Printable Version of Topic
Click here to view this topic in its original format
Open Forums for ExChristian.Net > Debating with Christians > The existence of Jesus


Posted by: Saviourmachine Nov 25 2004, 05:35 PM
Awaiting Rameus' article, let us start with searching for evidence or counterevidence regarding the physical existence of Jesus.

The authorship of Paul in regard to II Corinthians is not disputed. So let us look for example at II Cor. 5:16:
QUOTE
The final piece of evidence that these opponents were sent by the Jerusalem Church is in this passage:
QUOTE
II Corinthians 5:16: "From now own, therefore, we regard no one from a human point of view [Greek-kata sarka-literally "according to the flesh"], even though we once knew Jesus from a human point of view [kata sarka], we know him no longer in that way."
The "we" in the second half of the passage refers, not to Paul, but to the people who knew the earthly Jesus ("according to the flesh"). Yet in this passage Paul repudiates this knowledge as unimportant. This passage is tied to his opponents, since a few verses before this Paul mentioned that he was "not commending" himself to the Corinthians again (5:12), a clear reference to the opponents' self-commendation (II Cor 3:1, 10:12-15) The obvious implication here is that Paul was purposely downplaying the importance of knowledge regarding the earthly Jesus because his opponents were making the opposite claim: that their acquaintance with the earthly Jesus and his teachings were of utmost significance. The only group who could have claimed this were the Jerusalem pillars themselves [James, Peter and John] and their emissaries!
Is the existence of the 'Jerusalem church' who knew Jesus personally - James is sometimes even called his brother - nonsense?

Source: http://www.geocities.com/paulntobin/paulvpeter.html

Posted by: Lokmer Nov 25 2004, 07:42 PM
QUOTE (Saviourmachine @ Nov 25 2004, 04:35 PM)
Awaiting Rameus' article, let us start with searching for evidence or counterevidence regarding the physical existence of Jesus.

The authorship of Paul in regard to II Corinthians is not disputed. So let us look for example at II Cor. 5:16:
QUOTE
The final piece of evidence that these opponents were sent by the Jerusalem Church is in this passage:
QUOTE
II Corinthians 5:16: "From now own, therefore, we regard no one from a human point of view [Greek-kata sarka-literally "according to the flesh"], even though we once knew Jesus from a human point of view [kata sarka], we know him no longer in that way."
The "we" in the second half of the passage refers, not to Paul, but to the people who knew the earthly Jesus ("according to the flesh"). Yet in this passage Paul repudiates this knowledge as unimportant. This passage is tied to his opponents, since a few verses before this Paul mentioned that he was "not commending" himself to the Corinthians again (5:12), a clear reference to the opponents' self-commendation (II Cor 3:1, 10:12-15) The obvious implication here is that Paul was purposely downplaying the importance of knowledge regarding the earthly Jesus because his opponents were making the opposite claim: that their acquaintance with the earthly Jesus and his teachings were of utmost significance. The only group who could have claimed this were the Jerusalem pillars themselves [James, Peter and John] and their emissaries!
Is the existence of the 'Jerusalem church' who knew Jesus personally - James is sometimes even called his brother - nonsense?

Source: http://www.geocities.com/paulntobin/paulvpeter.html

Actually, authorship of this passage is highly disputed.

Some good primers on the dispute:
http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/robert_price/apocrypha.shtml
http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/robert_price/reply-to-craig.html
Both by Robert M. Price, editor of the Journal of Higher Criticism and author of The Incredible Shrinking Son of Man

-Lokmer

Posted by: Intelligitimate Nov 25 2004, 08:37 PM
I see no need to entertain the interpolation hypothesis in this case. The passage can be translated as "From now on we know no man according to the flesh; if indeed we have known Christ according to the flesh, we no longer know him (so)." In fact, this reading is more in line with the KJV and several other translations. It is certainly not clear that this is some kind of putdown on the Jerusalem church, and it would be absurd in the context.

The passage seems to indicate how Paul sees the object of his faith. He once saw Christ without faith, and now he sees him differently.

Posted by: Saviourmachine Nov 26 2004, 08:43 AM
QUOTE (Lokmer @ Nov 25 2004, 06:42 PM)
Actually, authorship of this passage is highly disputed.

Some good primers on the dispute:
http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/robert_price/apocrypha.shtml
http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/robert_price/reply-to-craig.html
Both by Robert M. Price, editor of the Journal of Higher Criticism and author of The Incredible Shrinking Son of Man

Sorry! KatieHmm.gif

That's about I Cor. 15.

Posted by: Saviourmachine Nov 26 2004, 09:04 AM
QUOTE (Intelligitimate @ Nov 25 2004, 07:37 PM)
It is certainly not clear that this is some kind of putdown on the Jerusalem church, and it would be absurd in the context.

The passage seems to indicate how Paul sees the object of his faith. He once saw Christ without faith, and now he sees him differently.

Look also at 5:7. (For we walk by faith, not by sight*)

The whole context is Paul having a conflict with the Jerusalem church - which the link provided sustains. So - I assume you do believe that the Jerusalem church existed - the only difference between Paul and James was that the former talked about faith and the latter about (Jewish) works. That none of them knew Jesus, and that the brothership of James in regard to Jesus is devised. If this 'brother' calling is meant spiritually, why did they call James in particular like that (it's not Peter his brother)? How did this idea settle that James was Jesus brother? Why is this James more important than James the brother of John? How did he became an authority?

*Paul uses the word 'sight' in stead of 'works'.

Posted by: Intelligitimate Nov 26 2004, 10:09 AM
QUOTE
Look also at 5:7. (For we walk by faith, not by sight*)


This doesn’t support your interpretation of 5:16.

QUOTE
So - I assume you do believe that the Jerusalem church existed - the only difference between Paul and James was that the former talked about faith and the latter about (Jewish) works. That none of them knew Jesus, and that the brothership of James in regard to Jesus is devised. If this 'brother' calling is meant spiritually, why did they call James in particular like that (it's not Peter his brother)? How did this idea settle that James was Jesus brother? Why is this James more important than James the brother of John? How did he became an authority?


Your are asking questions that don’t have any clear answers. We have very little reliable information on the Jerusalem church, what it preached and its organizational structure. There is no need to read the brother reference as James being Jesus’ blood brother.

Posted by: Saviourmachine Nov 26 2004, 11:28 AM
QUOTE (Intelligitimate @ Nov 26 2004, 09:09 AM)
There is no need to read the brother reference as James being Jesus’ blood brother.

Why not?

Mark 6:3; Matthew 13:55; Acts 12:17, 15:13, 21:18; Galatians 1:19, 2:9, 12; I Corinthians 15:7

Do you deny that Jesus did have blood brothers?

Posted by: ChefRanden Nov 26 2004, 11:29 AM
QUOTE (Intelligitimate @ Nov 26 2004, 11:09 AM)
QUOTE
Look also at 5:7. (For we walk by faith, not by sight*)


This doesn’t support your interpretation of 5:16.

QUOTE
So - I assume you do believe that the Jerusalem church existed - the only difference between Paul and James was that the former talked about faith and the latter about (Jewish) works. That none of them knew Jesus, and that the brothership of James in regard to Jesus is devised. If this 'brother' calling is meant spiritually, why did they call James in particular like that (it's not Peter his brother)? How did this idea settle that James was Jesus brother? Why is this James more important than James the brother of John? How did he became an authority?


Your are asking questions that don’t have any clear answers. We have very little reliable information on the Jerusalem church, what it preached and its organizational structure. There is no need to read the brother reference as James being Jesus’ blood brother.

My understanding of the doctrine of Mary's perpetual virginity includes the idea that siblings of Jesus were siblings by adoption only. Their mother was not Mary, but a previous wife of Joseph.


Posted by: Saviourmachine Nov 26 2004, 11:39 AM
QUOTE (ChefRanden @ Nov 26 2004, 10:29 AM)
My understanding of the doctrine of Mary's perpetual virginity includes the idea that siblings of Jesus were siblings by adoption only. Their mother was not Mary, but a previous wife of Joseph.

Hehe. wicked.gif Yes, that brings my to the next 'mythological' person, Mary. If James had only a spiritual relationship with Jesus, how about Mary? She wasn't his mother neither?

The "Jesus Myth" theory smells like shit IMHO.

Posted by: skankboy Nov 26 2004, 12:36 PM
I think Chris Rock says it best in the movie "Dogma":

QUOTE
Mary gave birth to Christ without having known a man's touch - that's true. But she did have a husband. And do you really think he'd have stayed married to her all those years if he wasn't getting laid? The nature of God and the Virgin Birth - those are leaps of faith. But believing a wife never humped her husband - that's just gullibility.

woohoo.gif


Posted by: AUB Nov 27 2004, 07:34 AM
Savme

This is not going to be solved by endlessly dissecting scripture, the most unreliable of sources. This is about evidence, what is there for Jesus? none. What is there for Peter, James and the Judean church? None, Paul can hardly be trusted, he admits to lying, and you know him to be a scheming bastard, any sane person would need much more than obscure references. You cant make silly arguments about semantics Vs literal meanings, when we have nothing else to go on, you are not obligated to reach a conclusion, to believe in a Jesus, or dismiss him, its okay to be agnostic, its doesn't really matter.


The Virgin Mary thing is a pagan motif, period, don't worry about it. Historical or not, nothing of a real person remains in the gospels, and there's little of her in them as it is, and none match the "virgin" model.

Finally, I just find it annoying that people think a omnipotent and "good" god expects us to except a salvation plan that requires us to believe in a long distant event that resembles every other mythical and symbolic "incident" that clutter the pages of history. And to put our trust in such slim, contradictory and obscure passages of unconfirmed and unscientific ramblings. Surely a great and just god would value reason, logic and evidence? Yet we get none and are scorned by the theist for thinking that without such things its unreasonable to expect us to base our entire lives on a sentence or 2, of questionable origin, motives and derivation. Why is it good to be gullible, blindly trusting and uncritical? Does god what a heaven full of people with the metal makeup of 2 year olds? Is he that insecure?

Posted by: Intelligitimate Nov 27 2004, 12:20 PM
QUOTE (Saviourmachine @ Nov 26 2004, 02:28 PM)
QUOTE (Intelligitimate @ Nov 26 2004, 09:09 AM)
There is no need to read the brother reference as James being Jesus’ blood brother.

Why not?

Mark 6:3; Matthew 13:55; Acts 12:17, 15:13, 21:18; Galatians 1:19, 2:9, 12; I Corinthians 15:7

Do you deny that Jesus did have blood brothers?

I see the Gospels as fictional narratives built mostly out of the OT, unknown to Paul, since it wasn't created yet. There is no reliable history, or rather, no way to extract reliable history out of the Gospels. See Helms Gospel Fictions, Price's Incredible Shrinking Son of Man, Brodie's Crucial Bridge, etc.

The Jesus of the Gospels is demonstrably a fictional person. Whether or not this fictional character represents someone who had a real existence is impossible to say. The object of Paul's faith, the earliest Christianity we know about, seems to not have existed to Paul in the recent past. I don't think it's possible, using Paul, to pinpoint Jesus in any time period, which lends support for the mythical interpretation.

Posted by: AUB Nov 27 2004, 04:30 PM
QUOTE
Do you deny that Jesus did have blood brothers


It depends on which doctrine is subscribed to, if you want Mary to stay a virgin (for pagan motif reasons) then James and the other brothers and sisters of Jesus mentioned in the gospel have to be "spiritual" relations or whatever. But the gospel accounts do not support this interpretation, as those who wrote them had no idea Mary was to be perpetually "virginised" (and the original Luke and Mat probably lacked the nativity completely, hence the genealogies) which was a roman invention. To understand which doctrine can be pealed away you have to study the order of their development, the linear christology.

A simple analysis of the N.T. doctrinal contradictions reveals which elements are later interpolations, or post biblical addictions.

Any further questions?

Posted by: spamandham Nov 28 2004, 10:01 AM
QUOTE (Saviourmachine @ Nov 26 2004, 12:04 PM)
If this 'brother' calling is meant spiritually, why did they call James in particular like that (it's not Peter his brother)? How did this idea settle that James was Jesus brother? Why is this James more important than James the brother of John? How did he became an authority?

The Catholic church today reserves the title 'brother' for those who have chosen a monastic role, even though all members are said to be brothers and sisters in Christ. That church also claims tradition that goes back to the first century (or earlier). Why do you assume such titles were not used in the first century as well?

Posted by: Karl Nov 28 2004, 06:58 PM
Kenneth Humphreys lists several "Jesuses" at his website: http://www.jesusneverexisted.com/surfeit.htm

Extra-biblical evidence for a god-man named "Jesus" of "Nazareth" does not exist, nor does any for his alleged family. The NT does not prove itself to be a completely historical fact, any more than the novel 'Gone With the Wind' proves itself to be a historical fact, even though both contain reference to actual historical individuals.

Massey develops the Ben-Pandira personage as being a possible physical model which contributed to the construction of the "Jesus" character of the "gospels" (in addition to Pagan sources):

QUOTE (segment from 'The Historical Jesus and the Mythical Christ' - by Gerald Massey (1828-1907) - Lecture originally published in a private edition @ c. 1900)
.....The personal existence of Jesus as Jehoshua Ben-Pandira can be established beyond a doubt. One account affirms that, according to a genuine Jewish tradition "that man (who is not to be named) was a disciple of Jehoshua Ben-Perachia." It also says, "He was born in the fourth year of the reign of the Jewish King Alexander Jannæus, notwithstanding the assertions of his followers that he was born in the reign of Herod." That would be more than a century earlier than the date of birth assigned to the Jesus of the Gospels! But it can be further shown that Jehoshua Ben-Pandira may have been born considerably earlier even than the year 102 B.C., although the point is not of much consequence here.

Jehoshua, son of Perachia, was a president of the Sanhedrin--the fifth, reckoning from Ezra as the first: one of those who in the line of descent received and transmitted the oral law, as it was said, direct from Sinai. There could not be two of that name. This Ben-Perachia had begun to teach as a Rabbi in the year 154 B.C. We may therefore reckon that he was not born later than 180-170 B.C., and that it could hardly be later than 100 B.C. when he went down into Egypt with his pupil. For it is related that he fled there in consequence of a persecution of the Rabbis, feasibly conjectured to refer to the civil war in which the Pharisees revolted against King Alexander Jannæus, and consequently about 105 B.C. If we put the age of his pupil, Jehoshua Ben-Pandira, at fifteen years, that will give us an approximate date, extracted without pressure, which shows that Jehoshua Ben-Pandira may have been born about the year 120 B.C. But twenty years are a matter of little moment here.

According to the Babylonian Gemara to the Mishna of Tract "Shabbath," this Jehoshua, the son of Pandira and Stada, was stoned to death as a wizard, in the city of Lud, or Lydda, and afterwards crucified by being hanged on a tree, on the eve of the Passover. This is the manner of death assigned to Jesus in the Book of Acts. The Gemara says there exists a tradition that on the rest-day before the Sabbath they crucified Jehoshua, on the rest-day of the Passah (the day before the Passover). The year of his death, however, is not given in that account; but there are reasons for thinking it could not have been much earlier nor later than B.C. 70, because this Jewish King Jannæus reigned from the year 106 to 79 B.C. He was succeeded in the government by his widow Salomè, whom the Greeks called Alexandra, and who reigned for some nine years. Now the traditions, especially of the first "Toledoth Jehoshua," relate that the Queen of Jannæus, and the mother of Hyrcanus, who must therefore be Salomè,

2

in spite of her being called by another name, showed favour to Jehoshua and his teaching; that she was a witness of his wonderful works and powers of healing, and tried to save him from the hands of his sacerdotal enemies, because he was related to her; but that during her reign, which ended in the year 71 B.C., he was put to death. The Jewish writers and Rabbis with whom I have talked always deny the identity of the Talmudic Jehoshua and the Jesus of the Gospels. "This," observes Rabbi Jechiels, "which has been related to Jehoshua Ben-Perachia and his pupil, contains no reference whatever to him whom the Christians honour as God!" Another Rabbi, Salman Zevi, produced ten reasons for concluding that the Jehoshua of the Talmud was not he who was afterwards called Jesus of Nazareth. Jesus of Nazareth (and of the Canonical Gospels) was unknown to Justus, to the Jew of Celsus, and to Josephus, the supposed reference to him by the latter being an undoubted forgery.

The "blasphemous writings of the Jews about Jesus," as Justin Martyr calls them, always refer to Jehoshua Ben-Pandira, and not to the Jesus of the Gospels. It is Ben-Pandira they mean when they say they have another and a truer account of the birth and life, the wonder-working and death of Jehoshua or Jesus. This repudiation is perfectly honest and soundly based. The only Jesus known to the Jews was Jehoshua Ben-Pandira, who had learnt the arts of magic in Egypt, and who was put to death by them as a sorcerer. This was likewise the only Jesus known to Celsus, the writer of the "True Logos," a work which the Christians managed to get rid of bodily, with so many other of the anti-Christian evidences.....


Herod died in 4BCE, Quirinius didn't reign until about c.6CE. This gap renders the Luke gospel account historically impossible. Mark 1 has "Jesus" going off to the wilderness after his baptism. This is contradicted in John 1 & 2, which has "Jesus" going to a wedding. It looks like the "divinely inspired" writers had trouble getting the facts straight. Despite being one of the more well-documented periods in ancient history, there is NO extra-biblical record of the alleged slaughter of the infants in Matthew 2:16. There is no extra-biblical corroboration of the fantastic aberration of Nature which allegedly occurred at "Jesus" crucifixion:
QUOTE (Luke 23:44 - KJV)
And it was about the sixth hour, and there was a darkness over ALL THE EARTH until the ninth hour.
Surely this would have been noted and recorded by others, as would the alleged opening of the graves and the
QUOTE (Matthew 27:52 - KJV)
....many bodies of the saints which slept arose.


But despite the errancy, incongruity, lack of extra-biblical corroborative evidence, etc. it's still considered the "word" of "perfect" biblegod. (and I didn't even touch on the error and archaeologically unsupportable Myths of the OT) The greatest evidence of biblical untruth however, comes from the believers themselves.

QUOTE (Some WORKS of "Jesus" - compiled from the "gospel" stories)

"Jesus" restores a deformed limb:
QUOTE (Luke 6:6/10 - KJV)
6...and there was a man whose right hand was withered. 10 And looking round about upon them all, he said unto the man, "Stretch forth they hand." And he did so: and his hand was restored whole as the other.

"Jesus" raises a dead man back to life:
QUOTE (John 11:17/43/44 - KJV)
17 Then when Jesus came, he found that he had lain in the grave four days already 43 And when he thus had spoken, he cried with a loud voice, "Lazarus, come forth." 44 And he that was dead came forth....

"Jesus" does food multiplication:
QUOTE (Mark 6:38/42/44 - KJV)
38 He said unto them, "How many loaves have ye?" And when they knew, they say "Five, and two fishes". 42 And they did all eat, and were filled. 44 And they that did eat of the loaves were about five thousand men.

"Jesus" heals the sick:
QUOTE (Luke 17:12/14 - KJV)
12 And as he entered into a certain village, there he met ten men that were lepers, which stood afar off. 14 ...and it came to pass that as they went, they were cleansed.

"Jesus" totally stops severe weather:
QUOTE (Matthew 8:24/26 - KJV)
24 And behold there arose a great tempest in the sea, insomuch that the ship was covered with the waves: but he was asleep. 26 ...Then he arose and rebuked the winds and the sea and there was a great calm.

"Jesus" turns water into wine:
QUOTE (John 2:7/10 - KJV)
7 Jesus saith unto them, "Fill the waterpots with water." And they filled them up to the brim. 10 ....but thou hast kept the good wine till now.

"Jesus" reattaches a severed body part without surgery:
QUOTE (Luke 22:50/51 - KJV)
50 And one of them smote the servant of the high priest, and cut off his right ear. 51 And Jesus answered and said, "Suffer ye thus far." And he touched his ear and healed him.



According to the following verse, ANY and ALL believers should be doing exactly what Jesus did in the above cited verses:
QUOTE (John 14:12 - KJV)
Verily, verily I say unto you, He that believeth on me, the WORKS THAT I DO shall he do also; and GREATER WORKS than these shall he do; because I go unto my Father.


"JP", MG, MD4, CIL, et al,......it is up to you to provide documented veridical evidence in support of the above verse as it applies to YOU personally, who claim to be believers. Of course, if you were unable to demonstrate said evidence, there would only be two possibilities:

1. You weren't really believers.
2. You were lied to.

In the event that nothing happened, you would also be forced to apply this:
QUOTE (Deuteronomy 18:22 - KJV)
When a prophet speaketh in the name of the Lord, if the thing follow not, nor come to pass, that is the thing which the Lord hath not spoken, but the prophet hath spoken it presumptuously: thou shalt not be afraid of him.
wouldn't you?

Of course, in this case we are dealing with "THE lord". (but it could also apply to individuals such as the late Dr. Richard Eby, who said that he would not die again before "Jesus" came back, but ended up passing on on 12/26/2002) In the event that nothing happened, and in light of demonstrated biblical errancy and incongruity, the "believers" would also have to ask themselves the following questions:

1. What right do I have to promulgate this as "truth"?

....and, more importantly in today's society:

2. What right to I have to attempt to foist associated dogma/morality/"commandments" on society as a whole, (via legislation, etc.) as "the only way" if the book upon which it is based isn't even inerrant or "Jesus'" promise of John 14:12 isn't working in my own life?

We'll eagerly await your proofs....

K

Posted by: Saviourmachine Nov 29 2004, 03:03 PM
So at one side of the coin there is
  • no extra-biblical evidence for the existence for a man named Jesus (or highly suspicious, Josephus)
  • no reason to assume that things like the massacre of babies in Bethlehem or the darkness of a few hours during the crucifixion happened
  • no reason to assume that supernatural things like miracles can happen and when a story contains them it should be regarded carefully
At the other side:
  • Did any of you investigate undesigned coincidences in the gospel? (E.g. Mary that didn't recognize Jesus... The author didn't use the darkness as an explanation for this. If he invented the story, how could he forget the cause for her disability to recognize him?
  • So there are holes shot in the framework of a physical prophet Jesus (gospels writers inventing phony prophecy fulfillments, contradicting narratives in many 'details', and so on), but there is still no coherent alternative framework. Without that, it's like disbelieving in the creation story without having the naturalistic alternative 'evolution theory' to answer most questions.*
And probably there are even more sides at this coin. I still find it very, very difficult.

* Compare it with a table full of delicious foods and spices and me as a hungry poor boy. Most of you are in a hurry to tell me that it's all poisoned, and are friendly and patient enough, to tell me what kind of poison, what the influence is, who did it poison, who were poisoned too, and so on. So, you eagerly want - me - to take the blanket and throw everything away. I've been throwing away some things, but I'm still hesitating about other things. Where do you want to replace this food with? Do I have to make "distrust" my mindset and leave with an empty stomach, or is there reason to hope for a table, even more abundantly than the first?

Posted by: notblindedbytheblight Nov 29 2004, 03:09 PM
QUOTE (Saviourmachine @ Nov 29 2004, 03:03 PM)
* Compare it with a table full of delicious foods and spices and me as a hungry poor boy. Most of you are in a hurry to tell me that it's all poisoned, and are friendly and patient enough, to tell me what kind of poison, what the influence is, who did it poison, who were poisoned too, and so on. So, you eagerly want - me - to take the blanket and throw everything away. I've been throwing away some things, but I'm still hesitating about other things. Where do you want to replace this food with? Do I have to make "distrust" my mindset and leave with an empty stomach, or is there reason to hope for a table, even more abundantly than the first?

I love that Saviour...

Replace it with unpoisoned food. Steal it, beg for it, but go get it!

Now about undesigned coincidences...I do that quite often. Haven't you ever said/wrote something that meant a lot more than what you intended? I have looked back on some of my poetry and posts here and thought to myself...wow, that is what I think but it really wasn't what I was thinking at the time.

Surely that has happened to you too.

Posted by: Intelligitimate Nov 29 2004, 05:01 PM
QUOTE
Did any of you investigate undesigned coincidences in the gospel? (E.g. Mary that didn't recognize Jesus... The author didn't use the darkness as an explanation for this. If he invented the story, how could he forget the cause for her disability to recognize him?


How do you show it is history? I assume you’re talking here about John 20:14, which is part of the John’s Passion narrative, which contradicts the other three.

And in fact, John seems to be using the Book of Tobit here to construct what Jesus is saying and Mary’s response in his Gospel. Much of Jesus’ language seems to be taken over from Raphael, and Mary’s response is similar to Tobias’ when he first saw Raphael. See Helm’s Gospel Fictions, 146-7.

QUOTE
So there are holes shot in the framework of a physical prophet Jesus (gospels writers inventing phony prophecy fulfillments, contradicting narratives in many 'details', and so on), but there is still no coherent alternative framework.


I doubt there ever will be, since there is so little to go on in reconstructing the origins of Christianity without assuming a founder (even with assuming it). There is simply no way to extract history from the Gospels, and Paul is no help. Nearly every detail of the story is demonstrably built out of the OT, even minor details like Mary not recognizing Jesus.

Posted by: spamandham Nov 29 2004, 06:27 PM
Someone familiar with the Old Testament ate some mushrooms and poppy extract, and wrote down their psychotic visions. Problem solved.

Posted by: Intelligitimate Nov 29 2004, 06:45 PM
QUOTE (spamandham @ Nov 29 2004, 09:27 PM)
Someone familiar with the Old Testament ate some mushrooms and poppy extract, and wrote down their psychotic visions. Problem solved.

Strangely enough, that is similar to a theory put forward by John Allegro in his The Sacred Mushroom and the Cross. Allegro was the only atheist working on the Dead Sea Scrolls when they were discovered, and also the only one to publish any of his work early.

Posted by: AUB Nov 30 2004, 07:14 AM
Saviourmachine

What are you current thoughts on these matters? Surely you can't be basing any "case" for xtian mythological characters on such flimsy arguments? What happened to the intelligent questions and desire for truth? You appear to be backsliding if your emotional and irrational pull towards belief has driven you to assert such absurdity as demanding a "coherent alternative framework" for something completely made up. The Gospels accounts debunk themselves, all you have is special pleading, don't let go of any intellectual integrity you gained by these childish xtian arguments, your reason knows them to be false.

Xtianty has no case, it never did, and we don’t have to answer such silly points, when the rest of it has been dealt with, very thoroughly. Your giving xtianity too much benefit of the doubt, and you're left clutching at straws, just present what points you think we haven't dealt with. Religious creation myths were just as un-exceptable, irrational, and clearly a product of human culture before evolution supplied the proper model for our origins, and was rejected by many thinkers entirely on the grounds that its just flipping stupid. The prize doesn't go to the best explanation, but one that actually makes sense within the context of the natural laws, and has evidence for it.

I could offer you no alternative for the gospel events, but an intelligent mind would still pronounce them absurd, contradictory and illogical, on their own merits. Nor is this a race to explain what is only of academic interest to the historian of 1st century Judea, as even if there was a real event, its is not of the importance the xtian would claim, that much is already established. I fear too much study on this will only leave you disappointed. Helping humanity out of it's dillusions is a far more rewarding enterprise. Their cause is of secondary importance.

Evolution is the superior alternative to creation myths because it describes events that really happened. We are here, and had to be formed via a process that demands explanation, but religions are always being created, that is nothing special. (Why think xtiany is such a big deal? Just because other do? Study other religions, and philosophies, it's mediocre at best)

Look around you, use your imagination, past is prologue, and there are no unique events in history. See a cult created in front of your eyes, from pop culture myths such as UFOs and new age junk, and imagine the same thing happening in first century Judea, with Popular pagan myths and Torah "prophecies". It’s a tale as old as civilisation, many faiths were made up before xtianity, many after, and many more will be made. Anthropology is what you need to learn, not scriptural debating tactics. Broaden your interests, your fixation with only one mythology worries me.

If there was no "foundation" of xtianty, just a merging of prior myths, then, like abiogenesis or the big bang, no irrational (i.e. religious) explanation is needed, as there was no origin from "nothing". When you pick out all elements of the N.T. that are taken from other religions, you are left with nothing. That says it all.

Posted by: SOIL-ITU Nov 30 2004, 08:23 AM
QUOTE (AUB @ Nov 30 2004, 07:14 AM)
...
If there was no "foundation" of xtianty, just a merging of prior myths, then, like abiogenesis or the big bang, no irrational (i.e. religious) explanation is needed, as there was no origin from "nothing".  When you pick out all elements of the N.T. that are taken from other religions, you are left with nothing. That says it all.

I have noticed this idea recurring, and I find it to be a very strange one.

If Christianity contains many elements that are also found in other religions - I fail to see why you would think that particular 'fact' to be pointing in a direction that would either 1) Debunk the idea of the existence of a God, or 2) Debunk Christianity's claim to be more directly "from God" than other religions.

To my way of thinking, if there is indeed a spiritual dimension associated with what it means to be a human being - then, even if one particular religion is uniquely more in tune with the truest portrayal of that essence of reality - personally, I find it to be likely (and a point of confirmation) that there would be many "points of overlap" where various religious views intersect.

-Dennis

Posted by: spamandham Nov 30 2004, 09:55 AM
QUOTE (SOIL-ITU @ Nov 30 2004, 11:23 AM)
QUOTE (AUB @ Nov 30 2004, 07:14 AM)
...
If there was no "foundation" of xtianty, just a merging of prior myths, then, like abiogenesis or the big bang, no irrational (i.e. religious) explanation is needed, as there was no origin from "nothing".  When you pick out all elements of the N.T. that are taken from other religions, you are left with nothing. That says it all.

I have noticed this idea recurring, and I find it to be a very strange one.

If Christianity contains many elements that are also found in other religions - I fail to see why you would think that particular 'fact' to be pointing in a direction that would either 1) Debunk the idea of the existence of a God, or 2) Debunk Christianity's claim to be more directly "from God" than other religions.

To my way of thinking, if there is indeed a spiritual dimension associated with what it means to be a human being - then, even if one particular religion is uniquely more in tune with the truest portrayal of that essence of reality - personally, I find it to be likely (and a point of confirmation) that there would be many "points of overlap" where various religious views intersect.

-Dennis

If you claim to have been given unique revelation directly from god, and it is later discovered other religions also held some of those revelations. Then such overlap would prove you were deceiving yourself.

Posted by: Lanakila Nov 30 2004, 10:25 AM
Not only that if your religion is just borrowed from pagan traditions and religions in rituals, doctrines, and history: then who is to say the pagan religions are wrong. If and when Christians study the history of the pagan religions--and the ancient Hebrews and compare them, you can't help but notice that not only is the God of the OT an evil warrior god that is comparable to all the pagan dieties around but that he is not one God at all, but that doctrine came much later. That many of the names for God in the OT are actual deities-separate from the Father God deity that most Christians accept. The temple rites are so similar and so pagan. The offering of Isaac by Abraham was a human sacrifice, much like the pagan cultures around participated in, and Jepthah also sacrificed his daughter to this pagan god.

The Christ cult was just borrowed from Zoroastrianism while trying to tie ancient Judiaism in. Christianity has nothing over the pagan religions. It's claims about Jesus are nothing new, and can't be proven. The Bible is a religious text believed by religious people, but that doesn't prove its supernatural or that its by any means a historically accurate description of Jesus life if he even existed.

Posted by: notblindedbytheblight Nov 30 2004, 10:40 AM
QUOTE (SOIL-ITU @ Nov 30 2004, 08:23 AM)
To my way of thinking, if there is indeed a spiritual dimension associated with what it means to be a human being - then, even if one particular religion is uniquely more in tune with the truest portrayal of that essence of reality - personally, I find it to be likely (and a point of confirmation) that there would be many "points of overlap" where various religious views intersect.

This sounds a little Hindu...ish. Except of course the part about "...one being more in tune with the truest portayal of that essence of reality" part. That's just a little arrogant of any religion to claim their way is more in tune with that 'essence'. GONZ9729CustomImage1539775.gif

Posted by: AUB Nov 30 2004, 12:23 PM
QUOTE
one being more in tune with the truest portayal of that essence of reality


Xtians have been saying that, even about greek philosophy and science, since day one. Arrogance covers the sense that their dogma is somehow better than the others, but the similarities are too great to be dismissed, while the differences among these religions are also too great for them all to be alternative of the same message or deity.
First they denied there are similarities, then they focus entirely on them and ignore all the colossal doctrinal differences. The intellectual dishonesty of it's all amazes me.

Posted by: Karl Dec 2 2004, 02:40 AM
SM & Dennis:

I will respond to your points below:

QUOTE (Saviourmachine - Nov 29 2004 @ 06:03 PM)
....So there are holes shot in the framework of a physical prophet Jesus (gospels writers inventing phony prophecy fulfillments, contradicting narratives in many 'details', and so on), but there is still no coherent alternative framework. Without that, it's like disbelieving in the creation story without having the naturalistic alternative 'evolution theory' to answer most questions....
QUOTE (Dennis - Nov 30 2004 @ 11:23 AM)
....To my way of thinking, if there is indeed a spiritual dimension associated with what it means to be a human being...
I'm going to give you my take on religion and Spirituality again.
I define Spirituality as an Internal Process:
1. Devotion to the Divine within
2. Dedication to Metaphysics
3. Respect for the Individual Rights of others.

I define religion as an external framework, consisting of traditon, dogma, observances, ritual, etc.--whatever you want it to be.

Can you see the difference?

To the Pagan, the "coherant alternative framework" is basically Nature, and the unfolding evolvement that is observed. There are some here who say that the observed unfolding evolvement is unguided, and some, including myself, are of the opinion that it is Guided.
The point of "overlap" in the Guided group, Dennis, is the commonality of acknowledgement of Universal HigherPower/Intelligence, and supposedly, Esotericism.

Now let's get to the crux of the problem:

QUOTE (Dennis - Nov 30 2004 @ 11:23 AM)
....2) Debunk Christianity's claim to be more directly "from God" than other religions.....even if one particular religion is uniquely more in tune with the truest portrayal of that essence of reality ...
As myself, AUB, SH & others have pointed out, by what authority or stretch of the imagination can Christianity substantiate its claims of being "the only way", the "only true religion", the "only true revelation is the bible", "going to hell" if you don't convert, having the "one true" God, etc. in light of biblical errancy, self-contradiction and incongruity? NB hit the nail on the head with:
QUOTE (notblindedbytheblight - Nov 30 2004 @ 01:40 PM)
...That's just a little arrogant of any religion to claim their way is more in tune with that 'essence'.
It is with this same arrogance that fundamentalist dogmatists will always say "we have the only 'true religion'", i.e. their focus is on the external elements I previously described, (e.g. subscribing to the "correct" dogma will "save" them) and not the Internal Process, which should be Common to all. Lana alluded to the utterly abhorrent violence, destruction and barbarity has been perpetrated throughout history in the name of primitive tribal biblegod, and by the religionists subscribing to those "scriptures". I'm an "atheist" when it comes to biblegod, Dennis.

Classical Philosophy virtually came to an end with one of the most heinous and abominable murders committed in annals of humankind. Pulled from her chariot, Philosopher Hypatia of Alexandria, daughter of the Mathemeticain and Astronomer Theon, was stripped naked, stabbed and subsequently flayed (with sharpened oyster shells) in Alexandria in 415CE (in a "church" no less) by canonized "Saint" Cyril's man Peter the Reader and his band of crazed, lunatic monks, who do not even deserve to be called animals, let alone humans. Her remains were then burned by the same mob of Christian devils. But, this has been typical of Christian control-mongering, corruption and insanity since its inception, culminating in recent times with the Deanna Laney (of Tyler, Texas) tragedy (she stoned two of her own children to death with a rock because biblegod allegedly told her to do it), and the Mancini child-sacrifice horror, which fortunately did not come to fruition.

QUOTE (Saviourmachine - Nov 29 2004 @ 06:03 PM)
Compare it with a table full of delicious foods and spices and me as a hungry poor boy. Most of you are in a hurry to tell me that it's all poisoned, and are friendly and patient enough, to tell me what kind of poison, what the influence is, who did it poison, who were poisoned too, and so on. So, you eagerly want - me - to take the blanket and throw everything away. I've been throwing away some things, but I'm still hesitating about other things. Where do you want to replace this food with? Do I have to make "distrust" my mindset and leave with an empty stomach, or is there reason to hope for a table, even more abundantly than the first?


SM, Dennis...let's go back in time.....

Some Words of Wisdom Hypatia left us:
QUOTE (Hypatia of Alexandria ~ (c. 370-415))
Life is an unfoldment, and the further we travel the more Truth we can comprehend. To understand the things that are at our door is the best preparation for understanding those that lie beyond.


EL was the chief deity of the Pagan Canaanite Pantheon. According to Armstrong, the Hebrews emerged from the Canaanite population, and they used the name EL as their name for God. EL is included in the OT Hebrew texts: "El Shaddai", "El Elyon", "Elohim", "ImManuEL" (Manu is a Hindu name for Deity), IsRaEL, etc. Yah was the Egyptian Moon God, and is also included in OT text. So we find that biblegod is a construct from varying sources. Additionally, the Goddess Asherah (consort of EL) was in use at least up to the 8th century BCE, but as the consort of YHWH:
QUOTE (Ha'aretz Magazine - Oct. 1999)
It will come as an unpleasant shock to many that the God of Israel, YHWH, had a female consort and that the early Israelite religion adopted monotheism only in the waning period of the monarchy and not at Mount Sinai.
Shaitan was the Sumerian God of light. (and was demonized into Satan) Lucifer is a character from Roman Mythology, where he was the son of the Dawn Goddess Aurora. So we see the same holds true for bibledevil.

Christianity, as Lana said, gets some of its dogma from dualistic Zoroastrianism (hell, the final battle between good and evil, etc.) which were also adopted by Jewish apocolyptic thinkers, Christians and fundamentalist Islamists and found their way into the book of Revelation, etc.

The Logos was in use in Pagan Greece, way before it was used in John 1:1 - The Thinker Heraclitus lived in the 6th century BCE, and was a native of Ephesus. Not a lot of his work has survived, but some has:

QUOTE (Heraclitus - fragment 1 @ p.19)
Although this Logos is eternally valid, yet men are unable to understand it -- not only before hearing it, but even after they have heard it for the first time. That is to say, although all things come to pass in accordance with this Logos , men seem to be quite without any experience of it -- at least if they are judged in the light of such words and deeds as I am here setting forth.
QUOTE (Heraclitus - fragment 2 @ p.19)
We should let ourselves be guided by what is common to all. Yet although the Logos is common to all, most men live as if each had a private intelligence of his own.
This passage is important, because it suggests the Internal Unity of all, which is in opposition to the externality of fundamentalist legalistic idiocy, which has done nothing but ruin humanity. And:
QUOTE (Heraclitus - fragment 118 @ p.102)
Listening not to me but to the Logos, it is wise to acknowledge that all things are one.


The Madonna and Child/Triad were on the walls of Egypt for millenia before they appeared as human literalizations in the NT gospels. In ancient times, Esotericism was encoded in Myth. Kuhn goes into this in his excellent book 'Who Is This King of Glory?' You can read this on-line at http://members.tripod.com/~pc93/kuhn.htm .
Since my personal perspective is also Mystical Kemet, the reader should understand that UNDER NO CIRCUMSTANCES is this an attempt to: preach at, proselytize, convert, dictate what position should be held or say how things should be viewed. Additionally, NO CLAIMS are made that what follows is "absolute truth", "inerrant" "revealed" text, "the only true word of god", "the only way" to be "saved", "the only true religion/dogma", "going to hell" if they don't believe it etc.

My view of Kemet is somewhat more Universal and Eclectic as opposed to Orthodoxy.
The Concept in Kemet is One Divine Power (Netjer) manifesting as many Essences or Divinities. (a form of Polytheism known as Monalatry) Physics has demonstrated the existence of the Primordial Field (the late Physicist Dr. Bruce DePalma goes into this in his paper 'On the Nature of the Primordial Field' at http://depalma.pair.com) DePalma's conjecture is that the Field is Intelligent (Energy or Force), and I agree with him.

In electricity in Nature, we observe polarities: -(female),+(male). When we take a (+)male rod, and place it in a (-)female sheath, both of appropriate materials, we have something called a battery. When a bulb (load) is connected in the circuit, POWER is the child. The child brings forth LIGHT in the bulb. The triadic circuit is ONE. We see this happen in the physical sun. When enough simple hydrogen atoms (1 electron-, female and 1 proton+, male) come together, a sun is born. The sun "makes" all of the other elements. Again, power is the child and the child emits light.

For lack of better terms, at the Higher Vibratory Level/Dimension of Spirit, I refer to the Intelligent Polarities of the Universe as "God" and "Goddess". I also see Them as Living Principles. At the Spirit Level, Esoterically, the Logos, or Upholding Power in the Universe, is also the Divine Child or Soul Spark, who comes in the hearts of men. At no point, did the ancients ever consider the Logos coming AS a man of flesh.
QUOTE (Alvin Boyd Kuhn - 'Who Is This King of Glory?' pages 41-42)
....It is now known that the Greeks were only toying with a marvelous imagery. But modern moronism is not saved by allegory. In
42
sober earnest we have claimed that the unimaginable cosmic might of the Logos that swings the galaxies through their orbits came to earth and was a man of flesh! Jesus, the second Person of the Trinity! That millions have for centuries been made to "believe" such folly is a sickening realization. This was one item in the catastrophe that was precipitated on half a world for sixteen centuries as a result of turning myth and drama into alleged "history". A heavy price to pay for bad scholarship! The pious faith of the ignorant Church Fathers did not save them from precipitating the Western world into the Dark Ages, the blame for which has been laid at the door of an innocuous "paganism" of the northern lands of Europe, whose systems of a profounder esotericism were ruthlessly destroyed by advancing "Christianity" of the literalized variety.


QUOTE (Alvin Boyd Kuhn - 'Who Is This King of Glory?' Introduction @ xi, xii)
....The primary truth of human culture which is presented by all sage religions of antiquity is the fact that there resides deeply embedded in the core of man’s constitution a nucleus of what, for want of a better designation, must be called a divine spark or sun. The glow of Christliness--a thing at once both chemically radio-active and intellectual--in us is indeed the hope of our glory. Modern science, through the work of Dr. George W. Crile, late head of the Cleveland Medical laboratories, has rediscovered what the ancient sages were familiar with--the radiant SUN in man. "Every man," proclaimed the ancients and the Medieval "Fire Philosophers," "has a little SUN within his own breast." This sun is the Christ in man, a nucleus of fiery divine spirit-energy. All the Christs in antiquity were denominated "Sun-
xii
Gods." The names of nearly all of them are the immediate words for the sun, or epithets appropriate to the solar orb. "All things are the products of one primordial Fire," assert the Chaldean Oracles. Life nucleates glowing centers of this fire throughout the Universe in the radiant cells of its physical body, which are the suns. Every creature that his life shares a portion of this pervasive fire, which is the rock of its hope for evolution to its greater glory.
The Divine Child was said to be "crucified" on the cross of matter, and "rose from the dead" on the Transformation of the individual.

There were numerous S(u/o)n God Saviours....Horus, Apollo, Buddha, Krishna, and many more. The Esotericism is the same. Unfortunately, exclusionistic, legalistic, fundamentalist religionist dogmas have no use for such things. It's bullshit like "don't do this" and "you must do that" and "you can't have that", and "you have to wear this"....the BS goes on and on...

The Infinite Living Universe, having no beginning and no end, can not be compared to the finite, which has a beginning and an end. This Principle is also illustrated by the fact that the infinite circle can not be compared to the finite line. This is why the Pi calculation will never repeat, even though it has been carried to billions of decimal places. The Profoundness of Sacred Mathematics, the triadic prism which breaks white light into its colors, the Auric Life Energy display in a kirlian photograph, etc to me are indicative of Higher Organizing Power. DePalma writes of the Primordial Field:
QUOTE
For those of us who consider ourselves sophisticated we amuse ourselves with a pastime called Science. This the application of logic (the self-defining reasoning process in Nature), to Nature. This self-examination in itself has the limitation of the manifest in attempting to describe the un-manifest.
and...
QUOTE
..it's architecture is beyond the scope of my discovery...
But we do have clues....Triadic Signatures are observed in Nature. The Absolote One is the Unmanifest Nothing. Together, They Manifest as TheAllThatIsConveyed. It is a Profound Mystery, but IMO One of Great Delight and Awe.
QUOTE (Dion Fortune - 'Aspects of Occultism' - page 28)
We are also accustomed to regard the laws of polarity as on one plane - horizontal, but the Esoteric teachings show that the same Principle may be applied vertically, and the mental, positive stimulus may polarize with the physical, negative aspect, and that the Astral Forces ensouling those forms with life complete the Trinity of Function...


Another good book to read is 'The Secret Teachings of All Ages' by Manly P.Hall, which goes into some detail about the various Mystery Schools. Fundies, in their abject ignorance and superstitious fear, have always bashed the Ankh as being "occult" (the word occult means "hidden") and "of the devil". Its Esoteric meaning is elucidated in the below basic illustration of my worldview.

SM, hopefully I have at least somewhat "set the table", with more palatable Food than the dogmatic dogfood that you may have been used to in the past....do with it what you will.

Best regards,

K

Posted by: ChefRanden Dec 2 2004, 05:35 AM
QUOTE (SOIL-ITU @ Nov 30 2004, 10:23 AM)
QUOTE (AUB @ Nov 30 2004, 07:14 AM)
...
If there was no "foundation" of xtianty, just a merging of prior myths, then, like abiogenesis or the big bang, no irrational (i.e. religious) explanation is needed, as there was no origin from "nothing".  When you pick out all elements of the N.T. that are taken from other religions, you are left with nothing. That says it all.

I have noticed this idea recurring, and I find it to be a very strange one.

If Christianity contains many elements that are also found in other religions - I fail to see why you would think that particular 'fact' to be pointing in a direction that would either 1) Debunk the idea of the existence of a God, or 2) Debunk Christianity's claim to be more directly "from God" than other religions.

To my way of thinking, if there is indeed a spiritual dimension associated with what it means to be a human being - then, even if one particular religion is uniquely more in tune with the truest portrayal of that essence of reality - personally, I find it to be likely (and a point of confirmation) that there would be many "points of overlap" where various religious views intersect.

-Dennis

Then what happens to Christianity's claim to be unique? And why would the early church work so hard to surpress the other god/man stories?

The reason you consider Christianity to be the best religion is because it is the one you were born into. If your family were Muslim, you would be posting on the Ex-Islam board.


Posted by: spamandham Dec 2 2004, 02:44 PM
QUOTE (Karl)
The Concept in Kemet is One Divine Power (Netjer) manifesting as many Essences or Divinities. (a form of Polytheism known as Monalatry) Physics has demonstrated the existence of the Primordial Field (the late Physicist Dr. Bruce DePalma goes into this in his paper 'On the Nature of the Primordial Field' at http://depalma.pair.com) DePalma's conjecture is that the Field is Intelligent (Energy or Force), and I agree with him.


There is a tremendous amount of junk science going on these days. In this case, we have more than just a claim at a perpetual motion machine, but we also have the inventor making excuses for not using it - "the government will confiscate it if I turn it on". I mean, come on. If you're that sure you've figured out how to make free energy but you're afraid the government will somehow magically know you've turned the machine on and come confiscate it, go to Antigua and do it.

Posted by: JasonLong Dec 2 2004, 07:19 PM
QUOTE (ChefRanden @ Dec 2 2004, 08:35 AM)
The reason you consider Christianity to be the best religion is because it is the one you were born into.  If your family were Muslim, you would be posting on the Ex-Islam board.

Don't expect an apologist to accept such a simple, undeniably true observation. If it were that easy to get people to think, Christianity would have died long ago.

Posted by: Karl Dec 5 2004, 10:08 PM
QUOTE (JasonLong @ Dec 2 2004, 10:19 PM)
QUOTE (ChefRanden @ Dec 2 2004, 08:35 AM)
The reason you consider Christianity to be the best religion is because it is the one you were born into.  If your family were Muslim, you would be posting on the Ex-Islam board.

Don't expect an apologist to accept such a simple, undeniably true observation. If it were that easy to get people to think, Christianity would have died long ago.

You're right. And biblical self-contradictions aren't really self-contradictions, and just because there is no empirical evidence for something doesn't mean it didn't happen, and anything that absurd must be true, etc...

Wendybanghead.gif

Unfortunately, the fundie religionists are now getting help from the statists.

I enjoyed your website, Jason. We'll just have to keep on exposing it for what it is.

Best regards,

K

Powered by Invision Power Board (http://www.invisionboard.com)
© Invision Power Services (http://www.invisionpower.com)