Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Chili · 02-13-2013, 10:18 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by outhouse

Quote:

Originally Posted by XianCatalyst

I would think if you wish to claim all of the faith was rewritten to service political ends, it was so far beyond even Machiavellian standards of manipulation for consistency that it would have to be a miracle of the supernatural divine influence. :|

You have so many consistent messages of this faith from so many different mindsets, cultures, etc... to find that they all were manipulated the same way, and controlled as such, to create a consistent/persistent lie, puts way more faith in the power of people than is warranted, no?

Except for one big problem with this view.

The early movement started against the governement and corruption in place, unless you want to argue Jews loved Roman oppression.

They wanted the Romans to crucify him: We have our own law and by that he must be crucified, and it is your job to get that done.

Can you not read?

outhouse · 02-13-2013, 10:40 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Chili

Quote:

Originally Posted by outhouse

Except for one big problem with this view.

The early movement started against the governement and corruption in place, unless you want to argue Jews loved Roman oppression.

They wanted the Romans to crucify him: We have our own law and by that he must be crucified, and it is your job to get that done.

Can you not read?

Possible

But he is accused of not paying taxes and sedition. More or less causing trouble in the temple during passover is a no no, for the temple and Romans keeping peace.

Peace was Caiaphas and Pilates objective and a Galilean Jew caused some kind of trouble. = cross.

Chili · 02-13-2013, 11:00 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by outhouse

Quote:

Originally Posted by Chili

Quote:

Originally Posted by outhouse

Except for one big problem with this view.

The early movement started against the governement and corruption in place, unless you want to argue Jews loved Roman oppression.

They wanted the Romans to crucify him: We have our own law and by that he must be crucified, and it is your job to get that done.

Can you not read?

Possible

But he is accused of not paying taxes and sedition. More or less causing trouble in the temple during passover is a no no, for the temple and Romans keeping peace.

Peace was Caiaphas and Pilates objective and a Galilean Jew caused some kind of trouble. = cross.

The Good News is: No more religion. No more Passover! No more taxing by religion! The son is here and I am he! . . . and I want you to follow me and do the same!

The point then is that what he did is in evidence of the good news to him, and can't you see?

Why can't we read and let it tell us instead of we tell it!

Onias · 02-13-2013, 09:03 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Clivedurdle

With a vicar of Christ resigning, I think we are agreed that "the xian view of history" with a Jesus starting it all, with a Peter and Paul etc is extremely problematic.

So, how might we work out what actually might have happened?

As with Shakespeare rewriting Richard III - I agree with Josephine Tey that he was a good King for his time and place! - and Julius Caesar re-imagining the Celts, there is a very venerable tradition of rewriting stuff from a particular perspective, especially where power and wealth are involved.

I understand we are with the start of xianity in a world where deception, misinformation and magick are utterly central. Rumsfeld with his unknown unknowns would have loved it!

So what do we have?

Not a lot, and interestingly the archaeology etc does point to the 320's - 400 CE.....

We may never know when Xianity really started. . . all we really know is that extant Xianity started with the extant NT, and that started in the 4th century.

Sheshbazzar · 02-13-2013, 09:19 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by outhouse

Jerusalem at passover is when and where the movement first deviated from Judaism

Only if you buy into that ridiculous fabricated gospel fairy tale.

There is no evidence that inhabitants of Jerusalem ever heard of any 'Jezuz christ' before 100 CE.
The whole gospel story is an apologetic religious fabrication created after the fall of Temple, based around a retrojected 'prophecy' of something that had already happened.
Jezuz gets to 'predict' the destruction of the Temple only because it had already happened decades before this hokey tale was composed.

The fictional crucifixion tale is the apologetic invented excuse for the destruction of the Temple. The Temple fell first, -then- this hokey gospel story was invented as the religious apologetic explanation.

Thankfully, most Jewish people are not stupid enough to buy that load of horse shit.

Chili · 02-13-2013, 09:28 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Onias

Quote:

Originally Posted by Clivedurdle

With a vicar of Christ resigning, I think we are agreed that "the xian view of history" with a Jesus starting it all, with a Peter and Paul etc is extremely problematic.

So, how might we work out what actually might have happened?

As with Shakespeare rewriting Richard III - I agree with Josephine Tey that he was a good King for his time and place! - and Julius Caesar re-imagining the Celts, there is a very venerable tradition of rewriting stuff from a particular perspective, especially where power and wealth are involved.

I understand we are with the start of xianity in a world where deception, misinformation and magick are utterly central. Rumsfeld with his unknown unknowns would have loved it!

So what do we have?

Not a lot, and interestingly the archaeology etc does point to the 320's - 400 CE.....

We may never know when Xianity really started. . . all we really know is that extant Xianity started with the extant NT, and that started in the 4th century.

I have no objection to this, but the argument can then be made that it also ended with the Reformation when scatterbrains were on the loose again.

But then, who am I to say, except that John tells us in 5:39-40 that there is no salvation in the bible still extant beyond that day.

outhouse · 02-13-2013, 09:46 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sheshbazzar

Quote:

Originally Posted by outhouse

Jerusalem at passover is when and where the movement first deviated from Judaism

Only if you buy into that ridiculous fabricated gospel fairy tale.

There is no evidence that inhabitants of Jerusalem ever heard of any 'Jezuz christ' before 100 CE.
The whole gospel story is an apologetic religious fabrication created after the fall of Temple, based around a retrojected 'prophecy' of something that had already happened.
Jezuz gets to 'predict' the destruction of the Temple only because it had already happened decades before this hokey tale was composed.

The fictional crucifixion tale is the apologetic invented excuse for the destruction of the Temple. The Temple fell first, -then- this hokey gospel story was invented as the religious apologetic explanation.

Thankfully, most Jewish people are not stupid enough to buy that load of horse shit.

its not all 100% fiction.

Thus said, you cannot argue first century pre fall of the temple, that Judaism was very very diverse.

You cannot argue that hellenistic Jewish Proselytes turned into Christians.

Im sure there was a divide between Israelite Jews, and Hellenistic Jews that came in all flavors that evolved into Christians. Real Jews would have not accepted their oppressors with open hands and hearts.

Jesus wasnt needed, but a passover event did spark the division, as it is the only ressonable explanation for how wide and fast the movement spread throughout the empire.

Sheshbazzar · 02-13-2013, 10:16 PM

There is NO evidence that this fictional 'passover event' ever happened.
There is not a single verse of the Gospels relating to any 'Jezuz of Nazareth' that has any contemporary non-apologetic evidence or support.
The only thing appearing up till the writings of Justin Martyr, is the highly questionable, and admittedly fudged Josephus 'TF' citations.

'Jezuz christ' of Nazareth is an unknown and unattested to figure before approximately 150 CE.
And by that time no one would have known, and there would have been no way of determining whether he had ever existed.

This 'movement' did not spread throughout the Empire in the 1st century. It did not begin with any 'passover incident',
The Temple had already been destroyed and the Jews scattered before this gospel apologetic tale was written.

It was not until well into the 2nd century CE that this 'gospel' tale and 'christianiy' took hold and began its rapid spread, with many writings then being composed and retrojected into providing an imaginary past 'Church history'.

aa5874 · 02-13-2013, 10:21 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by outhouse

Jesus wasnt needed, but a passover event did spark the division, as it is the only ressonable explanation for how wide and fast the movement spread throughout the empire.

There was no Jesus cult that was a "wide and fast movement in the empire" in the 1st century.

We have Non-Apologetic sources in Philo, Josephus, Tacitus and Suetonius and they corroborate the non-existence of a Messianic ruler called Jesus of Nazareth.

The 1st century is completely without a trace of the Jesus cult.

Sheshbazzar · 02-13-2013, 10:33 PM

And of course Philo, Josephus, Tacitus and Suetonius know nothing of this alleged all important 'passover event' or of the great outcry and social upheaval that it allegedly caused.

The gospel passover story is a total fiction, which was composed later than these writers.

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

02-13-2013, 10:16 PM	#18
Sheshbazzar Veteran Member Join Date: Sep 2003 Location: On the path of knowledge Posts: 8,889	There is NO evidence that this fictional 'passover event' ever happened. There is not a single verse of the Gospels relating to any 'Jezuz of Nazareth' that has any contemporary non-apologetic evidence or support. The only thing appearing up till the writings of Justin Martyr, is the highly questionable, and admittedly fudged Josephus 'TF' citations. 'Jezuz christ' of Nazareth is an unknown and unattested to figure before approximately 150 CE. And by that time no one would have known, and there would have been no way of determining whether he had ever existed. This 'movement' did not spread throughout the Empire in the 1st century. It did not begin with any 'passover incident', The Temple had already been destroyed and the Jews scattered before this gospel apologetic tale was written. It was not until well into the 2nd century CE that this 'gospel' tale and 'christianiy' took hold and began its rapid spread, with many writings then being composed and retrojected into providing an imaginary past 'Church history'.

02-13-2013, 10:33 PM	#20
Sheshbazzar Veteran Member Join Date: Sep 2003 Location: On the path of knowledge Posts: 8,889	And of course Philo, Josephus, Tacitus and Suetonius know nothing of this alleged all important 'passover event' or of the great outcry and social upheaval that it allegedly caused. The gospel passover story is a total fiction, which was composed later than these writers.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.