Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Toto · 12-22-2009, 10:43 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Larkin31

Quote:

Originally Posted by Toto

That would be the logical core of aa's overstated argument.

It is a point that could be argued. And if it were well argued, it could save a lot of typing.

Is anyone else still reading this thread?

Yes

ok...

Quote:

I am a very curious reader here

I also think it behooves us to consider the nature and style of the writing. These texts are likely written before some of the dates being mentioned above, so a more persuasive argument is needed concerning the dates, authors, and motivations.

And especially, if one is going to argue for a large political conspiracy of fabrication, one must argue quite convincingly. I read conspiracy theories with a jaundiced eye. Nearly always, the simpler explanation that answers the details is the better one (a group of folks who had met and seen this healer-peasant did believe that he was divine and did exaggerate his powers).

These questions have all been discussed here at length, and I think you could find some more even tempered discussions. Or you can wait for Richard Carrier's book, due out next year.

Are the texts you refer to the gospels? the entire New Testament? I think you will find that no one needs to argue for a political conspiracy of fabrication. The gospels were written well after the events, and are full of allusions to the Hebrew Scriptures and theological points. And they are written in Koine Greek, with no indication that they were translated from another language, but Jesus and his followers would have spoken Aramaic. There is just no good reason to assume that the gospels must have been written as history, or even that they are based on a historical core.

Toto · 12-22-2009, 10:50 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by arnoldo

Quote:

Originally Posted by mountainman

As "Pontifex Maximus" Constantine made the Sacred College of Priests redundant (as he did the Praetorian Guard in preference to a close knit group of barbarian chieftans) so that he might also SUPREMELY rule (as Bishop of Bishops and the 13th Apostle) the religious milieu of the Greek civilisation which had up until that time been sponsored by the emperors since the historical JC (Julius Caesar).

I have to give you credit for developing a hypothesis on the alleged origin of a mythical Jesus. Undeniably, the Roman Government adopted Christianity as a State Religion at one time which led in the rise of Roman Catholicism. In contrast, others who hold a mythical Jesus stance seem to adhere to a vague MJ origin concept that;

A. Mild Climate in the Mediterranean in the first century led to growth of certain molds with hallucinogenic properties. Once ingested, a kind of group psychosis resulted which led people to start Christianity

B. A certain historical person with a bi-polar disorder heard about these Christians, fell off a horse and then proceeded to write the majority of the New Testament in a fit of mania.

Please stop writing parodies of other people's arguments. It's getting stale.

The scholar who wrote about possible natural hallucinogens is not a proponent of a mythical Jesus, and the main proponent of Paul's mania on these boards is not a mythicist.

Most mythicists see Christianity as based on the idea of a savior for Israel who was identified with Joshua of the Exodus story, who was turned into a more recent historical figure in the second century, in which his crucifixion/resurrection was symbolic of the destruction of Israel in the Jewish War, or some variation on those themes.

Larkin31 · 12-22-2009, 11:11 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Toto

Quote:

Originally Posted by Larkin31

Yes

ok...

Quote:

I am a very curious reader here

I also think it behooves us to consider the nature and style of the writing. These texts are likely written before some of the dates being mentioned above, so a more persuasive argument is needed concerning the dates, authors, and motivations.

And especially, if one is going to argue for a large political conspiracy of fabrication, one must argue quite convincingly. I read conspiracy theories with a jaundiced eye. Nearly always, the simpler explanation that answers the details is the better one (a group of folks who had met and seen this healer-peasant did believe that he was divine and did exaggerate his powers).

These questions have all been discussed here at length, and I think you could find some more even tempered discussions. Or you can wait for Richard Carrier's book, due out next year.

Are the texts you refer to the gospels? the entire New Testament? I think you will find that no one needs to argue for a political conspiracy of fabrication. The gospels were written well after the events, and are full of allusions to the Hebrew Scriptures and theological points. And they are written in Koine Greek, with no indication that they were translated from another language, but Jesus and his followers would have spoken Aramaic. There is just no good reason to assume that the gospels must have been written as history, or even that they are based on a historical core.

Where (link?) has the provenance and translation history of the Christian Gospels been written about here? I would indeed like to glance at it. I also see "no good reason" to assume that the earliest known copies of the gospels are, in fact, the FIRST copies (the history of ancient documentation, particularly as societies moved from oral to written histories and became more widely literate). Nor do I see the "reason" that the absence of earlier copies in the native language of the participants indicates that there were never any, and certainly not because they were written as a political conspiracy hundreds of years later.

Was Josephus part of this conspiracy?

Toto · 12-22-2009, 11:44 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Larkin31

...

Where (link?) has the provenance and translation history of the Christian Gospels been written about here? I would indeed like to glance at it. I also see "no good reason" to assume that the earliest known copies of the gospels are, in fact, the FIRST copies (the history of ancient documentation, particularly as societies moved from oral to written histories and became more widely literate). Nor do I see the "reason" that the absence of earlier copies in the native language of the participants indicates that there were never any, and certainly not because they were written as a political conspiracy hundreds of years later.

Was Josephus part of this conspiracy?

As long as you think of it as a conspiracy, you won't be able to understand anything I could say.

The threads on this issue are too numerous to mention. Why don't you start with a standard reference, such as Who Wrote the New Testament (or via: amazon.co.uk) by Burton Mack (also on google books.) That should give you a start.

arnoldo · 12-22-2009, 12:10 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Toto

Most mythicists see Christianity as based on the idea of a savior for Israel who was identified with Joshua of the Exodus story, who was turned into a more recent historical figure in the second century, in which his crucifixion/resurrection was symbolic of the destruction of Israel in the Jewish War, or some variation on those themes.

Interesting, from this perspective Isaiah 53 would've been interpreted by the alleged creators of the Jesus myth (in the second century) as relating to the destruction of Israel; however it was symbolized by the destruction of Yeshua.

kcdad · 12-22-2009, 03:17 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sai

Quote:

Originally Posted by kcdad

Fact: The entire empire of Rome was changed almost overnight by the influence of this "FICTIONAL" person.
Fact: Many people thought this "FICTION" was important enough to write about and to martyr themselves over.
Fact: No one at the time seemed interested in stating the "obvious" that there was no such person As Jesus of Nazareth.
Fact: It was common to attribute god-like qualities to important political figures.
Fact: No other person in history has so commanded the attention of the world as this "FICTIONAL" person.

But then again... he might have been completely fictional.

Mohammed has more followers than Jesus. So why say no other man "so" commanded the attn of the world?

There's about a billion people who are oppressed today under the fictional "revelations" of a perv. name "mohammed". Oddly enough, they seem to get a whole lot more 'martyrs" today than Christianity does.

Christians killed a whole lot more people to impose their religion than were ever killed as 'martyrs' for it.

didnt some people recently take poison so they could get to a spaceship that was hiding behind a comet? How seriously are we supposed to take people's belief in something... they believe strongly enough to kill themselves makes it all true and valid?

Similar number whose lives were changed almost overnight by the rantings and wrongheaded ideas of one "Karl Marx". Killed about 90 million people.

Do we need to continue to state the obvious here about how much this has to do with the reality of Jesus being who and what he is supposed to have been? "HE" may or may not be fictional, but the story is.

Islam is not about Mohammad, and there are not more Muslims than Christians, yet. Strike two.
Comparing Marx with any religious leader is ridiculous. Marx was a Sociologist discussing economic futures. Strike three.

Are you contending that Marx and Mohammad were "fictional" as well? OOPS.

Larkin31 · 12-23-2009, 10:29 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Toto

Quote:

Originally Posted by Larkin31

...

Where (link?) has the provenance and translation history of the Christian Gospels been written about here? I would indeed like to glance at it. I also see "no good reason" to assume that the earliest known copies of the gospels are, in fact, the FIRST copies (the history of ancient documentation, particularly as societies moved from oral to written histories and became more widely literate). Nor do I see the "reason" that the absence of earlier copies in the native language of the participants indicates that there were never any, and certainly not because they were written as a political conspiracy hundreds of years later.

Was Josephus part of this conspiracy?

As long as you think of it as a conspiracy, you won't be able to understand anything I could say.

The threads on this issue are too numerous to mention. Why don't you start with a standard reference, such as Who Wrote the New Testament (or via: amazon.co.uk) by Burton Mack (also on google books.) That should give you a start.

I just read two different threads in the Bible section here, and could not really find what I think you are suggesting. Yes, there were claims here and there, but no arguments. Can you provide a link? Or anyone else?

I called it a "conspiracy" because that is what is exactly suggested by references to an imperial government telling lies, forging religious documents, and creating a false person of history for their own gain. What else should I call it?

The editorial reviews for the book you link clearly indicate that Mack accepts that there was a human figure that the myths are based on. Is this an accurate summary on that point? I took the argument above to mean that there was not even a "Jesus" (maybe a false name) at the core.

Toto · 12-23-2009, 10:40 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Larkin31

Quote:

Originally Posted by Toto

As long as you think of it as a conspiracy, you won't be able to understand anything I could say.

The threads on this issue are too numerous to mention. Why don't you start with a standard reference, such as Who Wrote the New Testament (or via: amazon.co.uk) by Burton Mack (also on google books.) That should give you a start.

I just read two different threads in the Bible section here, and could not really find what I think you are suggesting. Yes, there were claims here and there, but no arguments. Can you provide a link? Or anyone else?

I called it a "conspiracy" because that is what is exactly suggested by references to an imperial government telling lies, forging religious documents, and creating a false person of history for their own gain. What else should I call it?

You may have picked threads from one particular poster who proposes a conspiracy theory of history. Most people here do not endorse that theory, including most mythicists. Undoubtedly some religious documents were forged, but many, including the gospels, were written in good faith well before Christianity became the tool of the Roman Empire.

Why not do some background reading for yourself?

storytime · 12-23-2009, 07:49 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Larkin31

Quote:

Originally Posted by Toto

As long as you think of it as a conspiracy, you won't be able to understand anything I could say.

The threads on this issue are too numerous to mention. Why don't you start with a standard reference, such as Who Wrote the New Testament (or via: amazon.co.uk) by Burton Mack (also on google books.) That should give you a start.

I just read two different threads in the Bible section here, and could not really find what I think you are suggesting. Yes, there were claims here and there, but no arguments. Can you provide a link? Or anyone else?

I called it a "conspiracy" because that is what is exactly suggested by references to an imperial government telling lies, forging religious documents, and creating a false person of history for their own gain. What else should I call it?

The editorial reviews for the book you link clearly indicate that Mack accepts that there was a human figure that the myths are based on. Is this an accurate summary on that point? I took the argument above to mean that there was not even a "Jesus" (maybe a false name) at the core.

A somewhat interesting study concerning conspiracy in the Ecclesia here:

http://jesusastrotheology.netfirms.com

"Jesus story written in the stars"

Also, the writer tells how he has let go of Jesus, but he's still hanging on to "God". Makes no sense to me as both are mythical inventions of men.

aa5874 · 12-23-2009, 08:20 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by storytime

Quote:

Originally Posted by Larkin31

I just read two different threads in the Bible section here, and could not really find what I think you are suggesting. Yes, there were claims here and there, but no arguments. Can you provide a link? Or anyone else?

I called it a "conspiracy" because that is what is exactly suggested by references to an imperial government telling lies, forging religious documents, and creating a false person of history for their own gain. What else should I call it?

The editorial reviews for the book you link clearly indicate that Mack accepts that there was a human figure that the myths are based on. Is this an accurate summary on that point? I took the argument above to mean that there was not even a "Jesus" (maybe a false name) at the core.

A somewhat interesting study concerning conspiracy in the Ecclesia here:

http://jesusastrotheology.netfirms.com

"Jesus story written in the stars"

Also, the writer tells how he has let go of Jesus, but he's still hanging on to "God". Makes no sense to me as both are mythical inventions of men.

Basically the author has come to the point where he is convinced based on the information that he has seen that the Jesus story is utter fiction but he still believes that some God exists.

It can be shown that in the 2nd century there were those who believed the Son of God was the Logos who was not in any way related to the invention called Jesus Christ.

The writers called Theophilus of Antioch and Athenagoras are examples of those who appear not to believe in any character called Jesus but believed in some God.

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.