There Exists No Solid Proof Of Jesus Existence

[Ouroboros]

Ouro, sweetie, I don't think you're crazy. I think you're getting a bit out of hand and I REALLY wish you'd drop the weird attacks, but that's not craziness. You care about different stuff than some others do, but hell, so do I, and so does Antlerman, and so does Vigile. I'm genuinely sorry you felt stung by anything I said. You know I talk out of my ass most of the time, but I like to think I've got a good heart, and I don't like knowing I brought you to such a place that you felt cornered and lashed out like you have of late.

Yeah. You're right. I'm just very tired (lots of stuff going on daily here), and I probably misunderstood and/or misread your posts. Sorry for being an asshole. The truth is, I am actually an asshole and can be rather nasty. Most of the time, no one will ever see that side of me on this forum because I've learned over the years to have some control over it. But deep down, I can be the biggest jerk you'll ever know. So again, sorry for letting you see that side of me.

 

Just so you know, when I'm getting into discussions like this, I'm not doing it as a moderator but as any other member. If there are issues relating to moderating the board, I try to make that clear in the post that the issue is about the forum rather than the issue.

 

And another note, sometimes I like to get passionate about topics and really dig into them to figure out, not only what other people believe, think and why, but what makes most sense for me to believe, think, and why.

[Ouroboros]

I would love to look at more than just the Fables and Myths. The problem is, that's all we have. Josephus, Suetonius, the younger Pliny, and Tacitus are no help. Dozens of contemporary writers and Historians should have mentioned Jesus, but didn't. Once the Mythical and Supernatural elements are removed from Christianity, nothing is left. That's why every HJ scholar comes up with a different Jesus.

Let's start with what is the earliest we can go. Which one is the earliest of Josephus, Suetonius, Younger Pliny, and Tacitus? And what did they say? We can agree that no one of them actually met Jesus, but they did talk about "Christians" or some form of believers that believed in a "Jesus". They were following the belief of that a person they called Jesus was their prophet (at least), perhaps not son of God, but at least some kind of prophet, who said something, and did something. What he said. What he did. We don't know. But can we agree that there were some cults who believed in a Jesus in the first century?

[Ouroboros]

Perhaps you'd better outline the relationship between myth and meaning for me? Right now, if there's it seems to me that if there's no meaning and no point to anything, so why bother with mythology at all?

 

Really struggling to see why meaning is so important!

 

Thanks,

 

BAA.

 

Since you're a techie, perhaps I can put it in other words. It's a similar difference between myth and meaning as there is between data and information. Data is just numbers and facts. Information is data that has some meaning to it.

 

0x41 is data.

 

But the information can be:

It's the decimal number 65

It's the ASCII number for "A"

It's the OP-Code for some obscure machine code operation, perhaps SHL on some old Motorola CPU.

It's the bit string for a flag register which represents the user settings for some application

It's the ...

 

A myth is a story. Meaning is what the story makes you feel, think, change in yourself...

 

A poem is just a string of words, but you feel something when you read it.

 

Or lyrics in a song:

"Get the idea cross around the track

Underneath the flank of thoroughbred racing chasers.

Getting the feel as a river flows.

Would youlike to go 'n shoot the mountain masses?

And here you stand no taller than the grass sees.

And should you really chase so hard.

The truth of sport plays rings around you.

 

Going for the one

 

Going for the one"

Really awesome song by Yes in the 70's, and it's a song that really boosts me up... I have no clue what the lyrics really mean, but it doesn't matter, because the song is awesome!

[Legion]

The truth is, I am actually an asshole and can be rather nasty. Most of the time, no one will ever see that side of me on this forum because I've learned over the years to have some control over it. But deep down, I can be the biggest jerk you'll ever know.

 

I think, in my opinion, over here in the corner, minding my own business, that it should be a prerequisite for moderates to be jerks, because how will you spot them otherwise?

[Deva]

 

Deva,

 

The day God died for me was the day I gave up my search for the historical Jesus.

 

With anxiety I discovered that the history which I had taken as the basis of my identity was fallible. Textual criticism yielded that the old stories, the schema of promise and fulfillment that rests at the heart of the Christian Myth, did not happen.

 

The day God died was the day I started the journey that lead me out of ancient Israel and upon the soil of my own history. If the stories told about the great teachers have any significance it is that they are about finding my own particular unique life in the experiences of my own human saga.

 

It was on the occasion of the death of God that I began the search for the historical person that I am--a human being born into a simple family in Tennessee light years from ancient Israel. A human being with a story. A story just as important as the stories of Jesus or the Buddha.

 

Asaner: I feel like I am being rude not to respond to this post, but I am pretty much at a loss. All I can think of to say is that I am glad you worked it out.

[♦ ficino ♦]

I do not think it a waste of time to investigate such matters, by the way.

Nor do I.

 

A yogi seeking self-realization may think that, say, the terms of a girl's marriage contract are of little consequence compared to the goal of everyone's realization of their oneness with Being, but those terms matter to the girl and the others involved in her life (just as much to the husband) here on this mortal plane.

I have never suggested it is irrelevant since enlightenment is so much better. So is eating food by comparison to pursuing these questions, but that doesn't make them unimportant as part of the whole picture towards Enlightenment. Any yogi that teaches that, I would never follow. What good is Enlightenment if it isn't part of living life in the now?

 

It's significant to accomplish things, including expanding the store of human knowledge through research, and such accomplishments, however small, are part of the legacy one leaves behind.

And I agree with this, however, my objection as stated at length in my previous post is that to take this understanding of the origins of Christian faith to 'disprove' faith to someone is missing the greater point. I see it towards an end of advancing understanding, not destroying faith. That it helped someone along their own road of deconversion, did so for reasons unique to that person. I'd call it removing the last holdouts of 'what-if' in the back of the minds of those already disillusioned with the value of the system.

 

In fact, let me lay this out clearly. My own holding onto the notions of God I had from my Christian training were still there, despite no longer finding the religion working for me. I had long been done going to church, being a 'believer', etc. But in the back of my mind God was associated with them, and so any questions about that got back-burnered for years. Until one day. I was watching a special on Evolution, a PBS special called The Shape of Life. Suddenly, as I saw the power and beauty of evolution in the origin of species, God was displaced in that hold-out position. There was no more need to hang on to that to 'explain' things. What happened was incredible. I suddenly felt this profound connection to all of life. We were not the pinnacle of evolution, the shining apple in God's eye, but we were one of a marvelous tree of wonderful diversity! It made us more special, not less! Life was incredible, and how marvelous to be alive, to be who we are in this unimaginable tree of life! It was truly a spiritual experience for me.

 

What that did is it finally freed my thoughts from being owned by some religion claiming authority in such matters. God was now able to be out of the picture, laid on the table of examination for me without fear. Christianity did not have proprietorship of any of this, including knowledge of God. I then went forth as a rationalist, becoming an atheist in order to really examine everything. Ultimately as you know I have been able to understand the nature of what is called God in a different light, which for me allows rationality along with spirituality without conflict or contradiction. But the salient point is this. Christianity as a system had already failed for me, spirituality. 'Debunking', in this case showing nature happens without an anthropomorphic God pulling the strings and creating magic in the world, allowed what was already failed to cut the remaining dead flesh free from that severed limb. I was able to begin the final healing phase.

 

So, the historical Jesus question. It too can serve that role as the PBS special did for me in my state of deconversion. But, and I'll caution, it is debatable as to its veracity - I for one don't accept it on a rational and scholarly basis, (unlike evolution which is overwhelmingly supported to the point it can be called a fact). I don't believe placing 'faith' in that belief in order to say "I no longer believe in Christianity", is a good way to go. It's placing what you believe externally. The minute new data comes along that makes that belief look less attractive, less certain, then off you go back into the religion again! The same sword cuts both ways, as I've said. A believer who believes based on the evidence, is poised to fall rather hard and quickly should anything come along to challenge that belief. The whole externalization of faith is absurd.

 

What studies like this do however, that is valuable, is that it enhances understanding. And that understanding helps to inform our overall worldviews. For me, it actually helps me appreciate Christianity for the reasons I stated earlier in another post. It speaks to that something in us as humans that is common to all ages. We are after all, cut from that same fabric. Our humanness seeks to something higher, and all these things, these myths are expressions of that. They are fingers pointing to the moon, not the moon itself. To reduce it to a discussion of facts of science and history, utterly misses looking upward to what the finger points at. It is focused on the finger, mistaking its mode of expression as defining Truth itself. It isn't Truth, but that doesn't mean it doesn't point to Truth.

 

Thank you for the clarifications, Antlerman. I appreciate them. I had taken umbrage because it seemed as though some of us ancient history types seemed to be having a good time debating the evidence for an identifiable municipality, Nazareth, in the first cent. CE, and then you made an analogy between a five-year old's thinking and the thinking behind applying the results of such a discussion to the HJ problem. You said in a later post that "The emphasis should be on a non-literal understanding, not a specific interpretation of history, viz., that Jesus didn't exist." I wondered where the should was coming from, and I jumped to the conclusion that you were laying your interests and convictions on us as somehow normative. Especially since the OP talked about how it helped LifeCycle to see the flimsiness of the historical evidence for Jesus, it seemed false to me to think that these sorts of inquiries are a mistake. But you're not saying that, and I am sorry for misconstruing your intent and for my snarky comments.

 

Cheers, F

[bornagainathiest]

Perhaps you'd better outline the relationship between myth and meaning for me? Right now, if there's it seems to me that if there's no meaning and no point to anything, so why bother with mythology at all?

 

Really struggling to see why meaning is so important!

 

Thanks,

 

BAA.

 

Since you're a techie, perhaps I can put it in other words. It's a similar difference between myth and meaning as there is between data and information. Data is just numbers and facts. Information is data that has some meaning to it.

 

0x41 is data.

 

But the information can be:

It's the decimal number 65

It's the ASCII number for "A"

It's the OP-Code for some obscure machine code operation, perhaps SHL on some old Motorola CPU.

It's the bit string for a flag register which represents the user settings for some application

It's the ...

 

A myth is a story. Meaning is what the story makes you feel, think, change in yourself...

 

A poem is just a string of words, but you feel something when you read it.

 

Or lyrics in a song:

"Get the idea cross around the track

Underneath the flank of thoroughbred racing chasers.

Getting the feel as a river flows.

Would youlike to go 'n shoot the mountain masses?

And here you stand no taller than the grass sees.

And should you really chase so hard.

The truth of sport plays rings around you.

 

Going for the one

 

Going for the one"

Really awesome song by Yes in the 70's, and it's a song that really boosts me up... I have no clue what the lyrics really mean, but it doesn't matter, because the song is awesome!

 

Meaning gives life meaning by causing us to feel good?

 

That I can buy into.

 

But I can't buy that there's anything more to it than that. Having said that, feeling good is good enough for me. Other folks might need to feel that there has to be something more - not me though.

 

Anyway, thanks for the illuminating post, O!

 

BAA.

[mymistake]

Just so you know, when I'm getting into discussions like this, I'm not doing it as a moderator but as any other member. If there are issues relating to moderating the board, I try to make that clear in the post that the issue is about the forum rather than the issue.

 

Actually it's not clear. I wish the moderators had two accounts. You guys should do most of your participation with a "member" account, one that can be voted up with reps just like the rest of our accounts can. You might be surprised how often people agree with something you said but are unable to show it unless they create an "IAWTP" reply (which most people hesitate to do). If you had member account then we could just vote you up instead. Then you could visually put on your "mod hat" when you want us to listen to a ruling. I think that would solve several problems. And yes O, it's kind of weird when you get pissed off at people agreeing with you. I don't really know how to handle that because I can't tell if you want me to treat you as an equal or a superior. There isn't a clear line.

[Antlerman]

Antlerman wrote...

 

"This is why I say often times, that Atheism really is Christianity without God. It doesn't matter if God is literal or not, the essence of the myth permeates culture in all of its myths, whether they are secular myths or religious myths."

 

 

A secular myth? What is that A-man?

Myths that don't have the supernatural. Myths such as the American Dream. Myths such as the belief that consumerism brings happiness. Everyone grows up with and operates off of mythologies, such as follow the rules and you will be rewarded. The list is endless actually. You have to understand that myths are not simply ways to explain stuff lacking scientific knowledge. They are symbols acting with symbols which create a symbolic structure that acts as the platform of reality on which we navigate. They may be religious, or secular in nature. But both are symbolic realities. Created structures that act like electrostatic forces which keep us from simply passing through the ground under the influence of gravity.

 

Thanks!

This helps. So am I to glean from from this that humans cannot help but create and use myths, even if they are totally unaware they are doing so?

 

I had thought that Atheism was the simplest, most stripped-down view of reality that there could be.

In what regard? Explaining the natural world without the supernatural? I think Atheism is all good and fine, inasmuch as it is defined in rejecting mythic-literal interpretations of the world as representing the best of our knowledge today. But it hardly rises beyond that in its current forms. It stops there with a rubble heap at its feet, including living bodies buried underneath it. It impresses me as deconstructionist only. Maybe that's the problem. A stripped down view of reality is in its own way trying to explain the extraordinarily complex in mythic terms. Nature is all there is. The opposite of Godditit.

 

I see these things in history there for a reason, a valid one. And one that is part of all of us today in how we think, live, and breathe. We can't just gut ourselves and call that progress.

 

Hmmm... now what you call gutting one's self, I might call being honest with one's self. I'd sum this honesty up as follows...

 

My life only has as much meaning as I chose to give it. Should I give it meaning that isn't there, just to feel more comfortable? I'd say no. For me, the heavens don't declare the glory of the Lord. Instead, they declare three possible outcomes.

 

1.

That I'm a unique pattern of matter and energy in a vast, but finite universe. This pattern didn't exist for billions of years, will exist briefly and then won't exist ever again.

 

2.

That I'm not a unique pattern of matter and energy in an infinite universe. I'm not unique because I am replicated infinitely-often throughout the infinite universe. There's no thought I can think and no action I can carry out that won't be carried out in exactly the same way by an infinite number of my duplicates. So, if there is some meaning to my life (whatever that is) it will be equally true for all of my duplicates, wherever they are.

 

3.

That I'm not a unique pattern of matter and energy in an infinite multiverse. I'm not unique because I am replicated infinitely-often throughout the infinite multiverse. There's no thought I can think and no action I can carry out that won't be carried out in exactly the same way by an infinite number of my duplicates. So, if there is some meaning to my life (whatever that is) it wiil be equally true for all of my duplicates, wherever they are.

 

Therefore, whatever meaning I chose to assign my life, it's only meaningful in the here-and-now, while I live and breathe. On the grand scale of things I am either that brief, unique (and probably meaningless) pattern of matter and energy or I am one of an infinitely large army of duplicates, none of which is unique in any way, shape or form.

 

As you can see A-Man, I have a real hard time assigning anything but the most fleeting and transitory of meanings to my life. I call that honesty. I call that facing up to the facts. If that's gutting myself, so be it.

 

Ummm... you're saying that Atheism is derived from and/or carries with it a whole load of secular mythology (whatever that is) ...?

In modern terms, it starts with that mindset I spoke of earlier that begins with the Christian worldview and deconstructs its myths as 'nonfactual'. Big deal, IMO. Yes, it is important, don't get me wrong. But to then toss everything out along with it, is hardly functioning out of the pursuit of building upon the past though integrating what positive things we've learned in our evolution. It's a reaction against something, not learning and building. Saying 'God, we were so ignorant!', fails to actually learn the good we did learn within those systems of thoughts. And the same holds true for what lays beyond atheism.

 

I'll quote Sri Arobindo here that I think bears directly upon this:

 

 

 

 

 

It is necessary, therefore, that advancing Knowledge should base herself on a clear, pure and disciplined intellect. It is necessary, too, that she should correct her errors sometimes by a return to the restraint of sensible fact, the concrete realities of the physical world. The touch of Earth is always reinvigorating to the son of Earth, even when he seeks a supraphysical Knowledge. It may even be said that the supraphysical can only be really mastered in its fullness – to its heights we can always search– when we keep our feet firmly on the physical. “Earth is His footing,” says the Upanishad whenever it images the Self that manifests in the universe. And it is certainly the fact the wider we extend and the surer we make our knowledge of the physical world, the wider and surer becomes our foundation for the higher knowledge, even for the highest, even for the Brahmavidya.

 

In emerging, therefore, out of the materialistic period of human Knowledge we must be careful that we do not rashly condemn what we are leaving or throw away even one tittle of its gains, before we can summon perceptions and powers that are well grasped and secure, to occupy their place. Rather we shall observe with respect and wonder the work that Atheism had done for the Divine and admire the services that Agnosticism has rendered in preparing the illimitable increase of knowledge. In our world error is continually the handmaid and pathfinder of Truth; for error is really a half-truth that stumbles because of its limitations; often it is Truth that wears a disguise in order to arrive unobserved near to its goal. Well, if it could always be, as it has been in the great period we are leaving, the faithful handmaid, severe, conscientious, clean-handed, luminous within its limits, a half-truth and not a reckless and presumptuous aberration.

Sri Aurobindo, The Life Divine, pg 12,13

The uses of the Divine you see him use in here bear little resemblance to the mythic god you are familiar with, but in my opinion understands that how we have approached truth and reality in our evolution, which includes atheism, has something beyond just that hard world, the material 'truth'. No man lives like this, and this is why the great Existential philosophers, including the Atheist Jean Paul Sartre pursued these philosophical lines against the myth of Positivism, which believed that reason and research alone will lead us into all truth. That is another example of a 'secular' myth.

 

Anyway, hope this helps.

 

Ummm... ?

 

BTW, I do not mean to suggest that 'debunking myth' as we know that is thinking like a five-year old. All I'm saying is that to remain there saying that's all there is to it; that's all there is to our myths, is being stuck arguing with a five-year old. When in reality the fact the argument is made at all shows a more advanced world view. Hope to make that clear here.

 

Perhaps you'd better outline the relationship between myth and meaning for me? Right now, if there's it seems to me that if there's no meaning and no point to anything, so why bother with mythology at all?

 

Really struggling to see why meaning is so important!

 

Thanks,

 

BAA.

Alright, I'll take some time to lay this out for you as best I can. Forgive me if this strays off topic too much. I know it's important to talk about for you.

 

People try to find meaning for their lives because, bottom line, they have a sense of separation from the world. They see it as outside themselves, and distinct from them in a subject/object duality. Because they sense the world outside themselves, and themselves separated from it, there is always this tension, a need to understand their place within the world, how they relate to it, and how it relates to them. It is a question of existence. I recall my first experience of this at about 12 years of age, wondering 'why am I?'. It is an awareness of oneself in the face of something vastly greater, infinitely larger than themselves. So in the face of that Question, we ask who am I in relation to it.

 

Seeking meaning to ones life is to try to give ourselves a sort of answer to that very question. "Why do I exist?" Ultimately it does not answer the question, as they are 'substitutes' for an actual realization of the what that is. We seek purpose to our lives, to be rich, to be admired, successful, powerful, etc, as means to tell ourselves what our purpose is. But this is not what I necessarily see a religious mythology to be ultimately about. I'll explain.

 

You speak of this envisioned multiverse. As you know I'm fond of the idea. It lends itself to what I'm about to say. Yes, "you" are not unique in this scenario. In fact to me, that underscores the point! To try to heap 'meaning' onto these created sense of self that we identify as uniquely 'me' misses that point that we are more than our simplistic ego identification. So when you envision yourself spread out over infinite realities, their is nothing 'special' about this self-sense, this egoic identification you call "you". The reality is, you are ALL of those 'me's', everywhere. They are mere expressions of that essential 'you' that is unbound to all things.

 

The mystical realization is that in this world, in this life, in this body you immediately identify as 'you', is a mere expression of that formlessness that you are in your True Nature. What, the better religious mythology touches about, as I see it, is to speak of that timeless Self. It is intended to use that finger to point at the moon, to get us to realize that Nature of ourselves that is 'beyond the flesh'. So yes, seeking meaning to this sack of skin, is to miss the point. The point is in recognizing our very Being, and being that in this world; living that in this skin, as That. Being truly Alive, regardless of which multiverse we are in. We are That, in all worlds, in all forms, in ourselves, in the world, in Life itself.

 

Now, I'll let you digest that for some time. But bear in mind, don't try to wrap your mind around it. It is understood only outside forms. Then from within it, it takes shape within form. You have to start from within that place, not try to explain it or penetrate it with the tools of our reasoning.

[mwc]

The book also claims that there was a person called Abraham Lincoln who was the 16th president of United States.

 

Either the book contains partial truths and partial falsehoods, or it's completely false. There are three options there. Completely true, completely false, or in between (some true, some not).

 

If you then on top find another book which mentions about a country America with people who believed Abe existed as a president still mean that Abe the prez didn't exist?

And?

 

So now we have another book? Two books instead of the one? What does the other book say? Where did it come from?

 

I'll play your game for a moment. Let's use these two sources to validate this 16th president. Now what? We did it blindly just like you asked. He now exists. Which Abe Lincoln did we create? The one from actual history or the one from the fictional history minus the vampire hunting since we don't care for that strange bit? Who did we wind up with? Just some Abe. He's not real. He doesn't matter.

 

Are you so hard up to shove someone into the 16th Presidency that you'll put anyone into that position? Even a vampire hunter (that no longer hunts vampires)? This Abe is a fiction. He belongs nowhere in history except in his book.

 

Your argument, or question, appears to be that a sect cannot appear without a leader. Some human, somewhere, existed in some form and that launched the whole mess. And whether or not that human has been forgotten, lost, shrouded or whatever we want to put here, is beside the point. Some human was there basically as the prime mover whatever came next was beyond their control and then you have this sect or religion. It's the most obvious thing. So I need one example where that doesn't happen and you need to rethink your position, right? Here we go (Wikipedia on Ebionites):

The term Ebionites derives from the common adjective for "poor" in Hebrew (singular: אֶבְיוֹן ev·yōn, plural: אביונים ev·yōn·im),^[9][10][11] which occurs fifteen times in the Psalms and was the self-given term of some pious Jewish circles (e.g. Psalm 69:33 "For the LORD heareth the poor,"1 QpHab XII, 3.6.10, etc.).^[12] The term "the poor" was at first a common designation for all Christians - a reference to their material as well as their voluntary poverty.^[10][13][14]

The graecized Hebrew term "Ebionite" (Ebionai) was first applied by Irenaeus in the 2nd century without making mention of Nazarenes (c.180 CE).^[15][16] Origen says "for Ebion signifies “poor” among the Jews, and those Jews who have received Jesus as Christ are called by the name of Ebionites."^[17][18]

 

Tertullian was first to write against a non-existent heresiarch called Ebion and scholars believe he derived the name Ebion from a literal reading of Ebionaioi as meaning "followers of Ebion", a derivation now considered mistaken.^[10][12] The term "the poor" (Greek ptōkhoí) was still used in its original, more general sense.^[10][12] Modern Hebrew still uses the Biblical Hebrew term "the needy" both in histories of Christianity for "Ebionites" (אביונים) and for almsgiving to the needy at Purim.^[19]

Tada! Tertullian "created" Ebion pretty much out of thin air *and* he continues to use the term in the more tradition way as well. Both are done in one fell swoop. Ebion never existed to create the sect.

 

mwc

[Ouroboros]

Your argument, or question, appears to be that a sect cannot appear without a leader.

This is the reason why I'm frustrated. I didn't say that. Not understanding what I exactly said, is the reason why this discussion is totally useless.

[mymistake]

Are you so hard up to shove someone into the 16th Presidency that you'll put anyone into that position? Even a vampire hunter (that no longer hunts vampires)? This Abe is a fiction.

 

Hmm . . . this is why the topic of a historical Jesus leaves me scratching my head. There was a 16th president named Abe. If we believe he never existed that doesn't change the fact that he did. It is aspects of the man or his life that we can get right or wrong. Likewise if a Rabbi Jesus or Rabbi Yeshua existed it would be the aspects of him or his life we could get wrong. Evidence of his existence doesn't change his status - only our knowledge.

 

And of course if such a man did exist it would not validate the Bible or Christianity in any way.

 

 

 

Your argument, or question, appears to be that a sect cannot appear without a leader. Some human, somewhere, existed in some form and that launched the whole mess.

 

While leaderless movements do happen they are usually a response to a situation that has gone on longer than a population can take. Often people will rise up and try to become the leader. I think our tea party and 99% movements might be examples. I suppose a religion could as well but it's far more likely to have leaders. Usually religions have a high priest who rules in the name of the gods.

 

And whether or not that human has been forgotten, lost, shrouded or whatever we want to put here, is beside the point. Some human was there basically as the prime mover whatever came next was beyond their control and then you have this sect or religion. It's the most obvious thing. So I need one example where that doesn't happen and you need to rethink your position, right? Here we go (Wikipedia on Ebionites):

The term Ebionites derives from the common adjective for "poor" in Hebrew (singular: אֶבְיוֹן ev·yōn, plural: אביונים ev·yōn·im),^[9][10][11] which occurs fifteen times in the Psalms and was the self-given term of some pious Jewish circles (e.g. Psalm 69:33 "For the LORD heareth the poor,"1 QpHab XII, 3.6.10, etc.).^[12] The term "the poor" was at first a common designation for all Christians - a reference to their material as well as their voluntary poverty.^[10][13][14]

The graecized Hebrew term "Ebionite" (Ebionai) was first applied by Irenaeus in the 2nd century without making mention of Nazarenes (c.180 CE).^[15][16] Origen says "for Ebion signifies “poor” among the Jews, and those Jews who have received Jesus as Christ are called by the name of Ebionites."^[17][18]

 

Tertullian was first to write against a non-existent heresiarch called Ebion and scholars believe he derived the name Ebion from a literal reading of Ebionaioi as meaning "followers of Ebion", a derivation now considered mistaken.^[10][12] The term "the poor" (Greek ptōkhoí) was still used in its original, more general sense.^[10][12] Modern Hebrew still uses the Biblical Hebrew term "the needy" both in histories of Christianity for "Ebionites" (אביונים) and for almsgiving to the needy at Purim.^[19]

Tada! Tertullian "created" Ebion pretty much out of thin air *and* he continues to use the term in the more tradition way as well. Both are done in one fell swoop. Ebion never existed to create the sect.

 

mwc

 

Very interesting. There were many Judeo-Christian and quasi-Christian sects before Rome took over the business. It's too bad we don't have better records of them.

[Antlerman]

Your argument, or question, appears to be that a sect cannot appear without a leader.

This is the reason why I'm frustrated. I didn't say that. Not understanding what I exactly said, is the reason why this discussion is totally useless.

Don't bother. Next you'll get LNC-style logic fallacies thrown at you to deflect from the meat of your points. It's all about saving face with this one. Trust me.

[mwc]

Your argument, or question, appears to be that a sect cannot appear without a leader.

This is the reason why I'm frustrated. I didn't say that. Not understanding what I exactly said, is the reason why this discussion is totally useless.

Then what are you saying?

 

You appeared to say there was a fictional book describing a real person. Okay. But you also added that there were real histories, which I took to mean trustworthy histories, that also mentioned this person.

 

But are we only talking about the fiction alone? Then we have no idea who Abe Lincoln was and who the 16th president was. Why believe any of it at all? Why accept a vampire hunter was the 16th president of the United States? That is absurd. If we don't know who the 16th president was it could be anyone at all and I have no reason to accept some strange work of fiction just because it exists.

 

So we add in other texts that are actual, factual, histories and we go ahead and trust them. No need to bother with your vampire book. Toss it. It's bullshit from the word go. What does it add? Not one damn thing. We've already got Abe Lincoln, 16th President from our reliable sources.

 

This is stupid unless you can help me understand why it's not. I've not read the vampire book but I doubt it mirrors the real histories word for word just with vampires tossed in.

 

mwc

[mwc]

Hmm . . . this is why the topic of a historical Jesus leaves me scratching my head. There was a 16th president named Abe. If we believe he never existed that doesn't change the fact that he did. It is aspects of the man or his life that we can get right or wrong. Likewise if a Rabbi Jesus or Rabbi Yeshua existed it would be the aspects of him or his life we could get wrong. Evidence of his existence doesn't change his status - only our knowledge.

 

And of course if such a man did exist it would not validate the Bible or Christianity in any way.

There *was* a 16th president named Abe. Belief plays no part here. Plenty of documentation to back up old Abe. Pictures too.

 

Abe the vampire hunter did not exist. He's a work of fiction. He was never president.

 

So you're getting your information from the vampire book and hoping there's a history book somewhere, that didn't come after and use the fiction as a source, that can help you validate your fiction? That would be a nice thing to have but then we'd ditch the fiction as a source wouldn't we?

 

While leaderless movements do happen they are usually a response to a situation that has gone on longer than a population can take. Often people will rise up and try to become the leader. I think our tea party and 99% movements might be examples. I suppose a religion could as well but it's far more likely to have leaders. Usually religions have a high priest who rules in the name of the gods.

The Ebionites were likely not leaderless. The point was Ebion never existed to create them. However they came to exist is lost. But they certainly came to exist and thrive. And, later, Ebion was created by someone who wasn't even an Ebionite and projected into the role of creator of their sect. Perhaps the people respected "ebion" in the sense of original word and used it as a rallying point to come to exist but that's different than respecting an Ebion and using him to come to exist.

 

mwc

[Ouroboros]

 

Then what are you saying?

 

I tried to explain it several times. If you didn't get it already, then there's no use to do it again.

 

[mwc]

Here's winking at you.

As long as we're agreed.

 

mwc

[mwc]

I tried to explain it several times. If you didn't get it already, then there's no use to do it again.

I thought I did understand as per my post: "Your argument, or question, appears to be that a sect cannot appear without a leader. Some human, somewhere, existed in some form and that launched the whole mess."

 

Your first post in this thread does say: "My view is that each and every religion has a person who is the driving force behind it. Mohammed for Islam. Buddha for buddhism. And so on. [...] So, my thought is that some kind of "Jesus" did exist. Not like the stories, but a person being the first building block for the idea to grow on." Does your view change from this because I addressed just this sort of situation when speaking about Ebion and I believe I did so honestly without twisting words, arguments or using logical fallacies.

 

I admit that I was more focused on other aspects of this discussion so just point me back to your post numbers where you think you explain it best and I'll have a closer look. There's no real need to restate the whole thing again.

 

mwc

[bornagainathiest]

Now, I'll let you digest that for some time. But bear in mind, don't try to wrap your mind around it. It is understood only outside forms. Then from within it, it takes shape within form. You have to start from within that place, not try to explain it or penetrate it with the tools of our reasoning.

 

Thanks A-Man!

 

You and I may have different takes on a whole raft of things, but even so, I shall do as you suggest and give this some t-i-m-e.

Also, on the subject of time... I really appreciate the time you take to respond to my questions and the effort you put in to convey these things to me.

 

Thanks again,

 

BAA.

[mymistake]

So you're getting your information from the vampire book and hoping there's a history book somewhere, that didn't come after and use the fiction as a source, that can help you validate your fiction?

 

I don't think there is a single Christian participating in this thread. To my knowledge nobody is trying to validate fiction.

 

That would be a nice thing to have but then we'd ditch the fiction as a source wouldn't we?

 

Nobody is quoting the Bible as a source of history. The Bible can be a source for looking into the minds of the men who edited it to catch a glimpse of their sect via cultural anthropology. Trying to get at the original writers is problematic.

[Legion]

Uh....

 

I think the word "faith" has been overly maligned, misappropriated, and misconstrued. If a person believes that an objective world exists, and that the phenomena found therein are governed by causal relations, then this person has a faith.

 

As for logic... very powerful. There are now known to be many orders of logic (e.g. propositional logic, first-order logic, second order logic).

[qadeshet]

I would love to look at more than just the Fables and Myths. The problem is, that's all we have. Josephus, Suetonius, the younger Pliny, and Tacitus are no help. Dozens of contemporary writers and Historians should have mentioned Jesus, but didn't. Once the Mythical and Supernatural elements are removed from Christianity, nothing is left. That's why every HJ scholar comes up with a different Jesus.

Let's start with what is the earliest we can go. Which one is the earliest of Josephus, Suetonius, Younger Pliny, and Tacitus? And what did they say? We can agree that no one of them actually met Jesus, but they did talk about "Christians" or some form of believers that believed in a "Jesus". They were following the belief of that a person they called Jesus was their prophet (at least), perhaps not son of God, but at least some kind of prophet, who said something, and did something. What he said. What he did. We don't know. But can we agree that there were some cults who believed in a Jesus in the first century?

 

Josephus was born in 37 AD and wrote his Antiquities of the Jews in 90 AD. The Testimonius is an obvious forgery.

Suetonius, around 115 AD, tells us that followers of a man names Chrestus were expelled from Rome.

Pliny the Younger, also second century, interrogated a few Christians and tells us that Christians pray to Christ as to a god.

Tacitus was a close friend of Pliny. I can imagine Pliny and Tacitus sitting around talking about those crazy Christians.

 

We know that there were Christians in the 1st century. We don't know that the earliest Christians knew of an historical Jesus. The only Christ that Paul seems to know is from his visions.

[mymistake]

I would love to look at more than just the Fables and Myths. The problem is, that's all we have. Josephus, Suetonius, the younger Pliny, and Tacitus are no help. Dozens of contemporary writers and Historians should have mentioned Jesus, but didn't. Once the Mythical and Supernatural elements are removed from Christianity, nothing is left. That's why every HJ scholar comes up with a different Jesus.

Let's start with what is the earliest we can go. Which one is the earliest of Josephus, Suetonius, Younger Pliny, and Tacitus? And what did they say? We can agree that no one of them actually met Jesus, but they did talk about "Christians" or some form of believers that believed in a "Jesus". They were following the belief of that a person they called Jesus was their prophet (at least), perhaps not son of God, but at least some kind of prophet, who said something, and did something. What he said. What he did. We don't know. But can we agree that there were some cults who believed in a Jesus in the first century?

 

Josephus was born in 37 AD and wrote his Antiquities of the Jews in 90 AD. The Testimonius is an obvious forgery.

Suetonius, around 115 AD, tells us that followers of a man names Chrestus were expelled from Rome.

Pliny the Younger, also second century, interrogated a few Christians and tells us that Christians pray to Christ as to a god.

Tacitus was a close friend of Pliny. I can imagine Pliny and Tacitus sitting around talking about those crazy Christians.

 

We know that there were Christians in the 1st century. We don't know that the earliest Christians knew of an historical Jesus. The only Christ that Paul seems to know is from his visions.

 

And of course it is a leap to assume Chrestus must be Christ. In the end we don't know. We just have maybes.

[mcdaddy]

I would love to look at more than just the Fables and Myths. The problem is, that's all we have. Josephus, Suetonius, the younger Pliny, and Tacitus are no help. Dozens of contemporary writers and Historians should have mentioned Jesus, but didn't. Once the Mythical and Supernatural elements are removed from Christianity, nothing is left. That's why every HJ scholar comes up with a different Jesus.

Let's start with what is the earliest we can go. Which one is the earliest of Josephus, Suetonius, Younger Pliny, and Tacitus? And what did they say? We can agree that no one of them actually met Jesus, but they did talk about "Christians" or some form of believers that believed in a "Jesus". They were following the belief of that a person they called Jesus was their prophet (at least), perhaps not son of God, but at least some kind of prophet, who said something, and did something. What he said. What he did. We don't know. But can we agree that there were some cults who believed in a Jesus in the first century?

 

Josephus was born in 37 AD and wrote his Antiquities of the Jews in 90 AD. The Testimonius is an obvious forgery.

Suetonius, around 115 AD, tells us that followers of a man names Chrestus were expelled from Rome.

Pliny the Younger, also second century, interrogated a few Christians and tells us that Christians pray to Christ as to a god.

Tacitus was a close friend of Pliny. I can imagine Pliny and Tacitus sitting around talking about those crazy Christians.

 

We know that there were Christians in the 1st century. We don't know that the earliest Christians knew of an historical Jesus. The only Christ that Paul seems to know is from his visions.

 

And of course it is a leap to assume Chrestus must be Christ. In the end we don't know. We just have maybes.

 

From what I know, the instances of "Chrestus" were altered (erased) to read "Christos". Theres a vid I can post if interested.

[Ouroboros]

I tried to explain it several times. If you didn't get it already, then there's no use to do it again.

I thought I did understand as per my post: "Your argument, or question, appears to be that a sect cannot appear without a leader. Some human, somewhere, existed in some form and that launched the whole mess."

 

Your first post in this thread does say: "My view is that each and every religion has a person who is the driving force behind it. "

Ouch. You're right. I was stressed that day and took a "stupid-pill" and overstated what I really wanted to say. I rarely go back and change my posts, even when I've said something totally dumb and wrong. Later in the thread I'm correcting myself and try to explain that what I really meant is that most religions and cults had a person who was the driving force behind it.

 

What I might do later today is to see if there's some list of religions and cults through history and how many of them were started by historical characters. Then see how many I can find that were started by some hoax by anonymous people and how many came about with just the agreement of a group of people. My feeling is that the first category is the largest one and most common. But you know what... I could be completely wrong. Perhaps the ones starting from a group without a leader is more common. Maybe I just have the wrong impression. Simple as that.

 

Mohammed for Islam. Buddha for buddhism. And so on. [...] So, my thought is that some kind of "Jesus" did exist. Not like the stories, but a person being the first building block for the idea to grow on." Does your view change from this because I addressed just this sort of situation when speaking about Ebion and I believe I did so honestly without twisting words, arguments or using logical fallacies.

No, you did a good job. I know that I can screw up my posts at times, and I continue posting to try to correct my first argument. I'm a person who actually engage in this debates to change my own view, and I do it passionately, and you will see the transition in the discussion itself. I fail to point that out many times.

 

But I do think I remember (without going back to check my memory) that I did try to clarify my position more later in the thread.

 

I admit that I was more focused on other aspects of this discussion so just point me back to your post numbers where you think you explain it best and I'll have a closer look. There's no real need to restate the whole thing again.

With what you pointed out above, I realize that I created some confusion, and it might be useful to restate my thoughts again.

 

But let's do it without making it a claim or a conclusion.

 

If we compare different cults and religions in history, how were they started. Were they started with a central figure who claimed to have "it" and people followed, or were they started by a group of people who made up a fictional leader.

what numbers would we get.

 

My personal, and very subjective, impression of the little I know is that more of them are started by a leader. You might have some data or statistics to help me to show the opposite. Feel free to share that.

 

But if it's more common that cults are started by a physical person who everyone puts in the center of their religion and consider a prophet or called by God or even son of God. Then, wouldn't it be reasonable to think that a cult we don't know anything about has a slightly more chance (statistically) to be of the same kind? Or is this an error on my part when it comes to probability? Feel free to explain why not if I'm wrong there too.