Jesus can't have ever existed because there is no son of God and there are no miracles, and without them he's not the "Jesus" written about. If there was ever evidence of any Jesus it's not the Jesus of the Bible, and therefore not actually Jesus.

Q.E.D

(November 17, 2015 at 12:15 am)Cleo Wrote: Hello everyone,

I would like your honest views on who or what you think Jesus really was, with some reasonable justifications please.

I ask this because some say he was a myth, some say he existed, some say he represents a sun god, etcetera...

I am simply unsure and require answers for further discussions.

Thanks!

I don't think you really need our most intelligent atheists for this discussion.  I assume there was some person to whom the myths were attached.  It isn't likely that the person in question really was a supernatural being - primarily because we have no examples of supernatural beings.  If that doesn't settle it for you consider how much credence you think should be given to the possibility that there really was a historical person responsible for any other religion's god .. let alone that they really did kill ice giants or drive a chariot across the sky.  No, for this discussion intelligence is irrelevant.

(November 20, 2015 at 8:14 pm)Wyrd of Gawd Wrote: Pay attention:

I said that Paul invented the Jesus character to sell his religion of resurrection.  Paul's disciples wrote the Gospels as a backstory to Paul's character.  Paul's focus was on resurrection.  He didn't say very much about the imaginary Jesus character except to say that he came back from the dead and that if the dummies believed that then they would as well.

Paul never says that Jesus came back to earth from the dead. He does not appear to know about the resurrection story of Jesus. As far as he knows Jesus was raised into the heavenly realm.

(November 20, 2015 at 8:14 pm)Wyrd of Gawd Wrote: Paul created Christianity and established its basic rules and rituals.  As time passed and the religion splintered people tossed a lot of those rules and rituals into the trash can.  The only ritual the Jesus character ever gave was the one of communion.

Oh right, so what rules and rituals then did Paul instil?

(November 20, 2015 at 8:14 pm)Wyrd of Gawd Wrote: BTW, the Paul character was one of the greatest liars in the entire Bible.  He said and did whatever it took to convince the dummies of the BS that he was spewing.

And where is your convincing evidence that Paul was a great liar?

(November 20, 2015 at 8:14 pm)Wyrd of Gawd Wrote: James and Jude supposedly knew Jesus but they hardly mention him at all.  James thought that prayers and magic oil could cure sickness.  Jude spent most of his very short message rambling about stuff that happened in the Old Testament.

There is no "supposed" about it; James did know Jesus and he was either James the Just or James the brother of John the Baptist. There are no other known Jameses that could have written the epistle. Judas on the other hand specifically identifies himself as the brother of James (and Jesus). There are only two other Judases mentioned in the gospels: Judas Iscariot the apostle who betrays Jesus, and Jude the other apostle (son of James). I'm not that interested in the authorship of Jude - if it is pseudonymous then all it means is that somebody wrote a short epistle using his name and mostly talked about things in the OT, which itself shows that it was directed towards Jewish Christians and not gentile Christians. When he wrote it is guesswork, but my guess is before 68AD since the church in Jerusalem appears to be completely destroyed by 70AD, which just leaves the gentile churches.

But James on the other hand is much more interesting. He has detailed knowledge of the teachings of Jesus, and yet he is writing before any of the four gospels has been written. He couldn't have got that knowledge from Paul because Paul doesn't use the direct teachings of Jesus from the gospels, aside from the Lord's Supper.

(November 20, 2015 at 11:43 pm)Evie Wrote: Jesus can't have ever existed because there is no son of God and there are no miracles, and without them he's not the "Jesus" written about. If there was ever evidence of any Jesus it's not the Jesus of the Bible, and therefore not actually Jesus.

Q.E.D

That's circular logic. That's like saying that John Edward doesn't exist because he doesn't really talk to spirits, and without spirits for him to talk to his character is meaningless and he's not the "John Edward" that he tells people he is.

(November 20, 2015 at 11:22 pm)Aractus Wrote:

(November 20, 2015 at 4:19 pm)Minimalist Wrote: How do you know those are legitimate and not later edits or concoctions?  As has been pointed out countless times before we have no original documents for any of this stuff.

We've got no original documents for Shakespeare's plays either, so how do you know that he wrote them?

(November 20, 2015 at 4:19 pm)Minimalist Wrote: At some point you have to face the reality that you accept the validity of this stuff because someone told you it was real.

At some point you'll need to stop getting your history from denialist quacks.

There are actually questions about the authorship of Shakespearean plays.... but I wouldn't expect you to know that.

And, when it comes to your stupid fucking bible, Danny, I don't expect you to know anything at all.

You are awfully defensive about that horseshit.  Insecure are you?  A few doubts creeping in?  Read the bible less and non-biblical scholars more and it might help you out.

Or, you can remain a dumbass.  Your choice.

crazy fuckin jew with mental issues (no offense to Semitic atheists, just referring to the religious portion)

(November 21, 2015 at 12:34 am)Minimalist Wrote: There are actually questions about the authorship of Shakespearean plays.... but I wouldn't expect you to know that.

Where did you learn that Min, from some history-porn no doubt?

This just goes to prove your ignorance on history Min. You cannot ascertain the position of current academic thinking from the internet or TV, or sensationalised books written by physicists instead of historians (and the historians who in this case would be qualified are English literature scholars). So since you've made this outrageous claim now Min, perhaps you can show me some English literature scholars that agree that the authorship of Shakespeare's plays is questionable?

(November 21, 2015 at 12:34 am)Minimalist Wrote: And, when it comes to your stupid fucking bible, Danny, I don't expect you to know anything at all.

You are awfully defensive about that horseshit.  Insecure are you?  A few doubts creeping in?  Read the bible less and non-biblical scholars more and it might help you out.

Or, you can remain a dumbass.  Your choice.

Again, I don't state my views on this. My views are shaped entire from scholarship. Just as my views on other matters are. Your views are shaped on the opinion of two quacks that are not taken seriously by any modern scholars, thus they are not respected in "their" fields. Every-time I ask you for evidence all you can come up with is two quacks, neither of which is a qualified New Testament scholar.

But for the purpose of this thread I'm more interested in hearing you tell me which English literature scholars doubt the authorship of Shakespeare's works. You made the claim, so provide the evidence.

I think the best response is one we've had already: the question is irrelevant. Any link between a real person and the character in the bible is so weak as to be meaningless.

Some maniac wandered about preaching about the end of the world, and finally caused enough of an annoyance that he got executed. So what? Maybe he even blathered about being the son of God. I can do that too.

I feel pretty confident he didn't claim to actually be God though, that's clearly a later invention. But again, even if he did, so what? I can do that too, and indeed have done.

(November 21, 2015 at 4:50 am)robvalue Wrote: I think the best response is one we've had already: the question is irrelevant. Any link between a real person and the character in the bible is so weak as to be meaningless.

I find it very strange that anyone says it's meaningless. Just because new testament era history doesn't interest you, doesn't mean that it doesn't interest other people; and all mythologies are interesting subjects to some people, as are the anthropogenic elements at play here (that is the study of human culture and behaviour and changes over time).

I also find it strange you claim the link is "weak" whereas scholars do not find that, so what evidence do you have for your clam?

(November 21, 2015 at 4:50 am)robvalue Wrote: Some maniac wandered about preaching about the end of the world, and finally caused enough of an annoyance that he got executed. So what? Maybe he even blathered about being the son of God. I can do that too.

Why would you characterise someone like Jesus as a "maniac"? Do you simply characterise everyone as maniacs? All he did was teach from the Hebrew scriptures - lost of people did that back then in that region, and lots of people still do it today - does that make him a maniac? He also provided healings; and again lots of people did that back then, and lots still do it today: so are they all maniacs as well?

People holding to an imperfect view of the world is normal, as is the confirmation bias and cognitive dissonance.

Whether Jesus was a real person or not, it's clear that they deliberately padded his resume with links to almost every religion known to man, including Egyptian references, Classical ones, and quite possibly Asian ones as well.

As for the miracles. . . when I see a couple real ones, I'll believe the ones in the Bible.