|
|
| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
DaleKelly
Guest
|
 Posted: Sun Apr 13, 2008 1:38 am Post subject: thoughts on Jesus |
 |
|
I think the more likely story is that Jesus was a political focal point
of Hebrew uprising against Roman colonialism, and Rome's established
Hebrew government, and he and John the Baptist and others got killed for
such uprising
the repercussions among Roman colonies grew until Constantine, who was
from a Roman colonial middle east area, took power over Rome, and
instituted footing for the Jesus issue
--
http://www.dalekelly.name |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
| |
Ads |
Advertising
Sponsor
|
|
Guest
|
| Posted: Sun Apr 13, 2008 1:46 am Post subject: Re: thoughts on Jesus |
|
|
On Apr 12, 9:38 pm, DaleKelly <THEREALDARK...@comcast.net> wrote:
| Quote: |
I think the more likely story is that Jesus was a political focal point
of Hebrew uprising against Roman colonialism, and Rome's established
Hebrew government, and he and John the Baptist and others got killed for
such uprising
the repercussions among Roman colonies grew until Constantine, who was
from a Roman colonial middle east area, took power over Rome, and
instituted footing for the Jesus issue
--http://www.dalekelly.name
|
Ummm..Judea wasn't a colony. Rome,in general wasn't a colonial power.
They didn;t resettle Judea with Romans, they subjugated and squeezed
profit from it |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| |
Ads |
Advertising
Sponsor
|
|
Bodega
Guest
|
| Posted: Sun Apr 13, 2008 2:28 am Post subject: Re: thoughts on Jesus |
|
|
On Apr 12, 6:38 pm, DaleKelly
[snip]
Gee, I dunno. Why waste your time musing about fictonal characters?
Was Sam Spade really that tough? What was Jubilee T. Cornponse really
like, anyway? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| |
Ads |
Advertising
Sponsor
|
|
John McKendry
Guest
|
| Posted: Mon Apr 14, 2008 6:26 am Post subject: Re: thoughts on Jesus |
|
|
On Sun, 13 Apr 2008 21:42:53 +0000, nmp wrote:
| Quote: |
alwaysaskingquestions wrote:
Robert Carnegie wrote:
[...]
On the other hand, as people have mentioned, it is also possible to
doubt that the stories represent much truth at all. One
interpretation is that there were many wandering preachers and
protesters against Rome and all of their stories got rolled up
together many years later as the account of "Jesus".
Can you cite any respected Biblical scholar who expounds that view or
even one who questions the existence of Jesus Christ?
Respected? By whom? Obviously not by most brainwashed Christians and
Muslims whose ideologies depend on believing that Jesus was real.
|
While it would be silly to deny that there are such Christians as
you describe, for whom the existence of Jesus is simply an
unquestioned and unquestionable article of faith (not sure what
Muslims you are thinking of), there are also many people who are
atheists, agnostics (like me), Jews, Hindus, Buddhists, Wiccans,
deists, and so forth, who have examined the issue without any
emotional investment and concluded that it is much more likely than
not that there was a person Jesus who is the foundation of the
Gospel stories. People who believe otherwise are generally not
taken seriously in the academic community.
This is not because the academic community is composed of
brain-dead True Believers who have accepted Jesus Christ as their
personal Savior and cannot permit themselves to believe
anything that contradicts the plain word of the Bible. It's
because the members of the academic community, no matter what
their religious beliefs may be, recognize that the existence of
such a person is, while not proven beyond all doubt, still
far and away the most plausible, parsimonious historical
grounding for the known facts about the origin and early
growth of Christianity.
With one exception that I know of (Robert M. Price), all the
modern Jesus-deniers are amateurs who write for a popular audience,
not for the community of New Testament and Early Christian History
scholars. They are the NT Studies equivalent of, say, Jonathan Wells
or Michael Behe, but without the veneer of respectability provided
by an actual degree in a related discipline.
Actually, make it Duane Gish. I started a discussion a few months
ago here on t.o. with another poster who had learned about the
Jesus-myth idea from Freke and Gandy's "The Jesus Mysteries",
so I dug up a copy of "The Jesus Mysteries" with the intention
of preparing a detailed point-by-point analysis. I couldn't do
it. Not that their claims are irrefutable; rather, as with Gish,
the claims are wrong in so many ways that it would take ten times
as long to document the errors as it took to make them.
Bauer was in his time a "respected Biblical scholar", I'll give you
that much, but his time was a century and a half ago, and his ideas
are part of the history of N.T. Studies, not part of the current
discussion.
Those are on the whole pretty good, and appear to support the claim
that few respected Biblical scholars doubt the historicity of Jesus.
I will point out that if you follow the link in the "comparative
mythology" page to "Mithraism and Christianity" you will find the
claims that the Roman god Mithras was born of a virgin, and
born on December 25; both of those claims are entirely false. I
mention it because the alleged "parallels" between the Mithras
legend and the Jesus legend are frequently presented as evidence
for the Jesus-myth idea.
John |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| |
Ads |
Advertising
Sponsor
|
|
Robert Carnegie
Guest
|
| Posted: Mon Apr 14, 2008 10:30 am Post subject: Re: thoughts on Jesus |
|
|
On Apr 14, 2:26 am, John McKendry <jlastn...@comcast.dot.net> wrote:
| Quote: |
On Sun, 13 Apr 2008 21:42:53 +0000, nmp wrote:
alwaysaskingquestions wrote:
Robert Carnegie wrote:
[...]
On the other hand, as people have mentioned, it is also possible to
doubt that the stories represent much truth at all. One
interpretation is that there were many wandering preachers and
protesters against Rome and all of their stories got rolled up
together many years later as the account of "Jesus".
Can you cite any respected Biblical scholar who expounds that view or
even one who questions the existence of Jesus Christ?
Respected? By whom? Obviously not by most brainwashed Christians and
Muslims whose ideologies depend on believing that Jesus was real.
While it would be silly to deny that there are such Christians as
you describe, for whom the existence of Jesus is simply an
unquestioned and unquestionable article of faith (not sure what
Muslims you are thinking of), there are also many people who are
atheists, agnostics (like me), Jews, Hindus, Buddhists, Wiccans,
deists, and so forth, who have examined the issue without any
emotional investment and concluded that it is much more likely than
not that there was a person Jesus who is the foundation of the
Gospel stories. People who believe otherwise are generally not
taken seriously in the academic community.
This is not because the academic community is composed of
brain-dead True Believers who have accepted Jesus Christ as their
personal Savior and cannot permit themselves to believe
anything that contradicts the plain word of the Bible. It's
because the members of the academic community, no matter what
their religious beliefs may be, recognize that the existence of
such a person is, while not proven beyond all doubt, still
far and away the most plausible, parsimonious historical
grounding for the known facts about the origin and early
growth of Christianity.
With one exception that I know of (Robert M. Price), all the
modern Jesus-deniers are amateurs who write for a popular audience,
not for the community of New Testament and Early Christian History
scholars. They are the NT Studies equivalent of, say, Jonathan Wells
or Michael Behe, but without the veneer of respectability provided
by an actual degree in a related discipline.
Actually, make it Duane Gish. I started a discussion a few months
ago here on t.o. with another poster who had learned about the
Jesus-myth idea from Freke and Gandy's "The Jesus Mysteries",
so I dug up a copy of "The Jesus Mysteries" with the intention
of preparing a detailed point-by-point analysis. I couldn't do
it. Not that their claims are irrefutable; rather, as with Gish,
the claims are wrong in so many ways that it would take ten times
as long to document the errors as it took to make them.
Anyway, for Biblical scholars with a different view you could start with
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bruno_Bauer>.
Bauer was in his time a "respected Biblical scholar", I'll give you
that much, but his time was a century and a half ago, and his ideas
are part of the history of N.T. Studies, not part of the current
discussion.
And you will find more references in:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jesus_Christ_and_comparative_mythology
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historicity_of_Jesus
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jesus_myth_hypothesis
Those are on the whole pretty good, and appear to support the claim
that few respected Biblical scholars doubt the historicity of Jesus.
I will point out that if you follow the link in the "comparative
mythology" page to "Mithraism and Christianity" you will find the
claims that the Roman god Mithras was born of a virgin, and
born on December 25; both of those claims are entirely false. I
mention it because the alleged "parallels" between the Mithras
legend and the Jesus legend are frequently presented as evidence
for the Jesus-myth idea.
|
I thought Jesus's traditional birthday was January 6th. If so, I
don't know why it was changed, but if December 25th was an existing
popular holiday to be taken over then it seems to be not the only such
case. (But I don't think Mithras was a hugely popular god. In
Imperial Rome the emperors were gods, I'm not sure if that was while
they were alive, or later.)
Mithraism may have stolen ideas from Christianity, why not? I've also
seen a claim that the Ragnarok myth had a "new heaven and earth" after-
story added that was taken - "swiped" - from the Christian
Apocalypse. Later, of course, this became "Jack Kirby's Fourth World". |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| |
Ads |
Advertising
Sponsor
|
|
Greg G.
Guest
|
| Posted: Mon Apr 14, 2008 10:57 am Post subject: Re: thoughts on Jesus |
|
|
On Apr 13, 9:26 pm, John McKendry <jlastn...@comcast.dot.net> wrote:
John,
I have been on both sides of the fence in regard to this topic. From
what I have read from you on TO, I realized that I don't really know
enough to hold a valid opinion. So I humbly ask, what about the Horus-
Jesus parallels?
http://www.religioustolerance.org/chr_jcpa5.htm
--
Greg G.
Mother: Why are you selling mud pies?
Little girl: I want to get filthy rich. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| |
Ads |
Advertising
Sponsor
|
|
Walter Bushell
Guest
|
| Posted: Mon Apr 14, 2008 11:02 am Post subject: Re: thoughts on Jesus |
|
|
In article <48027e5d$0$14348$e4fe514c@news.xs4all.nl>,
nmp <address@is.invalid> wrote:
Also if you state Jesus existed, you can run all kinds of hyposthoses
about his nature. There is obviously much less money in stating he
didn't exist, not much material for scholarly or popular works there. It
makes it much harder to even get a job as a simple parish priest.
--
What is done in the heat of battle is (normatively) judged
by different standards than what is leisurely planned in
comfortable conference rooms. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| |
Ads |
Advertising
Sponsor
|
|
Garamond Lethe
Guest
|
| Posted: Mon Apr 14, 2008 11:03 am Post subject: Re: thoughts on Jesus |
|
|
On Sun, 13 Apr 2008 21:04:58 +0100, alwaysaskingquestions wrote:
| Quote: |
Robert Carnegie wrote:
[...]
On the other hand, as people have mentioned, it is also possible to
doubt that the stories represent much truth at all. One interpretation
is that there were many wandering preachers and protesters against Rome
and all of their stories got rolled up together many years later as the
account of "Jesus".
Can you cite any respected Biblical scholar who expounds that view or
even one who questions the existence of Jesus Christ?
|
Ehrman would agree to the "stories got rolled up", and goes into great
detail about when certain passages were probably added, changed, or
dropped. He's right up there with Pagels in terms of writing
approachable popularizations. You might want to start with _Misquoting
Jesus: The Story Behind Who Changed the Bible and Why_.
If you prefer peer-reviewed articles to popularization, check out his
Curriculum Vitae at http://bartdehrman.com/ |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| |
Ads |
Advertising
Sponsor
|
|
alwaysaskingquestions
Guest
|
| Posted: Mon Apr 14, 2008 11:03 am Post subject: Re: thoughts on Jesus |
|
|
Garamond Lethe wrote:
| Quote: |
On Sun, 13 Apr 2008 21:04:58 +0100, alwaysaskingquestions wrote:
Robert Carnegie wrote:
[...]
On the other hand, as people have mentioned, it is also possible to
doubt that the stories represent much truth at all. One
interpretation is that there were many wandering preachers and
protesters against Rome and all of their stories got rolled up
together many years later as the account of "Jesus".
Can you cite any respected Biblical scholar who expounds that view or
even one who questions the existence of Jesus Christ?
Ehrman would agree to the "stories got rolled up", and goes into great
detail about when certain passages were probably added, changed, or
dropped.
|
Yes, but I've never seen him suggest that Jesus himself was a "rolled up"
character.
| Quote: |
He's right up there with Pagels in terms of writing
approachable popularizations. You might want to start with
_Misquoting Jesus: The Story Behind Who Changed the Bible and Why_.
If you prefer peer-reviewed articles to popularization, check out his
Curriculum Vitae at http://bartdehrman.com/ |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| |
Ads |
Advertising
Sponsor
|
|
alwaysaskingquestions
Guest
|
| Posted: Mon Apr 14, 2008 11:04 am Post subject: Re: thoughts on Jesus |
|
|
Frank J wrote:
| Quote: |
On Apr 13, 5:16 pm, "alwaysaskingquestions"
alwaysaskingquesti...@gmail.com> wrote:
Frank J wrote:
On Apr 12, 9:38 pm, DaleKelly <THEREALDARK...@comcast.net> wrote:
I think the more likely story is that Jesus was a political focal
point of Hebrew uprising against Roman colonialism, and Rome's
established Hebrew government, and he and John the Baptist and
others got killed for such uprising
the repercussions among Roman colonies grew until Constantine, who
was from a Roman colonial middle east area, took power over Rome,
and instituted footing for the Jesus issue
--http://www.dalekelly.name
Who knows, who cares. For me, no more detail is needed than the
though that there may have been someone in those days who was
trying to help people. Even if he was a composite, or even
ficticious, that's enough.
What I do know and care about that is on-topic for TO, is how anti-
evolutionists pretend that there is not enough evidence for the
origin of new species and/or "IC systems," yet that there *is*
enough evidence for virgin birth, resurrection and ascension.
Ummm .... what *evidence* - as opposed to the words of the Bible -
do they claim to support the virgin birth, resurrection and
ascension?
Good question, because lately they don't even claim that any evidence
supports independent origin of "kinds" or a young earth, only that
evidence is insufficient to conclude evolution. In fact few activists
outside of committed YEC or OEC organizations even claim that their
mysterious alternative specifically concludes independent origin of
"kinds" or a young earth (and OECs specifically state that it does
*not* include the latter). But they allow many of their followers to
assume that there is a lot of evidence for virgin birth, resurrection
and ascension, by not correcting their common erroneous,inference
that, if evolution is wrong, their particuar interpretation of Genesis
(and the rest of the Bible) must be true. But yes, some followers
don't care if there's evidence or not, and just take it on faith.
|
Sorry, I don't find your logic at all convincing there. As far as I have
seen, Creationists simply rely on scriptures for their beliefs, they don't
try to claim that there is any other evidence to support them; dismissing
evidence against their beliefs as simply wrong does not equate to claiming
positive evidence for their case.
| Quote: |
The
activists have that subset covered too, by pretending that
"Darwinists" form their conclusions "on faith" too.
- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text - |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| |
Ads |
Advertising
Sponsor
|
|
J. J. Lodder
Guest
|
| Posted: Mon Apr 14, 2008 11:04 am Post subject: Re: thoughts on Jesus |
|
|
Bob Casanova <nospam@buzz.off> wrote:
| Quote: |
On Sat, 12 Apr 2008 18:46:27 -0700 (PDT), the following
appeared in talk.origins, posted by ediebur@rcn.com:
On Apr 12, 9:38 pm, DaleKelly <THEREALDARK...@comcast.net> wrote:
I think the more likely story is that Jesus was a political focal point
of Hebrew uprising against Roman colonialism, and Rome's established
Hebrew government, and he and John the Baptist and others got killed for
such uprising
the repercussions among Roman colonies grew until Constantine, who was
from a Roman colonial middle east area, took power over Rome, and
instituted footing for the Jesus issue
--http://www.dalekelly.name
Ummm..Judea wasn't a colony. Rome,in general wasn't a colonial power.
They didn;t resettle Judea with Romans, they subjugated and squeezed
profit from it
They did, however, have a practice/custom of settling (via
monetary and land incentives, IIRC, but it's been a while
since I read any of this) pensioned troops in occupied lands
and encouraging intermarriage with the locals, which over
time amounted to establishing colonies.
|
And they also called them colonies,
(that's where our word comes from)
Jan |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| |
Ads |
Advertising
Sponsor
|
|
J. J. Lodder
Guest
|
| Posted: Mon Apr 14, 2008 11:04 am Post subject: Re: thoughts on Jesus |
|
|
JohnN <jnorris53@hotmail.com> wrote:
| Quote: |
On Apr 12, 10:28 pm, Bodega <michael.palm...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
On Apr 12, 6:38 pm, DaleKelly
[snip]
Gee, I dunno. Why waste your time musing about fictonal characters?
Was Sam Spade really that tough? What was Jubilee T. Cornponse really
like, anyway?
Jubilation T. Cornpone to you sir! As an officer in the Army of the
Confederate States of America his unique military strategies won him
the admiration of the Union forces in the War of Northern Aggression.
So impressed with Cornpone, the Union erected an official historic
monument to him in Dogpatch. This monument later saved Dogpatch from
being a Yankee nuclear bomb test site.
|
Unfortunately the works in which Gen. Jubilation T. Cornpone's
heroic deeds are described appear to be unavailable on the web,
Jan |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| |
Ads |
Advertising
Sponsor
|
|
Greg G.
Guest
|
| Posted: Mon Apr 14, 2008 11:14 pm Post subject: Re: thoughts on Jesus |
|
|
On Apr 14, 10:07 am, Garamond Lethe <cartographi...@gmail.com> wrote:
| Quote: |
On Mon, 14 Apr 2008 08:38:23 +0100, alwaysaskingquestions wrote:
Garamond Lethe wrote:
On Sun, 13 Apr 2008 21:04:58 +0100, alwaysaskingquestions wrote:
Robert Carnegie wrote:
[...]
On the other hand, as people have mentioned, it is also possible to
doubt that the stories represent much truth at all. One
interpretation is that there were many wandering preachers and
protesters against Rome and all of their stories got rolled up
together many years later as the account of "Jesus".
Can you cite any respected Biblical scholar who expounds that view or
even one who questions the existence of Jesus Christ?
Ehrman would agree to the "stories got rolled up", and goes into great
detail about when certain passages were probably added, changed, or
dropped.
Yes, but I've never seen him suggest that Jesus himself was a "rolled
up" character.
That's correct.
|
What is a "rolled up" character? I heard about a guy named Clark who
was in the army, was the first person to scale Mt. Everest, was the
first person to orbit the Earth in space, discovered the polio
vaccine, and had X-ray vision. Is that a "rolled up" character or a
real person with "rolled up" stories?
--
Greg G.
Why did you write in your diary that I'm nosey?
.. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| |
Ads |
Advertising
Sponsor
|
|
alwaysaskingquestions
Guest
|
| Posted: Tue Apr 15, 2008 4:10 am Post subject: Re: thoughts on Jesus |
|
|
"AC" <mightymartianca@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:slrng07l1l.2p2.mightymartianca@rotten.egg.sandwich...
| Quote: |
On Sun, 13 Apr 2008 23:30:16 +0100,
alwaysaskingquestions <alwaysaskingquestions@gmail.com> wrote:
snip
5 "No reputable scholar today questions that a Jew named Jesus son of
Joseph
lived; most readily admit that we now know a considerable amount about
his
actions and basic teachings ...", Charlesworth(2006),p.xxiii
/quote
Thank you for so strongly confirming my point.
That seems an overly strong statement. I don't think we know that much
about Jesus's teachings at all.
|
<Snip stuff that is irrelevent; my point had nothing to do with Jesus's
teachings or how the gospels were compiled>
| Quote: |
Still, I agree that those that deny the existence of Jesus are just being
foolish.
|
Which was exactly the point I was making.
| Quote: |
I have no idea why anyone would want to deny the existence of the
man anyways.
|
Ask Robert that, he was the one putting it forward.
As one of the Wiki links points out, the theory is actively discussed on the
internet, both on websites and on Usenet even though it is contrary to all
recognised research; of course, that is *never* done by people who criticise
Creationists for claiming things that contradict all recognised research
<bg>
| Quote: |
It's not as if admitting he existed means that he really was
some fleshly avatar of Yahweh or raised the dead, or that he could feed
large crowds with a few loaves and some fish. I mean, one can believe in
the historicity of Joan of Arc without accepting all the claims that God
sent her visions.
It's not uncommon that influential figures become surrounded in
supernatural
legends. Some, like Alexander the Great, even encouraged this sort of
thinking.
--
Aaron Clausen mightymartianca@gmail.com
fnor
|
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| |
Ads |
Advertising
Sponsor
|
|
AC
Guest
|
| Posted: Tue Apr 15, 2008 4:23 am Post subject: Re: thoughts on Jesus |
|
|
On Tue, 15 Apr 2008 00:10:26 +0100,
alwaysaskingquestions <alwaysaskingquestions@gmail.com> wrote:
| Quote: |
"AC" <mightymartianca@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:slrng07l1l.2p2.mightymartianca@rotten.egg.sandwich...
|
<snip>
| Quote: |
I have no idea why anyone would want to deny the existence of the
man anyways.
Ask Robert that, he was the one putting it forward.
|
Well, actually, I do have some idea as to why some people become
hyper-skeptical of the existence of Jesus. To my mind it's a
not-so-thinkly-veiled insult leveled at Christians; "oh yeah, well there's
next to zero evidence that your main guy existed, so there!"
--
Aaron Clausen mightymartianca@gmail.com
fnor |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| |
Ads |
Advertising
Sponsor
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
