(May 18, 2010 at 12:30 pm)Minimalist Wrote: While true it ignores the fact that the Romans had a traditional start of winter festival, the Saturnalia, which went back to the 3d century BC.

Good point! I think the "Jesus" myth involves a mixing of Mithraism with Saturnalia and other traditional festivities. (At Christmas, I like to wish people a "Happy Saturnalia!" and then explain what I'm talking about when I get a quizzical look. Maybe it will plant a seed that will ultimately bear fruit.)

(May 18, 2010 at 1:47 pm)downbeatplumb Wrote: I too am torn.

The evidence for his existance is less than convincing.

But I tend to think that Jesus was a David Koresh or Charles Manson charismatic type.

I have no evidence for this but that is what I think at present.

As always I am ready to be swayed by convincing arguments.

The trouble there is that there are no first-century source documents upon which to base those arguments. The fact that there is such a massive silence about what should have been earth-shaking events is evidence in itself but it is an argument from silence which brings its own problems. Unlike many, I do not think those problems are fatal - there is nothing but silence about invisible pink unicorms either - but the problem remains.

People who have a deep seated psychological need to believe in bullshit find solace in those problems.

---

(May 18, 2010 at 2:33 pm)Thor Wrote:

(May 18, 2010 at 12:30 pm)Minimalist Wrote: While true it ignores the fact that the Romans had a traditional start of winter festival, the Saturnalia, which went back to the 3d century BC.

Good point! I think the "Jesus" myth involves a mixing of Mithraism with Saturnalia and other traditional festivities. (At Christmas, I like to wish people a "Happy Saturnalia!" and then explain what I'm talking about when I get a quizzical look. Maybe it will plant a seed that will ultimately bear fruit.)

http://en.allexperts.com/e/s/sa/saturnalia.htm


Io, Saturnalia.

I would say, probably a little bit of both. Was there a man named Jesus who lived during the reign of Tiberius? Maybe, maybe not. We know that everything written about him was written long after his death. We know that there are very few non-christian references to Jesus, and those that exist like that of Tacitus and Josephus are questionable at best. However we do know that Jesus became a lot more popular around 295 AD when Rome adopted Christianity as it's state religion. It's entirely possible that Jesus as both the man and demigod was created there, however there isn't evidence to support that either. So i'll just say, if jesus of nazareth really existed, we don't know very much about him.

It's not even apparent that there was Nazareth in the first-century for him to be from.

I pretty much agree with Michael Shermer. When asked about whether or not he believed Jesus truly existed, Shermer replied, "Well, there probably was a guy named Jesus."

I reject the idea that a man called Jesus existed, lived, performed " miracles ",died, came alive again and then disappeared into the sky.
Dubious piece of fiction at best.

Like bozo, I also reject the notion that Jesus was ever an actual living person. Anyone who can supposedly walk on water is nothing more than a theological construct, so the reality-deifying King of the Jews belongs in the same category as Robin Hood and Sherlock Holmes... fiction.

Obviously no one taught the authors of the Gospels of John, Matthew and Mark that while it is possible to walk on custard, owing to its physical properties as a non-Newtonian liquid, it's impossible to walk on water.

(May 18, 2010 at 5:16 pm)Welsh cake Wrote: Like bozo, I also reject the notion that Jesus was ever an actual living person. Anyone who can supposedly walk on water is nothing more than a theological construct, so the reality-deifying King of the Jews belongs in the same category as Robin Hood and Sherlock Holmes... fiction.

Obviously no one taught the authors of the Gospels of John, Matthew and Mark that while it is possible to walk on custard, owing to its physical properties as a non-Newtonian liquid, it's impossible to walk on water.

I can walk on water. It has to be very cold though!

Well, the contents of the extrabiblical evidence for the existence of Jesus (assuming that all of it is reliable) seems to be limited to statements that he was a teacher who may or may not have been executed for his teachings (none of these sources even remotely mention what his teachings actually are.) This seems plausible. However, there is no evidence whatsoever for a Jesus who walked on water or came back to life from the dead. Simply put, something like that, especially the resurrection, seems like it would have been mentioned outside of the New Testament. Surely something like the Resurrection would have made it into allusions by pre-Christian Roman writers (maybe even Petronius), but the fact that we have only the Gospels to go on makes me inclined to disbelieve. I'm heavily inclined to believe that Jesus was a real rabbi who had the myths of previous times thrust upon him.

Quote:Anyone who can supposedly walk on water is nothing more than a theological construct,

Quote:ORION was a handsome giant gifted with the ability to walk on water by his father Poseidon.

http://www.theoi.com/Gigante/GiganteOrion.html



More shit stolen from the Greeks.[/quote]

---

(May 18, 2010 at 4:05 pm)Thor Wrote: I pretty much agree with Michael Shermer. When asked about whether or not he believed Jesus truly existed, Shermer replied, "Well, there probably was a guy named Jesus."

We can be absolutely certain that there were plenty of people named Yeshua bar Yosef in first century Palestine. Both names were very common. "Jesus of Nazareth" is a bit dicier. First of all, in Judaea the residents used the patronymic rather than a place name which was, not surprisingly, more of a Greco-Roman thing.

Second, there was great enmity between Jews in Judaea and "Jews" in Galilee or any of the other areas which were conquered by the Hasmoneans in the first/second century BC and forcibly converted to Judaism. Much as with our resident xtians there was a continuous 'No True Scotsman' argument going on. Given the feelings of Judaeans towards Samaritans and other groups the odds that a Galilean would amass any sort of following is doubtful.

As far as Nazareth goes, the fairly reputable Xtian scholar, Stephen Pfann has excavated there and found one single-family farm. Xtians create much of their own problem by claiming some grandiose status for Nazareth in the first century. No one else had heard of the place. As the observation goes, the most likely question for a Judaean to ask would be "Jesus of where?"