Jesus?

Byrnzie

catefrances wrote:

do you reckon its possible that God/s are simply a manifestation of ourselves?

I don't know if that's possible. Probably not.

catefrances wrote:

that long ago we built sculptures depicting ourselves and over time it evolved into a worshipping of this anthropomorphic form as something divine and otherwordly?

You think the sculptures came first?

catefrances

Byrnzie wrote:

catefrances wrote:

do you reckon its possible that God/s are simply a manifestation of ourselves?

I don't know if that's possible. Probably not.

why dont you think its possible?

Byrnzie wrote:

catefrances wrote:

that long ago we built sculptures depicting ourselves and over time it evolved into a worshipping of this anthropomorphic form as something divine and otherwordly?

You think the sculptures came first?

well i think in the very beginning its possible. i think that primitive peoples may have sculptured representations of themselves for whatever reason.. quite possibly like an artist these days is likely to make a sculpture of someone they know. and that over time these representations came to be worshipped as if they were more than mere 'art'. perhaps back then someone got it in their mind to chat with the statue for whatever reason and coincidently it rained or a crop came good or a food source became abundant(which itself could have been just natural annual migration or whatever) and voila! a God is born.

OutOfBreath

Byrnzie wrote:

Actually, there are many people who doubt he existed based on the fact that no evidence of his existence exists. And those mentions of him in Roman sources are fakes added later by the early Church Fathers.

Well, there are many more people that have no doubt that he did exist. (If number of adherents is the point) I have read a bit about the early church in the popular science journal i subscribe to. And it seems that there existed a man isn't that much in question. I also find it just a tad too conspiratorial that christianity weren't based on a man's alleged life and infact retrofitted afterwards. Despicable as the chruch have been at various times in history, the entire point of most of directions of christianity were that there had come a man who was god made flesh at that precise time. Since he also is briefly referenced in roman sources, and there are gospels talking about him as a living fact, I dont doubt his existence.

Whether he was anything of what they made him out to be is another question entirely. And here all that influence from all the other sources come into play. The gospels are riddled with "rewrites" that makes him fit neater into various religious/mythical traditions and trends. True. don't argue with that. But I find it enormously unlikely that there weren't a historical person at the core, also given the historical fetish of the jewish people. But around that small core, most of what surrounds it is highly uncertain, because we only have fanboys' retellings decades and centuries after the fact.

Peace
Dan

Byrnzie

OutOfBreath wrote:

Since he also is briefly referenced in roman sources, and there are gospels talking about him as a living fact, I dont doubt his existence.

And like I pointed out above, those references in Roman sources are fake. They were added at a later date by the early leaders of the Church.
And the Gospels are not works of history, and also were not contemporary with the time in question.


Evidence for a historical Jesus as portrayed in the Gospels:

A few mentions of 'Christians' and followers of someone called Crestus among all the the extensive histories of the Romans.
Some fake passages in Josephus among all the substantial histories of the Jews.
A handful of passages from among the vast literature of the Talmud, which tell us that a man called Yeshu existed and had five disciples called Mattai, Nakkia, Netzer, Buni, and Todah.
Four anonymous gospels that do not even agree on the facts of Jesus' birth and death.
A gospel attributed to Mark written somwhere between 70 and 135 AD which is not even meant to be an eyewitness account and certainly isn't judging from it's ignorance of Palestinian geography and the fact that it misquotes Hebrew scripture.
Gospels attributed to Matthew and Luke, which are independently based on Mark and give us entirely contradictory genealogies.
A gospel attributed to John, which was written some time after the other three and certainly not by the disciple John.
The names of 12 disciples for whom there is no historical evidence.
The Acts of The Apostles, which reads like a fantasy novel, misquotes the Hebrew Old Testament, contradicts Paul's letters, and was not written until the second half of the second century.
A selection of forged letters attributed to Peter, James, John, and Paul.
A few genuine letters by Paul which do not speak of a historical Jesus at all, but only of a mystical dying and resurrecting Christ.
A lot of evidence which suggests that the New Testament is not a history of actual events, but a history of the evolution of Christian mythology.

Byrnzie

OutOfBreath wrote:

I find it enormously unlikely that there weren't a historical person at the core

Fair enough. Although whether this historical person existed at the time he is claimed to have done by the writers of the Gospels is unlikely given the complete lack of any mention of him in any of the numerous histories written at the time.
If there was in fact an historical Jesus then all of the evidence points to him having existed a long time prior to that claimed by Christian orthodoxy.

catefrances

OutOfBreath wrote:

Well, there are many more people that have no doubt that he did exist. ...

are these people who have no doubt he did exist adherent to a religion based on his teachings and life? cause if so then its a requirement that they believe he existed otherwise their own belief system falls apart. cant really be a christian if you dont believe christ existed.

OutOfBreath

catefrances wrote:

OutOfBreath wrote:

Well, there are many more people that have no doubt that he did exist. ...

are these people who have no doubt he did exist adherent to a religion based on his teachings and life? cause if so then its a requirement that they believe he existed otherwise their own belief system falls apart. cant really be a christian if you dont believe christ existed.

I know. It was sortof my point. It was just a mild counter to "many people say" by pointing out that what "many people say" or rather "even more people say" doesn't lend much weight to an argument.

But also, I would point out that most scholars in the field don't much doubt the existence of a figure, but there is a lot of debate about the influences and origins. Many of these may be christians themselves of course, but to me, Byrnzie's interpretation seems to make the most of the fringe views in the field. My point is anyway that the existence isn't really that important, but rather what was spun around with myths etc. I am mostly in line with Byrnzie there though.

Peace
Dan

catefrances

OutOfBreath wrote:

catefrances wrote:

OutOfBreath wrote:

Well, there are many more people that have no doubt that he did exist. ...

are these people who have no doubt he did exist adherent to a religion based on his teachings and life? cause if so then its a requirement that they believe he existed otherwise their own belief system falls apart. cant really be a christian if you dont believe christ existed.

I know. It was sortof my point. It was just a mild counter to "many people say" by pointing out that what "many people say" or rather "even more people say" doesn't lend much weight to an argument.

But also, I would point out that most scholars in the field don't much doubt the existence of a figure, but there is a lot of debate about the influences and origins. Many of these may be christians themselves of course, but to me, Byrnzie's interpretation seems to make the most of the fringe views in the field. My point is anyway that the existence isn't really that important, but rather what was spun around with myths etc. I am mostly in line with Byrnzie there though.

Peace
Dan

never let the truth get in the way of a good story.

Byrnzie

OutOfBreath wrote:

But also, I would point out that most scholars in the field don't much doubt the existence of a figure, but there is a lot of debate about the influences and origins. Many of these may be christians themselves of course, but to me, Byrnzie's interpretation seems to make the most of the fringe views in the field. My point is anyway that the existence isn't really that important, but rather what was spun around with myths etc. I am mostly in line with Byrnzie there though.

Peace
Dan

With the finding of the Dead Sea Scrolls these ideas are not so fringe anymore.

OutOfBreath

But doesn't that just show more clearly how many different views of christianity there was? My interpretation is based on new research based on the dead sea scrolls and other texts that have recently surfaced.

I get the feeling that you jump away from the "established truth" to present one other specific view, rather than acknowledging the heterogenity of christian origins. Some directions of early christianity weren't that focused on the historical Jesus, true. That doesn't mean they were necessarily "right" or in any sort of majority...

Peace
Dan

Byrnzie

OutOfBreath wrote:

But doesn't that just show more clearly how many different views of christianity there was?

No, it doesn't just show that there were different views. It completely changes our understanding of the origins of what we today regard as Christianity.

OutOfBreath

Byrnzie wrote:

OutOfBreath wrote:

But doesn't that just show more clearly how many different views of christianity there was?

No, it doesn't just show that there were different views. It completely changes our understanding of the origins of what we today regard as Christianity.

...which is what newer research into it are showing exactly...

But you are concluding that Jesus didnt exist at all, and that he was totally irrelevant to anything. Newer reserch do not conclude that, although some present that case. It is one possibility among others, and thus, a bit uncertain to proclaim with such force and certainty. The understanding of 30 years or more ago is blown completely out of the water, I dont think anyone is arguing that. (except hardline conservatives that are more about faith and less about scholarship in any case)

Peace
Dan

Byrnzie

OutOfBreath wrote:

But you are concluding that Jesus didnt exist at all, and that he was totally irrelevant to anything. Newer reserch do not conclude that, although some present that case. It is one possibility among others, and thus, a bit uncertain to proclaim with such force and certainty.

Actually, I'm really not certain whether he did exist or he didn't. But I'm pretty sure he wasn't who we think he was. That's all.

arq

Byrnzie wrote:

Actually, I'm really not certain whether he did exist or he didn't. But I'm pretty sure he wasn't who we think he was. That's all.

BUT the chance of a "magic" Jesus are 0%, the chance of a guy named Jesus (with a Jewish name equivalent of course) who had some ideas and a few followers are pretty low, and the chance that Christianity is just a mixture of pagan and jewish myth is the more probable of all theories.

Byrnzie

arq wrote:

Byrnzie wrote:

Actually, I'm really not certain whether he did exist or he didn't. But I'm pretty sure he wasn't who we think he was. That's all.

BUT the chance of a "magic" Jesus are 0%, the chance of a guy named Jesus (with a Jewish name equivalent of course) who had some ideas and a few followers are pretty low, and the chance that Christianity is just a mixture of pagan and jewish myth is the more probable of all theories.

What about a chocolate Jesus?

arq

Byrnzie wrote:

What about a chocolate Jesus?

There's 100% certainty that existed.

yosi

What I find interesting in this discussion is that it keeps coming back to the fact that there is very little historical evidence for Jesus. But there is historical evidence. The fact that it is scarce is irrelevant. To point to the scarcity of the contemporary (or nearly so) historical sources as significant is to make the assumption that people at the time would have known how significant this figure would prove to be, but they didn't. At the time Jesus would have been a tiny figure, just one more back-country preacher with a small following who the Romans killed. It isn't at all surprising that no one thought enough of such a character to make much of a mention of him. Of course I don't think Jesus was divine, or that he performed miracles, and clearly the religion that grew around his story incorporated many myths from older cults, but from everything I'd read and studied the consensus among scholars seems to be in favor of the idea that there was some sort of figure fitting the description of Jesus active towards the end of the Second Temple period. Beyond that, who knows.

arq

yosi wrote:

What I find interesting in this discussion is that it keeps coming back to the fact that there is very little historical evidence for Jesus. But there is historical evidence. The fact that it is scarce is irrelevant. To point to the scarcity of the contemporary (or nearly so) historical sources as significant is to make the assumption that people at the time would have known how significant this figure would prove to be, but they didn't. At the time Jesus would have been a tiny figure, just one more back-country preacher with a small following who the Romans killed. It isn't at all surprising that no one thought enough of such a character to make much of a mention of him. Of course I don't think Jesus was divine, or that he performed miracles, and clearly the religion that grew around his story incorporated many myths from older cults, but from everything I'd read and studied the consensus among scholars seems to be in favor of the idea that there was some sort of figure fitting the description of Jesus active towards the end of the Second Temple period. Beyond that, who knows.

The fact that the Jesus history is so similar to many pagan myths points to the conclusion that Jesus didn't exist, or better said is very unlikely that the christian myth started from a unknown preacher and later grew into a cult, but please note that i said "very unlikely", not impossible.

cajunkiwi

Byrnzie wrote:

OutOfBreath wrote:

Since he also is briefly referenced in roman sources, and there are gospels talking about him as a living fact, I dont doubt his existence.

And like I pointed out above, those references in Roman sources are fake. They were added at a later date by the early leaders of the Church.
And the Gospels are not works of history, and also were not contemporary with the time in question.


Evidence for a historical Jesus as portrayed in the Gospels:

A few mentions of 'Christians' and followers of someone called Crestus among all the the extensive histories of the Romans.
Some fake passages in Josephus among all the substantial histories of the Jews.
A handful of passages from among the vast literature of the Talmud, which tell us that a man called Yeshu existed and had five disciples called Mattai, Nakkia, Netzer, Buni, and Todah.
Four anonymous gospels that do not even agree on the facts of Jesus' birth and death.
A gospel attributed to Mark written somwhere between 70 and 135 AD which is not even meant to be an eyewitness account and certainly isn't judging from it's ignorance of Palestinian geography and the fact that it misquotes Hebrew scripture.
Gospels attributed to Matthew and Luke, which are independently based on Mark and give us entirely contradictory genealogies.
A gospel attributed to John, which was written some time after the other three and certainly not by the disciple John.
The names of 12 disciples for whom there is no historical evidence.
The Acts of The Apostles, which reads like a fantasy novel, misquotes the Hebrew Old Testament, contradicts Paul's letters, and was not written until the second half of the second century.
A selection of forged letters attributed to Peter, James, John, and Paul.
A few genuine letters by Paul which do not speak of a historical Jesus at all, but only of a mystical dying and resurrecting Christ.
A lot of evidence which suggests that the New Testament is not a history of actual events, but a history of the evolution of Christian mythology.

Even the physical evidence is iffy, since his supposed burial shroud was tested and found to be only 700 years old.

yosi

There is no physical evidence. No one but his tiny group of followers were paying attention at the time, and they didn't think of him as divine (the idea of Jesus' divinity was a later addition to Christianity), so there was no reason for them to save his garments, or anything else. All this stuff comes from Helena (or most of it at least) over 300 years later.