Remember we have evidence of a cult which believed in "resurrrection" after 3 days at the close of the first century BC.

http://www.time.com/time/world/article/0...85,00.html

Quote:A 3-ft.-high tablet romantically dubbed "Gabriel's Revelation" could challenge the uniqueness of the idea of the Christian Resurrection. The tablet appears to date authentically to the years just before the birth of Jesus and yet — at least according to one Israeli scholar — it announces the raising of a messiah after three days in the grave. If true, this could mean that Jesus' followers had access to a well-established paradigm when they decreed that Christ himself rose on the third day — and it might even hint that they they could have applied it in their grief after their master was crucified.

Now, one of the significant differences between the Pharisees and the Saduccees was the belief in an afterlife so this could have been an Phariseeic offshoot which our sole chronicler of these events, Josephus, might have declined to talk about as he was a Pharisee himself and might have been embarrassed by this bunch. But what the stone tells us is that some group in late first century BC Judaea had a concept of a dead man resurrecting. So not only is "jesus" philosophy copied from the Greeks but his whole bullshit story seems to have been spreading around the region before he was even "born."

The crucifixion of Jesus was a common cosmic myth of that age. It was centered around the stars one would see on Easter morning right before sunrise in Jerusalem 33 AD. It includes Libra, Scoripio, and of course the Southern Cross. This accounts for similarities and differences in the nyths of crucified gods. The birth narrative centers around the stars one sees before sunrise during the winter solstice, i.e. Cancer and Orion. This accounts for the similar birth narratives of various gods.

YHWH of the old testament was a lunar god. His son would be a sun god. Take a look at the halo.

The cosmic myth is set into a historical setting because God controlled man. It would be natural that cosmic story and history should be one. There are also several stories about Jesus that have a cosmic myth aspect to them, but not all of his stories do. My research indicates Matthew contains the most complete cosmic myth about Jesus. The cosmic myth aspect was typically imposed upon a real live person in order to give that person god like qualities. This is why several known historical figures had virgin births.

Was there a Jesus, who was the brother of James, a great rabbi whose life was deified through myth? I don't know. And if there was, would his life resemble anything in the Bible? Could we recognize that person as Jesus once we remove the myth?

(June 25, 2012 at 8:51 pm)LEDO Wrote: And if there was, would his life resemble anything in the Bible? Could we recognize that person as Jesus once we remove the myth?

This is a summation of my problem with the whole discussion of the "historical Jesus". WTF does that even mean once all the divinity and magic is removed?

Quote:Was there a Jesus, who was the brother of James, a great rabbi whose life was deified through myth?

Not to mention that it would be exceedingly unlikely to have a "great rabbi" at a time before the emergence of rabbinic judaism after the destruction of the temple and the council of Jamnia.

(June 25, 2012 at 9:57 pm)Minimalist Wrote:

Quote:Was there a Jesus, who was the brother of James, a great rabbi whose life was deified through myth?

Not to mention that it would be exceedingly unlikely to have a "great rabbi" at a time before the emergence of rabbinic judaism after the destruction of the temple and the council of Jamnia.

Why, it'd be a fucking miracle!

Therefore, Jesus.

(June 25, 2012 at 11:50 pm)Cthulhu Dreaming Wrote:

(June 25, 2012 at 9:57 pm)Minimalist Wrote: Not to mention that it would be exceedingly unlikely to have a "great rabbi" at a time before the emergence of rabbinic judaism after the destruction of the temple and the council of Jamnia.

Why, it'd be a fucking miracle!

Therefore, Jesus.

Stonehenge. Explain that, atheist!

As already said, proving a historical Jesus doesn't prove his divinity. It's kind of like how all these apologists 'prove' god exists, but all their arguments, even if they're true, only prove a god - not their religion's specific god.

Quote:Why, it'd be a fucking miracle!

Therefore, Jesus.

I have to think that someone behaving that way while the temple still existed would have attracted the notice of someone like Philo. While the temple stood the whole purpose of Jewish life was sacrificing at the fucking temple.

It was only when their temple was burned and the 10th Legion was using the site for a latrine that they had to re-invent themselves.

Hard to believe that no one noticed the godboy in all that.

(June 25, 2012 at 9:42 pm)DeistPaladin Wrote:

(June 25, 2012 at 8:51 pm)LEDO Wrote: And if there was, would his life resemble anything in the Bible? Could we recognize that person as Jesus once we remove the myth?

This is a summation of my problem with the whole discussion of the "historical Jesus". WTF does that even mean once all the divinity and magic is removed?

BINGO! If he is just a man, then he can only be a salesman of a cult. People sell all sorts of crazy ideas and people end up following them because "it sounds nice" Otherwise L Ron Hubbard wouldn't have lead to Scientology.

But religious "salesmen" are not selling reality anyway. They do not need a real "jesus" any more than any other ancient religion needed a real Marduk, Horus or Molech.

As the xtian members of this board demonstrate they can be persuaded to buy just about any pile of shit that someone dreams up.

(June 26, 2012 at 8:27 pm)Minimalist Wrote: But religious "salesmen" are not selling reality anyway. They do not need a real "jesus" any more than any other ancient religion needed a real Marduk, Horus or Molech.

As the xtian members of this board demonstrate they can be persuaded to buy just about any pile of shit that someone dreams up.

That's why I don't see why some here have a problem with me. I am not advocating crime or violence by merely saying "bullshit".

If one can look at the claims of others and say rightfully, as you did here "That makes no sense" then objecting to word choice is a matter of comfort, not truth to the objection.

Reality is needing food. Reality is needing shelter. Reality is needing love. Reality is needing the right to bitch without fear of your government or neighbor. Everything else is merely personal predilection and no more deserving value than any other claim any other human may make, including mine.