Okay, convince me Jesus existed.

[Ethnikos]

*snip*
The new religion promised instant saintdom to everyone who dies for their faith. If you could get the Romans to kill you, you were promised to immediately go to heaven, do not pass go, do not collect 200 denarii So a lot of people went and trolled the Romans to get their instant guaranteed eternal reward.
*snip*

Could you give sources for this "saintdom".
What I am trying to get at is, what would be the nature of this becoming a saint, or of being a saint and are there descriptions of it and what the experience would be like.
Could such a thing (a glorified condition) have a parallel in other religions that were current to the Christian martyrdoms?

 

[tsig]

I can understand your desire to brush aside Mainstream Christianity just as easily as Mormonism is brushed aside and debunked, riddiculed, considered absured and silly, etc.. But instead of just one Joesph-Smith-like you have 13. And instead of trying to find a way to weasel out of a death sentence like Smith did by concealing a weapon and using it, you have each one of these people gladly willing to die for being a Christian.

Each disciple claimed to have known and spoke with Christ personally and they each died, more or less, in a different country or region trying to get the new religion kicked off. If it was all a scam, it is unlikely. They had no way of knowing if the other had kept their story straight, if they were all lying. None denounced their faith while they were being tortured, unlike Smith who tried to get out of getting shot by doing that dumbass mason call.

The idea that there is not some living and breathing human being at the cause of the early Christian movement is not a plausible idea. But I understand how fun it is to suppose it is true. I am sure lots of conspiracy theorist get glee and joy out of their suppositions.

Some were so zealous they died more that once.

 

[Ethnikos]

*snip*
5. Plus, persecution was only minimal in the first century anyway. You had to make yourself pretty visible to even be accused in the first place, much less to actually end up among the single-digit number of people actually martyred. And I mean, seriously, outside of Nero's backlash after the great fire of Rome, the most you can find for any given Emperor in the 1st Century is like 1 (ONE) guy executed for religion, if even that.

Combined with the above, you probably get the idea already -- like many Roman writers also would -- that the only people martyred, were those who actually wanted to commit suicide by the Romans' hand.
*snip*

Could being put on trial and being "persecuted" for your faith actually be a bizarre initiation rite secretly held by the Christians of Rome to become one with Jesus?

ETA: for example, Peter being hung upside-down, wanting to join Jesus but not wanting to be too obvious about it, but giving a hidden signal to his followers that this is actually a good thing to do to.

 

[RandFan]

TErich von Däniken and Colin Welland are going to be very disappointed in you.

http://www.yvonneclaireadams.com/HostedStuff/ChariotsGodsFire.jpg​

Okay, did you Photoshop that or did you find that?

 

[Greediguts]

Of course, you can imagine that. But the problems are:

1. Crucifixion was not that common. (I know, I could hardly believe that Life Of Brian got that wrong) It was only fairly common for runaway or rebellious slaves, bandits (and even then non-citizen bandits), etc.

It's not like it was that uncommon either. Josephus recounts many stories from about 167 BCE on involving crucifixion. One happening within Rome itself against the priests of Isis. After Herod died, he tells of the Roman Legate Varas coming from Syria and crucifying 2000 people. He tells of the Roman procurator Tiberius Alexander crucifying several Galileans who tried to lead a tax revolt in 6 CE.

2. We see in several places, including both Josephus and Acts, that the Romans actually do distinguish between political cases and local religious disputes, and that most of the local customs and laws in Judaea were solved by the local courts. When someone wants a certain James (who may or may not have been the brother of Jesus) dead, we see in Josephus that they just summon the Sanhedrin and it has that James executed. Or when John The Baptist annoys the king, said king doesn't need the Romans to execute John.

The story of James and his companions being brought before Ananus and the Sanhedrin ends with Ananus being removed as high priest for what most saw as an unjustified act. Ananus was high priest for 3 months, abused his power, and was removed.

The Sanhedrin itself went through various stages of power and influence. Under some Romans it had more autonomy, as the years progressed it had less. The story of James shows that in 62 CE they could only convene the Sanhedrin with the ok of the procurator.

Some Talmudic sources place the end of the Sanhedrin's unrestricted power to impose the death penalty as early as 30 BCE. The Mishnah referred to a Sanhedrin that executes one person every seven years as "destructive".

Sorry, it makes no bloody sense to have the Romans involved there. And in several places, including Acts (though that is a questionable source) that the Romans refuse to be the ones dispensing punishments at all in cases concerning local religious disputes.

Even to the authors of the Gospels, the whole episode warrants a convoluted setup where the Roman governor has his hand forced by two high priests who didn't even rule at the same time, and a hare-brained accusation of Jesus trying to proclaim himself king, that supposedly Pilate couldn't ignore. In fact, he could jolly well ignore it, if Jesus wasn't a credible threat at all. They didn't nail every single crazy guy who thought he's some religious king or messiah. And it's not clear at all why would they annoy a pretty uncooperative Roman governor, instead of just dispensing a punishment they could themselves.

I disagree. I think it makes perfect bloody sense. The Jewish religion which had been afforded protected status under Roman law (didn't have to sacrifice to Roman gods, didn't have to serve in the military) began separating itself from the Christians as time went on. The Christians wanted separation too but wanted to maintain the links to the history of the Jewish religion so the Romans would not look upon them as some upstart cult (and might afford them the same legal rights as Jews). Making the Romans look like they had no real problems with the church's early leaders (and putting the blame on the Jews for killing Jesus) was a good PR move.

 

[BrianX]

Gday,



What I find odd is how some people see this in terms of just two sides, black-and-white, rather like a football game -
the nasty atheists
Vs
the wonderful believers.

Well - I am NOT an atheist.
(And I actually BELIEVE in Jesus ! Yes - Jesus is REAL. He is a real mythic being who really lives and moves - in the spiritual dimensions.)

But somehow, I am frequently labelled an atheist in these debates. Because only someone on the OTHER SIDE could possibly deny Jesus!

And we know that tarring your opponent with a nasty name is a sure way to win an argument.


K.

Okay, first off, "atheist" is no more of a slur than "statist" (but try explaining that to a libertarian). Second, um, you're not, apparently, an atheist, so I'm not talking about you. So, in conclusion... HUH?

 

[BrianX]

The bible, in and of itself, disproves much of itself. It's good like that. What I think you're missing is that this isn't about atheists getting a feather in their cap that Jesus never even existed. What it is about, at least for me, is the search for the truth. The cutting through the assertions and ******** and finding out whether he did, or did not, exist.

Let's face it, the Jesus that is purported to exist has such little relevance to the Jesus of the scriptures that he may as well have not existed for all that his actual existence matters to the validity of the scriptures. What does matter, IMO, is whether there is sufficient evidence to conclude that he did, or did not, indeed exist.

Consider the context. Where would we find the records? Even then, Yeshua bar Yosef probably wasn't exactly an unusual name in Galilee or Judea.

As for the Jesus of the Scriptures vs. the Jesus of history, yes, the distinction is significant, but that's why the validity of the scriptures are pretty much irrelevant here.

This, I think, is an important position to understand. The discussion of a HJ or JM is not always about "winning" a battle with Christians - for many, it's about discussing skeptically what evidence exists and how the conclusions that he did, or did not, exist were reached.

At the very least, arguing the point is overkill. We're basically talking about "some guy who said some things and who got lucky after he died".

 

[Gazpacho]

It doesn't seem to me that people in position of authority could keep a secret for 2000 years and someone in authority would have known that there never was a human being at the heart of Christianity like there exists a single human being at he heart of Buddism, Islam, etc.

It's very easy if you start at with an allegorical Jesus and then over time he becomes so familiar to the followers that he is no longer seen as an allegory. There is no need for anyone to "keep a secret." It's just a matter of different generations contextualizing the same stories in different ways.

 

[MRC_Hans]

Of course, you can imagine that. But the problems are:

*snip* So exactly why would you need a real one? Why can't you just invent a rabbi with a relatively common name -- let's call him, dunno, "Jesus" -- if you just need a mythical sockpuppet?

Why sure! I just offered one scenario that seemed possible. It could be any of dozens of others, including complete fiction. However, most of the stuff was first described around AD 100. At that time, it might have been risky to go for complete fiction, as there might still be conflicting legends and stories about. So I am suggesting that they built on some real events and people.

Personally, I don't really care much.

Hans

 

[catscratch]

Seriously?

cool. i think that seems pretty reasonable.
i'm not a christian, but i like jesus. i've always figured that he probably lived.
paul certainly ********** the whole thing up.

Kinda odd that Jesus prophesied specifically about Paul then, ain't it.

Even more strange would be the fact of Jesus pointing to the Father; and Paul, towards the Son... if what you say is true.

You must think there are a whole lotta one-eyed people somewhere, in the here and now... if the Kingdom Gospel that Jesus taught is literally in effect.

 

[catscratch]

One With The Lord Jesus Christ

Could being put on trial and being "persecuted" for your faith actually be a bizarre initiation rite secretly held by the Christians of Rome to become one with Jesus?

You have it backwards. Christians are persecuted specifically because they are ALREADY one with the Lord Jesus Christ. Which is what Paul teaches, and what Jesus' prayer to the Father, in John's Gospel, was all about. It is the Holy Spirit which does this miracle... by indwelling the born again soul.

 

[catscratch]

Saints

Could you give sources for this "saintdom".
What I am trying to get at is, what would be the nature of this becoming a saint, or of being a saint and are there descriptions of it and what the experience would be like.

All Christians are saints, as Paul writes for us in many places.

http://www.htmlbible.com/sacrednamebiblecom/kjvstrongs/B45C008.htm

And the meaning of "saint" is attached to verse 27, via Strong's.

The righteousness of Christ is imputed to all Christians from the moment of their new birth.

 

[RandFan]

Kinda odd that Jesus prophesied specifically about Paul then, ain't it.

Prove that he did? Prove that some scribe or Biblical writer didn't after the fact make up that little item like all others.

 

[RandFan]

The righteousness of Christ is imputed to all Christians from the moment of their new birth.

Until the commit serial murder... oh, wait, you have that convenient unfalsifiable fallacy of no true Christian. It's awfully convenient to make up the rules as you go along. A saint is a good person except when he isn't. Then he isn't.

You gotta hand it to religion. As George Carlin said, the greatest BS story ever told.

 

[Akhenaten]

Okay, did you Photoshop that or did you find that?

I made it with Corel PSP

 

[Akhenaten]

You have it backwards. Christians are persecuted specifically because they are ALREADY one with the Lord Jesus Christ. Which is what Paul teaches, and what Jesus' prayer to the Father, in John's Gospel, was all about. It is the Holy Spirit which does this miracle... by indwelling the born again soul.

 

[Kapyong]

Gday,

Second, um, you're not, apparently, an atheist, so I'm not talking about you. So, in conclusion... HUH?

Wow.
Way to completely miss the point!

You said this :

What I find odd is the necessity of some atheists to prove somehow that Jesus never existed.

That is - you ASSUMED that everyone arguing against an HJ is an ATHEIST.

But you were wrong.

I am arguing against an HJ, and I am NOT an atheist.
But your comment falsely painted me as one.

Do you understand your error now?


K.

 

[Kapyong]

Gday,

Does this mean you consider Jesus to actually exist? or the myth of jesus to actually exist?

Look -
my point was about just WHAT Jesus is.

Or what it means that Jesus is "REAL", or "actually exist(ed)"

It seems that many posters here believe there is EXACTLY and ONLY one possibility : a physical historical person.

As if the "mythical jesus" can only mean one thing - a FICTION about a historical person.

My point is that I do NOT agree with that, and nor did Paul AFAICS.

Paul believed in a spiritual being - the Risen Christ.
To Paul, Jesus Christ was REAL, he EXISTED - right?
But NOT as a physical historical being.

I am saying that Jesus Christ DID and DOES exist - as a spiritual being, or essence or energy or psychological principle or something - but NOT physical or historical in any way.

Of course to many people this means he did NOT exist really, because "real" can only mean "physical and historical" to them. I disagree.


K.

 

[Kapyong]

Gday,

It's obvious he doesn't because if he ever did than he be long dead and turned to dust by now.

Wrong.
Here is a perfect example - it appears the only possibility Mudcat can imagine for "Jesus existing" is a physical historical Jesus.

I disagree.
I believe Jesus can EXIST as a spiritual entity or force or psychological principle or something - but nothing that connects with us physically in anyway.

I was emphasizing this because that's how I believe Paul and the early Christians saw him - NOT historical at all.

Weather you acknowledge him as a myth or not, the myth clearly exists, regardless you believe it does or not.

It appears that you take the "myth of Jesus" to mean a fictional story about a non existent person - one allegedly of history.

Myth has come to mean "fiction" or "falsehoods" nowadays.
When really it used to mean something true in ANOTHER WAY.

Paul was trying to describe spiritual things and experiences - very REAL, but not historical. THAT is the key to understanding the MJ theory as I see it, and as Doherty argues it.

Look - I'm not really a believer as such. I am trying to point out that it's NOT just about a HISTORICAL figure's yes or no existence.

Harry Potter is REAL!
Do we get it?


K.

 

[Kapyong]

Gday,

Apuleis wants to share insight into his religion but is restrained from just making an expose so writes an obviously fictional account of a character who goes through these processes but can do it in such a way as to give a spiritual understanding of the concepts involved, but not divulging what the actual secret cultic rituals are.

Apuleis met the Gods, he believed they are REAL (real spiritual entities.)

Paul could have done this by creating out of the HJ, a MJ to demonstrate the ideal which Paul fully expected his initiates to be able to reproduce.

Paul met the spiritual being Jesus Christ, who he believed was REAL (a real spiritual entity.)

No HJ required.
No HJ can be seen in Paul.


K.