[Paradigm]

I should point out that the "Jesus myth" theory, despite getting featured prominently in films like "Zeitgeist" and "The God Who Wasn't There," is not taken seriously by the vast majority of scholars who study the issue, both religious and non-religious. This is not to say that mythological elements were not integrated into the gospels, but most scholars agree that Jesus of Nazareth was a real historical figure.

[Suska]

You can't measure faith. You either have it, or you don't. There's not scale of 1 to 10, for it... So which myths are not fiction, and how much of the myths are actually true, and how much is bullshit?

While I agree that faith is not measurable - as it is more a quality than a quantity - It seems to me that faith is of a variable degree - not just either on or off. Interesting that you'd stretch that far though - to be sure to disagree with me. It had nothing to do with what I was saying; that its inappropriate to be overly concerned about the historicity of Jesus, and I would add to that: the idea that myth is manipulative fiction instead of profound signifier is just plain stingy. With such an attitude we could wage a siege against any word or idea - its all in your head. But Jesus is a meaningful idea within a certain context. It's not a choice between bullshit or not bullshit, but between knowing what you're talking about and making uncharitable assumptions at a distance.

[powertoolsculpture]

I should point out that the "Jesus myth" theory, despite getting featured prominently in films like "Zeitgeist" and "The God Who Wasn't There," is not taken seriously by the vast majority of scholars who study the issue, both religious and non-religious. This is not to say that mythological elements were not integrated into the gospels, but most scholars agree that Jesus of Nazareth was a real historical figure.

Too bad that's an epistemically irrelevant argument. Consensus of professionals is only acceptable when there is something at risk; i.e. I have to eat something so I have to trust someone else on what is safe. It is NOT ACCEPTABLE in a question like the existence of Jesus or the proper theory of ontology because in neither case is there any actual pressure on you to have an opinion - especially if you're already an atheist. So, unless you actually have a reasoning position, based on the evidence, research you've done yourself and an understanding of historical-critical methods and archeology you should just shut your mouth because you have no epistemic right to an opinion.

What you, or 99% of these people, believe about the existence of Jesus is as bullshit and irrelevant as what you think about heart surgery or any other complex field where you don't know your ass from your elbow.

[Invictus_88]

Too bad that's an epistemically irrelevant argument. Consensus of professionals is only acceptable when there is something at risk; i.e. I have to eat something so I have to trust someone else on what is safe. It is NOT ACCEPTABLE in a question like the existence of Jesus or the proper theory of ontology because in neither case is there any actual pressure on you to have an opinion - especially if you're already an atheist. So, unless you actually have a reasoning position, based on the evidence, research you've done yourself and an understanding of historical-critical methods and archeology you should just shut your mouth because you have no epistemic right to an opinion.

What you, or 99% of these people, believe about the existence of Jesus is as bullshit and irrelevant as what you think about heart surgery or any other complex field where you don't know your ass from your elbow.

...research is only valuable if you did it yourself?

That's a pretty idiosyncratic position to hold.

[Smertios]

Other, for obvious reasons mentioned here already.

The existence of Jesus is questionable. As it has been mentioned already, there are several Greek, Roman and Jewish sources from the 1st and 2nd centuries that mention Jesus by name. The problem is that all those sources are from after the date in which Jesus was allegedly killed (around the year 30 AD - historians aren't sure about the exact date). There are passages referring to Jesus from 93 AD by the Judeo-Roman author Flavius Josephus, for example. And 60 years isn't much, so there is a huge chance Jesus was a real man, not just a myth. the exact passage was this:

“About this time came Jesus, a wise man, if indeed it is appropriate to call him a man. For he was a performer of paradoxical feats, a teacher of people who accept the unusual with pleasure, and he won over many of the Jews and also many Greeks. He was the Christ. When Pilate, upon the accusation of the first men amongst us, condemned him to be crucified, those who had formerly loved him did not cease to follow him, for he appeared to them on the third day, living again, as the divine prophets foretold, along with a myriad of other marvelous things concerning him. And the tribe of the Christians, so named after him, has not disappeared to this day”

Most historians believe (and I agree) that there was probably a historical person named Jesus, who was himself a preacher and managed to get a few followers. All the rest is probably just a myth created by Christians through time. He was probably born from a woman named Mary. I doubt he was born out of a virgin womb, though. And he was probably baptized by John the Baptist, who was a non-orthodox Jewish preacher (baptism was never part of orthodox Judaism, after all). He was probably crucified too, but I don't think he came from the dead and ascended into the skies after the third day. And I don't really think he ever claimed to be God or the Messiah, either. That was probably part of the myths created by the early christians. But if he did, that wouldn't really surprise me, since lots of false messiahs have appeared through Jewish history.

Now, whether he was a good or a bad person depends a lot on what we are talking about. The Jesus described in the Bible could be considered a good person, by modern standards...

As for Mohammed – which has been debated here as well –, there is absolutely no doubt that he existed, since there are several sources written in Classical Arabic, from the time he lived...

[Godstud]

It seems to me that faith is of a variable degree - not just either on or off. Interesting that you'd stretch that far though - to be sure to disagree with me.

Actually, I didn't do it just to disagree with you, and you make a good argument. I was wrong. To be honest, I'm not sure what I was thinking when I wrote it, because upon a little reflection, it's pretty obvious.

Yeah, you do either have faith or you don't but there IS varying degrees of faith.

When I meant "bullshit", I mean that it's not true or factual, and perhaps the word bullshit, in relation to something people believe in strongly is very, ummm... antagonistic.

You're completely right Suska. Historical relevance is not related to the OP, despite the comparison to a historical figure(i.e. Hitler).

Change my "Other", to Yes.

[nucklepunche]

Other.

Jesus is perfect.

[Rich]

There are passages referring to Jesus from 93 AD by the Judeo-Roman author Flavius Josephus, for example. And 60 years isn't much, so there is a huge chance Jesus was a real man, not just a myth. the exact passage was this:

“About this time came Jesus, a wise man, if indeed it is appropriate to call him a man. For he was a performer of paradoxical feats, a teacher of people who accept the unusual with pleasure, and he won over many of the Jews and also many Greeks. He was the Christ. When Pilate, upon the accusation of the first men amongst us, condemned him to be crucified, those who had formerly loved him did not cease to follow him, for he appeared to them on the third day, living again, as the divine prophets foretold, along with a myriad of other marvelous things concerning him. And the tribe of the Christians, so named after him, has not disappeared to this day”

Now I'm going to take this slowly, because there's obviously some who are hard of thinking. Notice something funny about that passage: "He was the Christ". Now Josephus was not a Christian and not a follower of Jesus. Clearly it wasn't written by Josephus. How do people think we have Josephus' work? It was copied by Christians. Christians copied what they thought was good and burnt what they disagreed with. The Christians were pathological liars they were always changing texts to say what they thought they should say.

[Michaeluj]

No, he wasn't. Here's me paraphrasing from the bible:

Jesus: "If you are good to your parents, your friends, and you don't do criminal acts or gamble, you will enter heaven."
Man: "Jesus, I do all of those things. So my place is assured?"
Jesus: "No, you're rich."
Man: "But, but--"
Jesus: "It would be easier to go through the eye of a needle for you."
Man: "But, but--"
Jesus: "Silence! I have spoken!"

So, yeah, a good guy couldn't go into heaven simply because he had money.

[Godstud]

I think it's because a rich person is not a generous person. Being rich entails having MORE than you need. That's my take on it, anyways.

[Jihsan]

I think it's because a rich person is not a generous person. Being rich entails having MORE than you need. That's my take on it, anyways.

Generalising?

Millionaire Is Giving Away His Entire Fortune

[Godstud]

Yep. I certainly was generalizing. The man who gave away all his money wasn't rich for very long, either, was he?

Even so, if you're rich, it means you have a great deal of money or assets. If you have this, and others are poor and suffering around you, and you don't help as much as you can, then what kind of person are you? (Taking this from Jesus' perspective here) You certainly aren't caring about your fellow man, are you?

Isn't the very reason the rich build houses away from everyone else, so they can't feel guilty about having that much, when others have so little?

[Jihsan]

You are certainly right in most cases, the zionist bankers are a good example (e.g. Bernard Madoff)

[Nets]

You are certainly right in most cases, the zionist bankers are a good example (e.g. Bernard Madoff)

Of course Madoff was not actively involved in any Zionist causes, and in fact defrauded many Jewish organizations, charities, and non-profits out of millions of dollars. (For example, Hadassah lost $90 million with Madoff, The Elie Wiesel Foundation lost $15 million, Brandeis U lost millions, etc.)

So just come out and say what you mean: Jew-banker.

Even so, if you're rich, it means you have a great deal of money or assets. If you have this, and others are poor and suffering around you, and you don't help as much as you can, then what kind of person are you? (Taking this from Jesus' perspective here) You certainly aren't caring about your fellow man, are you?

Isn't the very reason the rich build houses away from everyone else, so they can't feel guilty about having that much, when others have so little?

What kind of people are you or I, then, when we spend money on video games and movies and clothing when people are starving to death in Haiti and Africa? We live relatively affluent lifestyles in N. America, shielded from the true poverty facing much of the world.

[Jihsan]

Of course Madoff was not actively involved in any Zionist causes, and in fact defrauded many Jewish organizations, charities, and non-profits out of millions of dollars. So just come out and say what you mean: Jew-banker.

Actually I watched a great educational youtube video to debunk this myth that Madoff defrauded mainly Jews (that was your point right?) Majority of his victims were non-Jews and only 9 were Jews but thats what the zionist owned media uses to try and excuse or diminish his crimes. Just like what you're trying to do. Is he less of a criminal because he targeted his own?

[Nets]

Oh, David Duke, wonderful source. Well, I suppose if anyone knows about financial fraud it is David Duke, so maybe I should give it a look.

My point was that he defrauded Jew and non-Jew alike without rhyme or reason. (Ever heard of affinity fraud?)

So there was no basis for calling him a Zionist Banker, other than wanting to say Jew-banker but knowing the rules won't let you.

[Zionist Nationalist]

[youtube]d5McvSpcUIA[/youtube]

[Jihsan]

So there was no basis for calling him a Zionist Banker, other than wanting to say Jew-banker but knowing the rules won't let you.

Good job attacking the messenger and so automatically avoiding the messege?

I know for a fact that it is a religious duty of majority of jewish diaspora to support the greater cause of Israel. I think I even heard Israel's leaders asking or encouraging them to do so. So I assumed Maddoff directly or indirectly supported Israel. We will never know for sure as it is not something which they'll boast about, especially in the Media. I could be wrong and in that case do apologize.

[Nets]

Good job attacking the messenger and so automatically avoiding the messege?

The rest of your post proved that I was correct in doing so. It is clear that you have no real basis for saying Madoff was a "Zionist banker" other than your own deluded conspiracy theories about Jews. So my assertion that when you wrote "Zionist banker" you meant to say "Jew banker" is substantiated. Do you have any actual reason to say that Madoff was defauding investors (including Zionist organizations (!)), in order to further some Zionist cause? That is a reason outside of David Duke videos and your own paranoia?

[Orestes]

Yay, Jewish bankers, my favourite topic

Now I'm going to take this slowly, because there's obviously some who are hard of thinking. Notice something funny about that passage: "He was the Christ". Now Josephus was not a Christian and not a follower of Jesus. Clearly it wasn't written by Josephus. How do people think we have Josephus' work? It was copied by Christians. Christians copied what they thought was good and burnt what they disagreed with. The Christians were pathological liars they were always changing texts to say what they thought they should say.

Kind of right, but kind of wrong.

There are hints that the particular text quoted by Smertios :

1) originally looked differently in the "he was the Christ" bit

2) that there were changes made in it between 280 C.E. and 320 C.E., perhaps by bishop Euzebius, but that in its early form the passage did in fact said merely that there was a Jesus, and what his disciples believed about him (and that would be the reason why earliest Christians didn't actually quote the work of Josephus, as it didn't really say what they wanted it to say=that Jesus was the Messiah).




Origen wrote about the testimony of Josephus in "Contra Celsum" :

For in the eighteenth book of Jewish Antiquities Josephus testifies that John was a baptist, who promised purification to those who were baptized. The same author while not believing in Jesus as the Christ, in seeking for the cause of the fall of Jerusalem and destruction of the temple ought to have said that the plot against Jesus was the reason these things came upon the people

Again Origen, from "Commentary on Mathew" :

And to so great a reputation among the people for righteousness did this James rise, that Flavius Josephus, who wrote the Antiquities of the Jews in twenty books, when wishing to exhibit the cause why the people suffered so great misfortunes that even the temple was razed to the ground, said, that these things happened to them in accordance with the wrath of God in consequence of the things which they had dared to do against James the brother of Jesus who is called Christ. And the wonderful thing is, that, though he [Josephus] did not accept Jesus as
Christ, he yet gave testimony that the righteousness of James was so great; and he says that the people thought that they had suffered these things because of James.

References to the text of Flavius in the presumably untampered form of it:

From "Chronicle" of Michael the Syrian :

The writer Josephus also says in his work on the institutions [i.e. Antiquities] of the Jews: In these times there was a wise man named Jesus, if it be fitting for us to call him a man. For he was a worker of glorious deeds and a teacher of truth. Many from among the Jews and the nations became his disciples. He was thought to be the Messiah. But not according to the testimony of the principal [men] of [our] nation. Because of this, Pilate condemned him to the cross, and he died. For those who had loved him did not cease to love him. He appeared to them alive after three days. For the prophets of God had spoken with regard to him of such marvelous things [as these]. And the people of the Christians, named after him, have not disappeared till [this] day.

From "De viris illustribus" by Jerome :

In this same time was Jesus, a wise man, if indeed it be lawful to call him man. For he was a worker of wonderful miracles, and a teacher of those who freely receive the truth. He had very many adherents also, both of the Jews and of the Gentiles, and was believed to be Christ, and when through the envy of our chief men Pilate had crucified him, nevertheless those who had loved him at first continued to the end, for he appeared to them the third day alive. Many things both these and other wonderful things are in the songs of the prophets whoprophesied concerning him and the sect of Christians, so named from him, exists to the present day.

From "Arabic history" by Agapius:

For he [i.e. Josephus] says in the treatises that he has written on the governance [i.e. Antiquities] of the Jews:

At this time there was a wise man who was called Jesus. His conduct was good, and [he] was known to be virtuous. And many people from among the Jews and the other nations became his disciples. Pilate condemned him to be crucified and to die. But those who had become his disciples did not abandon his discipleship. They reported that he had appeared to them three days after his crucifixion, and that he was alive;

I'm atheist personally, but I just don't get this fervour in trying to prove no matter what that Jesus never existed. I think he was just a successful con artist from Palestine and that is that, why go all these lenghts against the currently dominating view in scholarship ?

If you don't believe Josephus, here's a quote from Tacitus' The Annals of the Imperial Rome published ca 115 C.E.:

To suppress this rumor, Nero fabricated scapegoats – and punished with every refinement the notoriously depraved Christians (as they were popularly called). Their originator, Christ, had been executed in Tiberius’ reign by the governor of Judaea, Pontius Pilate. But in spite of the temporary setback the deadly superstition had broken out afresh, not only in Judea (where the mischief had started) but even in Rome. All degraded and shameful practices collect and flourish in the capital. First Nero had the self-acknowledged Christians arrested. Then on their information, large numbers of others were condemned – not so much for incendiarism as for their anti-social tendencies.