Jesus is fictional

Jeffrick
High Level DonorRational VIP!SuperfanGold Member
Jeffrick's picture
Posts: 2354
Joined: 2008-03-25
User is offlineOffline
Jesus is fictional

                                       It's a hot topic on this forum lately so I thought you guys would be interested in a live podcast this Sunday starting at 3 PM Eastern time zone. Two former believers now atheists [and members here] do a show called Strang frequaincies radio.   Host Bobby and Jason have scheduald a live phone linked interview with both Dr.Richard Carrier & Dr. Robert Price on the topic of is Jesus fictional?.                                  http://www.para-help.com/sfr/                     The chat room they run is pretty lively, and the hosts watch it;  meaning If you have a viable question for the guests it will be relayed to them and credited to you. Hope to see you all there.                    

 

"Very funny Scotty; now beam down our clothes."

VEGETARIAN: Ancient Hindu word for "lousy hunter"

If man was formed from dirt, why is there still dirt?


Jeffrick
High Level DonorRational VIP!SuperfanGold Member
Jeffrick's picture
Posts: 2354
Joined: 2008-03-25
User is offlineOffline
              

          

 

 

            bump.

"Very funny Scotty; now beam down our clothes."

VEGETARIAN: Ancient Hindu word for "lousy hunter"

If man was formed from dirt, why is there still dirt?


x
Bronze Member
Posts: 591
Joined: 2010-06-15
User is offlineOffline
Good stuff

Just listened to their Krauss interview and look forward to listening to Carrier and Price when they put the mp3 links up.


iwbiek
atheistSuperfan
iwbiek's picture
Posts: 3085
Joined: 2008-03-23
User is offlineOffline
robert price has lately

robert price has lately become one of my favorite rogue theologians.  his sheer erudition is enough to put off most believers.

me, i'm more of a fan of his for editing the call of cthulhu fiction series from chaosium.

"I asked my father,
I said, 'Father change my name.'
The one I'm using now it's covered up
with fear and filth and cowardice and shame."
--Leonard Cohen


JesusNEVERexisted
Superfan
JesusNEVERexisted's picture
Posts: 679
Joined: 2010-01-03
User is offlineOffline
This sounds cool.  So how

This sounds cool.  So how did it go?

Have you guys seen the Carrier presentation on Skepticon.org?  He did it in Springfied, MO which is almost part of the bible belt!

But he laid out a GREAT case for the Jesus myth than NO ONE could refute! Really good stuff! Someone should post the video here!

Click here to find out why Christianity is the biggest fairy tale ever created!! www.nobeliefs.com/exist.htm www.JesusNEVERexisted.com


Jeffrick
High Level DonorRational VIP!SuperfanGold Member
Jeffrick's picture
Posts: 2354
Joined: 2008-03-25
User is offlineOffline
Went great!!!!!

JesusNEVERexisted wrote:

This sounds cool.  So how did it go?

Have you guys seen the Carrier presentation on Skepticon.org?  He did it in Springfied, MO which is almost part of the bible belt!

But he laid out a GREAT case for the Jesus myth than NO ONE could refute! Really good stuff! Someone should post the video here!

 

 

                  I loved it.You can hear the entire show by going to my original link  http://www.para-help.com/sfr/  and when you get to the main page click on "downloads", it's worth a relisten anytime.

"Very funny Scotty; now beam down our clothes."

VEGETARIAN: Ancient Hindu word for "lousy hunter"

If man was formed from dirt, why is there still dirt?


x
Bronze Member
Posts: 591
Joined: 2010-06-15
User is offlineOffline
Some rough notes

Finally got around to listening to Carrier and Price. Both are very articulate and thought provoking.

The final thing that tipped Price into mythicism was how the NT is clearly derived from the OT.

I was fairly familiar with what Carrier thought already, but Price brought up a few things I'd not heard before, so I'll need to do more investigation.

These were:

There were no synagogues in 1st century Galilee.

The Paul character could be based on Simon Magus.

The meaning of the word Barrabas is 'son of the father' and in one document he was called Jesus Barrabas.

 

In fact, the meanings of the names of many of the characters in the stories are interesting, making it likely that they were symbolic characters.

Another point that has struck me before is: to be consistent, one must also question the historicity of all characters who have no strong evidence for them.

I gather that Mohammad falls into this category, but for the moment, I'd better stick with looking into Christianity. I'm still part way through looking into the source of Exodus and Genesis, but got bogged down as there is so much tangential reading to do. It all gets a bit exponential.

Life is shortish, so time management is helpful.

 


JesusNEVERexisted
Superfan
JesusNEVERexisted's picture
Posts: 679
Joined: 2010-01-03
User is offlineOffline
Jeffrick

Jeffrick wrote:

JesusNEVERexisted wrote:

This sounds cool.  So how did it go?

Have you guys seen the Carrier presentation on Skepticon.org?  He did it in Springfied, MO which is almost part of the bible belt!

But he laid out a GREAT case for the Jesus myth than NO ONE could refute! Really good stuff! Someone should post the video here!

 

 

                  I loved it.You can hear the entire show by going to my original link  http://www.para-help.com/sfr/  and when you get to the main page click on "downloads", it's worth a relisten anytime.

I'm sure it's interesting but can anyone post a transcript or partial transcript if we're not able to listen to it all?

Click here to find out why Christianity is the biggest fairy tale ever created!! www.nobeliefs.com/exist.htm www.JesusNEVERexisted.com


JesusNEVERexisted
Superfan
JesusNEVERexisted's picture
Posts: 679
Joined: 2010-01-03
User is offlineOffline
Jeffrick

Jeffrick wrote:

JesusNEVERexisted wrote:

This sounds cool.  So how did it go?

Have you guys seen the Carrier presentation on Skepticon.org?  He did it in Springfied, MO which is almost part of the bible belt!

But he laid out a GREAT case for the Jesus myth than NO ONE could refute! Really good stuff! Someone should post the video here!

 

 

                  I loved it.You can hear the entire show by going to my original link  http://www.para-help.com/sfr/  and when you get to the main page click on "downloads", it's worth a relisten anytime.

So I downloaded it and have played a half an hour so far but these 2 hosts are just talking mumbo jumbo and haven't even got to Price and Carrier yet! What's going on??

They mentioned them in the beginning but now are just talking gibberish! You got a direct link when Price and Carrier actually start talking?

Click here to find out why Christianity is the biggest fairy tale ever created!! www.nobeliefs.com/exist.htm www.JesusNEVERexisted.com


Jeffrick
High Level DonorRational VIP!SuperfanGold Member
Jeffrick's picture
Posts: 2354
Joined: 2008-03-25
User is offlineOffline
read closely

              It's episode 197.  They seperate the three hour show into 3 segments ; you were listening to the free talk [hour one mp3] read the links for hour two mp3{richard Carrier] or hour three mp3 {robert Price.] Good luck.     

 

"Very funny Scotty; now beam down our clothes."

VEGETARIAN: Ancient Hindu word for "lousy hunter"

If man was formed from dirt, why is there still dirt?


JesusNEVERexisted
Superfan
JesusNEVERexisted's picture
Posts: 679
Joined: 2010-01-03
User is offlineOffline
Jeffrick

Jeffrick wrote:

              It's episode 197.  They seperate the three hour show into 3 segments ; you were listening to the free talk [hour one mp3] read the links for hour two mp3{richard Carrier] or hour three mp3 {robert Price.] Good luck.     

 

Oh, I thought I only saw one link. I'll have to listen to it some other time.

In the meantime if anyone can even post a partial transcript that would be great!

Click here to find out why Christianity is the biggest fairy tale ever created!! www.nobeliefs.com/exist.htm www.JesusNEVERexisted.com


FurryCatHerder
Theist
FurryCatHerder's picture
Posts: 1253
Joined: 2007-06-02
User is offlineOffline
x wrote:The meaning of the

x wrote:

The meaning of the word Barrabas is 'son of the father' and in one document he was called Jesus Barrabas.

I'll get back to this in a second, but yes.  That's what it means.  Bar Abbas.

Quote:
In fact, the meanings of the names of many of the characters in the stories are interesting, making it likely that they were symbolic characters.

If you understand the meanings of some of the names, and follow the subtext, it makes a lot more sense.  Jesus had two Zealots (anti-Roman revolutionaries) and a hired assassin.  Who?  Judas Iscariot -- a "Sicarii".  Anyone reading the Gospels at the time would have known exactly what that meant, as well as what having two Zealots..

Quote:
Another point that has struck me before is: to be consistent, one must also question the historicity of all characters who have no strong evidence for them.

My approach is to look at their name, their origins (Galilee was a hot-bed of anti-Roman activity), and whatever else is around them, time-wise.

The best evidence is that Jesus (if he existed at all) was more on the "defeat the Romans by being better Jews" side of things, but still willing to be a charismatic leader of a political movement.

Quote:
I gather that Mohammad falls into this category, but for the moment, I'd better stick with looking into Christianity. I'm still part way through looking into the source of Exodus and Genesis, but got bogged down as there is so much tangential reading to do. It all gets a bit exponential.

I ran across someone who claim that Muhammad fabricated Islam by deciding, theological point by theological point, which aspects of Christianity and Judaism were "best" and choosing the better of the two.

Even at the time of Muhammad there were Christians who rejected the death and miraculous resurrection of Jesus, as well as his divinity.  That's what we see -- Jesus is just another prophet, with an explicit denial that he was ever crucified.  Which makes me wonder if there wasn't a tradition that the "Jesus Barabbas" who was let go by Pilate wasn't actually Jesus.

If he'd been slapped around, whipped, and let go, there'd be no record of any of that in contemporary Roman literature.  If he was such a huge threat as to have warranted days-long trials, etc., then a miraculous resurrection after being executed, we'd know about it.  Based on that, I'm going with the former.  When his brother James was murdered around 55CE, I'm guessing that James' death was attributed to the founder of the sect.  The "Jesus will rebuild the Temple" language found in the Gospels puts their writing well after 70CE.

"Obviously I'm convinced of the existence of G-d. I'm equally convinced that Atheists who've led good lives will be in Olam HaBa going "How the heck did I wind up in this place?!?" while Christians who've treated people like dirt will be in some other place asking the exact same question."


JesusNEVERexisted
Superfan
JesusNEVERexisted's picture
Posts: 679
Joined: 2010-01-03
User is offlineOffline
But there is NO record of

But there is NO record of Jesus in contemporary Roman literature.  Not even a single eyewitness account despite preposterous bible claims that he had THOUSANDS and THOUSANDS and followers and performed all sorts of miracles!  No contemporary record of his existence despite having very good historical records from that era!

The dude was mythical and the very fact that he NEVER returns (eventhough he PROMISED) is further validation of this every day!

Click here to find out why Christianity is the biggest fairy tale ever created!! www.nobeliefs.com/exist.htm www.JesusNEVERexisted.com


x
Bronze Member
Posts: 591
Joined: 2010-06-15
User is offlineOffline
That makes sense, so I'll add some citations

FurryCatHerder wrote:

x wrote:

The meaning of the word Barrabas is 'son of the father' and in one document he was called Jesus Barrabas.

I'll get back to this in a second, but yes.  That's what it means.  Bar Abbas.

Quote:
In fact, the meanings of the names of many of the characters in the stories are interesting, making it likely that they were symbolic characters.

If you understand the meanings of some of the names, and follow the subtext, it makes a lot more sense.  Jesus had two Zealots (anti-Roman revolutionaries) and a hired assassin.  Who?  Judas Iscariot -- a "Sicarii".  Anyone reading the Gospels at the time would have known exactly what that meant, as well as what having two Zealots..

Quote:
Another point that has struck me before is: to be consistent, one must also question the historicity of all characters who have no strong evidence for them.

My approach is to look at their name, their origins (Galilee was a hot-bed of anti-Roman activity), and whatever else is around them, time-wise.

The best evidence is that Jesus (if he existed at all) was more on the "defeat the Romans by being better Jews" side of things, but still willing to be a charismatic leader of a political movement.

 

I realise that it doesn't take a lot of effort to use Google, but since I have done, I may as well put this information in one place.

 

Jesus Barabbas

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barabbas#Other_interpretations

 

Benjamin Urrutia, co-author of The Logia of Yeshua: The Sayings of Jesus, agrees with Maccoby and others who say that Yeshua Bar Abba or Jesus Barabbas must be none other than Jesus of Nazareth, and that the choice between two prisoners is a fiction. 

This practice of releasing a prisoner is said by Magee and others to be an element in a literary creation of Mark, who needed to have a contrast to the true "son of the father" in order to set up an edifying contest, in a form of parable.

Dennis R. MacDonald, in The Homeric Epics and the Gospel of Mark, notes that a similar episode to the one that occurs in Mark—of a crowd picking one figure over another figure similar to the other—occurred in The Odyssey, where Odysseus entered the palace disguised as a beggar and defeated his wife's suitors to reclaim his throne.[18] MacDonald suggests Mark borrowed from this section of The Odyssey and used it to pen the Barabbas tale, only this time Jesus- the protagonist- loses to highlight the cruelty of Jesus' persecutors.[18] However, this theory too is rejected by other scholars.[19]

 

For completeness, here is the gospel reference to Jesus Barabbas.

http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Matthew%2027:15-26;&version=TNIV; and

http://www.ovc.edu/tc/lay03mat.htm

 

Matthew 27:16-17:

TEXT: "a notorious prisoner, called Jesus Barabbas. . . . release to plyou, Jesus Barabbas or Jesus who is called Christ?"
EVIDENCE: Theta f1 700* syr(s,pal)
TRANSLATIONS: RSVn NEB TEV
RANK: C

NOTES: "a notorious prisoner, called Barabbas. . . . release to plyou, Barabbas or Jesus who is called Christ?"
EVIDENCE: S A B D K L W Delta Pi 064 f13 33 565 700c 892 1010 1241 Byz Lect lat vg syr(p,h) few syr(pal) cop
TRANSLATIONS: KJV ASV RSV NASV NIV NEBn

COMMENTS: The name "Jesus" before "Barabbas" in verses 16 and 17 is in brackets in the UBS text. Although the name "Jesus Barabbas" is found in only a few manuscripts, it is more likely to be original, because copyists would have been likely to have omitted the name "Jesus" from before "Barabbas" out of reverence, and there is no reason for it to have been added.

 

 

Judas Iscariot

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Judas_iscariot#Etymology

The significance of "Iscariot" is uncertain. There are several major theories on etymology:

  • One popular explanation derives Iscariot from Hebrew איש־קריות, Κ-Qrîyôth, or "man of Kerioth". The Gospel of John refers to Judas as "son of Simon Iscariot" (although the biblical text only refers to him as "the son of Simon" (Jn 6:71, Jn 13:26, King James Version)),[2] implying it was not Judas, but his father, who came from there.[3] Some speculate that Kerioth refers to a region in Judea, but it is also the name of two known Judean towns.[4]
  • A second theory is that "Iscariot" identifies Judas as a member of the sicarii.[5] These were a cadre of assassins among Jewish rebels intent on driving the Romans out of Judea. However, some historians maintain the sicarii arose in the 40s or 50s of the 1st century, in which case Judas could not have been a member.[6]
  • A third possibility advanced by Ernst Wilhelm Hengstenberg is that Iscariot means "the liar" or "the false one," perhaps from the Hebrew HebrewIscariot-1.jpg.[7]
  • Fourth, some have proposed that the word derives from an Aramaic word meaning "red color," from the root HebrewIscariot-2.jpg.[7]
  • Fifth, the word derives from one of the Aramaic roots HebrewIscariot-3.jpg or HebrewIscariot-4.jpg. This would mean "to deliver," based on the LXX rendering of Isaiah 19:4a—a theory advanced by J. Alfred Morin.[8]
  • Finally, the epithet could be associated with the manner of Judas' death, i.e., hanging. This would mean Iscariot derives from a kind of Greek-Aramaic hybrid: HebrewIscariot-5.jpg, Iskarioutha, "chokiness" or "constriction." This might indicate that the epithet be applied posthumously by the remaining disciples, but Joan E. Taylor has argued that it was a descriptive name given to Judas by Jesus, since other disciples such as Simon Peter/Cephas (Kephas = "rock" ) were also given such names.[9]

 

I'm not qualified to choose between these, but the objection that the sicarii arose in the 40s or 50s isn't much of an objection, considering that the gospels were written a long time after this and that stories introduce references that the readers can relate to.

Here is Price on how the Judas story is silly if taken literally. He goes with option 3:

http://www.robertmprice.mindvendor.com/art_judas_say.htm

Why do the enemies of Jesus need Judas? He guides them to the Garden, but anyone could have shadowed a prominent group like Jesus’ entourage. He tells the arresting party that he will point out the man they want. But they are there to seize him on account of his dangerous popularity! How could they not know which one he was? “Hey, which of you guys is Elvis?” Judas has been clumsily shoe-horned into the story. Why does he betray? Because he is the betrayer. How does he betray? By being on the scene.

They are often given punning names to signal their sheer utility. In this case, the betrayer is “Judas,” a Jew, or rather, the Jew. And he is named Iscariot, or “Man of Falsehood.”

 

And to illustrate just what a catchy story the Judas one is:

Lady GaGa wrote:

I’m just a Holy Fool, oh baby he’s so cruel
But I’m still in love with Judas, baby

 

FurryCatHerder wrote:

x wrote:
I gather that Mohammad falls into this category, but for the moment, I'd better stick with looking into Christianity. I'm still part way through looking into the source of Exodus and Genesis, but got bogged down as there is so much tangential reading to do. It all gets a bit exponential.

I ran across someone who claim that Muhammad fabricated Islam by deciding, theological point by theological point, which aspects of Christianity and Judaism were "best" and choosing the better of the two.

Even at the time of Muhammad there were Christians who rejected the death and miraculous resurrection of Jesus, as well as his divinity.  That's what we see -- Jesus is just another prophet, with an explicit denial that he was ever crucified.  Which makes me wonder if there wasn't a tradition that the "Jesus Barabbas" who was let go by Pilate wasn't actually Jesus.

If he'd been slapped around, whipped, and let go, there'd be no record of any of that in contemporary Roman literature.  If he was such a huge threat as to have warranted days-long trials, etc., then a miraculous resurrection after being executed, we'd know about it.  Based on that, I'm going with the former.  When his brother James was murdered around 55CE, I'm guessing that James' death was attributed to the founder of the sect.  The "Jesus will rebuild the Temple" language found in the Gospels puts their writing well after 70CE.

I've also read somewhere that the Quran was constructed that way.

The destruction of the second temple is good for dating.

I need to look further into James. There are debates about whether 'the brother of the Lord' is intended blood-literally or matey-fraternally.

 


FurryCatHerder
Theist
FurryCatHerder's picture
Posts: 1253
Joined: 2007-06-02
User is offlineOffline
x wrote:FurryCatHerder

x wrote:

FurryCatHerder wrote:

I ran across someone who claim that Muhammad fabricated Islam by deciding, theological point by theological point, which aspects of Christianity and Judaism were "best" and choosing the better of the two.

Even at the time of Muhammad there were Christians who rejected the death and miraculous resurrection of Jesus, as well as his divinity.  That's what we see -- Jesus is just another prophet, with an explicit denial that he was ever crucified.  Which makes me wonder if there wasn't a tradition that the "Jesus Barabbas" who was let go by Pilate wasn't actually Jesus.

If he'd been slapped around, whipped, and let go, there'd be no record of any of that in contemporary Roman literature.  If he was such a huge threat as to have warranted days-long trials, etc., then a miraculous resurrection after being executed, we'd know about it.  Based on that, I'm going with the former.  When his brother James was murdered around 55CE, I'm guessing that James' death was attributed to the founder of the sect.  The "Jesus will rebuild the Temple" language found in the Gospels puts their writing well after 70CE.

I've also read somewhere that the Quran was constructed that way.

The destruction of the second temple is good for dating.

I need to look further into James. There are debates about whether 'the brother of the Lord' is intended blood-literally or matey-fraternally.

The entire "virgin birth" thing was invented decades after Jesus's supposed life and death.

And trust me on this one -- Jews don't run around referring to other Jews as "brother" all the time unless they really are brothers.

"Obviously I'm convinced of the existence of G-d. I'm equally convinced that Atheists who've led good lives will be in Olam HaBa going "How the heck did I wind up in this place?!?" while Christians who've treated people like dirt will be in some other place asking the exact same question."


Jeffrick
High Level DonorRational VIP!SuperfanGold Member
Jeffrick's picture
Posts: 2354
Joined: 2008-03-25
User is offlineOffline
Has in biblical times.

                    I understand the word "virgin" simply ment 'young girl'; has in  -- the time between first menses and marriage -- before her first period she is a child, after marriage she is a wife/adult.   "virgin" in fact had nothing to do with sexual activity and 'born to a virgin' meant 'born to a single mother'. Based on that scenario  --  Who qualify's as a Jew is determined by weather or not your mother is Jewish reguardless of marriage or who the biological father is.   

 

"Very funny Scotty; now beam down our clothes."

VEGETARIAN: Ancient Hindu word for "lousy hunter"

If man was formed from dirt, why is there still dirt?


FurryCatHerder
Theist
FurryCatHerder's picture
Posts: 1253
Joined: 2007-06-02
User is offlineOffline
Jeffrick wrote:I understand

Jeffrick wrote:
I understand the word "virgin" simply ment 'young girl'; has in  -- the time between first menses and marriage -- before her first period she is a child, after marriage she is a wife/adult.   "virgin" in fact had nothing to do with sexual activity and 'born to a virgin' meant 'born to a single mother'. Based on that scenario  --  Who qualify's as a Jew is determined by weather or not your mother is Jewish reguardless of marriage or who the biological father is.

If an unmarried Jewish woman and a Jewish man have sex, the only way they are not suddenly married is if they cannot marry.  By Jewish law, the only way they cannot suddenly be married is if she is already married to someone else, or if she is forbidden to him by consanguinity or other laws.

The notion that Mary and Joseph were not married under the Laws of Moses (which are actually the Laws of G-d, but it means "the Laws Moses brought down from Mt. Sinai" ) is nonsense -- by all accounts they were already living together and most likely hadn't made a =formal= public deal of things.  Once they were living under the same roof, and all sources I know of indicate they were, there was a strong presumption they'd been sexually involved, and that's good enough to be married.

So, not only was Mary not a "virgin", because the Hebrew just doesn't mean that, but Mary and Joseph were lawfully married under Jewish Law because Jewish Law is like that.

"Obviously I'm convinced of the existence of G-d. I'm equally convinced that Atheists who've led good lives will be in Olam HaBa going "How the heck did I wind up in this place?!?" while Christians who've treated people like dirt will be in some other place asking the exact same question."


Jeffrick
High Level DonorRational VIP!SuperfanGold Member
Jeffrick's picture
Posts: 2354
Joined: 2008-03-25
User is offlineOffline
1st off!!!!

FurryCatHerder wrote:

Jeffrick wrote:
I understand the word "virgin" simply ment 'young girl'; has in  -- the time between first menses and marriage -- before her first period she is a child, after marriage she is a wife/adult.   "virgin" in fact had nothing to do with sexual activity and 'born to a virgin' meant 'born to a single mother'. Based on that scenario  --  Who qualify's as a Jew is determined by weather or not your mother is Jewish reguardless of marriage or who the biological father is.

If an unmarried Jewish woman and a Jewish man have sex, the only way they are not suddenly married is if they cannot marry.  By Jewish law, the only way they cannot suddenly be married is if she is already married to someone else, or if she is forbidden to him by consanguinity or other laws.

The notion that Mary and Joseph were not married under the Laws of Moses (which are actually the Laws of G-d, but it means "the Laws Moses brought down from Mt. Sinai" ) is nonsense -- by all accounts they were already living together and most likely hadn't made a =formal= public deal of things.  Once they were living under the same roof, and all sources I know of indicate they were, there was a strong presumption they'd been sexually involved, and that's good enough to be married.

So, not only was Mary not a "virgin", because the Hebrew just doesn't mean that, but Mary and Joseph were lawfully married under Jewish Law because Jewish Law is like that.

 

 

            First of all; I do NOT believe Jesus, Mary or Joseph were REAL persons.  I was commenting on the meaning of the word 'virgin' in biblical times. It did NOT refer to any sexual activity or non-activity, it ment 'young girl/woman' not yet married.  The Jewish/Hebrew law about "your a real Jew if your mother is Jewish" comes about because of the frequaint invasions of Hebrew lands by non Jews, reguardless of how the invading army made out on the battle field the invaders RAPED and left behind a good number of pregnant Jewish women;  some married some not.  The law makers decided these children would be Jewish, if the rape victom was already married the child was considered the husbands child no matter what the reality was.

 

 

 

"Very funny Scotty; now beam down our clothes."

VEGETARIAN: Ancient Hindu word for "lousy hunter"

If man was formed from dirt, why is there still dirt?


x
Bronze Member
Posts: 591
Joined: 2010-06-15
User is offlineOffline
Usually

FurryCatHerder wrote:
And trust me on this one -- Jews don't run around referring to other Jews as "brother" all the time unless they really are brothers.

Yes, that is true of most people generally.

However,

http://interlinearbible.org/exodus/2-11.htm

"Now it came about in those days, when Moses had grown up, that he went out to his brethren and looked on their hard labors; and he saw an Egyptian beating a Hebrew, one of his brethren."

is an example of a Jewish use of brethren.

 

As far as the Christian use of it goes, the word used in Galatians 1:19 is adelphos.

"and other of the apostles I did not see, except James, the brother of the Lord."

http://bible.cc/galatians/1-19.htm

 

http://concordances.org/greek/80.htm discusses this and is inconclusive.

 

A reasonable sounding summary of the case against blood brother is here:

 

http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=13667930&postcount=11

Paul is well known to be the earliest Christian author. In the earliest copies we have of Paul's writings, he frequently uses the Greek word "adelphos", just as he's done in this case. The question is whether Paul's use of the word "adelphos" here is a reference to a biological sibling.

Paul used the term "adelphos" every time he referred to any member of any Christian group! So, while Paul in Galatians refers to James as the Lord's "adelphos", only in English translation can Paul's personal usage of this 1'st century Greek term be conflated with a biological sibling, and only then if one is also lazy and fails to employ critical thinking.

One of Paul's many goals (certainly at least in the ahistoricist view) was to synthesize the various Jesus stories that arose from Q, conflations of fables and parables and sayings of Cynic and Stoic philosophers and sages and other itinerant preachers and teachers, Jewish Wisdom literature, the accretion of myth and stories retrospectively force-fit onto the name Yeshua/Jesus, and the so-called "Mystery Cults" (the Gnostics and so on) of the day, who had long already adopted the term "adelphos" to refer to initiates of those gnostic and other mystery cults. Paul, who was a scholar possessed of enormous philosophical and theological knowledge, brought that meaning of the word into his writings as well as the mere courteous title "adelphos".

In 1 Corinthians 1:1, Sosthenes is called adelphos, and in Colossians 1:1, so is Timothy. And in Corinthians 15:6, 500 adelphos receive a spiritual vision of the risen Christ. Are they biological siblings of Jesus?

 

Thanks to tonyjeffers via Buddy for the bible resource.


FurryCatHerder
Theist
FurryCatHerder's picture
Posts: 1253
Joined: 2007-06-02
User is offlineOffline
I'm familiar with the

I'm familiar with the material.

I'm trying to get ready for my day job (heh), but there are other passages where Jesus's biological siblings are mentioned.  This has created controversy within the Catholic Church due to the doctrine of the Perpetual Virginity of Mary.

One thing about Paul is that he wasn't part of the Jerusalem "in crowd".  Most of Paul's efforts are aimed at un-Jewish-ifying whatever it was that Jesus (or John the Baptist, James and Peter, all of whom are historical) was up to.  Paul's primary means of doing so was turning Jesus into a divinity and abolishing Jewish law, but that's besides the point.  Paul wasn't just a fringer, he was excommunicated.

"Obviously I'm convinced of the existence of G-d. I'm equally convinced that Atheists who've led good lives will be in Olam HaBa going "How the heck did I wind up in this place?!?" while Christians who've treated people like dirt will be in some other place asking the exact same question."


x
Bronze Member
Posts: 591
Joined: 2010-06-15
User is offlineOffline
We seem to generally agree

FurryCatHerder wrote:

I'm familiar with the material.

I'm trying to get ready for my day job (heh), but there are other passages where Jesus's biological siblings are mentioned.  This has created controversy within the Catholic Church due to the doctrine of the Perpetual Virginity of Mary.

One thing about Paul is that he wasn't part of the Jerusalem "in crowd".  Most of Paul's efforts are aimed at un-Jewish-ifying whatever it was that Jesus (or John the Baptist, James and Peter, all of whom are historical) was up to.  Paul's primary means of doing so was turning Jesus into a divinity and abolishing Jewish law, but that's besides the point.  Paul wasn't just a fringer, he was excommunicated.

Yes, Matthew 13:55 for example has James, Joses, Simon and Judas as his brothers. The gospels are very late though and much less likely to be reliable.

I concentrated on Paul because his are the earliest writings we have and his claim to actually having met the brother of Jesus is one of the stronger cases for the historicity of a Jesus the Christ. It is strange though that Paul didn't make more of this. If he had actually met a real biological brother of his god, one would expect some snippets of biographical information, even though Paul and James were from different factions.


JesusNEVERexisted
Superfan
JesusNEVERexisted's picture
Posts: 679
Joined: 2010-01-03
User is offlineOffline
x wrote:FurryCatHerder

x wrote:

FurryCatHerder wrote:

I'm familiar with the material.

I'm trying to get ready for my day job (heh), but there are other passages where Jesus's biological siblings are mentioned.  This has created controversy within the Catholic Church due to the doctrine of the Perpetual Virginity of Mary.

One thing about Paul is that he wasn't part of the Jerusalem "in crowd".  Most of Paul's efforts are aimed at un-Jewish-ifying whatever it was that Jesus (or John the Baptist, James and Peter, all of whom are historical) was up to.  Paul's primary means of doing so was turning Jesus into a divinity and abolishing Jewish law, but that's besides the point.  Paul wasn't just a fringer, he was excommunicated.

Yes, Matthew 13:55 for example has James, Joses, Simon and Judas as his brothers. The gospels are very late though and much less likely to be reliable.

I concentrated on Paul because his are the earliest writings we have and his claim to actually having met the brother of Jesus is one of the stronger cases for the historicity of a Jesus the Christ. It is strange though that Paul didn't make more of this. If he had actually met a real biological brother of his god, one would expect some snippets of biographical information, even though Paul and James were from different factions.

You mean just like how Helen of Troy is the daughter of Zeus? Come on dude! There is no historical record of ANY of those fake bible characters!

Click here to find out why Christianity is the biggest fairy tale ever created!! www.nobeliefs.com/exist.htm www.JesusNEVERexisted.com


JesusNEVERexisted
Superfan
JesusNEVERexisted's picture
Posts: 679
Joined: 2010-01-03
User is offlineOffline
FurryCatHerder wrote:I'm

FurryCatHerder wrote:

I'm familiar with the material.

I'm trying to get ready for my day job (heh), but there are other passages where Jesus's biological siblings are mentioned.  This has created controversy within the Catholic Church due to the doctrine of the Perpetual Virginity of Mary.

One thing about Paul is that he wasn't part of the Jerusalem "in crowd".  Most of Paul's efforts are aimed at un-Jewish-ifying whatever it was that Jesus (or John the Baptist, James and Peter, all of whom are historical) was up to.  Paul's primary means of doing so was turning Jesus into a divinity and abolishing Jewish law, but that's besides the point.  Paul wasn't just a fringer, he was excommunicated.

So you don't believe Jesus existed but those other 3 did?  I assume they lived many decades after the mythical Jesus and you have sources OUTSIDE the bible to corroborate that?  And I don't mean nonsense like the Dead Sea Scrolls or other bible mythology!

You can find corroborating documents from other religions (like Buddhism and Hinduism) to support their gods too!

Click here to find out why Christianity is the biggest fairy tale ever created!! www.nobeliefs.com/exist.htm www.JesusNEVERexisted.com


x
Bronze Member
Posts: 591
Joined: 2010-06-15
User is offlineOffline
Undecided

JesusNEVERexisted wrote:

x wrote:

FurryCatHerder wrote:

I'm familiar with the material.

I'm trying to get ready for my day job (heh), but there are other passages where Jesus's biological siblings are mentioned.  This has created controversy within the Catholic Church due to the doctrine of the Perpetual Virginity of Mary.

One thing about Paul is that he wasn't part of the Jerusalem "in crowd".  Most of Paul's efforts are aimed at un-Jewish-ifying whatever it was that Jesus (or John the Baptist, James and Peter, all of whom are historical) was up to.  Paul's primary means of doing so was turning Jesus into a divinity and abolishing Jewish law, but that's besides the point.  Paul wasn't just a fringer, he was excommunicated.

Yes, Matthew 13:55 for example has James, Joses, Simon and Judas as his brothers. The gospels are very late though and much less likely to be reliable.

I concentrated on Paul because his are the earliest writings we have and his claim to actually having met the brother of Jesus is one of the stronger cases for the historicity of a Jesus the Christ. It is strange though that Paul didn't make more of this. If he had actually met a real biological brother of his god, one would expect some snippets of biographical information, even though Paul and James were from different factions.

You mean just like how Helen of Troy is the daughter of Zeus? Come on dude! There is no historical record of ANY of those fake bible characters!

I'm just saying what the NT says re Matthew 13:55, I'm not saying I believe it.

Somebody wrote the Pauline epistles, so I'll call him Paul, though they weren't all written by the same person.

I'm still unsure re James (and which James is which) and Peter, though I seem to remember that John the Baptist is attested to.

More reading required.

 

 


JesusNEVERexisted
Superfan
JesusNEVERexisted's picture
Posts: 679
Joined: 2010-01-03
User is offlineOffline
x wrote:I'm just saying what

x wrote:

I'm just saying what the NT says re Matthew 13:55, I'm not saying I believe it.

Somebody wrote the Pauline epistles, so I'll call him Paul, though they weren't all written by the same person.

I'm still unsure re James (and which James is which) and Peter, though I seem to remember that John the Baptist is attested to.

More reading required.

 

I believe this is what you are referring to:

Epistles of Paul: Paul's biblical letters (epistles) serve as the oldest surviving Christian texts, written probably around 60 C.E. Most scholars have little reason to doubt that Paul wrote some of them himself. Of the thirteen epistles, bible scholars think he wrote only eight of them, and even here, there occurs interpolations. Not a single instance in any of Paul's writings claims that he ever meets or sees an earthly Jesus, nor does Paul give any reference to Jesus' life on earth (except for a few well known interpolations). Therefore, all accounts about a Jesus could only have come from other believers or his imagination. Hearsay.

http://www.nobeliefs.com/exist.htm

 

Click here to find out why Christianity is the biggest fairy tale ever created!! www.nobeliefs.com/exist.htm www.JesusNEVERexisted.com


x
Bronze Member
Posts: 591
Joined: 2010-06-15
User is offlineOffline
No

JesusNEVERexisted wrote:

I believe this is what you are referring to:

Epistles of Paul: Paul's biblical letters (epistles) serve as the oldest surviving Christian texts, written probably around 60 C.E. Most scholars have little reason to doubt that Paul wrote some of them himself. Of the thirteen epistles, bible scholars think he wrote only eight of them, and even here, there occurs interpolations. Not a single instance in any of Paul's writings claims that he ever meets or sees an earthly Jesus, nor does Paul give any reference to Jesus' life on earth (except for a few well known interpolations). Therefore, all accounts about a Jesus could only have come from other believers or his imagination. Hearsay.

http://www.nobeliefs.com/exist.htm

I agree re Paul and Jesus, but Paul does claim to have physically met a James.


x
Bronze Member
Posts: 591
Joined: 2010-06-15
User is offlineOffline
Carrier reviews 'Is This Not the Carpenter'

'Is This Not the Carpenter' is an anthology that examines the historicity of Christ.

One of the editors is Thomas S Verenna, who used to post here. I don't know why he left, but he's not been around for a while.

It is unlikely that many here will be buying this book as it is so expensive, so the reviews will have to suffice.

 

 

See http://freethoughtblogs.com/carrier/archives/1739 for Carrier's review.

http://tomverenna.wordpress.com/2012/07/11/richard-carrier-reviews-is-this-not-the-carpenter/ for Verenna's awareness of Carrier's review.

 

 

 


Jean Chauvin
Theistard
Jean Chauvin's picture
Posts: 1211
Joined: 2010-11-19
User is offlineOffline
Hey Opie

Opie,

Please address and refute the talmudic and liberal Jesus Seminar references. The burden of proof is on you since I negate  your proposition. Also, please deal with the intertestament books, along with P52, p46 and of course, MSS 010 and 012.

Unless you speak within reason, you're a puppet with no brain, just lips to move with the sound of hot air among the naive, among the stupid, and among the damned. Wiki can't help you this time lol.

Respectfully,

Jean Chauvin (Jude 3).

A Rational Christian of Intelligence (rare)with a valid and sound justification for my epistemology and a logical refutation for those with logical fallacies and false worldviews upon their normative of thinking in retrospect to objective normative(s). This is only understood via the imago dei in which we all are.

Respectfully,

Jean Chauvin (Jude 3).


x
Bronze Member
Posts: 591
Joined: 2010-06-15
User is offlineOffline
Critical scholarship unwelcome

I don't know if anyone cares much about this issue, but I'll post it anyway.

It illustrates just how difficult it is for new ideas to be accepted in academic religious studies.

 

This is a memoire by biblical scholar Thomas L Thompson, relating the difficulties he faced in his career as a result of not following the party line.

http://bibleinterp.com/opeds/critscho358014.shtml

extract:

As Hans Küng, with whom I had studied Systematic theology, was on leave for a research semester, I was assigned to take my examinations in dogmatic theology from the professor of systematic theology, Joseph Ratzinger.

When I spoke with him concerning bibliography for the upcoming examination, he explained to me that a Catholic could not write such a dissertation as I had and that I would not be receiving my PhD from their faculty in Tübingen. I must point out that the shock with which I met this statement, at the time, caused me to fixate my thoughts on the first phrase: that a Catholic could not write it ... but I had! ... and what then was I, if not a Catholic? ... and then: why couldn’t a Catholic write it? In that short time, I sensed the coming alienation from friends and colleagues in the Catholic faculty with whom I had worked and shared my life with for nearly ten years. I was closed out of Narnia as I moved into what was to be a long period of conflict and disagreement, culminating in the rejection of my PhD candidacy and my finally leaving Tübingen in 1975.

 


x
Bronze Member
Posts: 591
Joined: 2010-06-15
User is offlineOffline
My first double post

gateway timeout

 

 


JesusNEVERexisted
Superfan
JesusNEVERexisted's picture
Posts: 679
Joined: 2010-01-03
User is offlineOffline
Jean Chauvin

Jean Chauvin wrote:

Opie,

Please address and refute the talmudic and liberal Jesus Seminar references. The burden of proof is on you since I negate  your proposition. Also, please deal with the intertestament books, along with P52, p46 and of course, MSS 010 and 012.

Unless you speak within reason, you're a puppet with no brain, just lips to move with the sound of hot air among the naive, among the stupid, and among the damned. Wiki can't help you this time lol.

Respectfully,

Jean Chauvin (Jude 3).

GLADLY!  "The bible says so" is NOT evidence of Jesus!  You realize how many stories exist all over the world of gods?  The bible is just another story with ZERO corroboration outside bible mythology that Jesus or the characters within  EVER existed!

Based on your logic I guess you think Hercules was real too!

To take one example, examine the evidence for Hercules of Greek mythology and you will find it parallels the "historicity" of Jesus to such an amazing degree that for Christian apologists to deny Hercules as a historical person belies and contradicts the very same methodology used for a historical Jesus.

Note that Herculean myth resembles Jesus in many areas. The mortal and chaste Alcmene, the mother of Hercules, gave birth to him from a union with God (Zeus). Similar to Herod who wanted to kill Jesus, Hera wanted to kill Hercules. Like Jesus, Hercules traveled the earth as a mortal helping mankind and performed miraculous deeds. Similar to Jesus who died and rose to heaven, Hercules died, rose to Mt. Olympus and became a god. Hercules gives example of perhaps the most popular hero in Ancient Greece and Rome. They believed that he actually lived, told stories about him, worshiped him, and dedicated temples to him.

Likewise the "evidence" of Hercules closely parallels that of Jesus. We have historical people like Hesiod and Plato who mention Hercules in their writings. Similar to the way the gospels tell a narrative story of Jesus, so do we have the epic stories of Homer who depict the life of Hercules. Aesop tells stories and quotes the words of Hercules. Just as we have a brief mention of Jesus by Joesphus in his Antiquities, Joesphus also mentions Hercules (more times than Jesus), in the very same work (see: 1.15; 8.5.3; 10.11.1). Just as Tacitus mentions a Christus, so does he also mention Hercules many times in his Annals. And most importantly, just as we have no artifacts, writings or eyewitnesses about Hercules, we also have nothing about Jesus. All information about Hercules and Jesus comes from stories, beliefs, and hearsay. Should we then believe in a historical Hercules, simply because ancient historians mention him and that we have stories and beliefs about him? Of course not, and the same must apply to Jesus if we wish to hold any consistency to historicity.

http://www.nobeliefs.com/exist.htm

 

Click here to find out why Christianity is the biggest fairy tale ever created!! www.nobeliefs.com/exist.htm www.JesusNEVERexisted.com


x
Bronze Member
Posts: 591
Joined: 2010-06-15
User is offlineOffline
Talmud

Jean Chauvin wrote:

Opie,

Please address and refute the talmudic and liberal Jesus Seminar references. The burden of proof is on you since I negate  your proposition. Also, please deal with the intertestament books, along with P52, p46 and of course, MSS 010 and 012.

Unless you speak within reason, you're a puppet with no brain, just lips to move with the sound of hot air among the naive, among the stupid, and among the damned. Wiki can't help you this time lol.

Respectfully,

Jean Chauvin (Jude 3).

The Talmudic references are interesting, but the problem of course is that the Babylonian Talmud was written between the 3rd and 7th centuries CE. The Palestinian Talmud was earlier, though still late, but has no references to a Jesus Christ. A case can be made that the supposed JC references can be textually dated back to 200 CE or so, but that is still too late.

There are further arguments against the Babylonian Talmud references, but due to the late dating, there is no need to go into them.

 

As regards the Jesus Seminar references and the intertestament books, that is a bit vague. Can you be more specific?

As for P52, p46, MSS 010 and 012, I don't know what they are. Shameful, but true.

 


Vastet
atheistBloggerHigh Level ModeratorSuperfan
Vastet's picture
Posts: 10139
Joined: 2006-12-25
User is offlineOffline
x wrote:'Is This Not the

x wrote:

'Is This Not the Carpenter' is an anthology that examines the historicity of Christ.

One of the editors is Thomas S Verenna, who used to post here. I don't know why he left, but he's not been around for a while.

It is unlikely that many here will be buying this book as it is so expensive, so the reviews will have to suffice.

 

 

See http://freethoughtblogs.com/carrier/archives/1739 for Carrier's review.

http://tomverenna.wordpress.com/2012/07/11/richard-carrier-reviews-is-this-not-the-carpenter/ for Verenna's awareness of Carrier's review.

 

 

 

Tom changed his position on a few things and distanced himself from the RRS. The extent of which I do not know, and the reason for which I do not know. I don't think he'll be back. But you never know.

@Jean
The burden of proof is on you, the claimant, when there is no evidence to support your lies.

Of course, we all know you don't know how logic works.

Proud Canadian, Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.


JesusNEVERexisted
Superfan
JesusNEVERexisted's picture
Posts: 679
Joined: 2010-01-03
User is offlineOffline
x wrote:Jean Chauvin

x wrote:

Jean Chauvin wrote:

Opie,

Please address and refute the talmudic and liberal Jesus Seminar references. The burden of proof is on you since I negate  your proposition. Also, please deal with the intertestament books, along with P52, p46 and of course, MSS 010 and 012.

Unless you speak within reason, you're a puppet with no brain, just lips to move with the sound of hot air among the naive, among the stupid, and among the damned. Wiki can't help you this time lol.

Respectfully,

Jean Chauvin (Jude 3).

The Talmudic references are interesting, but the problem of course is that the Babylonian Talmud was written between the 3rd and 7th centuries CE. The Palestinian Talmud was earlier, though still late, but has no references to a Jesus Christ. A case can be made that the supposed JC references can be textually dated back to 200 CE or so, but that is still too late.

There are further arguments against the Babylonian Talmud references, but due to the late dating, there is no need to go into them.

 

As regards the Jesus Seminar references and the intertestament books, that is a bit vague. Can you be more specific?

As for P52, p46, MSS 010 and 012, I don't know what they are. Shameful, but true.

 

The Jesus seminar and Christian apologists only quote Christian mythology to support other Christian mythology! That is not evidence by any stretch of the imagination!

The same way you can quote different Buddhist texts to support Buddha and different Hindu texts to support Krishna or one of the many Hindu gods.

ChristNUTS lose again!

Click here to find out why Christianity is the biggest fairy tale ever created!! www.nobeliefs.com/exist.htm www.JesusNEVERexisted.com


Luminon
SuperfanTheist
Luminon's picture
Posts: 2455
Joined: 2008-02-17
User is offlineOffline
 This Nativity video by

 This Nativity video by 43alley was instrumental for me in understanding the fictionality of Jesus. Another good resource to add to my anti-biblical videos. You'll see how the Evangelists stole the Moses and Samson stories and applied them to Jesus, so that he fullfills every single prophecy ever heard of, plus standard god CV part, the virgin birth.

Another video on Jesus will be great for Christians who think they know the history of Bible. Actually, they think Bible is the history of Bible. Hell, that's what I thought for a large part of my life. Or have thought, if I cared, which I didn't.

Beings who deserve worship don't demand it. Beings who demand worship don't deserve it.


JesusNEVERexisted
Superfan
JesusNEVERexisted's picture
Posts: 679
Joined: 2010-01-03
User is offlineOffline
Luminon wrote: This

Luminon wrote:

 This Nativity video by 43alley was instrumental for me in understanding the fictionality of Jesus. Another good resource to add to my anti-biblical videos. You'll see how the Evangelists stole the Moses and Samson stories and applied them to Jesus, so that he fullfills every single prophecy ever heard of, plus standard god CV part, the virgin birth.

Another video on Jesus will be great for Christians who think they know the history of Bible. Actually, they think Bible is the history of Bible. Hell, that's what I thought for a large part of my life. Or have thought, if I cared, which I didn't.

But it says you are a Theist so you are obviously not a ChristNUT then what are you?

Are you into one of the eastern religions or one of the native European religions like Asatru?

Click here to find out why Christianity is the biggest fairy tale ever created!! www.nobeliefs.com/exist.htm www.JesusNEVERexisted.com


JesusNEVERexisted
Superfan
JesusNEVERexisted's picture
Posts: 679
Joined: 2010-01-03
User is offlineOffline
x wrote:JesusNEVERexisted

x wrote:

JesusNEVERexisted wrote:

I believe this is what you are referring to:

Epistles of Paul: Paul's biblical letters (epistles) serve as the oldest surviving Christian texts, written probably around 60 C.E. Most scholars have little reason to doubt that Paul wrote some of them himself. Of the thirteen epistles, bible scholars think he wrote only eight of them, and even here, there occurs interpolations. Not a single instance in any of Paul's writings claims that he ever meets or sees an earthly Jesus, nor does Paul give any reference to Jesus' life on earth (except for a few well known interpolations). Therefore, all accounts about a Jesus could only have come from other believers or his imagination. Hearsay.

http://www.nobeliefs.com/exist.htm

I agree re Paul and Jesus, but Paul does claim to have physically met a James.

Who the hell is James??

LMAO! As you can tell I am not into bible mythology! What proof or sources do you have outside the bible that corroborate this bozo James ever actually existed?

Click here to find out why Christianity is the biggest fairy tale ever created!! www.nobeliefs.com/exist.htm www.JesusNEVERexisted.com


Jeffrick
High Level DonorRational VIP!SuperfanGold Member
Jeffrick's picture
Posts: 2354
Joined: 2008-03-25
User is offlineOffline
Yo Ho......................

JesusNEVERexisted wrote:

x wrote:

JesusNEVERexisted wrote:

I believe this is what you are referring to:

Epistles of Paul: Paul's biblical letters (epistles) serve as the oldest surviving Christian texts, written probably around 60 C.E. Most scholars have little reason to doubt that Paul wrote some of them himself. Of the thirteen epistles, bible scholars think he wrote only eight of them, and even here, there occurs interpolations. Not a single instance in any of Paul's writings claims that he ever meets or sees an earthly Jesus, nor does Paul give any reference to Jesus' life on earth (except for a few well known interpolations). Therefore, all accounts about a Jesus could only have come from other believers or his imagination. Hearsay.

http://www.nobeliefs.com/exist.htm

I agree re Paul and Jesus, but Paul does claim to have physically met a James.

Who the hell is James??

LMAO! As you can tell I am not into bible mythology! What proof or sources do you have outside the bible that corroborate this bozo James ever actually existed?

[/quot               

 

 

 

 

 

 

                                 My name is James     {james E.  F. Frederick:  J.E.F.F.   +  rick = Jeffrick]   and I have never met Paul/Saul of Tarsus  or anywhere else....................  nor any other Paul/Saul.........ergo god/jesus  does not  exist.

 

 

 

 

 

      

"Very funny Scotty; now beam down our clothes."

VEGETARIAN: Ancient Hindu word for "lousy hunter"

If man was formed from dirt, why is there still dirt?


iwbiek
atheistSuperfan
iwbiek's picture
Posts: 3085
Joined: 2008-03-23
User is offlineOffline
allow me to state again my

allow me to state again my personal view, along with many scholars who have no known religious agenda, that there is a kernel of historical fact inside almost every myth.  i believe there was a historical jesus.  i also believe there was a historical krishna, odin, indra, achilles, and, yes, hercules.  these were probably charismatic figures who left a huge impression, either religiously or martially, and were deified after the fact, just as romulus and remus, castor and pollux, alexander and many of the caesars were deified after the fact.  that the details of their mythologies are so similar just shows how much their sects influenced each other.  it also shows humanity's predisposition toward certain archetypes.

i hold this view for two reasons.  one, i think the mythological texts are evidence of a sort.  our modern conception of historiography didn't really start coming together until the 18th century, so it's unfair to dismiss ancient texts entirely because they don't conform to those standards.  two, it just goes against everything i know of human nature that so many intricate bodies of myths were just made up by one or two devious men out of thin air. 

 

"I asked my father,
I said, 'Father change my name.'
The one I'm using now it's covered up
with fear and filth and cowardice and shame."
--Leonard Cohen


Luminon
SuperfanTheist
Luminon's picture
Posts: 2455
Joined: 2008-02-17
User is offlineOffline
JesusNEVERexisted wrote:But

JesusNEVERexisted wrote:

But it says you are a Theist so you are obviously not a ChristNUT then what are you?

Are you into one of the eastern religions or one of the native European religions like Asatru?

I'm into Theosophy, mainly some of their leaders and founders plus contemporary esotericists who refer to them a lot. It's all based on very strange but repeated sensoric observations. I only believe in what I can get my hands on Smiling I'm not sure if I believe in God or not, how am I supposed to know if he exists? Maybe my right hemisphere believes and the left one doesn't.

My information is, that all these great religious figures basically try to portray a story. A story with a sequence of symbolical scenes that refer to stages of personal evolution of  consciousness, how a man (who is already a half-god by birth, they never forget to emphasize) may become fully divine. 

Beings who deserve worship don't demand it. Beings who demand worship don't deserve it.


x
Bronze Member
Posts: 591
Joined: 2010-06-15
User is offlineOffline
Still looking

JesusNEVERexisted wrote:

x wrote:

JesusNEVERexisted wrote:

I believe this is what you are referring to:

Epistles of Paul: Paul's biblical letters (epistles) serve as the oldest surviving Christian texts, written probably around 60 C.E. Most scholars have little reason to doubt that Paul wrote some of them himself. Of the thirteen epistles, bible scholars think he wrote only eight of them, and even here, there occurs interpolations. Not a single instance in any of Paul's writings claims that he ever meets or sees an earthly Jesus, nor does Paul give any reference to Jesus' life on earth (except for a few well known interpolations). Therefore, all accounts about a Jesus could only have come from other believers or his imagination. Hearsay.

http://www.nobeliefs.com/exist.htm

I agree re Paul and Jesus, but Paul does claim to have physically met a James.

Who the hell is James??

LMAO! As you can tell I am not into bible mythology! What proof or sources do you have outside the bible that corroborate this bozo James ever actually existed?

James is supposed to be the head of the Jerusalem church faction.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_the_Just

 

I haven't had time to look further into it, but I consider the epistles in the bible to be less likely to be storytelling than the gospels.

A problem is that since they often only use people's first names, it is often hard to tell which James is which.

I've ruled out Jeffrick so far though.


Jeffrick
High Level DonorRational VIP!SuperfanGold Member
Jeffrick's picture
Posts: 2354
Joined: 2008-03-25
User is offlineOffline
              

                                Thanks    x.   

 

"Very funny Scotty; now beam down our clothes."

VEGETARIAN: Ancient Hindu word for "lousy hunter"

If man was formed from dirt, why is there still dirt?


JesusNEVERexisted
Superfan
JesusNEVERexisted's picture
Posts: 679
Joined: 2010-01-03
User is offlineOffline
x wrote:JesusNEVERexisted

x wrote:

JesusNEVERexisted wrote:

x wrote:

JesusNEVERexisted wrote:

I believe this is what you are referring to:

Epistles of Paul: Paul's biblical letters (epistles) serve as the oldest surviving Christian texts, written probably around 60 C.E. Most scholars have little reason to doubt that Paul wrote some of them himself. Of the thirteen epistles, bible scholars think he wrote only eight of them, and even here, there occurs interpolations. Not a single instance in any of Paul's writings claims that he ever meets or sees an earthly Jesus, nor does Paul give any reference to Jesus' life on earth (except for a few well known interpolations). Therefore, all accounts about a Jesus could only have come from other believers or his imagination. Hearsay.

http://www.nobeliefs.com/exist.htm

I agree re Paul and Jesus, but Paul does claim to have physically met a James.

Who the hell is James??

LMAO! As you can tell I am not into bible mythology! What proof or sources do you have outside the bible that corroborate this bozo James ever actually existed?

James is supposed to be the head of the Jerusalem church faction.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_the_Just

 

I haven't had time to look further into it, but I consider the epistles in the bible to be less likely to be storytelling than the gospels.

A problem is that since they often only use people's first names, it is often hard to tell which James is which.

I've ruled out Jeffrick so far though.

Is that the James who's the alleged brother of Jesus or a different James? LOL....check this out:

The Burial Box of James

Even many credible theologians bought this fraud, hook-line-and-sinker. The Nov./Dec. 2002, issue of Biblical Archaeology Review magazine announced a "world exclusive!" article about evidence of Jesus written in stone, claiming that they found the actual ossuary of "James, Brother of Jesus" in Jerusalem. This story exploded on the news and appeared widely on television and newspapers around the world.

Interestingly, they announced the find as the "earliest historical reference of Jesus yet found." Since they claimed the inscribing on the box occurred around 70 C.E., that agrees with everything claimed by this thesis (that no contemporary evidence exists for Jesus). Even if the box script proved authentic, it would not provide evidence for Jesus simply because no one knew who wrote the script or why. It would only show the first indirect mention of a Jesus and it could not serve as contemporary evidence simply because it didn't come into existence until long after the alleged death of Jesus.

The claim for authenticity of the burial box of James, however, proved particularly embarrassing for the Biblical Archaeology Review and for those who believed them without question. Just a few months later, archaeologists determined the inscription as a forgery (and an obvious one at that) and they found the perpetrator and had him arrested (see 'Jesus box' exposed as fake and A fake? James Ossuary dealer arrested, suspected of forgery).

Regrettably, the news about the fraud never matched the euphoria of the numerous stories of the find and many people today still believe the story as true.

http://www.nobeliefs.com/exist.htm

 

Click here to find out why Christianity is the biggest fairy tale ever created!! www.nobeliefs.com/exist.htm www.JesusNEVERexisted.com


x
Bronze Member
Posts: 591
Joined: 2010-06-15
User is offlineOffline
The big question

JesusNEVERexisted wrote:

Is that the James who's the alleged brother of Jesus or a different James? LOL....check this out:

The Burial Box of James

Yes, they are supposed to be the same. Josephus in Antiquities refers to a James, but those passages are spattered with interpolations and it's hard to get to the bottom of them.

Ah yes, the old James Ossuary hoax.


Jeffrick
High Level DonorRational VIP!SuperfanGold Member
Jeffrick's picture
Posts: 2354
Joined: 2008-03-25
User is offlineOffline
No question.

x wrote:

JesusNEVERexisted wrote:

Is that the James who's the alleged brother of Jesus or a different James? LOL....check this out:

The Burial Box of James

Yes, they are supposed to be the same. Josephus in Antiquities refers to a James, but those passages are spattered with interpolations and it's hard to get to the bottom of them.

Ah yes, the old James Ossuary hoax.

 

 

                     Any reference by Josephus to  James  or Jesus was debunked has a hoax a century or more ago.  The man who pulled off the James ossuary hoax is now doing time in an Israeli prison for the hoax.

 

 

"Very funny Scotty; now beam down our clothes."

VEGETARIAN: Ancient Hindu word for "lousy hunter"

If man was formed from dirt, why is there still dirt?


x
Bronze Member
Posts: 591
Joined: 2010-06-15
User is offlineOffline
Aha

Jeffrick wrote:
  Any reference by Josephus to  James  or Jesus was debunked has a hoax a century or more ago.  The man who pulled off the James ossuary hoax is now doing time in an Israeli prison for the hoax.

I'd read about and have been persuaded by the argument that the Jesus references and most of the James ones were Christian insertions/interpolations/forgeries/hoaxes, but wasn't aware that all the James ones were debunked too. Cheers, I'll take that into serious consideration.


JesusNEVERexisted
Superfan
JesusNEVERexisted's picture
Posts: 679
Joined: 2010-01-03
User is offlineOffline
Jeffrick wrote:x

Jeffrick wrote:

x wrote:

JesusNEVERexisted wrote:

Is that the James who's the alleged brother of Jesus or a different James? LOL....check this out:

The Burial Box of James

Yes, they are supposed to be the same. Josephus in Antiquities refers to a James, but those passages are spattered with interpolations and it's hard to get to the bottom of them.

Ah yes, the old James Ossuary hoax.

 

 

                     Any reference by Josephus to  James  or Jesus was debunked has a hoax a century or more ago.  The man who pulled off the James ossuary hoax is now doing time in an Israeli prison for the hoax.

 

 

Wow, I didn't know that.  In that case I'm surprised more people aren't put in jail for that! Have you guys heard of the book "Unholy Business"?

I once heard the author do an interview on the radio and she said there are over 100,000 fake artifacts on Christianity in that "holy land" part of the world! Her famous quote from the interview was "There is no proof of the material existence of Jesus".

Considering how much crap has been FAKED and all the lies and interpolations I'm amazed the Jesus myth isn't more mainstream!  Although historians Price, Carrier, and Doherty are carrying the flag for the Jesus myth!  Carrier said eventually half of all historians will realize Jesus IS a myth!

You would think people would realize something is really WRONG when Jesus promised to return during the lifetime of his disciples yet he's over 2,000 years late!

Click here to find out why Christianity is the biggest fairy tale ever created!! www.nobeliefs.com/exist.htm www.JesusNEVERexisted.com


x
Bronze Member
Posts: 591
Joined: 2010-06-15
User is offlineOffline
Getting at the truth

JesusNEVERexisted wrote:

Wow, I didn't know that.  In that case I'm surprised more people aren't put in jail for that! Have you guys heard of the book "Unholy Business"?

I once heard the author do an interview on the radio and she said there are over 100,000 fake artifacts on Christianity in that "holy land" part of the world! Her famous quote from the interview was "There is no proof of the material existence of Jesus".

Considering how much crap has been FAKED and all the lies and interpolations I'm amazed the Jesus myth isn't more mainstream!  Although historians Price, Carrier, and Doherty are carrying the flag for the Jesus myth!  Carrier said eventually half of all historians will realize Jesus IS a myth!

You would think people would realize something is really WRONG when Jesus promised to return during the lifetime of his disciples yet he's over 2,000 years late!

Hadn't heard of Unholy Business, but a search showed that it sounds interesting.

I've just got a copy of Carrier's Proving History, so that'll keep me busy for a bit.


JesusNEVERexisted
Superfan
JesusNEVERexisted's picture
Posts: 679
Joined: 2010-01-03
User is offlineOffline
x wrote:JesusNEVERexisted

x wrote:

JesusNEVERexisted wrote:

Wow, I didn't know that.  In that case I'm surprised more people aren't put in jail for that! Have you guys heard of the book "Unholy Business"?

I once heard the author do an interview on the radio and she said there are over 100,000 fake artifacts on Christianity in that "holy land" part of the world! Her famous quote from the interview was "There is no proof of the material existence of Jesus".

Considering how much crap has been FAKED and all the lies and interpolations I'm amazed the Jesus myth isn't more mainstream!  Although historians Price, Carrier, and Doherty are carrying the flag for the Jesus myth!  Carrier said eventually half of all historians will realize Jesus IS a myth!

You would think people would realize something is really WRONG when Jesus promised to return during the lifetime of his disciples yet he's over 2,000 years late!

Hadn't heard of Unholy Business, but a search showed that it sounds interesting.

I've just got a copy of Carrier's Proving History, so that'll keep me busy for a bit.

Those are good and the links I have in my signature are good too! Spread the word buddy! The TRUTH is Jesus is no different than Zeus or Medusa!

Click here to find out why Christianity is the biggest fairy tale ever created!! www.nobeliefs.com/exist.htm www.JesusNEVERexisted.com


x
Bronze Member
Posts: 591
Joined: 2010-06-15
User is offlineOffline
Spreading the good news

The unlearn thread pointed me to William Hamby which led to another (brief) review of this book.

http://www.examiner.com/review/is-this-not-the-carpenter-examines-the-historical-jesus