Serving up this steaming pile of
Celebrity Gossip
Gay Politics
Gay News
and Pointless Bitchery
Since 1995

Hello and thank you for being a DL contributor. We are changing the login scheme for contributors for simpler login and to better support using multiple devices. Please click here to update your account with a username and password.

Hello. Some features on this site require registration. Please click here to register for free.

Hello and thank you for registering. Please complete the process by verifying your email address. If you can't find the email you can resend it here.

Hello. Some features on this site require a subscription. Please click here to get full access and no ads for $1.99 or less per month.

Did Jesus Christ Exist?

So much of his story is ripped-off from other tales from other cultures.

by Anonymousreply 26911 hours ago

Among archaeologists and scholars of the ancient Near East, one school of thought is, it's complete fiction. But other scholars theorize there was some kind of a mendicant mystic or folk preacher, about whom all kinds of supernatural myths sprung up a couple hundred years after his actual life.

But what really gets me is the stream of "Special Issues" by Time and Life devoted to "Jesus," without even questioning whether he even existed. This is, major supposedly secular national U.S. news publications who treat it as a given. Truly, a nation of hicks.

by Anonymousreply 105/03/2021

No. The Jesus is a myth, and is a regurgitation of various older man-god myths.

It was a fad in the middle east to write Gospels, during the time that the better known Gospels were written. Messiahs were two-a-penny during the time of Jesus's supposed existence.

There is no historical evidence of the existence of Jesus, though there are many fakes and forgeries.

by Anonymousreply 205/03/2021

R2: And I should now about messiahs, I followed a few!!

by Anonymousreply 305/03/2021

Oh good, this nonsense AGAIN.

DL is like fucking Groundhog Day sometimes. The same boors trying to show their iconoclastic creds. It’s much more likely than not that Christ existed. Much more likely than, say, Moses, who is quite likely an amalgamation of other figures.

Much of what was written and happened to Jesus is *much too quotidian* to have been made up.

And yes, I’m an atheist. Which has literally nothing to do with the historicity of Christ.

This is unbelievably boring, sorry but it is.

by Anonymousreply 405/03/2021

Look at the Hasids. They’re insane about dead rabbis. They put dead rabbis on a level of a god. They dance insanely until they stampede. Clearly, there is a history of fanaticism & myth making about dead rabbis. Jesus was probably a dead rabbi that happened to filter into Roman mythology & got mixed in with Persian, North African and other Mediterranean-adjacent deities. There were Essenes & ascetics ... all kinds of crazy, self-flagellating desert dwellers living in caves, mentally fighting with demons. Holy men, mendicants, monks, patriarchs, pontiffs, prophets, seers, shamans, yogi, babas, sannyasi, vairagi.

All these warm weather areas produced a hothouse of religious fervor amongst men. So crazy religious men from all around the continents blended together in a stew and you got Jesus, Mohammed, Zarathustra, Mithras, Hercules. Magical god men

by Anonymousreply 505/03/2021

Whatever you do - don’t rely on Datalounge opinion on this.

There are many books about this - if you don’t want to read entire books, then Google “The Quest for the Historical Jesus” by Albert Schweitzer.

by Anonymousreply 605/03/2021

Wikipedia says that this is all a fringe theory. Honestly, the Wiki pages on this read like they were written by Christian nuts.

by Anonymousreply 705/03/2021

There is no god. We are on our own. Tough pill to swallow, isn’t it?

by Anonymousreply 805/03/2021

Yes, Jesus said all of you heathens (and Protestants) are going to hell.

by Anonymousreply 905/03/2021

r9 = Pope Francis

by Anonymousreply 1005/03/2021

[quote] There is no god.

What does that have to do with whether Christ existed?

by Anonymousreply 1105/03/2021

R8, you’re such a fucking basic bitch with zero intelligence. Seriously, how many books have you read in your entire life on any topic?

If you can’t grasp the difference between Jesus and God in this context then please go deploy your “wit” elsewhere.

by Anonymousreply 1205/03/2021

No, there is not one shred of historical evidence ever discovered to prove his existence, unlike the known and documented existences of the historical Buddha, Siddhartha Gautama.

Offsite Link
by Anonymousreply 1305/03/2021

Writing by the light of flaming camel turds... I'll call him Jesus.

by Anonymousreply 1405/04/2021

Yes. An ancient ashram in India has a record of his visit while he was still learning his philosophy.

by Anonymousreply 1505/04/2021

Of course Jesus existed. Poisoned Dragon will eventually find this thread to say otherwise, but he is wrong.

[quote] “The Quest for the Historical Jesus” by Albert Schweitzer.

It is title Quest OF, not Quest FOR.

by Anonymousreply 1605/04/2021

^^ titled

by Anonymousreply 1705/04/2021

R12 Triggered much? Please go fuck yourself.

by Anonymousreply 1805/04/2021

The first grift.

by Anonymousreply 1905/04/2021

Yes. I am Facebook friends with him. But his posts are so uptight.

by Anonymousreply 2005/04/2021

The writings of Josephus first mention of James, who was executed mentioned "James the brother of Jesus". Writings after that has been understood to be added 100 years later. Also, Tacitus mentions Nero and "Christians as followers of Jesus".

That's it. Everything else were added later and what we would consider fraudulent entries. So, Jesus did exist, but I suspect he was "elevated" by writings of people who never knew him but had a power agenda.

by Anonymousreply 2105/04/2021

He was a character created to appeal to poor people (born in a manger...) as a sort of liaison to God. Savvy early recruitment propaganda.

No one imagined people in Europe would ever travel to the Middle East and discover it was all a fairy tale. Back then, that area may as well have been Mars.

by Anonymousreply 2205/04/2021

Didn't Josephus live about 100 years after Jesus supposedly did? Josephus had no first hand knowledge, he was only quoting from sources whose legitimacy can't be sourced either, IF he was even quoting at all and anything he ever supposedly wrote about Jesus wasn't a total fabrication long after Josephus trod the earth.

You'd think that there would be loads of genuine contemporary documentation about a miracle-worker like Jesus! But nope. That tells me all I need to know. Jesus Christ did not exist.

by Anonymousreply 2305/04/2021

[Quote] You'd think that there would be loads of genuine contemporary documentation about a miracle-worker like Jesus! But nope. That tells me all I need to know. Jesus Christ did not exist.

OR

Jesus existed, wasn't that great a miracle worker, and miracle workers were a dime a dozen.

by Anonymousreply 2405/04/2021

R23, there’s very little contemporary documentation of anything from the First Century. The oldest copy of Josephus dates from the Middle Ages.

by Anonymousreply 2505/04/2021

In studying manuscripts and other ancillary historical documents, it’s a fairly clear that a person with the name of Jesus from Nazareth existed. But the myth is built around him starting 50 years after his death (Paul’s letters) and for 400 years there after. He went from a rabbi with a couple of good ideas to God. Christians said today would reject him.

by Anonymousreply 2605/04/2021

There were tons of men back then with the same name. The myth of Jesus seems to be pulled from several older myths. The son of god born of a virgin is not unusual.

by Anonymousreply 2705/04/2021

A lot of the old testament is hooey. The Red Sea that Moses parted...well, the true story is that every so often a natural land bridge forms. If the jews were actually roaming the desert for many years that land bridge would form and Moses took advantage of it. Maybe he even knew how often it happened.

by Anonymousreply 2805/04/2021

Did and does, OP.

by Anonymousreply 2905/04/2021

R4 😘 You adorable atheist, you.

by Anonymousreply 3005/04/2021

Even Josephus wrote of Jesus…

Offsite Link
by Anonymousreply 3105/04/2021

It's very likely that Jesus is a mix of several people and their urban myths. The Christian Church is basically the original Marvel or DC comic franchise selling their gospel to their devoted fans.

by Anonymousreply 3205/04/2021

Look out. You know who is here and she'll be spamming this thread with "proof of jebus" links. A woman of little interests.

by Anonymousreply 3305/04/2021

More for this discussion.

[quote] The historicity of Jesus relates to whether Jesus of Nazareth is a historical figure. Nearly all historians accept that Jesus existed,[1][2][3] and standard historical criteria have aided in reconstructing his life.[4][5] Scholars differ on the beliefs and teachings of Jesus as well as the accuracy of the details of his life that have been described in the gospels,[6][7][8][note 1] but virtually all scholars support the historicity of Jesus and reject the Christ myth theory that Jesus never existed.[note 2][9][10][11][12] Among these scholars was G. A. Wells, a well-known mythicist who changed his mind and ultimately believed in a minimal historical Jesus.[13]

Offsite Link
by Anonymousreply 3405/04/2021

No historical evidence exists that objectively indicates the physical existence of the character Jesus described in the gospels or (shudder) the epistles of Paul.

None.

Josephus contains a later emendation, the gospels are an unhistorical mess, sorted and resorted by Marcion and others. Paul's epistles describe a demigod existing in the lower heavens (with later changes for orthodoxy), other traditions from a dozen sources overlay the Christ myth, and none of it is supported by anything else.

R21, don't look up and spread shit on Wikipedia if you don't know anything about scriptural history. Christ, the apologetics are now as lazy as the ignorant bleeters who spout it.

NOTHING and no one like the gospels' Jesus (in any of the various, contradicting views they describe) ever existed. Period.

by Anonymousreply 3505/04/2021

Some historians and archaeologists have come to the conclusion that the Gospel of Thomas, discovered in Nag Hammadi in 1946 and which is not recognized by the churches, predates the four gospels of the New Testament.

Quite frankly, I prefer it in many ways.

Offsite Link
by Anonymousreply 3605/04/2021

Probably not. That said, I like Jesus Christ as a leader.

by Anonymousreply 3705/04/2021

If Jesus was alive today, he’d be a B list celeb. I think he existed and was a charismatic figure yapping about radical stuff in the town square. This is how I think of him.

by Anonymousreply 3805/04/2021

R38 that's probably the best description I've heard. He was definitely not supernatural.

by Anonymousreply 3905/04/2021

{quote] But the myth is built around him starting 50 years after his death (Paul’s letters)

Paul's letters were written no more than 30-40 years after Jesus' death.

Jesus of Nazareth was a Jewish apocalyptic prophet who lived around 30 CE, got himself crucified in Jerusalem, and had followers who eventually decided he was God, primarily because they believed he was raised from the dead.

by Anonymousreply 4005/04/2021

Here's a debate on the issue where the historical view as R40 summarizes is presented by Bart Ehrman, professor of the New Testament and early Christianity (he's an agnostic).

Offsite Link
by Anonymousreply 4105/04/2021

Also tons of criminals were crucified. There was actually nothing particularly special about that.

by Anonymousreply 4205/04/2021

Fish! Fish!

by Anonymousreply 4305/04/2021

The consensus seems to be: based on the preponderance of material, it's very likely that the historical Jesus (Yeshua or Joshua bar-Joseph) existed, although we have no first-hand contemporaneous sources that survived attesting to his existence. He seems to have been a revolutionary rabbinical figure associated with a breakaway sect of the Essenes in Roman-occupied Judaea during the reign of Tiberius.

There is absolutely no proof he is the Son of God, however.

Some people on DL have enormous trouble reconciling these two points. Since they believe he was not the Son of God (and that there is no God), they have trouble understanding there could have been a historical revolutionary rabbi figure around whom such false legends could grow. For them it's a zero-sum game: either Jesus was the Son of God, or he never existed at all; and they insist on the latter.

by Anonymousreply 4405/04/2021

I'm open to the idea he existed but was not son of god. He did not however resemble the Jesus people think of.

by Anonymousreply 4505/04/2021

[quote]Of course Jesus existed. Poisoned Dragon will eventually find this thread to say otherwise, but he is wrong.

R16, I simply took this thread for a troll's hamhanded attempt to summon me to an argument. Whatever for? It's not like anything new is being offered here. You know you don't have any evidence for the existence of Christ.

[yawns]

Maybe I'll look back in on this in a day or two.

by Anonymousreply 4605/04/2021

R46 Please do. Maybe you can regale us all with more of your logical fallacies.

by Anonymousreply 4705/04/2021

Ehrman's view is also that he was an apocalyptic prophet at a time when apocalyptic Jewish sects were proliferating, and that he may have seen himself as the Messiah. Basically, he was like a modern day cult leader.

It's very plausible that he was turned over to the authorities by one of his followers and crucified by the Romans as politically dangerous because the Messiah was supposed to be the new king of the Jews who will free their land and sit on the throne of David.

I find Ehrman's theory convincing. This is his talk on how Jesus became to be seen as god.

Offsite Link
by Anonymousreply 4805/04/2021

It is absurd to think that Judean Jews of the first century would accept a human being as God incarnate. The Jewish deity was ineffable - its name could not even be written, except as the Tetragram. The New Testament suggest that, contrary to fact, there was a cult of Jewish followers of a divine Jesus. Gentiles in Asia Minor, on the other hand, would have been very familiar with the concept of the Son of God, since the Roman emperor was regarded as such.

by Anonymousreply 4905/04/2021

You have a very monolithic view of Judaism in the first century that isn't borne out by the evidence.

And Galilean Jews, the Jews among whom Jesus found his first followers by all accounts, were not Judean Jews.

by Anonymousreply 5005/04/2021

The funny thing is, Yeshua never claimed to be God. He did say, “I and the [Creator] are one,” but he also said, “…no one knows… but only the [Creator],” making a clear distinction between himself and God. Finally, he said, “…anyone who believes in me will do the same works I have done, and even greater works, because I am going to be with the [Creator].”

He basically taught love, humility, and of the omnipotence, omniscience, and omnipresence of the Creator.

by Anonymousreply 5105/04/2021

If there was a man at that time that came to be known as Jesus he either had to be insane to stick to what he was saying knowing how he was going to be tortured and murdered for it or he had to be what he said he was.

by Anonymousreply 5205/04/2021

Not insane R52. Lots of religious nuts and even scientific types have been killed over their beliefs. Besides when he said "i am the son of god" he didn't mean it literally.

by Anonymousreply 5305/04/2021

We saw with our own eyes how fellow Americans were radicalized into believing in Trump and imaginary voter fraud. Why wouldn't some first century Jews start to believe word of mouth that a crucified radical preacher was he 'Son of God'?

[quote] Gentiles in Asia Minor, on the other hand, would have been very familiar with the concept of the Son of God, since the Roman emperor was regarded as such.

Jews as a rule wouldn't convert because his death and the manner of it defied the Jewish concept of the messiah. So the cult took off among the gentiles and it's easy to imagine how their traditions molded the teachings of a dead preacher into a religion about Jesus the son of god.

by Anonymousreply 5405/04/2021

[quote]Besides when he said "i am the son of god" he didn't mean it literally.

Or he may not have said it but followers after his death reconceived him as the son of god. So, by the time the gospel of John was written (it's the latest chronologically), this concept had already taken root.

by Anonymousreply 5505/04/2021

The historicists do have academic consensus on their side. That is true. And it's still overwhelming.

They do have other problems though, like the completely unreliable texts they draw from. The Gospels are a mess. Right away Luke invents a crazy ass census that never did and never would happen, with some nonsense about Joseph going to Bethlehem because he's of the line of David. So right at the beginning Luke is saying fasten your seatbelts, bitches, this is gonna be some bullshit ride through some maybe true, maybe false events and I'm gonna invent some shit whenever I feel like it.

Matthew is actually a little better, and though the slaughter of the innocents probably didn't happen, Herod is in character as the paranoid violent asshole the Jews had come to know too well. Still, the Magi come and go like a sandstorm. They leave some gold and a lot of expensive stuff behind that is never heard about again and then return home to spread the word about the son of god? Nah, their work here is done and we are done with them. They are walkon characters with no particular purpose but to aggrandize this squalling brat and piss off Herod. Again, freely inventing nonsense and a hint that more lies and nonsense will be forthcoming whenever the mood strikes.

Mark's Jesus won't talk about his exalted status. His cured lepers are supposed to scurry away apparently, and hide? They sure as hell aren't supposed to tell anyone. There's even a phrase: the Messianic Secret. John's Jesus won't shut up about being the Son of God and babbling about how nobody gets shit unless he's involved.

It's a mess, and then people casually declare with certainty that he was obviously a rabbi (whatever the hell that was in 1st century Judea), or an apocalyptic preacher, or a peacemaker, or a twisted answer to some esoteric Jews' idea of a messiah.

It's a mess, but I will disagree with the poster who said it's boring. That it really isn't.

by Anonymousreply 5605/04/2021

Mark is generally considered the first gospel written and the most pragmatic of the bunch.

by Anonymousreply 5705/04/2021

It's boring R56.

by Anonymousreply 5805/04/2021

R56, you can come over and talk to me any time you want.

by Anonymousreply 5905/04/2021

not if you start to look into it r58. Even as just history and propaganda and the many ways people will invent and re-invent their own crazy "truths" I don't think it's boring. But if it is to you, well, there's no way to argue with that.

by Anonymousreply 6005/04/2021

From the Gospel of Thomas:

Jesus says:

(1) “If those who lead you say to you: ‘Look, the kingdom is in the sky!’ then the birds of the sky will precede you.

(2) If they say to you: ‘It is in the sea,’ then the fishes will precede you.

[bold](3) Rather, the kingdom is inside of you and outside of you.”[/bold]

(4) “When you come to know yourselves, then you will be known, and you will realize that you are the children of the living Father.

(5) But if you do not come to know yourselves, then you exist in poverty, and you are poverty

Offsite Link
by Anonymousreply 6105/04/2021

I find other history much more exciting R60 but I'm not at all religious so that's probably plays a part of it. Even as a child it held no interest and I snoozed through Sunday school and church and thought the whole concept was ridiculous. I do think people who believe it are hardwired for it. I'm not. Thankfully, my parents were not big believers either and just did it for socializing purposes. By the time I was around 12 they had quit making us go to church and we all settled into happy atheism or agnosticism depending on each individual.

by Anonymousreply 6205/04/2021

R35 is right on the money. There isn’t any credible evidence. None.

by Anonymousreply 6305/04/2021

In [italic]The God Who Wasn't There[/italic], documentary filmmaker Brian Flemming examines the Bible and discusses the history of early Christianity, raising doubts as to whether the New Testament personage Jesus ever really existed. Flemming examines the similarity of the Jesus story to other savior myths of the time and points to inexplicable gaps in early Christian history that combine to shed doubt on the Bible's Jesus story.

Offsite Link
by Anonymousreply 6405/04/2021

R36, his spiritual name in India was St Issa. There is documentation from the old sages that he spent time in India. Co-incidentally, St Thomas was the one that established the Christian Church in India after the crucifixion.

The lack of documentation exists in the West (the Western elites either burned the evidence or have it locked up somewhere to keep the masses engrossed in worship of Kings/Prime Ministers/Presidents). In Eastern traditions Jesus is considered as having existed on Earth and having being the son of God.

by Anonymousreply 6505/04/2021

Jesus, called Isa, is also considered a prophet and messenger of Allah in Islam.

by Anonymousreply 6605/05/2021

In 2000 years, some moron will say "Did Barack Obama really exist?" Just because you don't have photos of something that happened before you were born, doesn't mean it didn't happen. You can NOT believe Jesus was the son of God, and still believe he existed. There are too many discrete references to Jesus throughout history (like R66 said about his being a prophet in Islam), for it to be likely he didn't exist. I'll go with Occam's Razor theory on this one.

Napoleon and George Washington existed, too.

by Anonymousreply 6705/05/2021

Yes, but he wasn't the son of god. He was the product of rape, this is why Mary told everyone he was immaculately conceived because if she had fallen pregnant outside of marriage she would've been demonized.

by Anonymousreply 6805/05/2021

Thank you, R6.

by Anonymousreply 6905/05/2021

r68, she wasn't raped, she sucked him off, he kissed her and then he went down on her. Or, she jacked him off then fingered herself. I'm certain that Rule 34 covers this topic extensively.

by Anonymousreply 7005/05/2021

ALL RELIGIONS:

Do facts of any kind make any difference? No, just make up your own reality, defend it as much as you can then deny and deflect any logic until it passes, which it will eventually. Or, you can read a book by someone smarter than you, from Oxford or Harvard or Liberty U, and repeat their opinions.

Press your palms together in front of you and concentrate, you'll feel better after I suck out the demons. I promise.

Offsite Link
by Anonymousreply 7105/05/2021

Here we go.

by Anonymousreply 7205/05/2021

R68, immaculate conception refers to Mary herself.

by Anonymousreply 7305/05/2021

Proper link

Offsite Link
by Anonymousreply 7405/05/2021

[quote]You can NOT believe Jesus was the son of God, and still believe he existed.

What? I can actually believe a guy existed who was a radical type street preacher but I don't believe in a "son of god". That was added to his attributes way later on along with the miracles.

by Anonymousreply 7505/05/2021

[quote] Just because you don't have photos of something that happened before you were born, doesn't mean it didn't happen.

Um, honey, you’re an idiot.

by Anonymousreply 7605/05/2021

Isn’t there any record with some dude name Jesus recorded on it beyond in some storybook?

by Anonymousreply 7705/05/2021

[quote] Napoleon and George Washington existed, too.

Yes and we have their writings, documents, even artifacts to prove it. Jesus, we have nothing from him.

by Anonymousreply 7805/05/2021

Thank you, r73, that is one of my pet peeves, and so many get this wrong. They always mean the Virgin Birth.

by Anonymousreply 7905/05/2021

[quote]The more interesting potential virgin birth, though, comes from Matthew's explanation in Matt 1:22-23. There the text says that the virgin birth of Jesus took place to "fulfill" the prophecy that "the virgin shall conceive and bear a son, and they shall name him Emmanuel." Matthew is paraphrasing Isa 7:14. But he is quoting a mistranslation. The original Hebrew text of Isa 7:14 is not about a virgin. Rather, the Hebrew used to describe the woman in Isa 7:14 is almah, a word that means "young woman."

Offsite Link
by Anonymousreply 8005/05/2021

Jesus almost certainly existed. Jesus of the New Testament did not.

Look at Mark. He tells a straight story of Jesus getting baptized by John. Nothing special. But the other gospels find issues with a deified god being baptized, so their renditions have takes that explain why he needed to have his sins forgiven.

Oh, as each successive gospel was written, Jesus went from profit and Rabbis to God.

by Anonymousreply 8105/05/2021

My spelling is atrocious!!

by Anonymousreply 8205/05/2021

The Lord is amongst us.

by Anonymousreply 8305/05/2021

Santa Claus watches me masturbate.

by Anonymousreply 8405/05/2021

[quote]Jesus almost certainly existed. Jesus of the New Testament did not.

Apart from the New Testament, where is any testimony of Jesus having existed, R81?

by Anonymousreply 8505/05/2021

Not proof Jesus didn't exist, pd.

But you know that.

by Anonymousreply 8605/05/2021

R86, I don't need to prove Jesus didn't exist, but then 𝑦𝑜𝑢 know 𝑡ℎ𝑎𝑡.

You are still trying to bend the 𝑎𝑝𝑝𝑒𝑎𝑙 𝑡𝑜 𝑖𝑔𝑛𝑜𝑟𝑎𝑛𝑐𝑒 fallacy into something it is not. One of the things it is not is a brickbat to remove the need for evidence in support of a claim. You're trolling, and no one needs indulge you any longer on that issue, least of all me.

How would you prefer to be called? There's been several suggestions, none too complimentary. How about 'Personal Theology'?

[quote]R31: Even Josephus wrote of Jesus…

Josephus mentions several sporting the name of 'Jesus,' but none of them are the 'Jesus Christ' of the New Testament. In critical scholarship, that's been exploded long ago - the references to 'Jesus' were added to manuscripts of Josephus by Eusebius in the 4th century.

Offsite Link
by Anonymousreply 8705/05/2021

You've got it backwards, dudes. The apostles, when propagating the new faith of Christianity, relied upon the myths of those older cultures in order to draw parallels with the Christ to make it palatable to new converts and give them a point of reference. Joseph Campbell lays this out brilliantly in all of his works.

by Anonymousreply 8805/05/2021

"ALL RELIGIONS: Do facts of any kind make any difference?"

Of course they don't. Do you think the proselytizers of Christianity, or the ancient Egyptians, or the Greeks believed in the literal manifestation of their religious systems? They knew it as a powerful METAPHOR and a model for living, something we literal-minded (and quite stupid) modernes seem incapable of grasping.

by Anonymousreply 8905/05/2021

Why is so strange that there aren't records? It's not like Josephus kept score of the roaming preachers in first century Galilee.

Jesus's posse were peasants who probably couldn't write, let alone write in Greek so nobody was keeping tabs. For some reason, his followers established street cred by spinning yarns about miracles and resurrections, and his cult took off on word of mouth. Then educated gentiles stepped in and created a cottage industry of gospel writing, trying to outdo each other with more and more wild tales.

by Anonymousreply 9005/05/2021

"Rather, the kingdom is inside of you and outside of you.”"

Precisely why the Gospel of Thomas was eliminated from the New Testament by the growing church. If you can experience faith, transcendence, etc on a very personal basis through experience (gnosticism), why do you need the middle-man of the church to intercede for you? So long, Tommy.

by Anonymousreply 9105/05/2021

Religion is a con for power and control over people.

by Anonymousreply 9205/05/2021

[quote]The apostles, when propagating the new faith of Christianity...

R88, "the apostles" are also literary characters from the New Testament. There's not any evidence they existed, either.

by Anonymousreply 9305/05/2021

I mean, did Mary Magdalene really exist? Maybe, maybe not. But what a beautiful story and symbol about forsaking things of the flesh for those of the spirit!. Incredibly moving. What is Man of La Mancha but an encounter between the Christ (Quixote) and the Magdalene (Aldonza)?

by Anonymousreply 9405/05/2021

It's known that the gospels are anonymous, and aren't written by Jesus's disciples who were peasant Jews and spoke Aramaic, and in all probability couldn't write in any language.

by Anonymousreply 9505/05/2021

Religious people are so insufferably stupid.

by Anonymousreply 9605/05/2021

I had one woman tell me one time when I asked her about reading "everything I need to know is in the bible". I immediately mentally rolled my eyes and avoided all contact in the future. I can't imagine going through life that insulated and incurious about the world.

by Anonymousreply 9705/05/2021

I hate these simple minded cretins. All this towering self importance and horse shit. Delusional cunts.

by Anonymousreply 9805/05/2021

Darlings, you KNOW this thread isn't going anywhere. The lines are drawn, and the "Defender of Historical Jesus" troll is firmly ensconced. So just get out your popcorn and enjoy the insults while it lasts.

by Anonymousreply 9905/05/2021

[quote]R95: It's known that the gospels are anonymous, and aren't written by Jesus's disciples who were peasant Jews and spoke Aramaic, and in all probability couldn't write in any language.

You mean 'would have spoken Aramaic' had they really existed, instead of being characters in a narrative crafted by 2nd century gentiles.

New Testament authors themselves often stated that the language being spoken was Hebrew (i.e. John 5:2, 19:13,17,20, 20:16; Acts 21:40, 22:2, 26:14; the words used are Ἑβραϊστὶ, or Ἑβραΐδι). I've noticed the NIV and the ESV 'correcting' the translated text to read 'Aramaic,' presumably in the interests of accuracy, since Aramaic is now understood to have been the lingua franca in 1st century Judea. But this conceals the fact that 𝑡ℎ𝑒 𝑁𝑒𝑤 𝑇𝑒𝑠𝑡𝑎𝑚𝑒𝑛𝑡 𝑎𝑢𝑡ℎ𝑜𝑟𝑠 𝑜𝑓 𝐽𝑜ℎ𝑛 𝑎𝑛𝑑 𝐴𝑐𝑡𝑠 𝑤𝑒𝑟𝑒 𝑡ℎ𝑒𝑚𝑠𝑒𝑙𝑣𝑒𝑠 𝑢𝑛𝑎𝑤𝑎𝑟𝑒 𝑜𝑓 𝑡ℎ𝑖𝑠, and called it 'Hebrew,' so removed were they in both time and place from the milieus about which they wrote.

by Anonymousreply 10005/05/2021

[quote]Darlings, you KNOW this thread isn't going anywhere. The lines are drawn, and the "Defender of Historical Jesus" troll is firmly ensconced. So just get out your popcorn and enjoy the insults while it lasts.

Oh, yeah........this particular cunt is determined to bash everyone over the head in her attempts to proselytize. Where she got the idea that DL wants to hear this shit is beyond me. There are plenty of places on the web she can discuss this but she's decided to fixate on a gay forum.

by Anonymousreply 10105/05/2021

Oh, pd, I just knew you would make this thread all about yourself and your misuse of logical fallacies.

That a real person named Jesus preached in the first century, got himself crucified, and had followers who believed he was resurrected from the dead is the best, most logical explanation of the evidence.

by Anonymousreply 10205/05/2021

Don't you just love all the smarty pants pointless quotations, as if they have any meaning what so ever. Such scholarly journalists! They're the smartiest fucks who ever fucked a fuck.

by Anonymousreply 10305/05/2021

You heathens, get on you knees and worship me!

Offsite Link
by Anonymousreply 10405/05/2021

Sure R102 just because you said so we should all bow to your wisdom....btw how many sock puppets you got going? I had you blocked but yet you show up again.

by Anonymousreply 10505/05/2021

[quote]That a real person named Jesus preached in the first century, got himself crucified, and had followers who believed he was resurrected from the dead is the best, most logical explanation of the evidence.

R102/Personal Theology, that's a funny claim, since in the earliest copies of the earliest gospel, 'Mark,' there is no resurrection narrative. Or nativity.

The narrative of Jesus' life, passion and crucifixion can be demonstrated to have been borrowed from Septuagint passages like Isaiah 53 and Psalm 22, as well as passages from Philo and Josephus.

Luke 2:46-47, 'Jesus in the Temple,' is derived from Josephus, 'Life' 2.3, "Moreover, when I was a child, and about fourteen years of age, I was commended by all for the love I had to learning; on which account the High Priests, and principal men of the city came then frequently to me together, in order to know my opinion about the accurate understanding of points of the law."

There's the account of Jesus ben Ananias (Josephus, 'Wars' 6.5.3), who cried "Woe to Jerusalem," was taken before the Roman governor and flogged; many expressions in this passage resonate with sayings of Jesus. In Philo ('Against Flaccus' 36-40), we read of a "madman named Carabbas" who was seized and mocked as a king, occasioning offense, quite similar to how Jesus was depicted as being mocked, designated a king, which occasioned offense among Jewish leaders.

In Josephus ('Life' 76), we read of three men crucified (like Jesus and the two thieves); two die, and one is taken down barely alive. "I saw many captives crucified, and remembered three of them as my former acquaintance. I was very sorry at this in my mind, and went with tears in my eyes to Titus, and told him of them; so he immediately commanded them to be taken down, and to have the greatest care taken of them, in order to their recovery; yet two of them died under the physician’s hands, while the third recovered."

Again, it bears pointing out that narratives cannot be both literary borrowings and something which actually happened. They're one or the other. And literary dependence has already been reliably demonstrated.

Apart from its specific literary borrowings, the 'Gospel of Mark' overall is based upon the Homeric Epics.

Offsite Link
by Anonymousreply 10605/05/2021

Oh I'll get on that right away.

by Anonymousreply 10705/05/2021

Yep. You baselessly accusing me of sock puppets is par for the course.

Keep passing on your conspiracy theories and ignore me. I won't mind a bit.

by Anonymousreply 10805/05/2021

And there you go misrepresenting MacDonald again. Same Ole pd.

by Anonymousreply 10905/05/2021

[quote]You baselessly accusing me of sock puppets is par for the course.

I've been here a lot longer than you sweetie, and I know the tricks of trolls by this time.

by Anonymousreply 11005/05/2021

Yep, you are just as delusional about me using sock puppets as you are about how historical scholarship works. And just supremely confident despite your ignorance.

by Anonymousreply 11105/05/2021

[quote]Yep, you are just as delusional about me using sock puppets as you are about how historical scholarship works.

Oh, honey, I haven't commented on historical scholarship.

by Anonymousreply 11205/05/2021

R111 shouldn't talk about being supremely confident despite ignorance. She's not not blowing anyone away with her scholarly arguments. More like "jebus was real" (stomps feet and ticks out tongue)

by Anonymousreply 11305/05/2021

[quote]And there you go misrepresenting MacDonald again. Same Ole pd.

It's not misrepresenting MacDonald at all to summarize him as saying that the narrative of Mark is based upon the Homeric Epics. If it's based upon the Homeric Epics, then it's not based upon something which supposedly happened in Judea in the then-recent past. It's purely a literary creation.

So, 'Personal Theology', you're the same troll who insisted that Dennis R. MacDonald ought to be disregarded because you knew him personally, nobody liked him, and everybody thought he was a crank. (These are ad hominem attacks, and useless as criticism of MacDonald's arguments.) You also claimed to be an undergraduate of his, and that you yourself teach - or taught - theology at a university.

It's telling how you're drawn immediately to MacDonald, and completely disregard the other New Testament borrowings.

by Anonymousreply 11405/05/2021

[quote]You also claimed to be an undergraduate of his, and that you yourself teach - or taught - theology at a university.

Now this makes me laugh.

by Anonymousreply 11505/05/2021

No, you are misrepresenting me just as you misrepresent MacDonald. His argument is not that Mark invented Jesus by rewriting Homer. McDonald's argument is Mark presented existing material about Jesus in imitation of Homer.

by Anonymousreply 11605/05/2021

R115, that particular user has kept coming at me with the same fallacious arguments for perhaps three years now, using socks to assist in the attacks.

The linked thread has one of our more extended clashes.

Claiming to know MacDonald personally starts at R224.

The claim to be a professor at a university can be found at R269.

Offsite Link
by Anonymousreply 11705/05/2021

R101 should first check what "proselytize" mean. And for her information, I'm an atheist. No 'agnostic' cop-out for me.

That doesn't mean I can't be interested in a purely historical point about an individual proclaimed to be savior god, and whose cult (like it or not) changed the history of the western civilization.

by Anonymousreply 11805/05/2021

R118, Who is "her"? Agnostic is actually the correct way to identify. Atheism is just as dogmatic as belief.

R115 three years? Holy shit and shinola, that's one determined little troll.

by Anonymousreply 11905/05/2021

[quote]No, you are misrepresenting me just as you misrepresent MacDonald. His argument is not that Mark invented Jesus by rewriting Homer. McDonald's argument is Mark presented existing material about Jesus in imitation of Homer.

R116/'Personal Theology', as I told you before, "that's simply how you choose to reframe MacDonald's thesis, so as to make it less challenging to your position. Either a narrative is a literary borrowing, or it actually happened. Either Paul was struck down on the road to Damascus and had a change of heart, or it's a literary borrowing from 2 Maccabees and Euripides' 'The Bacchae.' It cannot be both." (R290 of the older thread)

I was responding to the same post in which you called me a "pigfucking asshole" (R286).

by Anonymousreply 12005/05/2021

R119 should also check what dogma means.

by Anonymousreply 12105/05/2021

I do R119 but I haven't really been talking to you unless you're a "personal theology" sockpuppet.

by Anonymousreply 12205/05/2021

This is what I was taught in college (which was the POV of the professor, but still sounds accurate)

Y'shua bar Yosef was a minor religious leader in Galilee during the Roman occupation at a time when there was much strife among the Jews about how much they should collaborate with the occupying Romans and how secularized they should become. It was a time of many radical beliefs and degrees of rebellion against the occupying Romans.

Rabbis in those days were self-taught and self-proclaimed. It's not like there was a Rabbinical College of the Galilee that young Y'shua could have attended.

Y'shua was influenced by the Essene sect and was something of an early day left-wing hippie, preaching a gospel of peace and love and turning the other cheek. He was a populist who was against the ruling aristocracy in Jerusalem (the Pharisees) but he was one of many with that POV. He was unlucky enough to get himself executed by the Romans though and likely became a martyr for those who wanted to stand up to the Romans and Pharisees oppressors.

After he died, his followers were still Jews and Christianity as distinct from Judaism did not exist for some time. So early Christians were all Jewish and did not in any way think they were starting a new religion.

Thus it would have been close to impossible for those Jews to have invented a man named Yshua that they followed without all the other Jews calling bullshit since they were there during the time Y'shua lived. The other Jews did not believe he was the son of anyone other than his natural father Yosef and dismissed any stories about him being the Messiah or even holy--the fucking Romans were still in charge--but it would have been impossible to get his contemporaries to follow a person who did not exist.

Paul, the patron saint of Marketing, realized that recruitment among the Jews wasn't going well and so had a dream where he was given permission to loosen up admissions standards and do away with two of the bigger impediments--circumcision and no pork. Recruitment picked up speed among the Gentiles.

The Jews who followed Jesus were not immediately ready to accept Gentiles into the fold and there was a wide gap between the two groups--the OG Jews for Jesus still followed Jewish rituals and holidays (Rosh Hashanah, Passover, Shabbat, etc.) the new Gentile followers did not.

As the need for recruitment grew, so did the myths about Y'shua, renamed Jesus, and these myths were drawn from the cultures the early church leaders wanted to recruit from--Roman, Egyptian, Greek.,

Later the borrowing of stories and traditions was expanded to the European barbarian tribes when recruiting them became key, hence Easter and Christmas.

by Anonymousreply 12305/05/2021

^^additional context on R123

In the years following the death of Jesus things got much worse in Judea, with rebellions flaring up and finally breaking out into an all-out war around 65 CE. That ended in the conquest of Jerusalem in 70 and the destruction of the Second Temple... which was followed by the mass suicide of rebels at Masada rather then submit to the Romans in 73.

Rebellions continued over the years, ending in the Bar Kochba Revolt which was pretty massive--hundreds of thousands were killed and Judea was depopulated. (One of the early examples of "ethnic cleansing")

Bar Kochba's followers also thought he was the messiah...until he lost and so rebels-as-messiahs seems to be an established practice of the time.

Jews were barred from Jerusalem after the revolt was put down in (I think) 135 or so, and that would have included Jews who thought Jesus was the Messiah.

by Anonymousreply 12405/05/2021

I feel the Holy Spirit vibrating through me like a charge.

Offsite Link
by Anonymousreply 12505/05/2021

That's not the holy spirit R125. That's the dildo up your ass. Sheesh........

by Anonymousreply 12605/05/2021

R126 Spoken like the demon you are!

Offsite Link
by Anonymousreply 12705/05/2021

I don't believe in demons but if your going to post movie clips this one is better.

Offsite Link
by Anonymousreply 12805/05/2021

There is a historical Jesus. He is some rando who got nailed to the cross, like most criminals and crazy cultists back then. Paul dreamed up his back story, like hollywood does with Star Wars and Marvel, made an instagram, got a bunch of likes and followers, did some merching, and then profit!

by Anonymousreply 12905/05/2021

Merch! And so much of it. Billions of tax free dollars of it. THE FISRT GRIFT. Jesus, how about Griftmas cards. They should make those instead of Christmas Cards.

by Anonymousreply 13005/05/2021

Poisoned, I want to massage the tension out of you. You be going at it, girl. I thought it was just with me!

by Anonymousreply 131Last Friday at 11:49 AM

[quote]You be going at it, girl. I thought it was just with me!

Explain, please.

by Anonymousreply 132Last Friday at 11:51 AM

At the very least the lack of evidence confirms to me that if there was a Jesus, he wasn't even close to the one that the Bible writes about - if there were all of those miracles, followers and significant events, there would be contemporary record of that.

by Anonymousreply 133Last Friday at 11:57 AM

R132 My sig should’ve tipped you off!

by Anonymousreply 134Last Friday at 11:59 AM

Yes, R134, I know which poster you are, but what do you mean by, "You be going at it, girl. I thought it was just with me!"?

by Anonymousreply 135Last Friday at 12:11 PM

R79 and R80, this is the problem when you have people who have no spiritual interest b#tching about something they don't even understand.

The original bible was written in Hebrew NOT English, and neither Jesus nor Mother Mary can be fully understood by some hick preacher in America. Very few people take the time to understand anything., so they listen to what son crazy pastor says and take that as the actual meaning of Jesus' life.

by Anonymousreply 136Last Friday at 12:20 PM

"some"

by Anonymousreply 137Last Friday at 12:22 PM

[quote]The original bible was written in Hebrew NOT English, and neither Jesus nor Mother Mary can be fully understood by some hick preacher in America. Very few people take the time to understand anything., so they listen to what son crazy pastor says and take that as the actual meaning of Jesus' life.

"Jesus" and "Mary" are characters from the New Testament, R136, and no part of the New Testament was written in Hebrew. It was composed in Greek.

by Anonymousreply 138Last Friday at 12:29 PM

Even better, PD. It's STILL not American English.

by Anonymousreply 139Last Friday at 12:31 PM

The only good part is when they get to John, Paul, George and Ringo.

by Anonymousreply 140Last Friday at 12:32 PM

[quote]Even better, PD. It's STILL not American English.

And you still don't have a valid point, R139. It's not a matter of 'texts can only be understood by native speakers of the original languages in which they were written,' with which you've trolled so many threads.

by Anonymousreply 141Last Friday at 12:37 PM

There were a LOT of messianic figures kicking around the Mediterranean Basin in the first century. Look up Apollonius of Tyana sometime.

by Anonymousreply 142Last Friday at 12:38 PM

Yes, and he's a VERY naughty boy!

by Anonymousreply 143Last Friday at 12:38 PM

Did I touch a nerve, PD?

by Anonymousreply 144Last Friday at 12:39 PM

No, R144, you amused me with the low quality of your trolling - you weren't aware that Jesus and Mary belong to the New Testament, and that it was written in Greek, not Hebrew. Now that's funny! :D

by Anonymousreply 145Last Friday at 12:49 PM

What difference is it supposed to make to me? I'm neither Christian nor Middle Eastern.

But I can tell you THIS: people in the West did not develop any of Jesus' ideas further. They just watered it down in their plain little understanding and now they're throwing a hissy fit because they don't read therefore there is 'no evidence".

If you bothered to read R80's link it gives a good explanation of the Greek-Hebrew-English mistranslations.

by Anonymousreply 146Last Friday at 12:57 PM

[quote]What difference is it supposed to make to me? I'm neither Christian nor Middle Eastern.

The point is that if you're going to troll, R146, you should at least have some familiarity with the material. And you should make it a point to know who you're trying to troll. I too am neither Christian nor Middle Eastern, and I cannot be baited by insults directed at Christians, Americans, or Western civilization. None of that matters to me.

[quote]But I can tell you THIS: people in the West did not develop any of Jesus' ideas further. They just watered it down in their plain little understanding and now they're throwing a hissy fit because they don't read therefore there is 'no evidence".

None of that has anything to do with the questions that have arisen about the historicity of Jesus. Nor is it why anyone assesses there to be "no evidence." The bible cannot be cited as evidence for the claims of the bible; that's circular reasoning. And outside of these religious writings, there is no objective relevant evidence for Jesus Christ and the apostles. Below is a link which can help familiarize you with the basic claims.

[quote]If you bothered to read [R80]'s link it gives a good explanation of the Greek-Hebrew-English mistranslations.

Whatever makes you think I take issue with that, R146? The issue with Isaiah 7:14 and its transition from Hebrew to Greek is very basic stuff.

Offsite Link
by Anonymousreply 147Last Friday at 1:20 PM

R135 Because [italic]we[/italic] went at it! Did you already forget me?!

by Anonymousreply 148Last Friday at 2:39 PM

You sound like you want recognition or admiration, R148, but the fact is, I don't respect trolling, or arguments made in bad faith. You could admit that your misuse of the 'appeal to ignorance' fallacy was a bullshit argument and apologize for trying to troll me with it, and I would acknowledge the integrity it would require of you to do that.

Whaddaya think? Can you do that?

by Anonymousreply 149Last Friday at 3:08 PM

Fear of death. That's what every religion is. It's all about 'afterlife'.

I sure as hell don't want to 'live forever'. The very thought exhausts me.

But in a way you don't die. Notice how big and beautiful cemetery trees grow? They're living off the rich organic nutrients of rotted corpses.

by Anonymousreply 150Last Friday at 3:14 PM

Plus people stay pretty healthy when they eat Soylent Green.

by Anonymousreply 151Last Friday at 3:23 PM

R149 Oh, honey, you’re [italic]still[/italic] denying your use of logical fallacies? Yikes.

by Anonymousreply 152Last Friday at 3:58 PM

It is true r133. Even a casual reference to some guy named Yeshua stirring up the natives in Galilee would be worth a million treatises by earnest Christians talking about his godly wisdom, at least as far as the question of his existence goes.

by Anonymousreply 153Last Friday at 4:29 PM

PD, you're still missing the point. Citing only the Bible only is proof enough of your ignorance.

As stated earlier in this thread, people of faiths NOT LINKED TO the Bible, accept that Jesus existed. As the poster who cited Islam stated, Jesus is considered to have existed as a prophet before Muhammed. If you cross the Himalayas over to India, the old sages have records of Jesus, only they call him St Issa. If you travel south to parts of Africa, their spiritual philosophies are closley linked the teachings of Jesus- and this was looooong before colonialism.

So for someone to come along and say "the West only has the Bible, therefore there is no evidence" is stupid and short-sighted.

by Anonymousreply 154Last Friday at 11:39 PM

I pray Datalounge finds Jesus.

Offsite Link
by Anonymousreply 155Last Saturday at 2:54 AM

The Gnostic Gospelz are my favorite gospels. Too bad they are not canon.

by Anonymousreply 156Last Saturday at 4:23 AM

The question is how old those records are r154. If a group of Christians made their way to India at some point, there'd eventually be records of Jesus in India, all of which could trace back to that Christian group and stories they told about him. They aren't some independent verification, and legends of Jesus visiting India could just be mangled tales about those Christians.

And of course Islam doesn't start until the 600s. Of course Arabians had heard of Jesus by then, and he just got incorporated into the new religion.

Christianity did spread outside the Roman Empire, which is an interesting tale in itself. But none of it has anything to do with proving Jesus' actual existence.

by Anonymousreply 157Last Saturday at 6:33 AM

R154, that still doesn't make him real.

by Anonymousreply 158Last Saturday at 6:33 AM

I'm still trying to figure out why this particular jebus-bothering troll is so vested in this site and trying to convince folks jebus was real. The definition of troll along with the cutesy little emojis. It's really bizarre how the fixtate on a site.

by Anonymousreply 159Last Saturday at 6:37 AM

^^^fixate

by Anonymousreply 160Last Saturday at 6:37 AM

Why do white hillbillies worship a barefoot, penniless gay guy from the Middle East?

by Anonymousreply 161Last Saturday at 6:51 AM

I dunno r161. Maybe that's why so many switched to Trump Cult.

by Anonymousreply 162Last Saturday at 6:54 AM

[quote] As stated earlier in this thread, people of faiths NOT LINKED TO the Bible, accept that Jesus existed. As the poster who cited Islam stated, Jesus is considered to have existed as a prophet before Muhammed. If you cross the Himalayas over to India, the old sages have records of Jesus, only they call him St Issa. If you travel south to parts of Africa, their spiritual philosophies are closley linked the teachings of Jesus- and this was looooong before colonialism.

R154, none of those traditions are actual witnesses to the existence of Jesus, since the point of contact came from Christian believers proselytizing among those peoples centuries later. It's like Christian apologists pointing to the Babylonians Talmud as a 'witness' to Jesus, when the Talmud wasn't codified until the 6th century CE. Islam didn't exist until the 7th century CE, and the St Thomas Christian Church of India didn't organize until the 8th century. How ever many of them there are, none of these constitute evidence for the existence of Jesus.

Even apologists' favorite witness to cite, Tacitus, is from the early 2nd century. Even assuming the passage in question is genuine and original to the document (𝐴𝑛𝑛𝑎𝑙𝑠 15:44 wasn't discovered until the 16th century CE in Florence, Italy, and there's issues with the text) and not later interpolations added by Christians like the references in Josephus, it still needs to be pointed out that Tacitus could only ever be witness to what Christians were saying about 'Christ'; he did not witness 'Jesus.' Neither does the passage mention 'Jesus.' Tacitus wasn't alive and living in Judea during the time Jesus is supposed to have lived.

There is not any relevant contemporary evidence for the existence of Jesus; it all originates from Christian teachings and literature like the New Testament. That's how everyone else was exposed to it.

by Anonymousreply 163Last Saturday at 7:32 AM

^^ Babylonian Talmud

by Anonymousreply 164Last Saturday at 7:36 AM

R154, religion is almost like a business, and they want to support each other when it comes down to it.

by Anonymousreply 165Last Saturday at 7:56 AM

They are a business. They should be taxed. We would never have budget problems if those insane fucks paid their fair share. And since there are no books, they are heavily involved with organized crime. They have always been grifters. ALWAYS.

by Anonymousreply 166Last Saturday at 8:50 AM

They are fascinating r156. Somebody has mentioned the Gospel of Thomas and if anyone here hasn't read it, do. It's kind of mind blowing.

by Anonymousreply 167Last Saturday at 11:15 AM

The Gospel of Thomas is most fascinating and blowing.

Offsite Link
by Anonymousreply 168Last Saturday at 11:29 AM

[quote] Much of what was written and happened to Jesus is *much too quotidian* to have been made up.

𝐪𝐮𝐨·𝐭𝐢𝐝·𝐢·𝐚𝐧, adj. - ordinary or everyday, especially when mundane.

R4/Bootsy, sounds like you learned a new word, and wanted an opportunity to use it. But it hardly applies to Jesus, of whom there is nothing written in the gospels which could by the furthest stretch be characterized as "quotidian." Everything the gospels relate of him is miraculous, remarkable, or supposedly in fulfillment of some prophecy or other. And almost all of it consists of literary borrowings from other sources.

[quote]And yes, I’m an atheist. Which has literally nothing to do with the historicity of Christ. This is unbelievably boring, sorry but it is.

And yet you never fail to put in an appearance anytime the subject comes up, at least once, in order to put in your supposed disinterested word on behalf of the existence of Jesus.

by Anonymousreply 169Last Saturday at 12:25 PM

Tell me, R169, where was the quote “The kingdom of God is within” borrowed from?

by Anonymousreply 170Last Saturday at 3:43 PM

Read Gospel of Thomas you bastard people. Otherwise, well, you are bastard people!

Offsite Link
by Anonymousreply 171Last Sunday at 10:43 AM

R171, no one wants to waste their beautiful mind on that.

by Anonymousreply 172Last Sunday at 10:56 AM

some are too bitter to see. sadness.

by Anonymousreply 173Last Sunday at 2:06 PM

"where was the quote “The kingdom of God is within” borrowed from?:

I think that's a paraphrase of "The kingdom of heaven is on earth, but men do not see it." From the Gospel of Thomas.

by Anonymousreply 174Last Monday at 5:12 AM

Who keeps this thing going? Seriously?

by Anonymousreply 175Last Monday at 5:20 AM

R175, because it's interesting and made history for good and bad.

by Anonymousreply 176Last Monday at 7:03 AM

Mentally ill Jesus fuckheads who invade DL keep it going. Funny, we don't go to religious sites and rave about cocksucking...

by Anonymousreply 177Last Monday at 7:08 AM

No it's not R176 and you really need to go to a Reddit Jesus cult thread or something. Bashing DL over and over with Jebus is not going to convert us.

by Anonymousreply 178Last Monday at 7:11 AM

I don't know about a Jesus with the last name of 'Christ', but there sure were a LOT of Jesuses (sp) out there!!!!!! :)

by Anonymousreply 179Last Monday at 7:14 AM

Wow, R168, Jane sounds like a genius:

“I chose to be a heterosexual guy because that’s what my DNA dictates and my nurture dictates that I am."

by Anonymousreply 180Last Monday at 7:18 AM

The Gospel Of Thomas Jane is the word of God.

by Anonymousreply 181Last Monday at 7:28 AM

[quote]Tell me, [R169], where was the quote “The kingdom of God is within” borrowed from?

R170/Personal Theology, Luke 17:21 (Nor will people say, ‘Look, here it is,’ or ‘There it is.’ For you see, the kingdom of God is in your midst”) is borrowed piecemeal from several sources, including Matthew, a gospel composition also primarily based upon Mark, preceding the Lukan gospel by a few decades. The Lukan author recalls Matthew 24:26, originally a postdictive reference critical of Simon Bar Kochba ("So if they tell you, ‘There He is in the wilderness,’ do not go out; or, ‘Here He is in the inner rooms,’ do not believe it"); the Lukan passage employs the expression to refer instead to the genuine Christ, elaborating a little further on, "People will tell you, ‘Look, there He is!’ or ‘Look, here He is!’ Do not go out or chase after them" (Lk 17:23). While utilizing the particular language of another gospel, invoking its memory, the material is rearranged to say something different.

It is also a restatement of Mark 1:15 (cf. Matthew 3:2; 4:17) that the kingdom of God is near. The Lukan author employs slightly different wording in order to point forward to an instance later in the Lukan narrative, "And as they were telling these things, He Himself stood 𝑖𝑛 𝑡ℎ𝑒𝑖𝑟 𝑚𝑖𝑑𝑠𝑡, and says to them, "Peace to you" (Lk. 24:36). The story is docetic in character, and hints at a gnostic influence, or borrowing from gnostic sources.

Passages of scripture are often tightly self-referential, serving as glosses or commentary on other passages. To the extent that Lk. 17:21b can be understood to mean "𝑤𝑖𝑡ℎ𝑖𝑛" a person, summarizes many longer passages from the gospels which teach that the virtue (or corruption, as the case may be) come from the heart, from within a person. The material as it appears in a given text, is highly concentrated literary composition, meditation upon other written passages, lacking the spontaneity of oral sources. Thus, thoughts or expressions originating in other sources, say, the Septuagint Psalms ("kingdom of God," "within", etc) enter the body of New Testament literature and are recycled by later anonymous authors.

by Anonymousreply 182Last Monday at 7:29 AM

Jesus. Triggered much?

by Anonymousreply 183Last Monday at 7:33 AM

Poisoned Dragqueen is at it again. Insufferable. Do tell us MORE babbling nonsense, whydon'tcha.

by Anonymousreply 184Last Monday at 7:39 AM

^^ R183/R184 triggered, intimidated.

Likely a sock of one of the thread participants, used exclusively for heckling. Check the history.

by Anonymousreply 185Last Monday at 7:47 AM

I remember reading IClaudius years ago, Peter Grave's adaptation/translation of the diaries of the Emporer Claudius and he mentions JC as an existing figure stirring things up in the far east.

by Anonymousreply 186Last Monday at 7:50 AM

That's a little mixed up r186. It's Robert Graves and he's inventing memoirs by Claudius, based largely on Suetonius' history of the Emperors, and other sources as well. If you are saying that the Emperor Claudius wrote about a real Jesus, that's just not the case. I think Claudius may have written memoirs, but if so, I think they have long since disappeared.

Actually Robert Graves also wrote King Jesus, a novel based on the idea that Jesus was actually Herod's grandson. Again, not any kind of proof of a real Jesus, which you may not even be saying, not sure from your post.

by Anonymousreply 187Last Monday at 7:58 AM

R186, sounds like a gloss on the reference in Suetonius to Jewish riots in Rome during the reign of Claudius ("Since the Jews constantly made disturbances at the instigation of Chrestus, he [the Emperor Claudius] expelled them from Rome" - 𝐷𝑖𝑣𝑢𝑠 𝐶𝑙𝑎𝑢𝑑𝑖𝑢𝑠 25.5).

I concur with R187.

by Anonymousreply 188Last Monday at 8:10 AM

R182: "........The Lukan author recalls Matthew 24:26, originally a postdictive reference critical of Simon Bar Kochba ("So if they tell you, ‘There He is in the wilderness,’ do not go out; or, ‘Here He is in the inner rooms,’ do not believe it"); the Lukan passage employs the expression to refer instead to the ........"

You're fuckin' nuts.

by Anonymousreply 189Last Monday at 8:26 AM

^^ Another outrage sock.

by Anonymousreply 190Last Monday at 8:29 AM

I see OP is red tagged. Good.

The references to Christ in histories all seem to have been added by monks during the Middle Ages. (To Christians, not necessarily.

That’s not really essential to proving the historicity of Jesus, of course. Multiple writers in the decades following his execution write with a great deal of specificity about his life and ministry. The idea that that was just spontaneously fabricated is absurd.

by Anonymousreply 191Last Monday at 8:31 AM

What specifically do you object to, R189, in the comment at R182? This could be a productive discussion if folks would deal with the substance of the posts, rather than take shots at the posters.

by Anonymousreply 192Last Monday at 8:34 AM

[quote]That’s not really essential to proving the historicity of Jesus, of course. Multiple writers in the decades following his execution write with a great deal of specificity about his life and ministry. The idea that that was just spontaneously fabricated is absurd.

"Spontaneously fabricated" isn't what's being argued, Bootsy/R191; that's kind of a strawman position.

Exactly which "multiple writers" did you have in mind? What sort of "specificity about his life and ministry"? You cannot privilege New Testament writings as comprising evidence for the claims of the New Testament, you know.

by Anonymousreply 193Last Monday at 8:41 AM

[quote] You cannot privilege New Testament writings as comprising evidence for the claims of the New Testament, you know.

lolz

by Anonymousreply 194Last Monday at 8:59 AM

"Lolz"??? Are you 12?

by Anonymousreply 195Last Monday at 9:16 AM

So many immature ignoramuses on this thread. The spiritual/religious impulse is part of our very DNA. Way down deep even in the most fervid atheist is the apprehension of something greater than ourselves, a transcendence beyond human ken, even as it manifests itself in secular ways. Deal with it.

by Anonymousreply 196Last Monday at 9:34 AM

The point is R196 it doesn't really matter. Live your life, be kind to others. It doesn't matter in the long run if there is or isn't something "greater" than ourselves. You live, you die. Deal with it.

That's why I'm agnostic. I don't know, you don't know and what does it matter? It doesn't affect how I go about my daily life.

by Anonymousreply 197Last Monday at 9:47 AM

Of COURSE he did

by Anonymousreply 198Last Monday at 9:48 AM

The DNA is deep in my butthole .I prefer The New Testicles to the Old ones. The story of Luke Evans17:21 says "Look, here it is, my leathery chest for you to see for the 17th time this month." is borrowed piecemeal from several sour sources, including Matthew 24/7 "Look at my butt, here it is for the world to see" Bomer. Lukan gospel says " Here I am on the beach, and in my inner hotel room, flashing my speedos bulge, can you believe it". He states further, "Look, here it is, my crotch once again, people will tell you about it".

by Anonymousreply 199Last Monday at 9:49 AM

HE’S NOT A CHRISTIAN!!!!!!! 🤡

by Anonymousreply 200Last Monday at 9:51 AM

He is worthy of worship. He has risen, and it's a good 7 inches.

by Anonymousreply 201Last Monday at 9:52 AM

Is that screamed a la Marguerite Perrin aka God Warrior R200?

by Anonymousreply 202Last Monday at 9:55 AM

R191/Bootsy: "Multiple writers in the decades following his execution write with a great deal of specificity about his life and ministry."

Okay, please explain how these people, writing DECADES after his execution, knew any legitimate specific details about his life if they weren't there to witness them?

Sheesh.

by Anonymousreply 203Last Monday at 11:15 AM

"Live your life, be kind to others."

And where do you think those tenets came from? The emperors of Rome? Before the Christ, life was cheap, disposable, brutal. There's a seismic shift of consciousness from "an eye for an eye" to "love your neighbor as yourself." If you were an infant 2000 years ago, you'd be lucky if you weren't left on a hillside to die, if someone wanted to dispose of you.

by Anonymousreply 204Last Monday at 11:24 AM

Hmm, surprised Bootsy is a god botherer.

by Anonymousreply 205Last Monday at 11:34 AM

Do you honestly think that is the history of the last 2000 years r204? Everyone loving their neighbor as themselves? You think that is how self-proclaimed Christians actually live their lives, and have since the 1st century?

by Anonymousreply 206Last Monday at 11:46 AM

[quote]And where do you think those tenets came from? The emperors of Rome? Before the Christ, life was cheap, disposable, brutal. There's a seismic shift of consciousness from "an eye for an eye" to "love your neighbor as yourself." If you were an infant 2000 years ago, you'd be lucky if you weren't left on a hillside to die, if someone wanted to dispose of you.

Sweetheart, if you think humanity did not have tenets similar to that before christianity you are sadly deluded. These tenets were put into place by all civilizations for order even before christ, Even chimps have a system of behavior which is deemed acceptable and cooperation to survive as a species.

by Anonymousreply 207Last Monday at 11:55 AM

[quote] Okay, please explain how these people, writing DECADES after his execution, knew any legitimate specific details about his life if they weren't there to witness them? Sheesh.

In an oral culture? By word of mouth.

by Anonymousreply 208Last Monday at 12:43 PM

R208, like when you line up 10 people and tell the first one "I heard Joe told Mary everyone knew she liked Jeff", and that person whispers it to the next, and so on and so on, until you get to the 10th person, and it ends up "I heard Joe was fucked Mary while sucking off Jeff because everyone knew they liked 3-ways."

Like that?

by Anonymousreply 209Last Tuesday at 6:26 AM

No. When no one knows how to read or write and you have to remember basic things you learn completely differently. That kind of oral culture.

Also, when Paul says he talked to Jesus' brother and Jesus' main disciple about Jesus you aren't talking 10 degrees of separation. You are talking two.

by Anonymousreply 210Last Tuesday at 6:32 AM

^^^ was fucking Mary ^^^

by Anonymousreply 211Last Tuesday at 6:32 AM

R210, Bootsy was talking about 'decades later'. Stories can change, not to mention translational meanings.

by Anonymousreply 212Last Tuesday at 6:34 AM

Absolutely, r212. No one outside of persons of faith is claiming the New Testament contains the absolute specific truth about Jesus' life or teachings. And scholars who study the historical Jesus will describe who traditions about Jesus changed over the earliest decades. The point is that those traditions started somewhere and the most logical place is an actual person named Jesus who preached and was crucified in the early 30s.

by Anonymousreply 213Last Tuesday at 6:37 AM

Oral traditions are not really trustworthy sources of history.

by Anonymousreply 214Last Tuesday at 6:38 AM

[quote] Oral traditions are not really trustworthy sources of history.

Which does not mean everything passed down through oral tradition is false. Most of our knowledge of the ancient world was first passed on through oral tradition before being written down. This is not a unique element to studying the historical Jesus. And the same safeguards and critical thinking that goes into reconstructing the history of ancient Greece goes into the reconstruction of the historical Jesus by critical scholars.

by Anonymousreply 215Last Tuesday at 6:45 AM

Whatever R215/Bootsy. I'm curious why you are so obsessed about this subject for a so-called "atheist".

by Anonymousreply 216Last Tuesday at 6:49 AM

I'm not Bootsy.

But I am agnostic. And I am interested in Jesus as you might be interested in any hugely influential figure from antiquity, like Alexander the Great or the Buddha.

by Anonymousreply 217Last Tuesday at 7:04 AM

Sorry. I'm agnostic too. Bootsy claims to be atheist yet has a burning evangelical desire to make people believe in Jesus.

by Anonymousreply 218Last Tuesday at 7:07 AM

[quote] "Live your life, be kind to others." And where do you think those tenets came from? The emperors of Rome? Before the Christ, life was cheap, disposable, brutal. There's a seismic shift of consciousness from "an eye for an eye" to "love your neighbor as yourself."

I've news for you, R204 - since Christianity, life has been just as cheap, brutal, and disposable. Perhaps more so, since Christians believed and taught that the hereafter mattered more than life in the here and now.

If there was a seismic shift in teachings, it occurred within the would-be parent religion. 'Jesus' did not invent 'love your neighbor as yourself' (cf. Leviticus 19:18b).

by Anonymousreply 219Last Tuesday at 1:13 PM

[quote] No one outside of persons of faith is claiming the New Testament contains the absolute specific truth about Jesus' life or teachings. And scholars who study the historical Jesus will describe who traditions about Jesus changed over the earliest decades.

R213/Personal Theology, "persons of faith" and "scholars who study the historical Jesus" tend to be the same people. It really could not be otherwise, since the only information purporting to tell about "the historical Jesus" comes exclusively from the New Testament, and only believers insist upon treating the New Testament as though it were a 'truth' document, or reflective of history, rather than a collection of literature to be critically examined.

[quote]The point is that those traditions started somewhere and the most logical place is an actual person named Jesus who preached and was crucified in the early 30s.

That's a faith-based statement. Scholars would look to the materials the anonymous New Testament authors used as sources. These are found in the literature of the time.

[quote]But I am agnostic.

You express some pretty strong religious opinions for a self-professed agnostic, Personal Theology.

[quote]And I am interested in Jesus as you might be interested in any hugely influential figure from antiquity, like Alexander the Great or the Buddha.

There's a distinct difference between those two, PT - one can be confirmed to have existed as a historical figure and the other cannot.

Offsite Link
by Anonymousreply 220Last Tuesday at 1:30 PM

R220 You seem to have a go-to tactic when defending your claims: attacking other posters’ character and authenticity. I have observed you doing it with Bootsy, a second poster you seem to have a long and turbulent history with, and, of course, with me, the op of the “What is your personal theology?” thread, in which you (perhaps rightfully so) called me out for stooping to the level of and being harsh on other rude, insulting posters. However, you also accused me of replying to you and myself from multiple sock accounts, which is truly absurd. (I am assuming you think you are replying to me now when, yet again, you question the authenticity of whatever other poster you are haranguing and have nicknamed “Personal Theology” upthread. I am sorry to disappoint you, but I am not that poster.) That three to four posters I have witnessed you employing ad hominem attacks against.

I have also observed that you seem fixated on peppering threads aimed at discussing spirituality and theology with quasi-logical arguments, counter arguments, and logical fallacies meant to shoot down any real discussion and exchange of ideas and that don’t do much but reveal your own bias, lack of knowledge on the aforementioned topics, and, quite frankly, what appears to be an extremely large and heavy axe to grind.

Really, for someone who seems dismissive of both theology and spirituality, I find it both puzzling and telling that you feel compelled to reply to these threads with such fervency and frequency. It is obvious that these topics trigger what I consider to be emotional reactions from you, however subtle these reactions may be, though I can’t quite pinpoint why.

You know, I have agreed with and even enjoyed what you have posted on other threads (The Fog, the Bible thread, some of your politics - we’re both Bernie supporters - etc.), so it is a bit disheartening to observe you reacting in what I perceive to be an irrational and demeaning manner toward posters who are not insulting or questioning you. Then again, I have never felt compelled to accuse you of being inauthentic or underhanded because of our disagreements, so perhaps I am just somewhat taken aback by this sort of behavior in what is supposed to be a discussion or, at the very least, a debate.

Anyway, I just wanted to share what I have observed of your interactions with others, which I find… curious.

by Anonymousreply 221Last Tuesday at 3:04 PM

[quote]You seem to have a go-to tactic when defending your claims: attacking other posters’ character and authenticity.

I've remarked on the practice of socking, although my making note of it when it occurs never has any bearing on the arguments.

[quote]I have observed you doing it with Bootsy, a second poster you seem to have a long and turbulent history with.

No, I have not done anything with Bootsy here, except reply to a couple of his posts. Nor have I a "long and turbulent history" with him. Although I have replied to him elsewhere from time to time, I cannot recall a single instance in which he has replied to me - at least, not directly.

[quote]in which you (perhaps rightfully so) called me out for stooping to the level of and being harsh on other rude, insulting posters.

It's something you continue to do (R16, R47, R152).

[quote]However, you also accused me of replying to you and myself from multiple sock accounts, which is truly absurd.

Not really. On the 'Personal Theology' thread, I was not the only one who noted the use of sock accounts to advance your point of view.

[quote] (I am assuming you think you are replying to me now when, yet again, you question the authenticity of whatever other poster you are haranguing and have nicknamed “Personal Theology” upthread. I am sorry to disappoint you, but I am not that poster.)

Last week, I was in the middle of an exchange with you on this thread, when an old adversary (the 'Dennis R MacDonald troll) swooped into the discussion. In having to check and confirm who I was talking to multiple times on the thread, somehow your identity remained on ignore; DL sometimes glitches and keeps posters in the ignore category, even though I've clicked the 'x'. So when I checked the identity of the 'MacDonald troll, your posts were there, making me think that you'd posted R109. It took a bit to clear that up. Of course, you could have spoken up and said something, but you didn't - you seem to have been content to allow me to conflate the two of you. You're only just now mentioning it.

I do not "harangue."

[quote]That three to four posters I have witnessed you employing ad hominem attacks against... I have also observed that you seem fixated on peppering threads aimed at discussing spirituality and theology with quasi-logical arguments, counter arguments, and logical fallacies...

And of you I have observed that you wouldn't know a logical fallacy if it bit you in the ass. You don't understand them, and cannot use them, though you love co-opting and claiming the terminology. I knew one like you back at the IMDb, one 'CaptainBryce,' who was much the same about the fallacies - ever committing them, and always incorrectly accusing others of doing so. He never got the hang of it, poor guy.

And no, none of this is an ad hominem. Like the rest of the fallacies, you don't understand what they are.

[quote]Really, for someone who seems dismissive of both theology and spirituality, I find it both puzzling and telling that you feel compelled to reply to these threads with such fervency and frequency.

The subject interests me, and I participate in such threads, though not to the degree you were seen to do in 'Personal Theology,' which bordered on obsessive.

[quote]these topics trigger what I consider to be emotional reactions from you

You would be mistaken. I keep my emotions out of my posts; the flat affect is not a facade. I cannot be provoked to anger or outrage by a post.

To be continued...

by Anonymousreply 222Last Tuesday at 3:50 PM

Continued...

[quote]Then again, I have never felt compelled to accuse you of being inauthentic or underhanded because of our disagreements

Your continually accusing me of logical fallacies could be considered as such. But to me, it's pretty telling that you choose to focus exclusively on my saying I thought you were sockpuppeting, and disregarding any and every other point I've offered in the exchange on the topic at hand. For instance, at R170 you asked me a question, and I answered you at R182, and you haven't a word to say about it, not even a 'thank you for answering.' Instead you choose this diversion.

Disappointing.

by Anonymousreply 223Last Tuesday at 3:52 PM

[quote] I've remarked on the practice of socking, although my making note of it when it occurs never has any bearing on the arguments.

Ad hominem attacks always have a “bearing on the arguments”; they’re a cheap way of undermining the person opposing your argument and whatever point(s) they’re trying to make.

[quote] It's something you continue to do ([R16], [R47], [R152]).

I did not post R16; R47 was definitely a cheap shot on my part; and R152 was in response to one of your own insulting posts.

[quote]… Of course, you could have spoken up and said something, but you didn't - you seem to have been content to allow me to conflate the two of you. You're only just now mentioning it.

Oh, well, I do apologize for not reading DL as frequently as necessary to reply to you, yet again, questioning someone’s authenticity and taking cheap shots at me in the process. Really, forgive me.

Also, I wasn’t referring to Bootsy when I wrote about the poster you have a seemingly long, turbulent history with; that was another poster. You only implied that Bootsy’s - an admitted atheist, by the way - interest in the existence of Jesus was questionable.

[quote]And of you I have observed that you wouldn't know a logical fallacy if it bit you in the ass.

The self-projection is deep with you, it seems. Listen, I respect that you do not believe Jesus existed and do not believe in the existence of a higher power - that is your claim and, quite frankly, [italic]opinion[/italic] - but when you start harassing and making fun of other posters for their beliefs because, again, in your [italic]opinion[/italic], there isn’t substantial evidence to prove their beliefs, i.e., “there is no evidence so Jesus and a higher power don’t exist,” that [italic]is[/italic] a logical fallacy; in fact, ironically and incredibly apropos to you, it is an appeal to ignorance. You are staggeringly blind to your own tactics.

How about this reply of yours in the “Where is God?” thread in response to a poster that was actually being sweet and neutral about the matter:

The poster wrote:

[quote] God exists in love and nature. Humans were given free will and we are the cause of our own misery

Your reply to another poster about this post:

[quote]See, [R37]? The ones who claim they've found God are the ones you have to watch out for. They're certifiable.

Real upstanding of you.

[quote]I participate in such threads, though not to the degree you were seen to do in 'Personal Theology,' which bordered on obsessive.

That was a thread I created in which I posed a question I expected to get honest answers to, not insults to myself and other posters who were being forthcoming. Then again, it's clear you like to insult people and call it logic, so, really, save me your faux logical bullshit. You are insulting and emotionally invested in these discussions to a degree that [italic]is[/italic] obsessive. That's why you have the time and energy to blame me for posts I am not even logged on here to see or reply to with the speed you apparently expect me to.

[quote]For instance, at [R170] you asked me a question, and I answered you at [R182], and you haven't a word to say about it, not even a 'thank you for answering.' Instead you choose this diversion.

The sock puppetry accusations linger in my mind because you insisted on continuing to accuse me of it even after I made it clear that I do not have any other accounts on here.

As for the Gospel of Thomas, it is part of the historical documents used to prove the existence of Jesus and, in fact, is dated by some scholars, historians, and archeologists as being [italic]older[/italic] than the New Testament, so you had no point - literally - worth responding to.

I'm done with this conversation or any other with you, so do us both a favor, dear, and block me again.

by Anonymousreply 224Last Tuesday at 4:33 PM

After too many of these, I have just taken to blocking and ignoring PD. There is no point in trying. But let's not make this about him.

And this will get us accused of being sock puppets for each other.

by Anonymousreply 225Last Tuesday at 4:37 PM

There are no corroborating evidence from outside the cult that Jesus existed in actuality. All the cult writings found can only prove Jesus is a deified figure of a cult. And we all know cults like to make stuff up and are not bound by reality.

by Anonymousreply 226Last Tuesday at 4:51 PM

Why would "the cult" make up Jesus?

by Anonymousreply 227Last Tuesday at 4:53 PM

R227 Every cult makes up whatever needed to fool people.

by Anonymousreply 228Last Tuesday at 4:54 PM

[quote] “there is no evidence so Jesus and a higher power don’t exist,” that is a logical fallacy

And at no point, did I say anything like that. Nowhere.

[quote] a poster that was actually being sweet and neutral about the matter: "God exists in love and nature. Humans were given free will and we are the cause of our own misery"

Clearly you don't recognize that for the extremely unpleasant and nasty piece of victim-blaming that it is. Christian theology rarely gets uglier than that.

[quote]I'm done with this conversation or any other with you, so do us both a favor, dear, and block me again.

See, you're angry, and I'm not. I only block you in order to be able to identify if a particular post is by you; 'ignore' really has no other useful function.

[quote]As for the Gospel of Thomas, it is part of the historical documents used to prove the existence of Jesus and, in fact, is dated by some scholars, historians, and archeologists as being older than the New Testament, so you had no point - literally - worth responding to.

I haven't talked about the Gospel of Thomas.

It's possible that parts of it are older than the canonical gospels, although other parts of it can be seen as a polemical response to canonical material, which would mean it was still being contributed to even after the canonical gospels. To say that it is older doesn't do much for the claim that it's evidence for Jesus, though - even the earliest of the canonical gospels, Mark wasn't written until 135 CE or at some point shortly thereafter. The rest of the canonical gospels are literarily dependent upon Mark, and came afterwards - Matthew, from 150-175 CE, Luke, from 180-200 CE, and John, from 190-230 CE. To these, edits were made as late as the 4th and 5th centuries.

[quote]so you had no point - literally - worth responding to.

Since I at no point talked about the Gospel of Thomas in R182, it seems evident that either you don't know which posts are mine, or you didn't understand anything I wrote. That seems to have been the case from the very beginning. If it's that unintelligible to you, as with everything else I post, about which you continuously cry that you're being mistreated, perhaps you should put me on ignore.

by Anonymousreply 229Last Tuesday at 4:57 PM

So your theory is they made up Jesus because they thought they could fool people with a Jesus who they claimed was a crucified messiah, even though the whole concept of a messiah made no sense to the Greeks and a crucified one made no sense to the Jews?

And then they wrote things like Paul's letters where he talks about meeting Jesus' followers and Jesus' brothers as part of this plan?

by Anonymousreply 230Last Tuesday at 4:57 PM

R228 Every cult is all about spinning a tall tale that sells. The cult first sold Jesus as the Messiah to the Jews and when that didn't sell well, they went with "Son of God" which came from non-Jewish polytheistic influence and that caught on outside the Jewish world.

by Anonymousreply 231Last Tuesday at 5:05 PM

Excellent strawmen, R230.

If your really want to understand the 'theory,' try the basics at the link at R147.

by Anonymousreply 232Last Tuesday at 5:05 PM

Where is your evidence they did this, r231? How do you fit the Christian literature into this scheme?

by Anonymousreply 233Last Tuesday at 5:08 PM

It's in the New NEW Testament. The updated, revised addition released last week. Gabriel wrote the new forward. He's transitioned to "Gabrielle". Insufferable, I know.

by Anonymousreply 234Last Tuesday at 5:20 PM

I’m sorry, R229, but I couldn’t help hammering in the last nail.

[quote] Clearly you don't recognize that for the extremely unpleasant and nasty piece of victim-blaming that it is. Christian theology rarely gets uglier than that.

So you have assumed that the poster that wrote, "God exists in love and nature. Humans were given free will and we are the cause of our own misery," is a Christian? I see no mention of Jesus in that post. Furthermore, that statement could easily have been written by a Jew, Buddhist, Hindu, a New Age spirituality proponent with no ties to any religion, and even a clever atheist and you wouldn’t even know it.

[quote] I haven't talked about the Gospel of Thomas.

Exactly my point. As I noted, it is considered by many to be older than the New Testament and contains an even longer version of the quote “The kingdom of God is within”:

[quote] (3) Jesus said, "If those who lead you say to you, 'See, the kingdom is in the sky,' then the birds of the sky will precede you. If they say to you, 'It is in the sea,' then the fish will precede you. Rather, the kingdom is inside of you, and it is outside of you. When you come to know yourselves, then you will become known, and you will realize that it is you who are the sons of the living father. But if you will not know yourselves, you dwell in poverty and it is you who are that poverty."

by Anonymousreply 235Last Tuesday at 5:32 PM

^ " living father" like a hot Daddy?

Offsite Link
by Anonymousreply 236a day ago

I know the consensus is that Mark was written (by whomever) around 70 AD. Why are you so sure it was more like 135 AD, poisoned dragon?

by Anonymousreply 23721 hours ago

I will happily reply with a 14 paragraph manifesto filled with interesting tidbits from my wasted lifetime of scatological dogma pooped out by only the most primitive minds from the enlightened bronze age. I can be pretty intimidating with my vast knowledge of "facts" and farts, just give me a minute to pull them out of my ass. What, when did I eat corn?

by Anonymousreply 23821 hours ago

[quote]So you have assumed that the poster that wrote, "God exists in love and nature. Humans were given free will and we are the cause of our own misery," is a Christian? I see no mention of Jesus in that post. Furthermore, that statement could easily have been written by a Jew, Buddhist, Hindu, a New Age spirituality proponent with no ties to any religion, and even a clever atheist and you wouldn’t even know it.

Sorry, but the thing about "free will" and "we are the cause of our own misery" is pretty much an exclusive feature of conservative Christianity. Pretending otherwise is dishonest. As that same poster goes on to say,

[quote]Of course not, R37. It is not personally YOUR fault in those examples, but humanity’s collective fault. 𝐨𝐫𝐢𝐠𝐢𝐧𝐚𝐥 𝐬𝐢𝐧 resulted in humanity’s mortality and it is a choice for some asshole to pull the trigger on a gun. He could just as soon choose not to shoot. Cancer is caused by bad environmental factors and bad genetics, not your own fault but a lot of these horrible things can be tied back to humanity’s bad decisions.

[quote]Exactly my point.

No, that 𝑤𝑎𝑠𝑛'𝑡 exactly you point. When I pointed out that you'd disregarded my answer to you at R182, "as for the Gospel of Thomas" comprised part of your answer as to why I "had no point - literally - worth responding to" - implying that my discussion of it was what was deficient. It was a way of sidestepping the content of the reply at R182.

Since that point, I ℎ𝑎𝑣𝑒 discussed it, at R229. But in keeping with your established trolling method, at no point do you ever directly acknowledge or allude to anything I've posted on the subject, whatever it happens to be, whether evidence for Jesus, or the Gospel of Thomas.

[quote]it is considered by many to be older than the New Testament and contains an even longer version of the quote “The kingdom of God is within”

How is it that you consider that to be evidence for the existence of Jesus? Jesus didn't write it. Nor is it the work of "Thomas" (just as the canonical gospels are not the work of the names assigned them). Most of the sayings are reworked versions of sayings from the canonical gospels, showing that 'Thomas' is later. That the 'kingdom' saying is longer is also an indicator of later composition, since generally speaking, over time, texts accrete additional words and phrases, rather than lose them; the greater the brevity, the earlier the recension.

by Anonymousreply 23921 hours ago

^^ your point

by Anonymousreply 24021 hours ago

^ Exactly my point.

by Anonymousreply 24121 hours ago

[quote]I know the consensus is that Mark was written (by whomever) around 70 AD. Why are you so sure it was more like 135 AD, poisoned dragon?

That consensus wasn't voluntary on the part of conservative theologians, R237, who originally insisted that 'Mark' was written within a decade of the death of Jesus. It was the result of the eventual acknowledgement that Mark 13 was not 'prophecy,' but postdiction, an instance of 𝑣𝑎𝑡𝑖𝑐𝑖𝑛𝑖𝑢𝑚 𝑒𝑥 𝑒𝑣𝑒𝑛𝑡𝑢, written with knowledge of the destruction of Jerusalem after the event. For the conservatives, 70 CE was the earliest possible point for that, which is why they planted their flag there. It was still sufficiently close to the purported date of Christ's death that they could still maintain that Mark was eyewitness testimony, very important to believers.

But a closer examination of Mark 13 revealed details which place the postdiction later. It has to do with the phrase quoted from the Intertestamental Book of Daniel: “When you see ‘the abomination that causes desolation’ standing where it does not belong—let the reader understand—then let those who are in Judea flee to the mountains" (Mk.13:14).

Some context: In 168 BCE, the Seleucid king Antiochus IV Epiphanes had captured Jerusalem, and re-dedicated its temple to Zeus, performing sacrifices upon its altar. But the crowning desecration was that he placed a statue in the temple, of himself as Zeus. This became known as 'the abomination of desolation', or 'that causes desolation' ('abomination', Hebrew 𝑠ℎ𝑖𝑞𝑞𝑢𝑡𝑠: detested thing, an idol), the expression used in 'Daniel' and 2 Maccabees.

In 130 CE, Roman Emperor Hadrian began to rebuild Jerusalem and its temple. The city was renamed Aelia Capitolina, and the temple was dedicated to Jupiter Capitolina, with statues of Hadrian as Jupiter (it's unclear, but there may have been two statues, one of Hadrian on horseback in the courtyard, and another inside the temple, seated on a throne as Jupiter was usually depicted). This was what provoked the Bar Kochba Revolt against the Roman Empire, and when Mark cites the 'abomination that causes desolation,' it's a direct comparison of the two - Hadrian's statue, and Antiochus' statue. The references to false Christs (Mk.13:21-22) is also a better fit with Bar Kochba in view. Some modern scholars, including Hermann Detering (𝑇ℎ𝑒 𝑆𝑦𝑛𝑜𝑝𝑡𝑖𝑐 𝐴𝑝𝑜𝑐𝑎𝑙𝑦𝑝𝑠𝑒 (𝑀𝑎𝑟𝑘 13 𝑃𝑎𝑟): 𝐴 𝐷𝑜𝑐𝑢𝑚𝑒𝑛𝑡 𝐹𝑟𝑜𝑚 𝑡ℎ𝑒 𝑇𝑖𝑚𝑒 𝑜𝑓 𝐵𝑎𝑟 𝐾𝑜𝑐ℎ𝑏𝑎. JHC 7/2 (Fall 2000), 161-210) have drawn this comparison, with its implications for the dating of Mark. (See also Vridar for discussion on the subject.)

Of course, Christian scholars really, really don't like this, as it moves the authorship of Mark into the near middle of the 2nd century CE, and away from any possibility of surviving eyewitnesses.

Offsite Link
by Anonymousreply 24220 hours ago

R239:

[quote] Sorry, but the thing about "free will" and "we are the cause of our own misery" is pretty much an exclusive feature of conservative Christianity. Pretending otherwise is dishonest.

Actually, conservative Christianity tends to blame the cause of misery and sin on Satan, aka the Devil, and on disbelief in Jesus. In fact, many conservative and evangelical Christians would raise an eyebrow at that poster's claim that “God exists in love and nature,” maybe even going as far as accusing him of being a "blasphemous pagan."

On the other hand, most Buddhists, who do not believe in God nor Christ, would agree that “we are the cause of our own misery” due to a tendency toward being desirous of and lost in illusion and what is transient and perishable. Many Jews, Hindus, and New Age proponents believe the same, especially in the mystical traditions.

As for the poster mentioning “original sin" - a reference to “the fall,” or eating of the fruit by Adam and Eve in the Garden, which is a Judaic story and central to both Judaism and most, not all, forms of Christianity - it is a phrase that has been popularized and used outside of religious contexts, so its use still does not confirm what this particular poster believes in. However, your adamance in claiming that he is Christian without any solid proof does not belie your bias against conservative Christians, which, though understandable, should be noted, especially if we are discussing this topic logically.

Your post at R169, to which I initially responded with my reply at R170, reads:

[quote] Bootsy, sounds like you learned a new word, and wanted an opportunity to use it. But it hardly applies to Jesus, of whom there is nothing written in the gospels which could by the furthest stretch be characterized as "quotidian." Everything the gospels relate of him is miraculous, remarkable, or supposedly in fulfillment of some prophecy or other. [bold]And almost all of it consists of literary borrowings from other sources.[/bold]

[quote]"And yes, I’m an atheist. Which has literally nothing to do with the historicity of Christ. This is unbelievably boring, sorry but it is."

[quote]And yet you never fail to put in an appearance anytime the subject comes up, at least once, in order to put in your supposed disinterested word on behalf of the existence of Jesus.

To clarify, I was responding to the part I have bolded, i.e., "And almost all of [the gospels] are borrowed from other sources," which implied non-self-referential sources, of which you posted none. You also did not mention the Gospel of Thomas which, [italic]again[/italic], has been said to be older than the four gospels and the New Testament as a whole.

Do you have any other non-self-referential source for the quote from Luke - "the Kingdom of God is within" - or for the longer quote from the Gospel of Thomas I posted upthread?

[quote] Most of the sayings are reworked versions of sayings from the canonical gospels, showing that 'Thomas' is later. That the 'kingdom' saying is longer is also an indicator of later composition, since generally speaking, over time, texts accrete additional words and phrases, rather than lose them; the greater the brevity, the earlier the recension.

In keeping with your established dismissal of whatever does not fit into your tightly held opinion and bias, I suppose we should just throw out the claims of respected and established scholars, historians, and archeologists who have dated the Gospel of Thomas as being older than the canonical gospels.

Additionally, in the case of politically motivated religion, which most of it is, quite frankly, especially regarding the formation of the Bible, many books were eliminated and destroyed (e.g. The Book of Enoch, The Prayer of Azariah, The Book of Jubilees, etc.), so, while some "texts accrete additional words and phrases" over time, many are also redacted and destroyed for political purposes.

by Anonymousreply 24320 hours ago

[quote]"And yes, I’m an atheist. Which has literally nothing to do with the historicity of Christ. This is unbelievably boring, sorry but it is."

That's a statement by Bootsy, at R4. Not by me.

[quote]As for the poster mentioning “original sin" - a reference to “the fall,” or eating of the fruit by Adam and Eve in the Garden, which is a Judaic story and central to both Judaism and most, not all, forms of Christianity - it is a phrase that has been popularized and used outside of religious contexts, so its use still does not confirm what this particular poster believes in.

Judaism does not believe in "original sin," Personal Theology. That is a Christian idea. You're prevaricating, like Trump: “But it could also be China. It could also be lots of other people. It also could be somebody sitting on their bed that weighs 400 pounds, okay?”

[quote]However, your adamance in claiming that he is Christian without any solid proof does not belie your bias against conservative Christians

Oh, 𝑤𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎ℎ. The evidence is sufficiently solid. Move on.

[quote]In keeping with your established dismissal of whatever does not fit into your tightly held opinion and bias, I suppose we should just throw out the claims of respected and established scholars, historians, and archeologists who have dated the Gospel of Thomas as being older than the canonical gospels.

I'm sorry, but you're going to have to name these specifically and quote them if you're going to keep putting them in play. And their being "respected and established" is a non-factor. It would come down to the strength of their arguments and the evidence. The traditional majority view, for whatever that's worth, is that Thomas is a 2nd or 3rd century gnostic composition whose author extracted Jesus sayings from a Coptic translation of the New Testament and edited them to fit a gnostic worldview. Unlike you, I have no stake in whether it's early or late, and am indifferent to opinions regarding it (I recognize that you're kind of obsessed with it, and always slip in a few posts about it) - save the assertion that it somehow constitutes evidence for the existence of Jesus. No Christian writing does this, canonical or not.

by Anonymousreply 24419 hours ago

Here's part of what Robert M. Price has to say about GoT:

𝐼𝑠 𝑖𝑡 𝑒𝑎𝑟𝑙𝑦?

Those who consider Thomas to be independent of Matthew and Luke tend to date it earlier than the others. Koester and Davies both place it around CE 50, earlier than any other surviving gospel. If I am correct, such an early date would be impossible. But there are other reasons for suggesting an early date. First, the Christology is mostly 𝑛𝑜𝑛-𝑡𝑖𝑡𝑢𝑙𝑎𝑟 in that it avoids calling Jesus the Son of God, the Son of Man, or even the Christ. For Davies and Patterson, this implies that it comes from the dawn of Christianity when devotion to Jesus had not yet articulated itself in the form of divine titles. In my opinion, it is equally possible the compiler is 𝑟𝑒𝑎𝑐𝑡𝑖𝑛𝑔 to such titles, programmatically repudiating them out of a Gnostic, Zen-like fear that such titles would serve to make believers substitute a dogma about Jesus for the living one himself. Saying 43 is illustrative of this.

Similarly, scholars have pointed to the supposed lack of futuristic eschatology (the expectation of the end of all things) as a sign of an early date. But the argument is completely secondary to a framework of theories which understand Jesus as having taught the figurative presence of the kingdom as opposed to a literal future coming. In any event, it may be, as I think, that where Thomas repudiates futurism, although inconsistently, he is not innocent of it. Instead, he is reacting against it. I place Thomas late enough for its writers to have seen the world outlast the apocalyptic deadlines set for it, knowing that such timetables could no longer be taken seriously. The kingdom of God could no longer realistically be expected to come from without, so from now on it would be sought within. I would therefore think that Thomas is roughly a contemporary of John, making it a late second-century document.

Robert M. Price, 𝑇ℎ𝑒 𝑃𝑟𝑒-𝑁𝑖𝑐𝑒𝑛𝑒 𝑁𝑒𝑤 𝑇𝑒𝑠𝑡𝑎𝑚𝑒𝑛𝑡: 𝐹𝑖𝑓𝑡𝑦-𝑓𝑜𝑢𝑟 𝐹𝑜𝑟𝑚𝑎𝑡𝑖𝑣𝑒 𝑇𝑒𝑥𝑡𝑠 (Signature Books, Salt Lake City, 2006), pp. 972-973.

There's a lot more there on Thomas, including the annotated text itself. I highly recommend the book if you're at all curious about New Testament critical scholarship (I'm not typing any more of it in).

by Anonymousreply 24519 hours ago

[quote] That's a statement by Bootsy, at [R4]. Not by me.

Hence why it is in quotes.

[quote] Judaism does not believe in "original sin," Personal Theology. That is a Christian idea. You're prevaricating,

I never claimed that Judaism “believe[s]in ‘original sin’; I simply connected the term to its origin, which is from a central Judaic text.

Oh, look, you learned a new word.

[quote]Oh, 𝑤𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎ℎ! The evidence is sufficiently solid. Move on.

How very petulant, prevaricative, and Trumpian of you.

[quote] I'm sorry, but you're going to have to name these specifically and quote them if you're going to keep putting them in play. And their being "respected and established" is a non-factor. It would come down to the strength of their arguments and the evidence. The traditional majority view, for whatever that's worth, is that Thomas is a 2nd or 3rd century gnostic composition…

:Yawn: I’ll just reply with your words: “I'm sorry, but you're going to have to name these specifically and quote them if you're going to keep putting them in play. And their being "respected and established" is a non-factor. It would come down to the strength of their arguments and the evidence.”

Also, thank you for the book suggestion, I will check it out.

Finally, where are the non-self-referential sources for either of the “the kingdom of God is within” quotes?

by Anonymousreply 24619 hours ago

PD, I would just like to thank you for your diligence in countering the attacks of the credulous. I am sure there are others who also appreciate your commentary and please keep going with it!

by Anonymousreply 24718 hours ago

I for one am sick of the jesus freak who keeps seemingly wanting to use DL as a board for their obsession.

by Anonymousreply 24818 hours ago

[quote]I never claimed that Judaism “believe[s]in ‘original sin’; I simply connected the term to its origin, which is from a central Judaic text.

Which relates to your claim that the poster might not be Christian, with the suggestion that they might be Jewish. The answer to that is no. But you're not honest enough to acknowledge that and move on.

[quote]I’ll just reply with your words: “I'm sorry, but you're going to have to name these specifically and quote them if you're going to keep putting them in play. And their being "respected and established" is a non-factor. It would come down to the strength of their arguments and the evidence.”

I can, if necessary. You haven't demonstrated you're capable of supporting anything.

[quote]Finally, where are the non-self-referential sources for either of the “the kingdom of God is within” quotes?

As I remarked at R182, in the Septuagint. That's where the underlying basis for the concept can be found, according to many Christian commentators, who draw relationships to texts such as Psalm 103:1; Psalm 109:22; and Isaiah 16:11. This isn't difficult.

You seem to be driving, however listlessly, towards the idea that Luke 17:21b is so unique that is is impossible for it to have come from anywhere except the mouth of a historical Jesus. If you ever get around to articulating that, you will find it, prima facie, dead on arrival. There are no writings 𝑏𝑦 Jesus; all Christian material is written by others, 𝑎𝑏𝑜𝑢𝑡 Jesus. This comprises a permanent, insurmountable barrier between us and any ostensible historical Jesus. Even were there some scriptural statement that wasn't drawn from some other source, that still would not mean Jesus existed. No Christian writing, regardless of how early it was written, can offer proof that the character of Jesus in the narrative existed.

The existence of a 'sayings gospel' like Thomas may also reflect a sectarian objection to the narrative portions of canonical gospels, which were cut away, somewhat the same way Thomas Jefferson produced an edited version of the bible and cut away parts he did not feel were genuine. The reasons underlying an objection to narrative could be anything, including a recognition that the story/narrative portions were borrowed from other sources. Someone could have deemed these to be man-made, while giving exclusive preference to the sayings - which nonetheless were subject to the same growth, revision, and accretion as the narrative gospels.

by Anonymousreply 24918 hours ago

[quote] Which relates to your claim that the poster might not be Christian, with the suggestion that they might be Jewish. The answer to that is no. But you're not honest enough to acknowledge that and move on.

I’m not going to continue reiterating and rephrasing what I wrote. Here it is:

[quote]Actually, conservative Christianity tends to blame the cause of misery and sin on Satan, aka the Devil, and on disbelief in Jesus. In fact, many conservative and evangelical Christians would raise an eyebrow at that poster's claim that “God exists in love and nature,” maybe even going as far as accusing him of being a "blasphemous pagan."

[quote]On the other hand, most Buddhists, who do not believe in God nor Christ, would agree that “we are the cause of our own misery” due to a tendency toward being desirous of and lost in illusion and what is transient and perishable. Many Jews, Hindus, and New Age proponents believe the same, especially in the mystical traditions.

[quote]As for the poster mentioning “original sin" - a reference to “the fall,” or eating of the fruit by Adam and Eve in the Garden, which is a Judaic story and central to both Judaism and most, not all, forms of Christianity - it is a phrase that has been popularized and used outside of religious contexts, so its use still does not confirm what this particular poster believes in. However, your adamance in claiming that he is Christian without any solid proof does not belie your bias against conservative Christians, which, though understandable, should be noted, especially if we are discussing this topic logically.

As for the rest of your now predictable diatribe, it really is not worth responding to.

The only reason I responded to you yesterday is to note what I observed of your so-called cool headed responses to others, which are tellingly peppered with barbs and attacks of character and a load of self-projections.

Again, though most historians - and this includes those who are not Christian and many who are atheists - disagree with you, I accept with respect your [italic]opinion[/italic] that there is no proof of the existence of Jesus. Actually, it really is of no consequence to me what your opinion is.

by Anonymousreply 25017 hours ago

there are r247, and I appreciate your answer to me at r242, PD.

by Anonymousreply 25117 hours ago

PoisonedDragon, I agree with you almost 100%. But you'd both make your point and it would reach a LOT more people if you weren't so gawddamn VERBOSE.

Try to reel it in. Write something out, then edit it by 50-75% and you'd have an audience.

by Anonymousreply 25217 hours ago

Biblethumper Jesus Freak could do the same R252. I think PD is responding in kind to her. Apparently, JF is in love with her own writing.

by Anonymousreply 25317 hours ago

Exactly R248. Jesus freaks, HERE? Go worship your god creatures somewhere else. Insufferable nonsense masquerading as intelligence. There's always that weird pompous competition for dominance and the unconTROLLable desperation to be "right" with unending "fact" checking. And I though Scientologists were nuts...

by Anonymousreply 25417 hours ago

it's not about jesus freaks r254 and r248. Don't go into a panic just because somebody mentioned the name. It's okay. It's just a name. It does not mean everybody demands that you become born again and washed in the blood of the lamb. It's just a name and people can discus it, and the possible person behind it.

by Anonymousreply 25516 hours ago

BLOOD OF THE LAMB. That sounds reasonable....and not completely insane. All religious people have issues with dominance and control. Mental illness and sexual confusion are rampant. And the tax free angle brings in all the criminals and kooks. It's a debauched paradise. Is anyone ever surprised by church related sex scandals, money scandals or shootings?

by Anonymousreply 25616 hours ago

They sound traumatized, R255, and I don’t mean that insultingly.

by Anonymousreply 25716 hours ago

[quote]BLOOD OF THE LAMB. That sounds reasonable....and not completely insane.

I agree. It’s sort of like those claiming that a swathe of land is theirs because their ancestors inhabited the region a thousand plus years ago and, as a result, they are entitled to snatch it from people who live there now, even if it means hurting and killing them. Really, there is so much about religion that is strange, counterproductive, and just plain wrong. Religion is basically spiritual politics.

Spirituality, on the other hand, is or [italic]should[/italic] be inclusive, always searching, never dogmatic, and apolitical.

by Anonymousreply 25816 hours ago

except it isn't any of that here r258. It's people discussing whether or not there was an actual historical Jesus. Again, stop panicking. It's okay. It's just a name. Doesn't really matter all that much. Calm down.

by Anonymousreply 25916 hours ago

R259 I actually believe Jesus existed, so I’m not averse to this discussion.

by Anonymousreply 26015 hours ago

R247 and R251, thank you kindly. I appreciate the encouragement.

R252, thank you. I wish I could "reel it in," but I already leave a great deal out, often due to the constraints on the size of a post. And whenever I do this, there is unfortunately a commensurate loss to the coherence of my arguments; posters like Personal Theology already don't understand half of what I'm saying.

by Anonymousreply 26113 hours ago

[Quote]It's just a name.

No, its not. No need to keep saying this as we know its a belief system of utter nonsense, sky faeries and kooky rules and regulations.

by Anonymousreply 26213 hours ago

R44 et al., the lazy enforcement of "consensus" by biblical scholars and researchers who are PAID by the religious organizations or the religious funders who maintain universities' theology and religious studies departments going accepts how the business turns research into apologetics. Scholars are not "permitted" to advance in their fields, or to remain in their doctoral programs, if they veer too far from the "consensus." That many atheists still ignorantly nod yes to the demands of theists is a reflection of the conflicted status of the "atheist community."

There is no evidence of an historical Jesus.

Say it with me, once you actually consider the sources of each bit of "record."

Forgeries, ahistorical additions, misreadings, propaganda pieces by the early Orthodoxy faction amid the many loosely connected "Christian" factions from late BCE (yes) to the final creation and editing of NT texts - just don't pronounce like a putz on "consensus." The people declaring the historicity are being paid by the religious universities and the traditionalists who cannot survive otherwise. The closest we can get to a time period near the claims of a historical Jesus is early Paul, but those texts actually address a non-corporeal Jesus existing in the lower heavens, with evident later emendations by Marion and other early scripture cobblers.

Check out Richard Carrier, Robert M. Price, David Fitzgerald. None has an axe to grind. Bart Ehrman has made contributions, sure, but his pissy attitude and clucking orthodox tone show his bias, as does his "conclusions" that insist "it's this way because we all say it's this way."

by Anonymousreply 26313 hours ago

[quote]Actually, it really is of no consequence to me what your opinion is.

That's odd, R250/Personal Theology, because somehow you keep replying to me. I wonder why.

[quote]The only reason I responded to you yesterday is to note what I observed of your so-called cool headed responses to others, which are tellingly peppered with barbs and attacks of character and a load of self-projections.

Pointing out flaws in your arguments or answering your objections are not 'attacks upon your character,' PT. Nor are they 'barbs.' And as anyone who has been following our exchanges on this thread and the 'Personal Theology' thread (long-suffering bunch, they are) can tell you, the projection comes from you.

[quote]Again, though most historians - and this includes those who are not Christian and many who are atheists - disagree with you...

This reminds me of something you said upthread to which I'd like to return: "I suppose we should just throw out the claims of respected and established scholars, historians, and archeologists who have dated the Gospel of Thomas as being older than the canonical gospels..."

'Historians' generally do not weigh in on the dates of texts like the Gospel of Thomas, PT. It's not in their wheelhouse. Nor is it the province of archaeologists. It mostly belongs to specialists on manuscripts and textual criticism.

The vast majority of biblical scholars are believers, and their labor and output is largely in service of the religious. That's simply a fact, and it's one of the reasons that appeals to the majority on questions like 'Did Jesus exist?' are flawed.

Offsite Link
by Anonymousreply 26413 hours ago

For fuck's sake just shut the fuck up.

by Anonymousreply 26513 hours ago

Nobody - and I mean 𝑛𝑜𝑏𝑜𝑑𝑦 - is forcing you to read any of this, trollsock at R265.

by Anonymousreply 26612 hours ago

You all need to calm down and let Father PoisonedDragon slide it inside you. Bite down on his robe and it won't hurt so much.

by Anonymousreply 26712 hours ago

This is so sweet - what this country needs is more Jesus!

Offsite Link
by Anonymousreply 26812 hours ago

R264 Your arguments are thin, based on personal bias and assumptions, and mostly dependent upon attacking others. In fact, making up nicknames for posters, accusing almost everyone that opposes your opinions of being either trolls, disingenuous, or using sock accounts, implying that people are “certifiable” because of their beliefs, and assuming what others believe based on no substantial evidence pretty much sums up all you know how to do.

You are petulant and seemingly paranoid, though, with how much you accuse others of using sock accounts, I would not be in the least surprised if that is, in fact, what [italic]you[/italic] do.

Perhaps you should change your handle to Poisoned Logic, lol.

Ciao, love.

::kisses::

by Anonymousreply 26911 hours ago
Loading
Need more help? Click Here.

Yes indeed, we too use "cookies." Take a look at our privacy/terms or if you just want to see the damn site without all this bureaucratic nonsense, click ACCEPT. Otherwise, you'll just have to find some other site for your pointless bitchery needs.

×

Become a contributor - post when you want with no ads!