Why do atheists even bother about debating Jesus?

[Confused Ape]

I think was is quite telling about the narative are these verses...

I refuse to believe that a crowd of people who thought they were "in the right" would make such a statement that basically curses themselves and their children.
I suspect this was added sometime after the fact when conversion of the Roman citizens was desired. What Roman would convert to a religion in which the Romans themselves were responsible for murdering the founder?
.

Very good point.

The Bible as we know it wasn't compiled until the Romans took Christianity over.

Council Of Rome

The "Damasine list" is the list of books contained in "Incipit Concilium Vrbis Romae sub Damaso Papa de Explanatione Fidei" (the "Gelasian decree")[1] represents the work of the Council of Rome in 382.

Other Christian sects were regarded as heretics and wiped out. The martyrs were then presented as being Roman Catholics even though Roman Catholicism hadn't been invented at the time.

Christianity only became big news in the Roman Empire because the Romans came to regard Christians as public nuisances.

Government's Motivation For Persecution

Once distinguished from Judaism, Christianity was no longer seen as simply a bizarre sect of an old and venerable religion; it was a superstitio (a superstition).[21] Superstition had for the Romans a much more powerful and dangerous connotation than it does for much of the Western world today: to them, this term meant a set of religious practices that were not only different, but corrosive to society, “disturbing a man’s mind in such a way that he is really going insans” and causing him to lose humanitas (humanity).[22] The persecution of “superstitious” sects was hardly unheard-of in Roman history: an unnamed foreign cult was persecuted during a drought in 428 BCE, some initiates of the Bacchic cult were executed when deemed out-of-hand in 186 BCE, and measures were taken against the Druids during the early Principate.[23]
Even so, the level of persecution experienced by any given community of Christians still depended upon how threatening the local official deemed this new superstitio to be. Christians’ beliefs would not have endeared them to many government officials: they worshipped a convicted criminal, refused to swear by the emperor’s genius, harshly criticized Rome in their holy books, and suspiciously conducted their rites in private. In the early third century one magistrate told Christians "I cannot bring myself so much as to listen to people who speak ill of the Roman way of religion."[24]

[Minimalist]

Although some scholars still postulate pre-Christian gnosticism, no evidence has been found to date.

I don't know when that article was dated, Ape, but recently The Gabriel Revelation stone which dates to the rebellions which broke out upon the death of Herod the Great ( c 4 BC ) indicates that there was a belief in someone coming back to life after 3 days.

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

Since this article was published the disputed word [hayeh] has been confirmed by scholars.

http://www.bib-arch.org/bar/extra.asp?Ar...ticleID=14

After reviewing the document, I came to the conclusion that the reading suggested by Professor Knohl for the third word of line 80—HAYE “live”—seems to be the only plausible reading of that word. Thus, the first five words of this line should be translated as: “In three days live, I Gabriel.”

[Zone]

There are beliefs of someone coming back to life after three days thousands of years before Christianity, see Osiris and Mithras. Three days relates to the period of time when the moon is completely dark before it returns "to life" in the sky.

[catfish]

These points are part of why I like Zeitgeist. But then, I've never been one to believe in what Zeitgeist claims is Chritianity, so I never took offence.
.

[Confused Ape]

Although some scholars still postulate pre-Christian gnosticism, no evidence has been found to date.

I don't know when that article was dated, Ape, but recently The Gabriel Revelation stone which dates to the rebellions which broke out upon the death of Herod the Great ( c 4 BC ) indicates that there was a belief in someone coming back to life after 3 days.

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

Since this article was published the disputed word [hayeh] has been confirmed by scholars.

http://www.bib-arch.org/bar/extra.asp?Ar...ticleID=14

Thanks for the links. This definitely indicates that early Christians adopted the idea of resurrection from other sources.

An Introduction To Gnosticism and The Nag Hammadi Library

In the first century of the Christian era the term “Gnostic” came to denote a heterodox segment of the diverse new Christian community. Among early followers of Christ it appears there were groups who delineated themselves from the greater household of the Church by claiming not simply a belief in Christ and his message, but a "special witness" or revelatory experience of the divine. It was this experience or gnosis that set the true follower of Christ apart, so they asserted. Stephan Hoeller explains that these Christians held a "conviction that direct, personal and absolute knowledge of the authentic truths of existence is accessible to human beings, and, moreover, that the attainment of such knowledge must always constitute the supreme achievement of human life."2

That Gnosticism was, at least briefly, in the mainstream of Christianity is witnessed by the fact that one of its most influential teachers, Valentinus, may have been in consideration during the mid-second century for election as the Bishop of Rome

Have found a bit more out about Justin

Justin Martyr (c. 100/114 – c. 162/168), the early Christian apologist, wrote the First Apology, addresses to Roman Emperor Antoninus Pius, which mentions his lost 'Compendium Against the Heretics', a work which reputedly reports on the activities of Simon Magus, Menander and Marcion; since this time, both Simon and Menander have been considered as 'proto-Gnostic' (Markschies, Gnosis, 37). Despite this paucity of surviving texts Justin Martyr remains a useful historical figure, as he allows us to determine the time and context in which the first gnostic systems arose

As he regarded the Gnostics as heresy and was writing to the Emperor about them there's no reason for him to have mentioned Paul seeing as Pauline Christianity was mainstream.

The article goes on to say this -

Outside of the earliest forms of gnosticism as indicted by the Apocalypse of Adam which is pre-Christian.

I then went to Apocalypse Of Adam

The Apocalypse of Adam discovered in 1946 as part of the Nag Hammadi library (codex V.5) is a Gnostic work written in Coptic. It has no necessary references to Christianity and it is accordingly debated whether it is a Christian Gnostic work or an example of Jewish Gnosticism. It proclaims one form of Sethian Gnosticism.

Adam in his 700th year tells Seth how he learned a word of knowledge of the eternal God from Eve and that he and Eve were indeed more powerful than their supposed creator. But that knowledge was lost in the fall when the subcreator - the demiurge - separated Adam and Eve.

Demiurge

The demiurge is a concept from the Platonic, Neopythagorean, Middle Platonic, and Neoplatonic schools of philosophy for an artisan-like figure responsible for the fashioning and maintenance of the physical universe. The term was subsequently adopted by the Gnostics.

Gnosticism presents a distinction between the highest, unknowable God and the demiurgic “creator” of the material. Several systems of Gnostic thought present the Demiurge as antagonistic to the will of the Supreme Being: his act of creation occurs in unconscious semblance of the divine model, and thus is fundamentally flawed, or else is formed with the malevolent intention of entrapping aspects of the divine in materiality. Thus, in such systems, the Demiurge acts as a solution to the problem of evil.

Sethianism

The Sethians were a Christian Gnostic sect who may date their existence to before Christianity.[1] Their influence spread throughout the Mediterranean into the later systems of the Basilideans and the Valentinians[citation needed]. Their thinking, though it is predominantly Judaic in foundation, is arguably strongly influenced by Platonism. Sethians are so called for their veneration of the biblical Seth, third son of Adam and Eve, who is depicted in their myths of creation as a divine incarnation; consequently, the offspring or 'posterity' of Seth are held to comprise a superior elect within human society.

However, since Sethians identified Seth with Christ (Second Logos of the Great Seth), the view of Philaster that the Sethians had pre-Christian origins, other than in syncretic absorption of Jewish and Greek pre-Christian sources, has been questioned by some modern scholarship.[8]

Looks like scholars are still trying to figure out when Gnosticim in general started.

PS

There are beliefs of someone coming back to life after three days thousands of years before Christianity, see Osiris and Mithras. Three days relates to the period of time when the moon is completely dark before it returns "to life" in the sky.

Christianity developed from Judaism so it's likely that the early Christians got their idea straight from the "Gabriel's Revelation" tablet. The concept of resurrection in three days, however, probably came from the time before the Hebrews developed their monotheistic religion and it was absorbed into Judaism.

PPS: Has anyone found any more links to interesting information?

[Minimalist]

The earliest Roman reference to xtians comes from Pliny the Younger who was appointed Governor of Bythinia-Pontus in 110AD and died in 112 so this gives us a short window to date this observation about the "christians" he ran into.

http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/source/pliny1.asp

They asserted, however, that the sum and substance of their fault or error had been that they were accustomed to meet on a fixed day before dawn and sing responsively a hymn to Christ as to a god, and to bind themselves by oath, not to some crime, but not to commit fraud, theft, or adultery, not falsify their trust, nor to refuse to return a trust when called upon to do so. When this was over, it was their custom to depart and to assemble again to partake of food--but ordinary and innocent food. Even this, they affirmed, they had ceased to do after my edict by which, in accordance with your instructions, I had forbidden political associations. Accordingly, I judged it all the more necessary to find out what the truth was by torturing two female slaves who were called deaconesses. But I discovered nothing else but depraved, excessive superstition.

No mention of a jesus. Nor Pilate. Nor crucifixion. Nor Jerusalem. Nor resurrection. Nor virgin births...mary, joseph, judas, magi, water into wine, etc., etc., etc.

There is a book by Bart Ehrman called Lost Christianities and deals mainly with the gnostics. I highly recommend it.

[Zone]

Christianity developed from Judaism so it's likely that the early Christians got their idea straight from the "Gabriel's Revelation" tablet. The concept of resurrection in three days, however, probably came from the time before the Hebrews developed their monotheistic religion and it was absorbed into Judaism.

PPS: Has anyone found any more links to interesting information?

Jews never traditionally believed in gods in human form only human prophets. Pagans did believe in gods in human form so what seems likely is a fussion of Judiasm and classical paganism. Also themes such as a saviour child being born of a virgin goddess is a classical pagan theme, this goes back millenia before Christ.



The actual Jewish prohecy of the Messiah in it's original Aramaic just says that the Messiah would be born of a young woman not a virgin. This was a good religion for the pagan world to convert to as it had all the imagery and themes they were already used to. I'm sure Jesus was historical but there was a mixture of influences at work in the final dform the religion would take.

[Minimalist]

I'm sure Jesus was historical

Was Thor? Was Marduk? Was Osiris? Was Shiva?

Xtians love special pleading.

[catfish]

Jews never traditionally believed in gods in human form only human prophets. Pagans did believe in gods in human form so what seems likely is a fussion of Judiasm and classical paganism. Also themes such as a saviour child being born of a virgin goddess is a classical pagan theme, this goes back millenia before Christ.

...

The actual Jewish prohecy of the Messiah in it's original Aramaic just says that the Messiah would be born of a young woman not a virgin. This was a good religion for the pagan world to convert to as it had all the imagery and themes they were already used to. I'm sure Jesus was historical but there was a mixture of influences at work in the final dform the religion would take.

Jews were also split on the idea of life after death and reincarnation.
It was most likely the "young woman" you mention was about a sign that would appear within a short time of when it was written.

Early Christians did not believe that Yeshua was God as is pushed in the religion today. Most biblical scholars agree that the gospels got progressively more "supernatual" as time went on until at the end, we had "god" walking with us.
I watched a Christian-Muslim debate once where they talked in great detail about this but I have never been able to find it since. C'mon, Yeshua was a Jew who celebrated Sat Sabbath. Have you ever heard a Christian try to explain why they celebrate on Sun. How about why they say it's OK to celebrate Easter and X-mas...
.

[Confused Ape]

http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/source/pliny1.asp

No mention of a jesus. Nor Pilate. Nor crucifixion. Nor Jerusalem. Nor resurrection. Nor virgin births...mary, joseph, judas, magi, water into wine, etc., etc., etc.

I've just read Pliny's report. He doesn't give in-depth details of what the Christians believed so it's impossible to know what he meant by -

But I discovered nothing else but depraved, excessive superstition.

Maybe Pliny classed things like resurrection and miracle stories as superstition so didn't bother to mention them. Looks like we need to find other sources which give information about what Christians believed between 111-113 AD.

There is a book by Bart Ehrman called Lost Christianities and deals mainly with the gnostics. I highly recommend it.

Thanks. I've made a note of it.

Jews never traditionally believed in gods in human form only human prophets. Pagans did believe in gods in human form so what seems likely is a fussion of Judiasm and classical paganism. Also themes such as a saviour child being born of a virgin goddess is a classical pagan theme, this goes back millenia before Christ.

The Gabriel's Ressurection tablet might have inspired the idea of Jesus coming back from the dead but the virgin birth and other ideas would have had to come from paganism.

I've just been googling for Paul and pagan ideas (all supposing he existed, of course). There seems to be some confusion as to whether Paul introduced the ideas himself or they had already been adopted by the first Christians and he thought they were Christianity.

The actual Jewish prohecy of the Messiah in it's original Aramaic just says that the Messiah would be born of a young woman not a virgin. This was a good religion for the pagan world to convert to as it had all the imagery and themes they were already used to. I'm sure Jesus was historical but there was a mixture of influences at work in the final dform the religion would take.

Virgin Birth Matthew

Hebrew has a specific word "almah", which may mean "maiden," "young woman," or "virgin". When Matthew 1:22 states: "Behold the virgin shall be with child" it uses the Greek term "parthenos" as "virgin" as in the Septuagint translation of Isaiah, while the original Masoretic Isaiah uses the Hebrew "almah".[32] This Greek translation "alters or refines the meaning of Isaiah's original Hebrew: where the prophet had talked only of a ‘young woman’ conceiving and bearing a son, the Septuagint projected ‘young woman’ into the Greek word for ‘virgin’ (parthenos)."[33] Raymond Brown suggests that the translators of the Septuagint may have understood the Hebrew word "almah" to mean virgin in this context.

Was the mistranslation a mistake or deliberate? Maybe it was deliberate to fit what Christians had come to believe by the time this Gospel was written.

Anyway, on to why I'm asking for help in going in to all this. If we say that Jesus never existed we'll just get into the same old arguments with Christians. If, on the other hand, we say it's possible that there was an historical Jesus we can then go straight to what's known about the early history of Christianity and Gnosticism etc.