most people on this forum probably agree religion is BS...but

[MyDoorsAreOpen]

The last paragraph of both of your last two posts say the message is separate from the story and that it doesn't matter if he existed in terms of the validity of his word. I agree. That's not what I was asking you. The "part of the story" comment was not in reference to the message. I was asking you why you believe he was a real man and why people who disbelieve in him should be discredited and labelled as conspiracy theorists.

I believe it's highly likely the literary character we know as Jesus is based on a real person because
A) The parts of the story that are consistent don't paint a picture of someone improbable for that place and time, and
B) Fictional people don't get made up out of thin air, generally. They're based on real people the author knew or heard a lot about.

I don't think all people with this point of view are crackpot conspiracy theorists. But most of the online personal webpages and chatroom conversations I've had over the years with people who push this position give me much the same feeling as people who believe that Freemasons rule the world. Don't take this personally, dude. I didn't mean to imply that's what you are. Anyhow, enough of that. My fundamental question to you and people who hold your opinion is this: Why is it important to you that Jesus' documented existence as a historical figure is called into question, and if found historically and archaeologically unsubstantiated, promptly rejected?

It's only fair to ask that question, because after all, skeptics on any unsettled or unsettlable matter often (deftly, I do declare) take the liberty of asking believers why it matters to them that what they believe is true. This has nothing to do with onus of proof. It's a simple question of individual motivation and attitude with which one engages the world, which can cut both ways.

I disagree with this statement. You paint Christian myth theorists as people driven by some sort of agenda, but really there is insufficient evidence to prove that Christ existed and it is possible that he did not. Is Robert Price a "garden variety conspiracy theorist"? If so, why? He seems to have pretty well articulated arguments. If he's not, can you point out some prominent Christian myth supporting scholars who fit the description you've put forward, people who are intent on disproving Jesus just for the sake of it? There's probably one or two, but most of the stuff I've read doesn't come across like that at all.

I've read a good bit of Price's essays that are available online. He seems to be pretty with it. I don't agree with his conclusions, but he argues sensibly.

No, I can't name you any real nutcake Jesus-as-myth people. I don't have much room in my brain for lists of people like that these days, I'm afraid. Most of the ones I read, as I said, were personal webpages (before the days of blogs) and IRC chat conversations in philosophical chatrooms, with people who pushed this position. I read a whole lot of online opinions on all sorts of metaphysical issues for many, many years as a seeker. I remember few authors.

I have no reason to prove Jesus didn't exist. I'm not biased one way or the other.

Hmm... I can't help but wonder if somewhere along the line someone must have influenced you on this, or you must have decided for some reason that the world would be better off knowing there was no Jesus.

 

[MyDoorsAreOpen]

FreakinHUGEGuy, I say there is nothing qualitatively lost to most people's lives by devoting their lives to a vision of something greater than this mundane world which may or may not really be there. Why? Because to a great deal each of us subjectively creates the world we inhabit by means of our desires, dreams, and yearnings, the thoughts we entertain and the things that drive us.

 

[TheDeceased]

Pythagoras,

re: the grandfather thing - I thought you were questioning whether or not someone had a grandfather, not who he was. Who he was cannot be proven very easily, assuming he's dead. There is a fair amount of bigamy in my family tree. My family tree is a little confused. Nobody knows what was going on more than two generations back on my father's side.

I will respond to other points when I have the time.

Generally though, I admit defeat more or less. Clearly I have some more reading to do before I come to any sort of conclusion. If it cannot be proved that Jesus was a man, then I shouldn't assume that it can be proved that he wasn't a man. So, like my attitude towards the existence of God, I will remain agnostic as to the existence of a real Jesus Christ for the time being.

FYI, the quote I was referring to was the one from Price regarding our inability to absolutely prove anything one way or another. From what I've read of his work, he doesn't come across as a crackpot. His ideas are well articulated and he is a well respected theologian though admittedly one of the only well respected theologians that supports the myth theory.

I need to balance my reading a little more and be open minded towards the existence of Christ.

Similarly though, I believe people should be open minded towards his possible non-existence and though you guys have said that you are (again, the "degrees" comment), you seem to entirely dismiss anyone who contemplates his possible non-existence as somewhat of a crackpot.

Will respond properly when I'm not at work.

re: Paul/gospel, though, I have never taken theology 101 (I'm sure that doesn't come as much of a surprise). I was taught Christian theology by an ex-priest and I've done a fair bit of reading. I guess I never looked up the definition of the word "gospel". What I meant regarding Paul/Saul was that he was a hardcore believer and that his accounts of what happened to him are similar to the gospels in the sense that they are presumably allegorical/metaphorical/whatever. I mean Paul didn't really see Christ after he died. That is impossible. So his word doesn't have much credibility to me in terms of literality. As with the gospels, I find it difficult to draw the line definitively between what is real and what isn't. If somebody was telling you a story and in the middle of it they said they saw a leprechaun wouldn't they lose a bit of cred?

you must have decided for some reason that the world would be better off knowing there was no Jesus

Yes, I believe that the world would be much better off if Christians understood Christ as an allegory rather than literally the son of God. Will explain later, if necessary. I'm going to get fired if I don't stop fucking around on the internet and get some work done.

 

[TheDeceased]

Quick note (to Pythagoras):

Can you point me in the direction of other prominent historical figures that were not documented during their time?

I meant during the time of Christ, or later. I thought I wrote that. I was drunk. Most of the examples you brought up were ancient/pre-Christ eras in which, comparatively, the written word was rather rare. And, you mentioned Thales twice.

Can you provide five examples of post-Christ historical figures that "fit the bill"?

 

[Pythagoras]

Resources for the Gnostic Gospels

The Gnostic Gosepls were never edited out of the cannon, but rather excluded from the cannonical agreement at the council of Nicea and Constantinople (c 325)

Here is a quote of mine from another thread that might guide those wishing to explore Gnosticism some more.

A good primer would be Elaine Pagels, The Gnostic Gospels

The source material with commentary can be found in the recently revised The Nag Hammadi Gospels in English, fourth edition, Ed. J. Robinson

And for a hardcore, abstruse and highly academic approach Dr. A. Logan, Gnostics - Identifying an Ancient Christian Cult (full disclosure, he was my supervisor on the topic)

PM me if you want further resources, many of my books are in storage as they wont fit in my apartment!8

Even the Gospel Titles, taken from the Colophon, or first sentence have much more exciting names such as

Thunder, Perfect Mind
The Discourse of the Eight and Ninth
The Exegesis of the soul
The Hypostasis of the Archons
The Secret Gosep of Thomas
The Gospel of Thomas the Contender

and for all you ladies out there

The Gospel of Mary Magdalene

All this material is available online (NB - the site is owned and managed by an extant Gnostic church so Caveat Emptor, that said its a great resource. I would read a primer before looking at the site as its contents require context and exegesis to be fully understood)
LINK


PAX

 

[Pythagoras]

Quick note (to Pythagoras):



I meant during the time of Christ, or later. I thought I wrote that. I was drunk. Most of the examples you brought up were ancient/pre-Christ eras in which, comparatively, the written word was rather rare. And, you mentioned Thales twice.

Can you provide five examples of post-Christ historical figures that "fit the bill"?

The point is Jesus only became a'Historicl Figure' as you phrase it after his death, few during his lifetime, outside his illiterate follower would have much interest in writing a living biography, that's not how history worked back then, but to indulge you

The Thereputatae
Simon Magus
The authors of the Gnostic Gospels (20+)
Most Church Fathers prior to Eusebius (who wrote a biographies on them) were little documented at the time.
Quirinius
Arius
Basilides

I trust this gives you a flavour of first century historical figures that have had to be reconstructed from various later sources. Some we know wrote works, but these are lost to history. It is not inconceivable that Jesus wrote, or had a scribe (unlikley), but that the words were lost to history. The Gospel 'Q' and Mark are our bext sources for him, and are proximate proof of his existence. Mr. Prince will have to do much more to erase a figure from history for which we have ample proof (eye-witness proof possibly...but this was not neccessary for the Historiography of the time.

PAX

 

[FreakinHUGEGuy]

FreakinHUGEGuy, I say there is nothing qualitatively lost to most people's lives by devoting their lives to a vision of something greater than this mundane world which may or may not really be there. Why? Because to a great deal each of us subjectively creates the world we inhabit by means of our desires, dreams, and yearnings, the thoughts we entertain and the things that drive us.

MyDoorsAreOpen, Hi thanks for taking the time to read and reply to my ideas. I'm relatively new to Bluelight and am enjoying myself immensely so far. The opportunity for intelligent, and civil!(what a concept), discourse on so many far ranging topics does not exist for me at the moment IRL.

As to your points, honestly I find it fairly difficult to argue persuasively for or against the idea that "there is nothing qualitatively lost to most people's lives by devoting their lives to a vision of something greater than this mundane world which may or may not really be there."

Well I don't mean to be too negatively critical of your opinions, so I will first say that I agree with your logical basis, the idea that the dreams, hopes and desires o our minds play a massive role in defining how we perceive the world and therefore how we interact with it is right on, in my opinion.

However, to me, saying "there is nothing qualitatively lost to most people's lives by devoting their lives to a vision of something greater than this mundane world which may or may not really be there." does not follow and is in of itself a fairly idyllic generalization. I mean it just varies so much from individual to individual, let alone continent to continent and culture to culture you know?

I could certainly get into a lengthy talk (or lengthy write?) about this topic don't get me wrong, I just think it's wrong to generalize about so many minds, so different in form and quality and character and dreams. In the end it's impossible for either of us to definitively say what is or isn't lost or gained since we can't do scientific tests, at least not that I can think of a way to do them correctly.

I certainly agree that philosophical organizations, such as religions, hold an undeniable and massive potential to be forces for good in many people's lives, enabling them to lead rich inner mentalities. Oftentimes in places where relief of any sort is welcomed as a blessing, or people stricken by poverty, or any sort of serious hardships, it can be extraordinarily positive in many situations. But I can't help but think about the times and places in which is can be extraordinarily negative.

It's at this point that I have to stop for about 25 minutes to give my dogs a walk, I could easily go on and on and on about this topic, I am not quite familiar with the typical etiquette in this situation, I'll just say that I've already got a few examples I could flesh out both for and against your opinion I quoted above, It promises to be fun to get into them tonight if am not too tired, but certainly tomorrow if I end up drifting off after this walk. I am interested in what you think though, or maybe you're not even online! Hahaha, I love thie internet. Well in any case I suppose let me know what you're thinking whenever you get the chance to read this.

I need to learn the proper "netiquettes" here, I only gave the introduction to that concept a cursory glance on BlueLight's FAQ.

 

[Jabberwocky]

many Christians are not super literal about the bible and accept that the star of Bethlehem the magi, sometime even the virgin birth and other parts of the gospels were about pulling in trappings from other religion's man-god messiahs.

many interpreters bibles with extensive commentary about each verse will point out that in matthew when Jesus sends the apostles to a certain place with instructions to catch a fish because they can not pay the fee to get into the temple, and they find a gold piece in the fishes mouth-that is a total imitation of Greek wonder worker stories of that era.

So spreading Christ as myth to get at the fundamentalists is not going to effect them one iota in my opinion. The one's who will give it consideration already consider context and aren't all that stuck on the particulars. Hard proff that Jesus for certain existed isn't there. I think he is definitely to some degree a composite figure who was dressed up to have an appeal to a wide audience.

Again I don't think the historical facts are important my rejection of Christianity is most based on salvation by proxy and inherited sin more than anything else. I can not reconcile the bearing of others sins or the inheritance of sin at all with my view of things or a just god.

Historicity- ah who cares- jedis aren't all that historical and I'd certainly give that religion some consideration.

 

[discountsnow]

The most Important Question

This is not a b.s. question. It is the most important question that must answered by everyone for themselves.
To accept blindly the Christian faith without evidence is silly. I have a hard time accepting anything simply on blind faith and the bible does not suggest that God expects us to jump in blind faith. The bible asks us to examine the evidence and come to a personal conclusion about Jesus based on the light of the revealed truth as demonstrated by the historical and textual evidence of the bible.

There is today mounting physical evidence "the Tell el-Amarna Tablets"the importance is the description of Jerusalem as the capital city.

Here is a rather important book Simeon Greenleaf's book, entitled The Testimony of the Evangelists, he also wrote A Treatise on the Law of Evidence, on the proper evaluation of legal evidence in our judicial system is still an unsurpassed masterpiece
"In the absence of circumstances which generate suspicion, every witness is to be presumed credible, until the contrary is shown; the burden of impeaching his credibility lying on the objector".

One of the greatest of these pioneer archeologists is the Jewish scholar Dr. Nelson Glueck, considered by many to be the greatest Jewish archeologist in history. Professor Glueck has written, "It is worth emphasizing that in all this work no archaeological discovery has ever controverted a single, properly understood biblical statement."

Professor Millar Burrows of Yale University Burrows affirmed that the net result of the recent discoveries has actually increased our ability to categorize the Bible's statements as solid evidence by eyewitnesses to these ancient events: "Such evidence as archaeology has afforded thus far, especially by providing additional and older manuscripts of the books of the Bible, strengthens our confidence in the accuracy with which the text has been transmitted through the centuries."

The Bible has accurately predicted countless events and has even warned us about those who wish a one world government.

It was interesting to read Mr. Robert Price as suggested. Mr. Price fails to tell us that it is not God's wish that any are lost. Despite the fact that we have offend God he still offers us pardon. And if we refuse to accept it, would anyone say we do not deserve punishment?

Religion is not b.s. and the bible is not just a book. Christians did not invent Heaven and Hell this is a matter better taken up with God. Christianity is not a cult that is a statement I am sure without knowing the truth.
Yes were you spend eternity is vital.

 

[Jabberwocky]

^yawn. hard sell proselytizing bores the hell out of me personally. please read the p&s guidelines before you post here anymore. all of your posts in P&S have been oriented to coercing or persuading people to take up a single position. anymore of it and I will move to warnings or infractions. you can talk about how your version of christianity benefits you or about why you think it makes sense but hard sell proselytizing isn't tolerated here. fire & brimstone tactics aren't put up with from adherents of any religion. you have done it over and over and from here on out it will be met consequences.

 

[bongman]

i like to think that in several thousand years someone, whatever form they may take, will find a harry potter book and take everything in it to be real. Harry will be jesus, ron and Hermione will be his disciples. This is how i think the bible came about with people adding chapters here and there, if john and all the other lot who wrote it could see its success today i think they'd be rolling on the floor laughing at us. I find it incredibly hard to believe anything without any definitive proof, for without proof it is nothing more than a fairytale. I can say i jumped off a fifty foot building and survived but without video evidence noone will believe me and i am likely lieing. How is this any different from saying jesus follows me where ever i go? and equivalent nonsense. I would be interested to see how many christians in here became christian by choice later in life. Most of the christians i know were brought up in a christian family and therefore had little chance not to believe in christianity and later in life have realised what a load of rubbish it is. I hope i live to see the day were everyone looks back on religion and smirks to ourselves about how rediculous the whole concept was.

 

[Talksick]

The bible asks us to examine the evidence and come to a personal conclusion about Jesus based on the light of the revealed truth as demonstrated by the historical and textual evidence of the bible.

Excuse me, but how could you consider the bible to be historical evidence. I don't doubt that Jesus existed and that his story is one that can help people to live better lives, but to call it fact and historical evidence is just silly. How do you account for the fact the the bible was completely dismantled and misconstrued through multiple translations. I believe the true message is still in there, but you have to have a pure heart to receive the message, and that is just something that most Christians don't have.

The Bible has accurately predicted countless events and has even warned us about those who wish a one world government.

While I believe "Bible Codes" to be a fascinating subject, who is to say that you couldn't do the same with Moby Dick or The Tale Tell Heart? The Bible doesn't directly make reference to any current events, but people seem to add there own liberties to the word to make it fit their ideas.

Religion is not b.s. and the bible is not just a book. Christians did not invent Heaven and Hell this is a matter better taken up with God. Christianity is not a cult that is a statement I am sure without knowing the truth.
Yes were you spend eternity is vital.

Religion is bullshit! More people have died in the name of God than for any other cause. The Bible is just a book. It is one that has many great morals to teach, that is if the readers heart is really open, which most Christians aren't because they are brainwashed and can't see the truth when it's staring them in the face. Christians most certainly did invent hell. Jesus never once spoke of hell. Agenda pushing Christians invented Hell to sway more people into believing and as a means of population control.

Oh and just for your information the definition of Cult is: followers of an exclusive system of religious beliefs and practices. Therefore Christianity, along with all other religious denominations are indeed cults.

 

[MyDoorsAreOpen]

Talksick, Hell is a European folk belief that predates Christianity, and isn't even native to the Middle East, like Christianity is. It's the underworld, the abode of Hades (Pluto).

Also, you're correct that 'cult' as a technical and completely value-neutral term does refer to any group gathered for the veneration of someone or something. Its cognates in other languages (like the Spanish culto) have not acquired the negative baggage that the English word has come to have. In the vernacular, though, cult has definitely taken on the implication of 'harmful'.

 

[Talksick]

Talksick, Hell is a European folk belief that predates Christianity, and isn't even native to the Middle East, like Christianity is. It's the underworld, the abode of Hades (Pluto).

Also, you're correct that 'cult' as a technical and completely value-neutral term does refer to any group gathered for the veneration of someone or something. Its cognates in other languages (like the Spanish culto) have not acquired the negative baggage that the English word has come to have. In the vernacular, though, cult has definitely taken on the implication of 'harmful'.

Hell is different from Hades. Hades is the land of the dead. Hell is a Christian concept conceived by the Catholic church.

I would say that cults are harmful. Think about it, large groups of people that believe their way is the only way, backed by what they deem holy text that allows them to kill even though it goes against their doctrine.

 

[TheDeceased]

The Thereputatae

Philo (the guy who wrote about them) knew them personally.

Simon Magus

Wrote stuff himself.

The authors of the Gnostic Gospels (20+)

Wrote stuff themselves.

Most Church Fathers prior to Eusebius (who wrote a biographies on them) were little documented at the time.

A lot of them wrote stuff themselves.

Quirinius

Florus wrote about him in considerable detail. There are no contradicting accounts of him. There are no mythological aspects to his story. He was a Roman aristocrat. He was also the governer of Syria.

Basilides

Wrote stuff himself.

Arius

Although the accounts of him have been destroyed, he was the key figure in the Arian Controversy (it is named after him). Pope Alexander (who lived during the time of Arius) mentions him in a number of letters. Again, there are no inconsistencies or mythological aspects to his story.

...

None of the examples you've given reflect the questionable history of Jesus in my opinion. Thanks for indulging me though. I understand that accounts were sometimes written after the fact (although most of your examples don't reflect this), but that doesn't imply that anything written after the fact is a true account of what actually happened.

There are few if any historical figures that I'm aware of around the time of Christ that have such a shakey grounding in history. You provided a number of people who wrote work personally (one of your examples were the AUTHORS of the Gnostic Gospels) or had work written about them during their lifetime quite often by people who knew them, of which, fragments still remain.

Hell is different from Hades. Hades is the land of the dead. Hell is a Christian concept conceived by the Catholic church.

Hell is alluded to in the Old Testament so clearly it isn't an invention of the Catholic church. You could argue that it is an invention of the Jewish church, but really many many ancient religions have a version of hell. Hades is one example.

 

[girlygrrl]

The religion that makes the most sense is Taoism. I'm a simulist though.

 

[Talksick]

Hell is alluded to in the Old Testament so clearly it isn't an invention of the Catholic church. You could argue that it is an invention of the Jewish church, but really many many ancient religions have a version of hell. Hades is one example.

Yes but the Jews referred to it as Sheol, which also just means the land of the dead. The concept of burning in an eternal hellfire if you didn't live correctly is a Christian concept that Christ never ever spoke about.

There are many different ideas of the 'underworld' through-out history, but they are where all dead souls go. (Not just the bad ones.)

 

[Jabberwocky]

Gehenna is the word more connected with a place of suffering for the wicked. More connected to Christian hell concepts I think.

 

[TheDeceased]

Eighteen (Chinese) levels of hell

The headless ghost of Yue Fei confronting the recently deceased spirit of Qin Hui in the sixth court. The plaque held by the attendant on the left reads: "Qin Hui's ten wicked crimes." From a 19th century Chinese Hell Scroll.The concept of the eighteen hells started in the Tang Dynasty. The Buddhist text Wen Diyu Jing (問地獄經) mentioned 134 worlds of hell but was simplified to eighteen levels of hell for convenience. The following is a list of common punishments and tortures in the eighteen levels of hell:

Mountain of knives – sinners are made to shed blood by climbing a mountain with sharp blades sticking out. Some depictions show offenders climbing trees with knives instead of mountains.

Cauldron torture – sinners are fried in oil cauldrons. Some depictions show offenders being steamed instead of being fried.

Dismemberment – sinners' bodies are dismembered by various means, including: sawing, carving, slicing into half, mashing/pounding into pulp, crushed by heavy rocks/boulders, being run over by vehicles

Grinding torture – sinners are put into a grinding machine and ground into a bloody pulp

Tortures involving fire

Burning – sinners are set aflame/cast into fiery infernos

Paolao torture – sinners are stripped naked and made to climb a large metal cylinder, with a fire lit at its base.

Boiling liquid torture – sinners have a boiling liquid forced down their throats
Tortures involving removal of body parts/organs

Tongue-ripping

Eye-gouging

Heart-digging

Disembowelment – sinners have their internal organs dug out
Skinning

Slicing off fingers/toes

World of ice – sinners are frozen in ice. Some depictions show unclothed sinners suffering from frostbite in an icy world. The bodies might fall apart or break into pieces.

Scales and hooks torture – sinners have hooks pierced into their bodies and hung upside down. Some depictions show sinners having nails hammered into their bodies.

Pool of blood – sinners are cast into a pool of blood and suffer bloody deaths, such as blood spilling from all body orifices

Tortures involving animals – sinners are trampled by cattle, gored by animals with horns/tusks, mauled/dismembered/eaten by predators, stung/bitten by poisonous species etc.

Chamber of Avici – the period of suffering in this chamber is the longest and it is reserved for sinners who have committed heinous crimes, including the Five Grave Offences

...

satisfied?

 

[TheDeceased]

re: Hades,

Tartarus is the Greek hell, below/within the larger Hades underworld. It is also the word for the Christian hell in early Greek New Testament editions.

concept of burning in an eternal hellfire if you didn't live correctly is a Christian concept that Christ never ever spoke about

Jesus refers to hell recurringly throughout the gospel of Matthew.