The Jesus myth theory on CNN Internet news

[vepurusg]

I have explained why I fell on the different side of the fence, corrupt it if you will, you are religious after all :flirt:

Yep, he's impenetrable to reason.

I tried to give you Frubals, I don't know if or how that works; first time.


There's no real evidence either way, but I'll tell you why I err on the side of "he exists", and maybe it'll convince you.

Put simply, I need somebody to blame Christianity on, and if the NT has anything approaching general historicity, given that the supernatural elements are obviously false, the most reasonable explanation is that Yeshua was a two-timing faith-healing con artist who took advantage of people's ignorance and trust, and ultimately got what he had coming- it represents the religion pretty well

I always try to phrase it as "Either he didn't exist, which is perfectly plausible because there is no real evidence or..." to make sure people understand that is a viable option too.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

I have explained why I fell on the different side of the fence, corrupt it if you will, you are religious after all :flirt:

And all relious people corrupt matters. Got it.

Now, again, you assert:

The bible is known to have books in it which are forgeries.​

Which books in the bible are known to be forgeries?

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

Yep, he's impenetrable to reason.

Just part of my charm.

But perhaps you could help. What do you suppose is the scholarly consensus on historicity and what might the reasons be? So, for example ...

Although a few scholars have questioned the existence of Jesus as an actual historical figure, some scholars involved with historical Jesus research believe his existence, but not the supernatural claims associated with him, can be established using documentary and other evidence. Most contemporary scholars agree that Jesus was a Jew who was regarded as a teacher and healer, that he was baptized by John the Baptist, and was crucified in Jerusalem on the orders of the Roman Prefect of Judaea, Pontius Pilate, on the charge of sedition against the Roman Empire. [wiki]

So what might be the justification for someone, significantly ignorant in the field, standing belligerantlly against such a consensus? Why should it be viewed as anything other than a pathetically arrogant bias?

 

[vepurusg]

But perhaps you could help. What do you suppose is the scholarly consensus on historicity and what might the reasons be?

I have explained my position on this matter and you can re-read my posts if it is unclear to you

 

[Copernicus]

...With all the things that have been written about Jesus, and all the things prophesied about what Jesus is going to do, don't you think that the smart thing to do would be to make sure whether the things writtn in God's word is true or not, because it really means your everlasting life. The Bible holds out the promise of everlasting life in a paradise earth, or endless death in the Lake of Fire, The Second Death, Rev 20:14,15.

Jtartar, most of your post was preaching and scripture-quoting, not a discussion of the topic. This topic is about the historicity of the man called Jesus, not whether the things said about him in the NT are all literally true or whether it is advisable that we become Christians.

If your god does not exist, then there is no point in my pondering the truth of his words. If he does, then I will doubtless have a lot of company in that lake of fire. I wouldn't be surprised to see you there, either. Better watch your step.

 

[Quagmire]

I don't care what weight you give it.

Sometimes it is easier to go with the flow than it is to stick to your guns. The current concensus is there is no historical evidence for Jesus but that the new testament may well have been based on a living person, yet there is no evidence of this.

Nope. That's not actually what the current consensus is.

Historians fall on the side of he probably lived, but you could easily be forgiven for falling on the side of caution and saying he didn't. I am prepared to fall the other side with a little proof, but as forany talk of God that is pure myth and legend for me I am faraid.

If I let concensus bother me I wouldn't be an atheist,

and while I sit in a minority now, one day it will be a majority.

You can't stop progress

Of course you can. We see people in here doing that all the time.

 

[cablescavenger]

And all relious people corrupt matters. Got it.

There you go again!

Now, again, you assert:

The bible is known to have books in it which are forgeries.​

Which books in the bible are known to be forgeries?

I will let you read it yourself. I may or may not agree with some of the material but passing it on is not something I am interested in. I give this only because you asked for it. If you don't agree with it I suggest you write to the authors or their websites because I am not interested in debating scripture with anyone.

Bart Ehrman and the New testament

Joseph McCabe Forgeries of the old testament

Random Passage amendments

Sir Isaac Newton and The trinity

Variation between oldest bible (Codex Sinaiticus) and modern bible, some 14,800 alterations

The Codex can be found here if you want to check for yourself.

 

[Quagmire]

Agreed.

You didn't answer my question.

 

[fallingblood]

I have explained why I fell on the different side of the fence, corrupt it if you will, you are religious after all :flirt:

You're explanation and arguments up to this point have been poor. When you addressed what I had said, your arguments had nothing to do with what I had even said.

You're on the side of the fence you are because you have a desire for Jesus not to exist.

 

[crystalonyx]

So here we have it. The Jesus literalists insist Jesus was such an inconsequential man of history that no noted historian of that time took notice of him. Then years late after his supposed death, this man suddenly becomes a "Miraedl worker" and is exalted to god status in writings by unknown persons with conflicting stories, much of it copied from Mark. We can therefore take it for granted that this is the work or writing of a mythos later used to start a religion. The Jesus of the NT never existed. At most we have an unknown person in history who had no resemblance to the biblical Jesus. Most likely the entire gospel works are complete fiction written to particular audiences for different reasons from gospel to gospel.

 

[Quagmire]

So here we have it. The Jesus literalists

What the hell is a "Jesus literalist"?

 

[crystalonyx]

What the hell is a "Jesus literalist"?

One that believes Jesus was a literal person, rather than the gnostic "spiritual" Christ only.

 

[fallingblood]

So here we have it. The Jesus literalists insist Jesus was such an inconsequential man of history that no noted historian of that time took notice of him. Then years late after his supposed death, this man suddenly becomes a "Miraedl worker" and is exalted to god status in writings by unknown persons with conflicting stories, much of it copied from Mark. We can therefore take it for granted that this is the work or writing of a mythos later used to start a religion. The Jesus of the NT never existed. At most we have an unknown person in history who had no resemblance to the biblical Jesus. Most likely the entire gospel works are complete fiction written to particular audiences for different reasons from gospel to gospel.

I guess if you want to just ignore what everyone has said in this forum, and then make up an opposition, you're right. That's the problem with Jesus-mythers. In order to actually get to that position, one has to ignore everything.

 

[Quagmire]

One that believes Jesus was a literal person, rather than the gnostic "spiritual" Christ only.

If you're going to make up terms you should let the rest of us know what they're supposed to mean somewhere in the post.

Curious: what name would you come up for for someone who keeps presenting the same shallow, ignorance-based arguments over an over no matter how many times they've been refuted?

 

[Quagmire]

I guess if you want to just ignore what everyone has said in this forum, and then make up an opposition, you're right. That's the problem with Jesus-mythers. In order to actually get to that position, one has to ignore everything.

No Fallingblood, I think they have a point. I'm sure that if Jesus existed all we'd have to do would be to sift through the archives of Time Magazine or Newsweek and look at some back issues from the first century to see if there was any mention of him in there somewhere.

Heck, right now I'm reading about the Slave Revolts in the Spring 70 BCE issue of Sports Illustrated (it's the one with a picture of Spartacus on the cover).

 

[cablescavenger]

You're explanation and arguments up to this point have been poor. When you addressed what I had said, your arguments had nothing to do with what I had even said.

You're on the side of the fence you are because you have a desire for Jesus not to exist.

You have a different view, and different level of acceptance criteria. I have no issue with that, I just don't share your faith.

There are plenty of Gods manifest in human form prior to Jesus that people don't have an issue accepting once lived.

The problem with Jesus is merely lack of credible evidence and nothing more.

Suggesting I want Jesus not to exist is just a blatant lie on your part. I could care less if Jesus existed or not.

 

[LegionOnomaMoi]

What the hell is a "Jesus literalist"?

A historian.

 

[fallingblood]

You have a different view, and different level of acceptance criteria. I have no issue with that, I just don't share your faith.

There are plenty of Gods manifest in human form prior to Jesus that people don't have an issue accepting once lived.

The problem with Jesus is merely lack of credible evidence and nothing more.

Suggesting I want Jesus not to exist is just a blatant lie on your part. I could care less if Jesus existed or not.

I don't think it is a blatant lie. Because if you really didn't care, you would actually take the time to read what has been posted here, instead of just repeating ideas that really are being voiced. Case in point, we haven't been talking about God manifested in human form. That simply is not what we are talking about. I'm sure most who have really debated in this thread would admit that Jesus is fully human, and not divine.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

So here we have it. The Jesus literalists insist Jesus was such an inconsequential man of history that no noted historian of that time took notice of him.

:roll eyes:

Who were the leaders of the Qumran sect? What historian notes them? Was the sect inconsequential?
Who were the leaders of the Sadducees? What historian notes them? Was the sect inconsequential?

 

[outhouse]

A historian.

LOL :clap



thats a good one there