3 Years In Prison For Insulting the Catholic church

[GurrenLagann]

Sounds like weaseling to me.  The Jesus of the Bible may be based on some actual person?  Sure it was - but how "based on"?  A person who had 2 arms and 2 legs?  A person who raised the dead?

Sounding like weaseling or not, I provided the relevant link,  did I not? :) The only seeming agreed upon details appear to be the shiz with John the Baptist, being in Jerusalem and being Crucified by the Romans (practically every Biblical scholar ill attest to that one). Not much and none of which are particularly noteworthy for an individual to have gone through. The Romans probably weren't very hard to get in trouble with if you're claiming to be a prophet.

Every mythical and fictional character is "based on" some actual character.  The question is whether the Biblical Jesus is based on anything more than previous myths that were based on still more previous myths.  Even Superman is "based on" a sort of human being.

What pre-Gospel myths are you claiming that Jesus is based on? Without specifying that, the rest of your questions a bit nonsensical (Superman, really?)

[BarkAtTheMoon]

Sure it does. We don't assume existence without evidence. The proper base case is non-existence or simply irrelevence until evidence supporting the claim is found.

And no it doesn't, and certainly not within the historical community. Otherwise, you would have to claim that Socrates, Buddha, and the Milesian philosophers were all simply made up, despite the numerous mentions of them decades after their death.

Socrates is a good example that shows the difference with Jesus. What we know about him, which granted likely has exaggerations and embellishments, is from the writings of his students, 1st hand accounts of people who knew him directly during the time he lived. The philosophy of Socrates stands as it is whether it came from a guy called Socrates or the guys that wrote about it. There isn't a supernatural religion based on Socrates and there aren't a bunch of supernatural acts attributed to him.

Nothing about Jesus, someone who supposedly lived over 400 years later, is even close to 1st hand. The oldest biblical writings writings no less, Paul's, speaks of him only as a spiritual figure he saw in a vision (hallucination?), not an account of a living man. As someone else mentioned, the Gospels written decades later were what fleshed (pun intended) him out as a living man. Jesus starts as a spiritual vision, and much later becomes a man mixed with clearly mythological abilities. That's not a solid base to build a historical figure upon.

I guess I wasn't clear enough. :P What I mean is plain. If there had never been any such person (the claim from Frank that I was disputing), there would have been no need to try and square the fact that Jesus of Nazareth (in the Bible) was known to have been from Nazreth, when the Messiah was supposed to have been born in David's town, Bethlehem.

Nobody claims that the NT authors were especially good at making their saga coherent with minimal plot holes. The Gospel of Mark is where the story of Jesus the man began and he was from Nazareth there. Later, the other Gospels added the birth story placing Jesus in Bethlehem, and fulfilling the old Jewish Messiah prophecies. It's all about legitimacy and marketing. Mark had nothing about Bethlehem, nothing about Jesus' birth, nothing about the virgin birth or anything about Mary being a virgin, mentioning various brothers and sisters of Jesus. All of that was added later.

Much of the early days of written Christianity show signs of additions being sequentially added to the story to make the new religion more impressive and to appeal to specific groups. Bethlehem and the house of David appeals to Jewish prophecies, the miraculous birth of a demigod to a god and a human parents appeals to many pagan religions, the three wise men appeals to the Zoroastrians of Persia.

Sure, no single part of that is definitive, and it's basically impossible to "prove" the non-existence of something. But when you connect all the dots, it paints a picture of a clear path of enhancing the story as it went along to serve an agenda, and tracking back to a single source inspiration of all these accounts that even remotely resembles the NT Jesus Christ is seriously in doubt.

I'm no biblical expert. You might find this debate from the archives interesting: archive/viewtopic.php?f=53&t=5008.

[Jmpty]

Paul Bunyan.

[GurrenLagann]

I'm aware. However, it could just as easily have been a lie by 2 individuals that they were his students. The exaggerations and contradictions, in addition to the appearance decades later doesn't invalidate Socrates as a historical figure.

And the Socratic methods and principles have nothing to do with his historicity, which is why I didn't mention the self-evident greatness of his supposed teachings. ;)

I'm aware of the later accretions to the Bible (I made a note of it above. :) ). But as you admitted, that doesn't invalidate the supposed character it speaks of, it merely means we have contradictory accounts between several people.

[BarkAtTheMoon]

I'm aware. However, it could just as easily have been a lie by 2 individuals that they were his students. The exaggerations and contradictions, in addition to the appearance decades later doesn't invalidate Socrates as a historical figure.

And the Socratic methods and principles have nothing to do with his historicity, which is why I didn't mention the self-evident greatness of his supposed teachings. ;)

I'm aware of the later accretions to the Bible (I made a note of it above. :) ). But as you admitted, that doesn't invalidate the supposed character it speaks of, it merely means we have contradictory accounts between several people.

And it probably wouldn't be much of a big deal regarding Jesus either, like it isn't regarding Socrates as a historical figure....if they had left out all the supernatural, son of God garbage and looked at "his"/Paul's teachings as a philosophy of life rather than a religion that sends you to hell for not believing. This site probably wouldn't even exist if that was the dominant opinion of Christianity. Jesus might have been just another historical figure Bill & Ted picked up for their history report. The old "Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence" applies regarding Jesus, while not so much with Socrates, Plato, and friends.

Whether Plato's Dialogues are historical facts or not, it's still an interesting and important piece of literature you read in English lit in high school or a college philosophy class. People don't proselytize about it, people don't start wars about it, it's not the root of a multi-billion dollar industry of churches fleecing their followers. The philosophical writings attributed to Socrates, Plato, and Aristotle are still important and relevant to the study of philosophy and its history even if Socrates never actually lived or biographical details were exaggerated.

[GurrenLagann]

Didn't I just agree with you on that issue? >:l

[Colanth]

Sounds like weaseling to me.  The Jesus of the Bible may be based on some actual person?  Sure it was - but how "based on"?  A person who had 2 arms and 2 legs?  A person who raised the dead?

Sounding like weaseling or not, I provided the relevant link,  did I not? :)

To her claiming that the Biblical Jesus is based on a real person in any more way than any mythological figure is?  No.

The only seeming agreed upon details appear to be the shiz with John the Baptist, being in Jerusalem and being Crucified by the Romans (practically every Biblical scholar ill attest to that one).

Not that it has the slightest thing to do with Jesus.  Myths very frequently reference actual people.

Every mythical and fictional character is "based on" some actual character.  The question is whether the Biblical Jesus is based on anything more than previous myths that were based on still more previous myths.  Even Superman is "based on" a sort of human being.

What pre-Gospel myths are you claiming that Jesus is based on? Without specifying that, the rest of your questions a bit nonsensical (Superman, really?)

Horus.  Mithra.  Yeshua ben Pandera.  Among many, many others.  (If we accept that your claim is that it was based on similar mythic figures, which you haven't addressed.  How "based on" do you mean by "based on"?  "Was a hominoidal creature" would include a pre-gospel Superman - or a monkey.)

[Colanth]

I'm aware of the later accretions to the Bible (I made a note of it above. :) ). But as you admitted, that doesn't invalidate the supposed character it speaks of, it merely means we have contradictory accounts between several people.

Considering that Jesus wasn't even considered an actual person until 150 years after he supposedly died (the earliest reference is dated to 187 CE - prior to that, "Yeshua" was Paul's spirit-being), and considering that it would have been about as easy for someone writing in 187 CE to have gotten actual data from 33 CE as it is for us now to get any (IOW, not possible), the reference to Jesus as a man has to be considered pure fiction unless there's actual evidence that it's not.

Unless one has a need for Jesus to be real, of course, which atheists don't.

[GurrenLagann]

To her claiming that the Biblical Jesus is based on a real person in any more way than any mythological figure is?  No.

I already corrected you in that NEITHER I nor she, claimed that. You said that I claimed that, and I corrected you in stating that I didn't in fact say that.

Not that it has the slightest thing to do with Jesus.  Myths very frequently reference actual people.

Except that they were directly relevant to Jesus in the Bible. Whether or not they did in reality hardly matters to me, so much as it is apparently true that historians find that those are common areas of agreement as to what the "actual" Jesus may have done/gone through.

Horus.  Mithra.  Yeshua ben Pandera.  Among many, many others.  (If we accept that your claim is that it was based on similar mythic figures, which you haven't addressed.  How "based on" do you mean by "based on"?  "Was a hominoidal creature" would include a pre-gospel Superman - or a monkey.)

I'd like to hear why you think it's based on those mythical figures, because many of the claims of that are patently and known to be false, or rather, are exaggerated beyond what is actually true. Namely, many of them were popularized by that Zeitgeist movie (check it out on Netflix), which was rightly corrected by many in academia, as well as the Skeptics Annotated Bible on its large amount of incorrect claims.

I didn't say it was based on other mythic figures (that was Frank's claim, I disputed it), I said that Jesus, in the Bible, possesed some common legendary attributes (special birth, miraculous powers, etc) and performed some standard mythical actions (wandering teacher, rebel to dogmatic authorties, etc).

[Mathias]

The Council of Ephesus,held in 431, taught that Mary is truly the mother of god, since she gave birth to the second person of the trinity, who became man for our (their) sake...

[BarkAtTheMoon]

Didn't I just agree with you on that issue? >:l

Honestly, I have no idea what you're arguing at this point. You've been presenting some arguments in several threads that are pretty common pro-theist arguments, then you agree with the refutations. Are you just playing devil's advocate?

[Colanth]

Horus.  Mithra.  Yeshua ben Pandera.  Among many, many others.  (If we accept that your claim is that it was based on similar mythic figures, which you haven't addressed.  How "based on" do you mean by "based on"?  "Was a hominoidal creature" would include a pre-gospel Superman - or a monkey.)

I'd like to hear why you think it's based on those mythical figures, because many of the claims of that are patently and known to be false, or rather, are exaggerated beyond what is actually true. Namely, many of them were popularized by that Zeitgeist movie

I base my statements on my own research, which started before Peter Joseph was born (and possibly before his parents were born).

I didn't say it was based on other mythic figures (that was Frank's claim, I disputed it), I said that Jesus, in the Bible, possesed some common legendary attributes (special birth, miraculous powers, etc) and performed some standard mythical actions (wandering teacher, rebel to dogmatic authorties, etc).

IOW, there's absolutely no reason (other than a need for Jesus to be real) to believe that Jesus was real.  He was based on older mythic figures.  (That's what "possesed some common legendary attributes ... and performed some standard mythical actions" means.)

BTW, you keep confusing "Bible scholars" and "Christian apologists".  A degree from a Bible school doesn't make one an expert on the Bible, it makes one an expert on current Christian belief.  Bible scholars question whether Jesus was based on anything more substantial than older myths.

[Colanth]

The Council of Ephesus,held in 431, taught that Mary is truly the mother of god, since she gave birth to the second person of the trinity, who became man for our (their) sake...

Which, of course, was much more apparent 430 years after the fact than it was to Paul, who lived at the time.

Christianity has all of the characteristics of a cult with one exception - it's the majority belief in the West.

[GurrenLagann]

Didn't I just agree with you on that issue? >:l

Honestly, I have no idea what you're arguing at this point. You've been presenting some arguments in several threads that are pretty common pro-theist arguments, then you agree with the refutations. Are you just playing devil's advocate?

Basically the only thing I've argued (in thos thread) is the mistaken interpretation (from the perspective from most Historians) of the historicity of Jesus. Not playing DA, but there are some falsehoods amount atheists that are fairly widespread, and I'd like them to go away, since they don't work against the smarter theists, as some of them already know the claims in question that I refer to are false.

I base my statements on my own research, which started before Peter Joseph was born (and possibly before his parents were born).

Well that's good to know. :)

IOW, there's absolutely no reason (other than a need for Jesus to be real) to believe that Jesus was real.  He was based on older mythic figures.  (That's what "possesed some common legendary attributes ... and performed some standard mythical actions" means.)

Not necessarily. It's a well-known historic fact that even certainly real persons in history can accrete attributes over time. That doesn't mean that the person(s) in question didn't exist.

BTW, you keep confusing "Bible scholars" and "Christian apologists".  A degree from a Bible school doesn't make one an expert on the Bible, it makes one an expert on current Christian belief.  Bible scholars question whether Jesus was based on anything more substantial than older myths.

Actually, I'm not confusing anyone with Christian Apologists. That's why earlier I referred Francesca Stavrakopoulou, an atheist Biblical scholar and Historian. ;)

[FrankDK]

> We do in fact have contemporary mentions of other people from that time and place [of Socrates]. Not a massive amount, but quite a good amount (some are fragmented of course, but that comes with the territory). Plato and Aristotle in particular mention quite a number of noteworthy philosophers. Thus, my example works.

No, it just means we have no more evidence for Socrates than we do for Jesus.  Since the commentary on Socrates is coherent and consistent (what he said and what he did, including how he died), but the commentary on Jesus is completely self-contradictory, it is much more likely that Socrates was a real person, and "Jesus" was a collection of urban myths.  Jesus' position on so many issues changes from author to author, it is very hard to believe that the source was a real person.  You are apparently already familiar with the many examples.

> I'm not disputing that (I'm an atheist). I'm well aware of the lack of contemporary mentions of Jesus for several decades after his death. The point is that simply no contemporary accounts of person X doesn't mean you simply assume they did not exist.

It doesn't mean that he did exist, either.  The default position is not that Jesus existed until proved otherwise.

I didn't claim that Jesus was definitely not a real person; I wrote that is was most likely that he didn't exist.  The only motivation we have to believe he did live is the Bible, and we both know that it is completely unreliable.  Not only are there many errors and stories of non-existent people (eg., Moses), but the accounts of Jesus differ on many salient points.  Since there is no reasonable evidence to indicate that he did exist, a reasonable person would conclude that he probably did not.

I admit that it's a possibility.  One could conceive of circumstances under which the accounts of a real person's life might be altered and obscured into the hodge-podge we have today, but it would take very unusual set of circumstances. For example, each gospel writer has specific theological points he is trying to make.  I believe the writers would not have felt so free to alter the text into their own message if they were trying to produce a reliable and accurate account of a real person who had just lived.  I have never seen any evidence that Jesus was an historical figure, and there is some that he wasn't.  (The evidence for Jesus ben Pantera and the very telling Acts 5:30 alone cast doubt on Jesus' authenticity.)

If Jesus weren't the object of the world's most subscribed-to religion, no one would suspect he was any more real than Paul Bunyan.

Frank