|
|
Post by Rodney Farber on Sept 5, 2020 13:06:05 GMT
This week, Frontline did a biography of Jesus the human. The general history of the area including Augustus Caesar, Herod the Great, and Pontius Pilate were taken from believable documentation, including the Dead Sea Scrolls. Some of the Jesus part documentary was based on the Gospels. I take those with a grain of salt as they were written more than thirty years after Jesus died.
It increased my belief that Jesus, as a human, did exist. I still believe he was a mortal human that dazzled his followers with magic, sleight of hand, and promise of immortality (if you followed him). These are similar traits of Joseph Smith, Kenneth Copeland, and L. Ron Hubbard.
|
|
|
|
Post by Catman on Sept 5, 2020 13:08:25 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by The Herald Erjen on Sept 6, 2020 8:53:05 GMT
What do you think? Is it just my paranoid conspiracy-theory mind, or does Rodney have one of these?  |
|
|
|
Post by rizdek on Sept 6, 2020 13:33:29 GMT
Based on my reading, I believe one or more people were composited into one Jesus as the stories about various 'miracle workers' were handed down, group to grouip, generation to generation until several decades after Jesus lived, they became consolidated into one story. I think they folded in some myths that predated the Jesus who may have been born around 1 CE, added things from those myths which any decent miracle worker must have done.
Certainly it seems the Christ Paul, who would have have been a contemporary of the Jesus of the NT, wrote about was a different version than the one who appeared in the gospels. John writes of a different kind of Jesus than Matthew, Mark and Luke.
|
|
|
|
Post by drystyx on Sept 7, 2020 1:26:19 GMT
In other words: "If it's in the Bible, I refuse to believe it".
|
|
|
|
Post by goz on Sept 7, 2020 4:09:40 GMT
In other words: "If it's in the Bible, I refuse to believe it". No, in the absence of primary evidence it is difficult to believe what is in the Bible. 
|
|
|
|
Post by Sarge on Sept 9, 2020 20:02:23 GMT
The writings of Tacitus are a strong confirmation that Jesus, or Christus, was a real religious leader that lived around the correct time period. My take is Jesus was basically a charismatic hippy Jewish sect leader who was probably wise and inspired his followers. Paul, for reasons unknown, resurrected the stories and built a more conservative oriented religion which gained mass appeal because it was a lot easier and more forgiving than polytheistic religions.
|
|
|
|
Post by drystyx on Sept 9, 2020 20:18:58 GMT
The writings of Tacitus are a strong confirmation that Jesus, or Christus, was a real religious leader that lived around the correct time period. My take is Jesus was basically a charismatic hippy Jewish sect leader who was probably wise and inspired his followers. Paul, for reasons unknown, resurrected the stories and built a more conservative oriented religion which gained mass appeal because it was a lot easier and more forgiving than polytheistic religions. That may be the most far reaching, far fetched, delusional, bit of wishful thinking I've seen, and I've seen many. The main trouble is that it lacks any resemblance to Reality, to public opinion that helps keep a story alive, and to upwardly mobile people who make the elite caste that influences what is accepted into publication later. The story of Jesus is exactly the opposite of every legend and myth. And doesn't help the upwardly mobile people in "estates" by any stretch of the imagination. The gospels were being recorded before Paul preached, but the scribes didn't have the resources to preserve what they recorded. Even up to the Nicene Council, and afterwards, scribes had to continually copy and record what was already written, due to the damage done to parchment. It would help if you would do what I do, and look objectively at History, and realistically. And read the most objective materials, and the oldest, instead of "rewrites". Then, it's easier to get a handle on the reality.
|
|
|
|
Post by Sarge on Sept 10, 2020 2:00:12 GMT
The writings of Tacitus are a strong confirmation that Jesus, or Christus, was a real religious leader that lived around the correct time period. My take is Jesus was basically a charismatic hippy Jewish sect leader who was probably wise and inspired his followers. Paul, for reasons unknown, resurrected the stories and built a more conservative oriented religion which gained mass appeal because it was a lot easier and more forgiving than polytheistic religions. That may be the most far reaching, far fetched, delusional, bit of wishful thinking I've seen, and I've seen many. The main trouble is that it lacks any resemblance to Reality, to public opinion that helps keep a story alive, and to upwardly mobile people who make the elite caste that influences what is accepted into publication later. The story of Jesus is exactly the opposite of every legend and myth. And doesn't help the upwardly mobile people in "estates" by any stretch of the imagination. The gospels were being recorded before Paul preached, but the scribes didn't have the resources to preserve what they recorded. Even up to the Nicene Council, and afterwards, scribes had to continually copy and record what was already written, due to the damage done to parchment. It would help if you would do what I do, and look objectively at History, and realistically. And read the most objective materials, and the oldest, instead of "rewrites". Then, it's easier to get a handle on the reality. The opposite of every legend and myth ... what does that even mean? You're not stating anything, just trying to discredit my post with an ad hominem. Yours is the kind of post I expect from troll. If that's the best your intellect can muster then your posts are of little value to me.
|
|
|
|
Post by Sarge on Sept 10, 2020 2:10:56 GMT
The writings of Tacitus are a strong confirmation that Jesus, or Christus, was a real religious leader that lived around the correct time period. My take is Jesus was basically a charismatic hippy Jewish sect leader who was probably wise and inspired his followers. Paul, for reasons unknown, resurrected the stories and built a more conservative oriented religion which gained mass appeal because it was a lot easier and more forgiving than polytheistic religions. But even Tacitus source is hearsay. True, because all records from before were destroyed but it's the best source we have and believing that it refers to the man we call Jesus is pretty low stakes. There are other sources referring to Christ, or Christus, even if they are less reliable it lends to some weight to it being true. The mythology started somewhere and IMO it's more likely to have begun with a real person than being made up whole cloth. If I remember, Jesus was a fairly common name at the time and there was more than one in historical records so that name is a bit of a dead end. Again, it's low stakes so I definitely wouldn't blame anyone if they gave it little credence.
|
|
|
|
Post by drystyx on Sept 10, 2020 5:14:09 GMT
That may be the most far reaching, far fetched, delusional, bit of wishful thinking I've seen, and I've seen many. The main trouble is that it lacks any resemblance to Reality, to public opinion that helps keep a story alive, and to upwardly mobile people who make the elite caste that influences what is accepted into publication later. The story of Jesus is exactly the opposite of every legend and myth. And doesn't help the upwardly mobile people in "estates" by any stretch of the imagination. The gospels were being recorded before Paul preached, but the scribes didn't have the resources to preserve what they recorded. Even up to the Nicene Council, and afterwards, scribes had to continually copy and record what was already written, due to the damage done to parchment. It would help if you would do what I do, and look objectively at History, and realistically. And read the most objective materials, and the oldest, instead of "rewrites". Then, it's easier to get a handle on the reality. The opposite of every legend and myth ... what does that even mean? You're not stating anything, just trying to discredit my post with an ad hominem. Yours is the kind of post I expect from troll. If that's the best your intellect can muster then your posts are of little value to me. This is your quote: Now, I'm sorry this sounded like disrespect. In fact, your statement just has the same fallacies as most modernist statements. It's based upon mere speculation that has no foundation in logic, and no support. First, you're using a popular writer, instead of one who wrote on "spec" as we say today, meaning he wrote for the elite. His information would be as one sided as any elitist. It would be like expecting Trump or Obama, Dr. Phil or Dr. Oz, to write about your lowest income uncle's experience. So, we can't even be sure his characters are the same as the authentic people, that his common name "Jesus" man was the same who was written about with no natural incentive for the writers of the gospels. And it's a common mistake that Paul is the chief writer. The gospels are authentic, and written by more objective witnesses than Paul. One could say Saul of Tarsus had a sadistic and masochistic nature, but one can't make that claim for a fisherman on the dangerous sea of Galilee or a tax collector. And it is more than a stretch to say Paul "resurrected stories". It is a stretch to call Jesus a charismatic hippy. Was he wise? Not in the material sense, for sure, considering he was very willing to be crucified, and didn't go for profit. "Wise" in a spiritual way, yes, but survival depended somewhat upon being material in those days. "Conservative oriented religion?" The exact opposite, liberally including non Jews. Not to say the apostles were adamant about staying within Jewish bounds, but just that they obviously never thought "outside that box". The idea was alien to them. It certainly couldn't have appeal, to welcome suffering, to delight in it, to not deny Jesus even while being one of Nero's torches. "Forgiveness" doesn't even come into play, as the Christian was the victim. So, it's not meant as disrespect, but it looks surely like you are just following the crowd that doesn't read ancient History in the older and thus more objective books. Certainly, after about 1960, almost all publishers had a materialistic agenda of trying to make the claims you claim, and even destroy manuscripts that were actually authentic and objective. Many of the books I've read don't exist any more, because libraries have banned them, because they aren't "anti Christian". So, it's very tough to cite true History. Satan is hard at work in his kingdom here. It is what it is. You may not have the savvy and experience to know it yet. I don't know. That would excuse your blindly following the world like a sheep.
|
|
|
|
Post by Sarge on Sept 11, 2020 0:34:10 GMT
The opposite of every legend and myth ... what does that even mean? You're not stating anything, just trying to discredit my post with an ad hominem. Yours is the kind of post I expect from troll. If that's the best your intellect can muster then your posts are of little value to me. This is your quote: Now, I'm sorry this sounded like disrespect. In fact, your statement just has the same fallacies as most modernist statements. It's based upon mere speculation that has no foundation in logic, and no support. First, you're using a popular writer, instead of one who wrote on "spec" as we say today, meaning he wrote for the elite. His information would be as one sided as any elitist. It would be like expecting Trump or Obama, Dr. Phil or Dr. Oz, to write about your lowest income uncle's experience. So, we can't even be sure his characters are the same as the authentic people, that his common name "Jesus" man was the same who was written about with no natural incentive for the writers of the gospels. And it's a common mistake that Paul is the chief writer. The gospels are authentic, and written by more objective witnesses than Paul. One could say Saul of Tarsus had a sadistic and masochistic nature, but one can't make that claim for a fisherman on the dangerous sea of Galilee or a tax collector. And it is more than a stretch to say Paul "resurrected stories". It is a stretch to call Jesus a charismatic hippy. Was he wise? Not in the material sense, for sure, considering he was very willing to be crucified, and didn't go for profit. "Wise" in a spiritual way, yes, but survival depended somewhat upon being material in those days. "Conservative oriented religion?" The exact opposite, liberally including non Jews. Not to say the apostles were adamant about staying within Jewish bounds, but just that they obviously never thought "outside that box". The idea was alien to them. It certainly couldn't have appeal, to welcome suffering, to delight in it, to not deny Jesus even while being one of Nero's torches. "Forgiveness" doesn't even come into play, as the Christian was the victim. So, it's not meant as disrespect, but it looks surely like you are just following the crowd that doesn't read ancient History in the older and thus more objective books. Certainly, after about 1960, almost all publishers had a materialistic agenda of trying to make the claims you claim, and even destroy manuscripts that were actually authentic and objective. Many of the books I've read don't exist any more, because libraries have banned them, because they aren't "anti Christian". So, it's very tough to cite true History. Satan is hard at work in his kingdom here. It is what it is. You may not have the savvy and experience to know it yet. I don't know. That would excuse your blindly following the world like a sheep. You're still doing it, just with more words and an attempt to sound intellectual with a healthy dose of smarm. FYI, Tacitus didn't write about Jesus. It seems like you are picking random things from my posts and reusing them incorrectly (kinda bot-like). And how convenient is it that all the sources that would support your claims were destroyed in the 60s (really random). If your Jesus is the opposite of every myth then he's nothing, nonexistent. You're saying he is real and not real, the son of god and not the son of god, a real historical figure and not, all at the same time. That is why I asked what you mean. I leave you to your battle with Satan.
|
|
|
|
Post by Arlon10 on Sept 11, 2020 3:40:42 GMT
In other words: "If it's in the Bible, I refuse to believe it". No, in the absence of primary evidence it is difficult to believe what is in the Bible. I say that sometimes and it does me no good.
|
|
