Freethought & Rationalism Archive

aa5874 · 02-25-2007, 11:11 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Simon Ewins

Someone existed to inspire the stories. They are very unlikely to have simply been developed completely from imagination. Paul (Saul of Tarsus) probably heard stories and embellished them to serve his own agenda. It is probably he that should bear most of the blame.

Then, how can a person explain the Gods of Shintoism or the Hindus or any other Gods? It is extremely clear that Gods only require imagination, commonly called belief. A person should bear in mind that the Christian Gods are not the only Gods that are believed to exist, and if we read 'Against Heresies' by Irenaeus, the likelyhood that all stories of Jesus are from vivid imaginations is relevant.

Quote:

Jesus was probably a religious revolutionary who lived from around 6 B.C.E. to about 32 C.E. He was the bastard son of an adultress and as such was considered an outcast by the members of his religious community. He was quite charismatic and more than a little bitter and by using his charisma, fed by his bitterness, he attempted to change the dominant religious beliefs of the area where he lived.

Ultimately he failed and was stoned to death by the leaders of the mainstream religious community and his body was hung on a tree. It appears that the body was lost for a brief period of time and rumours began to be circulated by his remaining followers that he had risen from the dead. There is one report (in the Toldoth Jesu) that his body was later found and dragged through the streets of Jerusalem behind a horse.

Your story is probably from your imagination. Jesus cannot be confirmed to be alive during the 1st century, and not even the NT confirm his earthly father.

Quote:

A chap by the name of Paul (Saul) heard the rumours about Jesus and became quite confused (partly due to a lack of concrete information about Jesus, and partly due to the fact that he was little unbalanced). Feeding off the rumours about Jesus, his own mystical religious beliefs, and his general confusion (some of which may have been due to a blow to the head when he fell from a horse), Paul invented most of what is now assumed to be about Jesus.

Don't let your imagination run wild, the conversion story of Saul/Paul is fiction. Saul/Paul cannot be located in the 1st century and no human being was blinded from heaven by Jesus, while sitting on the right hand of God. And in any event, how did Saul/Paul talk to Jesus from earth and receive instructions from Jesus when Saul/Paul never met Jesus.

The Christian religion is just a basic belief system with some sophistication.

Simon Ewins · 02-26-2007, 04:08 AM

Sigh...

Why do I write X and people post to me arguing against Y? Why are you all so afraid of the possibility of an historical character upon which the myth of Jesus might be based? I have managed to reject Xianity as nonsense for over 50 years and still accept the idea that there was a core reality to all the tall tales, fabrications, lies, inventions and myths about Jesus upon which Xianity is based.

Y'all ever actually read, then think and then reply... or just read, avoid thinking and then reply?

Try reading the following books, none of the authors are Xian apologists, all are very competent researchers and writers. You might learn something, including the avoidance of such knee-jerk reactions as those I have found here.

"The Other Gospels" - R. Cameron
"The Mythmaker: Paul and the Invention of Christianity" - Hyam Maccoby
"Jesus" - A. N. Wilson
"The Historical Jesus" - J. D. Crossan
"Revolution in Judaea" - Hyam Maccoby
"The Pharisees" - Leo Baeck
"The Death of Jesus" - Joel Carmichael
"Soteriology and Mystic Aspects" - G. S. Gasparro
"Antisemitism and the Foundations of Christianity" - A. T. Davies
"The Messiah Jesus and John the Baptist" - Robert Eisler
"Paul and Rabbinic Judaism" - W. D. Davies
"The Grounds of Christianity" - George English
"Jesus" - D. Flusser
"Jesus and the Zealots" - S. G. F. Brandon
"Gnosis" - Rudolph Bultmann
"Jesus and the Word" - Rudolph Bultmann
"The Gnostic Paul" - Elaine Pagels
"A History of Messianic Speculation in Israel" - A. H. Silver
"The Jesus of the Early Christians" - G. A. Wells
"The Theology of St Paul" - D. Whiteley
"Tarsus and Jerusalem" - W. C. Unnik
"Jesus the Jew" - Geza Vermes

EarlOfLade · 02-26-2007, 05:20 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Simon Ewins

Sigh...

Why do I write X and people post to me arguing against Y? Why are you all so afraid of the possibility of an historical character upon which the myth of Jesus might be based? I have managed to reject Xianity as nonsense for over 50 years and still accept the idea that there was a core reality to all the tall tales, fabrications, lies, inventions and myths about Jesus upon which Xianity is based.

Y'all ever actually read, then think and then reply... or just read, avoid thinking and then reply?

Try reading the following books, none of the authors are Xian apologists, all are very competent researchers and writers. You might learn something, including the avoidance of such knee-jerk reactions as those I have found here.

Woa there...

How many of those authors discuss the possibility of jesus being a myth at all?

Are you saying that new ideas are always wrong?
Why do YOU get upset by someone who claims jesus was a myth?

Jesus looks like this to me:
1. Conceived through a miracle without foundation in anyt form of medicine we currently know.

2. Disappears and reappears around 12 year old doing things that would have gotten this fella beaten to death in normal life.

3. Disappears and reappears as 30-ish functioning like a magnet on uneducated people for the most part. Does things that are physically impossible and then is executed in a fashion not used by the Romans.

And I love empty tombs, you can make all kinds of fantastic stories of what happened and some people take those stories as if they were real.

Simon Ewins · 02-26-2007, 07:29 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by EarlOfLade

Woa there...

How many of those authors discuss the possibility of jesus being a myth at all?

Try reading them. However, if you are content to maintain an uninformed opinion, don't bother.

Plus... I have kept repeating that the Jesus myth and the character that the myth may be based upon are different fish.

Sheesh.

King Midas existed. Did all he touched turn to gold? No. Fantastic stories do not negate a kernel of truth.

I am making no claims at all that the mythic stories are true. That would be stupid and negate my anti-Christian position completely. I am simply allowing for, and have no trouble accepting, the idea that there may have been someone who actually existed, did something of note or some importance to the locals, others heard stories and created myths.

Is that such a hard concept to grasp?

Geez. Do any of you read? You are worse than most Christian I argue with for misreading and re-inventing what I write.

Shanefield · 02-26-2007, 05:34 PM

The point is that there were no real people or events CLOSELY RESEMBLING the Biblical characters or miracles. How closely? No closer than with the Robin Hood and King Arthur charact. or adventures. Distantly? Sure, but so what? Without the miracles, the stories are just more myths. And the Egyps. and Assyrs. and Romans, etc., never mentioned Abe or Moe or Sol or Dave or Chris or Pete --- just reported a very few, very poor people in a desert land. (The weather didn't improve until about 700 A.D.) Dan Shanefield

Shanefield · 02-26-2007, 05:53 PM

I should also call your attention to (what you already know, but maybe are not thinking about) facts that neighbor countried DID write about many details (travels, conquests, taxes, rebel leaders, etc.) but never mentioned any of Sol's or Dave's great temples and palaces, or masses of people following Chris or Pete. Why? Because very probably no temples or palaces (all just imagined during the reign of Josiah), and no followers of Chris or Pete (all just imagined after their mythical deaths). Does this "prove" anything? We can't logically prove a negative hypothesis with inductive reasoning, but the total of it all is very heavy evidence against a positive belief, in this case. So a positive belief is just irrational (which I guess some belevers would actually admit anyhow, but if they loudly said "it's all irrational," that might dissuade some new young recruits.

(Does such dissuade new young Muslim suicide recruits? No. Lots of people want desperately to believe in something --- anything. But let's try to get them all believing in sci. and engrng. instead!)
Dan-Dan the Science Man, tied his tail to an old tin can
http://homepage.mac.com/shanefield .

Shanefield · 02-26-2007, 06:49 PM

Really, for anyone still following this prolix, verbose thread, I should say that my theory is not just about a need for belief, it's about a weak (that is, easily overcome) instinct to want membership in a "tribe." Most people want to have a leader, and to believe the great tribal myths (a little of which rubs off on them). If you want to see more about my theory (which maybe I have need to believe in!), look briefly at this

http://groups.google.com/group/alt.p...5859e20b621624

or if that doesn't work, search groups.google.com for "shanefield tribe" without the quotes.

My tribe is science, by the way. Dan S.

02-26-2007, 05:53 PM	#26
Shanefield Junior Member Join Date: Mar 2006 Location: Piscataway, NJ, USA Posts: 75	Should also say... I should also call your attention to (what you already know, but maybe are not thinking about) facts that neighbor countried DID write about many details (travels, conquests, taxes, rebel leaders, etc.) but never mentioned any of Sol's or Dave's great temples and palaces, or masses of people following Chris or Pete. Why? Because very probably no temples or palaces (all just imagined during the reign of Josiah), and no followers of Chris or Pete (all just imagined after their mythical deaths). Does this "prove" anything? We can't logically prove a negative hypothesis with inductive reasoning, but the total of it all is very heavy evidence against a positive belief, in this case. So a positive belief is just irrational (which I guess some belevers would actually admit anyhow, but if they loudly said "it's all irrational," that might dissuade some new young recruits. (Does such dissuade new young Muslim suicide recruits? No. Lots of people want desperately to believe in something --- anything. But let's try to get them all believing in sci. and engrng. instead!) Dan-Dan the Science Man, tied his tail to an old tin can http://homepage.mac.com/shanefield .

02-26-2007, 06:49 PM	#27
Shanefield Junior Member Join Date: Mar 2006 Location: Piscataway, NJ, USA Posts: 75	Should have said "tribe" Really, for anyone still following this prolix, verbose thread, I should say that my theory is not just about a need for belief, it's about a weak (that is, easily overcome) instinct to want membership in a "tribe." Most people want to have a leader, and to believe the great tribal myths (a little of which rubs off on them). If you want to see more about my theory (which maybe I have need to believe in!), look briefly at this http://groups.google.com/group/alt.p...5859e20b621624 or if that doesn't work, search groups.google.com for "shanefield tribe" without the quotes. My tribe is science, by the way. Dan S.

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

02-26-2007, 04:08 AM	#22
Simon Ewins Junior Member Join Date: Jan 2007 Location: Toronto, Canada Posts: 19	Sigh... Why do I write X and people post to me arguing against Y? Why are you all so afraid of the possibility of an historical character upon which the myth of Jesus might be based? I have managed to reject Xianity as nonsense for over 50 years and still accept the idea that there was a core reality to all the tall tales, fabrications, lies, inventions and myths about Jesus upon which Xianity is based. Y'all ever actually read, then think and then reply... or just read, avoid thinking and then reply? Try reading the following books, none of the authors are Xian apologists, all are very competent researchers and writers. You might learn something, including the avoidance of such knee-jerk reactions as those I have found here. "The Other Gospels" - R. Cameron "The Mythmaker: Paul and the Invention of Christianity" - Hyam Maccoby "Jesus" - A. N. Wilson "The Historical Jesus" - J. D. Crossan "Revolution in Judaea" - Hyam Maccoby "The Pharisees" - Leo Baeck "The Death of Jesus" - Joel Carmichael "Soteriology and Mystic Aspects" - G. S. Gasparro "Antisemitism and the Foundations of Christianity" - A. T. Davies "The Messiah Jesus and John the Baptist" - Robert Eisler "Paul and Rabbinic Judaism" - W. D. Davies "The Grounds of Christianity" - George English "Jesus" - D. Flusser "Jesus and the Zealots" - S. G. F. Brandon "Gnosis" - Rudolph Bultmann "Jesus and the Word" - Rudolph Bultmann "The Gnostic Paul" - Elaine Pagels "A History of Messianic Speculation in Israel" - A. H. Silver "The Jesus of the Early Christians" - G. A. Wells "The Theology of St Paul" - D. Whiteley "Tarsus and Jerusalem" - W. C. Unnik "Jesus the Jew" - Geza Vermes

02-26-2007, 05:34 PM	#25
Shanefield Junior Member Join Date: Mar 2006 Location: Piscataway, NJ, USA Posts: 75	The point is that there were no real people or events CLOSELY RESEMBLING the Biblical characters or miracles. How closely? No closer than with the Robin Hood and King Arthur charact. or adventures. Distantly? Sure, but so what? Without the miracles, the stories are just more myths. And the Egyps. and Assyrs. and Romans, etc., never mentioned Abe or Moe or Sol or Dave or Chris or Pete --- just reported a very few, very poor people in a desert land. (The weather didn't improve until about 700 A.D.) Dan Shanefield

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.