• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Why the Jesus Myth is illogical.

Dirty Penguin

Dirty Penguin

Master Of Ceremony
Requia said:
Nah, Yeshua was some guy who went around preaching about love and charity and not using God to make a buck, the government responded by nailing him to a tree. This is much more believable than somebody giving up power in said government 3 months early out of the goodness of his heart.
Click to expand...

Actually...it seems about time you get to the book of Acts those in power or even the Jews seem to have never really heard of Yeshua and seem to doubt his existence. This is why I posted the video of Carrier. One could concede of his existence but then you're left with a big (SO WHAT...???) because if we strip away the fanciful god man claims of the bible and christians we're left with a guy as you described, who wasn't the promised/prophesied messiah/savior rather he was one amongst many 1st century activist. Even so...even those are some pretty big (IFs).
 
O

Oberon

Well-Known Member
Dirty Penguin said:
Actually...it seems about time you get to the book of Acts those in power or even the Jews seem to have never really heard of Yeshua and seem to doubt his existence.
Click to expand...

According to Tacitus Nero was persecuting the christians, who were known to follow christ, before Acts was even written. And how exactly do you conclude that the Jews or "those in power" had not heard of Jesus?
 
O

Oberon

Well-Known Member
dogsgod said:
Unfortunately the authenticity and reliability of Tacitus' report is questionable.
Click to expand...
Whether the holocaust happened is "questionable," at least in that ignorant people question it. There is no basis for questioning the authenticity of Tacitus' report (nor am I aware of scholarship to this effect). As for the reliability, that is more questionable, but most experts (see e.g. Theissen and Mertz' Die Historische Jesu) that Tacitus, while a governer in Asia Minor, was in an excellent position to learn a bit about the christians and their origins.
 
dogsgod

dogsgod

Well-Known Member
Oberon said:
Whether the holocaust happened is "questionable," at least in that ignorant people question it. There is no basis for questioning the authenticity of Tacitus' report (nor am I aware of scholarship to this effect). As for the reliability, that is more questionable, but most experts (see e.g. Theissen and Mertz' Die Historische Jesu) that Tacitus, while a governer in Asia Minor, was in an excellent position to learn a bit about the christians and their origins.
Click to expand...
Of course, this equates with holocaust deniers, I see. :rolleyes:
 
O

Oberon

Well-Known Member
dogsgod said:
Of course, this equates with holocaust deniers, I see. :rolleyes:
Click to expand...
It doesn't equate, no. There is of course a vast gulf between massive amount of evidence for something as big as the holocaust which happened in the 20th century, and anything that happened in the first century. The point is anything is "questionable" if you refuse to look objectively at the evidence.
 
logician

logician

Well-Known Member
Oberon said:
It doesn't equate, no. There is of course a vast gulf between massive amount of evidence for something as big as the holocaust which happened in the 20th century, and anything that happened in the first century. The point is anything is "questionable" if you refuse to look objectively at the evidence.
Click to expand...

Which you seem to consistently do. There is no evidence whatsoever for a "historical" Jesus, only a mythical one, like other ancient man-gods.:D
 
O

Oberon

Well-Known Member
logician said:
Which you seem to consistently do. There is no evidence whatsoever for a "historical" Jesus, only a mythical one, like other ancient man-gods.:D
Click to expand...

And you know this because you read a bunch of websites and The Jesus Mysteries. How can my research (which consists of actually reading the primary sources in Greek, Latin, and Hebrew, and thousands of pages of secondary scholarship by actual scholars in this field) compare with websites and one book written by a guy with a bachelor's in psychology?

dogsgod said:
No, unlike those other ancient man-gods, this one is historical.
Click to expand...
Some of the others were historical as well: pharoahs, julius caesar, augustus caesar, and so on.
 
dogsgod

dogsgod

Well-Known Member
Oberon said:
And you know this because you read a bunch of websites and The Jesus Mysteries. How can my research (which consists of actually reading the primary sources in Greek, Latin, and Hebrew, and thousands of pages of secondary scholarship by actual scholars in this field) compare with websites and one book written by a guy with a bachelor's in psychology?
Click to expand...
Not to mention holocaust denier.:rolleyes:
 
dogsgod

dogsgod

Well-Known Member
Oberon said:
So you admit that just because a person is worshipped as a god, or is said to have ascended after death to be a god, this doesn't necessarily mean they weren't historical?
Click to expand...
In the cases of Augustus et al there is plenty of historical evidence left over after removing the legends.

Out of curiosity, can you name any of the ancient mythical dying and rising god-men, or do you refuse to admit there were any?
 
O

Oberon

Well-Known Member
dogsgod said:
In the cases of Augustus et al there is plenty of historical evidence left over after removing the legends.

Out of curiosity, can you name any of the ancient mythical dying and rising god-men, or do you refuse to admit there were any?
Click to expand...
I've read The Jesus Mysteries too. Jesus has a lot more in common with Augustus than Attis, Osiris, Mithras, et al. One can explain away all the evidence for deified emperors and pharoahs about as easily as one can with Jesus.
 
dogsgod

dogsgod

Well-Known Member
Oberon said:
I've read The Jesus Mysteries too. Jesus has a lot more in common with Augustus than Attis, Osiris, Mithras, et al. One can explain away all the evidence for deified emperors and pharoahs about as easily as one can with Jesus.
Click to expand...
We noticed how easy when the simple question was asked if Jesus could read.

BTW, that was sarcasm.
 
D

demonIntegral

before speaker
Ever since I knew enough to question stuff, I have questioned the historical Jesus.
Today, as a bit of anecdote, I found a church to frequent, and the pamphlet indicates - those who accept Jesus as their lord and savior are welcome - which is complicated by the consideration that the guy never existed; so I hadda go and communicate with the authorities... no worries. I do "the god of Abraham," I do the "Holy Spirit;" logic, however...
So, I'm this Ephesian, and I tell you, "all Ephesians are liars:" and if one is logical, one encounters paradox.
Prophets, however, share a cliche with their unentitled kinfolk - no prophet is an island. For a prophet to become a legend, he must live in prophetic times - like when Ceasar elevated the city state to the nation state, when a certain tribe of wanderers with a propensity to breed prophets happened to get the idea a messiah was due... and a new social structure devised a manner to exploit superstitious paranoia into a tool to keep the rabble in line. And amused.
I'm amused. It's not entirely illogical - in fact, it's rather brilliant. And myth is what happens when the other guy doesn't like your religion...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top