For the No-Jesus Camp

[BobM]

It's obvious to me that most of you, Stamenflicker, [excluded] haven't done much research into the biblical studies. Why get involved in an arguement from ignorance?

If you aren't interested in the field, don't comment on it.

Anyway, I sincerely believe that anyone who makes the effort to research both sides of the biblical camp, will come to the conclusion that we simply don't have enough evidence for much during that period of time, and one could conclude the issue of Jesus's existence either way.

His godhood is another question entirely. Of course, such an extraordinary claim requires strong evidence for a rational skeptical person to accept, and such evidence does not exist in archeaology. So any evidential arguement for Jesus's godhood is bound for failure.

[oops]

 

[a_unique_person]

Since it seems there are some who would like to say Jesus never existed and the gospels and other New Testament writings were all contrived, I would think you should answer a few questions:

I'm no expert in religion making but it seems if you were creating a god or a faith you would need a motivation. What was it? And would it be worth dying for?

Second, why include in your make-believe story controversial things or contradictory claims? For example, Jesus reportedly said, "Why do you call me good? No one is good but God alone." Wait a minute Jesus also said he was god.

Why would you constantly insult your first follwers as Jesus did his disciples? Wouldn't you want them to be heros of the faith? True believers? Why write about their unbelief? Doesn't that hurt your cause in religious construction?

Why make your god anxious about his death as he prayed in the garden? Why record his last words as "My God my God why have you forsaken me." ?? This doesn't sound like a well though out construction to convince the world of your deity.

Why record the discord and arguments of Peter and Paul in the early church? How does making up stories about arguments that never happened launch your make believe god into the realm of the unrefutable?

Why bother to include meaningless details about events how many miles so and so walked to town, or where so and so was from? Why create characters that reject the constructed deity? If he was so amazing and you want everyone to follow him, why not make all your characters "wow"-ed by him?

It's pretty clear that something happened with a man named Jesus, and a bunch of people were trying to figure out exactly what it was. And some of them reached different conclusions about some of the minor things.

Otherwise we are dealing with a mind superior to Shakespeare and his creations.

Flick

The bible is the most brilliant pieces of political propaganda in history, god himself would be glad to have written it.

 

[PotatoStew]

Imp:

Please quote the point I made properly and address it... You're using a straw argument.. I originally said people believed magic(i don't mean trickery/sleight of hand) was real in those days. I also said to check your bible for proof.

A strawman? I was using the example you yourself gave about cars and showed why this was irrelevant to your claim. Who's grasping at straws now? Furthermore, my point about hucksters addresses your claim. Even furthermore, scribble brought up an excellent point (thanks scribble) that goes along with what I was saying: people believe in real magic today.

In short, your claim was "back in those days people were easily fooled and impressed" and "things like magic were considered quiet valid". However as scribble and I pointed out, these things are true of people today as well. So you haven't at all shown that people back then were any different than modern man in this respect.

There you go agreeing that the bible is altered throughout history, yet try to tell me the "gist" is the same.

Ah! Now you're getting it. Yes, it's been altered in the sense that it's been translated into languages we can understand, but any changes in content have been innocuous. So what relevance does this have to anything? Why even bring it up?

God appears well before Jesus. Then Jesus appears after that. Hell, God apparently appears when the first humans walk the earth and so do God's angels!

So how much time generally passes between God's visits?

All sorts of weird magical **** happens all throughout the dark ages (saints and so on)

What relevance is this to the matter of the NT accounts of Jesus? You're all over the place here... try to focus!

Didn't realise thinking made you tired?

Being up at 1 in the morning makes me tired.

scribble:

Why do people keep referring to 0 AD?

That's NOT when Jesus was born.

I know, I know... It's a close enough approximation though when I don't remember the exact year.

Liamo:

I haven't read it, but I'll try to take a look at it later.

 

[scribble]

addresses your claim. Even furthermore, scribble brought up an excellent point (thanks scribble) that goes along with what I was saying: people believe in real magic today.

Hey, no problem!

Ah! Now you're getting it. Yes, it's been altered in the sense that it's been translated into languages we can understand, but any changes in content have been innocuous.

So I'm curious -- what's your take on the J vs. P documents in Genesis?

I know, I know... It's a close enough approximation though when I don't remember the exact year.

Okay, it was nitpicky.

-Chris

 

[Flaherty]

Care to support that claim?

Given the number of "miracle workers" that wandered around the countryside in those days, I'd say those people were highly superstitious and prone to believe slight of hand as being the work of divine forces.

Of course, today no one would be dumb enough to fall for that stuff, right?

 

[Skeptical Greg]

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by stamenflicker
I'm no expert in religion making but it seems if you were creating a god or a faith you would need a motivation. What was it? And would it be worth dying for?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


toddjh says:
I don't understand why this would confuse you. As a Christian (I assume), don't you believe that other religions were invented or created by people? What do you suppose their motivation was? Why have people been willing to die for those religions?

------------------------------------------------------------------------------


SF?

This was one of your questions. Toddjh made an interesting counter point.

What is your response?

 

[FireGarden]

Hi, Flick. I hope you're not angry at me.

This whole Jesus didn't exist bit is lazy philosophy. It says I don't have to bother considering the message because no person named Jesus existed.

I think you have this wrong - at least as far as I'm concerned. I think the message should be considered regardless. I didn't think that you were one of those that valued the singer and not the song.

In the other thread I provided examples of Archimedes and Buddha as people whose work is undoubtly more important than there existence. I could add more. Euclid, Shakespeare, somebody even mentioned Alexander the Great. Can you imagine? I don't know what the motive was - maybe to show how ridiculus this whole thing can become.

I've studied history only a small amount. Enough to know that it asks the questions that I'm not interested in answering. (One assignment asked "Was Archimedes the greatest Greek Mathematician?" - who cares? I couldn't tell you who's the greatest today let alone 2000 yrs ago.) History has nothing to do with learning the errors of the past, more to do with pop culture for those who don't fancy the Spice Girls. (In 1000 words or less: were they the new Beatles?)

PotatoStew:

You're talking about different translations. This is done to keep up with our changing language to enable people to understand what was written. If that's all you're referring to, then what's the big deal?

The King James version uses "servants" were as the Gideon new International uses "Slaves"
“Slaves [servants], submit yourselves to your masters with all respect, ..."1 Peter 2:18
Yes, I know I'm an atheist fundy.

 

[BobM]

History has nothing to do with learning the errors of the past, more to do with pop culture for those who don't fancy the Spice Girls. (In 1000 words or less: were they the new Beatles?)

History as the pop culture of the past. That's fantastic! I have to remember that.

 

[FireGarden]

History as the pop culture of the past. That's fantastic! I have to remember that.

Sorry, I was in sarcasm overdrive when I wrote that. Normally I would have edited that out. But I do think there is too much quibbling over difficult to decide issues that really won't change the world one way or the other. (Not that the existence of Jesus is one such - I can appreciate why that is so important to so many people. It's just that if someone believes Jesus did anything worthwhile then his existence shouldn't be the most important thing)

But this... No that...... But.......
....... Oh This apology is too long! Pretend I was joking!

 

[chrisjt]

Posted by Potatostew:

Another item to add to Flick's original list: Why would you have *women* as the first witnesses to the empty tomb and among the first witnesses to the resurrected Jesus if a woman's testimony in that culture at that time was basically worthless? Why would women figure so prominently in the stories at all being as they were more or less second class citizens, unless it was the truth

Potatostew, I was just wondering why nobody has responded to this post. Maybe it's because you answered your own question.

 

[Skeptical Greg]

Posted by Potatostew:


Potatostew, I was just wondering why nobody has responded to this post. Maybe it's because you answered your own question.

Maybe it's because no one felt it was worth any attention.

If this was so profound, why did the Christian community proceed to degenerate women for the next 2,000 years?

Chew on that.. Wink, wink. Nod, Nod.

 

[Yahzi]

Impy

Assuming Jesus did in fact exist please remember that back in those days people were easily fooled and impressed.

Back in those days?

In the age of Scientology, magnetic shoes, and FREAKING CROP CIRCLES, you assert our ancestors were guillible?

Potato

Why would women figure so prominently in the stories at all being as they were more or less second class citizens, unless it was the truth

I've actually seen people argue that the contradictions in the Gospels prove their authenticity.

This is just crazy talk. There could be a thousand explanations that have nothing to do with whether or not the story is true.

For example, what if the story was being told by a woman?

These stories were handed down, word of mouth, before they were written. Maybe it was the women who were doing the handing down. And the women you talk about actually means (in most of the Gospels) Mary Magdalene, who was already established as a main character in the story.

This is really specious thinking on your part, Potato. I think nobody responded to it, because no-one wanted to embarrass you.

I, of course, have no such reservations.

 

[Yahzi]

It says I don't have to bother considering the message because no person named Jesus existed.

The Bible agrees.

1Cr 15:14 And if Christ be not risen, then [is] our preaching vain, and your faith [is] also vain.

 

[wert]

Impy

Back in those days?

In the age of Scientology, magnetic shoes, and FREAKING CROP CIRCLES, you assert our ancestors were guillible?

You left out "Talking with the dead", Dowsing, and "Free" energy machines.

 

[arcticpenguin]

women

--------------------------------
Another item to add to Flick's original list: Why would you have *women* as the first witnesses to the empty tomb and among the first witnesses to the resurrected Jesus if a woman's testimony in that culture at that time was basically worthless? Why would women figure so prominently in the stories at all being as they were more or less second class citizens, unless it was the truth
--------------------------------

Let's consider this. You are trying to establish a new religion. Do you try to appeal to

A) The people who have power and are thriving under the current system

or

B) People who are out of power under the current system? i.e. the poor, the downtrodden, and yes, the women.

I read recently of a large group of HIndus that converted en masse to Buddhism because they were sick of the mistreatment they received as the lowest of the low in the caste system.

 

[headscratcher4]

I had a college professor in a course on religion proffer a theory about why women saw the empty tomb first. His argument is that it is not a factual description of an event – though the author believed the event occurred (i.e. the empty tomb and the risen Jesus). It is a story specifically designed to communicate and describe an event so that it communicates a critical theological message about Jesus and his identity as the Messiah.

Basically, he contended that the story was a literary device (note that the players change depending on which Gospel you are looking at, as does the sequence). The object was twofold. First, to set up the test of faith in a risen Jesus for the men. The women see the empty tomb and speak with the angle, go back and tell the men. The men don’t believe the women – as women were considered un-reliable sources – and had to see the empty tomb for themselves.

Second, it was also a story about belief and the capacity to believe in a supernatural event, and the challenge that a dead Jesus (vs. a risen Christ) posed to the followers of Jesus the man. In this professors estimation, the point wasn’t so much that the story was seeking to convey a fact – i.e. a fact about a particular sequence of events rather than the risen Jesus (for clearly the author believed in a risen Jesus) – but rather as a way of helping to explain the translation of faith from that placed in a man, to that placed in the risen Jesus and the fulfillment of God’s promise of salvation and life after death through the sacrifice of the Messiah.

Further, the empty tomb was a device specifically to demonstrate that faith is the key, not fact or event. I.e. Jesus body isn’t what makes him important as god’s instrument for man’s salvation – rather it is the lack of a body – sort of anti-evidence. Faith is in the empty tomb and the promise, it isn’t in the man or the facts of his life.

I found it an interesting interpretation, though I am sure that many a believer in the Gospels as descriptions of factual events would take issue with the theory.

Just a thought….

 

[PotatoStew]

I think nobody responded to it, because no-one wanted to embarrass you.

As if anyone is ever concerned with things like that around here. Give me a break!

I'll have responses to everything else later on (possibly towards the end of the weekend), but I just had to give that an eyeroll.

 

[Skeptical Greg]

I had a college professor in a course on religion proffer a theory about why women ......

Snip, snip, snip....


Just a thought….

Sheesh headscratcher4,

Where do you get the idea that anyone is looking for a rational critique on this matter?


--------------------------------------------------------
Enjoyed it very much. Thanks for sharing..

 

[PotatoStew]

Sheesh headscratcher4,

Where do you get the idea that anyone is looking for a rational critique on this matter?

I actually thought headscratcher's post gave a far better theory for answering my question than the others that were offered.

 

[Skeptical Greg]

I actually thought headscratcher's post gave a far better theory for answering my question than the others that were offered.

I hope you perceived I was joking, I had intended for my final comments to convey the intention that I was complementing headscratcher on the rationality of his comments. Something that some of us do not always manage so well.