(November 8, 2014 at 2:44 pm)robvalue Wrote: I'm surprised to hear that Bart apparently thinks otherwise, I'll have to dig into that.

There may well have been a raving rabbi called Jesus walking the desert.

Point is, that even if he existed, christian writers have attributed him with all kinds of myths existing a long time before he supposedly went on his suicide mission.

(November 8, 2014 at 2:55 pm)abaris Wrote:

(November 8, 2014 at 2:44 pm)robvalue Wrote: I'm surprised to hear that Bart apparently thinks otherwise, I'll have to dig into that.

There may well have been a raving rabbi called Jesus walking the desert.

Point is, that even if he existed, christian writers have attributed him with all kinds of myths existing a long time before he supposedly went on his suicide mission.

For sure, I'm not saying there wasn't some guy called Jesus. It was a common name I believe. Maybe at some point there was one guy who said a bunch of stuff which caught on, who knows. That's about as far as my belief in it goes.

I read somewhere that Jesus had a brother (in fact other siblings too) and Jesus' story and his brothers got mixed up, and they got kind of combined into one character, which is where the Jesus Christ comes from. It explains why sometimes he's talking about killing with swords, and other times drivelling on about peace. Really can't remember where I heard that, but it sure was interesting.

I came up with my own theory before hearing this, about Jesus having a twin brother, who showed up after the execution, hence "resurrected". This was before I came to the realization that the whole Jesus thing is made up, not just that part. I had for a long time assumed there must have actually been a Jesus, obviously a much watered-down and non amazing version of the claims made. Amazing even as a life long atheist I got conned into that one.

(November 8, 2014 at 3:00 pm)robvalue Wrote: I read somewhere that Jesus had a brother (in fact other siblings too) and Jesus' story and his brothers got mixed up, and they got kind of combined into one character, which is where the Jesus Christ comes from. It explains why sometimes he's talking about killing with swords, and other times drivelling on about peace. Really can't remember where I heard that, but it sure was interesting.

The brother part probably comes from the Josephus diatribe, which was written at least 70 years after Jesus' birth. If he ever was born and if that Josephus quote isn't a forgery like the other part where he mentions Jesus.

(November 8, 2014 at 3:00 pm)robvalue Wrote: I came up with my own theory before hearing this, about Jesus having a twin brother, who showed up after the execution, hence "resurrected". This was before I came to the realization that the whole thing is made up, not just that part.

Or they simply took that tale from other resurrected gods like Osiris, Horus, Dyonisos and many many other gods that have been dead and came back to life. It was a common myth at the time and the region.

(November 8, 2014 at 2:44 pm)robvalue Wrote: It would certainly seem so to me. Otherwise, there's an awful lot of coincidence with mythology at that time. This video is pretty convincing.

I'm surprised to hear that Bart apparently thinks otherwise, I'll have to dig into that.

Listen to this radio interview with Erhman:

http://youtu.be/u9CC7qNZkOE

(November 5, 2014 at 4:07 pm)Godschild Wrote:

(November 5, 2014 at 6:01 am)robvalue Wrote: Because as long as there are actual words on the pages saying that you should stone someone to death for collecting sticks on a Sunday, there is always the chance that at some point people will start taking it literally again and start doing it. Especially because it is so generally hyped as the "word of god" and even christians have a hard time explaining why they don't do what it says to do.

Drich is right you are using hearsay, you have nothing supporting your accusations.
You asked for an example here's one for the above.
Read John 8:1-11
John 8:7 And as they continued to ask Him, he stood up and and said to them, "Let him who is without sin among you be the first to throw a stone at her."
Seems Christ is putting an end to stoning, for no one is without sin.
Giving an example you wanted hope you see the truth in it. This is the last I'll reply on this but, like I said you are wrong in your OP.

GC

You obviously don't realize that John 7:53 - 8:11 is the most doubtful passage in the whole New Testament. The long ending of Mark (16:9-20) is a close second.

About the passage from John Peake's Commentary says:

Quote:It is certain that this narrative is not an original part of the gospel. It is omitted by most of the earliest and best Greek MSS, by the oldest versions (Syriac, Coptic and some of the Old Latin) and by the earliest Fathers. The MSS which do contain the paragraph do not all place it at this point; some even place it after Luke 21:38.

Even the fundy-friendly NIV translation inserts a cautionary note: "The most reliable early manuscripts omit John 7:53 - 8:11."

I guess some people feel that if the King James version was good enough for Jesus, it should be good enough for us.

Quote:There may well have been a raving rabbi called Jesus walking the desert.

There "may" have been but what Ehrman...and Aslan, and lots of others forget is that there is only one story. That of the miracle-working godboy.

They are all trying to shrink it down to something they think is 'reasonable' but simply refuse to admit that in doing so they are writing a new story. In Ehrman's case it is particularly ironic since he has made a career out of blasting the shit out of xtians who take the 4 gospel stories that made the cut in the committee and trying to ram them together into what he derisively calls the gospel of markmatthewlukejohn.

That book does not exist. Neither does the one that Ehrman claims for his apocalyptic preacher.

(November 9, 2014 at 6:24 pm)Minimalist Wrote: There "may" have been but what Ehrman...and Aslan, and lots of others forget is that there is only one story. That of the miracle-working godboy.

Yeah, and that's where we walking knee deep into horse manure. The miracle working godboy takes all his miracles from preexistent myths.

I have my issues with Ehrman. Mainly because he ommits the political reasons for rewriting the bible in his books as well as his presentations. In fact, I consider that as the main reason why the bible is as it is today. It's what I call the Constantinian buttkissing contest going on in the 4th century.

Yeah, take away the magic from the story and what's left is as impressive as some reporter guy called Clark Kent who dresses up in tights and a cape in his spare time. Or the Visible Man.

It's deeper than that, abaris.

Ehrman's hypothesis is that the oldest manuscripts are the "closest" to what the "originals" said. If you read Misquoting Jesus he fully accepts that what we get by the 4th century has been highly edited horseshit designed to meet the political needs not of an apocalyptic sect but of a church which had to change its focus because after ole jebus failed to return they had to re-invent themselves.

Ehrman, despite his protestations to the contrary, cannot shake free of the idea that there were "originals" floating around in the first century. Suppose that is where he goes wrong? Maybe there weren't. Maybe this jesus stuff is simply a second century invention and the earliest fragments we have WERE the originals? It doesn't alter Ehrman's work in any way as what he traces are the careless errors of scribes or the deliberate work of editors in later versions for political or doctrinal reasons. He makes an assumption that there are earlier versions now lost to us but it is only an assumption. We have no evidence of any jesus shit from the first century at all.

(November 9, 2014 at 6:41 pm)Stimbo Wrote: Yeah, take away the magic from the story and what's left is as impressive as some reporter guy called Clark Kent who dresses up in tights and a cape in his spare time. Or the Visible Man.

May I just add that Jesus in tights and cape can make for a pretty inspiring image.

(November 9, 2014 at 6:42 pm)Minimalist Wrote: Ehrman, despite his protestations to the contrary, cannot shake free of the idea that there were "originals" floating around in the first century. Suppose that is where he goes wrong? Maybe there weren't. Maybe this jesus stuff is simply a second century invention and the earliest fragments we have WERE the originals? It doesn't alter Ehrman's work in any way as what he traces are the careless errors of scribes or the deliberate work of editors in later versions for political or doctrinal reasons. He makes an assumption that there are earlier versions now lost to us but it is only an assumption. We have no evidence of any jesus shit from the first century at all.

Yeah, that's where he loses me too, since I studied history and what that word actually meant in the classical age. It wasn't what we would call history today. It was meant to present an ideal. And all the greek writers collecting the campfire legends of a supposed Jesus walking the lands and doing his miracle routines were actually following that line of thinking. Also, what all the apologists fail to mention is, that it was a time of miracles. Miracles and the supernatural were considered normals even by otherwise rational roman authors. Roman generals used to call on their augurs before going into battle and this is presented in ancient records of so called history.

Anyway, my point, concerning Jesus is, that even if he lived (I'm open to that possibility though not to his divine character), was embelished with older myths from the region.

Here's a list of christian myths and their pagan origins:

http://www.pocm.info/getting_started_pocm.html