Tired of xtians prattling on about their "eye-witness" testimony?

[The Grand Nudger]

I'm with Chuck on this one. The only legitimate interest in who wrote the text would be to give them credit for a fairy tale. Still, whatever can be known is worth knowing, as far as I'm concerned.

[Anomalocaris]

Yes, Pad, but the whole point is to disabuse the fundies of the silly notion that their fucking gospels were written by people who were there.

How does whether they were actually there effect the fact that what they wrote about what happened there has negligible probability of being true?

[Minimalist]

You have to look at it from the fundie p-o-v ( i.e. ass-backwards ), Chuck. Even they understand that a hearsay report of someone walking on water is less compelling that an eye-witness account of someone walking on water so they try to convince themselves that their fucking gospels rise to that level.

What they miss, of course, is that hundreds of people can go to a magic show and "see" a magician saw a woman in half. Just because they do not understand how the trick was done does not mean it is any less of a trick.

[jess_essential]

Are we really going to start pondering whether the illinformed actually WANT to listen to reason?! We are all fully aware that the ignorant never want to be told they're wrong, especially because they're quite often WRONG. As far as I am concerned, HUMANS wrote the bible. HUMANS are exactly what they're supposed to be, HUMAN, and I think that we do a pretty good job acting accordingly to that label. I think the book would hold more creedence if a collective group of animals sat around and wrote it, because then and only then would I be mystified because animals CANNOT write or speak! Humans lie constantly, especially if they're trying to prove a point. They will do anything to convince their counterpart that their way is THE WAY. The book is a book, and being a fan of literature might I simply add, I would rather subscribe to the religion of: "Dear: MR. Henshaw", at least that got me somewhere in the third grade.

[Justtristo]

Who, then, wrote these books?

To be honest,I don't know or care. So far I've seen no credible evidence that the New Testament is anything more than the mythology of Christianity. Any similarities between the Jesus of the NT and some poor little rabbi (called perhaps Yeshua bar Yusuf) who got himself crucified,is purely coincidental.

I have my own theory which a few scholars have argued that Jesus was originally a title given to John the Baptist after his death. There are verses in the New Testament where the apostles say to Jesus that some people thought he was John the Baptist risen from the dead. If one is familar with the work of Robert Eisenman it is clear that the Essenes and Zealots formed at least one "stream' which later contributed to the river of Christianity.

Which would mean that John the Baptist, James the Just, along with the apostles Simon (aka Peter), Jude and John were Essenes and also the last four formed the "pillars' who were the leadership of the Jerusalem "church". Also I would agree with Herman Detering that Simon Magus (a student of John the Baptist) was the character Paul of Tarsus was based off.

[Oldandeasilyconfused]

Was just re reading this thread.

A recovering alcoholic,I've been sober for nearly 10 years (June 30)

Relevance? Well,for the first year, I went to AA three times a week,then once a week for a few months, then every month or so a couple of times,then stopped. Having a place to go where I was accepted and encouraged to stay sober helped a lot.The woo of the 12 step programme did not help.


I reached the point where I thought I might do an injury to the next brain damaged dropkick who got up and rabbited on about its personal relationship with its higher power. So I stopped going and have stayed sober by myself,so far.

Lest you think I'm being unkind: the rate of long term sobriety (2 years or more) among AA members is between 3-5%. Don't know about y'all,but if my doctor said to me " try this treatment.Oh,it has as success rate of 5%", I'd try another doctor,licketty split. Sorry to wonder so far off topic.

[Minimalist]

Um...well. Let's try this. The word "jesus" does not appear anywhere until the
letter "J" was introduced into Latin which was late in the Middle Ages.

Prior to that it was Iesus in Latin or Iesous in Greek allegedly transliterated from the Hebrew "Yeshua." (Joshua). Joshua does mean "Yahweh Saves" but the use of a theophoric is still a name...not necessarily a title. Josephus mentions over 20 people named Yeshua (Jesus) including this shmuck.

"But, what is still more terrible, there was one Jesus, the son of Ananus, a plebeian and a husbandman, who, four years before the war began, and at a time when the city was in very great peace and prosperity, came to that feast whereon it is our custom for every one to make tabernacles to God in the temple [Sukkot, autumn, 62 CE], began on a sudden to cry aloud,
"A voice from the east,
a voice from the west,
a voice from the four winds,
a voice against Jerusalem and the Holy House,
a voice against the bridegrooms and the brides,
and a voice against this whole people!"

The Romans shot him in the head with a ballista!

But I don't think "Jesus" was any sort of title.

[Justtristo]

Um...well. Let's try this. The word "jesus" does not appear anywhere until the
letter "J" was introduced into Latin which was late in the Middle Ages.

Prior to that it was Iesus in Latin or Iesous in Greek allegedly transliterated from the Hebrew "Yeshua." (Joshua). Joshua does mean "Yahweh Saves" but the use of a theophoric is still a name...not necessarily a title. Josephus mentions over 20 people named Yeshua (Jesus) including this shmuck.

"But, what is still more terrible, there was one Jesus, the son of Ananus, a plebeian and a husbandman, who, four years before the war began, and at a time when the city was in very great peace and prosperity, came to that feast whereon it is our custom for every one to make tabernacles to God in the temple [Sukkot, autumn, 62 CE], began on a sudden to cry aloud,
"A voice from the east,
a voice from the west,
a voice from the four winds,
a voice against Jerusalem and the Holy House,
a voice against the bridegrooms and the brides,
and a voice against this whole people!"

The Romans shot him in the head with a ballista!

But I don't think "Jesus" was any sort of title.

I am aware that Yeshua (Joshua) as a common name among Jews even back then. However as I see it the name would have great significance because of the figure of Joshua in the Old Testament.

Another good analogue would be the name of Caesar, being just a surname originally. However starting with Augustus, one of the titles of the Emperor of Rome was Caesar.

[Jaysyn]

The Romans shot him in the head with a ballista!

Now that is overkill!

[Chuff]

I don't see how anyone can think that the gospels are trustworthy..

err... Because its the GOSPEL truth? It's not a saying for nothing you know