Jesus Story IS NOT Original.....

[Riverwolf]

Rubbish. That article stands today as it did then, and no, not one thing was refuted let alone successfully. You simply believe entirely on faith that the article is outdated and that it was refuted when no such refutation took place. No wonder it's impossible to have a decent debate with believers, the BS just gets piled on top of BS.

Assume, much?

I read the posts, and the words within the posts made sense. If you've got some reason as to how a book written almost a hundred years ago still stands, please provide it.

And what book would that be since no author was even provided? There is a book titled The Quest of the Historical Jesus by Albert Schweitzer, but that was written in 1906.

How should I know? I didn't recommend it.

 

[Riverwolf]

Is that what the author was saying? Shall we quote him?

The Jesus Christ of the Gospels could not possibly have been a real person. He is a combination of impossible elements. There may have lived in Palestine, nineteen centuries ago, a man whose name was Jesus, who went about doing good, who was followed by admiring associates, and who in the end met a violent death. But of this possible person, not a line was written when he lived, and of his life and character the world of to-day knows absolutely nothing. This Jesus, if he lived, was a man; and if he was a reformer, he was but one of many that have lived and died in every age of the world.

Maybe you should read what you pretend is exactly what you are saying since your comprehension appears to be lacking. Unless you agree, that of his life and character the world of to-day knows absolutely nothing.

And you didn't respond to me with this quote, because...?

After all, it's not an assumption that borders on insulting.

 

[Riverwolf]

Neither does anyone else in this thread.

Hey, I'll say this for dogsgod: he's actually provided a quote. That's more than anyone else, including me, has done on this subject.

 

[Riverwolf]

Did Jesus Christ Really Live?

Enjoy

Highlights, please?

 

[AxisMundi]

You are aware it was written in 1922? Just a little outdated. There has been a plethora of research done since then. So I won't go into much detail rebutting your resource. Especially since the author is only arguing that the Christ of the Gospels is mythical, but that there may have been a Jewish man named Jesus during the first century who had a following like Jesus, met a violent death, and did the good. So basically, there may have been a person who was the base of the later exaggerations. Exactly what I was saying.

Also, I say nothing about those other individuals you claim were the background of Jesus. I don't think you really read the source very well. Also, again, it is over 80 years old. We have done a lot of research since then.

Maybe you would like to read The Quest for the Historical Jesus. A classic on the subject, by a man who actually shows why the majority of what was posted in that article is wrong.

What "plethora of recent research"?

Is there something contemprary to your Christ's stated life time other than the proven hoax of Josephus's "History"?

Or is everything else still centuries after the alleged death of your Christ figure?

 

[dogsgod]

And you didn't respond to me with this quote, because...?

After all, it's not an assumption that borders on insulting.

It was addressed to fallingblood because fallingblood misrepresented what the author was proposing. It had nothing to do with you.

 

[Riverwolf]

It was addressed to fallingblood because fallingblood misrepresented what the author was proposing. It had nothing to do with you.

Then why respond to my post with a rather insulting assumption at all? After some reflection, I find that you are, in fact, correct. I did make a premature conclusion based on little evidence.

Nevertheless, my statement stands: the stories of Krishna and Buddha have very little similarities to the story of Jesus. Saying that the Jesus story is a rip-off of these earlier stories based on single elements is like saying Twilight is a rip-off of Dracula because the former has vampires.

I'd like to know what the similarities between Zoroaster and Jesus are, as from what little I know of the guy, he had nothing to do with Jesus, either.

I can't find much on the internet about Horus beyond the whole "Horus vs. Jesus" thing (and wikipedia, which isn't very reliable on these matters), and I'd like to get some genuine independent information about him that has nothing whatsoever to do with the controversy.

I've never heard of Mithras or Attis, but I found a rather lengthly article online about Mithra, and I'll read it once my headache goes down. (I hate reading long articles/stories on a computer screen.) Even so, I'd rather read the tablets that it talks about to make my own conclusions, but I can't trust any internet translation.

You want a Christian story that is a dead-ringer for an earlier pagan story? How about the fall of Lucifer and the fall of Prometheus? There's one where the themes are constantly overlapping: rebelling against God (Gods), taking that which belongs to God (Gods) and giving it to mankind, and God (Gods) subsequently punishing both.

 

[fallingblood]

Is that what the author was saying? Shall we quote him?
Maybe you should read what you pretend is exactly what you are saying since your comprehension appears to be lacking. Unless you agree, that of his life and character the world of to-day knows absolutely nothing.

Maybe you should take your own advice. You did see that I stated that the author admitted that there may, that being the key word, have existed an individual named Jesus who was a teacher etc. Show me where he denies any existence of a possibility that Jesus existed. You can't.

If you are referring to the book authored by Albert Schweitzer, it was written over one hundred years ago. Interesting that a man can show why the majority of what was posted in that article was wrong almost 20 years before it was even written. Keep up that research.

Is that really your argument? Are you assuming the author of the article in question said anything at all original? Have you read the book I suggested? I'm assuming not. Your argument is without ground.

 

[fallingblood]

Excellent article, it makes some very good points:

Paul was a missionary. He was out for converts. Is it thinkable that if the teachings of Christ had been known to him, he would not have made use of them in his propaganda? Can you believe that a Christian missionary would go to China and labor for many years to win converts to the religion of Christ, and never once mention the Sermon on the Mount, never whisper a word about the Lord's Prayer, never tell the story of one of the parables, and remain as silent as the grave about the precepts of his master? What have the churches been teaching throughout the Christian centuries if not these very things? Are not the churches of to-day continually preaching about the virgin birth, the miracles, the parables, and the precepts of Jesus? And do not these features constitute Christianity? Is there any life of Christ, apart from these things? Why, then, does Paul know nothing of them? There is but one answer. The virgin-born, miracle-working, preaching Christ was unknown to the world in Paul's day. That is to say, he had not yet been invented!

This is the problem. You are not actually doing any research, and you are approaching the subject from a very closed minded view.

You are assuming we have all of the information that Paul stated. The fact is, we know we don't even have all of his letters. More so, the letters were written in order to answer questions that arose. They do not portray everything that Paul knew, and we can't assume they even portray a majority of what he knew.

You are basing a claim off the idea that we know everything Paul preached. That isn't even close to being correct. We have a couple of letters. He spent years preaching to different groups. We only have letters answering questions or addressing problems that arose after the first personal meeting in which Paul said things we are unaware of. Thus logically, we can't know for sure what Paul fully taught or knew.

 

[fallingblood]

What "plethora of recent research"?

Are you not aware that for from the time that the article was published we have continued researching the life of Jesus. People such as Marcus J. Borg, John Dominic Crossan, N.T. Wright, Bart D. Ehrman, L. Michael White, just to name a very few of the current researchers on the subject.

Is there something contemprary to your Christ's stated life time other than the proven hoax of Josephus's "History"?

Proven hoax? By who? The fact is that the majority of scholars believe that the longer reference did in fact already contain something about Jesus and the shorter reference is nearly universally accepted as authentic. Modern scholarship has been stating this since at least 1980 I believe.

Josephus on Jesus - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Or is everything else still centuries after the alleged death of your Christ figure?

If you've read any recent books on the subject, by critical scholars, it would be a great start.

 

[fallingblood]

One name on the list that I find somewhat ironic in this case is Buddha. Buddha was a historical figure. I'm quite sure most scholars and historians agree on this.

 

[dogsgod]

Show me where he denies any existence of a possibility that Jesus existed. You can't.

"The Jesus Christ of the Gospels could not possibly have been a real person."

and


"But of this possible person [Jesus], not a line was written when he lived, and of his life and character the world of to-day knows absolutely nothing."


It looks like I can. Now what were you saying about the possibility that Jesus existed?

Is that really your argument? Are you assuming the author of the article in question said anything at all original? Have you read the book I suggested? I'm assuming not. Your argument is without ground.

You dismissed the article because it was written in 1922, solely on the grounds that it was outdated and nothing more, and then you suggested a book that was written in 1906. Keep up the research, Sherlock.

 

[dogsgod]

This is the problem. You are not actually doing any research, and you are approaching the subject from a very closed minded view.

You are assuming we have all of the information that Paul stated. The fact is, we know we don't even have all of his letters. More so, the letters were written in order to answer questions that arose. They do not portray everything that Paul knew, and we can't assume they even portray a majority of what he knew.

You are basing a claim off the idea that we know everything Paul preached. That isn't even close to being correct. We have a couple of letters. He spent years preaching to different groups. We only have letters answering questions or addressing problems that arose after the first personal meeting in which Paul said things we are unaware of. Thus logically, we can't know for sure what Paul fully taught or knew.

Excuses. Two hundred years of research and all you can resort to is excuses. There are more than a couple of epistles in the New Testament, in fact 22 in all, but I can see why you choose to downplay that. None of the epistle writers are aware of a Jesus of Nazareth. Why do you think that is Mr. Research?

 

[Dirty Penguin]

Excuses. Two hundred years of research and all you can resort to is excuses. There are more than a couple of epistles in the New Testament, in fact 22 in all, but I can see why you choose to downplay that. None of the epistle writers are aware of a Jesus of Nazareth. Why do you think that is Mr. Research?

:biglaugh:

 

[Blackdog22]

Excuses. Two hundred years of research and all you can resort to is excuses. There are more than a couple of epistles in the New Testament, in fact 22 in all, but I can see why you choose to downplay that. None of the epistle writers are aware of a Jesus of Nazareth. Why do you think that is Mr. Research?

Honestly, there is no winning with Failingblood. He appears to be a troll without completely realizing it. I can say for a fact that no matter how valid and logical your argument. He will argue from his flawed side with terrible inaccuracy just to show everyone how right he is. I just ignore him now, threads end up better for it.

 

[fallingblood]

"The Jesus Christ of the Gospels could not possibly have been a real person."

Many scholars differentiate between the Biblical Jesus and the Historical Jesus. There is nothing surprising here.

"But of this possible person

[Jesus], not a line was written when he lived, and of his life and character the world of to-day knows absolutely nothing."

Of course no one wrote about him during the time he live. The second part he's simply wrong. However, still, he admits that it is possible that a historical Jesus existed. That is what I stated. He was very specific on what did not exist, the Jesus Christ of the Gospels.

It looks like I can. Now what were you saying about the possibility that Jesus existed?

But of this possible person Jesus. Meaning that Jesus possibly existed. You quoted it yourself.

You dismissed the article because it was written in 1922, solely on the grounds that it was outdated and nothing more, and then you suggested a book that was written in 1906. Keep up the research, Sherlock.

I did not dismiss it. I stated that it was outdated and that we've done much research since then. I then moved on to other points. I did not dismiss it out right.

The reason I use the book from 1906 is to show one point, that the information in that article had already been refuted over a hundred years ago. Why should we discuss a paper that was based on shoddy research that had already been shown to be wrong before this guy decided to repeat the same incorrect information?

 

[fallingblood]

Excuses. Two hundred years of research and all you can resort to is excuses. There are more than a couple of epistles in the New Testament, in fact 22 in all, but I can see why you choose to downplay that. None of the epistle writers are aware of a Jesus of Nazareth. Why do you think that is Mr. Research?

Do you understand what an epistle is?

Your argument is based on ignorant. You are assuming that we know everything that the epistle writers knew. However, if you notice, relatively, we have little information from them. And that information is covering specific points. They were not written to give us a complete comprehension of what they knew. So it is illogical to assume that since the epistle writers didn't mention specifics about Jesus that they didn't know anything about him. Especially when we have very good reason to believe that they did. Such as we know which groups wrote some of the epistles. One example are the epistles of John which are believed to be written by the same group that produced the Gospel of John. L. Michael White's book, From Jesus to Christianity covers this more in depth.

Again though, your argument is illogical. You assume that we know everything that the epistle writers understood yet you fail to see that they were writing letters to answer specific ideas.

 

[fallingblood]

Honestly, there is no winning with Failingblood. He appears to be a troll without completely realizing it. I can say for a fact that no matter how valid and logical your argument. He will argue from his flawed side with terrible inaccuracy just to show everyone how right he is. I just ignore him now, threads end up better for it.

Why not prove that my side is flawed? Dogsgod has not provided a single logical argument yet. He's been proven wrong over and over again, and then just complains that others would dare use actual research.

So if my view is so flawed, then stand up and show it.

 

[logician]

Excellent article, it makes some very good points:

Paul was a missionary. He was out for converts. Is it thinkable that if the teachings of Christ had been known to him, he would not have made use of them in his propaganda? Can you believe that a Christian missionary would go to China and labor for many years to win converts to the religion of Christ, and never once mention the Sermon on the Mount, never whisper a word about the Lord's Prayer, never tell the story of one of the parables, and remain as silent as the grave about the precepts of his master? What have the churches been teaching throughout the Christian centuries if not these very things? Are not the churches of to-day continually preaching about the virgin birth, the miracles, the parables, and the precepts of Jesus? And do not these features constitute Christianity? Is there any life of Christ, apart from these things? Why, then, does Paul know nothing of them? There is but one answer. The virgin-born, miracle-working, preaching Christ was unknown to the world in Paul's day. That is to say, he had not yet been invented!

Exactly who Paul was is open to question, since not all books in the NT attributed to him were written by the same author. In any case, the "real" Paul obvoiusly never heard of or saw a physical Jesus, as he never references any of his teachings.

 

[fallingblood]

Exactly who Paul was is open to question, since not all books in the NT attributed to him were written by the same author. In any case, the "real" Paul obvoiusly never heard of or saw a physical Jesus, as he never references any of his teachings.

Except that Paul states that Jesus had a brother, was born of parents of the flesh. What about Romans 9:3- For I could wish that I myself were accursed from Christ for my brethren, my countrymen according to the flesh, 4 who are Israelites, to whom pertain the adoption, the glory, the covenants, the giving of the law, the service of God, and the promises; 5 of whom are the fathers and from whom, according to the flesh, Christ came.

Also, he mentions that Jesus was crucified, a specific death for a specific time period and group of executioners.

To sum it up you're wrong.