[Grandpa Harley]

Jesus, even with the magic, has no character. Krishna has a whimisical side to him... Jesus is a glyph, a pointer to a pointer... you never actually reach a solid base with him

You can ask 'What would Krishna do?' and be able to work it out with familiarity with the basal tales of Krishna

With Jesus, you peel back the scriptures and you get nothing....

[Kirangel]

HanSolo, on Jun 16 2007, 02:55 PM, said:

Kirangel, on Jun 16 2007, 11:04 AM, said:

He would have had more characteristics similar to the ones recorded. A Jewish man who caused some sort of turmoil that angered the pharisees, causing unrest which would have been a threat to the Romans and was executed for it. Most likely viewed as a messianic figure. Whatever qualities that stay the most constant in the documents we have of him.

That's fair enough. I can agree that it remains a possibility, and I'm looking forward to what you find out in your studies.

Actually I think this is exactly what the Jesus seminairs wanted to do. Pick the things in the stories that made sense and could be agreed upon to be most likely true and a real portrait of a historical Jesus.

Cool, well I could come back completely in support of the Jesus myth. You never know it's not like I'm strongly behind the historical Jesus.

[Ouroboros]

Kirangel, on Jun 16 2007, 12:35 PM, said:

Cool, well I could come back completely in support of the Jesus myth. You never know it's not like I'm strongly behind the historical Jesus.

And I'm not strongly behind the "everything invented" or 100% mythical Jesus either. My suspicion is that there was some person that caused some havoc during that time, and maybe his name wasn't even Jesus but something else, and since he tried to "save" them from the Romans, he was given the title The Savior (Joshua), and then it was just a matter of time. Now, personally I have a problem saying that this person was the "historical" Jesus, even though he was the seed from where the story was built. That's my dilemma. If I claim that Jesus was a historical person, I want it to be a person that actually was named Jesus, actually did a couple of the things the Gospels say (not the miracles, but just some of the basic stuff), but since we have so little trustworthy material to go from, you can't distinguish the real parts for the fake. But we'll see. I'm still interested in your journey.

[Amethyst]

One of my personal theories is that the Bible is fanfiction of a sort. You know how these days, people write about movie stars and rock stars and then post it on websites and such? I think the Bible was kind of like that, but they cut and pasted from other religions and myths that were around at the time. I'm agnostic as to whether there was a "real" Jesus or not, but I think something like that may have been the case.

[Kirangel]

Quote

My suspicion is that there was some person that caused some havoc during that time, and maybe his name wasn't even Jesus but something else, and since he tried to "save" them from the Romans, he was given the title The Savior (Joshua), and then it was just a matter of time. Now, personally I have a problem saying that this person was the "historical" Jesus, even though he was the seed from where the story was built. That's my dilemma.

That's a fun dilemma, yeah there would have to be enough in line with the stories of Jesus to label it historical in that sense.

[Grandpa Harley]

HanSolo, on Jun 16 2007, 02:49 PM, said:

Kirangel, on Jun 16 2007, 12:35 PM, said:

Cool, well I could come back completely in support of the Jesus myth. You never know it's not like I'm strongly behind the historical Jesus.

And I'm not strongly behind the "everything invented" or 100% mythical Jesus either. My suspicion is that there was some person that caused some havoc during that time, and maybe his name wasn't even Jesus but something else, and since he tried to "save" them from the Romans, he was given the title The Savior (Joshua), and then it was just a matter of time. Now, personally I have a problem saying that this person was the "historical" Jesus, even though he was the seed from where the story was built. That's my dilemma. If I claim that Jesus was a historical person, I want it to be a person that actually was named Jesus, actually did a couple of the things the Gospels say (not the miracles, but just some of the basic stuff), but since we have so little trustworthy material to go from, you can't distinguish the real parts for the fake. But we'll see. I'm still interested in your journey.

I can subscribe to the idea that Jesus is a legend, like King Arthur, who is probably based on one or more chieftains, but Arthur as a single man is pretty certainly a myth... 'he' never existed...

[Ouroboros]

Grandpa Harley, on Jun 16 2007, 02:14 PM, said:

I can subscribe to the idea that Jesus is a legend, like King Arthur, who is probably based on one or more chieftains, but Arthur as a single man is pretty certainly a myth... 'he' never existed...

And of course there's some people out there that disagree with you!
http://www.legendofk....com/arthur.htm

[Grandpa Harley]

I said one or more... There's not much evidence that such a large commercial area traded with Ireland, and that is a myth killer...

[Ouroboros]

Yeah, yeah. You Anti-Arthurian, you... The only reason why you don't believe in Arthur, is because you hate him.

[Grandpa Harley]

Merlin has hardened my heart...

[Varokhar]

Kirangel, on Jun 16 2007, 12:50 PM, said:

I already told you all my reasons for this, go read through the earlier posts in this thread. Hard Evidence? History is not something that is always made up of 'hard evidence'...

Stories about history are not always based on facts, very true.

But real history is facts and facts alone - otherwise we have conjecture or myths or fables.

And without those facts about any "Jesus of Nazareth" all we have are myths - and that ain't evidence.

Ah well - I suppose Jun and I will be waiting a long time...

[Jun]

Varokhar, on Jun 20 2007, 02:23 PM, said:

Kirangel, on Jun 16 2007, 12:50 PM, said:

I already told you all my reasons for this, go read through the earlier posts in this thread. Hard Evidence? History is not something that is always made up of 'hard evidence'...

Stories about history are not always based on facts, very true.

But real history is facts and facts alone - otherwise we have conjecture or myths or fables.

And without those facts about any "Jesus of Nazareth" all we have are myths - and that ain't evidence.

Ah well - I suppose Jun and I will be waiting a long time...

I won't hold my breath!

If "Jesus" of the bible did exist, why is he called "Jesus" of Nazareth? Nazareth did not exist in the 1st century AD – the area was a burial ground of rock-cut tombs.

[Grandpa Harley]

From the archaeology I've read (I can't find the reference now.... sorry) there was a largish farm there, but certainly no village, hamlet, or small collection of hovels...

The place was established post-AD70 (again from memory), giving the earliest possible date. The median date is around AD100 to AD140 for the establishment of the town....

[Jun]

The expression 'Jesus of Nazareth' is actually a bad translation of the original Greek 'Jesous o Nazoraios'. More accurately, we should speak of 'Jesus the Nazarene' where Nazarene has a meaning quite unrelated to a place name. But just what is that meaning and how did it get applied to a small village? The highly ambiguous Hebrew root of the name is NZR.

The 2nd century gnostic Gospel of Philip offers this explanation:

'The apostles that came before us called him Jesus Nazarene the Christ ..."Nazara" is the "Truth". Therefore 'Nazarene' is "The One of the Truth" ...'
(Gospel of Philip, 47)

What we do know is that 'Nazarene' was originally the name of an early Jewish-Christian sect – a faction, or off-shoot, of the Essenes. They had no particular relation to a city of Nazareth. The root of their name may have been 'Truth' or it may have been the Hebrew noun 'netser' ('netzor'), meaning 'branch' or 'flower.' The plural of 'Netzor' becomes 'Netzoreem.' There is no mention of the Nazarenes in any of Paul's writings. The Nazorim emerged towards the end of the 1st century, after a curse had been placed on heretics in Jewish daily prayer.

'Three times a day they say: May God curse the Nazarenes'.
Epiphanius (Panarion 29.9.2)

The following is good:

'It may then come as something of a surprise, almost an embarrassment, to recognise that the earliest statements about Jesus are in the form of belief rather than history in the modern sense ... theology takes precedence over history in the Christian story.' – J. L. Houlden (Jesus - A Question of Identity, p11)

[Grandpa Harley]

Same as it ever was...

[Robbobrob]

We all know that online sarcasm does not work well. Without conscious effort, like writing, "Sarcasm ahead", mush of what we think of as being off the cuff funny can be misunderstood by others as your real thoughts. There is a thread somewhere on this site that is a perfect example of this.

How much harder then would it be for someone who might have a whimiscal, sarcastic side to NOT be misunderstood, especially when his words were written down by others, sometimes decades later, and then translated and retranslated centruies later.

What if we are missing the all important eye roll or wry smile from Jesus, that might give a completely different meaning to some of he text.

What if they forgot to add that the Son of Man grabbed his crotch after he said, "I do not come in peace, but bring the sword."

I think with a few missing visuals and inflections of voice, we could still use all of Jesus's quotes verbatim, yet walk away with a completely different sense of what he actually meant.

(This theory of mine comes from his famous, "Oh ye of little faith," when we all know that he was talking to the most faithful people at the time, his disciples. Why would that subtle humor not carry over to some if not all his sayings?)

[Japedo]

Anyone that does a study of the similarities between Christ -- Osiris, Krishna or Horus comes automatically to the conclusion that Christ is just revamped sun worship and existed as much as Zeus did.

[Ouroboros]

Robbobrob, on Jun 20 2007, 06:25 AM, said:

Very good points. Basically what you're saying is that the Gospels and the stories were and are still misunderstood because they were lacking smileys.

[Varokhar]

Robbobrob, on Jun 20 2007, 08:25 AM, said:

What if they forgot to add that the Son of Man grabbed his crotch after he said, "I do not come in peace, but bring the sword."

Ah yes - the hidden truth of the Gospels after all these years! With eyes unblinded by hate I can now see it! Glorah!

[R. S. Martin]

HanSolo, on Jun 11 2007, 11:02 AM, said:

Cornelius Tacitus: born 56, 26 years after Jesus supposed death, whatever he knew would have been hearsay
Suetonius: born 69, same thing
Pliny the Younger: 63, same thing
Philo the philosopher: contemporary to Jesus, but did he ever speak of Jesus? Can you point to which book and what he said?
Josephus: born 37, not contemporary either
Lucian: born 120! Well, that's a real stretch. (the "first sci-fi" author, a novelist?)

So I don't see the contemporary evidence we're looking for.

Thanks for those dates. Pretty convincing evidence.

Quote

Some scholars lose their faith when they discover how little evidence there is, and how weak it is. Look for Doc Robert Price.

Bart D. Ehrman is another. Kirangel, you might want to read some of his books.

Quote

The funny thing is that I'm not (and most atheists, or non-christians) out to "prove that Jesus did not exist"

Hans, you have it right so far as I am concerned. If ever a person wanted to believe in christianity it was me. But when the evidence is either totally lacking or too fragile to stand up to scrutiny, I am left with the choice to lie and live comfortably with the christian majority, or to be honest and thereby open myself to the ridicule and abuse of christians.

I sifted through the evidence many times over. I feel like my sifting last fall is definitive. I was taking a course on New Testament. Prof insisted that there is more evidence for Jesus than for many other historical figures. Sounds exactly like Kirangel's argument. I started a thread on this forum to get the exChristian perspective on it at the same time that we were discussing it in school.

The very same passages were used by both sides to prove their points. The Christians interpreted the evidence as saying that Jesus did exist and the exChristians interpreted it as saying Jesus did not exist.

My profs taught me to take passages apart and scrutinize them on the fine details. When I do that with the "evidence" for Jesus' existence, I end up knowing only that Christians existed in the first century. I find no direct reference to Jesus except in the NT. One of the Roman governors wrote about "Christians who worship Chrestus as though he were a god."

Here is the passage as follows in one translation:

Other named by the anonymous List said they were Christians, and later changed their statement. Some said that they had been and then stopped, some three years before, some longer, some even twenty years before. All these reverenced your statue and those of the Gods, and cursed Christ. They stated that the sum total of their error or misjudgment, had been coming to a meeting on a given day before dawn, and singing responsively a hymn to Christ as to God, swearing with a holy oath not to commit any crime, never to steal or commit robbery, commit adultery, fail a sworn agreement or refuse to return a sum left in trust. When all this was finished, it was their custom to go their separate ways, and later re-assemble to take food of an ordinary and simple kind.

Here is some background on Pliny the Younger:

Pliny the Younger or Gaius Plinius Caecilius Secundus (62-c.115): Roman senator, nephew of Pliny the Elder, governor of Bithynia-Pontus (109-111), author of a famous collection of letters.

Apparently he was born thirty years after Jesus' alleged death. By the time he grew up and was Roman governor, there were many people around who believed that a Christ existed and they "worshipped him as god."

It is true that in places he speaks about Christ as though he were a historical person. However, who of us has not talked about fictional characters as though they were historical? When we are talking about these characters, it is cumbersome to preface every statement with "the man whom they call Christ," or "whom they worship as a god." When it is firmly established with the speaker and the audience (when everyone knows it) that they are talking about a fictional character, people stop prefacing their statements like that. We just use the name for the sake of convenience.

I don't know Star Wars so I will use nursery rhyme tales to illustrate. A kindergarten teacher might ask the children: Where were the three bears when Goldilocks broke into their house?

This story tells us several things:

1. A girl named Goldilocks existed at some point in history.
2. Bears live in houses that look pretty much like our own.
3. Bears sit in chairs.
4. Bears eat porridge.
5. Bears eat out of bowls.
6. Bears can tell who touched their property.

Jack and the Beanstalk proves that there are giants the size of houses and that an ordinary man can plant a bean stalk that is strong enough to carry his weight, and that he can climb this beanstalk to get away from the giant. The place he escapes to is another world where the giant cannot enter. This proves that there is another level of reality from the normal everyday life.

1. In our world, we never see giants the size of houses.
2. In our world we don't have bean stalks that are strong enough to carry the weight of an adult.
3. In the world as we know it, we cannot escape into another world to get away from our enemies.

Yet Jack did all these things.

The only things in the above two stories that are realistic are the animal ability to smell who touched their things, and the ability of a seed bean to grow into a large plant (though nowhere near as large as indicated in the story).

Maybe we can create a world such as Never-Never Land, and maybe we can explain the links between our world and Never-Never Land. Maybe if we squeeze our eyes shut tight enough and try hard enough we can actually feel like we are in Never-Never Land. maybe we can smell the smells and see the sights. But are we really there? Does that make it true that the following existed at some point in history: a man who could climb a bean stalk, a house-sized giant, a girl named Goldilocks, and three bears who live in houses, sit on wooden chairs, and eat porridge out of bowls?

The only things that are realistic in the Jesus story is that he was born, that he grew up to be a rousing teacher of the common people, and that he paid for it with his life. It is also realistic to believe that his followers had to dream up some way to make sense of his execution. They had, after all, given up their jobs and/or sold their businesses to follow him.

We know that at the time and place of this supposed Jesus, the common people had a tradition of having heroes who had virgin births. It was the tradition that these divine heroes died to save humanity, and then rose from the dead and flew off to heaven. Maybe Jesus' followers made up the same kind of story about his death. It would be realistic to think so.

It is just as common today for people to talk about taking a red pill or a blue pill. Because I am new to mainstream culture, I am not sure what is meant by these pills. Do I think there are doctors who prescribe these pills and pharmacies that sell them? Do I think people actually go to their medicine cabinet and swallow a pill when they say this?

No.

The only time and the only way people today ever talk about the red pill or the blue pill is when they want to talk metaphorically. Obviously, these pills are symbols taken from some story, and these symbols are meaningful to the people who know the story.

The same holds true for virgins having babies, and for these babies to grow up to be miracle workers who end up dying to save humanity from the Romans, and then resurrect and fly off to heaven.

These "pills" are so far from realistic that it is automatically assumed that the audiences understand what was meant.

Yet today, Christians and atheists alike insist that no person is a real Christian unless they believe these fantastic tales of the first century of the Common Era.

There are Christians alive today who dare take these stories metaphorically as they were originally meant to be taken. Who are we to decide whether or not they are true Christians?

I have no idea who Kirangel is or what Kirangel believes. I know that Kirangel talks like a fundamentalist Christian but claims not to be a Christian. I also know that people here are very wary of being taken in by a professing nonChristian who seems to have an evangelical proselyzing twist.