Goliath

Metacrock,

Even if Jesus did exist, I definitely take exception to the assertion that he was the greatest moral teacher who ever lived. The good moral teachings that he did supposedly give were not originally his (ie things like the Golden Rule), and Jesus' more original teachings ("You must hate yourself and your family before you can follow me," "Hey! Mutilate yourself now by chopping your hands off and ripping your eyeballs out!"*) form the most god-awful (pun-intended) advice I've ever heard.

Sincerely,

Goliath

* - If you're interested, I can provide biblical passages corresponding to these commands.

Roland

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Metacrock




Meta =>That's ok





The comment you made was that The Gospel of Thomas said that "Jesus came in the flesh" or something like that.





Meta =>It's devistating to the theory of Doherty. It's also pretty strong evidence for Jesus' historical existence. But to understand why you have to understand something form textual criticism.

The GT contians about 34 sayings of the synoptic gospels, and several other original says which, because they are in that document and don't show signs of the latter Gnostic theology, are taken to be authentic early sayings of Jesus. The thing is, all of this is proof that a body of teachings existed before the traditional dates usually given for the writting of Mark, the first of the synoptics to be written (that dat=60). That means not only that the Material Mark used is older, and can be pushed back to AD 50, but that just 20 years after the events in the gospels, there was a well fromed, voluminous body of techings already attributed to Jesus.

ROLAND'S RESPONSE: As Doherty points out, these "sayings" could simply have been a collection of common maxims circulating at the time onto which someone added "Jesus said" over and over. The fact that they seem to exist in a vacuum devoid of any biographical or narrative elements makes his presumption more than possible.

My question is why would people write "sayings" gospels before they wrote narrative gospels? Wouldn't the most amazing and compelling things to be said about Jesus be the facts of his life and death (and resurrection) and not what he said?

As to trying to figure out if "a" Jesus lived, I suppose it is a salutary goal, but I don't think there will ever be "definitive" proof one way or the other.

Also, if all we have in Thomas is a collection of sayings, how do we know how much time has passed since the man Jesus walked the earth? It isn't until Mark comes along with his narrative that Jesus is given a time frame (i.e. during the time of Pontius Pilate).

Bobzammel

Most Christians believe that the GOT is either from the second century or a complete fraud.

Metacrock

Meta=>It only makes sense that most great ethical teachers around the world would come up with the golden rule, or the categorical imparative (Kant's version). It's a universal truth. I don't think you can argue that originality is necessarily they only sign of a great teacher.

but Jesus' version has a reflexive quality that very few, if any, of those who said it before him put in. That makes a big difference. that turns the whole priniciple into something much more than just "love you neighbor." that is the as yourself clause totally overhauls the principle, because it also creates a standard whereby one must love ones self.







Meta=>Of cousre you are totally distorting what he said. I find that skeptics somehow lose the ablity to read when they read the Bible. I bet if Shakespire said those thing you would see at once what's really being said. obviousy he doesn't expect you to cut out your eye. he's answering the sarcastic exuse of the sinner. The guy who says "I can't stop lusting because women dress the way they do." That's an excuse. He's saying if you make an excuse (my eyes keep looking) then he calls you on the excuse (well cut them out).

Ever watch Dr. Phil? He approaches peolpe that way too, and I bet when he does it you understand and appreciate what he's saying. Jesus was the Dr. Phil of the ancient world. This was his way of saying "let's get real, dont make stupid excuses, take responsiblity for your own actions and motives."

Koyaanisqatsi

You do with everything you post regarding Jesus. Your assumptions that he's the first one to say it are replete. Case in point:

First of all, where do you get the notion that he was the one who came up with the "hook" there at the end that you so unjustly laud?

Secondly, even if he did originate this "hook," you've just contradicted your first declaration.

Thirdly, so what if a Rabbi from that time period named Jesus came up with that hook and it was attributed to him by cult mythologists?

All you've done throughout this entire thread is postulated that there was a man named Jesus who taught things in and around that time. Great. I'm sure there were many men named Jesus who taught things in and around that time.

The "historical Jesus" that others are arguing about has little to nothing to do with a guy named Jesus who taught things. There were guys named Ahmed who taught things and guys named Abraham who taught things and guys named.....

See my point? Because, I sure as hell don't see yours.

May I just grant it and move on? Granted: Jesus was a popular name in the Middle East from the first century to the 33rd century C.E., which makes it possible that there was an actual Rabbi with that name who had his own congregation of followers and his wisdom sayings were written down and later used in the creation of a primarily anti-Judaic cult, or, at the very least, in a splinter cult, that, because of it's anti-Judaic bent, was lauded by the occupying force in the region.

Great. Now, are you willing to take your own logical progression to the next level and conceed that this means nothing at all so far as evidence of divinity or supernatural beings, because short of that, your investigation into whether or not an actual Rabbi named Jesus existed at some point during the period that the later cult authors created their mythology around serves absolutely no purpose whatsoever.

If you are willing to admit that the deeper you dig into the mythology, the more you will find nothing other than a real human being (that in no way was "a god") that it was loosely based upon, then this pointless indulgence has merit. But if you are going to deconstruct the absuridty of divinity so that you can then just turn around and reconstruct divinity without following the same logic with which you deconstructed it, then this is utterly pointless and entirely disengenuous on your part.

The sign of an extremely poor scholar indeed!

And you know this how?

See what I mean? You deconstruct something to find the kernal of truth that may lie at its genesis and then just instantly heap on the assumptions of your bias without cause and in direct violation of the discipline you followed in the first place!

That's truly reprehensible behavior for one who pretends to be a scholar, IMO.

If you want to deconstruct a mythology down to its origin, then you must also accept that the origin disproves deity. You can't eat your cake and have it, too.


Do we now? I find that we're the only ones who seem to read the goddamned thing as it is written!

I see. So you subconsciously betray your understanding that it's all fiction? Shakespeare wrote fiction. Well, actually, Marlowe, if you concur with recent scholars on the subject.

Funny, that's what he said. In fact, he said it would be better that you cut out your own eye than risk being thrown into hell.

Hell is a very bad place, according to the Bible. So, you're saying that is was a metaphor? A scare tactic? A wisdom saying. Yet it's based upon the fear of hell fire; the eternal damnation and "second death" imposed by god almighty!

That's a mighty gruesome metaphor, but gee, you think so?

No, actually, he doesn't. He says, in one version (Matthew 5:29), "If your right eye causes you to sin, gouge it out and throw it away. It is better for you to lose one part of your body than for your whole body to be thrown into hell."

If not literal, then it makes absolutely no sense so far as any kind of actual help for the person seeking to "stop lusting."

There is no such thing as "hell." To threaten someone who is having a problem with "lusting" is therefore in no way helped with their "problem" in any way at all with Jesus' words.

That person is only threatened with the most severe punishment imaginable to the cult by the cult leader for non-compliance.

Not to mention the fact that Jesus has arbitrarily created a new "sin" that never before existed: "But I tell you that anyone who looks at a woman lustfully has already committed adultery with her in his heart," so that the context of the whole makes even less curative sense.

Looking at another woman "lustfully" is not a sin in the slightest (outside of the authors of the christian mythology, of course), so the "sin" that is punishable by being thrown into hell does not exist, but, regardless, does not in any way help the person from looking lustfully upon other women, an arguably dire problem for a married man (or woman ).

In other words, the person in Matthew who asks the solution to a serious problem is met instead with "stop it or you'll be punished eternally in the fires of hell that are the second death."

That isn't "help;" that's a threat for non-compliance to a revision of Judaic law.

Just because you pretend that the mythological Jesus has any right to change Jewish law in this regard doesn't mean that anybody does have that right, let alone that this represents something positive in the form of "help" to that poor sap who asked the question to begin with!

Yet you make this pathetic analogy in your very next paragraph:

Except Dr. Phil doesn't threaten somebody into behaving a certain way or else they will burn eternally in a lake of fire! That's the qualitative difference that you repeatedly fail to acknowledge.

Your duplicitiousness is glaringly apparent, sir. I charge that such a failing is anathema to any true scholar and seriously admonish you to rethink your overall contention in that regard, if, indeed, you take the title "scholar" with the seriousness you have professed elsewhere on these boards.

No, he wasn't. Dr. Phil has never (to my knowledge, anyway) either directly or indirectly said, "Do as I tell you to do or you will burn eternally in a lake of fire."

....or you burn eternally in a lake of fire....

It's so convenient to be an apologist, don't you think, Meta? You're not burdened by what is actually said, just in what you want to have been said.

The impact and import of what Jesus said to that man was to threaten him into not behaving a certain way (a way entirely made up by Jesus, no less, right on the spot, and contradicting god, but, hey, what does that matter when you assume beforehand that Jesus is god and has such authority, right?).

As I said before, if you're going to deconstruct down to a human element then follow your own frigging logic without the constant equivocations of convenience and desperation that are replete in your posts, if you please.

And if you're not honest enough to do that, then for god's sake stop pretending that this is what you're doing in order to establish a false "backdoor" into proselytizing your beliefs!

Rationaliztions are for children and the desperate; please demonstrate in future posts that you are neither.

Now, please, if you don't mind, could you go into a lengthy diatribe about what "hell" actually means, too? I so enjoy the way it gets twisted and turned around from the actual words and meanings of the original threats. I just get so much enjoyment out of otherwise intelligent people roiling in their deliberate, self-inflicted blindness.

Metacrock

Meta=>WEll, of all the many skeptics with whom I've argued this point, many of them quote various religious leaders and ethical teachers, not one of them has ever been able to come up with one who also had the as yourself cluase in that teaching. I'm sure somone did, but apparently not many.




Meta=>How so?




Meta=>I think that is an incredibally weak argument. Obviously I'm arguing that the same techer who inspired Christianity is this Jesus. he's the one who marshalled the followers and it turned into a major world religion. We can leave the question of his diety for the side. But he had real historical existence. Clealry from my argument about only one version of the story I establish those 11 points as universal to the tellings of the Jesus story; born in Nazerath, mother named Mary, side kicks Matt, John, Andrew, James, crucified under Pilate; that all makes it pretty clearly I'm speaking of a particlar person.






Meta=>No one asked you to be in this thread. If you think it's too banail or stupid to worry about this guy's existence, then don't post in my threads. Because that's my main concern right now. If you can't understand that, then too bad. There are those of us who care about history and who care about knowing the facts. I'm sick of these crack pots like Doherty with their hair brain theories and I wont to show people they don't know what they are talking about.






Meta=>I haven't been "deconstructing" divinity. I said I wasn't to argue about it. I didn't say it was absurd, and there's no reason to think it is. There's absurd about it. I dont' do apologetics the way Josh McDowell of William Lane Craig do them. I don't see the resurrection as some kind of debate topic to prove to people they should be christians. That's not what I do. If you can't understand that, that's too bad. Don't be on my threads if you don't like I do things. I'm not talk to you. I'm talking to people who care to learn.


The sign of an extremely poor scholar indeed!



Meta=>what is? You mean jumping to conclusions like you did? Here's your logic:

1) all chrisians are idiots who argue like Josh McDowell.

2) Metacrock is a chrsitian

3) therefore Metacrock is an idiot who argues like McDowell and it's just a matter of time before he moves form the historical Jesus to the divine Jesus.

but that just shows the fallcy in your thinking. You have heard me say I'm a liberal about a millions times, espeicially if you have seen the thread on admit the Bible is sexist. liberals don't argue like McDowell, and I'm not going to come out with 24 points on how we know the resurrection happened.



And you know this how?

See what I mean?


Meta=>NO I don't even know what your talking about now.




You deconstruct something to find the kernal of truth that may lie at its genesis and then just instantly heap on the assumptions of your bias without cause and in direct violation of the discipline you followed in the first place!





Meta=>O I do? Hmmm, where have I done that?


Most of what I've ever done on this board is correct misconception about the early chruch and the biblical text. I don't think I've ever argued about "how I know Jesus rose from the dead!" If I have, I may have tried it a few times, but I really don't think that's the way to do things.


That's truly reprehensible behavior for one who pretends to be a scholar, IMO.



Meta=>what is?




If you want to deconstruct a mythology down to its origin, then you must also accept that the origin disproves deity. You can't eat your cake and have it, too.



Meta=>So I have to give up belief in God to be a historian? Many of the greastest historians and shcolars have been true believers. that's a stupid assumption! It's nothing more than glorifying an ideology! You just lionize materialismand with no more solid substance to back up your viewd than magic dogmatically assume there can't be a God yoda yoda yoda....




Do we now? I find that we're the only ones who seem to read the goddamned thing as it is written!



Meta=>Yea, that's your mistake. You take it so litterally because you know that is the worst possible light. Almost no texts anywhere are written 100% litterally or "as litteral as you can get." figurative speech is as much a part of communication as anything else. You just have to develop a sense of it.

I find it odd that you hate the fundies, and yet you think they are the only one's who interprit it right! Internet atheists and fundies are just two sides to the same coin.




I see. So you subconsciously betray your understanding that it's all fiction? Shakespeare wrote fiction. Well, actually, Marlowe, if you concur with recent scholars on the subject.




Meta=>Shakespire wrote truth. It just wasnt historical truth. So now your an expert on the subconscious?





Meta=>you are one of the most unsophisticated readers I ever met. I bet you think Shakespire wrote in cleches!


Meta=>I hope you will try to learn the difference in a slavish insistance upon an unrealistic litteralism and plain meaning.



Meta=>Yes it does,. Look, it's what we in higher education call "a litterary device." It's sarcsim. It's like Dr. Phil saying "get real!" A modern analouge would be a man saying "O I just can't stop reading this pornography because that's just the way I am, I have a strong sex drive, I can't help myself." HIs wife might say "go thorw some cold water on your head, cool your jets" (we used to say that back in the old days). now is she litterally expecting him to throw water on himself? If he doesn't is she divorcing him? Most people would understand that figuratively. It's the same kind of statment. take a cold shower.


If you need further explaination I"m afirad you are out of luck




Meta=>You really can't understand the idea of sarcaism? It's being sarcastic to people who make excuses. the exuse "I can't help myself." That's what it's about. it's not a threat, it's not trying to sacare anyone. The person hearing it is suposse to think "O I don't need to tear my eye out, I can really control myself if I want to. I'm jut making excuses." see? It's just saying "get real."

man you are really desperate to find something to blame christianity for. What did they do to you in your chruch? Was that pracher man really that mean?







Meta=>It's not a new sin. It;s getting at the motivations. He's saying that lust and murder and all the things he speaks of in that passage, originate in the heart. they aren't just behavior, they are attitudes. Lust is an attitude. that's why it's important to not make excuses about "I can't help it, my eye keeps looking" it's saying correct the attitude frist, and dont' make the exuse and then the behavior wont be as hard.





Meta=>I know you think you are clever. I hate to tell that is so covoluted I can't even follow the intended humar.



Meta=>where does it say he's speaking to a person who was asking a serious question? It doesn't. he wasn't. he's speaking to all of us, to correct our motivations.

why do you think Jesus was ever liked as a moral teacher anyway? why did Ghandi say he liked him? cause he was such a big dumb jerk who said stupid things, that people decided the was great. Most peple can read between the lines and know what figures of speech are.



I'm not even bothering with the rest of it.]

Metacrock

Meta => why do you assume its a threat? Just because he mentions hell?





Meta => I'm sure you are a very bright person when you aren't foaming at the mouth with hatred for something you don't even want to understand. If you were able to think about it with an open mind I'm sure you would see you are approching it very unfairly.


1) It's not a threat

2) no one is being condmened

3) he's just being "in your face" about excuses

4) Dr. Phil does that all the time.


quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
MORE: Jesus was the Dr. Phil of the ancient world.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



No, he wasn't. Dr. Phil has never (to my knowledge, anyway) either directly or indirectly said, "Do as I tell you to do or you will burn eternally in a lake of fire."



Meta => neither did Jesus! You are construing it that way because you christians and you want t see it in the worst possilbe light. but you aren't even taking in in a plain meaning. Nowhwere in that passage does he say that you have to do what he says. Look why would he even talk the eye anyway? Because he's dealing with the kinds of exuses people make. "I can't help my actions, I'm jsut that way, my eyes wont stop looking." that's what i means by "offending you, if your eyes offens you, if it causes you to sin."

so he's not saying you really go to hell if you don't pluck out your eye, he's just using the logic of the situation. If your eye makes you sin take out your eye, because of course it's not your eye

Metacrock

ahahahahahahahha Sorry, but that's the weakest argument I've heard since I read Koy's last post. Why would they just stick a name on there? Why would they collect a list of sayings and just stick a name on it, as though it doesn't matter to them who said it? And then why would 19 other peole copy their own versions and do the same thing? And how on earlth could that grow into a movment in just 20 years? Maybe over 100 years, but no 20. that's absurd!


Meta => WEll if you never hard of a gospel and didn't know what one was (Mark is the firsrt gospel ever, not just the first chrisitain Gospel, but the first that we know of version of the whole genre of Gospels per se) then if you didn't know what it was, why bother with it? They didn't have novels, tv or docudramas. They had plays and sotries, but they also valued the teachings of rabbis. So they just happened to collect his sayings first.

probably because of the oral tradition. It's eaiser to remember a plot line than to remember sayings. So they wrote down the sayings cause they are harder to remember, but they would remember the events of the story; curcificition, resurrection.

[quote]As to trying to figure out if "a" Jesus lived, I suppose it is a salutary goal, but I don't think there will ever be "definitive" proof one way or the other.
Meta => The peole who saw him and who lived the stories knew. Paul met them, we have Paul's writtings. They were in the communites. Communites produced the Gosples. That's why Doherty is so absurd. the whole idea of one person making it up is ludicrous. Because it was a communal thing. 500 people saw Jesus walk through the streets of bethseda. they remebered it and talked about it and told each other. They had organized events where witnesses told these things. that's what oral cultures do.

Godot

So far, I don't see how you've proved anything, Meta. All you've managed to do with your not entirely reputable sources is suggest the probability that there was a historical figure named Jesus who actually performed the acts attributed to him. You've certainly made a case. I for one see much of the supporting evidence of your proof to be somewhat circumstantial; you've built an elegant card house upon which you're basing a large part of your belief structure.
Also, for a thread titled "Evidence for Jesus existence is solid", you've begun by weakening your own position with the above quote! If the evidence is solid, then certainly you can be more confident in it than to state your position has a "good" probability of being true. It may be acceptable practice in the circles you frequent, but I see it as a shoddy attempt at a bait 'n' switch. Sorry, nothing personal.
And you sir, are one of the most unsophisticated authors I have ever met. Perhaps I'm being a trifle shallow, but I find it difficult to follow your line of thought through such an abundance of grammatical and spelling errors. I don't accept it from my students, and I'm sure as hell not going to accept it from you. The absence of a spell-check is no excuse for poor scholarship.
Every time you mentioned an "instruction manuel" in the 'bible as sexist' thread, I kept imagining a small mexican man in a sombrero. It is hard to take your position seriously with the plethora of errors that so permeate your dialectic.

Kosh

Now hold on a second there MeatCroc. I've read Josh McDowell. And You are not even close to being up to his level of argument.

But I do agree with you on McDowells stupidity.