http://thehumanist.org/march-april-2013 ... edamaruku/ (http://thehumanist.org/march-april-2013/blasphemy-free-speech-and-rationalisman-interview-withsanal-edamaruku/)
Quote"blasphemy law," which prohibits "deliberate and malicious acts, intended to outrage religious feelings or any class by insulting its religion or religious beliefs.
It's funny how stating a fact is insulting to religion...
It's a well known fact that saying anything a Christian doesn't like is often referred to as "persecution". This is much of the same.
Looks like I can't go to India if the book I'm writing ever gets published.
Blaspheme laws seem so ridiculous. I bet if he insulted Wicca instead of Catholicism it would have been forgotten the next day. It's not like the churches don't commit blaspheme against other religions every day when they tell them they're going to hell for not getting their Jebus on.
What is up with dripping statues anyway? You'd think people would know by now that it's just water seeping through a wall :roll: And why would god manifest himself by dripping? Seriously?
Quote from: "BlackL1ght"And why would god manifest himself by dripping?
Gonorrhea.
That little slut Mary wasn't nearly as pure as the church would have us believe.
Quote from: "PopeyesPappy"Quote from: "BlackL1ght"And why would god manifest himself by dripping?
Gonorrhea.
That little slut Mary wasn't nearly as pure as the church would have us believe.
Yeah virgin birth my ass. Mary was the world's best liar, Joseph was the world's dumbest husband.
It's sad that India still has such an archaic law on the books. Might it perhaps be a result of the ongoing tensions between the different religions there?
The world needs about 7 billion more people like this guy.
Quote from: "commonsense822"Quote from: "PopeyesPappy"Quote from: "BlackL1ght"And why would god manifest himself by dripping?
Gonorrhea.
That little slut Mary wasn't nearly as pure as the church would have us believe.
Yeah virgin birth my ass. Mary was the world's best liar, Joseph was the world's dumbest husband.
Woah woah woah. You're not giving him the proper credit. Mary was really fucking hot (if the pictures I've seen are accurate :wink:)
"Sanal Edamaruku is a world-renowned author and rationalist currently facing a maximum sentence of three years in prison plus fines for criticizing the Catholic Church."
Edumaruku is not a world-renowned author (that is a blurb), he is perhaps a rationalist (if not a publicity seeker). That somebody has instituted a case against him is not punishment. Perhaps the case is in the court and the competent judges would decide on it after hearing from both sides. If Edumaruku requires legal help, court will provide it free of cost. If Edumaruku is not satisfied with the verdict of one court, he has the option to appeal to a high court and then to the Supreme Court of India. Judicial system is one thing in which we Indians have faith, it does not fail very often.
It depends on exactly what Edumaruku said against the Catholic Church. An Indian does have the right of free expression but it is limited by its effect on the populace. If a statement is intended to be flagrantly abusive, then Courts will act according to law. Indian law does not allow that. Even on discussion boards, we have rules which do not allow us to exceed a limit. Edumaruku can sure put his points but in a civilized manner.
Quote from: "commonsense822"Mary was the world's best liar, Joseph was the world's dumbest husband.
Well, it was a stormy period with Roman soliders around. Jews accepted the son of an unmarried jewish girl as a jew. It must not have been very uncommon in those days. And Joseph evidently was not too disturbed by that.
Quote from: "BlackL1ght"And why would god manifest himself by dripping? Seriously?
Jokes about social diseases aside, I think it's because God hasn't managed to perform a really serious miracle since the Old Testament. Maybe a few during the New. God came on strong when he first appeared to Moses, and for three thousand years, each miracle was bigger than the last, but eventually, he shot his wad, and the magnificence of his miracles started to ebb. He hasn't managed to put together a decent miracle for the last 2000 years. He's been reduced to the mediums of leaky walls and bread mold, and can only manage a world of miracles that mimic random events like thunderstorms and tropical cyclones.
He was once a magnificent god, but his work has lost its punch. He's getting old, frail, perhaps even forgetful. Every time he tries to rise to the occasion and impress with us with a miracle like a powerful earthquake reminiscent of his youth, he gets bitch slapped by the science of plate tectonics. His once great dome shaped firmament has been dwarfed by an even greater expanding universe that boggles our imaginations more than any dinky planetarium that might have once covered the Mideast desert. God's glory days are over and that he is being replaced by newer things that are more awesome and inspire much more wonder.
Quote from: "Aupmanyav"Quote from: "commonsense822"Mary was the world's best liar, Joseph was the world's dumbest husband.
Well, it was a stormy period with Roman soliders around. Jews accepted the son of an unmarried jewish girl as a jew. It must not have been very uncommon in those days. And Joseph evidently was not too disturbed by that.
Good point. Mary would never be able to admit to being raped or even willingly having sex with a Roman soldier. She would have been killed by her own people.
Nice post, SGOS.
NitzWalsh, those people also were wise and understood their times. That is why they had these kind of rules.
Quote from: "NitzWalsh"Quote from: "Aupmanyav"Quote from: "commonsense822"Mary was the world's best liar, Joseph was the world's dumbest husband.
Well, it was a stormy period with Roman soliders around. Jews accepted the son of an unmarried jewish girl as a jew. It must not have been very uncommon in those days. And Joseph evidently was not too disturbed by that.
Good point. Mary would never be able to admit to being raped or even willingly having sex with a Roman soldier. She would have been killed by her own people.
Yeah I gotta say, that's not a bad possibility. Never thought of that....
Quote from: "Navynukeman"Quote"blasphemy law," which prohibits "deliberate and malicious acts, intended to outrage religious feelings or any class by insulting its religion or religious beliefs.
It's funny how stating a fact is insulting to religion...
"Blasphemy laws are the first sign of tyranny" Lord Acton
Quote from: "BlackL1ght"What is up with dripping statues anyway? You'd think people would know by now that it's just water seeping through a wall :roll: And why would god manifest himself by dripping? Seriously?
in my confirmation class someone took a picture of a chicken they had, inside it was a small cross made out of peas, whole church went fucking crazy because it was a "sign from god." Yes, The almighty omnipotent God showed himself in the peas.
Blasphemy laws are the worst possible violation in freedom of speech IMHO
You know, if they were so confident in their Church, they wouldn't need to imprison anyone.
Why is it that they need to imprison people if what they believe is true and and they could just present fac-..........oh right
India does not have any 'blasphemy laws'. Our laws are for peace among people, we have 15% muslims and some 5% christians. We do not want people at each other's throat. Freedom of Expression is guaranteed by Indian Constitution with these possible restrictions:
"Grounds Of Restrictions:
3) Public Order: This ground was added by the Constitution (First Amendment) Act. 'Public order' is an expression of wide connotation and signifies "that state of tranquility which prevails among the members of political society as a result of internal regulations enforced by the Government which they have established."
Public order is something more than ordinary maintenance of law and order. 'Public order' is synonymous with public peace, safety and tranquility. The test for determining whether an act affects law and order or public order is to see whether the act leads to the disturbances of the current of life of the community so as to amount to a disturbance of the public order or whether it affects merely an individual being the tranquility of the society undisturbed.
Anything that disturbs public tranquility or public peace disturbs public order. Thus communal disturbances and strikes promoted with the sole object of causing unrest among workmen are offences against public order. Public order thus implies absence of violence and an orderly state of affairs in which citizens can peacefully pursue their normal avocation of life. Public order also includes public safety. Thus creating internal disorder or rebellion would affect public order and public safety. But mere criticism of government does not necessarily disturb public order. In its external aspect 'public safety' means protection of the country from foreign aggression. Under public order the State would be entitled to prevent propaganda for a state of war with India.
The words 'in the interest of public order' includes not only such utterances as are directly intended to lead to disorder but also those that have the tendency to lead to disorder. Thus a law punishing utterances made with the deliberate intention to hurt the religious feelings of any class of persons is valid because it imposes a restriction on the right of free speech in the interest of public order since such speech or writing has the tendency to create public disorder even if in some case those activities may not actually lead to a breach of peace. But there must be reasonable and proper nexus or relationship between the restrictions and the achievements of public order."
http://www.goforthelaw.com/articles/fro ... icle16.htm (http://www.goforthelaw.com/articles/fromlawstu/article16.htm)
I don't know about you, but what you just described... are blasphemy laws.
"a law punishing utterances made with the deliberate intention to hurt the religious feelings of any class of persons" is a blasphemy law. No matter how you try to put it.
And that public order exception completely undercuts freedom of expression if it can include something as simple as stating something bad about a religion. A group that disagrees with any speech can make a ruckus and use that clause to shut it down unless it's more explicitely defined, like only applying to directly inciting violence, yelling fire in a crowded theater, libel/slander, and speech that leads directly to physical harm.
This from the country that bought you the Delhi gang rape bus.
Quote from: "Aupmanyav"India does not have any 'blasphemy laws'.
Except for...
Quote from: "Aupmanyav"a law punishing utterances made with the deliberate intention to hurt the religious feelings of any class of persons
Quote from: "St Giordano Bruno"Blasphemy laws are the worst possible violation in freedom of speech IMHO
Yep. And North Korea has them too, you cant blaspheme the state.
Fuck it, just give those blasphemers life because they're going to hell anyway, get em used to it early ;)
Quote from: "Plu"I don't know about you, but what you just described... are blasphemy laws.
"a law punishing utterances made with the deliberate intention to hurt the religious feelings of any class of persons" is a blasphemy law. No matter how you try to put it.
And they are stupid and primitive, no matter how anyone puts it.
Quote from: "Jason78"This from the country that bought you the Delhi gang rape bus.
Gang rape is okay. Witnesses to it will claim they didn't want to get involved, or they thought the girl deserved it, and the rapists often will get away with their crime despite any laws regarding "public peace, safety and tranquility." But just tell them that their gods are worthless figments of their imagination, or their church is run by pedophiles, or any other insult, and suddenly they are all too happy to get involved. Three years for hurting someone's feelings?? Really? How is that fair or just in this world?
Supressing free speech in practically all cases is not a slippery slope.... it's a greased precipice. And can you really think of someone you know or have heard of with deciding what speech is not allowed? I doubt it.
To quote Hitch (who might have been loosely quoting someone else, I can't recall):
Quote from: "Christopher Hitchens"One of the vices of those who would repress the opinions of others is that they make themselves prisoners of their own opinion, because they deny themselves the rights and the means of changing them.
The anti-blasphemy law prohibits "deliberate and malicious acts, intended to outrage religious feelings or any class by insulting its religion or religious beliefs." This means that the original claim, that the crucifix was miraculous, and indeed, any statement that a god or gods exist, offend the religious beliefs (i.e., none) held by atheists. If someone says, "Jesus died for your sins," that outrages and insults me and my beliefs.
Sounds like an opportunity for a counter-suit.
Frank
> Mary was the world's best liar, Joseph was the world's dumbest husband.
It's much more likely that the whole story was just made up. The Jesus of the gospels is a compilation of earlier savior gods like Horus and Mithra, Jesus ben Pantera (son of a Jewish woman named Mary and a Roman soldier named Pantera), and John the Baptist.
Frank
Quote from: "FrankDK"> Mary was the world's best liar, Joseph was the world's dumbest husband.
It's much more likely that the whole story was just made up. The Jesus of the gospels is a compilation of earlier savior gods like Horus and Mithra, Jesus ben Pantera (son of a Jewish woman named Mary and a Roman soldier named Pantera), and John the Baptist.
Frank
Sorry guy, but as an atheist who would like to see certain atheist-held myths go away, I have to correct you, since you seem to have been watching "Zeitgeist".
Jesus was NOT merely a compilation of other god/savior myths. Sure, he did a few relatively common mythological actions, but that's about it. Within Biblical scholarship and historians, it is overwhelmingly the majority of them that accept that there was almost certainly some figure to whom the Gospels may somewhat correspond to. Even atheists among them, such as the fucking gorgeous Francesca Stavrokopoulou, attest to this.
> Sorry guy, but as an atheist who would like to see certain atheist-held myths go away, I have to correct you, since you seem to have been watching "Zeitgeist".
Never heard of it.
> Jesus was NOT merely a compilation of other god/savior myths.
The evidence indicates otherwise.
> Sure, he did a few relatively common mythological actions, but that's about it.
No, it isn't. Virtually everything attributed to Jesus by the gospels was attributed to earlier savior gods and others. From the virgin birth, to 12 apostles, to the bread and wine, raising a man from the dead, himself dying and being raised, all the stories are already in place by the start of the Christian calendar. The various stories are collected and ascribed to one person.
The early church fathers explained the remarkable similarities between pagan savior gods and Jesus by saying that Satan, knowing what Jesus' life and ministry would be, influenced the earlier religions to make them the same and undermine the faith.
> Within Biblical scholarship and historians, it is overwhelmingly the majority of them that accept that there was almost certainly some figure to whom the Gospels may somewhat correspond to.
Then they are not looking at the evidence.
Here are a few of the main lines of evidence:
There is no contemporaneous mention of Jesus. We have that for John the Baptist, who was attracting crowds of hundreds, but not for Jesus, who was supposed to be attracting crowds of thousands.
Jesus ben Pantera was the son of Mary, a Jewish woman supposedly of royal birth, who nonetheless consorted with carpenters, and the Roman soldier Pantera. This Jesus had 12 followers, had a last supper, at which he broke bread and drank wine and said the famous quotes, and was executed by the Jewish authorities for heresy by stoning and his body hung from a tree as an example. We have documentation from the Sanhedrin that indicates this happened. The book of Acts indicates that it is this Jesus to whom they are referring: The God of our fathers raised up Jesus, whom ye slew and hung from a tree. 5:30 KJV. (Later versions twist this to "slew by hanging from a tree" to cover up this revealing problem.)
The supposed reason Jesus had to be crucified by the Romans was that they had taken away the Jews' power of capital punishment. Yet the Jews executed John the Baptist at about the same time, and stoned James, supposedly Jesus' brother, later. See
http://law2.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/f ... edrin.html (http://law2.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/jesus/sanhedrin.html)
In addition, the Romans wouldn't have cared about the Jewish religion. They thought the Jews were atheists, because they couldn't show you their god.
When Jesus' followers ask him to teach them to pray, they say, "Teach us to pray as John taught his disciples." This is how the gospel narrative takes the prayer from John ("The Lord's Prayer") and transfers it to Jesus.
Paul says in several places that the mystery of Christ was hidden for ages, but was "now" being revealed through him and through the saints. If Jesus had just lived and revealed his message to his disciples, this wouldn't be the case. Paul is referring to the mystery Jesus, earlier called Horus, then called Mithra.
Matthew 23:9 cautions, "Call no earthly man 'Father,' for you have but one father, and that is your father in Heaven." It was the practice of the Mithraists to call their priests "Father," and this tradition continued when they substituted the name of Jesus for Mithra. The early church fathers wanted to distance themselves from the Mithraists.
There is much more, and much analysis has been done on it.
It's possible that there were one or more itinerant preachers who catalyzed the stories that gathered in earlier myths, facts, and half-truths, but that doesn't mean one of them was the one being talked about. There were many detectives in England when Sherlock Homes was written, and they influenced the stories, but that doesn't mean that one of them was the one being chronicled.
> Even atheists among them, such as the fucking gorgeous Francesca Stavrokopoulou, attest to this.
That sounds worth a Google search. I'll undertake that from my home computer.
Frank
God's miracles are on TV sundays on FOX AND CBS during the NFL season. He shaves points, lets certain receivers catch passes from certain QB's and most importantly, made Joe Fake-o the superbowl MVP.. HAL-LEE-LOU-YAH!
Quote from: "Navynukeman"Quote"blasphemy law," which prohibits "deliberate and malicious acts, intended to outrage religious feelings or any class by insulting its religion or religious beliefs.
So if I claim to be a rastafarian can I sue the cops for confiscating my weed? :-k
Quote from: "FrankDK"Never heard of it.
After reading the rest of your post, I call bullshit, since you're essentially parroting the things they said half a decade ago in their movie. If not, then you've been listening to someone who was.
QuoteThe evidence indicates otherwise
I can't wait to hear your evidence...
QuoteNo, it isn't. Virtually everything attributed to Jesus by the gospels was attributed to earlier savior gods and others. From the virgin birth, to 12 apostles, to the bread and wine, raising a man from the dead, himself dying and being raised, all the stories are already in place by the start of the Christian calendar. The various stories are collected and ascribed to one person.
Only 2 of the things you mentioned are actually held by a fair number of mythological figures, and that's a special birth, and the other is turning water to wine (Dionysus did that if I recall correctly). That's it. There were no 12 disciples tropes in other mythos, and worst of all, you make a claim that actual historical scholarship has put to rest, since the actual number of savior-figures whom raised themselves to life is near zero.
QuoteThe early church fathers explained the remarkable similarities between pagan savior gods and Jesus by saying that Satan, knowing what Jesus' life and ministry would be, influenced the earlier religions to make them the same and undermine the faith
That was Justin Martyr that said that. Not all of them addressed that because not all of them really saw any similarities of noteworthy mention, which is actually the case when ACTUAL studies are done on this, which they have.
QuoteThen they are not looking at the evidene
Oh yes, the majority of actual people studying and investigating this just aren't looking at the evidence. You seem to be imitating Intelligent Design advocates. *tsk tsk*
QuoteThere is no contemporaneous mention of Jesus. We have that for John the Baptist, who was attracting crowds of hundreds, but not for Jesus, who was supposed to be attracting crowds of thousands.
So? There were no contemporary mentions of Socrates until a few decades after his approximate death, by the likes of 2 of his students, and by 1 playwright. That doesn't mean that he didn't exist, because clearly the time period wasn't very codusive to leaving longlasting, definitive evidence for his existence. Learn your history mate.
QuoteThe supposed reason Jesus had to be crucified by the Romans was that they had taken away the Jews' power of capital punishment. Yet the Jews executed John the Baptist at about the same time, and stoned James, supposedly Jesus' brother, later. See
http://law2.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/f ... edrin.html (http://law2.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/jesus/sanhedrin.html)
In addition, the Romans wouldn't have cared about the Jewish religion. They thought the Jews were atheists, because they couldn't show you their god.
The Romans didn't think the Jews were atheists, in the sense that they had no deity they worshipped, only in the sense from which our word atheist is derived, "atheos", meaning one without the gods, specifically the gods worshipped generally by greater society.
QuotePaul says in several places that the mystery of Christ was hidden for ages, but was "now" being revealed through him and through the saints. If Jesus had just lived and revealed his message to his disciples, this wouldn't be the case. Paul is referring to the mystery Jesus, earlier called Horus, then called Mithra.
? Random jump from the fact that the Bible is incoherent and contradictory to other mythological figures. Non sequitur.
QuoteMatthew 23:9 cautions, "Call no earthly man 'Father,' for you have but one father, and that is your father in Heaven." It was the practice of the Mithraists to call their priests "Father," and this tradition continued when they substituted the name of Jesus for Mithra. The early church fathers wanted to distance themselves from the Mithraists.
This is laughable. For one, referring to the perceived Creator of the universe as "Father" is not some obvious copy from any other religion, especially since earlier, OT Bible passages refer to Yahweh as a 'he'.
Dude, go read the Skeptics Annotated Bible's article on this. Hell, a good start would be to read the introduction to the Jesus Myth Wikipedia article: http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jesus-Myth (http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jesus-Myth)
>> Never heard of it.
> After reading the rest of your post, I call bullshit, since you're essentially parroting the things they said half a decade ago in their movie. If not, then you've been listening to someone who was.
And since you are incapable of independent thought, you assume everyone else is. As it happens, some of that I put together myself, some I gathered from other sources, including Internet sites, Wells, and several others.
In doing some Internet searches, I have noticed "Zeitgeist" coming up, so I can understand your confusion. And it's possible that some of the sources I read got their information from the film. However, calling me a liar simply because I disagree with you and you can't conceive of someone being able to think for himself is uncalled for.
>> No, it isn't. Virtually everything attributed to Jesus by the gospels was attributed to earlier savior gods and others. From the virgin birth, to 12 apostles, to the bread and wine, raising a man from the dead, himself dying and being raised, all the stories are already in place by the start of the Christian calendar. The various stories are collected and ascribed to one person.
>> Only 2 of the things you mentioned are actually held by a fair number of mythological figures, and that's a special birth, and the other is turning water to wine (Dionysus did that if I recall correctly). That's it. There were no 12 disciples tropes in other mythos, and worst of all, you make a claim that actual historical scholarship has put to rest, since the actual number of savior-figures whom raised themselves to life is near zero.
What difference does it make how many mythological figures (or real figures, for that matter) have those characteristics? I didn't claim that all or even most mythological figures had all those characteristics. What I stated was that all of those characteristics had been ascribed to someone before Jesus. There's nothing new in the story of Jesus.
>> The early church fathers explained the remarkable similarities between pagan savior gods and Jesus by saying that Satan, knowing what Jesus' life and ministry would be, influenced the earlier religions to make them the same and undermine the faith
> That was Justin Martyr that said that. Not all of them addressed that because not all of them really saw any similarities of noteworthy mention, which is actually the case when ACTUAL studies are done on this, which they have.
So why did Justin Martyr say that, if there were no similarities? It weakens the Christian case significantly to state that, which was not his purpose.
>> Then they are not looking at the evidence
> Oh yes, the majority of actual people studying and investigating this just aren't looking at the evidence. You seem to be imitating Intelligent Design advocates. *tsk tsk*
The majority of actual Christians aren't looking at the actual evidence. The majority of Americans believe in the creation myth from the Bible. Why is it so astounding that the majority of some group would let things other than the evidence influence their beliefs? Do you think that Holocaust deniers are looking at the evidence? Mormons? Scientologists?
>> There is no contemporaneous mention of Jesus. We have that for John the Baptist, who was attracting crowds of hundreds, but not for Jesus, who was supposed to be attracting crowds of thousands.
> So? There were no contemporary mentions of Socrates until a few decades after his approximate death, by the likes of 2 of his students, and by 1 playwright. That doesn't mean that he didn't exist, because clearly the time period wasn't very codusive to leaving longlasting, definitive evidence for his existence. Learn your history mate.
Do we have contemporaneous mention of others from the same period? If not, the example doesn't apply. We do have significant writings from the time and place of Jesus' supposed life, and none includes Jesus. The references to supposed references have been thoroughly refuted.
>> The supposed reason Jesus had to be crucified by the Romans was that they had taken away the Jews' power of capital punishment. Yet the Jews executed John the Baptist at about the same time, and stoned James, supposedly Jesus' brother, later. See
http://law2.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/f (http://law2.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/f) ... edrin.html
In addition, the Romans wouldn't have cared about the Jewish religion. They thought the Jews were atheists, because they couldn't show you their god.
> The Romans didn't think the Jews were atheists,
Yes, they did.
http://robinhl.com/2011/09/24/jewish-mo ... m-atheism/ (http://robinhl.com/2011/09/24/jewish-monotheism-roman-polytheism-atheism/)
And you ignored the fact that the reason for the Romans' execution of Jesus was entirely false. If there had been a real Jesus, they would have included the actual circumstances of his death.
>> Paul says in several places that the mystery of Christ was hidden for ages, but was "now" being revealed through him and through the saints. If Jesus had just lived and revealed his message to his disciples, this wouldn't be the case. Paul is referring to the mystery Jesus, earlier called Horus, then called Mithra.
> ? Random jump from the fact that the Bible is incoherent and contradictory to other mythological figures. Non sequitur.
You seem to have a reading comprehension problem. The earliest writing we have that mentions Jesus is from Paul, and he states that Jesus didn't exist in the recent past. The descriptions of Jesus as an historical figure come decades later, when the stories had put the several figures together. That makes it pretty clear that Jesus wasn't an historical figure.
>> Matthew 23:9 cautions, "Call no earthly man 'Father,' for you have but one father, and that is your father in Heaven." It was the practice of the Mithraists to call their priests "Father," and this tradition continued when they substituted the name of Jesus for Mithra. The early church fathers wanted to distance themselves from the Mithraists.
>This is laughable. For one, referring to the perceived Creator of the universe as "Father" is not some obvious copy from any other religion, especially since earlier, OT Bible passages refer to Yahweh as a 'he'.
Again, your reading comprehension problem is tripping you up. I'll type slower so you can follow.
Keeping the tradition of the Mithraists, some early churches called their priests, "Father." This tradition has stayed with the Catholic Church. However, some opposed the tradition, wishing to make a break from Mithraism. They told Christians not to address priests as "Father." This admonition has nothing to do with calling God "Father." It was about the priests and keeping the traditions from Mithraism.
By the way, you do realize that the Old Testament comes from Judaism, an earlier religion, don't you? So your point was not only irrelevant, but wrong.
> Dude, go read the Skeptics Annotated Bible's article on this. Hell, a good start would be to read the introduction to the Jesus Myth Wikipedia article: http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jesus-Myth (http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jesus-Myth)
Read them both some time ago. Also read the Bible, which includes the writing of Paul and the book of Acts (which you didn't include in your reply). Why would the Sanhedrin record their execution of Jesus ben Pantera, but not THE Jesus? A Conspiracy, maybe?
People tend to believe whatever makes them comfortable, and to admit that the founding individual of a major religion may not have existed calls into question all religions and religious principles, which makes many people uncomfortable.
Where is the evidence that Jesus existed?
Frank
Quote from: "GurrenLagann"Jesus was NOT merely a compilation of other god/savior myths. Sure, he did a few relatively common mythological actions, but that's about it. Within Biblical scholarship and historians, it is overwhelmingly the majority of them that accept that there was almost certainly some figure to whom the Gospels may somewhat correspond to. Even atheists among them, such as the fucking gorgeous Francesca Stavrokopoulou, attest to this.
Since Stavrakopoulou is a scholar of the OT, not the NT, would you have a link to her attesting to the authenticity of the Jesus of the NT?
Quote from: "Colanth"Quote from: "GurrenLagann"Jesus was NOT merely a compilation of other god/savior myths. Sure, he did a few relatively common mythological actions, but that's about it. Within Biblical scholarship and historians, it is overwhelmingly the majority of them that accept that there was almost certainly some figure to whom the Gospels may somewhat correspond to. Even atheists among them, such as the fucking gorgeous Francesca Stavrokopoulou, attest to this.
Since Stavrakopoulou is a scholar of the OT, not the NT, would you have a link to her attesting to the authenticity of the Jesus of the NT?
I didn't say (nor does she) that the Jesus in the NT is necessarily representative of what the actual Jesus of Nazareth was like, simply that it is agreed by most scholars of the Bible and historians that there was some basis in reality for the figure we see in the Bible.
Just watch the first 1:30 minutes of this YouTube video where she says it. :-)
//http://youtube.com/watch?v=fkVfSYqUFHs
Quote from: "FrankDK"And since you are incapable of independent thought, you assume everyone else is. As it happens, some of that I put together myself, some I gathered from other sources, including Internet sites, Wells, and several others.
In doing some Internet searches, I have noticed "Zeitgeist" coming up, so I can understand your confusion. And it's possible that some of the sources I read got their information from the film. However, calling me a liar simply because I disagree with you and you can't conceive of someone being able to think for himself is uncalled for.
If you actually read my post, I did account for the possibility that you got it from another source, which I asserted almost certainly was merely parroting the incorrect information presented in Zeitgeist, information that you happen to have repeated yourself.
QuoteWhat difference does it make how many mythological figures (or real figures, for that matter) have those characteristics? I didn't claim that all or even most mythological figures had all those characteristics. What I stated was that all of those characteristics had been ascribed to someone before Jesus. There's nothing new in the story of Jesus.
It matters because if all of the supernatural characteristics of the savior-figure are clearly tropes that persist throughout most mythologies, then the likelihood that supposed savior X is legit necessarily falls.
You don't realize what a non sequitur that is. Simply the fact that [you claim] nothing was new about Jesus by no means invalidates his Biblically recorded claims simply because it was held at least once before him. For most of science's history, it has merely been finding anew/validating claims made by previous scientists and philosophers. Just because Democritus and Epicurus managed to work out that the world was made of atoms didn't mean that Atomic Theory, when brought back on the natural philosophical table, didn't invalidate it simply because it had been suggested before.
QuoteSo why did Justin Martyr say that, if there were no similarities? It weakens the Christian case significantly to state that, which was not his purpose.
Just because Martyr thought there were some similarities between something Romans already believed in and some number of claims made in Christianity doesn't in fact mean there were, just as the fact that the small number Intelligent Design advocates claiming evolution is patently false doesn't make it so, in spite of the evidence supporting it.
QuoteThe majority of actual Christians aren't looking at the actual evidence. The majority of Americans believe in the creation myth from the Bible. Why is it so astounding that the majority of some group would let things other than the evidence influence their beliefs? Do you think that Holocaust deniers are looking at the evidence? Mormons? Scientologists?
You don't seem to have realized that I was referring to Biblical scholars/historians when I said "the people who are actually
studying" it. I hope that was an honest mistake.
> So? There were no contemporary mentions of Socrates until a few decades after his approximate death, by the likes of 2 of his students, and by 1 playwright. That doesn't mean that he didn't exist, because clearly the time period wasn't very codusive to leaving longlasting, definitive evidence for his existence. Learn your history mate.
QuoteDo we have contemporaneous mention of others from the same period? If not, the example doesn't apply. We do have significant writings from the time and place of Jesus' supposed life, and none includes Jesus. The references to supposed references have been thoroughly refuted.
We do in fact have contemporary mentions of other people from that time and place. 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.
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.
QuoteYes, they did.
http://robinhl.com/2011/09/24/jewish-mo ... m-atheism/ (http://robinhl.com/2011/09/24/jewish-monotheism-roman-polytheism-atheism/)
And you seem not have read what I typed, yet again. The Romans didn't consider them to be atheists, that's self-evidently not the case, since the word 'atheist' refers to someone who holds no god belief, hence your claim is self-evidently false. The Jews BELIEVED in the existence of a god, hence could not in ANY way be said to have been thought to be atheists. As I already said, at best they referred to them as "atheos", which meant they worshipped deities NOT worshipped by greater society.
QuoteAnd you ignored the fact that the reason for the Romans' execution of Jesus was entirely false. If there had been a real Jesus, they would have included the actual circumstances of his death.
Relevance? I'm an atheist. I have in no way defended the coherence of the Bible, merely your lack of understanding of historical precendent.
QuoteYou seem to have a reading comprehension problem. The earliest writing we have that mentions Jesus is from Paul, and he states that Jesus didn't exist in the recent past. The descriptions of Jesus as an historical figure come decades later, when the stories had put the several figures together. That makes it pretty clear that Jesus wasn't an historical figure.
Again, illogical and unsound reasoning. All that you can say based on that is that either Paul is right and Jesus existed earlier, or that the Gospel committers were write and Paul was wrong. It is an illogical to to proceed from that to "therefore, whoever the NT writers are talking about when they refer to a Jesus of Nazareth didn't exist".
QuoteAgain, your reading comprehension problem is tripping you up. I'll type slower so you can follow.
Keeping the tradition of the Mithraists, some early churches called their priests, "Father." This tradition has stayed with the Catholic Church. However, some opposed the tradition, wishing to make a break from Mithraism. They told Christians not to address priests as "Father." This admonition has nothing to do with calling God "Father." It was about the priests and keeping the traditions from Mithraism.
My reading comprehension? You've asserted/misunderstood things never even implied in what I wrote in above quotes. Irony, though this was the one case where I actually goofed.
You're assuming it came from Mithraism to prove it was copied from Mithraism. Nice.
QuoteBy the way, you do realize that the Old Testament comes from Judaism, an earlier religion, don't you? So your point was not only irrelevant, but wrong.
I'm well aware, I was referring to the incarnation of the myths in the form of the Hebrew Bible, hence it was relevant. And they weren't merely a part of a single religion prior to Judaism, as ancient religions were hardly what you could call a cohesive belief system. Even the Greeks couldn't make a claim like that.
QuoteRead them both some time ago. Also read the Bible, which includes the writing of Paul and the book of Acts (which you didn't include in your reply). Why would the Sanhedrin record their execution of Jesus ben Pantera, but not THE Jesus? A Conspiracy, maybe?
I didn't include it for reasons I've stated in response to quotes of yours above. In case you manage to miss them, it can be summarized as:
Since I wasn't defending the incoherence of the Bible, it is irrelevant. I merely pointed out that you have a view of how historical figures are evaluated that no serious or major historian uses, hence why I brought up the similar case of Socrates, and corrected you.
QuotePeople tend to believe whatever makes them comfortable, and to admit that the founding individual of a major religion may not have existed calls into question all religions and religious principles, which makes many people uncomfortable.
Okay, not sure why that's relevant to me, since I'm an- I'll repeat- an atheist.
QuoteWhere is the evidence that Jesus existed?
Frank
Apart from the fact that there are attestations that aren't all that reliable in some areas? Hell if I know. However, the fakery of the story convinces me that there were most likely some such person. If they were going to simply make it up and not ground it somewhat on an actual individual, there wouldn't have been the need for the Gospel writers to try to make right the whole Bethlehem-Nazareth issue.
If this doesn't clear up our misunderstandings, I've nothing left I can do.
QuoteYou don't seem to have realized that I was referring to Biblical scholars/historians when I said "the people who are actually studying" it.
Do you really think Biblical scholars and historians are above letting their own beliefs bias their work?
QuoteI'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.
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.
QuoteHowever, the fakery of the story convinces me that there were most likely some such person.
Wait, what? :-?
Most fictional characters are loosely based on one or more people in the authors life. Doesn't give any validity to the person from the story being considered real. By that logic, all those savior figures from before Jesus' time that have been mentioned have just as much validity as Jesus, not to mention countless other fictional and mythical characters.
I've always found it interesting that there was no mention of him in any of the Roman writings of the time. Considering that they kept very detailed records, and that this was a big enough deal that the emperor himself passed sentence, which was very unusual. Hmmmm.
Quote from: "BarkAtTheMoon"QuoteYou don't seem to have realized that I was referring to Biblical scholars/historians when I said "the people who are actually studying" it.
Do you really think Biblical scholars and historians are above letting their own beliefs bias their work?
If you read the part of his post I was responding to, he seemed to think that I was simply referring to your everyday Christian that reads their Bible, so I corrected them. And while you can claim that some of them let their bias affect them overly so. Some admit that they see others do so, however those samd ones say it isn't some widespread, huge issue in their view.
QuoteSure 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.
QuoteWait, what? :-?
Most fictional characters are loosely based on one or more people in the authors life. Doesn't give any validity to the person from the story being considered real. By that logic, all those savior figures from before Jesus' time that have been mentioned have just as much validity as Jesus, not to mention countless other fictional and mythical characters.
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.
Basically, that guy was making the claim that Jesus is known to have merely been a composite of legendary/mythical figures, which to me sounded like the crap Zeitgeist purported.
Quote from: "FrankDK"> Mary was the world's best liar, Joseph was the world's dumbest husband.
It's much more likely that the whole story was just made up. The Jesus of the gospels is a compilation of earlier savior gods like Horus and Mithra, Jesus ben Pantera (son of a Jewish woman named Mary and a Roman soldier named Pantera), and John the Baptist.
Frank
I agree, Frank. =D>
Even IF a person named Jesus existed - his *story* became myth born from myth.....continued as myth perpetuated and sold as *truth* .
Quote from: "GurrenLagann"Quote from: "Colanth"Quote from: "GurrenLagann"Jesus was NOT merely a compilation of other god/savior myths. Sure, he did a few relatively common mythological actions, but that's about it. Within Biblical scholarship and historians, it is overwhelmingly the majority of them that accept that there was almost certainly some figure to whom the Gospels may somewhat correspond to. Even atheists among them, such as the fucking gorgeous Francesca Stavrokopoulou, attest to this.
Since Stavrakopoulou is a scholar of the OT, not the NT, would you have a link to her attesting to the authenticity of the Jesus of the NT?
I didn't say (nor does she) that the Jesus in the NT is necessarily representative of what the actual Jesus of Nazareth was like, simply that it is agreed by most scholars of the Bible and historians that there was some basis in reality for the figure we see in the Bible.
Just watch the first 1:30 minutes of this YouTube video where she says it. :-)
//http://youtube.com/watch?v=fkVfSYqUFHs
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?
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.
Quote from: "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? :) 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.
QuoteEvery 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?)
Quote from: "GurrenLagann"QuoteSure 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.
QuoteI 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 (http://www.atheistforums.com/archive/viewtopic.php?f=53&t=5008).
Paul Bunyan.
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.
Quote from: "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.
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.
Didn't I just agree with you on that issue? >:l
Quote from: "GurrenLagann"Quote from: "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.
QuoteThe 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.
QuoteQuoteEvery 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.)
Quote from: "GurrenLagann"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.
Quote from: "Colanth"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.
QuoteNot 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.
QuoteHorus. 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).
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...
Quote from: "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?
Quote from: "GurrenLagann"Quote from: "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).
QuoteI 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.
Quote from: "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...
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.
Quote from: "BarkAtTheMoon"Quote from: "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.
Quote from: "Colanth"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. :)
QuoteIOW, 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.
QuoteBTW, 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. ;)
> 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
Quote from: "Colanth"Quote from: "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...
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.
What's more impressive is that the characteristics of this cult still remaining in full force in the XXI century.
Quote from: "Mathias"Quote from: "Colanth"Quote from: "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...
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.
What's more impressive is that the characteristics of this cult still remaining in full force in the XXI century.
Considering the average human intelligence (which is barely more than the average chimpanzee intelligence), that's not very impressive.
Quote from: "Colanth"Quote from: "Mathias"What's more impressive is that the characteristics of this cult still remaining in full force in the XXI century.
Considering the average human intelligence (which is barely more than the average chimpanzee intelligence), that's not very impressive.
[youtube:asit9zlq]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8rh6qqsmxNs[/youtube:asit9zlq]
Quote from: "Colanth"Considering the average human intelligence (which is barely more than the average chimpanzee intelligence), that's not very impressive.
I think you're being a little pessimistic about it. Human beings didn't evolve socially compared to their intelligence, which is much more developed than other species.
QuoteJesus was NOT merely a compilation of other god/savior myths. Sure, he did a few relatively common mythological actions, but that's about it.
Yeah, like being a half-god, half-man hybrid that resulted from a god fucking a mortal human woman. I'm sure we've never seen THAT before. :roll: And how about doing miracles such as turning water into wine? Bacchus never did that shit, did he?
For some reason, Bacchus/Dionysus is often depicted as being very effeminate in appearance, and so is Jesus. Don't know if there is a connection or not, but it is interesting. Do people just like their saviors to be girly-men, or what?
It comes from the fact that these "demigods" were actually female (a woman can't clone a male child). They really existed in ancient times. The people who painted pictures of them masculinized them, but they still look feminine.
(Hey, if theists can make shit up, so can I.)