Jump to content
  • Hey There!

    Please register to see fewer ads and a better viewing experience:100_Emoji_42x42:

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Zod

Luke, Jon, and Thomas

Recommended Posts



Unlike those other historical figures you listed, there are no contemporary accounts of Jesus, including Josephus. That's a really stupid fuging thing to suggest and a pitiful comparison.

As far as inspiring a belief system, can I assume you then believe Muhammad to be the one true prophet or what

Without turning this into a tinderbox debate, let me assure you that I could utterly and thoroughly destroy you in any debate regarding ANE history and culture. Secondly, seeing as Mohamed spawned a belief system no one questions whether he actually existed, which is the only point I was making. Whether Jesus performed miracles or was resurrected is irrelevant to whether he actually existed, and unless you wish to posit that thousands of people collectively invented a contemporary figure of reverence in a manner never before achieved in human history (since the myths of Hercules, Gilgamesh, etc. all concerned historical figures in their own time) I would be safe to say the historicity of Jesus existence is only a topic for imbeciles. Those who argue the topic do so demanding a weight of evidence not required from contemporary figures of that time, and assuming some sort of fanciful mass delusion better reserved for Dan Brown novels.

The reason that some figure called Jesus had to exist is because the figure defies all archetypal attributes associated with myth: he was of a commoner trade, had no martial aptitude, was not the progenitor of philosophical trends, was followed by fellow commoners, and died in a brutal, non-heroic, emasculating manner reserved for criminals. If anyone wanted to invent a figure for mass reverence in the culture of that time he could not have created a less likely character to engender such feelings. To quote an atheist historian friend of mine: "If Jesus didn't exist then neither did Alexander the Great." In fact the topic angers him because he feels the amateur anti-religious zealots taint the field by treating it like their personal playground where they are free to remake history to suit their personal preference. We can't help that history can't be proven scientifically, but then again we can't convince people that Obama was born in Hawaii, so such is life in the land of the dumb.

It is perfectly valid to question whether Jesus did all the things attributed to him; it is not reasonable to assume he didn't exist at all because he didn't sit in your lap and say "Hi!"

For an atheist's view on the ridiculousness of the topic: http://armariummagnus.blogspot.com/2011/05/nailed-ten-christian-myths-that-show.html?m=1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It is perfectly valid to question whether Jesus did all the things attributed to him; it is not reasonable to assume he didn't exist at all because he didn't sit in your lap and say "Hi!"

I think it's perfectly reasonable to question/ dispute the actual existence of Jesus. In fact there is, in my view, an absolute avalanche of evidence the places the character firmly in the realm of mythology. I'd start by reading D.M. Murdock's Christ in Egypt: The Horus-Jesus Connection. I have no interest in debating the topic, but to suggest that it is irrefutable fact that this character was real, is quite a stretch in my view.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think it's perfectly reasonable to question/ dispute the actual existence of Jesus. In fact there is, in my view, an absolute avalanche of evidence the places the character firmly in the realm of mythology. I'd start by reading D.M. Murdock's Christ in Egypt: The Horus-Jesus Connection. I have no interest in debating the topic, but to suggest that it is irrefutable fact that this character was real, is quite a stretch in my view.

Oh, I'm sure a devoted astrotheoligist who self publishes under a pseudonym her groundbreaking research under the spiritual guidance of her Greek heritage counts as truly stunning insight into the topic. How can one hope to compete with her bachelor's degree in Greek Classics? The simple fact she read half of Plato's Republic must give her boundless insight into Jewish, Aramaic and Roman history.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Oh, I'm sure a devoted astrotheoligist who self publishes under a pseudonym her groundbreaking research under the spiritual guidance of her Greek heritage counts as truly stunning insight into the topic. How can one hope to compete with her bachelor's degree in Greek Classics? The simple fact she read half of Plato's Republic must give her boundless insight into Jewish, Aramaic and Roman history.

To impugn a work that you haven't read is clearly the scholarly approach. With that mindset, I'm sure you're a wealth of knowledge.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

To impugn a work that you haven't read is clearly the scholarly approach. With that mindset, I'm sure you're a wealth of knowledge.

Read it two years ago. Fail.

It was hilarious reading, particularly the extrapolation of Anup the Baptizer, who is nowhere to be found in Egyptian manuscripts. It can be found in the work of Gerald Massey, however. .. a 19th century poet.

Parallelism in literature isn't remotely convincing, by the way, due to Benford's Law: that any numerical grouping will find frequent coincidental parallels due to the non-random distribution of numbers in nature.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Read it two years ago. Fail.

Perhaps it's your choice of words, but this sounds like you did not read it.

Oh, I'm sure a devoted astrotheoligist who self publishes under a pseudonym her groundbreaking research under the spiritual guidance of her Greek heritage counts as truly stunning insight into the topic.

It was hilarious reading, particularly the extrapolation of Anup the Baptizer, who is nowhere to be found in Egyptian manuscripts. It can be found in the work of Gerald Massey, however. .. a 19th century poet.

And if this is the only criticism you can muster, I think you likely skimmed the work. It really is irrelevant, however. The apologists have their "true", "historically reliable" sources just like the critics have theirs.

You've made up your mind, as have I. Believe what you will.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You guys are an embarrassment to the human race. If you don't like someone wishing you a happy Easter then click the X and move on with your life. Some people are so bitter about religion and can't miss an opportunity to show their ass.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Perhaps it's your choice of words, but this sounds like you did not read it.

And if this is the only criticism you can muster, I think you likely skimmed the work. It really is irrelevant, however. The apologists have their "true", "historically reliable" sources just like the critics have theirs.

You've made up your mind, as have I. Believe what you will.

I'm not going to break down an entire list of silly things in the book just to pass the time; suffice to say it left an impression of some neophyte randomly flailing about hoping to stretch her liberal arts degree into a respectable career. Let's put it this way: she discounts the references from the Jewish historian Josephus on Jesus by claiming they're forged, and the references from the Roman senator Tacitus by calling all of his writings are forgeries written over 1200 years later. By the time you get through the typical Jesus myth story there's more forgeries involved than the mafia. Here's the kicker, though: nowhere in Roman or Jewish records of that time do you find anyone doubting the existence of Jesus, which is strange if you are being blamed for crucifying and killing a man who didn't exist.

It's fine if you've made your mind up, but frankly I doubt you've done one billionth of the research I have in the subject.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm not going to break down an entire list of silly things in the book just to pass the time; suffice to say it left an impression of some neophyte randomly flailing about hoping to stretch her liberal arts degree into a respectable career. Let's put it this way: she discounts the references from the Jewish historian Josephus on Jesus by claiming they're forged, and the references from the Roman senator Tacitus by calling all of his writings are forgeries written over 1200 years later. By the time you get through the typical Jesus myth story there's more forgeries involved than the mafia. Here's the kicker, though: nowhere in Roman or Jewish records of that time do you find anyone doubting the existence of Jesus, which is strange if you are being blamed for crucifying and killing a man who didn't exist.

It's fine if you've made your mind up, but frankly I doubt you've done one billionth of the research I have in the subject.

And I'll forego breaking down the laundry list of highly dubious claims, "evidence" and outright falsehoods that "support" the story of Jesus as factual just to pass the time.

I've had far too many of these debates and it always comes down to what sources you put your trust in. But if you dig deep enough, the roots of conspiracy and myth are exposed. Religious apologists have a vested interest in perpetuating their mythology. Religion/faith is a deeply emotional and highly profitable endeavor, and any attempts to shed light on the fraud and enlighten the sheep are met with vigorous resistance on both ends of that spectrum, and understandably so.

I have no animus towards the faithful, only towards deception.

And to presume that I've done little research relative to you regarding the subject of religion and its origins, in all its variations, is to presume way too much. You may continue to engage me in this conversation, but I said in the beginning that I wasn't interested in debating this topic. Despite my knowing better I replied anyway, and I can see that if I continue that I will be going down that familiar road. I've done it enough.

Happy Easter! :devil:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

And I'll forego breaking down the laundry list of highly dubious claims, "evidence" and outright falsehoods that "support" the story of Jesus as factual just to pass the time.

I've had far too many of these debates and it always comes down to what sources you put your trust in. But if you dig deep enough, the roots of conspiracy and myth are exposed. Religious apologists have a vested interest in perpetuating their mythology. Religion/faith is a deeply emotional and highly profitable endeavor, and any attempts to shed light on the fraud and enlighten the sheep are met with vigorous resistance on both ends of that spectrum, and understandably so.

I have no animus towards the faithful, only towards deception.

And to presume that I've done little research relative to you regarding the subject of religion and its origins, in all its variations, is to presume way too much. You may continue to engage me in this conversation, but I said in the beginning that I wasn't interested in debating this topic. Despite my knowing better I replied anyway, and I can see that if I continue that I will be going down that familiar road. I've done it enough.

Happy Easter! :devil:

Your first mistake was assuming that I was speaking on the topic from a religious perspective. I'm not. I have zero qualms with anyone disbelieving Christianity as a faith or all other faiths, or questioning the miracles or other non-scientific implausibilities found in the Bible and other religious works. If anything, I am glad that people will attempt to apply logical reasoning to situations that obviously demand it.

I am adamantly dismissive of the Jesus myth arguments because they smack of the same faith-based circuitous logic that they claim the religious subsist on. Primary textual sources? Forgeries! Cultural impact in an ancient near eastern society that celebrated character attributes diametrically opposed to the ones embodied by the character of Jesus? Mass delusion! The fact that no fewer than three major religious traditions all reference the same character in a historical fashion? Cross-religious conspiracies! That's not mention the entire groundswell of contemporaneous Gnostic sects who built their entire theology on trying to claim that Jesus was a spiritual being and that the form he held on earth amongst his followers was an illusion, because no God would humiliate himself by actually taking the form of a mere human. In other words, there existed entire sects within Christianity that were trying to convince the believers of that time that the Jesus they saw wasn't even a flesh and blood human!

You want to argue that Jesus was just a man and that God does not exist and that religion is a farce? Knock yourself out. You want to claim that an entire fiction was started and was perpetuated despite mass persecution and social ostracism around a figure that didn't even exist, and they managed to convince pagan Romans, non-Christian Jews and eventually even Muslims to perpetuate the myth? That's not science, that's faith.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Look, before this discussion continues further, somebody needs to say something offensive and inappropriate real quick so I can get defensive.

GET IT, DEFENSIVE?!?!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

But in all seriousness, there's really no need for anybody to come in and jerk it up. Been a nice discussion so far.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The aspect of this topic that really irks the piss out of me, though? The heavy reliance on my all-time most hated form of logical reasoning: the argument from silence.

Without the freedom to whine and complain that Google didn't exist before 1996, everyone from Jesus mythers to Plato mythers to Shakespeare mythers wouldn't a leg to stand on. Woe is us that we didn't satisfy future ignorant curiosity by preserving every scrap of evidence that some dumb twits in 2013 would suddenly demand they need as proof that these people actually existed. I mean, it's not like making sure these things survive two millenniums is too much to ask, now is it? It's this same attitude of self-important gratification that leads people to run around demanding to see birth certificates.

Guess what dipwads: just because everyone on earth in the first century didn't spam FaceTablet with status updates like "OMG, just saw Jesus Christ! He looks like an angel LOL!" doesn't mean the person in question didn't exist, it just means that people alive then were slightly preoccupied with not starving to death, or contracting plague, or that they happened to be one of the 99% that didn't know how to, you know, read and write.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites



  • Member Statistics

    • Total Members
      19,357
    • Most Online
      2,867

    Newest Member
    Ceanderson
    Joined
  • Topics

  • Forum Statistics

    • Total Topics
      141,022
    • Total Posts
      4,493,526
×