Jesus was Myth

[I.S.L.A.M617]

It was also a very embarrassing way to die, there would be no reason to make up such a terrible way to go.

1)Which is exactly why it's a great way to say he died if you wanted people to believe it. Makes it easier to say "why would I make that up"?
2)When the sun is at its lowest point of the year (the "death" of the sun), it is in the vicinity of the Southern Cross. Makes perfect sense that they would say Jesus was crucified, since his life story is based on the movements of the sun.

 

[outhouse]

2)When the sun is at its lowest point of the year (the "death" of the sun), it is in the vicinity of the Southern Cross. Makes perfect sense that they would say Jesus was crucified, since his life story is based on the movements of the sun.

Your way off base here. Achyra S is laughable. She doesnt stand up to me for 5 seconds in her forum of choice.

Your also wrong about the crucifixion, if you wanted sopmeone to believe it and it was false, you would write within a decade or two of hi sdeath

 

[I.S.L.A.M617]

Whatever. If you've already accepted it as fact, I'm not going to be able to change your mind. I just don't believe there's any good evidence to support the existence of a historical Jesus. The "you can't make that **** up" argument for the crucifixion is just weak. You can make it up; it's as easy as saying "Jesus was crucified".

 

[steeltoes]

Your way off base here. Achyra S is laughable. She doesnt stand up to me for 5 seconds in her forum of choice.

Your also wrong about the crucifixion, if you wanted sopmeone to believe it and it was false, you would write within a decade or two of hi sdeath

Achyra S might be laughable but where do you get off telling us that the crucifixion couldn't be made up? You have no way of knowing what took place.

 

[outhouse]

Achyra S might be laughable but where do you get off telling us that the crucifixion couldn't be made up? You have no way of knowing what took place.

Because I study real scholarships from real professors teaching credible material.

Romans loved to crucify Jews, a few decades later they crucified 500 a day and were masters of this very means of death.

Scholars all claim the crucifixion as fact because that is exactly what would happen to a trouble maker at Passover who was standing up to the known corruption due to Roman oppression and the Hellenistic Jewish government. Starting trouble in the temple during Rome's biggest payday of the year would get you on the cross without a blink of a eye. It would also get you REMEMBERED

Really your no one to go against the status quo with your limited view of the cultural anthropology of the first century.

I am not trying to change the status quo my friend, you are. Thus it is your job to build a case as to why professors claim this as fact, when you claim it as fiction.

That's where I get off, and you don't have the ability to climb on.

Not only that, to date, not a single replacement hypothesis stands up at all. Not Price or Carrier. When a martyred man at Passover stands perfectly in line with cultural anthropology.


:slap:

 

[outhouse]

Whatever. If you've already accepted it as fact, I'm not going to be able to change your mind. I just don't believe there's any good evidence to support the existence of a historical Jesus. The "you can't make that **** up" argument for the crucifixion is just weak. You can make it up; it's as easy as saying "Jesus was crucified".

If you started a disturbance in the temple at Passover because you tipped the money tables over, because in Gods own house, corrupt Hellenist running the temple required you to use a silver coin with Melqart a pagan deity. YOU would find yourself on a cross.


Not a few years prior 40 Jews were burned alive for tearing down a eagle over one entrance, because they found the eagle blasphemous on the outside of gods house, let alone another Pagan deity on the inside.

 

[I.S.L.A.M617]

Anyone mind telling me who Achyra S is?

 

[SheikhHorusFromTheSky]

Anyone mind telling me who Achyra S is?

She's one of them New Age Astrotheologists like Jordan Maxwell and David Icke, I believe.

 

[outhouse]

Anyone mind telling me who Achyra S is?

Someone ive trashed in debates.

Google is your friend, but she is the one behind Zitgiest religious aspects.

 

[I.S.L.A.M617]

If you started a disturbance in the temple at Passover because you tipped the money tables over, because in Gods own house, corrupt Hellenist running the temple required you to use a silver coin with Melqart a pagan deity. YOU would find yourself on a cross.

That doesn't mean it actually happened... I can write a story where a guy named Joe Blow has an unregistered gun in Massachusetts and gets sentenced to a year in jail. Just because the mandatory minimum sentence for an unregistered gun is a year doesn't mean it's evidence that the Joe Blow story is true. All it shows is that the author had an understanding of Palestinian law. Big whoop, you've still proven nothing about Jesus...

 

[steeltoes]

Because I study real scholarships from real professors teaching credible material.

Romans loved to crucify Jews, a few decades later they crucified 500 a day and were masters of this very means of death.

Scholars all claim the crucifixion as fact because that is exactly what would happen to a trouble maker at Passover who was standing up to the known corruption due to Roman oppression and the Hellenistic Jewish government. Starting trouble in the temple during Rome's biggest payday of the year would get you on the cross without a blink of a eye. It would also get you REMEMBERED

Really your no one to go against the status quo with your limited view of the cultural anthropology of the first century.

I am not trying to change the status quo my friend, you are. Thus it is your job to build a case as to why professors claim this as fact, when you claim it as fiction.

That's where I get off, and you don't have the ability to climb on.

Not only that, to date, not a single replacement hypothesis stands up at all. Not Price or Carrier. When a martyred man at Passover stands perfectly in line with cultural anthropology.


:slap:

I don't claim it is fiction, I have no way of knowing either way. You claim to have knowledge of something that you can't possibly know.

 

[LegionOnomaMoi]

I am not the one making such claims about an Aramaic sub stratum.

No, just claims about the evidence of Philo without having read it and once again dodging having to defend your claims.

I'm assuming you are an intelligent individual and that you know quite well what terms like "implied" or "implicit" mean.
This:

If you believe in the clear sub stratum of Aramaic I say go for it, whatever floats your boat.

involves implicit claims. How might we tell this? Well, first I didn't say "I believe", you added. Had I said, "differential geometry has many applications, but perhaps none so important as cosmology and astrophysics" I would not have received a "if you believe..." addition in a response. Had I said "creationism is baloney" or "intelligent design is supported by the evidence", the only people who would add "if you believe..." to either statement would be those who are creationists in the first case and who are anti-ID/creationism in the second. When one makes an uncontroversial statement of fact (rather than e.g., personal preferences), one does not receive the reply "if you believe..." unless the individual replying deems there to be sufficient reason to make this a belief that can be doubted rather than an uncontroversial statement of fact.

Second, had I sad there is clear evidence for the Latin language", the response "whatever floats your boat" would be strange at best and at worst suggest you believe in some radical conspiracy theory in which there was no Latin language. That's because the phrase "whatever floats your boat" is a prefabrication or prefab (or idiom): a phrase which contains in formation that cannot be derived from its elements, and carries certain connotations. You wrote in response to a factual claim that I made.

You can pretend all you want that your statement is judgment-free, but both "if you believe" and "whatever floats your boat" imply that what I said was by no means uncontroversial.

You're the dodger here, all I said was that you should go for it if it floats your boat, besides, what's another opinion among opinions?

I don't go to a doctor to get my car fixed, I don't go to a biologists to ask about classical studies, and I don't go to a historian to ask about machine learning. That's because there are opinions that are utterly uninformed, and those that are not. You have no clue what reason there might be to think that there isn't this substratum, and thus your statement is like getting advice on car maintenance from someone who has never driven a car, much less learned anything about car maintenance. So the answer to your rhetorical question is "some opinions can be dismissed as completely uninformed". I don't spend time arguing about subjects I know nothing about. Apparently, despite your objectivity, you've devoted a great deal of time to just about every discussion of Jesus since you became a member.

I call you a BSer regarding the "copies of copies" argument you associate with me and you come back with this?

I associate a clear double-standard with you when it comes to the historical Jesus studies (which is why you still haven't addressed your faith in Philo and why we can know Pontius Pilate existed but not Jesus). If you want to believe you that this doesn't involve your affirming "copies of copies" as a reason to doubt, whatever floats your boat.

Philo wrote about Pilate, staff edit.

Right. Because I'm the one applying the double standard. You accept Philo's testimony which you haven't read and haven't studied because, like most of ancient history, you don't care about it. He doesn't attest to Jesus, so he gets a pass. How typical.

 

[LegionOnomaMoi]

Philo wrote about Pilate, a simple fact that leaves you squirming.

This one deserves to be treated separately. It is indicative of the mindset of the mythicist, and a characteristic feature: make claims involving a level of detail you aren't capable of evaluating, and when called out, come out with a strawman argument.

I believe Philo not only wrote about Pilate, but that he is a valuable source. But that's because I understand the nature of evidence from antiquity. I don't apply double standards to those like Philo who write religious texts using stock expressions to depict figures in those texts as belong to one of a set of individuals Philo saw (or wrote as if he saw) as linked. The fact that his writing it completely biased, that textual criticism for Philo cannot even begin to match that of NT studies, that Philo does not tell us his source, that he uses religious frameworks constantly, and that basically everything leveled against treating the gospels as a form of ancient historiography applies in spades to Philo.

So I have no problem treating Philo with some reserve and a healthy does of skepticism, because I have been reading Greek and Latin authors and using the critical apparati for these for years. I know the kind of writing produced in antiquity that historians in general use that have nothing to do with Jesus or early Christianity.

You have none of this. You mine google and other similar sources to produce nonsense like your evaluation of Pilate which you then compare to your equally uninformed knowledge of gospel genre, oral tradition, etc. Why? Because mythicists don't care about truth. Like Christians who don't understand the difference between faith and history, mythicists adhere to a dogma to justify their positions. They didn't do the research necessary either to understand historical methods or the cultural and religious background necessary, so they have no problem using Philo as a source (even without having read his works) because Philo didn't mention Jesus. Therefore, Philo gets a pass on all the critiques of "historicists" by the world of amateurs that even the tiny few mythicists who are specialists mock.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

Because mythicists don't care about truth. Like Christians who don't understand the difference between faith and history, mythicists adhere to a dogma to justify their positions.

It's an intellectually shallow affectation which, for some, achieves the status of mantra.

 

[Brickjectivity]

After all this I think it pays to look at him from both perspectives, both as a myth and as a man to see what I can understand about him. I think the myth is stronger than the man though that is not what is being argued. Historically Jesus could have been real, but he still is described in non-human terms in both the gospels and in the letters as well as in apocrypha and various traditions such as the heretical traditions. He's far more than a man now which makes the historical man very hard to specify. I shall pursue both possibilities however.

 

[steeltoes]

No, just claims about the evidence of Philo without having read it and once again dodging having to defend your claims.

I'm assuming you are an intelligent individual and that you know quite well what terms like "implied" or "implicit" mean.
This:


involves implicit claims. How might we tell this? Well, first I didn't say "I believe", you added. Had I said, "differential geometry has many applications, but perhaps none so important as cosmology and astrophysics" I would not have received a "if you believe..." addition in a response. Had I said "creationism is baloney" or "intelligent design is supported by the evidence", the only people who would add "if you believe..." to either statement would be those who are creationists in the first case and who are anti-ID/creationism in the second. When one makes an uncontroversial statement of fact (rather than e.g., personal preferences), one does not receive the reply "if you believe..." unless the individual replying deems there to be sufficient reason to make this a belief that can be doubted rather than an uncontroversial statement of fact.

Second, had I sad there is clear evidence for the Latin language", the response "whatever floats your boat" would be strange at best and at worst suggest you believe in some radical conspiracy theory in which there was no Latin language. That's because the phrase "whatever floats your boat" is a prefabrication or prefab (or idiom): a phrase which contains in formation that cannot be derived from its elements, and carries certain connotations. You wrote in response to a factual claim that I made.

You can pretend all you want that your statement is judgment-free, but both "if you believe" and "whatever floats your boat" imply that what I said was by no means uncontroversial.



I don't go to a doctor to get my car fixed, I don't go to a biologists to ask about classical studies, and I don't go to a historian to ask about machine learning. That's because there are opinions that are utterly uninformed, and those that are not. You have no clue what reason there might be to think that there isn't this substratum, and thus your statement is like getting advice on car maintenance from someone who has never driven a car, much less learned anything about car maintenance. So the answer to your rhetorical question is "some opinions can be dismissed as completely uninformed". I don't spend time arguing about subjects I know nothing about. Apparently, despite your objectivity, you've devoted a great deal of time to just about every discussion of Jesus since you became a member.






I associate a clear double-standard with you when it comes to the historical Jesus studies (which is why you still haven't addressed your faith in Philo and why we can know Pontius Pilate existed but not Jesus). If you want to believe you that this doesn't involve your affirming "copies of copies" as a reason to doubt, whatever floats your boat.



Right. Because I'm the one applying the double standard. You accept Philo's testimony which you haven't read and haven't studied because, like most of ancient history, you don't care about it. He doesn't attest to Jesus, so he gets a pass. How typical.

Stop (staff edit) about the "copies of copies" argument you associate with me, you have no credibility whatsoever, I corrected you and you continue with it so that is just plain lying on your part.


Now you accuse me of not having read Philo, you have zero credibility, not that you had any credibility to begin with. All you do is cast aspersions on those that don't believe as you do with the religious fervor of the Christian fundamentalists that agree with you.

 

[steeltoes]

This one deserves to be treated separately. It is indicative of the mindset of the mythicist, and a characteristic feature: make claims involving a level of detail you aren't capable of evaluating, and when called out, come out with a strawman argument.

I believe Philo not only wrote about Pilate, but that he is a valuable source. But that's because I understand the nature of evidence from antiquity. I don't apply double standards to those like Philo who write religious texts using stock expressions to depict figures in those texts as belong to one of a set of individuals Philo saw (or wrote as if he saw) as linked. The fact that his writing it completely biased, that textual criticism for Philo cannot even begin to match that of NT studies, that Philo does not tell us his source, that he uses religious frameworks constantly, and that basically everything leveled against treating the gospels as a form of ancient historiography applies in spades to Philo.

So I have no problem treating Philo with some reserve and a healthy does of skepticism, because I have been reading Greek and Latin authors and using the critical apparati for these for years. I know the kind of writing produced in antiquity that historians in general use that have nothing to do with Jesus or early Christianity.

You have none of this. You mine google and other similar sources to produce nonsense like your evaluation of Pilate which you then compare to your equally uninformed knowledge of gospel genre, oral tradition, etc. Why? Because mythicists don't care about truth. Like Christians who don't understand the difference between faith and history, mythicists adhere to a dogma to justify their positions. They didn't do the research necessary either to understand historical methods or the cultural and religious background necessary, so they have no problem using Philo as a source (even without having read his works) because Philo didn't mention Jesus. Therefore, Philo gets a pass on all the critiques of "historicists" by the world of amateurs that even the tiny few mythicists who are specialists mock.

I refer to Philo and I am a mythicist? I haven't read Philo? I'm incapable of evaluating?

This is amazing stuff if it weren't pathetic. This would be an interesting read for a psychologist because there is nothing here to interest anyone as it concerns history.

 

[steeltoes]

After all this I think it pays to look at him from both perspectives, both as a myth and as a man to see what I can understand about him. I think the myth is stronger than the man though that is not what is being argued. Historically Jesus could have been real, but he still is described in non-human terms in both the gospels and in the letters as well as in apocrypha and various traditions such as the heretical traditions. He's far more than a man now which makes the historical man very hard to specify. I shall pursue both possibilities however.

Some people can't accept even a little ambiguity in their lives. Take an agnostic approach to the historical question of Jesus by considering that we can't know anything about Jesus with any degree of certainty and just for that look at the aspersions that are cast by those that are thoroughly committed. I've debated creationists from an agnostic viewpoint on other forums, the aspersions were cast there as well and with the same religious fervor.

 

[nash8]

yes really.

Pilates and Caiaphas job was keeping peace with 400,000 people in attendance paying tithes.

Their job was to keep the money flowing to Rome or their lives were also at stake.

A peasant trouble maker would not need a trial or even a nod from either of these two.

It seems to me that Jesus might have been one of the biggest reasons for trouble possibly occuring during the Passover festival. Thus, he would have posed the greatest threat to Pilate and Caiphas, therfore making it plausible that they would go to the extent of giving him a trial in order to keep the "peace". But at the same time, if he caused "trouble" in such a way where just sending temple gaurds to arrest him, would cause even more trouble, than it would seem fitting that a trial would be neccessary.

I guess you could liken it to Ghandi, if you left the man alone he would cause a lot of trouble, but if you arrested and/or attacked him "unlawfully" in a public manner, whoa boy, there was going to be a lot more trouble than if you just left him alone in the first place.

On that note, I think it would also depend on the strength of his following at that time, as well as has endearment to the general population around him. What do scholars generally agree on as to the number of Jesus' followers at the Passover festival, as well as the pereception of him by the general population that would be attending the Passover festival?

 

[AmbiguousGuy]

It's an intellectually shallow affectation which, for some, achieves the status of mantra.

Hey, Jayhawker. Did you forget about my invitation to discuss the historical Jesus with me?

I would really like to find out whether you know anything about the (non)historical Jesus. Maybe you can help me to a better understanding of it. Can I ask the mods to set it up?