To The Jesus Myth Theorist

[LegionOnomaMoi]

These people are not Schweitzer.

Of course not. Schweitzer believed that Jesus was historical. But Betrand Russell, R.M Price, Dawkins, the early work of Wells (before he backed off his more extreme view) are not conspiracists. They are either relying on or writing bad historiography, but that's different from a conspiracy.

 

[LegionOnomaMoi]

No kidding

doesnt take one to start the movement rolling though does it

Which is where Jesus comes in.

 

[angellous_evangellous]

Can you provide any evidence that Jesus was indeed a reformist?

It wouldn't be difficult - I see that argument all the time. It's rather common.

 

[CynthiaCypher]

Of course not. Schweitzer believed that Jesus was historical. But Betrand Russell, R.M Price, Dawkins, the early work of Wells (before he backed off his more extreme view) are not conspiracists. They are either relying on or writing bad historiography, but that's different from a conspiracy.

Dawkins had sense enough to concede that Jesus probably existed. I'll take Russell's points seriously but not Price only because Russell did not have the information we have available to him.

 

[CynthiaCypher]

It wouldn't be difficult - I see that argument all the time. It's rather common.

Going make a thread about it. Already made a thread trying to get some to explain to me how Jesus ended up being a Gnostic when he had no idea what Gnosticism was. So far no takers on that one.

 

[LegionOnomaMoi]

the one meeting he had, he was sent packing asked to never return ever

He had two meetings we know with Peter himsel from his letters. One in which he stayed with Peter for 15 days (and saw James, Jesus' brother), and one in which he and Peter argued over circumcision. The author of acts was with Paul when Paul met with James pantes es paregeneto hoi presbuteroi ("and all the elders were present"). How many others he knew who also knew Jesus we can merely guess. But he definitely knew the "pillars" of the movement including some who knew Jesus (and one who was related to him).

look up a word called persecuting.

Look up the word "translation." No where did Paul use the word "persecuting." The word he uses is dioko which can mean everything from persue to prosecute. It does not imply murder, but rather "harrass." It could involve bodily harm.

Acts seems to go further. For example, in 9.1. he uses the word phonos meaning "killing." However, the entire line reads ho de Saulos eti empneon apeiles kai phonou. Empneo means "to breath." So how does one "breath killing?" Metaphorically. The use of apeile or "threat" makes this clearer. It implies talking about killing, so much so that Paul was "breathing it out," but not actually killing with his own hands. This is made more explicit in Acts when the author has Paul say that he voted for the execution of members of the early movement, and follows this with a description of personal actions of punishment/harrasment/pursuing, but not killing.

 

[outhouse]

I am getting that too, They believe that Paul created this elaborate religion just out of thin air. He must have been the L.Ron Hubbard of his time and greater since he got Josephus and others in on it.

he didnt crate anything out of thin air

he took the general jewish populations anger of the current jewish government and found something else for the people to follow.

he reformed judaism more so then jesus ever accomplished, he took a known sect and modified it

 

[outhouse]

He had two meetings we know with Peter himsel from his letters. One in which he stayed with Peter for 15 days (and saw James, Jesus' brother), and one in which he and Peter argued over circumcision. The author of acts was with Paul when Paul met with James pantes es paregeneto hoi presbuteroi ("and all the elders were present"). How many others he knew who also knew Jesus we can merely guess. But he definitely knew the "pillars" of the movement including some who knew Jesus (and one who was related to him).

again, we know paul would only tell his version. it wouldnt be a play by play documentary on the meeting.

and another thing. Paul is silent on the their movement and their teachings


he only claims he met them

Look up the word "translation." No where did Paul use the word "persecuting."

despite all that

we know paul went after followers of the movement, he was very clear on his involvement.

you can soften it up like others, but pretty much most people believe he went out and mudered followers if even indirectly but still responsible.

did paul get his hands dirty? im not sure id claim that, and im not sure if paul did he would leave that in or the later redactors

 

[outhouse]

It wouldn't be difficult - I see that argument all the time. It's rather common.

I think I got it off historical jesus wiki

or the historicity of jesus wiki.


but it really does make sense in the thought that jesus was not happy with the roman infected jewish government

 

[angellous_evangellous]

I think I got it off historical jesus wiki

or the historicity of jesus wiki.


but it really does make sense in the thought that jesus was not happy with the roman infected jewish government

I'm not so sure. I really, really hate interpretations that make Jesus subversive or reformed. I don't think that there's even a hint of subversion in Jesus's teachings - in my opinion, I think that Jesus's teachings were intended to teach people how to live in their current situation.

 

[outhouse]

I'm not so sure. I really, really hate interpretations that make Jesus subversive or reformed. I don't think that there's even a hint of subversion in Jesus's teachings - in my opinion, I think that Jesus's teachings were intended to teach people how to live in their current situation.

correct, [from what I know]

but in that time with the hatred of roman occupation, it would have been a slap in the face to the have a roman appointed high priest running the government and religion.

There is a reason is there not? why the Sadducees are gone after the fall of the temple.

I feel the Sadducees were dirctly in bed with the romans and got quite rich from it.

 

[CynthiaCypher]

As far as Jesus hating Romans? Nonsense! I think that Jesus actually believed his love your enemies teachings and thought that the Romans and everyone else should repent.

 

[outhouse]

As far as Jesus hating Romans? Nonsense! I think that Jesus actually believed his love your enemies teachings and thought that the Romans and everyone else should repent.

where do you get this information ?


I think jeus figured out how to play romans game and get around it peacefully, that doesnt mean he would not hate his enemies.

all poor jews hated roman occupation, they made their lives a living hell.

 

[CynthiaCypher]

where do you get this information ?


I think jeus figured out how to play romans game and get around it peacefully, that doesnt mean he would not hate his enemies.

all poor jews hated roman occupation, they made their lives a living hell.

Sources please.

 

[LegionOnomaMoi]

Paul is silent on the their movement and their teachings

No, he isn't. One of the reasons we know about the early conflict of circumcision in the movement is through Paul, who gives us what Peter and James held.

he only claims he met them

So what? What good reason would there be to invent a story of spending 15 days with Peter, talking about Peter and James as leaders, only to state that he then rebukes peter to his face? If we wish to doubt his claim, we must offer an explanation that the evidence supports. Stating "well he only says that" can be used to discount just about any credibility of any account (be it of events or persons). But stating it without giving an explanation for its likelihood isn't a historical approach.

but pretty much most people believe he went out and mudered followers if even indirectly but still responsible.

And who are these "most people?" How are you assessing their beliefs?

 

[outhouse]

No, he isn't. One of the reasons we know about the early conflict of circumcision in the movement is through Paul, who gives us what Peter and James held.

this was a huge deal and a conflicy in the early stages of the movement. The ealry church was divided on what to do with all these gentiles on their doorstep.

yet we only get a few small sentances from paul on his disagreement, was it the only disagreement?

So what?

when people create theology not everything can be taken as truth.

for paul in this case I think hes building up his credibility for him being a self proclaimed disciple

he was never a disciple but makes the claim he is. What better way to gain credibility then to state you were with the main group.

paul is complicated, he contradicts himself and states, all he has learned has not been from man but his visions regarding jesus

And who are these "most people?" How are you assessing their beliefs?

you should start a poll on it. Honesty, i dont think it would be accurate

it could be a popularity contest and paul could loose


Do a google search, page after page after page



even if we take your version, you dont think paul was indirectly responsible for the death of atleast one follower?

 

[LegionOnomaMoi]

when people create theology not everything can be taken as truth.

for paul in this case I think hes building up his credibility for him being a self proclaimed disciple

he was never a disciple but makes the claim he is. What better way to gain credibility then to state you were with the main group.

One way would be to NOT say that you were in conflict with this group. Another way would be NOT to say that you were the least of all the disciples and that Jesus only appeared to you in a vision rather than claim you knew him. Another way would be to NOT portray Peter or James as pillars of the movement but portray yourself as the main one.

A terrible way is to claim you met these leaders and then admit that even though you don't have the status they do, you are in sharp disagreement. That's a good way to undermine your credibility.

paul is complicated, he contradicts himself and states, all he has learned has not been from man but his visions regarding jesus

He specifically states he learned from Peter during a perod of 15 days, among other things.

you should start a poll on it. Honesty, i dont think it would be accurate

it could be a popularity contest and paul could loose

You made a statement about what most people believe. I asked what your basis was for this statement. Is this your way of saying you have none?

even if we take your version, you dont think paul was indirectly responsible for the death of atleast one follower?

Probably. But once again, stating you persecuted the early movement isn't a great way to gain credibility. Yet Paul does. You can't just pick and choose what you want to regard as a "claim." Stating that Paul was looking to gain credibility with his claim of meeting Peter and James and thus we should doubt it, and then following this by describing another place in which Paul undermines his own credibility, is inconsistent.

 

[michaelsherlock]

I should call you conspiracy theorist because that;s what you are, your little theory that Jesus never existed is just that...a conspiracy theory ungrounded in reality just like those who deny the Holocaust ever happened.

Your theory has no scholarship, no science and no backing to it whatsoever, yet you persist like people who deny that the earth is round to perpetuate your nonsense.

Zeitgeist I would like to inform you was only a movie and a rather bad movie filled with conspiracy theories and misinformation. So I would like you to put up or shut up. Show us your scholarship please.

And what other conspiracy theories do you guys believe in? Do you think that 9/11 actually was organised by aliens from the planet Nibiru on the orders of the reptilian Queen Elizabeth and her pet Bigfoot?

If you are interested in the scholarship relating to those who claim Jesus never existed I would (somewhat selfishly) recommend my book, 'I Am Christ: Volume 1: The Crucifixion-Painful Truths. It is due to be released in Fall/Autumn this year by Charles River Press and outlines most of the scholarship and common sense arguments of the Jesus myth theorists. I am no Jesus Myth theorist myself, however, in the words of The Professor of Archaelogy at Washington University, and Biblical Archaelogist, Eric H. Cline:

"Archaeology has not yet been able to shed any direct light on the birth, life, or death of Jesus. That is to say, there is not yet any archaeological evidence for the historical Jesus—or any of the apostles for that matter…. However, the failure of biblical archaeologists and pseudo-archaeologists to provide confirmatory evidence of the life of Jesus and the apostles has not been for lack of trying."

Further according to the ‘Encyclopedia of World History’:

"First of all, there are no contemporary archaeological or epigraphic remains that prove Jesus’ existence. What research has found corroborates the background of the New Testament but does not confirm its hero. Second, there are two literary records—the Talmud and Josephus—that speak about Jesus from a Jewish perspective, but both of these have been called into question."

In my book I outline the tip of the ice-berg with regards to the very solid scholarship which proposes Jesus did not exist, or at least, the Jesus of the Gospels did not, so I guess you can choose to investigate, or receed into the comfort of your belief and block out evidence which comes into conflict with your belief or you could seek! It is up to you, for your belief is not the truth, just your subjective opinion of it!

 

[Quantrill]

If you are interested in the scholarship relating to those who claim Jesus never existed I would (somewhat selfishly) recommend my book, 'I Am Christ: Volume 1: The Crucifixion-Painful Truths. It is due to be released in Fall/Autumn this year by Charles River Press and outlines most of the scholarship and common sense arguments of the Jesus myth theorists. I am no Jesus Myth theorist myself, however, in the words of The Professor of Archaelogy at Washington University, and Biblical Archaelogist, Eric H. Cline:

"Archaeology has not yet been able to shed any direct light on the birth, life, or death of Jesus. That is to say, there is not yet any archaeological evidence for the historical Jesus—or any of the apostles for that matter…. However, the failure of biblical archaeologists and pseudo-archaeologists to provide confirmatory evidence of the life of Jesus and the apostles has not been for lack of trying."

Further according to the ‘Encyclopedia of World History’:

"First of all, there are no contemporary archaeological or epigraphic remains that prove Jesus’ existence. What research has found corroborates the background of the New Testament but does not confirm its hero. Second, there are two literary records—the Talmud and Josephus—that speak about Jesus from a Jewish perspective, but both of these have been called into question."

In my book I outline the tip of the ice-berg with regards to the very solid scholarship which proposes Jesus did not exist, or at least, the Jesus of the Gospels did not, so I guess you can choose to investigate, or receed into the comfort of your belief and block out evidence which comes into conflict with your belief or you could seek! It is up to you, for your belief is not the truth, just your subjective opinion of it!

You say at the first that " I am no Jesus Myth theorist myself".

Then at the end you say, "I outline the tip of the ice-berg with regards to the very solid scholarship which proposes Jesus did not exist, or at least, the Jesus of the Gospels did not...you can choose to investigate, or receed into the comfort of your belief and block out evidence which comes into conflict with your belief...your belief is not the truth, just your subjective opinion of it! "

Very contridictory statements. You either arn't telling the truth in your first statement or you don't believe your own investigation.

Quantrill

 

[michaelsherlock]

You say at the first that " I am no Jesus Myth theorist myself".

Then at the end you say, "I outline the tip of the ice-berg with regards to the very solid scholarship which proposes Jesus did not exist, or at least, the Jesus of the Gospels did not...you can choose to investigate, or receed into the comfort of your belief and block out evidence which comes into conflict with your belief...your belief is not the truth, just your subjective opinion of it! "

Very contridictory statements. You either arn't telling the truth in your first statement or you don't believe your own investigation.

Quantrill

I do not believe, period! What I have researched could be right or wrong, I do not know! Nor, do those who claim the Jesus of the Gospels existed! The only difference is that I do not want to believe I am right, I would rather be right, but of course, this is something I can never have!