| Topic: |
Religions > Bible |
| User: |
"Weatherwax" |
| Date: |
31 Mar 2004 07:17:02 PM |
| Object: |
Re: Does jesus exist? -- DELUSION |
"Elroy Willis" <elo@airmail.net> wrote in message
news:1ojm60l50ct4ieinpr7sqo7h2bf0rco8os@4ax.com...
Codebreaker@bigsecret.com (Not-easily-duped) wrote in
alt.atheism
It was decided that the gentiles shouldn't be forced to live
by the burden of Moses Law nor the jewish culture.
Forced by who? Who do you think would dare try to
enforce some Jewish religious dietary and other laws on
people?
We should also consider that the community in Jerusalem depended
upon Paul raising money from the gentiles for their relief. It
would be against their best interest to impose restrictions upon
gentile converts.
--
Wax
..
--
Elroy Willis
EAP Chief Editor and Newshound
http://web2.airmail.net/~elo/news
.
|
|
| User: "bv_schornak" |
|
| Title: Re: Does jesus exist? -- DELUSION |
30 May 2004 04:55:44 PM |
|
|
Fred Stone wrote:
bv_schornak <nowhere@schornak.de> wrote in news:c9clv3$s2f$03$1@news.t-
online.com:
Bob Crowley wrote:
True we have evidence in the form of historical accounts eg. Josephus
and other sources. There is archaelogical evidence, including the
Wailing Wall, the only part of the old temple still standing.
On the other hand we have existence that Christianity also began
around or before the time of the temple's destruction, since quotes by
both Christian sources and Roman historians, bureaucrats (eg. Pliny
the Younger) indicate Christians were around at that time.
Prior to the the year dot, there is no evidence of a Christian faith,
although there is evidence of Judaism, and Rome, the Maccabees,
Alexander the Great etc. Crucifixion was a Roman custom, apparently
copied from the Carthaginians.
The temple existed, Golgotha can still be seen, the old towns
mentioned eg. Bethelehem, Jericho are still around in one form or
another. The administrative areas eg. Herod's and Pilate's seem to be
accurate. The chief obstacle therefore seems to be the problem of
miracles and predictions, and Christ's alleged existence. And the
Jews were scattered amongst the nations for the better part of 1900
years.
When a movement springs up, there is a founder. Islam has Mohammed,
Buddhism has Guatama Buddha, Communism has Karl Marx, and the Church
of England has Henry VIII with his six wives.
Therefore since Christianity exists, it is likely Christ existed.
Agreed. I don't doubt the existence of Jesus, even if it
can't be proven. A personality cult cannot be based on a
virtual person who never existed.
Why not? By that reasoning, Isis must also have existed, and so did
Hercules.
Isis was a Godess from the beginning. Jesus and Hercules
were humans, both transferred into Gods later on. I will
never accept the myths around both, but in general, each
myth is based on things happening for real, blown up for
generations, until finally the "superhero" with god-like
properties was found.
Maybe you read the Nag Hammadi scrolls - written earlier
than the NT-Gospels. The Jesus in the scrolls looks much
more like a living being than that Jesus in the Gospels.
These scrolls were lost around 150 A.D., so the councils
had no chance to falsify them (they were found in 1945).
They are part of those few documents containing reliable
and _genuine_ texts about Jesus. Most of the other texts
were falsified to match the credo (where the Romans were
the good ones and the Jews the bad ones - kind of stupid
for the leader of a Jewish movement against the Romans).
Are the miracles likely, and if they occurred, what purpose do they
serve? A miracle by definition is something that occurs outside of
the highly regular naturalism that underpins our lives.
And prophecy is a miracle, if accurate, since humans generally have no
way of knowing the future by normal natural means, since the future is
closed to us. Even for the past we have only our own experiences, or
the experiences of others, or a limited view defined by radioactive
decay, the speed of light, the imprint of fossils.
Thus Christ's prediction of the Temple's destruction is as much a
miracle as the turning of water into wine, provided of course He did
in fact predict the quite real destruction of Jerusalem and its
temple. The statement "one stone will not be left standing on top of
another" is born out by the fact the soldiers tore up the foundation
stones to get at the melted gold due to the heat of the intense fire.
Before George Walker Bush started this war against Iraq,
there were a lot of people who "predicted" the situation
we experience today. Is this a miracle or is it a result
of foresighted thinking?
There were lot of others who "predicted" that the invasion would cost
thousands of American lives, that we'd be bogged down with street
fighting for years, that Fallujah would spread and engulf the whole of
Iraq in revolt, that we'd ignite civil war if we "crossed the red
lines" against al Sadr. None of those things have happened.
It's a question of selective memory.
And time - wait and see. I don't believe things, I count
one and one together and say "it might be possible", not
"it will be so"...
It was not a big deal to foresee the outcome of the Iraq
war.
Yeah, toss around enough "predictions", be very broad in claiming that
the prediction matches up *after the fact* and you're there.
The less detailed you are, the higher is the possibility
for a match. Isn't it? ;)
Greetings from Augsburg
Bernhard Schornak
.
|
|
|
| User: "Fred Stone" |
|
| Title: Re: Does jesus exist? -- DELUSION |
30 May 2004 04:04:06 PM |
|
|
bv_schornak <nowhere@schornak.de> wrote in
news:c9dhf4$f61$07$1@news.t-online.com:
Fred Stone wrote:
bv_schornak <nowhere@schornak.de> wrote in
news:c9clv3$s2f$03$1@news.t- online.com:
Bob Crowley wrote:
True we have evidence in the form of historical accounts eg.
Josephus and other sources. There is archaelogical evidence,
including the Wailing Wall, the only part of the old temple still
standing.
On the other hand we have existence that Christianity also began
around or before the time of the temple's destruction, since quotes
by both Christian sources and Roman historians, bureaucrats (eg.
Pliny the Younger) indicate Christians were around at that time.
Prior to the the year dot, there is no evidence of a Christian
faith, although there is evidence of Judaism, and Rome, the
Maccabees, Alexander the Great etc. Crucifixion was a Roman custom,
apparently copied from the Carthaginians.
The temple existed, Golgotha can still be seen, the old towns
mentioned eg. Bethelehem, Jericho are still around in one form or
another. The administrative areas eg. Herod's and Pilate's seem to
be accurate. The chief obstacle therefore seems to be the problem
of miracles and predictions, and Christ's alleged existence. And
the Jews were scattered amongst the nations for the better part of
1900 years.
When a movement springs up, there is a founder. Islam has Mohammed,
Buddhism has Guatama Buddha, Communism has Karl Marx, and the Church
of England has Henry VIII with his six wives.
Therefore since Christianity exists, it is likely Christ existed.
Agreed. I don't doubt the existence of Jesus, even if it
can't be proven. A personality cult cannot be based on a
virtual person who never existed.
Why not? By that reasoning, Isis must also have existed, and so did
Hercules.
Isis was a Godess from the beginning. Jesus and Hercules
were humans, both transferred into Gods later on.
Why is that distinction important to the belief in their respective
cults?
I will
never accept the myths around both, but in general, each
myth is based on things happening for real, blown up for
generations, until finally the "superhero" with god-like
properties was found.
Maybe you read the Nag Hammadi scrolls - written earlier
than the NT-Gospels. The Jesus in the scrolls looks much
more like a living being than that Jesus in the Gospels.
These scrolls were lost around 150 A.D., so the councils
had no chance to falsify them (they were found in 1945).
They are part of those few documents containing reliable
and _genuine_ texts about Jesus. Most of the other texts
were falsified to match the credo (where the Romans were
the good ones and the Jews the bad ones - kind of stupid
for the leader of a Jewish movement against the Romans).
I had thought that the Nag Hammadi texts were much more Gnostic;
supporting more of a mystical than a physical Christ.
--
Fred Stone
aa# 1369
Cthulhu for President! Why vote for a lesser evil?
.
|
|
|
| User: "bv_schornak" |
|
| Title: Re: Does jesus exist? -- DELUSION |
30 May 2004 06:18:35 PM |
|
|
Fred Stone wrote:
bv_schornak <nowhere@schornak.de> wrote in
news:c9dhf4$f61$07$1@news.t-online.com:
Isis was a Godess from the beginning. Jesus and Hercules
were humans, both transferred into Gods later on.
Why is that distinction important to the belief in their respective
cults?
Maybe a God or Godess is a virtual being by its definition?
As - in concurrence to them - Gilgamesh, Hercules, Jesus or
Quetzalcoatl were humans who were ""raised" to Gods _years_
after they lived? Of course it's hard to give proof for the
existence of any of them, but it might also be hard to give
proof they never existed. Unbiased thinking includes to see
everything as possible, unless it is not reasonable. Having
_no_ facts, the only thing we can do is guess. And an exis-
ting Jesus is the same speculation as the non-existing one.
With a non-existing one you might have a problem to explain
why this religion could grow that fast (without a real idol
as its base).
The link you gave in another reply gives plausible proof of
the origin of the Christian religion (I still think there's
a lot of the Aton cult in the Christian / Jewish religion),
but this only affects virtual (spiritual) things. It is not
a proof Jesus never existed.
Maybe you read the Nag Hammadi scrolls - written earlier
than the NT-Gospels. The Jesus in the scrolls looks much
more like a living being than that Jesus in the Gospels.
These scrolls were lost around 150 A.D., so the councils
had no chance to falsify them (they were found in 1945).
They are part of those few documents containing reliable
and _genuine_ texts about Jesus. Most of the other texts
were falsified to match the credo (where the Romans were
the good ones and the Jews the bad ones - kind of stupid
for the leader of a Jewish movement against the Romans).
I had thought that the Nag Hammadi texts were much more Gnostic;
supporting more of a mystical than a physical Christ.
Maybe? <reads a lot> You're probably right, a married Jesus
isn't the proof for being more alive than an unmarried one.
Sorry, mismatched something, had to ask my sources for this
update. My memory needs a "refill" with the latest data...
Greetings from Augsburg
Bernhard Schornak
.
|
|
|
| User: "Eric Gill" |
|
| Title: Re: Does jesus exist? -- DELUSION |
01 Jun 2004 11:17:30 PM |
|
|
bv_schornak <nowhere@schornak.de> wrote in news:c9dmaf$1cg$02$1@news.t-
online.com:
<snip>
. And an exis-
ting Jesus is the same speculation as the non-existing one.
With a non-existing one you might have a problem to explain
why this religion could grow that fast (without a real idol
as its base).
You mean, besides Saul of Tarsus?
<snip>
.
|
|
|
| User: "bv_schornak" |
|
| Title: Re: Does jesus exist? -- DELUSION |
02 Jun 2004 06:33:38 PM |
|
|
Eric Gill wrote:
bv_schornak <nowhere@schornak.de> wrote in news:c9dmaf$1cg$02$1@news.t-
online.com:
<snip>
. And an exis-
ting Jesus is the same speculation as the non-existing one.
With a non-existing one you might have a problem to explain
why this religion could grow that fast (without a real idol
as its base).
You mean, besides Saul of Tarsus?
Let me guess - another "virtual" person?
Greetings from Augsburg
Bernhard Schornak
.
|
|
|
| User: "Eric Gill" |
|
| Title: Re: Does jesus exist? -- DELUSION |
03 Jun 2004 10:51:27 PM |
|
|
bv_schornak <nowhere@schornak.de> wrote in news:c9lkai$b46$01$1@news.t-
online.com:
Eric Gill wrote:
bv_schornak <nowhere@schornak.de> wrote in news:c9dmaf$1cg$02$1@news.t-
online.com:
<snip>
. And an exis-
ting Jesus is the same speculation as the non-existing one.
With a non-existing one you might have a problem to explain
why this religion could grow that fast (without a real idol
as its base).
You mean, besides Saul of Tarsus?
Let me guess - another "virtual" person?
No, I'm speaking of the real founder of Xtianity.
What the hell are you talking about?
.
|
|
|
| User: "bv_schornak" |
|
| Title: Re: Does jesus exist? -- DELUSION |
04 Jun 2004 08:33:53 PM |
|
|
Eric Gill wrote:
bv_schornak <nowhere@schornak.de> wrote in news:c9lkai$b46$01$1@news.t-
online.com:
Eric Gill wrote:
bv_schornak <nowhere@schornak.de> wrote in news:c9dmaf$1cg$02$1@news.t-
online.com:
<snip>
. And an exis-
ting Jesus is the same speculation as the non-existing one.
With a non-existing one you might have a problem to explain
why this religion could grow that fast (without a real idol
as its base).
You mean, besides Saul of Tarsus?
Let me guess - another "virtual" person?
No, I'm speaking of the real founder of Xtianity.
What the hell are you talking about?
About the topic? Everyone is talking about people in
stories who did or didn't exist, so I just wanted to
know what you mean. Tarsus = Antiochia = Juliopolis?
The discussion is about people being virtual or not.
Rabbi Yoshua (Jesus) was not the founder, he was the
guy who delivered a message. What Saul of Tarsus and
other people "made" out of it is another interesting
question. If we think about the fact, that a council
voted "Rabbi Yoshua = God", this might tell us a lot
about the truth of the interpretation of the message
and the falsified stories about Rabbi Yoshua.
Greetings from Augsburg
Bernhard Schornak
.
|
|
|
| User: "Weatherwax" |
|
| Title: Re: Does jesus exist? -- DELUSION |
05 Jun 2004 03:51:19 PM |
|
|
"bv_schornak" <nowhere@schornak.de> wrote in message
news:c9r43u$p4i$07$1@news.t-online.com...
Eric Gill wrote:
bv_schornak <nowhere@schornak.de> wrote in
news:c9lkai$b46$01$1@news.t-
online.com:
Eric Gill wrote:
bv_schornak <nowhere@schornak.de> wrote in
news:c9dmaf$1cg$02$1@news.t-
online.com:
<snip>
. And an exis-
ting Jesus is the same speculation as the non-existing one.
With a non-existing one you might have a problem to explain
why this religion could grow that fast (without a real idol
as its base).
You mean, besides Saul of Tarsus?
Let me guess - another "virtual" person?
No, I'm speaking of the real founder of Xtianity.
What the hell are you talking about?
About the topic? Everyone is talking about people in
stories who did or didn't exist, so I just wanted to
know what you mean. Tarsus = Antiochia = Juliopolis?
Acts 21:39
Paul answered, "I am a Jew from Tarsus in
Cilicia, a citizen of a not insignificant city."
Tarsus was a Greek city in Asia Minor.
The discussion is about people being virtual or not.
Rabbi Yoshua (Jesus) was not the founder, he was the
guy who delivered a message. What Saul of Tarsus and
other people "made" out of it is another interesting
question. If we think about the fact, that a council
voted "Rabbi Yoshua = God", this might tell us a lot
about the truth of the interpretation of the message
and the falsified stories about Rabbi Yoshua.
Jesus may have delivered some message, but Christianity was
founded by Paul of Tarsus.
--
Wax
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Fred Stone" |
|
| Title: Re: Does jesus exist? -- DELUSION |
30 May 2004 06:17:25 PM |
|
|
bv_schornak <nowhere@schornak.de> wrote in news:c9dmaf$1cg$02$1@news.t-
online.com:
Fred Stone wrote:
bv_schornak <nowhere@schornak.de> wrote in
news:c9dhf4$f61$07$1@news.t-online.com:
Isis was a Godess from the beginning. Jesus and Hercules
were humans, both transferred into Gods later on.
Why is that distinction important to the belief in their respective
cults?
Maybe a God or Godess is a virtual being by its definition?
That's why I tend to think that it doesn't make a difference to the growth
of the cult, once the belief is established. Remember that hearsay was much
more important in the transmission of the legend than personal experience.
"I heard so-and-so telling about how he heard from such-and-such about this
new healer in Jerusalem".
As - in concurrence to them - Gilgamesh, Hercules, Jesus or
Quetzalcoatl were humans who were ""raised" to Gods _years_
after they lived? Of course it's hard to give proof for the
existence of any of them, but it might also be hard to give
proof they never existed. Unbiased thinking includes to see
everything as possible, unless it is not reasonable.
Provisional skepticism is at least as reasonable as provisional acceptance.
Having _no_ facts, the only thing we can do is guess.
It's not a question of *no* facts, we have a number of facts, among them
that the stories of Jesus are clearly of a legendary character, repeating
bits of previous legendary characters with enough "local color" thrown in
for verisimilitude. And that doesn't imply that the story was a deliberate
fabrication either - syncretism doesn't have to be intentional.
And an exis-
ting Jesus is the same speculation as the non-existing one.
With a non-existing one you might have a problem to explain
why this religion could grow that fast (without a real idol
as its base).
And that leads back to my original point - a "real" idol isn't functionally
any different from a "virtual" one. Certainly the "virtual" Isis cult grew
and flourished just as well as any cult of a "real" hero. Once they take on
cultic status, the reality of their beginnings becomes irrelevant, IMO.
The link you gave in another reply gives plausible proof of
the origin of the Christian religion (I still think there's
a lot of the Aton cult in the Christian / Jewish religion),
but this only affects virtual (spiritual) things. It is not
a proof Jesus never existed.
It's more a demonstration that his real existence, if any, is lost in
legendary accretions. And the story is based on legends that clearly were
successful in attracting cult followers of their own.
Maybe you read the Nag Hammadi scrolls - written earlier
than the NT-Gospels. The Jesus in the scrolls looks much
more like a living being than that Jesus in the Gospels.
These scrolls were lost around 150 A.D., so the councils
had no chance to falsify them (they were found in 1945).
They are part of those few documents containing reliable
and _genuine_ texts about Jesus. Most of the other texts
were falsified to match the credo (where the Romans were
the good ones and the Jews the bad ones - kind of stupid
for the leader of a Jewish movement against the Romans).
I had thought that the Nag Hammadi texts were much more Gnostic;
supporting more of a mystical than a physical Christ.
Maybe? <reads a lot> You're probably right, a married Jesus
isn't the proof for being more alive than an unmarried one.
Sorry, mismatched something, had to ask my sources for this
update. My memory needs a "refill" with the latest data...
--
Fred Stone
aa# 1369
Cthulhu for President! Why vote for a lesser evil?
.
|
|
|
| User: "bv_schornak" |
|
| Title: Re: Does jesus exist? -- DELUSION |
31 May 2004 09:45:20 AM |
|
|
Fred Stone wrote:
bv_schornak <nowhere@schornak.de> wrote in news:c9dmaf$1cg$02$1@news.t-
online.com:
Fred Stone wrote:
bv_schornak <nowhere@schornak.de> wrote in
news:c9dhf4$f61$07$1@news.t-online.com:
Isis was a Godess from the beginning. Jesus and Hercules
were humans, both transferred into Gods later on.
Why is that distinction important to the belief in their respective
cults?
Maybe a God or Godess is a virtual being by its definition?
That's why I tend to think that it doesn't make a difference to the growth
of the cult, once the belief is established. Remember that hearsay was much
more important in the transmission of the legend than personal experience.
"I heard so-and-so telling about how he heard from such-and-such about this
new healer in Jerusalem".
Ok. My thought would be the healer did exist, because
people were speaking of him. It's one of two choices,
maybe like the glass is half full (or empty). What is
reasonable for me might be unreasonable for others.
As - in concurrence to them - Gilgamesh, Hercules, Jesus or
Quetzalcoatl were humans who were ""raised" to Gods _years_
after they lived? Of course it's hard to give proof for the
existence of any of them, but it might also be hard to give
proof they never existed. Unbiased thinking includes to see
everything as possible, unless it is not reasonable.
Provisional skepticism is at least as reasonable as provisional acceptance.
Of course. I don't want to convince you of anything -
I just tell you why I _think_ Jesus was a real person
(without acceptance of any supernatural properties).
Having _no_ facts, the only thing we can do is guess.
It's not a question of *no* facts, we have a number of facts, among them
that the stories of Jesus are clearly of a legendary character, repeating
bits of previous legendary characters with enough "local color" thrown in
for verisimilitude. And that doesn't imply that the story was a deliberate
fabrication either - syncretism doesn't have to be intentional.
A lot of good arguments - and I would agree with most
of them. OTOH, if I talk to a Christian, s/he will be
more open to my words if I accept Jesus as given, but
show the flaws in the logical building around him. If
I deny his existence in general, this will "lock" the
ears of most Christians immediately, so there is _no_
discussion at all - accepting his existence is a step
towards someone who is a believer. Sign of good will,
to say so.
And an exis-
ting Jesus is the same speculation as the non-existing one.
With a non-existing one you might have a problem to explain
why this religion could grow that fast (without a real idol
as its base).
And that leads back to my original point - a "real" idol isn't functionally
any different from a "virtual" one. Certainly the "virtual" Isis cult grew
and flourished just as well as any cult of a "real" hero. Once they take on
cultic status, the reality of their beginnings becomes irrelevant, IMO.
Sounds reasonable, but ancient people did distinguish
between humans with god-like properties and real Gods
or Godesses. So there must be a _small_ core of truth
behind the "heroes". If we leave supernatural aspects
out of our evaluation - this is one reason for me not
to exclude the thought: There might have been a model
for them. Real humans who lived an ordinary life, but
did something unusual - so people started to talk and
add all those supernatural things (-> hearsay). It is
not that different than today. We also have our VIPs,
but most people can distinguish between them and some
fictional persons we can see in TV or cinemas.
Maybe it is like the story of Troja, only existing in
Homer's heroic saga. If Heinrich Schliemann would not
have had the thought this story could contain a small
snippet of truth, we would not know Troja existed for
real in ancient times.
The link you gave in another reply gives plausible proof of
the origin of the Christian religion (I still think there's
a lot of the Aton cult in the Christian / Jewish religion),
but this only affects virtual (spiritual) things. It is not
a proof Jesus never existed.
It's more a demonstration that his real existence, if any, is lost in
legendary accretions. And the story is based on legends that clearly were
successful in attracting cult followers of their own.
Of course. Those who can make profit with the beliefs
of others will do everything to get might and riches,
the Catholic religion is the best example.
Greetings from Augsburg
Bernhard Schornak
.
|
|
|
| User: "Libertarius" |
|
| Title: Re: Does jesus exist? -- DELUSION |
31 May 2004 06:44:25 PM |
|
|
bv_schornak wrote:
Fred Stone wrote:
bv_schornak <nowhere@schornak.de> wrote in news:c9dmaf$1cg$02$1@news.t-
online.com:
Fred Stone wrote:
bv_schornak <nowhere@schornak.de> wrote in
news:c9dhf4$f61$07$1@news.t-online.com:
Isis was a Godess from the beginning. Jesus and Hercules
were humans, both transferred into Gods later on.
Why is that distinction important to the belief in their respective
cults?
Maybe a God or Godess is a virtual being by its definition?
That's why I tend to think that it doesn't make a difference to the growth
of the cult, once the belief is established. Remember that hearsay was much
more important in the transmission of the legend than personal experience.
"I heard so-and-so telling about how he heard from such-and-such about this
new healer in Jerusalem".
Ok. My thought would be the healer did exist, because
people were speaking of him. It's one of two choices,
maybe like the glass is half full (or empty). What is
reasonable for me might be unreasonable for others.
As - in concurrence to them - Gilgamesh, Hercules, Jesus or
Quetzalcoatl were humans who were ""raised" to Gods _years_
after they lived? Of course it's hard to give proof for the
existence of any of them, but it might also be hard to give
proof they never existed. Unbiased thinking includes to see
everything as possible, unless it is not reasonable.
Provisional skepticism is at least as reasonable as provisional acceptance.
Of course. I don't want to convince you of anything -
I just tell you why I _think_ Jesus was a real person
(without acceptance of any supernatural properties).
Having _no_ facts, the only thing we can do is guess.
It's not a question of *no* facts, we have a number of facts, among them
that the stories of Jesus are clearly of a legendary character, repeating
bits of previous legendary characters with enough "local color" thrown in
for verisimilitude. And that doesn't imply that the story was a deliberate
fabrication either - syncretism doesn't have to be intentional.
A lot of good arguments - and I would agree with most
of them. OTOH, if I talk to a Christian, s/he will be
more open to my words if I accept Jesus as given, but
show the flaws in the logical building around him. If
I deny his existence in general, this will "lock" the
ears of most Christians immediately, so there is _no_
discussion at all - accepting his existence is a step
towards someone who is a believer. Sign of good will,
to say so.
And an exis-
ting Jesus is the same speculation as the non-existing one.
With a non-existing one you might have a problem to explain
why this religion could grow that fast (without a real idol
as its base).
And that leads back to my original point - a "real" idol isn't functionally
any different from a "virtual" one. Certainly the "virtual" Isis cult grew
and flourished just as well as any cult of a "real" hero. Once they take on
cultic status, the reality of their beginnings becomes irrelevant, IMO.
Sounds reasonable, but ancient people did distinguish
between humans with god-like properties and real Gods
or Godesses.
===>Such as Rome's divine emperors? ;-) -- L.
So there must be a _small_ core of truth
behind the "heroes". If we leave supernatural aspects
out of our evaluation - this is one reason for me not
to exclude the thought: There might have been a model
for them. Real humans who lived an ordinary life, but
did something unusual - so people started to talk and
add all those supernatural things (-> hearsay). It is
not that different than today. We also have our VIPs,
but most people can distinguish between them and some
fictional persons we can see in TV or cinemas.
Maybe it is like the story of Troja, only existing in
Homer's heroic saga. If Heinrich Schliemann would not
have had the thought this story could contain a small
snippet of truth, we would not know Troja existed for
real in ancient times.
The link you gave in another reply gives plausible proof of
the origin of the Christian religion (I still think there's
a lot of the Aton cult in the Christian / Jewish religion),
but this only affects virtual (spiritual) things. It is not
a proof Jesus never existed.
It's more a demonstration that his real existence, if any, is lost in
legendary accretions. And the story is based on legends that clearly were
successful in attracting cult followers of their own.
Of course. Those who can make profit with the beliefs
of others will do everything to get might and riches,
the Catholic religion is the best example.
Greetings from Augsburg
Bernhard Schornak
.
|
|
|
| User: "bv_schornak" |
|
| Title: Re: Does jesus exist? -- DELUSION |
01 Jun 2004 02:05:53 AM |
|
|
Libertarius wrote:
bv_schornak wrote:
Fred Stone wrote:
bv_schornak <nowhere@schornak.de> wrote in news:c9dmaf$1cg$02$1@news.t-
online.com:
Fred Stone wrote:
bv_schornak <nowhere@schornak.de> wrote in
news:c9dhf4$f61$07$1@news.t-online.com:
Isis was a Godess from the beginning. Jesus and Hercules
were humans, both transferred into Gods later on.
Why is that distinction important to the belief in their respective
cults?
Maybe a God or Godess is a virtual being by its definition?
That's why I tend to think that it doesn't make a difference to the growth
of the cult, once the belief is established. Remember that hearsay was much
more important in the transmission of the legend than personal experience.
"I heard so-and-so telling about how he heard from such-and-such about this
new healer in Jerusalem".
Ok. My thought would be the healer did exist, because
people were speaking of him. It's one of two choices,
maybe like the glass is half full (or empty). What is
reasonable for me might be unreasonable for others.
As - in concurrence to them - Gilgamesh, Hercules, Jesus or
Quetzalcoatl were humans who were ""raised" to Gods _years_
after they lived? Of course it's hard to give proof for the
existence of any of them, but it might also be hard to give
proof they never existed. Unbiased thinking includes to see
everything as possible, unless it is not reasonable.
Provisional skepticism is at least as reasonable as provisional acceptance.
Of course. I don't want to convince you of anything -
I just tell you why I _think_ Jesus was a real person
(without acceptance of any supernatural properties).
Having _no_ facts, the only thing we can do is guess.
It's not a question of *no* facts, we have a number of facts, among them
that the stories of Jesus are clearly of a legendary character, repeating
bits of previous legendary characters with enough "local color" thrown in
for verisimilitude. And that doesn't imply that the story was a deliberate
fabrication either - syncretism doesn't have to be intentional.
A lot of good arguments - and I would agree with most
of them. OTOH, if I talk to a Christian, s/he will be
more open to my words if I accept Jesus as given, but
show the flaws in the logical building around him. If
I deny his existence in general, this will "lock" the
ears of most Christians immediately, so there is _no_
discussion at all - accepting his existence is a step
towards someone who is a believer. Sign of good will,
to say so.
And an exis-
ting Jesus is the same speculation as the non-existing one.
With a non-existing one you might have a problem to explain
why this religion could grow that fast (without a real idol
as its base).
And that leads back to my original point - a "real" idol isn't functionally
any different from a "virtual" one. Certainly the "virtual" Isis cult grew
and flourished just as well as any cult of a "real" hero. Once they take on
cultic status, the reality of their beginnings becomes irrelevant, IMO.
Sounds reasonable, but ancient people did distinguish
between humans with god-like properties and real Gods
or Godesses.
===>Such as Rome's divine emperors? ;-) -- L.
Which of them did _not_ exist?
Or, better - which of them was a "virtual" person?
Greetings from Augsburg
Bernhard Schornak
.
|
|
|
| User: "Libertarius" |
|
| Title: Re: Does jesus exist? -- DELUSION |
01 Jun 2004 02:31:47 PM |
|
|
bv_schornak wrote:
Libertarius wrote:
bv_schornak wrote:
Fred Stone wrote:
bv_schornak <nowhere@schornak.de> wrote in news:c9dmaf$1cg$02$1@news.t-
online.com:
Fred Stone wrote:
bv_schornak <nowhere@schornak.de> wrote in
news:c9dhf4$f61$07$1@news.t-online.com:
Isis was a Godess from the beginning. Jesus and Hercules
were humans, both transferred into Gods later on.
Why is that distinction important to the belief in their respective
cults?
Maybe a God or Godess is a virtual being by its definition?
That's why I tend to think that it doesn't make a difference to the growth
of the cult, once the belief is established. Remember that hearsay was much
more important in the transmission of the legend than personal experience.
"I heard so-and-so telling about how he heard from such-and-such about this
new healer in Jerusalem".
Ok. My thought would be the healer did exist, because
people were speaking of him. It's one of two choices,
maybe like the glass is half full (or empty). What is
reasonable for me might be unreasonable for others.
As - in concurrence to them - Gilgamesh, Hercules, Jesus or
Quetzalcoatl were humans who were ""raised" to Gods _years_
after they lived? Of course it's hard to give proof for the
existence of any of them, but it might also be hard to give
proof they never existed. Unbiased thinking includes to see
everything as possible, unless it is not reasonable.
Provisional skepticism is at least as reasonable as provisional acceptance.
Of course. I don't want to convince you of anything -
I just tell you why I _think_ Jesus was a real person
(without acceptance of any supernatural properties).
Having _no_ facts, the only thing we can do is guess.
It's not a question of *no* facts, we have a number of facts, among them
that the stories of Jesus are clearly of a legendary character, repeating
bits of previous legendary characters with enough "local color" thrown in
for verisimilitude. And that doesn't imply that the story was a deliberate
fabrication either - syncretism doesn't have to be intentional.
A lot of good arguments - and I would agree with most
of them. OTOH, if I talk to a Christian, s/he will be
more open to my words if I accept Jesus as given, but
show the flaws in the logical building around him. If
I deny his existence in general, this will "lock" the
ears of most Christians immediately, so there is _no_
discussion at all - accepting his existence is a step
towards someone who is a believer. Sign of good will,
to say so.
And an exis-
ting Jesus is the same speculation as the non-existing one.
With a non-existing one you might have a problem to explain
why this religion could grow that fast (without a real idol
as its base).
And that leads back to my original point - a "real" idol isn't functionally
any different from a "virtual" one. Certainly the "virtual" Isis cult grew
and flourished just as well as any cult of a "real" hero. Once they take on
cultic status, the reality of their beginnings becomes irrelevant, IMO.
Sounds reasonable, but ancient people did distinguish
between humans with god-like properties and real Gods
or Godesses.
===>Such as Rome's divine emperors? ;-) -- L.
Which of them did _not_ exist?
Or, better - which of them was a "virtual" person?
===>They were all real persons, worshipped as gods,
not "humans with god-like properties".
So much for "distinguishing" by "ancient people". -- L.
Greetings from Augsburg
Bernhard Schornak
.
|
|
|
| User: "bv_schornak" |
|
| Title: Re: Does jesus exist? -- DELUSION |
01 Jun 2004 06:10:55 PM |
|
|
Libertarius wrote:
bv_schornak wrote:
Libertarius wrote:
bv_schornak wrote:
Fred Stone wrote:
bv_schornak <nowhere@schornak.de> wrote in news:c9dmaf$1cg$02$1@news.t-
online.com:
Fred Stone wrote:
bv_schornak <nowhere@schornak.de> wrote in
news:c9dhf4$f61$07$1@news.t-online.com:
Isis was a Godess from the beginning. Jesus and Hercules
were humans, both transferred into Gods later on.
Why is that distinction important to the belief in their respective
cults?
Maybe a God or Godess is a virtual being by its definition?
That's why I tend to think that it doesn't make a difference to the growth
of the cult, once the belief is established. Remember that hearsay was much
more important in the transmission of the legend than personal experience.
"I heard so-and-so telling about how he heard from such-and-such about this
new healer in Jerusalem".
Ok. My thought would be the healer did exist, because
people were speaking of him. It's one of two choices,
maybe like the glass is half full (or empty). What is
reasonable for me might be unreasonable for others.
As - in concurrence to them - Gilgamesh, Hercules, Jesus or
Quetzalcoatl were humans who were ""raised" to Gods _years_
after they lived? Of course it's hard to give proof for the
existence of any of them, but it might also be hard to give
proof they never existed. Unbiased thinking includes to see
everything as possible, unless it is not reasonable.
Provisional skepticism is at least as reasonable as provisional acceptance.
Of course. I don't want to convince you of anything -
I just tell you why I _think_ Jesus was a real person
(without acceptance of any supernatural properties).
Having _no_ facts, the only thing we can do is guess.
It's not a question of *no* facts, we have a number of facts, among them
that the stories of Jesus are clearly of a legendary character, repeating
bits of previous legendary characters with enough "local color" thrown in
for verisimilitude. And that doesn't imply that the story was a deliberate
fabrication either - syncretism doesn't have to be intentional.
A lot of good arguments - and I would agree with most
of them. OTOH, if I talk to a Christian, s/he will be
more open to my words if I accept Jesus as given, but
show the flaws in the logical building around him. If
I deny his existence in general, this will "lock" the
ears of most Christians immediately, so there is _no_
discussion at all - accepting his existence is a step
towards someone who is a believer. Sign of good will,
to say so.
And an exis-
ting Jesus is the same speculation as the non-existing one.
With a non-existing one you might have a problem to explain
why this religion could grow that fast (without a real idol
as its base).
And that leads back to my original point - a "real" idol isn't functionally
any different from a "virtual" one. Certainly the "virtual" Isis cult grew
and flourished just as well as any cult of a "real" hero. Once they take on
cultic status, the reality of their beginnings becomes irrelevant, IMO.
Sounds reasonable, but ancient people did distinguish
between humans with god-like properties and real Gods
or Godesses.
===>Such as Rome's divine emperors? ;-) -- L.
Which of them did _not_ exist?
Or, better - which of them was a "virtual" person?
===>They were all real persons, worshipped as gods,
not "humans with god-like properties".
So much for "distinguishing" by "ancient people". -- L.
:)
I think I've got that in 1965 or so, while we learned it at school.
Meanwhile you should know: I don't believe in supernatural events -
they all can be explained in some way. But if we cut all the super-
stitious stuff off - the remains _may_ tell us there was a "model".
But this is - of course - a thing no one can prove. It is just more
convenient, if you talk with Christians, not to doubt the existence
of their greatest idol. Kind of being polite...
Greetings from Augsburg
Bernhard Schornak
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Libertarius" |
|
| Title: Re: Does jesus exist? -- DELUSION |
30 May 2004 03:37:30 PM |
|
|
Fred Stone wrote:
bv_schornak <nowhere@schornak.de> wrote in news:c9clv3$s2f$03$1@news.t-
online.com:
Bob Crowley wrote:
True we have evidence in the form of historical accounts eg. Josephus
and other sources. There is archaelogical evidence, including the
Wailing Wall, the only part of the old temple still standing.
On the other hand we have existence that Christianity also began
around or before the time of the temple's destruction, since quotes by
both Christian sources and Roman historians, bureaucrats (eg. Pliny
the Younger) indicate Christians were around at that time.
Prior to the the year dot, there is no evidence of a Christian faith,
although there is evidence of Judaism, and Rome, the Maccabees,
Alexander the Great etc. Crucifixion was a Roman custom, apparently
copied from the Carthaginians.
The temple existed, Golgotha can still be seen, the old towns
mentioned eg. Bethelehem, Jericho are still around in one form or
another. The administrative areas eg. Herod's and Pilate's seem to be
accurate. The chief obstacle therefore seems to be the problem of
miracles and predictions, and Christ's alleged existence. And the
Jews were scattered amongst the nations for the better part of 1900
years.
When a movement springs up, there is a founder. Islam has Mohammed,
Buddhism has Guatama Buddha, Communism has Karl Marx, and the Church
of England has Henry VIII with his six wives.
Therefore since Christianity exists, it is likely Christ existed.
Agreed. I don't doubt the existence of Jesus, even if it
can't be proven. A personality cult cannot be based on a
virtual person who never existed.
Why not? By that reasoning, Isis must also have existed, and so did
Hercules.
Are the miracles likely, and if they occurred, what purpose do they
serve? A miracle by definition is something that occurs outside of
the highly regular naturalism that underpins our lives.
And prophecy is a miracle, if accurate, since humans generally have no
way of knowing the future by normal natural means, since the future is
closed to us. Even for the past we have only our own experiences, or
the experiences of others, or a limited view defined by radioactive
decay, the speed of light, the imprint of fossils.
Thus Christ's prediction of the Temple's destruction is as much a
miracle as the turning of water into wine, provided of course He did
in fact predict the quite real destruction of Jerusalem and its
temple. The statement "one stone will not be left standing on top of
another" is born out by the fact the soldiers tore up the foundation
stones to get at the melted gold due to the heat of the intense fire.
Before George Walker Bush started this war against Iraq,
there were a lot of people who "predicted" the situation
we experience today. Is this a miracle or is it a result
of foresighted thinking?
There were lot of others who "predicted" that the invasion would cost
thousands of American lives, that we'd be bogged down with street
fighting for years, that Fallujah would spread and engulf the whole of
Iraq in revolt, that we'd ignite civil war if we "crossed the red
lines" against al Sadr. None of those things have happened.
It's a question of selective memory.
It was not a big deal to foresee the outcome of the Iraq
war.
Yeah, toss around enough "predictions", be very broad in claiming that
the prediction matches up *after the fact* and you're there.
===>Here is one:
The Spirit of Prophecy tells me to declare to the world:
there will be earthquakes, hurricanes and devastating tornadoes,
a major meteor shower, the Sun will grow dark, followed in just two
weeks
by a darkening of the Moon,
and famines and diseases and rumors of diseases,
and news of a beloved child who disappears from heartbroken parents,
before the coming of a democratic leadership in Iraq.
Libertarius
=====================
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Vince Barmann" |
|
| Title: Re: Does jesus exist? -- DELUSION |
30 May 2004 12:31:46 PM |
|
|
Fred Stone wrote:
bv_schornak <nowhere@schornak.de> wrote in news:c9clv3$s2f$03$1@news.t-
online.com:
Bob Crowley wrote:
True we have evidence in the form of historical accounts eg. Josephus
and other sources. There is archaelogical evidence, including the
Wailing Wall, the only part of the old temple still standing.
On the other hand we have existence that Christianity also began
around or before the time of the temple's destruction, since quotes by
both Christian sources and Roman historians, bureaucrats (eg. Pliny
the Younger) indicate Christians were around at that time.
Prior to the the year dot, there is no evidence of a Christian faith,
although there is evidence of Judaism, and Rome, the Maccabees,
Alexander the Great etc. Crucifixion was a Roman custom, apparently
copied from the Carthaginians.
The temple existed, Golgotha can still be seen, the old towns
mentioned eg. Bethelehem, Jericho are still around in one form or
another. The administrative areas eg. Herod's and Pilate's seem to be
accurate. The chief obstacle therefore seems to be the problem of
miracles and predictions, and Christ's alleged existence. And the
Jews were scattered amongst the nations for the better part of 1900
years.
When a movement springs up, there is a founder. Islam has Mohammed,
Buddhism has Guatama Buddha, Communism has Karl Marx, and the Church
of England has Henry VIII with his six wives.
Therefore since Christianity exists, it is likely Christ existed.
Agreed. I don't doubt the existence of Jesus, even if it
can't be proven. A personality cult cannot be based on a
virtual person who never existed.>
Why not? By that reasoning, Isis must also have existed, and so did
Hercules.
No, there's a qualitative difference there. Isis was not fixed in time
and place. The Story of the Egptian deities are referred to as always
"in the before times", so to speak.
I admit that when writes historical fiction, time and place are
preserved as part of the story line, which could account for some
biblical paralleles with history, but I doubt all. And it seems
unlikely that a totally invented "Jesus myth" would have sprung up so
suddenly in a nearly contemporaneous culture.
One parallel might be Haile Selassi, but his physical existence is
hardly disputable.
Also, Some hulky guy named "hercules" might have existed, whose feats
of strength were then embroidered and fictionalized later. Look what
Malory did with Arthur.
When a people adopts a legend, most often they adapt it to their own
culture and location. The Greek gods became Roman, The Hermetic
religion transformed several times to adapt to existing pantheons. Same
with cultural legends of heroes.
In the case of Arthur, there are only two pieces of evidence that point
to there having been a real person, 1) at some point all over the
British isles, all of a sudden there were a lot of babies being named
Artur (Athwyr, Artor, etc.) Clearly a lot of people were impressed by
this Arthur, fictional or not. 2) although many disparate cultures took
on the Arthurian legends, all variations have him being born in Tintagel
castle. In other legends, each culture tries to lay claim to the
birthplace or stomping grounds of their hero. Not much to go on, I
agree, but it does lend credence.
Jesus' reported life has far more of this element of time and place than
do most legends, and the suddenness of the appearance of Christianity
also points to the existence of a real person.
Likewise, the possibility of a real Odysseus is enhanced by his linkage
to time and place, and the fact that some of the locations described by
Homer seem to be real. Either Homer went on a voyage to record the
background of the tale, or someone else did and he wove his tale around
that account. Odysseus may well have existed, even though we have only
the one literary work to go on.
As it was no big deal to foresee the outcome of the
permanent resistance of the Jews against the Romans - it
only was the question "How long will the Romans tolerate
our resistance before they really _do_ something?".
Where is the miracle? Did Jesus predict an accurate date
and time of the destruction? Even that would not make it
a miracle, it would be a case of precognition, belonging
to para-psychological research.
I have to agree with this position. There is a possibly true story of
the book about a large ship being sunk by an iceberg, "The Wreck of the
Titan" 14 years before the Titanic. Add the fact that huger and huger
ships were being built at the time, with huger and huger names, to the
basic human story of hubris as applied to human engineering, and it
isn't quite so farfetched.
So the question becomes again one of miracles, and whether they are
possible, and if they occur. Now I believe we have one occurring
about ten miles or so from my home, in the form of blood weeping out
of a crucifix or statue of the crucified Christ.
The only catch to this is, that this exact phenomenon of an icon
bleeding or crying has been observed and debunked many, many times. God
clearly needs some new material; or -- it's another hoax. If God wants
us to rally around a miracle, I think it should be a much less subtle
and reproduceable one.
Vince B.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Fred Stone" |
|
| Title: Re: Does jesus exist? -- DELUSION |
30 May 2004 12:45:20 PM |
|
|
Vince Barmann <vbarMyFingermann@earthlink.net> wrote in
news:6Uouc.31161$zO3.26689@newsread2.news.atl.earthlink.net:
Fred Stone wrote:
bv_schornak <nowhere@schornak.de> wrote in
news:c9clv3$s2f$03$1@news.t- online.com:
Bob Crowley wrote:
True we have evidence in the form of historical accounts eg.
Josephus and other sources. There is archaelogical evidence,
including the Wailing Wall, the only part of the old temple still
standing.
On the other hand we have existence that Christianity also began
around or before the time of the temple's destruction, since quotes
by both Christian sources and Roman historians, bureaucrats (eg.
Pliny the Younger) indicate Christians were around at that time.
Prior to the the year dot, there is no evidence of a Christian
faith, although there is evidence of Judaism, and Rome, the
Maccabees, Alexander the Great etc. Crucifixion was a Roman custom,
apparently copied from the Carthaginians.
The temple existed, Golgotha can still be seen, the old towns
mentioned eg. Bethelehem, Jericho are still around in one form or
another. The administrative areas eg. Herod's and Pilate's seem to
be accurate. The chief obstacle therefore seems to be the problem
of miracles and predictions, and Christ's alleged existence. And
the Jews were scattered amongst the nations for the better part of
1900 years.
When a movement springs up, there is a founder. Islam has Mohammed,
Buddhism has Guatama Buddha, Communism has Karl Marx, and the Church
of England has Henry VIII with his six wives.
Therefore since Christianity exists, it is likely Christ existed.
Agreed. I don't doubt the existence of Jesus, even if it
can't be proven. A personality cult cannot be based on a
virtual person who never existed.>
Why not? By that reasoning, Isis must also have existed, and so did
Hercules.
No, there's a qualitative difference there. Isis was not fixed in
time and place. The Story of the Egptian deities are referred to as
always "in the before times", so to speak.
I admit that when writes historical fiction, time and place are
preserved as part of the story line, which could account for some
biblical paralleles with history, but I doubt all. And it seems
unlikely that a totally invented "Jesus myth" would have sprung up so
suddenly in a nearly contemporaneous culture.
One parallel might be Haile Selassi, but his physical existence is
hardly disputable.
Also, Some hulky guy named "hercules" might have existed, whose feats
of strength were then embroidered and fictionalized later. Look what
Malory did with Arthur.
There are several hypotheses of the origin of the Hercules legends.
When a people adopts a legend, most often they adapt it to their own
culture and location. The Greek gods became Roman, The Hermetic
religion transformed several times to adapt to existing pantheons.
Same with cultural legends of heroes.
This also apparantly happened with Jesus. While the particular stories
are localized to that time and region, they are very closely parallel to
the Horus legend and that of Mithras.
Also see:
http://home.earthlink.net/~pgwhacker/ChristianOrigins/
In the case of Arthur, there are only two pieces of evidence that
point to there having been a real person, 1) at some point all over
the British isles, all of a sudden there were a lot of babies being
named Artur (Athwyr, Artor, etc.) Clearly a lot of people were
impressed by this Arthur, fictional or not. 2) although many
disparate cultures took on the Arthurian legends, all variations have
him being born in Tintagel castle. In other legends, each culture
tries to lay claim to the birthplace or stomping grounds of their
hero. Not much to go on, I agree, but it does lend credence.
Jesus' reported life has far more of this element of time and place
than do most legends, and the suddenness of the appearance of
Christianity also points to the existence of a real person.
Except for the anachronisms in the particulars of the reported life of
Jesus, as if they were composed from bits of legend mixed with details
of recent history about fifty or sixty years later than the events they
purport to retell.
Likewise, the possibility of a real Odysseus is enhanced by his
linkage to time and place, and the fact that some of the locations
described by Homer seem to be real. Either Homer went on a voyage to
record the background of the tale, or someone else did and he wove his
tale around that account. Odysseus may well have existed, even though
we have only the one literary work to go on.
As it was no big deal to foresee the outcome of the
permanent resistance of the Jews against the Romans - it
only was the question "How long will the Romans tolerate
our resistance before they really _do_ something?".
Where is the miracle? Did Jesus predict an accurate date
and time of the destruction? Even that would not make it
a miracle, it would be a case of precognition, belonging
to para-psychological research.
I have to agree with this position. There is a possibly true story of
the book about a large ship being sunk by an iceberg, "The Wreck of
the Titan" 14 years before the Titanic. Add the fact that huger and
huger ships were being built at the time, with huger and huger names,
to the basic human story of hubris as applied to human engineering,
and it isn't quite so farfetched.
So the question becomes again one of miracles, and whether they are
possible, and if they occur. Now I believe we have one occurring
about ten miles or so from my home, in the form of blood weeping out
of a crucifix or statue of the crucified Christ.
The only catch to this is, that this exact phenomenon of an icon
bleeding or crying has been observed and debunked many, many times.
God clearly needs some new material; or -- it's another hoax. If God
wants us to rally around a miracle, I think it should be a much less
subtle and reproduceable one.
Vince B.
--
Fred Stone
aa# 1369
Cthulhu for President! Why vote for a lesser evil?
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Libertarius" |
|
| Title: Re: Does jesus exist? -- DELUSION |
30 May 2004 03:25:57 PM |
|
|
bv_schornak wrote:
Bob Crowley wrote:
True we have evidence in the form of historical accounts eg. Josephus
and other sources. There is archaelogical evidence, including the
Wailing Wall, the only part of the old temple still standing.
On the other hand we have existence that Christianity also began
around or before the time of the temple's destruction, since quotes by
both Christian sources and Roman historians, bureaucrats (eg. Pliny
the Younger) indicate Christians were around at that time.
Prior to the the year dot, there is no evidence of a Christian faith,
although there is evidence of Judaism, and Rome, the Maccabees,
Alexander the Great etc. Crucifixion was a Roman custom, apparently
copied from the Carthaginians.
The temple existed, Golgotha can still be seen, the old towns
mentioned eg. Bethelehem, Jericho are still around in one form or
another. The administrative areas eg. Herod's and Pilate's seem to be
accurate. The chief obstacle therefore seems to be the problem of
miracles and predictions, and Christ's alleged existence. And the
Jews were scattered amongst the nations for the better part of 1900
years.
When a movement springs up, there is a founder. Islam has Mohammed,
Buddhism has Guatama Buddha, Communism has Karl Marx, and the Church
of England has Henry VIII with his six wives.
Therefore since Christianity exists, it is likely Christ existed.
Agreed. I don't doubt the existence of Jesus, even if it
can't be proven. A personality cult cannot be based on a
virtual person who never existed.
===>Check into the history of religions.
Did Osiris, Attis, Adonis, Dionysus, Mithras, Krishna, etc.
exist???
Was there really a man named "EBION"???
What about King Arthur and his Round Table knights??? -- L.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Bob Crowley" |
|
| Title: Re: Does jesus exist? -- DELUSION |
03 Jun 2004 08:21:19 AM |
|
|
Libertarius <Libertarius@Nothing_But_The.Truth> wrote in message news:<40BA4355.F37FD17D@Nothing_But_The.Truth>...
bv_schornak wrote:
Bob Crowley wrote:
True we have evidence in the form of historical accounts eg. Josephus
and other sources. There is archaelogical evidence, including the
Wailing Wall, the only part of the old temple still standing.
On the other hand we have existence that Christianity also began
around or before the time of the temple's destruction, since quotes by
both Christian sources and Roman historians, bureaucrats (eg. Pliny
the Younger) indicate Christians were around at that time.
Prior to the the year dot, there is no evidence of a Christian faith,
although there is evidence of Judaism, and Rome, the Maccabees,
Alexander the Great etc. Crucifixion was a Roman custom, apparently
copied from the Carthaginians.
The temple existed, Golgotha can still be seen, the old towns
mentioned eg. Bethelehem, Jericho are still around in one form or
another. The administrative areas eg. Herod's and Pilate's seem to be
accurate. The chief obstacle therefore seems to be the problem of
miracles and predictions, and Christ's alleged existence. And the
Jews were scattered amongst the nations for the better part of 1900
years.
When a movement springs up, there is a founder. Islam has Mohammed,
Buddhism has Guatama Buddha, Communism has Karl Marx, and the Church
of England has Henry VIII with his six wives.
Therefore since Christianity exists, it is likely Christ existed.
Agreed. I don't doubt the existence of Jesus, even if it
can't be proven. A personality cult cannot be based on a
virtual person who never existed.
===>Check into the history of religions.
Did Osiris, Attis, Adonis, Dionysus, Mithras, Krishna, etc.
exist???
Was there really a man named "EBION"???
What about King Arthur and his Round Table knights??? -- L.
Most of those stories make no claim to be real, and have no historical
setting into which the figures actually fit. Christ appeared in a
state named Israel which existed (and which exists now), under Roman
occupation (as Iraq is under US occupation), within a culture
expecting something to "appear", and the stories name real people
besides himself (Herods x 2, Tiberias, Pilate, Caiaphus etc), real
places (Jerusalem, Jericho, Bethlehem, Judea, Antioch, Rome), with
real historical landmarks (temple, Golgotha, Garden of Gethsemane, the
road to Emmaus). John the Baptist appears to belong to the Essenes, a
real cult of the time, there are Sadducees and Pharisees who Josephus
affirms as existing, Pilate is depicted by the latter as brutal.
Coins had Caesar's image on them, fishermen fished in Galilee and used
boats, synagogues were real buildings (as synagogues, mosques and
churches are now), and the movement grew from that time.
As stories the Gospels and Acts are neither good myth, nor good
fiction. This makes them fall into the category of what we might call
the historical novel, based on fact. Yet the style of a historical
novel is also lacking.
In fact the Gospels, as literature, are unique in human history.
Bob Crowley.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Weatherwax" |
|
| Title: Re: Does jesus exist? -- DELUSION |
03 Jun 2004 12:09:54 PM |
|
|
"Bob Crowley" <bobcrowley@optusnet.com.au> wrote
Libertarius <Libertarius@Nothing_But_The.Truth> wrote
===>Check into the history of religions.
Did Osiris, Attis, Adonis, Dionysus, Mithras, Krishna, etc.
exist???
Was there really a man named "EBION"???
What about King Arthur and his Round Table knights???
-- L.
Most of those stories make no claim to be real, and have
no historical setting into which the figures actually fit.
Christ appeared in a state named Israel which existed
(and which exists now), under Roman occupation (as Iraq
is under US occupation), within a culture expecting
something to "appear", and the stories name real people
besides himself (Herods x 2, Tiberias, Pilate, Caiaphus etc),
real places (Jerusalem, Jericho, Bethlehem, Judea, Antioch,
Rome), with real historical landmarks (temple, Golgotha,
Garden of Gethsemane, the road to Emmaus). John the
Baptist appears to belong to the Essenes, a real cult of the
time, there are Sadducees and Pharisees who Josephus
affirms as existing, Pilate is depicted by the latter as
brutal.
Coins had Caesar's image on them, fishermen fished in
Galilee and used boats, synagogues were real buildings
(as synagogues, mosques and churches are now), and the
movement grew from that time.
It is interesting that for hundreds of years nobody believed the
Iliad was true, but now we know that the Illiad had a historical
setting into which the figures actually fit. Achilles was from
Thessaly, which existed, and the stories name real people
besides himself (Agamenom, Menelaus, Ullyses,) real places
(Athens, Sparta, Mycenae, ) with real historical landmarks.
From this evidence, we are forced to conclude that the Iliad is
true, and Achilles really was the son of a Goddess.
--
Wax
.
|
|
|
| User: "Libertarius" |
|
| Title: Re: Does jesus exist? -- DELUSION |
03 Jun 2004 12:23:01 PM |
|
|
Weatherwax wrote:
"Bob Crowley" <bobcrowley@optusnet.com.au> wrote
Libertarius <Libertarius@Nothing_But_The.Truth> wrote
===>Check into the history of religions.
Did Osiris, Attis, Adonis, Dionysus, Mithras, Krishna, etc.
exist???
Was there really a man named "EBION"???
What about King Arthur and his Round Table knights???
-- L.
Most of those stories make no claim to be real, and have
no historical setting into which the figures actually fit.
Christ appeared in a state named Israel which existed
(and which exists now), under Roman occupation (as Iraq
is under US occupation), within a culture expecting
something to "appear", and the stories name real people
besides himself (Herods x 2, Tiberias, Pilate, Caiaphus etc),
real places (Jerusalem, Jericho, Bethlehem, Judea, Antioch,
Rome), with real historical landmarks (temple, Golgotha,
Garden of Gethsemane, the road to Emmaus). John the
Baptist appears to belong to the Essenes, a real cult of the
time, there are Sadducees and Pharisees who Josephus
affirms as existing, Pilate is depicted by the latter as
brutal.
Coins had Caesar's image on them, fishermen fished in
Galilee and used boats, synagogues were real buildings
(as synagogues, mosques and churches are now), and the
movement grew from that time.
It is interesting that for hundreds of years nobody believed the
Iliad was true, but now we know that the Illiad had a historical
setting into which the figures actually fit. Achilles was from
Thessaly, which existed, and the stories name real people
besides himself (Agamenom, Menelaus, Ullyses,) real places
(Athens, Sparta, Mycenae, ) with real historical landmarks.
From this evidence, we are forced to conclude that the Iliad is
true, and Achilles really was the son of a Goddess.
===>Wasn't he? ;-) -- L.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Weatherwax" |
|
| Title: Re: Does jesus exist? -- DELUSION |
04 Jun 2004 02:18:58 AM |
|
|
| | | | | |
