(September 25, 2015 at 11:21 am)Aractus Wrote:

(September 25, 2015 at 7:46 am)Redbeard The Pink Wrote: Jesus himself is also a problem. Even if you go with the mainstream position that the Jesus of Nazareth character was based on one real guy who was actually crucified by Pontius Pilate, mainstream historians still generally reject most of the gospel as being fiction; any way you slice it, the Jesus of Nazareth character didn't exist in the way the Bible said he did.

Really Redbeard? So without Jesus who came up with the parable of the "Good Samaritan"? Who gave the parable of the "Prodigal Son"? Who delivered the Sermon on the Mount?

(September 25, 2015 at 7:46 am)Redbeard The Pink Wrote: The real human (if there was one) has less historicity than pretty much anyone, and the Bible version has none at all.

There's no "if" - scholars unanimously say he existed.

(September 25, 2015 at 7:46 am)Redbeard The Pink Wrote: At most, his baptism and crucifixion happened, and at worst not one bit of it happened.

No, at worst he was baptised by John, he called disciples, he delivered teachings, and he was crucified by order of Pilate. I'd also say the short version of the Lord's Supper is fairly certain (though whether it was really the Last Supper is certainly up for debate).

At most he taught and said everything that's attributed to him in the gospels. In light of the Epistle of James, and Paul's early epistles (written before any of the gospels even by early dating), we can say with confidence that he delivered teachings consistent with a message of salvation, compassion, reconciliation, and other quite noble themes.

We atheists often categorise him as apocalyptic, and I do believe that's correct, but that's also debatable.

We have been over this, and I do not give a shit about the fact that you're an atheist who believes in Jesus. Knock yourself the fuck out.


Like I said, regardless of who or what he was based on, the vast majority of the Gospel is considered fiction/myth by mainstream scholarship. I have no interest in nit-picking which parts are which.

(September 25, 2015 at 10:25 pm)Redbeard The Pink Wrote: We have been over this, and I do not give a shit about the fact that you're an atheist who believes in Jesus. Knock yourself the fuck out.

Like I said, regardless of who or what he was based on, the vast majority of the Gospel is considered fiction/myth by mainstream scholarship. I have no interest in nit-picking which parts are which.

Answer the question. Who came up with those parables, and who delivered the Sermon on the Mount's teachings? Paul? Peter? James? John? Luke? Barnabas? Who?

(September 25, 2015 at 11:35 am)Crossless1 Wrote: I'm curious: debatable in what way(s)? Apocalyptic views would be strange things to attribute to him after the fact, especially since he is made to say things in the Gospels that clearly didn't come to pass (unless one indulges in some fairly creative interpretation). Besides, if his association with the Baptist is taken as an historical likelihood, then there is an apocalyptic bent to his public life at the very start.

I realize, Aractus, that you also believe he held apocalyptic views, but I have not really encountered any writers who find that interpretation debatable. Can you direct me to someone who makes that argument?

What his "exact" views are is completely unknown, and the extent to which apocalypsim was central to his theology is also debatable. Christians today (mostly) view it as less central, however those of us who aren't Christians say you can't separate the need for a messiah and apocalypsim they go hand-in-hand.

It is entirely possible his apocalyptic views & teachings were widened "after the fact".

(September 25, 2015 at 10:30 pm)Aractus Wrote:

(September 25, 2015 at 10:25 pm)Redbeard The Pink Wrote: We have been over this, and I do not give a shit about the fact that you're an atheist who believes in Jesus. Knock yourself the fuck out.

Like I said, regardless of who or what he was based on, the vast majority of the Gospel is considered fiction/myth by mainstream scholarship. I have no interest in nit-picking which parts are which.

Answer the question. Who came up with those parables, and who delivered the Sermon on the Mount's teachings? Paul? Peter? James? John? Luke? Barnabas? Who?

Whoever made up and/or wrote down those stories, bro. It could have been anyone, and I honestly don't care. The point is that the Gospels are fiction, and the character they depict is a myth. It is irrelevant to me who or what that myth is based on, even if it was a lone, historical man named Jesus of Nazareth and even if a fistful of the events from his life are loosely historical. It's still a fucking myth full of magic and bullshit.


When it comes to Jesus of Nazareth, there are two distinct persons that are generally being referred to: one is a supposedly real, mortal, historical, Jewish, apocalyptic preacher, and the other is the same guy but with magic powers. The first guy might have existed, and I honestly don't care at this point whether he did or not. The second guy definitely did not exist, and that's the guy the Gospels are depicting, hence the Gospels are bullshit even if they're inspired by the life story of a real preacher. There is absolutely no reason to believe anything in the Gospels as written, and in order for Christianity to be even remotely viable, the Gospels have to be believable as written.

(September 25, 2015 at 10:54 pm)Redbeard The Pink Wrote: Whoever made up and/or wrote down those stories, bro. It could have been anyone, and I honestly don't care.

Are you really saying you believe an anonymous person came up with the parable of the Good Samaritan?

(September 25, 2015 at 11:41 pm)Aractus Wrote:

(September 25, 2015 at 10:54 pm)Redbeard The Pink Wrote: Whoever made up and/or wrote down those stories, bro. It could have been anyone, and I honestly don't care.

Are you really saying you believe an anonymous person came up with the parable of the Good Samaritan?

So it's plausible to you that Yeshua ben Yosef, 100% human son of a carpenter in Nazareth, amateur rabbi, came up with it... but not that another writer did, after his death?

I personally don't care if it was one of the rabbi's preachings or not... arguing over whether it was invented by Jesus or invented by one of his followers bent on turning their dead leader into a god who would "soon return" is just ridiculous!

Aractus is an atheist who believes in Jesus? How does that work, exactly?

(September 26, 2015 at 12:25 am)Kitan Wrote: Aractus is an atheist who believes in Jesus?  How does that work, exactly?

Well, presuming he's not an incognito Christian to "get past our defenses", which seems unlikely, he's like Jefferson, who believed that Jesus was real but neither divine nor magical.

(September 26, 2015 at 12:23 am)TheRocketSurgeon Wrote: So it's plausible to you that Yeshua ben Yosef, 100% human son of a carpenter in Nazareth, amateur rabbi, came up with it... but not that another writer did, after his death?

I personally don't care if it was one of the rabbi's preachings or not... arguing over whether it was invented by Jesus or invented by one of his followers bent on turning their dead leader into a god who would "soon return" is just ridiculous!

I don't know what his father's occupation was. It is probable he was a carpenter, yes, but not certain. Just like it's probable his father is Yosef, but not certain. I didn't say Jesus was an "amateur rabbi", in fact he proves he has detailed knowledge of the Tanakh - he is able to answer questions regarding it that satisfy the Pharisees and Scribes who intently study the scriptures. So I'm not sure why you would think I think that he is an amateur.

If somebody else came up with the God Samaritan then why is it attributed to Jesus? If somebody else came up with it then why is it exclusively found in the New Testament, and there is no other teaching like it in first century Palestine? Not just that, but many of his teachings are unique and not are found existing eternally, meaning they are his original thoughts.

So my question stands - who came up with them and why did they attribute them to Jesus instead of themselves? Paul doesn't invoke quoting Jesus when he talks about his concepts like Justification by Faith, so why would anyone attribute these teachings to Jesus instead of giving them themselves as Paul does in his epistles?

(September 26, 2015 at 12:59 am)TheRocketSurgeon Wrote: Well, presuming he's not an incognito Christian to "get past our defenses", which seems unlikely, he's like Jefferson, who believed that Jesus was real but neither divine nor magical.

That makes sense, except that there is no accurate historical evidence of stated Jesus character, neither divine nor human, having existed.

(September 26, 2015 at 1:01 am)Kitan Wrote: That makes sense, except that there is no accurate historical evidence of stated Jesus character, neither divine nor human, having existed.

There is hard historical evidence for the existence of Jesus as a human, this has already been covered, so let's move on.