Was Jesus a historical reality? Carrier thinks it's likely that he wasn't:
The Gospel According to Carrier
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lDpEeHD54Mo
QuoteWas Jesus an author's literary invention and not a real person? In this documentary, historian, scholar and author, Dr. Richard Carrier posits that the anonymous gospel writer (Mark) borrowed themes from Jewish scripture, Homer and the Jewish-Roman war to create a fictitious character in order to promote a new message. Carrier explains that the origin of Christianity was a version of Jewish Hellenism and a later evolution of the common mystery religions of the Mediterranean in the early first century.
The Gospel According to Carrier Part 2
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UmboG2xm5tY
QuoteWhy are mainstream biblical scholars so resistant to the idea that Jesus didn't exist? Why do they continue to believe in an original, undiscovered, hypothetical source document for the Gospels? Historian, author and scholar, Dr. Richard Carrier, addresses these questions as well as the evolution of the Gospels in Part II.
I appreciate his historical research. Jesus wasn't historical. But Carrier's atheism is unnecessary for that, that is a metaphysical position he has. One can certainly have a non-materialist metaphysics, and not be Christian.
I agree with Carrier--Jesus (and his daddy) are fictions. Fictions created by man. And his book 'On The Historicity of Jesus' is a great read as well.
I'm on the fence about this one. It's probably because as a Christian I believed Jesus was real, not as depicted in the Bible, but as an embellishment of some itinerant preacher. OK, so maybe I wasn't a really good Christian, but that's a different thread.
Quote from: SGOS on March 10, 2018, 11:28:08 AM
I'm on the fence about this one. It's probably because as a Christian I believed Jesus was real, not as depicted in the Bible, but as an embellishment of some itinerant preacher. OK, so maybe I wasn't a really good Christian, but that's a different thread.
The past is always projection, based on our personal experiences, direct and indirect thru stories. I think there were itinerant preachers ... there still are. That much is historical, and there may have been even more than one named Yeshua ... but that doesn't make the NT literal, even as a non-supernatural narrative. Ancient times were in some ways, quite different from what we have experienced today.
Quote from: SGOS on March 10, 2018, 11:28:08 AM
I'm on the fence about this one. It's probably because as a Christian I believed Jesus was real, not as depicted in the Bible, but as an embellishment of some itinerant preacher. OK, so maybe I wasn't a really good Christian, but that's a different thread.
For most of my life I thought the same. With such a wide spread belief and for so long it has been held, there must be something at the bottom of all of that. There must be a real man who fostered this stuff, even if he was really just a man. But then I started reading and studying the bible for my own satisfaction, and this lead to a deeper study of Jesus. I read both ends of the spectrum on this--those who are convinced that Jesus is all that is claimed of him and those that doubted it (back in the day it was difficult to find anybody who thought he was not real). The deeper I went the more I realized that there was no 'there' there. There is no evidence that he is a real person. None. That lack of evidence leads me to think he was/is totally developed by various people of the past.
Parts 1 and 2 total 50 minutes. I've watched them both, and Carrier builds his case throughout. But for me, everything he's talking about comes together at 12:55 in part 2, where he explains why scholars are reluctant to open the possibility of the non-existent Jesus, even though many of them privately admit that it's possible that Jesus never existed. Basically, it comes down to peer pressure that can be career ending even though these skeptics are in fact Christians, and will remain so. And it's easy to grasp how this kind of pressure that exists in theological circles today would have existed throughout the last 2000 years.
This resonated with me, because beyond sheer faith, there is not enough evidence to claim Jesus existed, and too many rational reasons not to consider that Jesus is purely made up. Undoubtedly, there have been Christian skeptics since the creation of Christianity as there are today, but the rule of theological thumb seems to be, "Don't go there [Carriers words]," and the thing perpetuates itself as ideologies often do. Claiming Jesus actually existed is just a better sell in Christian Circles. The opposite opens the door to the idea that perhaps the whole religion is a fake.
This doesn't make Christianity a fail without an actual Jesus, and Carrier speculates that we may see a softening on the insistence that Jesus is real in theological circles. What effect that would have on Christianity is hard to say, but as the West becomes more secular, as is currently happening, we are seeing a softening in Christian rigidity of thought and less dependence on the church. I myself professed to be a Christian while entertaining skeptical thoughts. But then look what happened to me. I became a full blown atheist. LOL It's possible that skepticism is a much bigger threat to religion than I think, but I wouldn't place a big bet on that. I'm inclined to think Christianity will simply morph.
At any rate, if you don't want to watch the whole thing, don't miss the last 10 minutes of part 2 starting at 12:55.
Quote from: SGOS on March 10, 2018, 11:28:08 AM
I'm on the fence about this one. It's probably because as a Christian I believed Jesus was real, not as depicted in the Bible, but as an embellishment of some itinerant preacher. OK, so maybe I wasn't a really good Christian, but that's a different thread.
I think it may have been this Jesus -
Jesus bar Ananias (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jesus_ben_Ananias) - that inspired at least part of the story of the Jesus we know of. I think it's at least a good possibility that Flavius Josephus wrote the gospel of Mark, since that's who
wrote about this particular Jesus (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Jewish_War). Also because the only two Josephs in the story of Jesus's life were at the very beginning and the very end of his life. I intend to suss out some other possible links to Josephus , as well, if I can.
Quote from: SGOS on March 10, 2018, 12:52:42 PM
Parts 1 and 2 total 50 minutes. I've watched them both, and Carrier builds his case throughout. But for me, everything he's talking about comes together at 12:55 in part 2, where he explains why scholars are reluctant to open the possibility of the non-existent Jesus, even though many of them privately admit that it's possible that Jesus never existed. Basically, it comes down to peer pressure that can be career ending even though these skeptics are in fact Christians, and will remain so. And it's easy to grasp how this kind of pressure that exists in theological circles today would have existed throughout the last 2000 years.
This resonated with me, because beyond sheer faith, there is not enough evidence to claim Jesus existed, and too many rational reasons not to consider that Jesus is purely made up. Undoubtedly, there have been Christian skeptics since the creation of Christianity as there are today, but the rule of theological thumb seems to be, "Don't go there [Carriers words]," and the thing perpetuates itself as ideologies often do. Claiming Jesus actually existed is just a better sell in Christian Circles. The opposite opens the door to the idea that perhaps the whole religion is a fake.
This doesn't make Christianity a fail without an actual Jesus, and Carrier speculates that we may see a softening on the insistence that Jesus is real in theological circles. What effect that would have on Christianity is hard to say, but as the West becomes more secular, as is currently happening, we are seeing a softening in Christian rigidity of thought and less dependence on the church. I myself professed to be a Christian while entertaining skeptical thoughts. But then look what happened to me. I became a full blown atheist. LOL It's possible that skepticism is a much bigger threat to religion than I think, but I wouldn't place a big bet on that. I'm inclined to think Christianity will simply morph.
At any rate, if you don't want to watch the whole thing, don't miss the last 10 minutes of part 2 starting at 12:55.
If I had my wish, all organized religion would just go away in the blink of an eye. Not going to happen, tho. Like you, I think christianity will morph. Into what--who knows. But if that morphing means fewer Billy Grahams or Joel Osteens, then the better off the world will be. I have read his book--it's a good read and has enough footnotes to keep one researching for years if one is so inclined. I think you'd like it.
Historical Jesus research is a modern activity (from 18th century onward). It has gone thru various phases. The No Historical Jesus period first appeared in the early 20th century, led in part by one of the greatest Historical Jesus advocates, Albert Schweitzer.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quest_for_the_historical_Jesus
A quest, like the search for the holy grail, is a thing of faith. Of course one can have faith even in secular history. I have lost that faith as well.
Well, now that I'm convinced by the No Historical Jesus advocates, I'm on a quest to find out where the whole Jesus myth came from. Who, in fact, did write the gospels, beginning with Mark? If the Bible scholars hadn't been so stuck all this time on there having been a historical Jesus, maybe they'd have figured out more of the real story by now.
Quote from: Unbeliever on March 10, 2018, 01:13:13 PM
I think it may have been this Jesus - Jesus bar Ananias (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jesus_ben_Ananias) - that inspired at least part of the story of the Jesus we know of. I think it's at least a good possibility that Flavius Josephus wrote the gospel of Mark, since that's who wrote about this particular Jesus (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Jewish_War). Also because the only two Josephs in the story of Jesus's life were at the very beginning and the very end of his life. I intend to suss out some other possible links to Josephus , as well, if I can.
From the Link:
Quote
Jesus ben Ananias ("the son of Ananias") [rendered as the "son of Ananus" in the Whiston translation[1]] was a plebeian and a husbandman, who, four years before the First Jewish-Roman War began in 66 AD, went around Jerusalem prophesying the city's destruction
Quote
[rendered as the "son of Ananus" in the Whiston translation[1]]
"son of An anus?" Is that from the Onion Wiki?
"If a man would follow, today, the teachings of the Old Testament, he would be a criminal. If he would follow strictly the teachings of the New, he would be insane."
Robert G. Ingersoll
Quote from: Cavebear on March 12, 2018, 02:39:50 AM
"If a man would follow, today, the teachings of the Old Testament, he would be a criminal. If he would follow strictly the teachings of the New, he would be insane."
Robert G. Ingersoll
The 20th century was pretty insane. The 21st century is stacking up to be more of the same.
Quote from: Baruch on March 12, 2018, 06:39:54 AM
The 20th century was pretty insane. The 21st century is stacking up to be more of the same.
Quote from: Baruch on March 12, 2018, 06:39:54 AM
The 20th century was pretty insane. The 21st century is stacking up to be more of the same.
Maybe, maybe not. We will only know as it develops.
Quote from: Cavebear on March 12, 2018, 02:39:50 AM
"If a man would follow, today, the teachings of the Old Testament, he would be a criminal. If he would follow strictly the teachings of the New, he would be insane."
Robert G. Ingersoll
If people followed strictly the New Testament, they'd be poor, homeless, without a job, without friends, and estranged from family. You cannot make a living giving away all of your possessions, traveling the world and expecting people to take you in to their homes and feed you.
Quote from: Blackleaf on March 12, 2018, 10:22:43 AM
If people followed strictly the New Testament, they'd be poor, homeless, without a job, without friends, and estranged from family. You cannot make a living giving away all of your possessions, traveling the world and expecting people to take you in to their homes and feed you.
Hear, hear! And dilly-dilly, or something like that. SOME of us have to keep the world going or we would all still be living in caves and eating rats.
Quote from: Cavebear on March 12, 2018, 10:29:45 AM
Hear, hear! And dilly-dilly, or something like that. SOME of us have to keep the world going or we would all still be living in caves and eating rats.
You underestimate rats. Rats would be eating people, ask Winston Smith.
Quote from: Cavebear on March 12, 2018, 08:11:51 AM
Maybe, maybe not. We will only know as it develops.
Well in 10 years will will probably have advanced from 4G wireless to 10G wireless, and technophiles will proclaim that is progress, from their homeless shelters.
Quote from: Baruch on March 12, 2018, 12:51:24 PM
You underestimate rats. Rats would be eating people, ask Winston Smith.
I know about that. I gear hornets myself. Put that in your smoke and pipe it...
to me the most logical place to start looking for the existence of Jesus would be the basement of the Vatican. I’m going to guess that somewhere down there a record of what is truth and what is lies has been kept.
Baruch you are an interesting puzzle. You know that the Bible is a collection of myths. You know Jesus is fictitious. You know that several other religious writings are mythical and yet you are still confident in the existence of some kind of deity.
“those poor unfortunate souls†for some Christians proof that Jesus is fiction would lead to a mental breakdown. - Baptists, Presbyterians.. however there are quite a few Catholics that accept the idea of god but they dont necessarily believe that god exists the way their church has taught them. They would still believe in a god minus the Bible or the Catholic church
Quote from: fencerider on March 16, 2018, 11:28:45 PM
to me the most logical place to start looking for the existence of Jesus would be the basement of the Vatican. I’m going to guess that somewhere down there a record of what is truth and what is lies has been kept.
Baruch you are an interesting puzzle. You know that the Bible is a collection of myths. You know Jesus is fictitious. You know that several other religious writings are mythical and yet you are still confident in the existence of some kind of deity.
“those poor unfortunate souls†for some Christians proof that Jesus is fiction would lead to a mental breakdown. - Baptists, Presbyterians.. however there are quite a few Catholics that accept the idea of god but they dont necessarily believe that god exists the way their church has taught them. They would still believe in a god minus the Bible or the Catholic church
I think I understand that Baruch has his own Personal God. It is probably impossible to push him away from that. THat's why I gave up on him.
Quote from: fencerider on March 16, 2018, 11:28:45 PM
to me the most logical place to start looking for the existence of Jesus would be the basement of the Vatican. I’m going to guess that somewhere down there a record of what is truth and what is lies has been kept.
Baruch you are an interesting puzzle. You know that the Bible is a collection of myths. You know Jesus is fictitious. You know that several other religious writings are mythical and yet you are still confident in the existence of some kind of deity.
“those poor unfortunate souls†for some Christians proof that Jesus is fiction would lead to a mental breakdown. - Baptists, Presbyterians.. however there are quite a few Catholics that accept the idea of god but they dont necessarily believe that god exists the way their church has taught them. They would still believe in a god minus the Bible or the Catholic church
People, not just atheists, use stereotypes to characterized people. All stereotypes are false. Everyone is a unique individual. But we can't handle that level of complexity. We can't even handle well the complexity of dealing with even one other person, let alone ourselves.
So as a master of all facts (a brainiac) I am sure you don't have that problem? Yes, I think a lot of people would have a mental breakdown if their false narrative was challenged, let alone overturned. How about the 2016 election?
It would be elitist of me to say, that more sophisticated people have more sophisticated ideas. Certainly atheists believe that ;-) As a mystic, I don't believe in any scriptures or other authority. This is why mystics are the disruptors of organized religions. But there aren't many of us. I would hope that many religious people are able to at least partially see past the authoritarianism or biblicism of their religions, but I am not holding my breath on that.
Catholics, technically, aren't biblicists like many Protestants. They see salvation thru the Church, not thru the Bible. Salvation thru the Church as a whole, but the whole is a hierarchy of power (authorized by G-d). Clergy and laity each have their part, and the Bible is just one of many tools.
Rabbinic Judaism and Islam are similar. For Rabbinic Judaism, salvation is thru a people (ethnos) who have a permanent contract with G-d. The Tanakh is extended with the Talmud and rabbinic interpretations. Along with Christianity, Rabbinic Judaism and Islam are consistently medieval.
For Islam, salvation is thru the Mosque (a hierarchy with Arab Muslims at the top for Sunnis, a hierarchy with ayatollahs at the top for Shia). Sunnis are similar to Protestants, and Shia are similar to Catholics. Biblicism (with Quran) is primary with Sunnis, less so with Shia (whose ayatollahs have exclusive interpretation of the Quran).
Catholic = any kind of "high" church. Shia = Iran, Ismailis etc. Mormons don't count as a form of Christianity, since the Book of Mormon makes them separate, and they have a clerical hierarchy (so a "high" church).
Quote from: Cavebear on March 17, 2018, 03:06:29 AM
I think I understand that Baruch has his own Personal God. It is probably impossible to push him away from that. THat's why I gave up on him.
An impersonal god, as many religious have, makes no sense to me either. But yes, my personal god is more individual than what that term means to Evangelical Christians. Mystics are like that.
Why are you an evangelical atheist? Usually here that means ... to push the holy agenda of the DNC or some other Leftist group (malcontents determined to anarchy or revolution). For political reasons, y'all find it necessary to endorse your own flavor of totalitarianism.
If I see G-d everywhere and in everyone (and in everything), then my opposite is a cosmic/anthropic nihilist. Some people here are some kind of nihilist. So I will seem incomprehensible, because I am actually variant to their gestalt.
Quote from: Baruch on March 17, 2018, 03:44:34 AM
An impersonal god, as many religious have, makes no sense to me either. But yes, my personal god is more individual than what that term means to Evangelical Christians. Mystics are like that.
Why are you an evangelical atheist? Usually here that means ... to push the holy agenda of the DNC or some other Leftist group (malcontents determined to anarchy or revolution). For political reasons, y'all find it necessary to endorse your own flavor of totalitarianism.
If I see G-d everywhere and in everyone (and in everything), then my opposite is a cosmic/anthropic nihilist. Some people here are some kind of nihilist. So I will seem incomprehensible, because I am actually variant to their gestalt.
Insults and stereotypes veiled in a matrix of Baruchian gibberish.
Quote from: SGOS on March 17, 2018, 06:54:59 AM
Insults and stereotypes veiled in a matrix of Baruchian gibberish.
Well, that IS what he does, for reasons I probably never will understand. He lives in a world of his own construction. And why I finally put him on the ignore list. There came a point where his 90% pointless arguments made the 10% slightly sensible ones just not worth the effort of bothering to read.
Quote from: SGOS on March 17, 2018, 06:54:59 AM
Insults and stereotypes veiled in a matrix of Baruchian gibberish.
If you aren't an ape ... a Leftist ... an atheist ... a Rightist ... a theist ... then what are you (plural)? I think I covered all reasonable possibilities. I certainly don't agree with X or Y, but I don't oppose X or Y, because I don't have a political agenda. I don't need to make all people have the same language, or the same culture, or the same political agenda. And at the very first paragraph, I dealt with the question of stereotypes. I don't know anyone posting here who doesn't use them (each in their own way). And insults is what many posters are all about ... though often veiled insults.
And yes, it would seem, given that I am maximally variant to many people here, my semantics (damn that philosophy stuff) is going to be hard to parse. I do think, that I understand most other posters, if not every post made. The stereotype of "common" humanity is my mistake perhaps.
Quote from: Baruch on March 17, 2018, 03:41:24 AM
Mormons don't count as a form of Christianity, since the Book of Mormon makes them separate, and they have a clerical hierarchy (so a "high" church).
The Mormons believe that Jesus was the Christ, the Son of the Living God - that makes them Christians, whatever form their particular religion takes. The early Christians had many forms of worship, but that didn't make any of
them not Christians either.
Quote from: Baruch on March 17, 2018, 03:41:24 AM
People, not just atheists, use stereotypes to characterized people. All stereotypes are false. Everyone is a unique individual. But we can't handle that level of complexity. We can't even handle well the complexity of dealing with even one other person, let alone ourselves.
sometimes its easier to deal with other people than ourselves.
So Baruch is a mystic. I will have to leave it at that. Y’all have spent a great deal more time studyin religion than I have. I’m not going to pretend I know something that you don’t.
I get Baruch’s point about individualism. I work with a guy that was raised Catholic. He never goes to church and doesnt do things Catholics are supposed to do, but he has a belief in a Catholic god mixed with something else. My ex from Equador has a belief in a mix of a Catholic god, south American paganism and a universal energy field. and I know a Japanese woman whose parents are Shinto. She went to a Mormon church until they tried to force her to marry a guy she didnt like. Interesting combination.
I guess there isnt much difference in believing in something written down in a religious writing or believing in your own combination of religious ideas; except social acceptability.
O.P. maybe the world would be a better place if the myth was exposed back when it was created. But people in power discover the joy if manipulating the people they control. Burying a myth may have ended their fun
Quote from: Unbeliever on March 17, 2018, 02:05:12 PM
The Mormons believe that Jesus was the Christ, the Son of the Living God - that makes them Christians, whatever form their particular religion takes. The early Christians had many forms of worship, but that didn't make any of them not Christians either.
Please make your pilgrimage to Salt Lake City then. Sounds like you accept the claims of Mormon missionaries. My pilgrimage would be to Jerusalem, not Rome or Canterbury or any of those other Gentile tourist traps ;-)
Any Christian is to a degree, Bible based, as the text they have since about 400 CE. Joseph Smith came up with a totally new scripture ... so then are Muslims Christian? They came up with a new "biblical" scripture, and it is way more "biblical" than the near Scientology text that the Book of Mormon is.
Quote from: fencerider on March 17, 2018, 02:08:15 PM
I guess there isnt much difference in believing in something written down in a religious writing or believing in your own combination of religious ideas; except social acceptability.
People believing in their own combination of religious ideas was exactly what the Roman Catholic Church was trying to put an end to, way back in the 3rd century - that's what the word "catholic" means, universal. The Romans were hoping they could unite their empire if everyone believed the same "orthodox" tenets, so they did everything they could to root out all of the beliefs that they didn't approve of - mostly by murdering the "heterodox" believers: those who were guilty of what they (the RCC) considered to be heresy.
Quote from: fencerider on March 17, 2018, 02:08:15 PM
sometimes its easier to deal with other people than ourselves.
So Baruch is a mystic. I will have to leave it at that. Y’all have spent a great deal more time studyin religion than I have. I’m not going to pretend I know something that you don’t.
I get Baruch’s point about individualism. I work with a guy that was raised Catholic. He never goes to church and doesnt do things Catholics are supposed to do, but he has a belief in a Catholic god mixed with something else. My ex from Equador has a belief in a mix of a Catholic god, south American paganism and a universal energy field. and I know a Japanese woman whose parents are Shinto. She went to a Mormon church until they tried to force her to marry a guy she didnt like. Interesting combination.
I guess there isnt much difference in believing in something written down in a religious writing or believing in your own combination of religious ideas; except social acceptability.
O.P. maybe the world would be a better place if the myth was exposed back when it was created. But people in power discover the joy if manipulating the people they control. Burying a myth may have ended their fun
Real experience by real people ... is empirical, and at least superficially free of idealism or rationalization. This input is anecdotal, but seems reasonable. Yes, as per Freud's nephew, Edward Bernays, everything is marketing now, commercial or political. And the apes eat it up like candy turds. If you presented facts to people (in the sense usually meant here) they would simply say ... false news ;-) Without manipulation and confirmation bias, the GDP would go to zero overnight. Please wait ... while I order that "slicer-dicer" being advertised on the pop-up add right now ...
Quote from: Baruch on March 17, 2018, 02:11:41 PM
Please make your pilgrimage to Salt Lake City then. Sounds like you accept the claims of Mormon missionaries.
What!? Just because I post my understanding of what Mormons believe, you claim it sounds like I believe it!? Why do you post such stupid shit?
Quote from: Unbeliever on March 17, 2018, 02:15:35 PM
People believing in their own combination of religious ideas was exactly what the Roman Catholic Church was trying to put an end to, way back in the 3rd century - that's what the word "catholic" means, universal. The Romans were hoping they could unite their empire if everyone believed the same "orthodox" tenets, so they did everything they could to root out all of the beliefs that they didn't approve of - mostly by murdering the "heterodox" believers: those who were guilty of what they (the RCC) considered to be heresy.
Part of Constantine's brilliant plan. Outlived him by 1700 years already. Yes, the pagan temples were government subsidized (state religion) so drop their subsidy, and have Christian mobs tear them down. And Christians who seem to deviate ... execute them. One of my Roman ancestors, Emperor Magnus Maximus, was the first Christian to execute other Christians for deviancy.
Quote from: Unbeliever on March 17, 2018, 02:18:28 PM
What!? Just because I post my understanding of what Mormons believe, you claim it sounds like I believe it!? Why do you post such stupid shit?
No sarc tag. Meanwhile I can send you all my copies of Watchtower if you want ;-))
Quote from: Baruch on March 17, 2018, 02:11:41 PM
so then are Muslims Christian?
The Muslims don't believe that Jesus was the Christ, the Son of God, they believe he was a prophet - so no, they are not Christians. You know that as well as I do, so why do you post such stupid shit!?
Quote from: Unbeliever on March 17, 2018, 02:20:26 PM
The Muslims don't believe that Jesus was the Christ, the Son of God, they believe he was a prophet - so no, they are not Christians. You know that as well as I do, so why do you post such stupid shit!?
I was mentioning "biblical". And no, I don't believe for a minute, when they are in their magic underwear, that Mormons believe that Jesus was the Christ. But then neither do I. But I am not a Mormon. The original scriptures are more than enough for me, I don't need Joseph Smith. The Muslims added new scriptures, and went farther than Christians, in replacing the originals. Mormonism is very close to that ...
which angel was of higher rank? The one that talked to Mohammed or the one that talked to Smith?ðŸ¤"
I vote for Smith. He had scrolls made out of beaten gold. Mohammed only got paper ;-)
Quote from: Unbeliever on March 17, 2018, 02:20:26 PM
The Muslims don't believe that Jesus was the Christ, the Son of God, they believe he was a prophet - so no, they are not Christians. You know that as well as I do, so why do you post such stupid shit!?
Baruch is just playing with you. He didn't care about your actual answer. It was just fodder for another post to reply to. It SEEMS to me that is all he has in life.
Quote from: fencerider on March 18, 2018, 01:26:10 AM
which angel was of higher rank? The one that talked to Mohammed or the one that talked to Smith?ðŸ¤"
I vote for Smith. He had scrolls made out of beaten gold. Mohammed only got paper ;-)
The clue is in the name ... Moroni ... really? And Gabriel was Xena's girlfriend.
Quote from: fencerider on March 18, 2018, 01:26:10 AM
which angel was of higher rank? The one that talked to Mohammed or the one that talked to Smith?ðŸ¤"
I vote for Smith. He had scrolls made out of beaten gold. Mohammed only got paper ;-)
And Moses got stone. You see I hope that all the claims are just sad imaginationings...
I am not completely sold on Carrier's mythicist evidence, but he does make a pretty good case, seems to me.
I watch every YT video from him.
He has pretty impressive credentials.
Quote from: Simon Moon on March 26, 2018, 07:05:47 PM
I am not completely sold on Carrier's mythicist evidence, but he does make a pretty good case, seems to me.
I watch every YT video from him.
He has pretty impressive credentials.
Have you read any of his books? On The Historicity of Jesus, is especially good. Good enough for me to think Jesus was a myth.
Quote from: Mike Cl on March 26, 2018, 08:43:21 PM
Have you read any of his books? On The Historicity of Jesus, is especially good. Good enough for me to think Jesus was a myth.
I've always noted that the Romans kept good civil records and Jesus wasn't among them.
I find it interesting that not a single contemporary historian mentioned Jesus.
Quote from: Mike Cl on March 26, 2018, 11:30:17 PM
I find it interesting that not a single contemporary historian mentioned Jesus.
I mentioned that to a Jehovah's Witness once and he went nearly apoplectic. Then he kept visiting me giving biblical quotes saying about Jesus. And I kept pointing out that none of the biblical quotes presented any actual evidence. He never actually understood the difference between faith and evidence. But at least he stopped coming by.
And then, about a month ago, I saw them coming down the street and they visited every house but mine. I actually watched them carefully, because it would have been useful to see if they skipped another house as that would have meant another atheist. Sadly, no...
Maybe brush your teeth more (halitosis joke). To get more visitors than cats ...
"He never actually understood the difference between faith and evidence." Bonus for you. Door-to-door evangelists only know a script, their knowledge is shallow and their understanding less (Mormon evangelists are very young). I do know the difference, but am religious anyway. But I had to find a way to do that, and working that out was my road to self development. If I had stayed as shallow as I was at half my present age ...
Evidence is tricky, with history. Written evidence, even contemporary, is less than it seems ... whereas scripture thumpers are the exact opposite, because of written "evidence", and because it is popular, they are completely convinced. But you and I know, the oldest existing semi-complete gospels are 150 years late, even if they meant anything other than fan fiction. For me they are evidence of advocacy psychology, not of history. Christians were subversives, particularly when they became a Gentile movement. Real Christians are still subversive, but have been tamed by the modern status quo (except in Africa where they burn witches).
Quote from: Cavebear on March 27, 2018, 01:03:59 AM
I mentioned that to a Jehovah's Witness once and he went nearly apoplectic. Then he kept visiting me giving biblical quotes saying about Jesus. And I kept pointing out that none of the biblical quotes presented any actual evidence. He never actually understood the difference between faith and evidence. But at least he stopped coming by.
And then, about a month ago, I saw them coming down the street and they visited every house but mine. I actually watched them carefully, because it would have been useful to see if they skipped another house as that would have meant another atheist. Sadly, no...
It seems you succeeded quite well! :) We ended up putting a large sign that reads "No Soliciting" on our mail box by the front door. It seems to keep them away. Oddly enough it does not work quite as well for some of the door-to-door scammers who visit every now and again. Had a PG&E worker come to my door yesterday (except PG&E do not go door-to-door)--had to resort to the the old 'get the fuck off my porch'--slams door and locks it, approach. That finally worked.
Quote from: Mike Cl on March 27, 2018, 12:16:44 PM
It seems you succeeded quite well! :) We ended up putting a large sign that reads "No Soliciting" on our mail box by the front door. It seems to keep them away. Oddly enough it does not work quite as well for some of the door-to-door scammers who visit every now and again. Had a PG&E worker come to my door yesterday (except PG&E do not go door-to-door)--had to resort to the the old 'get the fuck off my porch'--slams door and locks it, approach. That finally worked.
With Smart Meters the utility company or the city, can tell what you are doing without visiting. Facebook tells all about you.
Quote from: Cavebear on March 27, 2018, 01:03:59 AM
I mentioned that to a Jehovah's Witness once and he went nearly apoplectic. Then he kept visiting me giving biblical quotes saying about Jesus. And I kept pointing out that none of the biblical quotes presented any actual evidence. He never actually understood the difference between faith and evidence. But at least he stopped coming by.
And then, about a month ago, I saw them coming down the street and they visited every house but mine. I actually watched them carefully, because it would have been useful to see if they skipped another house as that would have meant another atheist. Sadly, no...
I let some young guys in, and they were grateful about that, so when they didn't make any headway with me, they brought in the big guns. The Church Minister showed up a couple of times, and then he handed the saving of my soul to an older woman about my age who showed up in a Cadillac and with a book marked Bible, with all the passages that proved the Bible was the word of God. Finally, she gave up, and that was the last I heard from them.
However, I called the minister, who was also a building contractor, a few years later when I needed a cement pour for a garage floor. He was busy, but he said he would send his sons, who worked for him. Now the hand of God must have been at work, because a true honest to God miracle happened, actually two miracles in quick succession. First, the cement guys, two scrappy lads in their twenties, actually showed up on the day they said they would. This has never been known to happen, as far as I know. Their personalized license plates, "ELK AHOLIC" attested to their devotion to elk hunting, and when I asked them if they would give me a hand with a massive beam, they each grabbed an end, hoisted over their heads and put it in place so I could secure it later. The second miracle was that they left with the best cement pour I ever had, smooth as silk, and it never cracked while I lived there. I've never had a garage floor that never cracked before.
Quote from: Mike Cl on March 26, 2018, 11:30:17 PM
I find it interesting that not a single contemporary historian mentioned Jesus.
None of them mentioned Saul/Paul either, but Carrier, and I suppose others, consider him to have been a historical person. I'm still skeptical about that, too, along with my doubt about the historicity of JC.
Quote from: SGOS on March 27, 2018, 12:46:58 PM
I've never had a garage floor that never cracked before.
Garage floors are not always what they're cracked up to be...;-)
Carrier?
(http://nationalinterest.org/files/styles/main_image_on_posts/public/main_images/uss_carl_vinson_cvn-70_underway_in_the_pacific_ocean_on_31_may_2015.jpg?itok=YVRH7lyy)
Quote from: Baruch on March 27, 2018, 12:43:05 PM
Facebook tells all about you.
Not really. I have not visited that place in years and when I did it was for less than a week. So, at best they have a week's worth--that's it.
Quote from: Unbeliever on March 27, 2018, 01:18:25 PM
Garage floors are not always what they're cracked up to be...;-)
Am I going to have to send you to your room, again?
Quote from: SGOS on March 27, 2018, 03:41:42 PM
Am I going to have to send you to your room, again?
Oh goody, then I can catch up on my technical manuals, like Scotty!
Paul wrote about a spiritual Jesus, not a historical one ... that is a big tell. His own reported encounter was an epiphany, not shaking hands with flesh and blood. Typical prophetic experience, like Muhammad encountering Gabriel. That tells me, more than anything else that Paul was historical himself. His biography (Acts) was a hagiography, so only sort of true. Christians came over time to insist of historicity, because they were challenged by opponents to put up or shut up.
Quote from: Mike Cl on March 27, 2018, 01:47:43 PM
Not really. I have not visited that place in years and when I did it was for less than a week. So, at best they have a week's worth--that's it.
Your posts, lead to connections, which lead to connections. That is what Cambridge Analytica is all about, correlation of meta-data. Your context tells more about you, than you did directly.
Quote from: Baruch on March 27, 2018, 09:20:00 PM
Paul wrote about a spiritual Jesus, not a historical one ... that is a big tell. His own reported encounter was an epiphany, not shaking hands with flesh and blood. Typical prophetic experience, like Muhammad encountering Gabriel. That tells me, more than anything else that Paul was historical himself. His biography (Acts) was a hagiography, so only sort of true. Christians came over time to insist of historicity, because they were challenged by opponents to put up or shut up.
I don't think Acts of the Apostles was in any way historical nor was the gospel of Luke, written by the same person, and I agree here with Carrier:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B5MUUP4l6l4
OK ... no Paul, no Jesus, no Luke ... so this was cooked up by a drunk Emperor Vespasian at a orgy at the Temple of Venus?
Well, we don't know yet who thought it up and developed it into what it later became - that's the thing we're all trying to figure out.
I remain unconvinced that a historical Jesus is even relevant, since the vast, *vast* majority of Christians are followers of Paul's writings far more than they are of the teachings attributed to a Jeshua bar-Joseph.
It's more probable, IMO, that the character of Jesus is an amalgamation of any number of messianic itinerant preachers roving the Mid-East about two thousand years ago. For my money, it's more probable that any historical Jesus was actually a time traveler stumbling into the role than an actual god (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Behold_the_Man_(novel))...
Quote from: trdsf on March 28, 2018, 08:43:42 PM
I remain unconvinced that a historical Jesus is even relevant, since the vast, *vast* majority of Christians are followers of Paul's writings far more than they are of the teachings attributed to a Jeshua bar-Joseph.
It's more probable, IMO, that the character of Jesus is an amalgamation of any number of messianic itinerant preachers roving the Mid-East about two thousand years ago. For my money, it's more probable that any historical Jesus was actually a time traveler stumbling into the role than an actual god (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Behold_the_Man_(novel))...
When the time traveller tried to sell Pontius Pilate on BitCoin ... that is when they crucified him ;-)
Quote from: SGOS on March 27, 2018, 12:46:58 PM
I let some young guys in, and they were grateful about that, so when they didn't make any headway with me, they brought in the big guns. The Church Minister showed up a couple of times, and then he handed the saving of my soul to an older woman about my age who showed up in a Cadillac and with a book marked Bible, with all the passages that proved the Bible was the word of God. Finally, she gave up, and that was the last I heard from them.
However, I called the minister, who was also a building contractor, a few years later when I needed a cement pour for a garage floor. He was busy, but he said he would send his sons, who worked for him. Now the hand of God must have been at work, because a true honest to God miracle happened, actually two miracles in quick succession. First, the cement guys, two scrappy lads in their twenties, actually showed up on the day they said they would. This has never been known to happen, as far as I know. Their personalized license plates, "ELK AHOLIC" attested to their devotion to elk hunting, and when I asked them if they would give me a hand with a massive beam, they each grabbed an end, hoisted over their heads and put it in place so I could secure it later. The second miracle was that they left with the best cement pour I ever had, smooth as silk, and it never cracked while I lived there. I've never had a garage floor that never cracked before.
Well, I certainly wouldn't have specifically called a religious construction worker to do work on my house, but I wouldn't have refused one either. My experience in that the 2 ideas aren't much connected. In fact the duo I hired to replace my 30 year old bathtub and tile all around (based on quality reports) turned out to be not only very religious but utter racists as well.
They did quality work. But I won't ever use them again. I couldn't stand listening the country music they played all day. Drove me CRAZY, but I never want to wake someone doing work in the house. The music lasts a couple days, the tub lasts for 30 years. You have to put up with stuff sometimes.
Quote from: trdsf on March 28, 2018, 08:43:42 PM
I remain unconvinced that a historical Jesus is even relevant, since the vast, *vast* majority of Christians are followers of Paul's writings far more than they are of the teachings attributed to a Jeshua bar-Joseph.
It's more probable, IMO, that the character of Jesus is an amalgamation of any number of messianic itinerant preachers roving the Mid-East about two thousand years ago. For my money, it's more probable that any historical Jesus was actually a time traveler stumbling into the role than an actual god (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Behold_the_Man_(novel))...
That certainly seems most likely to me. There were wandering preachers of varying ideas among the Roman-occupied Jews in a time of great social stress. That some various writers a century or 2 later (a length of time far longer in perception then that it is to us today, having a better sense of history) should combine the ideas of many preachers into one is not a great surprise.
And that some small group of believers who disagreed with each other at first about the details of the new ideas slowly settled on some basic agreement is not exactly a surprise either. People compromise to get allies, after all.
And as in all ideologies, some leaders rise to the top and negotiate agreements. There were a lot of various "christian" sects at one point. One group won. Until the Protestant Revolution...
A general cultural history observation ...
Biblical culture is geographically, Greater Syria (modern Syria, Lebanon, Jordan, Israel, Palestine). This was generated circa 1500-500 BCE by the larger forces of Mesopotamia (Iraq) and Egypt. From 500 BCE to 500 CE ... this ME culture was modulated by incursions by India-Europeans ... first the Persians, then the Greeks, finally the Romans. Judaism today is largely the product of the Greco-Roman period, as is Christianity. Judaism adheres more closely to the ME model, Christianity is a mixed bag of ME and Indo-European cultures. Islam on the other hand, was influenced by Zoroastrianism (Persia), Christianity (in the RE, Persia and Ethiopia), and Judaism. It is like a ME echo of Judaism that originally only applied to Arabs, as Judaism was originally only applied to Jews. Eventually both Christianity and Islam became multiethnic, on the way to becoming world-faiths. And that basically takes us thru 500 CE until 1000 CE ... after which Asia (nomads) becomes more prominent in the ME and E Europe.
Quote from: Cavebear on March 29, 2018, 09:16:16 PM
That certainly seems most likely to me. There were wandering preachers of varying ideas among the Roman-occupied Jews in a time of great social stress. That some various writers a century or 2 later (a length of time far longer in perception then that it is to us today, having a better sense of history) should combine the ideas of many preachers into one is not a great surprise.
Oh, even today, it doesn't take all that long for an otherwise unremarkable event to be blown into epic proportions completely out of touch with the reality at the base. How long did it take for some wreckage at Roswell to get inflated not only into a UFO crash, but on into 'dead alien bodies recovered' and even 'living aliens recovered that soon died' and 'well, where else did stealth fighter technology come from if not alien spaceships'. And that took only around 30 years, well within the living memory of many, and in a technologically advanced society with mass media.
It's even
easier to do that now than it was in 1947â€"I mean, look at the number of stories planted during the 2016 election that got taken seriously enough for news coverage, that some people still believe are true even though they've been demonstrated utterly false.
Quote from: Baruch on May 28, 2018, 02:21:51 PM
A general cultural history observation ...
Biblical culture is geographically, Greater Syria (modern Syria, Lebanon, Jordan, Israel, Palestine). This was generated circa 1500-500 BCE by the larger forces of Mesopotamia (Iraq) and Egypt. From 500 BCE to 500 CE ... this ME culture was modulated by incursions by India-Europeans ... first the Persians, then the Greeks, finally the Romans. Judaism today is largely the product of the Greco-Roman period, as is Christianity. Judaism adheres more closely to the ME model, Christianity is a mixed bag of ME and Indo-European cultures. Islam on the other hand, was influenced by Zoroastrianism (Persia), Christianity (in the RE, Persia and Ethiopia), and Judaism. It is like a ME echo of Judaism that originally only applied to Arabs, as Judaism was originally only applied to Jews. Eventually both Christianity and Islam became multiethnic, on the way to becoming world-faiths. And that basically takes us thru 500 CE until 1000 CE ... after which Asia (nomads) becomes more prominent in the ME and E Europe.
I actually sort of agree with you about that. Islam is mostly a sub-set of Judaism adapted to desert nomadic practices. That they hate each other so much is mostly by the argument about whether a Messiah has come. Christianity got out of the way for a while by moving to Europe (and the Moslems wiping out the non-Roman Christians in North Africa) until the Moslems attacked Christians in East and Southwest Europe until the Christians attacked back (recently militarized by the Vikings and Mongols).
If you are thinking I think the whole 3 groups are all messed up together, you are correct.
Quote from: Cavebear on May 29, 2018, 06:10:46 AM
I actually sort of agree with you about that. Islam is mostly a sub-set of Judaism adapted to desert nomadic practices. That they hate each other so much is mostly by the argument about whether a Messiah has come. Christianity got out of the way for a while by moving to Europe (and the Moslems wiping out the non-Roman Christians in North Africa) until the Moslems attacked Christians in East and Southwest Europe until the Christians attacked back (recently militarized by the Vikings and Mongols).
If you are thinking I think the whole 3 groups are all messed up together, you are correct.
Culture is like that. Culture includes language and "world of imagination". Ancient Egyptian imagination includes the Sun god, Ra. If you were in that culture, and of that culture, you would see Ra rise in the morning and set in the evening (see perception remark in Shoutbox). Unless of course you were an Aten heretic like Akenaten.
Are perceptions wrong, or just different according to time and place. The national boundaries (as an SJW would tell you) aren't lines n the ground, just on a map. Their presence is agreed to perception, of course we don't all agree on them, hence illegal immigration.
We share a lot of culture across time and space, but only in one direction of time. You and I share by being from the same culture, more or less. There is a lot of Egypt and Babylon in Judaism and Christianity, and from them, into Islam. This is well known, but deliberately ignored, by theologians. In Christianity for example, you will find a lot of Amun, Ptah, Khnum, Horus and Osiris in it. This is why Egypt is the first nation to take to Christianity (but not the Roman or Byzantine kind). IMHO, Christianity comes as much for Egypt, as it does from Judea. Worship like an Egyptian ;-) As a literate person, as a scribe, you and eye are entitled to show our status by wearing green malachite eye shadow ;-)) All Egyptians who could wore kohl, aka mascara ... that is to act as bug poison to prevent fly eggs, and to protect the eyes from over-exposure to bright sunlight (they didn't have sunglasses yet).
Quote from: Baruch on May 29, 2018, 06:28:48 AM
Culture is like that. Culture includes language and "world of imagination". Ancient Egyptian imagination includes the Sun god, Ra. If you were in that culture, and of that culture, you would see Ra rise in the morning and set in the evening (see perception remark in Shoutbox). Unless of course you were an Aten heretic like Akenaten.
Are perceptions wrong, or just different according to time and place. The national boundaries (as an SJW would tell you) aren't lines n the ground, just on a map. Their presence is agreed to perception, of course we don't all agree on them, hence illegal immigration.
We share a lot of culture across time and space, but only in one direction of time. You and I share by being from the same culture, more or less. There is a lot of Egypt and Babylon in Judaism and Christianity, and from them, into Islam. This is well known, but deliberately ignored, by theologians. In Christianity for example, you will find a lot of Amun, Ptah, Khnum, Horus and Osiris in it. This is why Egypt is the first nation to take to Christianity (but not the Roman or Byzantine kind). IMHO, Christianity comes as much for Egypt, as it does from Judea. Worship like an Egyptian ;-) As a literate person, as a scribe, you and eye are entitled to show our status by wearing green malachite eye shadow ;-)) All Egyptians who could wore kohl, aka mascara ... that is to act as bug poison to prevent fly eggs, and to protect the eyes from over-exposure to bright sunlight (they didn't have sunglasses yet).
Most of which is ignored by rational people like atheists now as them. The difference is that we atheists today don't usually get carved up or shunned as much. And the day is coming when we are going to be the majority.
Quote from: Cavebear on May 29, 2018, 06:40:31 AM
Most of which is ignored by rational people like atheists now as them. The difference is that we atheists today don't usually get carved up or shunned as much. And the day is coming when we are going to be the majority.
Nihilists hate culture. So atheism comes naturally to them. But not all atheists are nihilists (human culture haters). Some Jews can't stand the sound of German, because of what happened earlier. Understandable but irrational. Many atheists are former theists (but you are not). They are still rejecting their prior experience with religion or with their upbringing. Think of a Frenchman who hates the French language ... Sacre merde!
Quote from: Baruch on May 29, 2018, 07:15:42 AM
Nihilists hate culture. So atheism comes naturally to them. But not all atheists are nihilists (human culture haters). Some Jews can't stand the sound of German, because of what happened earlier. Understandable but irrational. Many atheists are former theists (but you are not). They are still rejecting their prior experience with religion or with their upbringing. Think of a Frenchman who hates the French language ... Sacre merde!
Yeah, all kinds of atheists. All kinds of theists too, and many for worse reasons...
Quote from: Cavebear on May 29, 2018, 07:55:17 AM
Yeah, all kinds of atheists. All kinds of theists too, and many for worse reasons...
There is no respecting monkeys.
Quote from: Baruch on May 29, 2018, 01:30:17 PM
There is no respecting monkeys.
Monkeys can be respected for what they are. As can bats and rats and alley cats, sure as you're born.
Quote from: Baruch on May 29, 2018, 07:15:42 AM
Nihilists hate culture.
Why do you so often paint with the broadest possible brush? I'm a nihilist, as you know, and I don't think I hate culture. Maybe you could clarify your meaning?
Quote from: Unbeliever on May 29, 2018, 02:47:31 PM
Why do you so often paint with the broadest possible brush? I'm a nihilist, as you know, and I don't think I hate culture. Maybe you could clarify your meaning?
He paints with the broadest brush possible because he thinks broadly but shallowly. Its just easier to post fast that way.
Quote from: Cavebear on May 29, 2018, 02:28:21 PM
Monkeys can be respected for what they are. As can bats and rats and alley cats, sure as you're born.
I have a right to despise or appreciate. So sue me, Susan. I know what "rhetoric" means. Do you know what "literal" means?
Quote from: Unbeliever on May 29, 2018, 02:47:31 PM
Why do you so often paint with the broadest possible brush? I'm a nihilist, as you know, and I don't think I hate culture. Maybe you could clarify your meaning?
If Mikey hates everything, he is a nihilist. Are you Mikey? Do you need to "specialize" everything? Yes, I do "generalize" everything. This is how I burlesque extreme positions. Your comment is a perfect example of "not a true Scotsman". You know, since it has been discussed not long ago here, there is more than one kind of nihilist.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=34wJt3pRY0w
Can you think like a toddler? You can if you try. Now finish your cereal and get ready for play school ;-)
Quote from: Cavebear on May 29, 2018, 02:49:26 PM
He paints with the broadest brush possible because he thinks broadly but shallowly. Its just easier to post fast that way.
Yes, I do post fast. Everlyn Woods fast. When I go into detail, I usually get cricket sounds in response. So my approach is an efficient use of my effort.