So what really happened 2000 years ago?

[cj.23]

Herod was king at the time. Just saying, like -- it was a name passed from Herod the Great to his many sons and relatives several of whom ruled Roman client states - his family tree should clarify...

Herod the Great 73BC -4BC Judea - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Herod_the_Great
Herod Antipas -Tetrarch of Galilee & Perea - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Herod_Antipas
Herod Agrippa 10BC-44CE Judea http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agrippa_I
Herod of Chalcis - Tetrach of Chalcis http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Herod_of_Chalcis

There are others...

Hope this helps!
cj x

 

[yy2bggggs]

*Yawn*

Yawning is not an argument.

nd what evidence is there? Mutually contradictory accounts penned decades afterwards by people who weren't there

Careful. Weren't where? If more than one author is writing about it, something kicked it off--there's a series of events which led to everyone talking about this Jesus.

Do not be confused. The argument is about whether or not these events are keyed off of a historical person, not whether or not the stories are true.

that record events which did not happen.

Yes, but look closer at the events that didn't happen.

Herod did not slay a all the children of any town, there was no census, he wasn't king at the time,

...yeah, so why was he in the story? You need Herod and the census to get Jesus to be born in Bethlehem to fulfill a prophecy. Seems like someone needed to make a Nazarene born in Bethlehem and invented a story.

and there is no record of any Jesus being tired by the Roman governor or crucified.

Were there extensive penal records around this time? Otherwise, this means nothing. You may as well be talking about the lack of footprints on the beach.

What's left besides that is a humdrum list of miraculous claims which were all in vouge for the era. Everything from stretching food, converting water into wine, casting out demons, healing the sick, and raising the dead are all magical claims countless charlatans before and since have made.

Careful again. You're raising your own dilemmas. If there were charlatans who made those claims, then it only leads credence to presume that Jesus was a real, historical charlatan.

If we ignore all that and ask, "Did Jesus, who was also god, die because God wanted him to in order to forgive us for the sins of distant ancestors who did something wrong without knowing the different between good and evil?" The answer is still "no," because the basis for that claim is itself pure fantasy.

Okay... sure... but, why are we ignoring all of that and asking such silly questions?

This is about whether or not there was a historical Jesus. I think you're confusing that with whether or not the earth is 6000 years old.

Edit: Probably deserves a clarification--in the prior post I referred to a plethora of distinctly similar events. What I mean is that we have Jim Jones's, Marshall Applewhites, etc. We also have John Henry's, Paul Bunyans, etc. The question is whether Jesus is an Applewhite or a Henry.

 

[ImaginalDisc]

Did you just try to make even less sense this time?

Let me spell it out as simply as I can.

The only evidence we have for Jesus is a set of mutually contrdictory, unorginal, and impossible accounts penned decdes to centuries after the events were supposed to have happened, and they're all cribbed off of one another.

That's not evidence any such person lived.

 

[cj.23]

Did you just try to make even less sense this time?

Let me spell it out as simply as I can.

The only evidence we have for Jesus is a set of mutually contrdictory, unorginal, and impossible accounts penned decdes to centuries after the events were supposed to have happened, and they're all cribbed off of one another.

That's not evidence any such person lived.

OMG! You are not really a Christ Myther are you? I have said before and I will say again that Jesus-Mythicism is about as respectable as Creationsim - and there are parallels.

Mutually contradictory - sure.
Unoriginal - how so? They meet earlier Jewish expectations according to Christian apologetic - sure that was the point. If you can find a convincing pagan parallel, show me it.
impossible accounts - it is not remotely impossible the authors believed what they were writing. That doe snot make it true, I cheerfully concede
decades to centuries - 25 to at most 100 years if you are referring to the NT texts? Most are about 40-50 years after events. Paul is earliest, John may be early 2nd century.
cribbed off one another - now they are not. There is a clear relationship between Matthew, Mark & Luke, but most scholars doubt the Johannine author was in this tradition, and Paul predates them all.

There is no suspicion as far as I know among serious scholars that there was not a Historical Jesus. GA Wells advocated it and later abandoned it, as I understand now arguing for a composite. He is to be fair a Professor Of German not New Testament, but at least his work has considerable scholarly merit and is readable. Earl Doherty made a case - but it is sadly flawed for reasons i will happily discuss. Geoff Price wrote a fun and interesting book - and makes far more sense - but again his argument strikes me and most critics as flawed.

By normal historical standards, the claim Jesus never existed is a failed hypothesis. Quick overview of other sources (barring Josephus, discussed many times as search will show) here - http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=4245357#post4245357

Hope useful.

cj x

 

[yy2bggggs]

Did you just try to make even less sense this time?

Let me spell it out as simply as I can.

This is your *yawn* argument rephrased two more times. Being facetious is not an argument.

The only evidence we have for Jesus is a set of mutually contrdictory, unorginal, and impossible accounts penned decdes to centuries after the events were supposed to have happened, and they're all cribbed off of one another.

That's not evidence any such person lived.

This is the heart of the matter. Could you resolve this contradiction?

 

[ImaginalDisc]

This is your *yawn* argument rephrased two more times. Being facetious is not an argument.


This is the heart of the matter. Could you resolve this contradiction?

There is no contradiction. If you say "There is a magical invisible dragon/unicorn living in the hollow log in my yard" that's the only evidence for it, and it's not any evidence at all. You are aware that there's a difference between acceptable and unacceptable evidence, aren't you?

 

[yy2bggggs]

There is no contradiction. If you say "There is a magical invisible dragon/unicorn living in the hollow log in my yard" that's the only evidence for it, and it's not any evidence at all.

This isn't even a logical fallacy. It's a straight up direct logical contradiction. It's impossible for x to both exist and not exist.

You are aware that there's a difference between acceptable and unacceptable evidence, aren't you?

Red herring. But if you're not going to resolve this, I don't feel a need to continue.

 

[Breckmin]

Historical Record

Go to the Conspiracy Theory sub-forum and read what is there.

Everything in that sub- forum was written by educated, 21st century people, all computer literate, most of whom actually saw, on tv, the events of September 11th 2001.

Now ask yourself what is the likelihood that anything written in 1st century Judea, an area actually under foreign military occupation at the time, is in any sense an accurate report of what happened.

You can't go back and change the way in which history was recorded.

The burden of proof lies with those who are opposing orthodoxy. The real
question is have you "discovered" what was written and "are you subordinate"
to it.
~Michael

 

[Breckmin]

The Tanakh taught the earth was a sphere

Don't know. Wasn't there.


How is the truth a cop-out?

Acumulative case argument.

Preponderance of evidence.

Always start with orthodoxy. The world was flat was NOT orthodoxy.

Neither was geocentricism.

Michael

Question everything. It just might lead you in the right direction.

 

[Breckmin]

How does anyone know? Was someone with him 100% of his life meticulously watching? Nice job if you like that kind of thing.

Well, "what was the Orthodox claim?"

Do you have evidence to the contrary? What about people who knew Him
personally? Evidence.

Would such a relationship be consistent with His teaching? Of course not.

Would such a relationship be consistent with the ontological existence of
Who He claimed to be? Of course not.

You can claim He was a hypocrite and did something contrary to Who He was,
but you don't have any evidence to support it.

I would side with the evidence. Testimonies, doctrine, early understanding.
You can't change the way history was recorded. You can only try and
discover what is actual cosmic truth (independent from my existence, but
not the Creator's assuming there is a Creator).
~Michael

 

[Breckmin]

Orthodox Hebrews and Christians agree much more often than one belief system realizes

If you study the Book of Job, you will see that God has a history of trying your faith in the TRUE RELIGION of Abraham as is documented in the "Old" Testament.

I agree.

The whole Jesus Christ story is intended to test your belief in this TRUTH.

I agree.

Prepare for your wife, children and slaves all to be killed as your punishment.

I have no slaves, but I would argue that we are all slaves to something or
someone whether we realize it or not. As far as my wife and children, everyone dies, but not everyone truly lives in freedom from the bondage
of a heart that is now proned to disobedience.

The real question is "how will you exist in all of eternity after you die???"

Are you living life as a fantasy, where DEATH will be your final reality?

OR, are you seeking truth and praying to the Creator from protection from
that which is not true and NOT from Him?

This question exists whether I ask the question, or whether you ask yourself
the very same question.

~Michael
Question everything. It just might lead you in the right direction.

 

[Thunder]

I'll tell you one thing that DID NOT happen 2,000 years ago on December 25th. Some kid named Joshua was not born that day.

 

[Sherman Bay]

Go to the Conspiracy Theory sub-forum and read what is there.

Everything in that sub- forum was written by educated, 21st century people, all computer literate, most of whom actually saw, on tv, the events of September 11th 2001.

Now ask yourself what is the likelihood that anything written in 1st century Judea, an area actually under foreign military occupation at the time, is in any sense an accurate report of what happened.

Add to that the fact that we know none of the writers of the Gospels were eyewitnesses to the events they purport to describe or were even familiar with the geography of the region.

I'd go one step further. Consider that the lines between fantasy and reality, the supernatural and the natural were pretty indistinct in those days, and the difference between fiction writing and factual reporting didn't exist.

If someone reported a miraculous event in the next town, the scientific method wasn't around to apply and reason did not prevail. OTOH, fraud and wishful thinking has been with us for a long time.

Add to that pious redactors who deliberately wrote fiction in the guise of fact because they honestly believed it was the right thing to do. Cf. John I & II.

Everything from thousands of years ago needs to be interpreted in light of those ignorant and gullible times.

 

[Breckmin]

Have you discovered objective truth that is factual?

>1. Who is it that should logically rule Israel?

Someone legitimately of the line of the kings of Israel and not an obscure son of an artisan born in a back corner of the country and in no way other than convuluted and conflicting geneologies related to the line of David?

Evasive to whether or not it would be logical for God Himself to rule Israel if
it were possible for God to become a Man in some way.

>2. Often the most ironic things in life in up being true.

Indeed, such as any true historic Yeshua ben Yusuf bearing so little resemblance to the Jesus of the Bible that they probably wouldn't even recognize each other if they met on the street ...

Perhaps they are the same, but you missed something. This question exists
whether it upsets you, or whether or not it is objectively true and you have
missed something because it occurred unexpectedly. What if God was
testing you with something unexpected? Christianity is a Jewish religion,
and both Jesus and all of the disciples except one were also Jewish. So
were the majority who first became Christians (historically Jewish).

If it was a partial fulfillment of the Tanakh, and the rest is yet to come,
then you need to figure out what it was that you might have missed that
is creating this bias.

>3. Some will equate not being a Christian to the ultimate form of gambling.

Pascal was wrong then and his wager is still insufficient evidence or argument for any god or afterlife myth, much less the Christian one.

Incongruous to the point about having the absolute worst consequences for
not accepting it. This is not the means by which to accept it, THAT would be
"seeing" the demonstration of LOVE from God to humankind. This is Love, that
a Man would lay down His life for His friends.

Extra credit: If BC and AD reflect any evidence for Christianity's truth, don't the days of the week and months reflect veracity of Teutonic/Norse myths?

Perhaps an argument for not being dogmatic about keeping the Sabbath.
I concede that the point was a weak one, just a western obseravation
regarding the global usage of a calander.

>5. The major difference between true Christianity and all other religions

Which version of Christianity is allegely True? And by what subsnattive and verifiable evidence is this established?

The following of Christ's teachings. Read John 3.

>6. Christians pray for people to be saved

And for people to be cndemned to hell, and in this life to be slain, injured, divested of property and/or rights ...

Never in my whole life have I ever observed this. Such would be a direct
contradiction to biblical theology and the instruction to pray for your
enemies. Christians are instructed to pray blessings, NOT curses which
they themselves know that they could deserve. Not only is this false
accusation of what true Christian "do," it is directly contrary to what
is taught in biblical theology. Occasionally there may be some rogue
self-righteous pastor who wrongfully praises God for "AIDS" or something
ridiculous, but this is DIRECTLY contrary to Christian theology. You do
not praise God for the sufferring of others, NOR do you pray for the
harm or sufferring of others.

-Other religions do not do this to the same degree because they believe ...

Are you sure? I know of Buddhists who spend many hours in prayer for the world.

Their soteriological structure is not based on divine intervintion and spiritual
regeneration. They are praying for something temporary, not eternal.

>(Breckmin)What are you going to do about Jesus?

Irrelevant. More trenchant is "What are you doing to make THIS world a better place for humanity?"

Speak the truth that has eternal meaning long after the sun burns out....

~Michael
Question everything. It just might lead you in the right direction.

 

[Breckmin]

Christmas was in response to a pagan holiday

I'll tell you one thing that DID NOT happen 2,000 years ago on December 25th. Some kid named Joshua was not born that day.

Agreed.

My sister makes a cake and has a birthday party for Jesus as a part of her
family tradition. When her kids are older, she explains the historical evolvement of choosing December 25th to counter a pagan holiday.

It is not a big deal theologically as to which day is chosen.

This is something Jehovah's Witnesses do not understand.

For instance there has be a small push to take back Halloween (all Hallow Mass) and celebrate "All Saint's Eve" as an alternative to Halloween, where
kids dress up as bible characters instead of ghosts and witches (or other).
50 or 100 years from now, the result is what is important, NOT the derivation.

~Michael

Question everthing. It just might lead you in the right direction.

 

[normdoering]

Merry Squidmas everyone:
http://normdoering.blogspot.com/2008/12/my-christmas-gift.html

 

[Breckmin]

Early writers were ignorant

Everything from thousands of years ago needs to be interpreted in light of those ignorant and gullible times.

Have you actually read Ignatius of Antioch, Origen or Tertullian?

~Michael

Question everything. It just might lead you in the correct direction.

 

[Breckmin]

Logic would dictate

<<So what really happened 2000 years ago? >>

Logic would dictate that we should all pray to the Creator and ask Him to
show us if He exists and whether or not something happened that could
indeed change our lives for all of eternity.

IOW, it is illogical to have a universe without redemption. If there are
logical principles by which the Creator Himself is bound, just has mathematics
adds and subtracts with logical progression, THEN perhaps the reason so
many reject the Creator is because they do not understand this cosmic
logic because of finitude fairness and perception which ignores determining
variables.

Question everything, but when you question, try to find the right answer,
and NOT the answer you wish to find. We should all make up our minds not
to believe what we "want" to believe, but what we "have to" believe based
on a perponderance of evidence and accumulative case argument.

We can start with "deduction" instead of thousands of inductions which
often lead to false interpretion in science. There are belief structures which
argue that 'lies' and self-deceptions (sometimes aggregate self-deceptions)
are based on "invalid assumptions" based on circular reasoning and induction.
Induction in comparisons which are open to error, rather than deduction which
is 100%. Assumptions based on "observation" and deduction are solid assumptions from which to "start" from.

Look at something as basic as "information." If based on our uniform and
repeated experience we know that all information has an intelligent source,
then we can deduct that any complex information that we find which can
be translated, transcribed, recognized, communicated, etc. had an intelligent
source of somekind. An "induction" would be to say that if by billions of
random combinations we can finally produce a simple word like "and" or "the"
by dropping letters, that in 13 billion years we can produce something as
complex as a full sentence which would communicate information.

You can start with solid assumptions and deduction. Two good places to
start are with the observation of biogenesis (or the law of biogenesis) and
information in RNA and DNA.
The starting point should be agnosticism. Then make the deduction "WITHOUT" emotional bias against any conclusion which you
may have to admit.

Question everything. It just might lead you in the right direction.
~Michael

 

[Olowkow]

To other atheists out there, my question is about the pseudo-history told in the bible about Jesus. What do you think actually happened? Why did Jesus believe he was God's illegitimate son, and why did people believe him? What were the motives of the people who recorded the events of Jesus' life?

Very likely that Jesus never existed. All these stories have existed for millennia BC, dieing and rising on the third day, born of a virgin, etc.
There should be a lot more written contemporary to his life and death...virtually nothing exists. The bible was written starting at around 70 AD. No live witnesses. Empty tomb...so what? The Romans would have written this up very carefully if it had all actually happened. They kept meticulous records of everything. I tend to go with Robert Price's take on the whole affair. I have never really heard his ideas properly refuted.

 

[cj.23]

Very likely that Jesus never existed. All these stories have existed for millennia BC, dieing and rising on the third day, born of a virgin, etc.

Evidence? Please cite primary or archaeological sources, as opposed to Acharya or 19th century scholars with vivid imaginations...

There should be a lot more written contemporary to his life and death...virtually nothing exists

There is NO contemporary writings. This is in no sense unusual in 1st century history. Choose ten names of non-Kings or Emperors from Josephus, and find me any contemporary source. You are simply applying special pleading here y'see.

. The bible was written starting at around 70 AD.

Not so - I imagine you mean the New Testament - well the seven authentic Pauline Epistles all predate that date, the earliest being about 52-55 CE. The Gospels are closer to that date sure.

No live witnesses.

Plenty of live witnesses. People still lived to 80 on occasion, and removing infant mortality 50 was in no way exceptional. Plenty of people would have still been alive when the Gospel of Mark was written, and more when Paul was writing as he himself notes.

Empty tomb...so what?

No body, and the early church did not know what had happened to it. Stolen by witches? the Romans? the authorities? Who knows! Perhaps it rose? That was what the witnesses to the Resurrection believed happened.

The Romans would have written this up very carefully if it had all actually happened. They kept meticulous records of everything.

No they didn't. Fine me a meticulous record of the standard affair, or the riots in Jerusalem in the decades Jesus livved in, or the johgn the Baptist affair, or any other Judean 1st century holy man, or Theudas, or the Egyptian, or - it's a nonsense. If they did write it up - and some have suggested Tacitus reference may imply they did - the records are lost - but so are all from that area and time. Fine me any on Boudicca's revolt? We have a couple of biographical accounts as i recall, from Caesar and another chap?

I tend to go with Robert Price's take on the whole affair. I have never really heard his ideas properly refuted.

Bob Price is an excellent Lovecraft/Cthulhu Mythos scholar. I have never yet read any of his works on this issue, and I suspect if this represents them I'd be in total disagreement. Cite one I should read and i''' do a full discussion and review.


It's easy to be misled by nonsense on this issue - there is a vast amount of it in circulation unfortunately.
cj x