sweet caring guy but no resurrection....just some slut telling stories.
I find it comforting to think of Jesus as just a crazy guy spouting his philosophy
|by Anonymous||reply 95||04/02/2013|
Why think of him at all...he is a mythical composite.
|by Anonymous||reply 1||03/31/2013|
Agree it is mythology at its finest. So if he was killed on good friday and then rose on easter wtf happened after that? Did he get married and have kids? go into male prostitution? what did he die of the second time if he is supposed to be coming back?
|by Anonymous||reply 2||03/31/2013|
He 'ascended into heaven' like all the other man-god dieties before him.
|by Anonymous||reply 3||03/31/2013|
R4, lets do a little tour of China, India, other Southeast Asia shit holes and see what you think of your god then. Personally, I wouldn't want any part of a god that allowed what you see there.
|by Anonymous||reply 5||03/31/2013|
Jesus' teachings are plagiarized from Zoroastrians. Just sayin'.
|by Anonymous||reply 7||03/31/2013|
No sir, atheist for as long as I can remember.
|by Anonymous||reply 8||03/31/2013|
There has never been a DL thread about religion that didn't end up being filled with stale campy remarks or the shrieks of rage-o-holics.
This one seems right on track.
|by Anonymous||reply 9||03/31/2013|
Why not think about myths r1?
|by Anonymous||reply 10||03/31/2013|
Now that altar boys are spending Easter with their families, R4/R6 is feeling lonely.
|by Anonymous||reply 11||03/31/2013|
He was mo!
I kissed him!!!
|by Anonymous||reply 12||03/31/2013|
Jesus was a good man, a great psycic, and the natural son of Mary and Joseph.
|by Anonymous||reply 13||03/31/2013|
Much of the message Jesus taught is very similar to Buddhism. There are a number of scholars who think the historical Christ traveled east and encountered Buddhism. It is possible seeing we know absolutely nothing about the bulk of Christ's life. He tweaked it a little and ta-da! Buddhism for 1st Century Jews aka Christianity.
|by Anonymous||reply 14||03/31/2013|
|by Anonymous||reply 16||03/31/2013|
This hooker rose from the dead, and it didn't take her three days
|by Anonymous||reply 17||03/31/2013|
[quote]Jesus was a good man, a great psycic, and the natural son of Mary and Joseph.
Or the natural son of Mary and someone. She had to come up with that "impregnated by Yahweh" story quickly.
|by Anonymous||reply 18||03/31/2013|
It's funny/confusing that the bible lists Joseph's forefathers all the way back to the beginning of times, including all the old heroes, when he is just Jesus stepdad, so his bloodline should be meaningless. I don't think Mary's bloodline is followed back at all. I do not get it.
|by Anonymous||reply 20||03/31/2013|
Jesus is a fictitious entity from story book, just like Frodo or Ishmael.
|by Anonymous||reply 22||03/31/2013|
really r1? he's a composite? I never thought of it that way. Interesting.
|by Anonymous||reply 23||03/31/2013|
|by Anonymous||reply 24||04/01/2013|
R23 do some reading about the previous man-god dieties Jesus has a bit of all of them right down to the quotes and traditions...his look came straight from Mithras.
|by Anonymous||reply 25||04/01/2013|
R26 there is no evidence to suggest he was anything other than a myth. Jesus probably never existed.
|by Anonymous||reply 27||04/01/2013|
R28 utterly true. Believers need to pretend and write 'scholarly' books to continue to pretend.
|by Anonymous||reply 29||04/01/2013|
R30 there is no existing data. I read the fucking book.
The best he can do it say some guy who had NOTHING in common with this godman named Jesus once lived.
There could have been 100 guys with the name, I will give you that. but the Jesus of the fucking bible is a myth.
|by Anonymous||reply 32||04/01/2013|
Jesus is just another version of the Hebrew name we also translate as Joshua. Can you even imagine how many Joshua's there have been since Joshua, the legendary hero who led the Jews after Moses?
|by Anonymous||reply 33||04/01/2013|
R34 that was his point, yet he had no proof of that point, which is why I call him a believer.
|by Anonymous||reply 35||04/01/2013|
That's all, he was just a re-telling of the ancient myths.
Nothing to explain, nothing to see, NO historical evidence whatsoever.
The author you tout states that the Jesus he found does not resemble the savior Jesus, meaning he found some guy.
Okay once upon a time there was a guy named Jesus or Joshua or some variation.
This guy bears no resemblance to the bible guy.
In fact I will do you better, there may have been thousands of Jesus.
|by Anonymous||reply 37||04/01/2013|
No, he doesn't just find some guy. He finds a specific guy who does specific things that leads to specific things. A guy with a brother named James. A guy who was followed by a guy named Peter. This James and Peter met a guy named Paul. All of these guys did specific things...and none of it was invent a godman by stitching together elements of existing godman stories.
Who invented your godman? What was the point of doing it? Why invent a Jewish messiah who looks nothing like any Jewish notion of the messiah? What was the point? Explain? The "Jesus as cobbled together myth" people can't explain how or why.
|by Anonymous||reply 38||04/01/2013|
There is no proof of any of this, brothers included. It reads like a bad history channel special. To the ' person of faith' it is truth, to real people speculation.
Like a game of telephone.
What was the point of doing it?
There were people who wanted to reform the Jews. They take old myths and make them into a new man to try and convince Jews to stop being money changers and eat shrimp. They were radicals who wanted to do away with the old laws, thus a man god was born with the stories co-opted form Krishna and Mithras.
It did not really catch on.
Until they decided to kill all the nonbelievers many years later, thus modern stupidity (christianity) was born.
|by Anonymous||reply 39||04/01/2013|
Well, there was a point where the Emperor Constantine had to make a choice between Mithras and Christ. To identify the two by storyline was very convenient since the majority of the legions were worshipping Mithras.
There's your who and why.
|by Anonymous||reply 40||04/01/2013|
Constantine chose Christ as a power grab, it was politics, not faith.
|by Anonymous||reply 41||04/01/2013|
R42 is insane.
|by Anonymous||reply 43||04/01/2013|
That's not really my who and why, r40, since Constantine making Christianity legal (he did not make it the state religion and he did not make it the only legal religion) happened 300 years after the beginning of Christianity. So that doesn't explain how it got to Constantine's day.
And r39 you have no grasp of history at all and no evidence for your theory...especially as compared to the many different, independent texts that an overwhelming majority of historians (Christian or not) would find evidence in.
Your bar is set extremely low for your conspiracy theory and extremely high for the story you claim is myth. You are much more of a believer without facts than those you rant against.
|by Anonymous||reply 44||04/01/2013|
Funny R44. Go back to church now.
|by Anonymous||reply 45||04/01/2013|
The problem you ignore R44 is that what you call Christianity and orthodoxy did NOT exist before Constantine. The religion was not a religion, it was dozens of little groups of "believers" that each had their own belief system and often their own written gospels, many of which were intentionally "disappeared" because they did not comply with the "official" dogma established by.....wait for it... CONSTANTINE and the COUNCIL of NICEA
|by Anonymous||reply 46||04/01/2013|
Funny, I don't go to church. But I also don't believe parallels equal causality. And I certainly don't see where you have proved that Jesus didn't exist.
But if you don't want to have a rational discussion based in reality, that's fine too.
|by Anonymous||reply 47||04/01/2013|
R44 is a christian and thus has no grasp of history.
|by Anonymous||reply 48||04/01/2013|
|by Anonymous||reply 49||04/01/2013|
R47 I can't prove that Santa Claus didn't exist.
Nor can I prove their is no Easter Bunny.
I can't prove Zeus or Jupiter or Krishna did not exist either.
You cannot prove any of them did exist.
Enjoy your myths.
|by Anonymous||reply 50||04/01/2013|
r46, you are wrong. And there are plenty of documents that prove you are wrong. And I never defined Christianity and never even said the work orthodoxy.
It is certainly true that there were different ideas of what Christianity was before Constantine. But it is also true that there were different forms after Constantine. Also there is no evidence for Constantine or anyone associated with him "disappearing" documents. There isn't even a canon document that comes out of Nicea. The first canon document that looks like the later New Testament doesn't appear until decades after Nicea. Plenty of Christian texts that never made it in the eventual New Testament were used for centuries after Nicea. And Constantine, as I already said, and you can look up, did not make Christianity the only legal religion, he simply made it legal for the first time. So people were free to use whatever they wanted in their churches for quite a while after Constantine and Nicea.
Look into what actually happened at Nicea. They didn't invent Jesus there. They didn't discuss the date of Christmas or Easter. They debated whether Jesus was fully God or a little less than that. Everyone there agreed that Jesus was in some way God.
There is real, factual data on these things. These ridiculous conspiracy theories have to pretend it doesn't exist.
|by Anonymous||reply 51||04/01/2013|
"44 is a christian and thus has no grasp of history."
That's the best you can do? Call me something I already said I am not and mimic a line from one of my posts?
And as opposed to the Easter Bunny, I have lots of texts that say Jesus really existed. I have lots of data as to the development of the Christian Church. Your argument has to prove all of that wrong. You are engaging in false logic. No historians tell us the Easter Bunny existed. All but the biggest crackpots (all of two or three) tell us Jesus did exist. The burden is on you to prove them all wrong.
|by Anonymous||reply 52||04/01/2013|
No, Constantine ordered Eusebius to provide Bibles and the Bishop of Alexandria, Athanasius had a hand in it as well. Athanasius collected what is now essentially the New Testament and guess when? In the Fourth century.
|by Anonymous||reply 53||04/01/2013|
I have books that make a case for Orisis and Krishna. Worship them for a bit.
|by Anonymous||reply 54||04/01/2013|
r53, that's not true. You cannot back that up.
In 331, long after Nicea, Constantine commissioned the copying of 50 Bibles. But that in no way established the canon and Christians continued to debate which books were sacred long after that order.
|by Anonymous||reply 55||04/01/2013|
You do not have texts that say Osiris and Krishna were real, living, walking persons. And you certainly don't have texts that say that from their enemies.
Plenty of people in the ancient world thought Christianity was a pernicious disease, and every one of them thought Jesus really existed.
You can keep making this something it is not. If you want to say that someone made up Jesus you have to come up with a logical reason for doing so and how he or she did it.
|by Anonymous||reply 56||04/01/2013|
I do have a text that says the great god Enke was a real living person.
I also have a text that says the vampire lestat is real.
Logic comes in at times for some of us.
|by Anonymous||reply 57||04/01/2013|
Check out Jay Haley's "The Power Tactics of Jesus Christ."
|by Anonymous||reply 58||04/01/2013|
R58 his book are essays on therapy.
What specifically about his book applies to this discussion?
|by Anonymous||reply 59||04/01/2013|
I've posted on these threads before; they're amusing. There is NO proof that Yeshu (Aramaic for Joshua = Jesus = Greek for Joshua) existed as a human being. When Paul (whatever his real name) met with James the brother of The Lord (NOT of Yeshu or Jesus) and Cephas (Aramaic nickname meaning "Rock" = Peter in Latin) probably about fifteen or so years after "Yeshu's death" he describes them as "taking their place at The Temple" meaning they were devout Jews. They could not have been so had they believed in someone who had Risen from the Dead and overturned the Law of Moses.
Their Jewish sect was virulently anti-Herodian, and many years later that resulted in James' brutal murder, which created a well documented scandal. There is NO documentation about Yeshu. There may have been a real person who was an insurgent and was crucified by the Romans (actually fairly commonplace) and was James' actual brother. Or this mystical group of Jews may have indulged in cultic magic and contacted a spirit calling itself Yeshu; as in many cults they may have addressed/described one another as 'brother' and 'sister'. That does not mean they were blood relatives.
Paul went on to invent a far less Jewish cult that became the basis for Christianity. He NEVER talks about Yeshu/Jesus' life, background or behavior but only about his end and Resurrection. He also claims to have met "Jesus" as an ascended spirit in the "Heavens".
James and Cephas hated Paul; James refused to give him a letter authorizing him to preach "The Lord". Paul hated them back. But won -- when the Romans destroyed Jerusalem and The Temple in the Jewish War of 70 CE (AD formerly) any Jews surviving from the time thought to be that of Yeshu were either killed or scattered; if there were written materials by or about him they were destroyed (and if there were any they would have been seized and destroyed at his arrest, if indeed there was a real person to arrest).
None of the Gospels -- the first three, Mark, Matthew, Luke were probably circulating in some form by the 80's or 90's of the first century CE, John is probably the last written and is assumed to be later though by how much is still argued -- none are by eye witnesses, all are written in koine Greek and involve a lot of citations and quotes from the Old Testament, also there are similarities to various stories from the Jewish Bible. Much appears to be made up from whole cloth and anyone who reads the original texts will notice dizzying shifts in style and tone, suggesting a wealth of revision in the years before Mark, Matthew, Luke and John became the "Canonical" Gospels (none of those names are real, they were made up long after the fact).
What does this mean? There may or may not have been a person; he may or may not have been crucified; no one who commemorated him more or less contemporaneously (James, Cephas) believed he "Rose from the Tomb". If he existed and was crucified, his mission was political, only Romans crucified people and that was for sedition. Sayings are taken from various sources, The Old Testament being an important one.
A case can be made for someone existing though with big leaps and much speculation, anyone saying anything else is a Christian Fundamentalist heavily invested in bogus and twisted "scholarship".
|by Anonymous||reply 60||04/01/2013|
Well said R60.
|by Anonymous||reply 61||04/01/2013|
I love disco!
|by Anonymous||reply 62||04/01/2013|
No, sorry, r60, your theory is still speculation and half-truths. I'm not going to go through your nonsense point for point, but its hogwash.
Just to take one: Paul does not call James the brother of the lord in some spiritual way. This is very clear by his referring to "Peter and James the brother of the Lord" where it is very clear that he is saying something different about James than he is saying about Peter. So how if Peter and James are the leaders of the movement Paul knew (who he calls the pillars) does he only call one of them the brother of the lord? And why do several other independent sources call James the brother of the Lord and never the other acknowledged early Christians like Peter? Because they really meant brother.
You have no basis for your notion that Jesus was some sort of spirit early Christians channeled. No one ever claims that and no critic of Christianity ever accuses them of that. You are making stuff up based on nothing, precisely what you accuse others of doing.
|by Anonymous||reply 63||04/01/2013|
R63 knows because he personally studied the texts and translated the writings and know it is all real.
Except of course it is all faith. He has it, no matter how many denials.
|by Anonymous||reply 64||04/01/2013|
[quote]How do you know Constantine existed?
it is verifiable by thousands, not a couple, of sources. He also left behind a city with his name on it.
|by Anonymous||reply 66||04/01/2013|
Nu-uh. All made up by the Vatican. And they invented the name based on the city not the other way around.
And yet in all seriousness your "verifiable by thousands" is completely pulled out of your ass.
|by Anonymous||reply 67||04/01/2013|
You're making yourself look like an idiot, R67, just FYI.
|by Anonymous||reply 68||04/01/2013|
R67, trade with Constantinople was very high at that period, all of those Persians, Syrians, Caucasians and Indians were just paying homage to a made-up figurehead just to stymy you? you have an even grander vision of yourself than he did of himself it seems.
|by Anonymous||reply 69||04/01/2013|
Logic? you are using logic?
|by Anonymous||reply 71||04/01/2013|
r69, I was making a point and being facetious...but all you haven proven is that Constantinople existed, not Constantine and the existence of Constantinople was an accepted element of my ridiculous conspiracy theory. It's Constantine's existence that I pretended was a myth, just as the Jesus-deniers assert that Jesus is a myth.
|by Anonymous||reply 72||04/01/2013|
"Logic? you are using logic?"
Another well-reasoned argument with evidence on your side. Bravo.
|by Anonymous||reply 73||04/01/2013|
It's funny that people still don't know if Michael Jackson was really gay, who the father of his children are, whether he was really abused as a child, etc, etc...the most famous person in the world known by billions,
yet people think they know everything about a supposed person in which there is absolutely NOTHING written or documented by ANYONE who lived while he was alive.
Just unbelievable. Just stupid.
|by Anonymous||reply 74||04/01/2013|
I am not at all religious but I am always amazed by how ignorant of the basic tenets of Christianity most DLers appear to be.
|by Anonymous||reply 75||04/01/2013|
Yes, because modern media is equivalent to that of the ancient world and Jesus was as famous in his lifetime as Michael Jackson was in his.
And of course Paul was alive when Jesus was alive and did write about him, though he never met him. He did, however, meet Jesus' brother and some other people who knew Jesus when he was alive like Peter and John.
|by Anonymous||reply 76||04/01/2013|
You are dead wrong. Any "Gospels", Paul, or otherwise, were written at least 200 years AFTER the supposed dead of "Jesus".
There is NO evidence otherwise. NONE. Anything else is conjecture.
|by Anonymous||reply 77||04/01/2013|
That Alec Baldwin would tweet this yesterday is the biggest shock to me:
"The teachings of Christ are a blessing in my life."
|by Anonymous||reply 78||04/01/2013|
That's the point, r76. Most people during his time had never heard of Jesus. The ONLY things we know of him were the things written about him much later. So if he were the "son of god" then wouldn't there be SO much more known of him? What a crappy god that he can't even make himself known to everyone.
|by Anonymous||reply 79||04/01/2013|
yeah, r77, that's not true and I would love to see you try to back that up. We have a copy of part of the Gospel of John that papyrologists date to 125 CE.
And no legitimate scholar, Christian or non-Christian, argues that Paul didn't write at least 7 of the letters attributed to him or that the 4 gospels weren't written in the first century.
Plenty of 2nd century writers attest to the existence of gospels and letters of Paul. So unless you want to argue all those references are made up too, I don't see how you can back up your assertion.
|by Anonymous||reply 80||04/01/2013|
r79, the question is not whether he was son of god, but whether he existed. And the fact that there are no records about one more Jewish peasant stirring up the Jews in Judea should surprise no one.
Again, the argument is not that he was the son of a god or a son of god, but that he existed, was crucified, had followers, who eventually decided he was Son of God in the sense you mean (not the fairly common sense within Judaism that in no implied the person called son of god was God himself).
|by Anonymous||reply 81||04/01/2013|
r77 is only partially wrong, r80. As academics understand, the earliest of the gospels would have been written in about 60 CE - still well after the death, but not as far at our friend at r77 posits. If Jesus existed and was crucified, the people writing the gospels would have been born around the time of death.
Christianity spread rapidly much later than these writings, so its a moot point whether or not they were written in real time or 200 years after.
|by Anonymous||reply 82||04/01/2013|
No, Mark is thought by academics to be the earliest of the 4 gospels written and it was written around 70, which is 40 years or less after Jesus' death.
And it is very different from r77's assertion that they were not written until over 200 years after his death, with as few as two links in the chain of transmission.
r77 was trying to say the gospels were complete fabrications written centuries after the facts they pretend to recount. Academics, in fact, argue that the gospels record traditions that were in circulation for only a few decades, some of which go back to Jesus himself.
|by Anonymous||reply 83||04/01/2013|
And the earliest letter of Paul was written fewer than 20 years after the death of Jesus and written by someone who had talked to people who knew he existed, like Peter and John.
|by Anonymous||reply 84||04/01/2013|
Every post I read keeps claiming a younger date.
First 200 years then 60, then 40, now 20 years.
|by Anonymous||reply 85||04/01/2013|
r83, we are not in disagreement over dates but rather the idea that the links from the gospel writers to Jesus are anything more than tenuous.
Take the gospel you mention, Mark. Despite being the earliest gospel, it's written by a Greek speaker (maybe Jesus understood Greek, but as we know he spoke Aramaic and worked in Hebrew). Aside from the language link in transmission, the author makes mistakes about Palestinian geography. He doesn't know the language or the land. Mark's is an oral tradition with as many hypothetical links in transmission as I want to posit. In this transmission, the philosophy OP speaks of can be mangeled to suit any tribe, tyrant, or religious collective. This can result in fabrication.
And apologies. Foolishly, I assumed that r79 and r77 were the same poster which is why I came to their defense. Without the post at r79, I would have elected not to comment. I am disinterested in engaging in our friend the Jesus denier's argument but in favor of moving the OP's topic forward.
|by Anonymous||reply 88||04/01/2013|
r86 prays you find Jesus
|by Anonymous||reply 89||04/01/2013|
I don't care what any of you think about religion. Whether you're atheist or Jewish or Christian or Muslim or whatever.
Here's a hint: NO ONE ELSE CARES, EITHER.
|by Anonymous||reply 90||04/01/2013|
Then why do they knock on my door on Saturday mornings r90?
|by Anonymous||reply 91||04/01/2013|
We have a rationalizing nutcase on this thread.
|by Anonymous||reply 92||04/02/2013|
The gospels were written versions of oral tradition - like the works of the Chaucer, The Brothers Grimm, Shakespeare, and Armistead Maupin.
Please refrain from using a 19th century standard to argue 1st century authorship and authenticity. It won't work.
Also, remember that this idea was created out of need. If Josh wasn't there to fill the void, Larry would have sufficed.
|by Anonymous||reply 93||04/02/2013|
Larry comforted me
|by Anonymous||reply 94||04/02/2013|
Shakespeare never wrote anything down?
|by Anonymous||reply 95||04/02/2013|