3 Years In Prison For Insulting the Catholic church

[FrankDK]

> Mary was the world's best liar, Joseph was the world's dumbest husband.

It's much more likely that the whole story was just made up.  The Jesus of the gospels is a compilation of earlier savior gods like Horus and Mithra, Jesus ben Pantera (son of a Jewish woman named Mary and a Roman soldier named Pantera), and John the Baptist.

Frank

[GurrenLagann]

> Mary was the world's best liar, Joseph was the world's dumbest husband.

It's much more likely that the whole story was just made up.  The Jesus of the gospels is a compilation of earlier savior gods like Horus and Mithra, Jesus ben Pantera (son of a Jewish woman named Mary and a Roman soldier named Pantera), and John the Baptist.

Frank

Sorry guy, but as an atheist who would like to see certain atheist-held myths go away, I have to correct you, since you seem to have been watching "Zeitgeist".

Jesus was NOT merely a compilation of other god/savior myths. Sure, he did a few relatively common mythological actions, but that's about it. Within Biblical scholarship and historians, it is overwhelmingly the majority of them that accept that there was almost certainly some figure to whom the Gospels may somewhat correspond to. Even atheists among them, such as the fucking gorgeous Francesca Stavrokopoulou, attest to this.

[FrankDK]

> Sorry guy, but as an atheist who would like to see certain atheist-held myths go away, I have to correct you, since you seem to have been watching "Zeitgeist".

Never heard of it.

> Jesus was NOT merely a compilation of other god/savior myths.

The evidence indicates otherwise.

> Sure, he did a few relatively common mythological actions, but that's about it.

No, it isn't.  Virtually everything attributed to Jesus by the gospels was attributed to earlier savior gods and others.  From the virgin birth, to 12 apostles, to the bread and wine, raising a man from the dead, himself dying and being raised, all the stories are already in place by the start of the Christian calendar.  The various stories are collected and ascribed to one person.

The early church fathers explained the remarkable similarities between pagan savior gods and Jesus by saying that Satan, knowing what Jesus' life and ministry would be, influenced the earlier religions to make them the same and undermine the faith.

> Within Biblical scholarship and historians, it is overwhelmingly the majority of them that accept that there was almost certainly some figure to whom the Gospels may somewhat correspond to.

Then they are not looking at the evidence.

Here are a few of the main lines of evidence:

There is no contemporaneous mention of Jesus.  We have that for John the Baptist, who was attracting crowds of hundreds, but not for Jesus, who was supposed to be attracting crowds of thousands.

Jesus ben Pantera was the son of Mary, a Jewish woman supposedly of royal birth, who nonetheless consorted with carpenters, and the Roman soldier Pantera.  This Jesus had 12 followers, had a last supper, at which he broke bread and drank wine and said the famous quotes, and was executed by the Jewish authorities for heresy by stoning and his body hung from a tree as an example.  We have documentation from the Sanhedrin that indicates this happened.  The book of Acts indicates that it is this Jesus to whom they are referring:  The God of our fathers raised up Jesus, whom ye slew and hung from a tree.  5:30 KJV.  (Later versions twist this to "slew by hanging from a tree" to cover up this revealing problem.)

The supposed reason Jesus had to be crucified by the Romans was that they had taken away the Jews' power of capital punishment.  Yet the Jews executed John the Baptist at about the same time, and stoned James, supposedly Jesus' brother, later.  See
http://law2.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/f ... edrin.html
In addition, the Romans wouldn't have cared about the Jewish religion.  They thought the Jews were atheists, because they couldn't show you their god.  

When Jesus' followers ask him to teach them to pray, they say, "Teach us to pray as John taught his disciples."  This is how the gospel narrative takes the prayer from John ("The Lord's Prayer") and transfers it to Jesus.

Paul says in several places that the mystery of Christ was hidden for ages, but was "now" being revealed through him and through the saints.  If Jesus had just lived and revealed his message to his disciples, this wouldn't be the case.  Paul is referring to the mystery Jesus, earlier called Horus, then called Mithra.

Matthew 23:9 cautions, "Call no earthly man 'Father,' for you have but one father, and that is your father in Heaven."  It was the practice of the Mithraists to call their priests "Father," and this tradition continued when they substituted the name of Jesus for Mithra.  The early church fathers wanted to distance themselves from the Mithraists.

There is much more, and much analysis has been done on it.

It's possible that there were one or more itinerant preachers who catalyzed the stories that gathered in earlier myths, facts, and half-truths, but that doesn't mean one of them was the one being talked about.  There were many detectives in England when Sherlock Homes was written, and they influenced the stories, but that doesn't mean that one of them was the one being chronicled.

> Even atheists among them, such as the fucking gorgeous Francesca Stavrokopoulou, attest to this.

That sounds worth a Google search.  I'll undertake that from my home computer.

Frank

[AllPurposeAtheist]

God's miracles are on TV sundays on FOX AND CBS during the NFL season. He shaves points, lets certain receivers catch passes from certain QB's and most importantly, made Joe Fake-o the superbowl MVP.. HAL-LEE-LOU-YAH!

[Youssuf Ramadan]

"blasphemy law," which prohibits "deliberate and malicious acts, intended to outrage religious feelings or any class by insulting its religion or religious beliefs.

So if I claim to be a rastafarian can I sue the cops for confiscating my weed?   :-k

[GurrenLagann]

Never heard of it.

After reading the rest of your post, I call bullshit, since you're essentially parroting the things they said half a decade ago in their movie. If not, then you've been listening to someone who was.

The evidence indicates otherwise

I can't wait to hear your evidence...

No, it isn't.  Virtually everything attributed to Jesus by the gospels was attributed to earlier savior gods and others.  From the virgin birth, to 12 apostles, to the bread and wine, raising a man from the dead, himself dying and being raised, all the stories are already in place by the start of the Christian calendar.  The various stories are collected and ascribed to one person.

Only 2 of the things you mentioned are actually held by a fair number of mythological figures, and that's a special birth, and the other is turning water to wine (Dionysus did that if I recall correctly). That's it. There were no 12 disciples tropes in other mythos, and worst of all, you make a claim that actual historical scholarship has put to rest, since the actual number of savior-figures whom raised themselves to life is near zero.

The early church fathers explained the remarkable similarities between pagan savior gods and Jesus by saying that Satan, knowing what Jesus' life and ministry would be, influenced the earlier religions to make them the same and undermine the faith

That was Justin Martyr that said that. Not all of them addressed that because not all of them really saw any similarities of noteworthy mention, which is actually the case when ACTUAL studies are done on this, which they have.

Then they are not looking at the evidene

Oh yes, the majority of actual people studying and investigating this just aren't looking at the evidence. You seem to be imitating Intelligent Design advocates. *tsk tsk*

There is no contemporaneous mention of Jesus.  We have that for John the Baptist, who was attracting crowds of hundreds, but not for Jesus, who was supposed to be attracting crowds of thousands.

So? There were no contemporary mentions of Socrates until a few decades after his approximate death, by the likes of 2 of his students, and by 1 playwright. That doesn't mean that he didn't  exist, because clearly the time period wasn't very codusive to leaving longlasting, definitive evidence for his existence. Learn your history mate.

The supposed reason Jesus had to be crucified by the Romans was that they had taken away the Jews' power of capital punishment.  Yet the Jews executed John the Baptist at about the same time, and stoned James, supposedly Jesus' brother, later.  See
http://law2.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/f ... edrin.html
In addition, the Romans wouldn't have cared about the Jewish religion.  They thought the Jews were atheists, because they couldn't show you their god.

The Romans didn't think the Jews were atheists, in the sense that they had no deity they worshipped, only in the sense from which our word atheist is derived, "atheos", meaning one without the gods, specifically the gods worshipped generally by greater society.

Paul says in several places that the mystery of Christ was hidden for ages, but was "now" being revealed through him and through the saints.  If Jesus had just lived and revealed his message to his disciples, this wouldn't be the case.  Paul is referring to the mystery Jesus, earlier called Horus, then called Mithra.

? Random jump from the fact that the Bible is incoherent and contradictory to other mythological figures. Non sequitur.

Matthew 23:9 cautions, "Call no earthly man 'Father,' for you have but one father, and that is your father in Heaven."  It was the practice of the Mithraists to call their priests "Father," and this tradition continued when they substituted the name of Jesus for Mithra.  The early church fathers wanted to distance themselves from the Mithraists.

This is laughable. For one, referring to the perceived Creator of the universe as "Father" is not some obvious copy from any other religion, especially since earlier, OT Bible passages refer to Yahweh as a 'he'.


Dude, go read the Skeptics Annotated Bible's article on this. Hell, a good start would be to read the introduction to the Jesus Myth Wikipedia article: http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jesus-Myth

[FrankDK]

>> Never heard of it.

> After reading the rest of your post, I call bullshit, since you're essentially parroting the things they said half a decade ago in their movie. If not, then you've been listening to someone who was.
And since you are incapable of independent thought, you assume everyone else is.  As it happens, some of that I put together myself, some I gathered from other sources, including Internet sites, Wells, and several others.

In doing some Internet searches, I have noticed "Zeitgeist" coming up, so I can understand your confusion.  And it's possible that some of the sources I read got their information from the film.  However, calling me a liar simply because I disagree with you and you can't conceive of someone being able to think for himself is uncalled for.

>> No, it isn't. Virtually everything attributed to Jesus by the gospels was attributed to earlier savior gods and others. From the virgin birth, to 12 apostles, to the bread and wine, raising a man from the dead, himself dying and being raised, all the stories are already in place by the start of the Christian calendar. The various stories are collected and ascribed to one person.

>> Only 2 of the things you mentioned are actually held by a fair number of mythological figures, and that's a special birth, and the other is turning water to wine (Dionysus did that if I recall correctly). That's it. There were no 12 disciples tropes in other mythos, and worst of all, you make a claim that actual historical scholarship has put to rest, since the actual number of savior-figures whom raised themselves to life is near zero.

What difference does it make how many mythological figures (or real figures, for that matter) have those characteristics?  I didn't claim that all or even most mythological figures had all those characteristics.  What I stated was that all of those characteristics had been ascribed to someone before Jesus.  There's nothing new in the story of Jesus.

>> The early church fathers explained the remarkable similarities between pagan savior gods and Jesus by saying that Satan, knowing what Jesus' life and ministry would be, influenced the earlier religions to make them the same and undermine the faith

> That was Justin Martyr that said that. Not all of them addressed that because not all of them really saw any similarities of noteworthy mention, which is actually the case when ACTUAL studies are done on this, which they have.

So why did Justin Martyr say that, if there were no similarities?  It weakens the Christian case significantly to state that, which was not his purpose.
>> Then they are not looking at the evidence

> Oh yes, the majority of actual people studying and investigating this just aren't looking at the evidence. You seem to be imitating Intelligent Design advocates. *tsk tsk*

The majority of actual Christians aren't looking at the actual evidence.  The majority of Americans believe in the creation myth from the Bible.  Why is it so astounding that the majority of some group would let things other than the evidence influence their beliefs?  Do you think that Holocaust deniers are looking at the evidence?  Mormons?  Scientologists?
>> There is no contemporaneous mention of Jesus. We have that for John the Baptist, who was attracting crowds of hundreds, but not for Jesus, who was supposed to be attracting crowds of thousands.

> So? There were no contemporary mentions of Socrates until a few decades after his approximate death, by the likes of 2 of his students, and by 1 playwright. That doesn't mean that he didn't exist, because clearly the time period wasn't very codusive to leaving longlasting, definitive evidence for his existence. Learn your history mate.

Do we have contemporaneous mention of others from the same period?  If not, the example doesn't apply.  We do have significant writings from the time and place of Jesus' supposed life, and none includes Jesus.  The references to supposed references have been thoroughly refuted.
>> The supposed reason Jesus had to be crucified by the Romans was that they had taken away the Jews' power of capital punishment. Yet the Jews executed John the Baptist at about the same time, and stoned James, supposedly Jesus' brother, later. See
http://law2.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/f ... edrin.html
In addition, the Romans wouldn't have cared about the Jewish religion. They thought the Jews were atheists, because they couldn't show you their god.


> The Romans didn't think the Jews were atheists,
Yes, they did.
http://robinhl.com/2011/09/24/jewish-mo ... m-atheism/
And you ignored the fact that the reason for the Romans' execution of Jesus was entirely false.  If there had been a real Jesus, they would have included the actual circumstances of his death.
>> Paul says in several places that the mystery of Christ was hidden for ages, but was "now" being revealed through him and through the saints. If Jesus had just lived and revealed his message to his disciples, this wouldn't be the case. Paul is referring to the mystery Jesus, earlier called Horus, then called Mithra.


> ? Random jump from the fact that the Bible is incoherent and contradictory to other mythological figures. Non sequitur.
You seem to have a reading comprehension problem.  The earliest writing we have that mentions Jesus is from Paul, and he states that Jesus didn't exist in the recent past.  The descriptions of Jesus as an historical figure come decades later, when the stories had put the several figures together.  That makes it pretty clear that Jesus wasn't an historical figure.

>> Matthew 23:9 cautions, "Call no earthly man 'Father,' for you have but one father, and that is your father in Heaven." It was the practice of the Mithraists to call their priests "Father," and this tradition continued when they substituted the name of Jesus for Mithra. The early church fathers wanted to distance themselves from the Mithraists.

>This is laughable. For one, referring to the perceived Creator of the universe as "Father" is not some obvious copy from any other religion, especially since earlier, OT Bible passages refer to Yahweh as a 'he'.

Again, your reading comprehension problem is tripping you up.  I'll type slower so you can follow.

Keeping the tradition of the Mithraists, some early churches called their priests, "Father."  This tradition has stayed with the Catholic Church.  However, some opposed the tradition, wishing to make a break from Mithraism.  They told Christians not to address priests as "Father."   This admonition has nothing to do with calling God "Father."  It was about the priests and keeping the traditions from Mithraism.

By the way, you do realize that the Old Testament comes from Judaism, an earlier religion, don't you?  So your point was not only irrelevant, but wrong.

> Dude, go read the Skeptics Annotated Bible's article on this. Hell, a good start would be to read the introduction to the Jesus Myth Wikipedia article: http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jesus-Myth

Read them both some time ago.  Also read the Bible, which includes the writing of Paul and the book of Acts (which you didn't include in your reply).  Why would the Sanhedrin record their execution of Jesus ben Pantera, but not THE Jesus?  A Conspiracy, maybe?

People tend to believe whatever makes them comfortable, and to admit that the founding individual of a major religion may not have existed calls into question all religions and religious principles, which makes many people uncomfortable.

Where is the evidence that Jesus existed?

Frank

[Colanth]

Jesus was NOT merely a compilation of other god/savior myths. Sure, he did a few relatively common mythological actions, but that's about it. Within Biblical scholarship and historians, it is overwhelmingly the majority of them that accept that there was almost certainly some figure to whom the Gospels may somewhat correspond to. Even atheists among them, such as the fucking gorgeous Francesca Stavrokopoulou, attest to this.

Since Stavrakopoulou is a scholar of the OT, not the NT, would you have a link to her attesting to the authenticity of the Jesus of the NT?

[GurrenLagann]

Jesus was NOT merely a compilation of other god/savior myths. Sure, he did a few relatively common mythological actions, but that's about it. Within Biblical scholarship and historians, it is overwhelmingly the majority of them that accept that there was almost certainly some figure to whom the Gospels may somewhat correspond to. Even atheists among them, such as the fucking gorgeous Francesca Stavrokopoulou, attest to this.

Since Stavrakopoulou is a scholar of the OT, not the NT, would you have a link to her attesting to the authenticity of the Jesus of the NT?

I didn't say (nor does she) that the Jesus in the NT is necessarily representative of what the actual Jesus of Nazareth was like, simply that it is agreed by most scholars of the Bible and historians that there was some basis in reality for the figure we see in the Bible.

Just watch the first 1:30 minutes of this YouTube video where she says it. :-)

//http://youtube.com/watch?v=fkVfSYqUFHs

[GurrenLagann]

And since you are incapable of independent thought, you assume everyone else is.  As it happens, some of that I put together myself, some I gathered from other sources, including Internet sites, Wells, and several others.
In doing some Internet searches, I have noticed "Zeitgeist" coming up, so I can understand your confusion.  And it's possible that some of the sources I read got their information from the film.  However, calling me a liar simply because I disagree with you and you can't conceive of someone being able to think for himself is uncalled for.

If you actually read my post, I did account for the possibility that you got it from another source, which I asserted almost certainly was merely parroting the incorrect information presented in Zeitgeist, information that you happen to have repeated yourself.

What difference does it make how many mythological figures (or real figures, for that matter) have those characteristics?  I didn't claim that all or even most mythological figures had all those characteristics.  What I stated was that all of those characteristics had been ascribed to someone before Jesus.  There's nothing new in the story of Jesus.

It matters because if all of the supernatural characteristics of the savior-figure are clearly tropes that persist throughout most mythologies, then the likelihood that supposed savior X is legit necessarily falls.

You don't realize what a non sequitur that is. Simply the fact that [you claim] nothing was new about Jesus by no means invalidates his Biblically recorded claims simply because it was held at least once before him. For most of science's history, it has merely been finding anew/validating claims made by previous scientists and philosophers. Just because Democritus and Epicurus managed to work out that the world was made of atoms didn't mean that Atomic Theory, when brought back on the natural philosophical table, didn't invalidate it simply because it had been suggested before.

So why did Justin Martyr say that, if there were no similarities?  It weakens the Christian case significantly to state that, which was not his purpose.

Just because Martyr thought there were some similarities between something Romans already believed in and some number of claims made in Christianity doesn't in fact mean there were, just as the fact that the small number Intelligent Design advocates claiming evolution is patently false doesn't make it so, in spite of the evidence supporting it.

The majority of actual Christians aren't looking at the actual evidence.  The majority of Americans believe in the creation myth from the Bible.  Why is it so astounding that the majority of some group would let things other than the evidence influence their beliefs?  Do you think that Holocaust deniers are looking at the evidence?  Mormons?  Scientologists?

You don't seem to have realized that I was referring to Biblical scholars/historians when I said "the people who are actually studying" it. I hope that was an honest mistake.



> So? There were no contemporary mentions of Socrates until a few decades after his approximate death, by the likes of 2 of his students, and by 1 playwright. That doesn't mean that he didn't exist, because clearly the time period wasn't very codusive to leaving longlasting, definitive evidence for his existence. Learn your history mate.

Do we have contemporaneous mention of others from the same period?  If not, the example doesn't apply.  We do have significant writings from the time and place of Jesus' supposed life, and none includes Jesus.  The references to supposed references have been thoroughly refuted.

We do in fact have contemporary mentions of other people from that time and place. Not a massive amount, but quite a good amount (some are fragmented of course, but that comes with the territory). Plato and Aristotle in particular mention quite a number of noteworthy philosophers. Thus, my example works.

I'm not disputing that (I'm an atheist). I'm well aware of the lack of contemporary mentions of Jesus for several decades after his death. The point is that simply no contemporary accounts of person X doesn't mean you simply assume they did not exist.

Yes, they did.
http://robinhl.com/2011/09/24/jewish-mo ... m-atheism/

And you seem not have read what I typed, yet again. The Romans didn't consider them to be atheists, that's self-evidently not the case, since the word 'atheist' refers to someone who holds no god belief, hence your claim is self-evidently false. The Jews BELIEVED in the existence of a god, hence could not in ANY way be said to have been thought to be atheists. As I already said, at best they referred to them as "atheos", which meant they worshipped deities NOT worshipped by greater society.

And you ignored the fact that the reason for the Romans' execution of Jesus was entirely false.  If there had been a real Jesus, they would have included the actual circumstances of his death.

Relevance? I'm an atheist. I have in no way defended the coherence of the Bible, merely your lack of understanding of historical precendent.

You seem to have a reading comprehension problem.  The earliest writing we have that mentions Jesus is from Paul, and he states that Jesus didn't exist in the recent past.  The descriptions of Jesus as an historical figure come decades later, when the stories had put the several figures together.  That makes it pretty clear that Jesus wasn't an historical figure.

Again, illogical and unsound reasoning. All that you can say based on that is that either Paul is right and Jesus existed earlier, or that the Gospel committers were write and Paul was wrong. It is an illogical to to proceed from that to "therefore, whoever the NT writers are talking about when they refer to a Jesus of Nazareth didn't exist".

Again, your reading comprehension problem is tripping you up.  I'll type slower so you can follow.

Keeping the tradition of the Mithraists, some early churches called their priests, "Father."  This tradition has stayed with the Catholic Church.  However, some opposed the tradition, wishing to make a break from Mithraism.  They told Christians not to address priests as "Father."   This admonition has nothing to do with calling God "Father."  It was about the priests and keeping the traditions from Mithraism.

My reading comprehension? You've asserted/misunderstood things never even implied in what I wrote in above quotes. Irony, though this was the one case where I actually goofed.

You're assuming it came from Mithraism to prove it was copied from Mithraism. Nice.

By the way, you do realize that the Old Testament comes from Judaism, an earlier religion, don't you?  So your point was not only irrelevant, but wrong.

I'm well aware, I was referring to the incarnation of the myths in the form of the Hebrew Bible, hence it was relevant. And they weren't merely a part of a single religion prior to Judaism, as ancient religions were hardly what you could call a cohesive belief system. Even the Greeks couldn't make a claim like that.

Read them both some time ago.  Also read the Bible, which includes the writing of Paul and the book of Acts (which you didn't include in your reply).  Why would the Sanhedrin record their execution of Jesus ben Pantera, but not THE Jesus?  A Conspiracy, maybe?

I didn't include it for reasons I've stated in response to quotes of yours above. In case you manage to miss them, it can be summarized as:

Since I wasn't defending the incoherence of the Bible, it is irrelevant. I merely pointed out that you have a view of how historical figures are evaluated that no serious or major historian uses, hence why I brought up the similar case of Socrates, and corrected you.

People tend to believe whatever makes them comfortable, and to admit that the founding individual of a major religion may not have existed calls into question all religions and religious principles, which makes many people uncomfortable.

Okay, not sure why that's relevant to me, since I'm an- I'll repeat- an atheist.

Where is the evidence that Jesus existed?

Frank

Apart from the fact that there are attestations that aren't all that reliable in some areas? Hell if I know. However, the fakery of the story convinces me that there were most likely some such person. If they were going to simply make it up and not ground it somewhat on an actual individual, there wouldn't have been the need for the Gospel writers to try to make right the whole Bethlehem-Nazareth issue.


If this doesn't clear up our misunderstandings, I've nothing left I can do.

[BarkAtTheMoon]

You don't seem to have realized that I was referring to Biblical scholars/historians when I said "the people who are actually studying" it.

Do you really think Biblical scholars and historians are above letting their own beliefs bias their work?

I'm not disputing that (I'm an atheist). I'm well aware of the lack of contemporary mentions of Jesus for several decades after his death. The point is that simply no contemporary accounts of person X doesn't mean you simply assume they did not exist.

Sure it does. We don't assume existence without evidence. The proper base case is non-existence or simply irrelevence until evidence supporting the claim is found.

However, the fakery of the story convinces me that there were most likely some such person.

Wait, what?  :-?

Most fictional characters are loosely based on one or more people in the authors life. Doesn't give any validity to the person from the story being considered real. By that logic, all those savior figures from before Jesus' time that have been mentioned have just as much validity as Jesus, not to mention countless other fictional and mythical characters.

[Jmpty]

I've always found it interesting that there was no mention of him in any of the Roman writings of the time. Considering that they kept very detailed records, and that this was a big enough deal that the emperor himself passed sentence, which was very unusual. Hmmmm.

[GurrenLagann]

You don't seem to have realized that I was referring to Biblical scholars/historians when I said "the people who are actually studying" it.

Do you really think Biblical scholars and historians are above letting their own beliefs bias their work?

If you read the part of his post I was responding to, he seemed to think that I was simply referring to your everyday Christian that reads their Bible, so I corrected them. And while you can claim that some of them let their bias affect them overly so.  Some admit that they see others do so, however those samd ones say it isn't some widespread, huge issue in their view.

Sure it does. We don't assume existence without evidence. The proper base case is non-existence or simply irrelevence until evidence supporting the claim is found.

And no it doesn't, and certainly not within the historical community. Otherwise, you would have to claim that Socrates, Buddha, and the Milesian philosophers were all simply made up, despite the numerous mentions of them decades after their death.

Wait, what?  :-?

Most fictional characters are loosely based on one or more people in the authors life. Doesn't give any validity to the person from the story being considered real. By that logic, all those savior figures from before Jesus' time that have been mentioned have just as much validity as Jesus, not to mention countless other fictional and mythical characters.

I guess I wasn't clear enough. :P What I mean is plain. If there had never been any such person (the claim from Frank that I was disputing), there would have been no need to try and square the fact that Jesus of Nazareth (in the Bible) was known to have been from Nazreth, when the Messiah was supposed to have been born in David's town, Bethlehem.

Basically, that guy was making the claim that Jesus is known to have merely been a composite of legendary/mythical figures, which to me sounded like the crap Zeitgeist purported.

[WitchSabrina]

> Mary was the world's best liar, Joseph was the world's dumbest husband.

It's much more likely that the whole story was just made up.  The Jesus of the gospels is a compilation of earlier savior gods like Horus and Mithra, Jesus ben Pantera (son of a Jewish woman named Mary and a Roman soldier named Pantera), and John the Baptist.

Frank

I agree, Frank.  =D>
Even IF a person named Jesus existed - his *story* became myth born from myth.....continued as myth perpetuated and sold as *truth* .

[Colanth]

Jesus was NOT merely a compilation of other god/savior myths. Sure, he did a few relatively common mythological actions, but that's about it. Within Biblical scholarship and historians, it is overwhelmingly the majority of them that accept that there was almost certainly some figure to whom the Gospels may somewhat correspond to. Even atheists among them, such as the fucking gorgeous Francesca Stavrokopoulou, attest to this.

Since Stavrakopoulou is a scholar of the OT, not the NT, would you have a link to her attesting to the authenticity of the Jesus of the NT?

I didn't say (nor does she) that the Jesus in the NT is necessarily representative of what the actual Jesus of Nazareth was like, simply that it is agreed by most scholars of the Bible and historians that there was some basis in reality for the figure we see in the Bible.

Just watch the first 1:30 minutes of this YouTube video where she says it. :-)

//http://youtube.com/watch?v=fkVfSYqUFHs

Sounds like weaseling to me.  The Jesus of the Bible may be based on some actual person?  Sure it was - but how "based on"?  A person who had 2 arms and 2 legs?  A person who raised the dead?

Every mythical and fictional character is "based on" some actual character.  The question is whether the Biblical Jesus is based on anything more than previous myths that were based on still more previous myths.  Even Superman is "based on" a sort of human being.