aa5874

But, right now we are dealing with the senselessness of the HJ. The information in the NT and Church writings declare that Jesus was a unique creature who was fully God and took on the flesh of man. Jesus of the NT is similar to any mythical creature such as Achilles.

Now, if you claim there was likely to be a dude name Jesus, then provide your sources for the dude.

Please don't tell me what you imagine. I need sources.

And don't tell me to look in the NT or Church writings, since their Jesus was an entity that was God and man, essentially a myth.

jgoodguy

Most fiction uses facts to be believable. While how much fact can be derived from a work of fiction is debatable, generally speaking there are facts to be found. From Gone with the Wind one can determine the Civil War, Blockade Running, the existence of plantations and slavery, the attitudes of 1860s Southern elites toward the war, racial attitudes of the South in the 1930s, the causalities of the war, weapons used, the Burning of Atlanta and so on. There are limits of course; can the historical counterparts of the main characters be determined? Not likely.

steve_bnk

Where have I said other than that I believe in the liklihood of an HJ minus the divinity?

I call myself agnostic, in reality I think the obsessions with both proving and disproving god are equaly useless in any practical sense, however it makes for interesting debate.

You use 'senseless' frequently, have you been personaly abused or had a bad experience with religion?

To restate, consdering human natue, known historical human behaviour, and simple observation of the relgious turmoil in the mid-east, I expect there was an HJ. Of course there is no direct historical proof, he didn't even get honorable mention in the Roman records of executions.

A story from a philopsohy prof I had in the 70s. He was born in Lituiaina and experinced the Soviet regime.

A Soviet political officer was lecturing to the people in his town that god did not exist. One of the townspeople stood up and shouted 'If god does not exist why must you prove it!!', the Soviet replied by drawing his pistol and shooting him.

Point being someon's relgious faith does not bother me at all, as long as the separation of church and state holds. I feel no need to agressively disprove religion.

aa5874

But, what is that likelihood based on? Your belief? Your position is then based on circularity, .i.e., Jesus existed because you believe so.

And, your position gets far worse and self-contradictory when you claim you are agnostic, that is, you believe Jesus existed because you are not sure or you don't know or may never know.

When I believed in Jesus I thought that it was a good experience until I realised not believing was far better.

Rejecting the SENSELESS Jesus story was one of the better things I ever did and I am not agnostic about it.

I do not know what stage you are in your research, but I have reached the point where it has been brought to my attention that the Jesus stories and epistles as found in the NT are all presented with bogus and erroneous information with the sole intention to mis-represent the history of Jesus believers of antiquity.

The Jesus of the NT is SENSELESS OR highly irrational and is a product of blatant fiction or incredulous belief.

PhilosopherJay

Hi Steve,

This sounds a little like a story I heard from one of my philosophy professors. A preacher in Texas was telling people that God exists. A little girl asked, "If God exists, why must you prove it?" The preacher pulled out a pistol and shot the little waif through the head.


Warmly,

Philosopher Jay

aa5874

Unlike the preacher, I am not trying to PROVE that the God of the Jews did exist or not, only to show that the HJ is a most SENSELESS proposition using extant information from antiquity.

It must be noted that Galileo did not prove the earth revolved around the sun, he simply developed a theory based on his observation.

And it must be remembered that there were people who claimed his theory was wrong who did not see what Galileo observed. Galileo had an instrument called a telescope.

Now, based on my observation, the HJ is highly irrational.

Once Jesus was human and TAUGHT his disciples that he would be killed and be raised within three days, then the Jesus story is madness, total stupidity beyond belief, completely senseless.

Examine what happened when Jesus was arrested, according to the NT, his disciples fled and went into hiding. This is expected.

Next Jesus was crucified, died and then buried.

What is rationally expected three days later?

Jesus has already TAUGHT his disciples that he would be raised on the third day, but now Jesus is dead.

What do we rationally expect to happen to the disciples when the three days have expired?

They will most likely be hunted down and killed and the organisation will be effectively destroyed.

But, the irrational raised Jesus from the dead and deified him in Judaea, the most unlikely place to find a deified Jew, and ask him to forgive their sins and reject the Laws of the God of Moses, including circumcision, while the Temple was still standing.

How senseless! How stupid! How irrational!

The HJ is a most irrational proposition.

steve_bnk

I am agnostic because I believe the god hypothesis is not provable either way, it has nothing to with an HJ hypothetesis.

If you are just looking for an excuse to vent for your own reasons, that's ok. However as I say again, I believe there was likely an HJ, not that the NT stories are true, is this somehow unlcear to you?

Not circular, it is human nature. It is not hard to imagine the story of an itinerant Jewish rabai inflating in his day and after his death. Considering the communications of the day and the general belief in things supernatural/mystical, it is far from a stretch to see how the tale could start and grow.

Look how the the historical source for Dracula morphed into the vampire tales of today.

From my readings the gospels were likley created as promotional literature for converts with the expected embelishments. They were not likley intended as a journalistic record when put to pen.

Try taking the ani-religious hostility out of it and look at it like any other ancient history/literature.

I went to RCC schools through 12th grade but was never realy a Catholic, I never had a belief in the divinity of JC and do not today. Sounds like you are struggling with your own beliefs.

steve_bnk

The story is true. The prof I had was Lithuanian, fought in the resistance in WWII, and witnessd communism in his town. I don't underrstand your point.

aa5874

So, please tell me, what sources of antiquity support your belief that there was LIKELY an HJ?

I already understand what you are say that you believe, all I need now is some information or source of antiquity , not your belief, that have satisfied your belief that there was LIKELY to be an HJ.

Or you only want to vent your belief.

But, there was Joseph Smith who started a religion using an agel called Moroni and translations from golden plates that now has millions of followers and a presidential candidate for the last presidential elections.

The Romans and Greeks believed in Zeus and a multiplicity of Gods, Jesus being one of them.

Zeus must have been believed to answer prayers like Jesus.

But, the Church writers claimed that the NT is true, and the others are liars and of the Devil.

It makes no rational sense for the authors to embellish events about Jesus since they would be characterised as liars and fraud by the same people who they claimed were not truthful.

For example, Marcion claimed Jesus was the son of a God, but not[/b] of the Jews[/b] and could not or did not resurrect because he had no flesh. It would be totally irrational, senseless, for the Church writers and authors of the NT to have lied to Marcion and turn around and call Marcion a liar or of the Devil.

And, if you claim that parts of the Jesus story was embellished, please say what parts are not embellished.

And if you claim that parts of the Jesus are embellished then you must agree that the authors of the Jesus story were dishonest and lack credibility.


I have looked at other ancient history. I have looked at Suetonius' "The Lives of the Twelve Caesars" and it is one of the many reasons why I consider the biography of Jesus as found in the NT as SENSELESS.

And why do you have to resort to accusing me of anti-religous hostility when I have not made any hostile anti-religous accusations against you?

I never discussed your religion or what school you attend. I am not really interested in your school, your grades or what you believed back then.

I am interested in your sources of antiquity that caused you to believe that an HJ was LIKELY.

And I don't have to struggle, I have my sources of antiquity that can support my statement that the HJ IS A MOST SENSELESS proposition.

steve_bnk

We are going around in circles. You have the last word.