Freethought & Rationalism Archive

jgoodguy · 11-05-2009, 07:34 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Clivedurdle

Quote:

those whose religious practices opposed the Roman's Gods.

Except Herod's Temple, the largest temple on the planet, was built with the explicit approval of the Romans.

Judaism did not oppose the Roman gods - the belief in that is later xian propaganda.

Was not there several Judaisms or at least divisions of Judaism that opposed the Roman gods and Romans as occupiers of holy ground. In theory, at least, a monotheistic religion would oppose any god except theirs. The ruling classes that benefited from the Roman occupation would be more favorable toward the Roman presence and tolerate Roman gods. However the less well off would have no reason to tolerate the Roman gods much like the Taliban today.

I believe that there were larger temples in the Ancient world. Temple of Artemis for example.

show_no_mercy · 11-05-2009, 08:32 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Clivedurdle

Quote:

those whose religious practices opposed the Roman's Gods.

Except Herod's Temple, the largest temple on the planet, was built with the explicit approval of the Romans.

Judaism did not oppose the Roman gods - the belief in that is later xian propaganda.

What was the cause of the Maccabean revolt, or the Bar-Kochba revolt?

jgoodguy · 11-05-2009, 09:33 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by show_no_mercy

Quote:

Originally Posted by Clivedurdle

Except Herod's Temple, the largest temple on the planet, was built with the explicit approval of the Romans.

Judaism did not oppose the Roman gods - the belief in that is later xian propaganda.

What was the cause of the Maccabean revolt, or the Bar-Kochba revolt?

Nationalism with a strong religious flavor?

lintrap · 11-05-2009, 09:37 AM

But in a day where people would believe insane bullshit like ressurection stories, Biblical Jesus might have been a Jesus. Put yourself in his shoes:

He believed he would get to live forever ( in the afterlife or whatever, he pretty much introduced that idea to the Bible in it's current form )

He knew that by saying these things and then having shiesty friends around him, that even if he didn't raise from the dead ( which he didn't ) then they would spread the word and he would be famous. Of course, I doubt he saw this much fame coming.

show_no_mercy · 11-05-2009, 09:57 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jgoodguy

Quote:

Originally Posted by show_no_mercy

What was the cause of the Maccabean revolt, or the Bar-Kochba revolt?

Nationalism with a strong religious flavor?

Abomination of Desolation

Quote:

The 1 Maccabees usage of the term points to the actions of Antiochus IV Epiphanes in the mid-second century BC. Specifically, he set up an altar to Zeus in the Second Temple in Jerusalem, and sacrificed swine on it around the year 167 BC

One commentator relates the prophecy to the actions of Caligula c. 40 AD when he ordered that a golden statue depicting himself as Zeus incarnate be set up in the Temple in Jerusalem

Some scholars, including Hermann Detering see it as another vaticinium ex eventu about Emperor Hadrian's attempt to install the statue of Jupiter Capitolinus on the site of the ruined Jewish Temple in Jerusalem leading to the Bar Kokhba rebellion of 132-135 AD.

aa5874 · 11-05-2009, 12:47 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by lintrap

But in a day where people would believe insane bullshit like ressurection stories, Biblical Jesus might have been a Jesus. Put yourself in his shoes:

He believed he would get to live forever ( in the afterlife or whatever, he pretty much introduced that idea to the Bible in it's current form )

He knew that by saying these things and then having shiesty friends around him, that even if he didn't raise from the dead ( which he didn't ) then they would spread the word and he would be famous. Of course, I doubt he saw this much fame coming.

.

But, what you have suggested did not happen.

It should be noted that the disciples fled for their lives when Jesus was arrested and were in hiding, as would be expected. Once Jesus did not really resurrected then it would be expected that the disciples would remain in hiding for a very long time.

The disciples would have known that their own deaths may have been imminent once Jesus was deemed to be a fraudster.

Jesus did not become famous until Constantine made Jesus an official God of Rome, about 300 years after his supposed disciples spread the false rumor that he resurrected on the third day.

Before Constantine, Jesus believers were considered atheists and cannibals, and even other christians believed Jesus was a Phantom.

According to Josephus, the Pharisees and Essenes believed the body was corruptible but that the soul was immortal.

The idea that a human being would tell people that he would rise from the dead within 72 hours of his death would be just absolute stupidity, he would have forced his disciples to lie and and fabricate a resurrection.

The disciples must get control of the body and secretly bury or dump his body unknown to the populace. And even if his body was removed from the burial site, no-one would have seen Jesus alive again.

The Jesus story only makes sense if it was written to be believed.

The HJ is senseless.

lintrap · 11-05-2009, 01:16 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by aa5874

Quote:

Originally Posted by lintrap

But in a day where people would believe insane bullshit like ressurection stories, Biblical Jesus might have been a Jesus. Put yourself in his shoes:

He believed he would get to live forever ( in the afterlife or whatever, he pretty much introduced that idea to the Bible in it's current form )

He knew that by saying these things and then having shiesty friends around him, that even if he didn't raise from the dead ( which he didn't ) then they would spread the word and he would be famous. Of course, I doubt he saw this much fame coming.

.

But, what you have suggested did not happen.

It should be noted that the disciples fled for their lives when Jesus was arrested and were in hiding, as would be expected. Once Jesus did not really resurrected then it would be expected that the disciples would remain in hiding for a very long time.

The disciples would have known that their own deaths may have been imminent once Jesus was deemed to be a fraudster.

Jesus did not become famous until Constantine made Jesus an official God of Rome, about 300 years after his supposed disciples spread the false rumor that he resurrected on the third day.

Before Constantine, Jesus believers were considered atheists and cannibals, and even other christians believed Jesus was a Phantom.

According to Josephus, the Pharisees and Essenes believed the body was corruptible but that the soul was immortal.

The idea that a human being would tell people that he would rise from the dead within 72 hours of his death would be just absolute stupidity, he would have forced his disciples to lie and and fabricate a resurrection.

The disciples must get control of the body and secretly bury or dump his body unknown to the populace. And even if his body was removed from the burial site, no-one would have seen Jesus alive again.

The Jesus story only makes sense if it was written to be believed.

The HJ is senseless.

But we don't know what really happened with his disciples, since the accounts weren't written until 60-120 years after the events, and were spread by the highly unreliable coupling of oral tradition and ancient biography. Neither of these focused on accuracy.

I think the Jesus story only makes sense as a cobbled together religious text.

WishboneDawn · 11-05-2009, 01:28 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by avi

...Well, if she were Greek, then, does it not follow that she spoke Greek to Jesus?...

I may be missing something (and generally do) but how does Jesus speaking Greek mean anything in regards to what kind of Jew he was? Greek, or ,Koine at least, was the merchant tongue wasn't it? The lingua franca of the Roman world? The simple fact that someone spoke Greek wouldn't be a useful clue as to where they were from.

WishboneDawn · 11-05-2009, 01:31 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by lintrap

But we don't know what really happened with his disciples, since the accounts weren't written until 60-120 years after the events, and were spread by the highly unreliable coupling of oral tradition and ancient biography. Neither of these focused on accuracy.

I think the Jesus story only makes sense as a cobbled together religious text.

Exactly.

None of this counters the assertion of a HJ. It counters a conservative reading that claims the gospels are unerring, literal history.

aa5874 · 11-05-2009, 01:47 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by lintrap

Quote:

Originally Posted by aa5874

.

But, what you have suggested did not happen.

It should be noted that the disciples fled for their lives when Jesus was arrested and were in hiding, as would be expected. Once Jesus did not really resurrected then it would be expected that the disciples would remain in hiding for a very long time.

The disciples would have known that their own deaths may have been imminent once Jesus was deemed to be a fraudster.

Jesus did not become famous until Constantine made Jesus an official God of Rome, about 300 years after his supposed disciples spread the false rumor that he resurrected on the third day.

Before Constantine, Jesus believers were considered atheists and cannibals, and even other christians believed Jesus was a Phantom.

According to Josephus, the Pharisees and Essenes believed the body was corruptible but that the soul was immortal.

The idea that a human being would tell people that he would rise from the dead within 72 hours of his death would be just absolute stupidity, he would have forced his disciples to lie and and fabricate a resurrection.

The disciples must get control of the body and secretly bury or dump his body unknown to the populace. And even if his body was removed from the burial site, no-one would have seen Jesus alive again.

The Jesus story only makes sense if it was written to be believed.

The HJ is senseless.

But we don't know what really happened with his disciples, since the accounts weren't written until 60-120 years after the events, and were spread by the highly unreliable coupling of oral tradition and ancient biography. Neither of these focused on accuracy.

I think the Jesus story only makes sense as a cobbled together religious text.

We don't really know that there were Jesus and his disciples in the first place.

All we know is that many of the events with respect to Jesus and the disciples are implausible and some, even though appearing plausible, may indeed be fiction or very unlikely to have occurred.

Based on the NT, the 1st bishop of Rome, Peter, who witnessed Jesus walking on water, and transfigured, did claim that Jesus was resurrected and later saw him ascending through a cloud.

These reports about Jesus from Peter, the first bishop of Rome, cannot be history but belief.

The HJ is SENSELESS.

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

11-05-2009, 09:37 AM	#14
lintrap Senior Member Join Date: Oct 2009 Location: Vancouver, Wa Posts: 864	But in a day where people would believe insane bullshit like ressurection stories, Biblical Jesus might have been a Jesus. Put yourself in his shoes: He believed he would get to live forever ( in the afterlife or whatever, he pretty much introduced that idea to the Bible in it's current form ) He knew that by saying these things and then having shiesty friends around him, that even if he didn't raise from the dead ( which he didn't ) then they would spread the word and he would be famous. Of course, I doubt he saw this much fame coming.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.