Jesus was Myth

[AmbiguousGuy]

Your boastful comments have only served to expose your ignorance and arrogance.

Oh my. A mighty new debater among us to explain our arrogance and ignorance.

 

[AmbiguousGuy]

If you are not aware of your own theoretical framework (or worldview), how thoroughly cognition is linked to culture and language, and rely on faulty mental faculties to make arbitrary judgments based on your preconceptions, biases you may or may not be aware of, then no thanks.

I am 22 times more aware of my framework and 36 times more aware of cognition's link to culture and language than you are.

Also I'm 83 times less likely to suffer from arbitrary judgments and preconceptions and biases than you are.

So we're good and you can accept me as an expert.

(Really, do you never tire of the ego boasts and personal insults? I'm not sure how long I can do my faux reciprocation thing. You're wearing me down.)

1) Over thousands of years, we find a vast array of different cultures and that thought is culture-specific (for example, some languages do not, like English, use speaker-relative positional terms such as left/right, and are better at orientating themselves simply because of the way that their language works).
2) While neither you nor the scholars you say are inferior were alive, they've read extensively what people of that time wrote, studied the architectural remains they left behind, the inscriptions, the art, and what there is we have to understand cultures in e.g., the first century.
3) Over the last several decades, as academic disciplines have become increasingly specialized, interdisciplinary studies have become the norm. So I have, for example, several volumes on biblical studies which have contributions from cognitive linguistics, anthropologists, cognitive psychologists, sociologists, alongside the typical fields. There are many more that I don't have. So for those whose specialty includes the historical Jesus, not only have they studied in depth cultures you cannot, but have also studied the work of those who (like you) have studied how people & social systems operate.

What on earth does any of this have to do with our discussion? Really, I find most of your messages to either be this off-the-topic lecturings or else the raw personal insult. What use are fancy words if you're unable to follow a rational discourse and write relevant responses? I realize that's just my opinion of your behavior, but I know a bit about language and logic, and I find you strangely off-kilter in your dialogues.

I can be extremely specific about the training and background of scholars, you can give me nothing other than "common sense" and a vague reference to the human psyche?

See what I mean? What the heck are you talking about. No. No, that's not the question. The question is: Why are you talking about it? What's it got to do with our discussion?

I gave you some reasons when I asked you questions you didn't answer. When you answer some questions yourself that would help.

Twenty concatinated, rhetorical questions are not questions. They are a sermon.

I am not a biblical scholar. I had 2 undergrad majors: one was ancient Greek & Latin and the other was psychology & sociology (joint major). I minored in cognitive science. From there I went into cognitive neuropsychology, the study of the mind both from a psychology/behavioral science perspective as well as a neuroscience perspective. But the projects I worked on often involved other labs, including a social neuroscience lab. So I studied how the human mind classifies and categorizes everything from function and shape to social roles and religious orientation, both in behavioral and fMRI studies (and of course my studying; the above was just the research component of grad work).

I'm sure you were a wonderful student, Legion, but I have no idea why you are posting this kind of material here in our dialogue.

Have you heard of the Milgram experiment or the Stanford prison study? How about the study of modern cults, groupthink, modern messiahs from David Koresh to Haile Selassie? What do such cults and movements all have in common? A historical person at the origins.

Yes, and look how they have all failed in comparison to Christianity. Their weakness is the historical person at their origin. Mormonism is the only successful religion I can bring to mind with an historical prophet, or perhaps Baha'ism.

Yes. You said this was such an exciting story, and I'm telling you of an anti-Christian philosopher who said it was old news.

Yes, and I remain entirely perplexed as to why you consider that relevant. Lots of people have lots of opinions. What do you find especially significant about this guy's opinion?

So it was really exciting and caught fire, but also took 300 years before it was legal and people weren't killed for believing in it anymore.

Umm... yeah.

How do you put yourself into the minds of those ancients? How many letters from father to son, husband to wife, of the average person in that time have you read? How many inscriptions? Epitaphs? What do you use to understand "those ancients"?

I've read quite a bit and then used the same thing everyone else uses -- my experiences with the world and with people.

Here's the problem: Smith was a real person. Any parallel with Jesus would mean a historical Jesus, because we sure as hell didn't find Smith just writing an anonymous document that eventually became the Book of Mormon.

You've lost the logic of the argument. Let me remind you:

Smith finding the tablets = Mark placing JC in 30 CE.

Smith made the Huge Claim to start Mormonism. Mark made the Huge Claim to start Christianity.

I've told you about the nature of the gospels, the nature of orality, the ways in which your assumptions are wrong...

And I have told you about the nature of the gospels, the nature of orality, the ways in which your assumptions are wrong. It's what we do here. So what is your point?

If you prefer to lie, fine.

This is where I stop reading and responding. It is great evidence that you have no sense of people at all. Nor of right behavior.

If you can't speak with common courtesy, I won't take you seriously as a debater.

 

[negatron]

Yeshua was not christ in the old testament, Judaism has always refuted Jesus as the messiah and are still waiting for the first coming according to jewish doctrine

 

[arcanum]

Well if Tabor claims this, this would be to his error.

It was never Pauls version. The Hellenistic movement was going to happen with or without Paul.

Paul was a small part of the Hellenistic movement, and he tells us he was not the only teacher. He only set up a few houses, not churches, and his letters reflect issues of his teachings at these different "pater familias"



The Traditional Jewish movement failed with Jesus death, in my opinion. Im not convinced the Jerusalem sect was ever part of the original movement from Galilee. I believe it was Hellenistic sect that followed Jewish law more then the Hellenist in the Diaspora.

The Hellenistic movement? What is your definition of the Hellenistic movement? The ancient world from the time of Alexander's conquest until the first few centuries AD was infused with Hellenistic influence. Evidence shows many Jewish groups like the dead sea community and others were trying to keep the people from assimilating and falling under the spell of Hellenistic cultural influences. The early Jesus movement was all in probability one of those groups which never intended to become a new religion, or something outside the law and outside Judaism. It was Paul, "the apostle to the gentiles" as he called himself, who starting saying things like the law was no longer necessary and introduced many concepts that were foreign to Judaism, like drinking the blood of Christ and eating his body, something Judaism would find not only unlawful but an abomination.

 

[steeltoes]

Legion

Here's the problem: Smith was a real person. Any parallel with Jesus would mean a historical Jesus, because we sure as hell didn't find Smith just writing an anonymous document that eventually became the Book of Mormon.

Ambiguous

You've lost the logic of the argument. Let me remind you:

Smith finding the tablets = Mark placing JC in 30 CE.

Smith made the Huge Claim to start Mormonism. Mark made the Huge Claim to start Christianity.

Ambiguous is right, Smith = Mark. If memory serves, Smith wrote a book of nonsense, claiming to receive guidance from the angel Maroni and pretended to have found gold tablets that no one else has seen. There was no Maroni and gold tablets but it mattered not when it came to forming a religion. Hjers have made the argument that Jesus would have had to have been a real person in order for Christianity to have formed. Well we can see from the religions that have formed in relatively recent years that that is not the case. In fact the more it strikes of fantasy, the better are the chances of a religion. Religions need only form around literature.

 

[FranklinMichaelV.3]

LegionAmbiguousAmbiguous is right, Smith = Mark. If memory serves, Smith wrote a book of nonsense, claiming to receive guidance from the angel Maroni and pretended to have found gold tablets that no one else has seen. There was no Maroni and gold tablets but it mattered not when it came to forming a religion. Hjers have made the argument that Jesus would have had to have been a real person in order for Christianity to have formed. Well we can see from the religions that have formed in relatively recent years that that is not the case. In fact the more it strikes of fantasy, the better are the chances of a religion.

Smith was piggy backing off of a previously established religion. While their actions/beliefs/social structure were foreign to the time, Mormonism already had something to establish off of. The concepts of God/Jesus/Holy Spirit were not new.

I guess depending on how you look at it the same can be said about Christianity. The thing is that Mormonism has gone out of it's way to consistently portray itself as Christian and nothing more. They have not had a "Paul" to create it into something else.

 

[steeltoes]

Smith was piggy backing off of a previously established religion. While their actions/beliefs/social structure were foreign to the time, Mormonism already had something to establish off of. The concepts of God/Jesus/Holy Spirit were not new.

I guess depending on how you look at it the same can be said about Christianity. The thing is that Mormonism has gone out of it's way to consistently portray itself as Christian and nothing more. They have not had a "Paul" to create it into something else.

They took Christianity and changed it, Jesus survived the cross and went to America. They managed to establish that from a previously established religion. Those concepts were completely new and look at Mormonism now.

You might be right about the same being said of Christianity. The gospels differed from the epistle writers, according to G.A. Wells, Mark combined two very different religious movements into one by writing his gospel.

 

[FranklinMichaelV.3]

They took Christianity and changed it, Jesus survived the cross and went to America. They managed to establish that from a previously established religion. Those concepts were completely new and look at Mormonism now.

You might be right about the same being said of Christianity. The gospels differed from the epistle writers, according to G.A. Wells, Mark combined two very different religious movements into one by writing his gospel.

Well you just need to look at the Schism between Judaism and Christianity.

Early Christians were Jews, calling Jesus the Messiah was one thing, but the formation and accepting of the Doctrine of Trinity made a split between the two impossible not to happen.

Hinduism would have a easier chance accepting such a Doctrine than Judaism would.

But Christianity in my view started off as a new sect of Judaism. I don't know that much about Jewish history (I'm reading and if anyone can suggest some good books i'll look into it), but the three sects (major I suppose), at the time were Essene's, Sadducee's and Pharisee's, Christianity would have been just a new sect. But Paul and other future church leaders who would spring up would help change it to again a religion of the Apostles.

The same can be said about Mormonism, it was a new sect (denomination) of Christianity, but with even more radical views.

 

[AmbiguousGuy]

They took Christianity and changed it, Jesus survived the cross and went to America. They managed to establish that from a previously established religion. Those concepts were completely new and look at Mormonism now.

You might be right about the same being said of Christianity. The gospels differed from the epistle writers, according to G.A. Wells, Mark combined two very different religious movements into one by writing his gospel.

It's intriguing to me how theology works. In Christianity's early days, there was furious battle for the Correct Thought. Eventually a secular authority had to bring them all together and insist upon selecting a winner. So the Catholic Church was born and ruled for centuries, enforcing it's Correct Thought with the sword and even the rack.

Then as secular power relaxed and fragmented, so the Correct Thought began to fracture again. Protestantism was born. Nowadays, in free societies, the Correct Thought often can often only exist in the living room of some breakaway preacher and his six followers.

And then we have the Muslim world... still fighting to maintain a culture-wide Correct Thought through secular power.

 

[steeltoes]

Well you just need to look at the Schism between Judaism and Christianity.

Early Christians were Jews, calling Jesus the Messiah was one thing, but the formation and accepting of the Doctrine of Trinity made a split between the two impossible not to happen.

Hinduism would have a easier chance accepting such a Doctrine than Judaism would.

But Christianity in my view started off as a new sect of Judaism. I don't know that much about Jewish history (I'm reading and if anyone can suggest some good books i'll look into it), but the three sects (major I suppose), at the time were Essene's, Sadducee's and Pharisee's, Christianity would have been just a new sect. But Paul and other future church leaders who would spring up would help change it to again a religion of the Apostles.

The same can be said about Mormonism, it was a new sect (denomination) of Christianity, but with even more radical views.

We can see how nothing need be true about this Jesus, whether historical or not, Mormonism is a case in point, and the absurdity of the argument from Legion and outhouse is that people would have checked the facts. You have to laugh considering what people can be lead to believe.

 

[FranklinMichaelV.3]

We can see how nothing need be true about this Jesus, whether historical or not, Mormonism is a case in point, and the absurdity of the argument from Legion and outhouse is that people would have checked the facts. You have to laugh considering what people can be lead to believe.

Well, it means that the possibility exists that it could start. It certainly has the frame work if you look at Mormonism, or even Baha'i as an example...that being said it does not necessarily mean that Jesus was a myth or that Jesus did not exist.

If you look at the NT we have some contemporaries of Jesus mentioned (Peter, James, John, Matthew-->he even wrote a Gospel...but given he was one of the disciples I'm not sure why he would need to borrow from Mark or another source).

They certainly seem to indicate that Jesus was a living breathing person at one point.

It's just a shame that we have no writings dating to that time. But depending on if you go through the synoptic's or through John, the time frame for Jesus's ministry fluctuates between 1 to 3 years. If one year, it would explain why it took time to get writings down, and I'm sure that even after the resurrection many of the Disciples would still kinda be like "WTF" if it's three years, it seems odd that there were no recordings being done. Matthew for instance was a tax collector and would have had some level of writing ability, as would John and James as they are credited for writing later.

 

[Katzpur]

They took Christianity and changed it, Jesus survived the cross and went to America. They managed to establish that from a previously established religion.

That's incorrect. Mormons don't believe that Jesus survived the cross. We believe, as all Christians do, that Jesus died on the cross and was resurrected three days later.

Oh, and incidentally, we didn't "[take] Christianity and ]change] it." Mormonism teaches that Jesus Christ established His Church while here on Earth, that after His death and the deaths of His Apostles, men changed that Church and that He re-established it in this day and age. If it's different from traditional Christianity, it's because Christianity changed in the years following Christ's death.

P.S. You might want to consider getting back on the topic of the OP, which was, I'm sure, never intended to be about Mormonism.

 

[steeltoes]

Well, it means that the possibility exists that it could start. It certainly has the frame work if you look at Mormonism, or even Baha'i as an example...that being said it does not necessarily mean that Jesus was a myth or that Jesus did not exist.

Without commenting on whether Jesus is myth or historical to some degree, I don't know and don't see what difference it makes now, my point is that literature is all that is necessary. I would also argue that no religion can be passed on from one generation to the next without its literature base and that that literature need not contain a single fact. Scientology is another case in point. Hubbard laid down the literature in the 1950's, it's totally absurd, easily refuted yet there it is, and look at Scientology now.

If you look at the NT we have some contemporaries of Jesus mentioned (Peter, James, John, Matthew-->he even wrote a Gospel...but given he was one of the disciples I'm not sure why he would need to borrow from Mark or another source).

The authors of the gospels are unknown.

They certainly seem to indicate that Jesus was a living breathing person at one point.

It's just a shame that we have no writings dating to that time. But depending on if you go through the synoptic's or through John, the time frame for Jesus's ministry fluctuates between 1 to 3 years. If one year, it would explain why it took time to get writings down, and I'm sure that even after the resurrection many of the Disciples would still kinda be like "WTF" if it's three years, it seems odd that there were no recordings being done. Matthew for instance was a tax collector and would have had some level of writing ability, as would John and James as they are credited for writing later.

 

[steeltoes]

That's incorrect. Mormons don't believe that Jesus survived the cross. We believe, as all Christians do, that Jesus died on the cross and was resurrected three days later.

Oh, and incidentally, we didn't "[take] Christianity and ]change] it." Mormonism teaches that Jesus Christ established His Church while here on Earth, that after His death and the deaths of His Apostles, men changed that Church and that He re-established it in this day and age. If it's different from traditional Christianity, it's because Christianity changed in the years following Christ's death.

P.S. You might want to consider getting back on the topic of the OP, which was, I'm sure, never intended to be about Mormonism.

OK, so Jesus rose from the dead, I stand corrected, and then went to America according to Smith. I use Mormonism as a case in point, it is not the topic so don't worry about that. The point I make is that religious literature need not be based on facts of any sort.

 

[FranklinMichaelV.3]

The authors of the gospels are unknown.

Really?

I thought it was accepted that Matthew was written by well Matthew the apostle, Mark and Luke are the Evangelist and John is up in the air?

 

[steeltoes]

Really?

I thought it was accepted that Matthew was written by well Matthew the apostle, Mark and Luke are the Evangelist and John is up in the air?

As it turns out nothing can be substantiated about the authors, they are unknown and it is unknown as to where these authors wrote. Apparently, the original language was Greek and the names were attributed to the texts sometime in the late second century.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

Really?

I thought it was accepted that Matthew was written by well Matthew the apostle, ...?

You thought wrong.

 

[steeltoes]

You thought wrong.

As it happens a lot of people thought wrong, we can thank our religious leaders for that.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

I'm pleased to see that you've found someone to blame ...

 

[steeltoes]

I'm pleased to see that you've found someone to blame ...

I'm pleased to see that you are immune to the misinformation provided by the "church fathers."