ISF Logo   IS Forum
Forum Index Register Members List Events Mark Forums Read Help

Go Back   International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » Religion and Philosophy
 


Welcome to the International Skeptics Forum, where we discuss skepticism, critical thinking, the paranormal and science in a friendly but lively way. You are currently viewing the forum as a guest, which means you are missing out on discussing matters that are of interest to you. Please consider registering so you can gain full use of the forum features and interact with other Members. Registration is simple, fast and free! Click here to register today.
Tags historical jesus , jesus

Reply
Old Yesterday, 09:05 AM   #2201
Jerrymander
Muse
 
Jerrymander's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2012
Posts: 507
Originally Posted by Darat View Post
Again "and?"
Now you're just being deliberately obtuse.
Jerrymander is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old Yesterday, 09:16 AM   #2202
catsmate
No longer the 1
 
catsmate's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Posts: 22,257
Originally Posted by IanS View Post
We assume there were countless street preachers in first century Judea. But afaik we don't actually have any data for that
We do have information on the (other) Jewish "false messiahs" which is indicative.
__________________
As human right is always something given, it always in reality reduces to the right which men give, "concede," to each other. If the right to existence is conceded to new-born children, then they have the right; if it is not conceded to them, as was the case among the Spartans and ancient Romans, then they do not have it. For only society can give or concede it to them; they themselves cannot take it, or give it to themselves.
catsmate is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old Yesterday, 09:18 AM   #2203
catsmate
No longer the 1
 
catsmate's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Posts: 22,257
Originally Posted by theheno View Post
And I assume you will tell us how indifferent you are to it all, and you don't care etc, also telling us how laughable it is that people are debating this, which of course you know is silly.
__________________
As human right is always something given, it always in reality reduces to the right which men give, "concede," to each other. If the right to existence is conceded to new-born children, then they have the right; if it is not conceded to them, as was the case among the Spartans and ancient Romans, then they do not have it. For only society can give or concede it to them; they themselves cannot take it, or give it to themselves.
catsmate is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old Yesterday, 09:18 AM   #2204
Darat
Lackey
Administrator
 
Darat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: South East, UK
Posts: 92,208
Originally Posted by Jerrymander View Post
Now you're just being deliberately obtuse.
I'm sorry you think that but I'm not. I again don't know what you are arguing about/for by making your post?
__________________
I wish I knew how to quit you
Darat is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old Yesterday, 09:29 AM   #2205
catsmate
No longer the 1
 
catsmate's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Posts: 22,257
Originally Posted by Jerrymander View Post
The texts ARE evidence.
Sigh. No, actually they're not.

Originally Posted by Jerrymander View Post
Just became you're inherently hostile to anything religious doesn't make them any different than other ancient texts (including those with supernatural elements).
Projection.
Replace "religious" with "non-religious" and see.

Originally Posted by Jerrymander View Post
NT scholars do not simply take these texts at face value. They try to determine their origin and if it makes sense that there was a historical figure behind it all.
They do a piss-poor job of it.

Originally Posted by Jerrymander View Post
Paul did not consider what he was writing sacred scripture, he was simply writing to people in various communities.
So his claims can be safely ignored. Good that you accept this.

Originally Posted by Jerrymander View Post
You parallel the fundies in many ways.
More projection.

Originally Posted by Jerrymander View Post
For the them, the texts are irreverent and truth by default. For you that are automatically lies and fables. For reasonable scholars, they are ancient texts.


Originally Posted by Jerrymander View Post
And on the subject to hostility, you should talk to your friend dejudge.
Again,
__________________
As human right is always something given, it always in reality reduces to the right which men give, "concede," to each other. If the right to existence is conceded to new-born children, then they have the right; if it is not conceded to them, as was the case among the Spartans and ancient Romans, then they do not have it. For only society can give or concede it to them; they themselves cannot take it, or give it to themselves.
catsmate is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old Yesterday, 09:33 AM   #2206
Jerrymander
Muse
 
Jerrymander's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2012
Posts: 507
Originally Posted by catsmate View Post
They do a piss-poor job of it.
Really? Because you say so? Where's your training in history?
Jerrymander is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old Yesterday, 09:34 AM   #2207
Jerrymander
Muse
 
Jerrymander's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2012
Posts: 507
Originally Posted by catsmate View Post
Sigh. No, actually they're not.
They are whether you like it or not.
Jerrymander is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old Yesterday, 09:48 AM   #2208
Jerrymander
Muse
 
Jerrymander's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2012
Posts: 507
Originally Posted by catsmate View Post


So his claims can be safely ignored. Good that you accept this.
Claims about what? What he believed? What was going on in his lifetime?
Jerrymander is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old Yesterday, 09:51 AM   #2209
Jerrymander
Muse
 
Jerrymander's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2012
Posts: 507
Originally Posted by Darat View Post
I'm sorry you think that but I'm not. I again don't know what you are arguing about/for by making your post?
You keep claiming that they we only have evidence in the Bible of a supernatural Jesus, I pointed to mundane things that could be evidence of a historical Jesus.
Jerrymander is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old Yesterday, 10:40 AM   #2210
Darat
Lackey
Administrator
 
Darat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: South East, UK
Posts: 92,208
Originally Posted by Jerrymander View Post
You keep claiming that they we only have evidence in the Bible of a supernatural Jesus, I pointed to mundane things that could be evidence of a historical Jesus.
Yes they could be. Which ones do think are evidence of a real Jesus? And note I say evidence. So that would be actual events, occasions and so on that are verifiable outside the evidence the Christians use to claim their mythical Jesus exists.
__________________
I wish I knew how to quit you
Darat is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old Yesterday, 10:49 AM   #2211
Jerrymander
Muse
 
Jerrymander's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2012
Posts: 507
Originally Posted by Darat View Post
Yes they could be. Which ones do think are evidence of a real Jesus? And note I say evidence. So that would be actual events, occasions and so on that are verifiable outside the evidence the Christians use to claim their mythical Jesus exists.
The same evidence that pointed to by mainstream scholars. You should read up on how ancient history works and not just New Atheist polemics.
Jerrymander is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old Yesterday, 11:42 AM   #2212
IanS
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Posts: 5,008
Originally Posted by Delvo View Post
Matt Dillahunty (an atheist and magician) has done magic tricks for theists, then been told he had supernatural powers, then shown them exactly how the tricks really worked, then been told "that's not what you did the first time; the first time you used real magic".

Unfortunately, the instant somebody said that about him, he poofed out of existence, because a person about whom supernatural claims have been sincerely made can not exist.


I expect most atheists here will know who Matt Dillahunty is. Certainly, if like me, they have watched him on "The Atheist Experience" for that last 14 years or more, then they will know him very well. And they will know that he performs magic tricks at dinner parties etc., and that it's something he was interested in since childhood. Though I don't know if he would call himself a "magician" as if in any professional or full-time sense of that term ... I get the impression it's more of a hobby for him and just something he enjoys.

However, his audience (you said they were theists?) would have to be extremely dumb to keep insisting that he had performed some actual "magic", i.e. a supernatural act, after he had just showed them how it was all just a trick.

But as far as Matt "poofing out of existence" - if you mean to claim that we should not doubt Matt's existence merely because some theists continued to believe that a miracle had happened even though Matt had just explained that it was just a trick, then we have to ask if there is any other evidence of Matt existing apart from a load of theists claiming that they had a holy book which proclaimed him a worker of constant miracles? ... so, what's the answer - is there any other evidence of Matt as a real person?

OK, so the answer is there is a mountain of undeniable evidence to actually prove Matt exists. But for Jesus? ... ahh, nothing at all .... so the analogy is a 100% failure.
IanS is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old Yesterday, 11:45 AM   #2213
Darat
Lackey
Administrator
 
Darat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: South East, UK
Posts: 92,208
Originally Posted by Jerrymander View Post
The same evidence that pointed to by mainstream scholars. You should read up on how ancient history works and not just New Atheist polemics.
Which evidence convinced you?
__________________
I wish I knew how to quit you

Last edited by Darat; Yesterday at 11:47 AM.
Darat is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old Yesterday, 01:54 PM   #2214
dejudge
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Nov 2013
Posts: 5,492
Originally Posted by Jerrymander View Post
The Jesus of the Bible didn't just do supernatural things, he did mundane things or had mundane things done to him as well. He taught parables, he made speeches, he was baptized, he argued with religious leaders and was crucified.
What a ridiculous argument!!!

The Devil did mundane things in the Bible--the Devil conversed with Jesus and was with him in Jerusalem at the Jewish Temple. See Matthew 4

The angel Gabriel did mundane things in the Bible -the angel Gabriel talked to Mary in the city of Galilee. See Luke 1

Even the Holy Ghost did mundane things in the Bible --the Holy Ghost impregnated a Virgin called Mary. See Matthew 1 and Luke 1.

Originally Posted by Jerrymander View Post
Take the supernatural stuff out of Mark and you still have a story.
You forgot to tell us what kind of story you will have.

You will have fabricated a mundane fiction story from your imagination.

You have to make up your own story in order to argue your Jesus existed.

What name have you given the father of Jesus of Nazareth in your mundane story [the Gospel according to Jerrymander] ?
dejudge is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old Yesterday, 04:18 PM   #2215
Jerrymander
Muse
 
Jerrymander's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2012
Posts: 507
Originally Posted by dejudge View Post
What name have you given the father of Jesus of Nazareth in your mundane story [the Gospel according to Jerrymander] ?
Um, Joseph? Seriously you're act is beyond stale at this point.
Jerrymander is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old Yesterday, 10:19 PM   #2216
dejudge
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Nov 2013
Posts: 5,492
Originally Posted by Jerrymander View Post
Um, Joseph? Seriously you're act is beyond stale at this point.
Um, you are not sure??
dejudge is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old Today, 12:24 AM   #2217
Tassman
Graduate Poster
 
Tassman's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Posts: 1,060
Originally Posted by Darat View Post
Look how quickly Scientology arose - there was no real Zenu.
Scientology is a new religious movement and would not exist but for the existence of a "real" person at its core, namely L Ron Hubbard. Just as the Jesus story was a new religion which, I suggest, probably had a "real" person at its core as well.
__________________
“He felt that his whole life was a kind of dream and he sometimes wondered whose it was and whether they were enjoying it.” ― Douglas Adams.
Tassman is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old Today, 12:31 AM   #2218
IanS
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Posts: 5,008
Originally Posted by Jerrymander View Post
The texts ARE evidence.

Well if by "the texts" you mean the gospels and Paul letters, they are indeed evidence. But in fact they are evidence very clearly showing that the Jesus stories were religious invention!

Afaik it's only 100 to 200 years (that's a short time in religious issues) that biblical scholars have slowly come to two crucial realisations - (1) the gospels were not written by any of the named disciple authors; they were anonymously written ... (2) the writing shows that none of those gospel writers had ever met any such as person as Jesus. In addition bible scholars have also of course realised that the miracle stories, which make up almost the entire content of the gospels, cannot be true. And similarly on Paul's letters the same generations of biblical scholars have slowly come to the realisation that Paul had clearly never met Jesus except in religious visions.


OK, the point is - those slow realisations and their acceptance by biblical scholars, theologians, and some church leaders, show that the evidence from those gospels and letters is actually evidence of creating a fictional Jesus from their religious beliefs/imagination.

So just to summarise & emphasise that -

(1) the gospels show clear evidence of copying Jesus stories from what had been written centuries before in the OT. That is very clear evidence against a HJ, because it shows the shows the source of their gospel stories and it shows the stories were being created from ancient religious myth. That is actually gospel evidence against a HJ.

(2) the gospels contain claims of Jesus miracles on virtual every page. That is clear evidence that the stories were invented myth. People did not realise that in biblical times. And bible scholars and church leaders did not know it until perhaps 100 - 200 years ago. But now everyone does know that such stories must be mythical. So that is again very clear evidence of created messiah myths in the gospels.

(3) for most of the past 2000 years almost everyone had thought that the gospels were written by actual eye-witness disciples of Jesus. But now all bible scholars have realised that closer examination of the words in those gospels, shows that they were not written by any actual disciples or any eye-witnesses. That again is very clear evidence of the authors trying to deceive readers with false stories about a Jesus who none of them had ever known. That again is direct evidence in the gospels against a HJ.


(4) the same is true for Paul's letters. They were once regarded as the strongest and most direct evidence of Jesus, because they were saiid to be the earliest writing (pre-dating the gospels), and unlike the gospels the letters are said to be written by the author himself. But again a more careful reading showed that Paul was describing a Jesus that he had only known in religious visions. And where he mentions more than 500 other people who had witnessed Jesus, but again if you look more carefully he only ever says that all of those others had also only "met" Jesus in religious visions. So that is also clearly evidence against a HJ ... because it is clear evidence that Paul was describing his religious beliefs (ie divine visions, voices from the heavens, a belief that it was all "according to scripture" and clear statements saying "it came from no man" and "nor was I taught it by anyone"). That is very clear evidence of religious mythical belief, and clear evidence against a real HJ.

So in summary - the biblical writing is indeed evidence. But it's actually very strong evidence against the reality of a HJ.
IanS is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old Today, 01:30 AM   #2219
David Mo
Philosopher
 
David Mo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Location: Somewhere on the Greenwich meridian
Posts: 5,036
Originally Posted by dejudge View Post
What a ridiculous argument!!!
What a ridiculous exclamation!!!
David Mo is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old Today, 01:42 AM   #2220
David Mo
Philosopher
 
David Mo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Location: Somewhere on the Greenwich meridian
Posts: 5,036
Originally Posted by IanS View Post
So just to summarise & emphasise that -
Edited by zooterkin:  <SNIP>
Edited for rule rule 12.


Don't waste your computer in vain. None of your arguments are definitive proof that Jesus the Galilean did not exist. There is nothing strange about a small sect attributing increasingly unbridled miraculous deeds to its failed prophet. It's called cognitive dissonance, and similar things have been seen many times in history. This may cast a serious shadow of doubt over the whole gospel narrative, but not necessarily over the prosaic existence of its "divine" patron. That is something really inconsequential.

By the way, St. Paul does claim to have spoken to people who knew Jesus directly "in the flesh". Don't make things up.

Edited by zooterkin:  <SNIP>
Edited for rule rule 12.



Translated with www.DeepL.com/Translator (free version)

Last edited by zooterkin; Today at 01:45 PM.
David Mo is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old Today, 01:45 AM   #2221
IanS
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Posts: 5,008
Originally Posted by catsmate View Post
We do have information on the (other) Jewish "false messiahs" which is indicative.

Without checking back, I think what I was saying (in answer to a poster who said that the region was filled with street preachers at the time), was only to say that we should be a little cautions about building a theory or explanation on assuming that the area was filled with street preachers. Because whilst I agree that is the general assumption, afaik we don't have any accurate numerical data for the number of such preachers.

No doubt there were quite a few, and afaik we all think that's the case. But if we could travel back in time to see for ourselves then we might discover that their presence was not as numerous as we had thought ... so the point was just to say that I think it's dangerous to build any theories or explanations on the basis of assuming that the streets were awash with such people every day.

IOW, in general - I think this is a subject where far too many assumptions have been made to support a HJ, and with far too much taken on trust from biblical scholars and religious leaders as a source of facts, but where that trust has really been misplaced and the assumptions clearly either wrong or else highly dubious. So I think we need to be very careful about those things
IanS is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old Today, 02:02 AM   #2222
Brainache
Nasty Brutish and Tall
 
Brainache's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Canberra
Posts: 17,342
Originally Posted by IanS View Post
Without checking back, I think what I was saying (in answer to a poster who said that the region was filled with street preachers at the time), was only to say that we should be a little cautions about building a theory or explanation on assuming that the area was filled with street preachers. Because whilst I agree that is the general assumption, afaik we don't have any accurate numerical data for the number of such preachers.

No doubt there were quite a few, and afaik we all think that's the case. But if we could travel back in time to see for ourselves then we might discover that their presence was not as numerous as we had thought ... so the point was just to say that I think it's dangerous to build any theories or explanations on the basis of assuming that the streets were awash with such people every day.

IOW, in general - I think this is a subject where far too many assumptions have been made to support a HJ, and with far too much taken on trust from biblical scholars and religious leaders as a source of facts, but where that trust has really been misplaced and the assumptions clearly either wrong or else highly dubious. So I think we need to be very careful about those things
That's why people read Josephus. You should give it a try. Better than Game Of Thrones IMO.
Brainache is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old Today, 02:58 AM   #2223
IanS
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Posts: 5,008
Originally Posted by Tassman View Post
Scientology is a new religious movement and would not exist but for the existence of a "real" person at its core, namely L Ron Hubbard. Just as the Jesus story was a new religion which, I suggest, probably had a "real" person at its core as well.

L Ron Hubbard is not comparable to Jesus though. L Ron Hubbard is the one preaching to people that they should believe in some imaginary supernatural deity (whoever that was). L Ron Hubbard is more comparable to the preachers who wrote the gospels and letters ... like Hubbard, those who wrote the gospels and letters were the ones preaching to the people telling them to believe in a supernatural deity called Jesus.
IanS is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old Today, 03:20 AM   #2224
Darat
Lackey
Administrator
 
Darat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: South East, UK
Posts: 92,208
Originally Posted by Tassman View Post
Scientology is a new religious movement and would not exist but for the existence of a "real" person at its core, namely L Ron Hubbard. Just as the Jesus story was a new religion which, I suggest, probably had a "real" person at its core as well.
Who has ever suggested there wouldn't be a real person behind the origins of Christianity? The debate is whether that was a real Jesus.

I think from memory you agree that we know the mythical Jesus the Christians say existed and still exists never existed?



(Mind you I do have to say I think it is more likely that there were several people who could lay claim to have "originated" Christianity adding their own bits and pieces, killing the heretics and the like, I say this from the known history of the religions.)
__________________
I wish I knew how to quit you
Darat is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old Today, 06:49 AM   #2225
dejudge
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Nov 2013
Posts: 5,492
Originally Posted by Tassman View Post
Scientology is a new religious movement and would not exist but for the existence of a "real" person at its core, namely L Ron Hubbard. Just as the Jesus story was a new religion which, I suggest, probably had a "real" person at its core as well.
Your analogy is really baseless. You have no historical evidence at all to show that Jesus of Nazareth probably existed.

The existence or non-existence of L Ron Hubbard cannot determine the existence or non-existence of the character called Jesus in the Christian Bible.
dejudge is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old Today, 07:13 AM   #2226
dejudge
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Nov 2013
Posts: 5,492
Originally Posted by IanS View Post

(4) the same is true for Paul's letters. They were once regarded as the strongest and most direct evidence of Jesus, because they were saiid to be the earliest writing (pre-dating the gospels), and unlike the gospels the letters are said to be written by the author himself. But again a more careful reading showed that Paul was describing a Jesus that he had only known in religious visions. And where he mentions more than 500 other people who had witnessed Jesus, but again if you look more carefully he only ever says that all of those others had also only "met" Jesus in religious visions. So that is also clearly evidence against a HJ ... because it is clear evidence that Paul was describing his religious beliefs (ie divine visions, voices from the heavens, a belief that it was all "according to scripture" and clear statements saying "it came from no man" and "nor was I taught it by anyone"). That is very clear evidence of religious mythical belief, and clear evidence against a real HJ.

The so-called Pauline writer claimed he was one of the witnesses that God raised Jesus from the dead.

Christians and Bible writings state that Jesus bodily resurrected and was seen after he was raised from the dead.

And not only was seen but that the resurrected Jesus conversed directly with the disciples and that he ate food in their presence.

The Christian Bible teaches that their Jesus of Nazareth bodily resurrected

The so-called Paul openly lied when he claimed he was one of the witnesses of the resurrected Jesus. Even, in Acts it is claimed Saul/Paul did not see the resurrected Jesus but only heard his voice.

Acts 26:14
Quote:
And when we were all fallen to the earth, I heard a voice speaking unto me, and saying in the Hebrew tongue, Saul, Saul, why persecutest thou me? it is hard for thee to kick against the pricks.
The Pauline writers are found to be liars in the very Christian Bible.

The Epistles are really evidence that the Pauline writers were liars or false witnesses and that they were aware of stories about the resurrected Jesus before their composition.

Since Scholars admit the Epistles are products of multiple authors it is impossible to know who wrote any of them and precisely when they were written without any external historical sources of the Pauline writers.

There are no historical sources which mentions a character called Paul a Pharisee of the tribe of Benjamin.

Last edited by dejudge; Today at 07:25 AM.
dejudge is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old Today, 07:40 AM   #2227
dejudge
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Nov 2013
Posts: 5,492
Originally Posted by David Mo View Post
Don't you get tired of repeating the same thing (or almost) a million times?

Don't waste your computer in vain. None of your arguments are definitive proof that Jesus the Galilean did not exist. There is nothing strange about a small sect attributing increasingly unbridled miraculous deeds to its failed prophet. It's called cognitive dissonance, and similar things have been seen many times in history. This may cast a serious shadow of doubt over the whole gospel narrative, but not necessarily over the prosaic existence of its "divine" patron. That is something really inconsequential.

By the way, St. Paul does claim to have spoken to people who knew Jesus directly "in the flesh". Don't make things up.

Well, back to my stuff. I'm sure that if I come back here in a few centuries you and Dejudge will continue with the same thing. What monotony!



Translated with www.DeepL.com/Translator (free version)
You are back with the same baseless assumptions.

I know for sure that you have no historical evidence at all - none whatsoever- for an historical Jesus.

The Epistles are not evidence of an historical Jesus. The Pauline writer claimed he met his Jesus in the third heaven.

2 Corinthians 12:2
Quote:
I knew a man in Christ above fourteen years ago, (whether in the body, I cannot tell; or whether out of the body, I cannot tell: God knoweth) such an one caught up to the third heaven.
The Epistles are non-historical garbage about a resurrected supernatural being called Jesus.

Last edited by dejudge; Today at 07:42 AM.
dejudge is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old Today, 11:16 AM   #2228
dejudge
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Nov 2013
Posts: 5,492
Originally Posted by Jerrymander View Post
Yes the writings of his followers, just like Jesus.
Matthew, Mark, Luke and John did not write the Gospels attributed to them according to Scholars.


The character called Paul in the Epistles was not a follower of Jesus of Nazareth, it is claimed after Jesus ascended to heaven in a cloud that he heard his voice while being blinded by a bright light.

The Epistles attributed to James, John, Peter and Jude are all forgeries or false attribution according to Scholars.

The author of Revelation claimed his Jesus was the first begotten of the dead.

There is no evidence whatsoever that any book in the NT was written by an actual follower of Bible Jesus, the son of the Ghost.

Last edited by dejudge; Today at 11:17 AM.
dejudge is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old Today, 01:40 PM   #2229
pgwenthold
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Sep 2001
Posts: 19,097
Originally Posted by Tassman View Post
Scientology is a new religious movement and would not exist but for the existence of a "real" person at its core, namely L Ron Hubbard. Just as the Jesus story was a new religion which, I suggest, probably had a "real" person at its core as well.

In the analogy, ar best this is a claim for the existence of Paul.
__________________
"As your friend, I have to be honest with you: I don't care about you or your problems" - Chloe, Secret Life of Pets
pgwenthold is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old Today, 01:51 PM   #2230
dejudge
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Nov 2013
Posts: 5,492
Originally Posted by pgwenthold View Post
In the analogy, ar best this is a claim for the existence of Paul.
But which Paul would that be and when did any of them exist?

Tassman's analogy is of no value in the HJ/MJ argument.
dejudge is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old Today, 02:23 PM   #2231
dejudge
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Nov 2013
Posts: 5,492
It is hideously illogical for Scholars, Christian or not, to argue that some of the Pauline Epistles are authentic while admitting they are products of multiple authors when there is not even corroboration in the Bible itself that a character called Paul wrote any Epistle to anyone at anytime.

No Bible author corroborates [falsely or not] that Saul/Paul wrote Epistles to the Romans, Corinthians, Galatians, Ephesians, Philippians, Thessalonians, Colossians, Timothy, Titus and Philemon and none of them make references to the so-called Pauline Epistles.

Once Scholars admit there were multiple persons using the name of Paul then the Epistles are not credible sources not only for historical purposes but for the beliefs or teachings of the early Jesus cult.
dejudge is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old Today, 04:27 PM   #2232
Delvo
Дэлво Δελϝο דֶלְבֹֿ देल्वो
 
Delvo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: North Tonawanda, NY
Posts: 8,628
Originally Posted by IanS View Post
So in summary - the biblical writing is indeed evidence. But it's actually very strong evidence against the reality of a HJ.
All 4 of your points are entirely neutral on this question; they could just as easily be true in an HJ world as in an MJ world. The first two are already built in to everybody's thinking on both sides. (It strains credibility that you don't already know that.)

And the third and fourth are false anyway:

Originally Posted by IanS View Post
(3) ...they were not written by any actual disciples or any eye-witnesses. That again is very clear evidence of the authors trying to deceive readers
The deception, if there is any at all in this rather than error, is by those who applied the names to the books, some time after the authors were dead. All you've disproven is a claim which the authors never made. (...And which doesn't matter to the subject here.)

Originally Posted by IanS View Post
(4) Paul was describing his religious beliefs (ie divine visions, voices from the heavens, a belief that it was all "according to scripture" and clear statements saying "it came from no man" and "nor was I taught it by anyone"). That is very clear evidence of religious mythical belief, and clear evidence against a real HJ.
Source ≠ contents.

...especially not when the claim you're trying to use the source to prove about the contents is directly contradicted by some of the contents. (Back to specifics, yes, he has Jesus still doing stuff after dying & resurrecting & ascending, but he also has Jesus doing normal living human stuff before that, during his normal living human life; that's what he's supposed to have ascended from.)

(And even if it did it wouldn't matter to the subject here.)
Delvo is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old Today, 04:47 PM   #2233
Delvo
Дэлво Δελϝο דֶלְבֹֿ देल्वो
 
Delvo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: North Tonawanda, NY
Posts: 8,628
Originally Posted by pgwenthold View Post
In the analogy, ar best this is a claim for the existence of Paul.
Quite clearly not, in more ways than one.

For one thing, Hubbard didn't go around preaching about Xenu, because Scientology is not about Xenu. Xenu has practically nothing to do with it and isn't even mentioned in most of it or ever mentioned to most of its members.

Second, Paul was not the first Christian; it's impossible to be the inventor/founder of something you only joined sometime after it got going.

Third, the equivalent of Xenu in Christian mythology obviously can't be Jesus. It would need to be somebody not just wildly more powerful but also more distant and cosmic and thoroughly unlike humans. That really only leaves Yahweh, the Devil, or maybe other angels. Jesus was a person who merely talked about those characters... which makes his Scientological counterpart somebody else who merely talked about Xenu... and that means Hubbard.
Delvo is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old Today, 05:03 PM   #2234
pgwenthold
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Sep 2001
Posts: 19,097
Originally Posted by Delvo View Post
Quite clearly not, in more ways than one.

For one thing, Hubbard didn't go around preaching about Xenu, because Scientology is not about Xenu. Xenu has practically nothing to do with it and isn't even mentioned in most of it or ever mentioned to most of its members.

Second, Paul was not the first Christian; it's impossible to be the inventor/founder of something you only joined sometime after it got going.

Third, the equivalent of Xenu in Christian mythology obviously can't be Jesus. It would need to be somebody not just wildly more powerful but also more distant and cosmic and thoroughly unlike humans. That really only leaves Yahweh, the Devil, or maybe other angels. Jesus was a person who merely talked about those characters... which makes his Scientological counterpart somebody else who merely talked about Xenu... and that means Hubbard.
Paul was the promoter of Christianity. It's silly to think that Christianity would be anything without Paul. His supposed letters make up more than half of the New Testament. Without his promotion, Christianity does in the first century.

Similarly, without Hubbard, Scientoligy is nothing. He's the promoter.

Jesus is not the founder of christianity. It's about him, but he never founded nor promoted the religion. That was Paul.
__________________
"As your friend, I have to be honest with you: I don't care about you or your problems" - Chloe, Secret Life of Pets
pgwenthold is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old Today, 07:22 PM   #2235
Jerrymander
Muse
 
Jerrymander's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2012
Posts: 507
Originally Posted by IanS View Post
(4) the same is true for Paul's letters. They were once regarded as the strongest and most direct evidence of Jesus, because they were saiid to be the earliest writing (pre-dating the gospels), and unlike the gospels the letters are said to be written by the author himself. But again a more careful reading showed that Paul was describing a Jesus that he had only known in religious visions. And where he mentions more than 500 other people who had witnessed Jesus, but again if you look more carefully he only ever says that all of those others had also only "met" Jesus in religious visions. So that is also clearly evidence against a HJ ... because it is clear evidence that Paul was describing his religious beliefs (ie divine visions, voices from the heavens, a belief that it was all "according to scripture" and clear statements saying "it came from no man" and "nor was I taught it by anyone"). That is very clear evidence of religious mythical belief, and clear evidence against a real HJ.

So in summary - the biblical writing is indeed evidence. But it's actually very strong evidence against the reality of a HJ.
Again, I already show you quotes of Paul referring to Jesus as a human and you failed at explaining them away.
Jerrymander is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old Today, 09:21 PM   #2236
dejudge
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Nov 2013
Posts: 5,492
Originally Posted by pgwenthold View Post
Paul was the promoter of Christianity. It's silly to think that Christianity would be anything without Paul. His supposed letters make up more than half of the New Testament. Without his promotion, Christianity does in the first century.

Similarly, without Hubbard, Scientoligy is nothing. He's the promoter.

Jesus is not the founder of christianity. It's about him, but he never founded nor promoted the religion. That was Paul.
Actually, the character called Paul cannot even be compared to Hubbard.

Hubbard did not first attempt to persecute, destroy and kill adherents to Scientology before he promoted the religion.

Galatians 1:23
Quote:
But they had heard only, That he which persecuted us in times past now preacheth the faith which once he destroyed.
Acts 9. 1
Quote:
And Saul, yet breathing out threatenings and slaughter against the disciples of the Lord, went unto the high priest, And desired of him letters to Damascus to the synagogues, that if he found any of this way, whether they were men or women, he might bring them bound unto Jerusalem....

The character called Paul was not the founder of the Jesus cult of Christians in or out the NT.

There is no historical evidence at all of the Pauline writers.

L Ron Hubbard is a known figure of history who started the Church of Scientology.
dejudge is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old Today, 09:33 PM   #2237
dejudge
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Nov 2013
Posts: 5,492
Originally Posted by Jerrymander View Post
Again, I already show you quotes of Paul referring to Jesus as a human and you failed at explaining them away.
The Bible Jesus was a supernatural being - a God/man.


Galatians 4:4
Quote:
But when the fulness of the time was come, God sent forth his Son, made of a woman, made under the law..
Christians believed their Jesus was God who came down from heaven and lived in a woman.

Aristides Apology
Quote:
The Christians, then, trace the beginning of their religion from Jesus the Messiah; and he is named the Son of God Most High. And it is said that God came down from heaven, and from a Hebrew virgin assumed and clothed himself with flesh; and the Son of God lived in a daughter of man.

The Jesus cult writers who used the Pauline Epistles stated their Jesus was both God and man.

Jesus cult Christianity originated with belief in a supernatural God/man.

It is really a waste of time to use the Bible to argue that Bible Jesus was only a man -complete waste of time.

Last edited by dejudge; Today at 09:36 PM.
dejudge is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Reply

International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » Religion and Philosophy

Bookmarks

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 09:37 PM.
Powered by vBulletin. Copyright ©2000 - 2020, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.

This forum began as part of the James Randi Education Foundation (JREF). However, the forum now exists as
an independent entity with no affiliation with or endorsement by the JREF, including the section in reference to "JREF" topics.

Disclaimer: Messages posted in the Forum are solely the opinion of their authors.