www.jesusmythbusters.com

[rtaylor]

The Jesus of the bible did not exist. the virgin birth, as told in the bible, never happened.
The Visitation of Mary and the angel Gabriel never happened. The stories told about the life of the Jesus of the bible never happened. The cruxifiction of the Jesus of the bible never happened.
The bible says many things that have to be taken on faith. In times past it was absolutely necessary to believe everything in the bible as fact, in order to gain salvation. Early Christians believed in a lot more things than Christians of today. Christianity is evolving. Changing.
Trying to sound rational and believeable. It has dumped some of the earlier beliefs.
People today do not take the 6 days of creation as literal, in the past it was part of the faith. If you did not believe it you would be damned to an eternity of Hellfire. Even Hellfire is not what it used to be. Christians now recognize the idea of Hell as not something that a God of Love would do, they now describe the puishment for non-belief as simply being seperated from God. The fires of Hell do not exist. They never did.
The pre- meditated attack by Jesus on the money changers, which also never actually happened. John 2: 15. I say pre-meditated because " he went and made a scrouge of small cords". This was inserted into the Jesus story in an attempt to demonstrate the Jewishness of Jesus. To attract Jews into the new religeon. The roman coins would have had the emporers head on them and that was against the first commandment of Moses. No graven images.
The pointless miracle of changing water into wine. This story was supposed to attract the followers of the god Baachus. God of wine and joviality.
Baachus was also thought of as being a ' Son of God'.
According to the bible Jesus was 'cajoled' into performing this miracle by his mother, the Blessed Virgin Mary. Early Christians used this to demonstate that BVM could be prayed to to intercede in cases of illness, and especially childbirth. Jesus always does what his mother asks him to do. And it was part of the 'faith' to belive that she was up there, in heaven with Jesus and of course, his heavenly Father, God Almighty.

Judaism, Christianity and Islam have all been very bad expriences for the human race throughout history. Its time we grew out of this believe in imaginary friends.

If you could weigh the harm these religeons have done against the good, which would tip the scales?

[gymnopodie]

The Jesus of the bible did not exist.

Should we do a press release for CNN or BBC?

[ignorantianescia]

It is quite interesting to claim that Jesus was modelled after Bacchus, or at least to attract Bacchants. Ignoring the fact that this pagan modelling is unfounded, wouldn't it be hard to argue that it would be feasible to both succeed in appealing both to Jews and to Bacchants? Some adherents were mentioned to be decidedly hostile to Romans, one disciple is called a Zealot. How likely are such passages to help in attracting worshippers of the 'Greco-Roman' Dionysus? Or how likely are modellings after a Pagan deity to appeal to Palestinian Jews, both before the Jewish war as well as after the Jewish war?

In short, how would you combine these rather contradicting goals into a credible explanation? Though asking what general dates you assign to the books making up the New Testament would probably be more informative.

[rtaylor]

In the Hellenized world there was religeous tolerence. This allowed people to have a knowledge of other peoples religeons. This knowledge, in a religeously tolerent world, leads to new ideas being formed. Religeons merged. Paganism and Judaism merge to form Christianity. The Paganism of John and the Judaism of Paul. This new religeon brings with it the religeous intolerence of the Jews.

[ignorantianescia]

If the Roman were so tolerant, why would they have persecuted Christians and Jews? Executing the intolerant is not quite my notion of religious tolerance, really. Especially not if they live according to some lapsed Christians, as Pliny described in his letter to Trajan:

"They stated that the sum of their guilt or error amounted to this, that they used to gather on a stated day before dawn and sing to Christ as if he were a god, and that they took an oath not to involve themselves in villainy, but rather to commit no theft, no fraud, no adultery; not to break faith, nor to deny money placed with them in trust. Once these things were done, it was their custom to part and return later to eat a meal together, innocently, although they stopped this after my edict, in which I, following your mandate, forbade all secret societies. "

www.tyrannus.com/pliny_let.html

Now Roman religious tolerance generally had to do with the fact that beliefs were ancient, but generally emperor worship and honoring the Roman gods were important criteria, too (generally exceptions were made for Jews). There would occasionally be very insensitive and not very tactical acts towards the Jews by Rome, followed by outrage, riots and revolts and ended by persecution by the Romans. Is building a shrine to Jupiter on the Temple Mount your idea of religious tolerance?

Or what are we to make of the persecution of Christians? Is it tolerant to immolate them? If so, what is the difference with burning heretics at the stake?

At the very least, the Pagan tolerance was very circumstantial and subject to strict criteria or an official exemption.

[rtaylor]

I think, perhaps, the reason the Romans destroyed the temple in Jerusalem was because the Jews themselves could not stop fighting amongst themselves. There where at least four different factions, each claiming to have the correct interptetation of the Law of Moses, as handed down at Mt Sinai. These different cults where the Zealots, Saducees, Pharisees and I think, Essenes. Throughout Jewish history, according to the bible, the Jews had lurched between various religeous beliefs. From idolatry to monotheism and back to other gods, and back to monotheism, various times. At the supposed time of Jesus the Jews still had not fixed their beliefs into one agreeable idea. They still fought and argued with each other. Perhaps the Romans where so frustrated with these religeous maniacs behaviour over a long period of time and decided to destroy the religeon altogether for all time. They dispersed the Jews all over the then known world. The sects that had fought each other where mostly destroyed.
The Zealots, Saducees, Pharisees and Essenes do not now exist. Judaism is now more Rabbinical, which seems to have come out of the Jewish Pharsisical sect.
The Pharisees believed in life after death, heaven and angels. The Saducees, which was one of the other main Jewish sects did not. They claimed that at Sinai, God does not mention anything about angels, the devil, life after death etc. God only promises long life and prosperity to the believer. To the non-believer he promises to punish the children and their children. down to the fourth geration.
At Mt Sinai, the God of the Jews created religeous intolerence.
Which, sadly we are still suffering from today.
The different religeons still cannot agree among themselves.
The fact of the matter is that it is nearly always the religous people who are intollerent of each other.
Paul, of the NT, being a Pharisee, moved to the Pagan Son of God belief of Christianity.
Which flourished at these times in ancient Greece.
If he had been a Saducee, Christianity would have gone the way of all the other 'Son of God' belliefs, onto the shelf marked, 'Ancient Mythology'.

[timoneill]

Oct 6, 2010 13:50:24 GMT rtaylor said:

I think, perhaps, the reason the Romans destroyed the temple in Jerusalem was because the Jews themselves could not stop fighting amongst themselves.

Yes. Because it's not as though it happened as the culmination of a brutal siege and assault on Jerusalem as part of a years-long rebellion agains the Empire or anything. Oh, hang on ...

Paul, of the NT, being a Pharisee, moved to the Pagan Son of God belief of Christianity.

There was nothing remotely "pagan" about Paul's entirely Jewish ideas.

But why do I bother?

[rtaylor]

The concept of 'Son of God ' is entirely Pagan. Paul or Saul, as he was known before his conversion to the new pagan belief of Christianity was a Zealous member of the Jewish sect known as the Pharisees. Being a Zealous member of any Jewish sect must mean that one is just a little un-balanced. He also would not have differentianted between Christians and other Pagan religeons. Anyone who believed in something that he did not approve of would be liable to persecution. He was intolerent of other ideas. This is basically the foundation of Christianity.
As to the brutal siege? Where not the Romans invited into the country of the Jews by Judas Maccabeous, king of that country? Did he not invite them in so that they could help him to maintain some order in the country? The Jews then could not agree any more than religeous people of today cannot agree with each other. The main problem seems to me to be the God that they all worship. The God who calls himself Jealous. Each different branch of whatever religeon thinks that they have the Truth, and any one who dis-agrees with them should be avioded. See 1 Corinthians 16; 22-24 for a glimpse of Pauls continuing Zealotry. just another small signpost on the road to Christian persecution of non-believers.

As to ' Why do you bother?'
I do not know. Perhaps you are trying to convince yourself that your faith has some Truth to it.

[ignorantianescia]

Oct 17, 2010 10:39:08 GMT rtaylor said:

The concept of 'Son of God ' is entirely Pagan. Paul or Saul, as he was known before his conversion to the new pagan belief of Christianity was a Zealous member of the Jewish sect known as the Pharisees. Being a Zealous member of any Jewish sect must mean that one is just a little un-balanced. He also would not have differentianted between Christians and other Pagan religeons. Anyone who believed in something that he did not approve of would be liable to persecution. He was intolerent of other ideas. This is basically the foundation of Christianity.

Son of a deity is a pagan concept, being the Son of God isn't. Some of these divine sons from pagan religions may have had some important eschatological roles (the new gods after Ragnarok), but equating it with the role of Messiah is a hasty generalisation.

It is also rather shoddy to use 'Zealous' (capitalised) in this context, unless you can show that Saul was a Zealot.

I don't think Saul persecuted the Roman soldiers stationed in Jerusalem, so I think he would differentiate between Christianity and pagan concepts. Likely because Christianity was a Jewish sect.

Oct 17, 2010 10:39:08 GMT rtaylor said:

As to the brutal siege? Where not the Romans invited into the country of the Jews by Judas Maccabeous, king of that country? Did he not invite them in so that they could help him to maintain some order in the country? The Jews then could not agree any more than religeous people of today cannot agree with each other. The main problem seems to me to be the God that they all worship. The God who calls himself Jealous. Each different branch of whatever religeon thinks that they have the Truth, and any one who dis-agrees with them should be avioded. See 1 Corinthians 16; 22-24 for a glimpse of Pauls continuing Zealotry. just another small signpost on the road to Christian persecution of non-believers.

What do you think of the peace churches, like the Quakers and some Catholic movements? Do you think they worship a different God?

Oct 17, 2010 10:39:08 GMT rtaylor said:

As to ' Why do you bother?'
I do not know. Perhaps you are trying to convince yourself that your faith has some Truth to it.

Tim O'Neill
Undogmatic Atheist Medievalist

[rtaylor]

Paul the Zealot.
He tells us himself that he had been a practicing Religeous Zealot.
Righteous persecution, in Gods name. Philipians 3; 6.
1.Tim 13. Paul admits to being a persecutor and injurious to non-believers.
Religeous persecution persists to this day. Because people worship the God whose name is Jealous.
There are those, such as Jehovahs Witnesses, who renounce violence, but unfortunately, they still worship the Jealous God of the ancient Isrealites.
Their Holy Scriptures clearly say that those who do not believe should be put to death.
Revelation tells us that Jesus is going to come back and kill all those who do not worship this God. His vesture will be soaked in the blood of non-believers. The blood wll flow as if from a wine press. This is supposed to be a God of love?
This is Jealous God of Blood.

[davedodo007]

I have never believed that Jesus the real person existed and I have ask for Bart D Ehrman book 'Jesus interrupted for xmas (ho the irony.) I assume many posters don't agree with this book so what flaws should I be aware of.

[timoneill]

Dec 9, 2010 7:18:16 GMT davedodo007 said:

I have never believed that Jesus the real person existed and I have ask for Bart D Ehrman book 'Jesus interrupted for xmas (ho the irony.) I assume many posters don't agree with this book so what flaws should I be aware of.

I can't speak for anyone who disagrees with Ehrman's work, since I considered him one of the best scholars in the field. But if you " have never believed that Jesus the real person existed" then you'll find that and other works by Ehrman a disappointment, since he and virtually every single other scholar on the planet accepts that he did exist. And for good reason - that's the most logical conclusion from the evidence.

[davedodo007]

Dec 9, 2010 19:39:10 GMT timoneill said:

Dec 9, 2010 7:18:16 GMT davedodo007 said:

I have never believed that Jesus the real person existed and I have ask for Bart D Ehrman book 'Jesus interrupted for xmas (ho the irony.) I assume many posters don't agree with this book so what flaws should I be aware of.

I can't speak for anyone who disagrees with Ehrman's work, since I considered him one of the best scholars in the field. But if you " have never believed that Jesus the real person existed" then you'll find that and other works by Ehrman a disappointment, since he and virtually every single other scholar on the planet accepts that he did exist. And for good reason - that's the most logical conclusion from the evidence.

It's not that I'm doubting Jesus existence for the fun of it. As an atheist I don't believe he was the son of god obviously but when I started looking into the history of 1st century Palestine (a place that seem to be overflowing with historians, philosophers and scribes) I was surprised at how there seems to be no mention of a Jesus that comes across as even just a great teacher/rabble rouser. If even a small part of the gospels (minus miracles) had some basis in reality surely someone must have notice him?

This actually come as a shock to me as I had taken his existence as a given. When I pointed this out on another Christian theology site all I got was 'Josephus' and people where willing to die for him (What religious people willing to die for a cult, never.) I'm still open to his existence it's just the paucity of evidence that I find confusing.

[unkleE]

Dec 11, 2010 23:53:48 GMT davedodo007 said:

I'm still open to his existence it's just the paucity of evidence that I find confusing.

I'm not a historian, but I think we need to understand what historians would regard as good evidence and what would be a paucity - we laypeople may judge by 21st century standards of information. My understanding is that by historical standards, the existence of four gospels (probably based on up to half a dozen independent sources), plus the other NT documents, plus the smattering of references in Josephus, Tacitus, etc, is not a "paucity", but more than for many other ancient figures. So unbelievers Bart Ehrman and Michael Grant, and believers James Charlesworth and Craig Evans, plus scholars like Robert Van Voorst and EP Sanders whose religious views are not clear, can all say that the evidence is sufficient to conclude he existed. The real disagreements come when we discuss exactly what we can know, or reasonably believe, about him.

[ignorantianescia]

rwzero, please do not pain yourself trying to communicate with rtaylor, he has been banned for good reason (and for the good of reason).

Robert Van Voorst seems to have been active at Methodist and Presbyterian institutions and seems to have been a pastor at Presbyterian and Reformed churches.