead rise from their graves and walk the streets.
There is no historic record that Jesus ever lived. Before you can say that the Romans wined and dined him or nailed him to a tree you have to show that there was a "him" at all.
The fact that a lot of people believe in him is also meaningless. The implication is people's desire for an existential claim to be a fact actually has the power to make it a fact.
Wishing does not make it so.
Nor can facts be decided by democratic process. You cannot vote, for a broad example, on whether the sun exists or not. It does or it doesn't no matter what you decide.
This is, as an aside, why it is ridiculous that creationists want to debate on the existence of god. It is an existential claim and therefore not a matter of opinion. You can either produce the god or not. It doesn't matter what you believe as beliefs are only an aspect of your mental and emotional state and have no control over external reality.
-------
My business is to teach my aspirations to conform themselves to fact, not to try and make facts harmonize with my aspirations. ---Thomas Henry Huxley, 1860 |
|
|
|
Tim
SFN Regular
USA
775 Posts |
Posted - 06/05/2002 : 13:18:38 [Permalink]
|
quote:
the name of one prominent and lasting government, where people were not persecuted at one point.
Lars, you're right. I think, maybe, I should leave that one alone, or find a way to express it more precisely.
Slater, that, I must say, was expressed very well. I get so frustrated by people presupposing the existence of Jesus of Nazareth, the Christ. I have the same problem with the creation, the flood, the patriarchs, the Exodus, the wars for Canaan, the Judges, Kings David and Solomon, etc. I will admit, however, that the belief in the existence of the Biblical Jesus is the most pervasive in the US, despite the logical contradictions in history, and the contradictions in the very books that describe his life on Earth.
I constantly wonder why the true believers can't see this, and realize that they think the same thing of me. I get that puzzled look, as they say, "all you've got to do is read the bible, and let Christ into your life, and you will understand." They then get offended when I say, "I did, I tried, and it seems even more ridiculous, now."
"The Constitution ..., is a marvelous document for self-government by Christian people. But the minute you turn the document into the hands of non-Christian and atheistic people they can use it to destroy the very foundation of our society." P. Robertson
Edited by - tim on 06/05/2002 13:23:14 |
|
|
|
Slater
SFN Regular
USA
1668 Posts |
Posted - 06/05/2002 : 15:43:04 [Permalink]
|
quote:
They then get offended when I say, "I did, I tried, and it seems even more ridiculous, now."
An interesting thing to do is to ask them to take all the versions of the resurrection in the NT and a map of the area and write out a simple plot line of who did what where and when.
It's an impossible task because they aren't even close. One has everything happening in one night another in 40 days. One has it taking place in Jerusalem in the "upper room" another has it 65+ miles away.
Xians like to say that it is like witnesses to a car crash some saying the car was blue some green but being, generally, reliable anyway. In reality it's more like some saying it crashed in New York City and some saying in Albany.
-------
My business is to teach my aspirations to conform themselves to fact, not to try and make facts harmonize with my aspirations. ---Thomas Henry Huxley, 1860 |
|
|
|
ConsequentAtheist
SFN Regular
641 Posts |
Posted - 06/05/2002 : 16:09:05 [Permalink]
|
quote:
I get so frustrated by people presupposing the existence of Jesus of Nazareth, the Christ.
Perhaps a minor point: there is a difference between "presupposing the existence of Jesus ... the Christ" and supporting the historicity of Jesus the man. I think there's good reason to be agnostic with respect to the latter question.
|
|
|
|
Slater
SFN Regular
USA
1668 Posts |
Posted - 06/05/2002 : 16:25:26 [Permalink]
|
quote:
I think there's good reason to be agnostic with respect to the latter question.
That there was a guy named Jesus there can be little doubt. It was a very popular name. There were a boat load Jesusi.
Was there a guy named Jesus that these stories were based on? We can safely say no. We know who the stories were based on, the gods Mithra and Dionysos.
Couple that with there being no records of a Jesus Somebody doing anything of note at the time and you have a sure thing. I don't think you need to hedge your bets on this one.
The prime aspect of an historic personage is that he be recorded by history. This guy wasn't even though others with similar claims were.
The important thing isn't that you don't have any evidence. The important thing is that the people who are making the existential claims don't have any evidence either. So there is no need to even entertain their claims.
-------
My business is to teach my aspirations to conform themselves to fact, not to try and make facts harmonize with my aspirations. ---Thomas Henry Huxley, 1860 |
|
|
|
ConsequentAtheist
SFN Regular
641 Posts |
Posted - 06/05/2002 : 19:00:40 [Permalink]
|
quote:
That there was a guy named Jesus there can be little doubt. It was a very popular name. There were a boat load Jesusi.
Was there a guy named Jesus that these stories were based on? We can safely say no. We know who the stories were based on, the gods Mithra and Dionysos.
Jesusi? The Greek translation renders the name Iasous - the Hebrew would have been Yehoshua or Yeshua. In any event, neither of the sentences quoted above is relevant to the question of historicity. This question is not "was there a guy named Jesus that these stories were based on", but "was there a (cult) leader named Jesus whose followers became the core of the Jewish Christian community"? I do not believe that there is scholarly consensus on this matter. See, for example, http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/theories.html
Edited by - ReasonableDoubt on 06/05/2002 19:03:05 |
|
|
|
Slater
SFN Regular
USA
1668 Posts |
Posted - 06/05/2002 : 19:30:53 [Permalink]
|
Jesusi is my attempt at finding a plural of Jesus.
The link isn't coming across so well on my screen. A blurb and then a lot of white no connections except for Amazon.
I know that there are theories about an historic Jesus. However the one thing these theories have in common is the assumption that there was one.
I'm of the opinion that the thing you need to be "historic" is to have been recorded by history.
I also know the theories about "early" Christian writtings. The early dates are all guesses because we have no physical evidence that dates from before the Councile of Nicea. Nothing, strange don't you think?
-------
My business is to teach my aspirations to conform themselves to fact, not to try and make facts harmonize with my aspirations. ---Thomas Henry Huxley, 1860 |
|
|
|
@tomic
Administrator
USA
4607 Posts |
Posted - 06/05/2002 : 19:40:45 [Permalink]
|
And why would a historic Jesus have so many biographies? If you add all the gnostic gospels together you have one really incoherent life story. He was married, he wasn't, he performed miracles, he didn't perform any. Why is the life of Jesus so confused when we have stories of less popular figures of the time? As slater has said so many times, Jesus was doing too much, even if you strip earthquakes and dead raising out, to have escaped the notice of some historian of the day.
But as slater has also pointed out, Jesus is a dead ringer for earlier religious figures. It all starts to look like a pretty fishy story.
 @tomic
Gravity, not just a good idea...it's the law! |
|
|
|
@tomic
Administrator
USA
4607 Posts |
Posted - 06/05/2002 : 19:42:24 [Permalink]
|
Oh, and I got that link to load fine. I suggest you either use Internet Explorer or download Mozilla 1.0 that was released today. They probably are missing a table tag in their html that prevents you from viewing the bottom.
@tomic
Gravity, not just a good idea...it's the law! |
|
|
|
Tim
SFN Regular
USA
775 Posts |
Posted - 06/06/2002 : 02:54:51 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Perhaps a minor point: there is a difference between "presupposing the existence of Jesus ... the Christ" and supporting the historicity of Jesus the man. I think there's good reason to be agnostic with respect to the latter question.
I think everyone understands that this thread is concerned with the existence of Jesus Christ, the Christian messiah as described mainly in the four gospels of the New Testament. In this respect, we should be looking for historical corroboration, and find none. The only contemporary mention I know of this Jesus is from Josephus' Antiquities. On this, the jury is still out for a whole lot of people. (See http://members.aol.com/FLJOSEPHUS/testimonium.htm )
I think the real question of the historical Jesus, aside from the complete silence of the contemporary Romans, Greeks, Egyptians, and Jews (other than Josephus), is the sheer historical improbability of the stories recounted in the Gospels. I will not bother anyone with the details, if interested just follow the link to a short list; http://members.aol.com/ckbloomfld/bepart31.html#issref311
Those people that 'presuppose the existence of Jesus', the messiah of the Christian Gospels, (or at least the ones that I know), tend to presuppose the hisrorocity of the man/god Jesus, also.
Personally, my interest in the bible leans much more to the Old Testament. Those books have a lot more action, and more sex. It's almost as good as watching TV.
And just to clarify a point, Reasonable, I do take an agnostic approach to all those things in the Bible. I do this mainly because all the assertions almost always come back to circular or non-falsifiable arguments. I have no evidence that the Bible is NOT the inspired word of God. Furthermore, I have no evidence that the records of Jesus' life, and the associated miracles, earthquake, and eclipse were not all destroyed by a Lucifer inspired conspiracy. But, I ain't gonna hold my breath waitin' either.
"The Constitution ..., is a marvelous document for self-government by Christian people. But the minute you turn the document into the hands of non-Christian and atheistic people they can use it to destroy the very foundation of our society." P. Robertson |
|
|
|
jmcginn
Skeptic Friend
343 Posts |
Posted - 06/06/2002 : 07:14:03 [Permalink]
|
Slater,
Do you think there is any possibility that some of the Jesus myth is based on some of the various messiahs running around at the time?
My reasoning is as follows. The one thing that has always striked me about the Jesus character is what a perfect cult leader he was, so much to the point that several modern cult leaders have basically role modeled the Jesus character (Koresh, Jones, etc.) and had successful cults. Allot of the stuff that Jesus supposedly preached or demanded from his disciples all appear in various "Warning signs of a cult" lists such as:
1) Separation from family and friends
2) No skeptical or critical thought (don't question what your cult leader says)
3) Giving up of all possessions so that you become dependant upon your cult/leader.
4) Isolation from normal society
5) Persecution complex (being persecuted by mainstream society)
6) Apocalyptic and martyrdom messages
7) Speaking in parables to intentionally confuse his disciples and keep them guessing.
I am sure there are more examples as well.
So is it possible that the Jesus myth was based on some of the various messiahs or were most likely cult leaders themselves or is it more likely that the early Christian leaders simply added these parts to control their cult members and expand its membership?
Do the myths of Mithra or Dionysos contain such concepts?
Thanks,
John
|
|
|
|
Slater
SFN Regular
USA
1668 Posts |
Posted - 06/06/2002 : 08:35:35 [Permalink]
|
quote:
The only contemporary mention I know of this Jesus is from Josephus' Antiquities. On this, the jury is still out for a whole lot of people.
The only people that the jury is still out for is one tiny group of fundys.
The Roman Catholic Church has long admitted that this tiny section in Joe was written by their boy Eusebius of Nicomedia sometime in the middle 300's CE.
-------
My business is to teach my aspirations to conform themselves to fact, not to try and make facts harmonize with my aspirations. ---Thomas Henry Huxley, 1860 |
|
|
|
ConsequentAtheist
SFN Regular
641 Posts |
Posted - 06/06/2002 : 09:25:32 [Permalink]
|
quote:
slater writes:
I know that there are theories about an historic Jesus. However the one thing these theories have in common is the assumption that there was one. I'm of the opinion that the thing you need to be "historic" is to have been recorded by history.
The question is not whether Jesus has been recorded in history, but what evidenciary value is to be allotted those recordings. A Judaic-Christian community existed in Jerusalem before Christianity became 'Mithrasized'. As an atheist, I can easily dismiss the Christ myth. But, aside from conspiracy theories, I know of no satisfying way to simply discount as unworthy of investigation such things as the Babylonian Talmud:Sanhedrin 43a or, for that matter, Josephus or the letters of Paul.
quote:
slater writes:
I also know the theories about "early" Christian writtings. The early dates are all guesses because we have no physical evidence that dates from before the Councile of Nicea. Nothing, strange don't you think?
That is simply inaccurate unless, of course, you use the phrase "Christian writings" to refer solely to a canonical gospel. See, for example, the reference to P52 at http://biblefacts.org/history/oldtext.html. As for date approximations and the absence of 'physical evidence', Bertrand Russel once wrote: "Socrates is a very difficult subject for the historian. There are many men concerning whom it is certain that very little is known, and other men concerning whom it is certain that a great deal is known; but in the case of Socrates the uncertainty is as to whether we know very little or a great deal. [from A History of Western Philosophy]"
quote:
@tomic writes:
And why would a historic Jesus have so many biographies? If you add all the gnostic gospels together you have one really incoherent life story.
I don't know - perhaps massive syncretism and myth creation, along with the known socio-political breakdown associated with the end of the 2nd Temple period, heavy and sloppy redaction by early Christian apologists - any number of things. We are a relatively literate people living in a relatively literate and well-documented age and we still manage to create urban legend: Washington didn't chop down the cherry tree or throw a silver dollar across the Potomac and Lincoln didn't write his Gettysburg Address on the back of an envelope. In any event, the existence of multiple biographies is not evidence.
quote:
tim writes:
I think everyone understands that this thread is concerned with the existence of Jesus Christ, the Christian messiah as described mainly in the four gospels of the New Testament.
Then, as an atheist, I fully agree, i.e.: - there is no doctor's report confirming parthenogenesis
- there are no photographs of some Semite walking on water or passing out fish sandwiches to a
- there exist no notarized statements from witnesses to the resurrection
I would also suggest that you don't need a total of 26 pages of discussion to conclude that there exists no compelling historical evidence for "the Christian messiah as described mainly in the four gospels". But this does not mean that the history of the early Judaic Christian movement holds no interest, and I assumed (perhaps incorrectly) that such a discussion was appropriate in a thread titled "Did Jesus Really Exist (Part 2)".
quote:
tim writes:
In this respect, we should be looking for historical corroboration, and find none.
If the interest is in history, we should be looking for whatever we can find.
quote:
tim writes:
The only contemporary mention I know of this Jesus is from Josephus' Antiquities. On this, the jury is still out for a whole lot of people. (See http://members.aol.com/FLJOSEPHUS/testimonium.htm )
Josephus (37-101 CE) was not quite a conemporary. BTW, a better site, in my opinion, is Kirby's stuff at http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/testimonium.html
quote:
tim writes:
I think the real question of the historical Jesus, aside from the complete silence of the contemporary Romans, Greeks, Egyptians, and Jews (other than Josephus), is the sheer historical improbability of the stories recounted in the Gospels.
I respectfully disagree. The real question from the standpoint of history is whether or not there existed a historical Jesus whose followers became the core of a 'Jesus movement' in and around Jerusalem.
quote:
tim writes:
Those people that 'presuppose the existence of Jesus', the messiah of the Christian Gospels, (or at least the ones that I know), tend to presuppose the hisrorocity of the man/god Jesus, also.
There is, of course, a rather big gap between 'presupposition' and 'position'. If, however, you replace the word 'presuppose' with the word 'support', then I would argue that your statement is simply inaccurate. As you suggest within the parenthesis, this view is likely the result of insufficient investigation. There are more than a few serious scholars who reject the miracles while supporting, or holding an agnostic position on, the historicity of Jesus. One obvious example would be Burton L. Mack, professor of early Christianity at the School of Theology at Claremont, associate scholar at the Institute for Antiquity and Christianity in Claremont, and author of Who Wrote The New Testament - The Making of the Christian Myth".
quote:
tim writes:Personally, my interest in the bible leans much more to the Old Testament. Those books have a lot more action, and |
|
|
|
Tim
SFN Regular
USA
775 Posts |
Posted - 06/07/2002 : 05:31:12 [Permalink]
|
Oh, I'm sorry, reasonable. I didn't mean to get you upset, or in any way question your beliefs. I post here in an effort to learn, and to understand other's points of view. I will readily admit that I am perhaps one of the least educated here, and I have never made claims to any level of intelligence even approaching average. Therefore, I am not well suited for games of who knows best. I simply wish to learn.
Unfortunately, I think that you may have misunderstood me. Respectfully, I apologize for that, and for my weak grasp of the language. I do feel I should explain myself, though.
I agree with your assumption “that such a discussion was appropriate in a thread titled ‘Did Jesus Really Exist (Part 2)'.” I am, of course, interested in your opinions, and there is good reason to think that a man named Jesus existed, and that he may have been a teacher, and a catalyst, or model for the inception of the Christian church. However, now I fear I did not choose my wording of this paragraph adequately. I am trying.
When you mention that we should be looking for whatever we can find in relation to history, you are, again, correct. So, I will, again, apologize for my poor choice of words. This mistake comes from my shameful habit of needing direction when I search for answers. I tend to look for things that either support my pre-conceived notions, or that undermine those notions. I have not learned how to enter an investigation with a completely clean slate, and I am sorry for not presenting both sides of the coin in this instance.
As for my comment on the contemporary Josephus, I, again apologize for not saying, “The ‘nearly' contemporary Josephus,” and then adding that I know of no other historical writer mentioning a man named Jesus of that general time period. Perhaps, I should have said, “of the first Century, that was not a Christian,” then mentioning more clearly that this is from my own inadequate knowledge.
Now, the Josephus link I posted, was to show some differing opinions about this contentious subject, rather than the quality of the material. I agree that your link is better than mine.
The ‘real question' in my mind was, as always has been, in explanation of ‘my' original post, that ‘I' was referring to those average laymen who believe in Jesus the Messiah as God. To this, the Gospels are, usually, their only consideration, at least in my experience. I do realize that your experience is, naturally, much broader than mine. So, I, again, beg your forgiveness for my lack of clarity.
As for my choice of words of presuppose, or position, or support, my intent ‘was' to say pre-suppose, as in to make an assumption, or to arrive at a hypothesis without the benefit of investigation. Furthermore, I was ‘not' referring to biblical scholars, nor historians. I was referring to those 'true believers' which I began to discuss in my earlier post. ‘People presupposing' originally was a generalization intended to represent the average ‘true believer' on the street, which in ‘my' personal experience makes up the bulk of the those that feel that the Jesus/man/god figure of the Gospels is the historical and only interpretation. Please, understand that these ‘true believers' I am referring to come from the same socio-economic class, and have the same or lower level of education as I do. I am working class, and barely managed to attain a High School diploma. In other words, we are not all very well read, nor do we belong to the intellectual elite, though I am sure that some do.
Now, the action, sex, and TV comment was sarcasm. I'm sorry that I haven't bothered to use the smiley faces to help to clarify my writing. Plus, my latest literary excursion into the world of biblical archeology is a relatively new release called ‘The Bible Unearthed'. It may not be the most highly rated book on this subject, but it is very entertaining.
As far as the ‘Kama Sutra' is concerned, we've been down that road before. We've been in |
|
|
 |
|
|
|
Topic Locked
