Okay, convince me Jesus existed.

[Greediguts]

Please RandFan, don't encourage him.

 

[RandFan]

I don't think "falsifiability" ever meant "argument from ignorance", though.

...

In fact he even spells out something which, if taken at face value, pretty much is what Kapyong and Doherty and the gang are trying to tell us: Jesus is revealed by those cryptic passages in the OT. That's where Paul finds Jesus. In his vision and reading some paragraphs in a schizophrenic way, not as a real person.

And if we take some passages from him at face value, he talked to Jesus after that first vision again and even got at least one detailed answer. Also in one place he actually claims to have been stoned, and in another place that he himself was crucified and is now dead and is some kind of zombie animated by Jesus's will. If you take that literally, Paul is a textbook case of Cotard delusion. Which incidentally also often includes delusion of immortality resulting from that undead condition.


Etc. That's not even the only good scenarios, but just for illustration sake, they'll have to do.

QFT Well done.

I would have to say to anyone who thinks there is any reason whatsoever to suppose that the Bible is evidence of anything supernatural the following:

Before we can accept the supernatural we MUST exhaust all natural explanations. Even those most wacky, far fetched extreme theories. Any plausible natural theory is more likely than a supernatural one.

A theory:

Aliens created a narrative and used advanced technology to fool the people of Jerusalem to get them to believe that a son of god came to earth and died to save us from death. This was all done for their entertainment and they are sitting in their rocket ships even to this day watching the hilarity ensue.

Now, this theory is not parsimonious. It's not needed to explain the account in the Bible. But if WE HAD NO OTHER THEORY it would be far more likely than a supernatural explanation.

Hell, a grand conspiracy ala Bill Thompson is far more likely.

 

[Leumas]

sorry..... //deleted because it was a wrong posting

Can some administrator delete this post please??

 

[Leumas]

1. Paul is a con-man, just like Joseph Smith, Ron Hubbard, and pretty much the majority of people who ever started a religion.
2. Paul is genuinely schizophrenic.

He actually admits himself to being 1 and 2 above..... he says so. He says that he becomes everything to everybody (1 Cor 9:19-23)....he is a jew for the jews and a gentile for the gentiles and humble for the humble etc.

So he admits to being a CHARLATAN..... and a MULTI-Personality.

But I actually hold to a theory that I think explains Paul to a P

I think Paul was a SPY..... that explains the con job and the apparently schizophrenic behavior. I think he was a FIFTH COLUMNIST..... his mission was to DERAIL the Jesus movement from inside and move it away from Judaism and drive it to be as far removed from Judaism as possible.

He never dreamt of succeeding the way he did and never envisioned the unforeseen consequences of 2000 years of persecution to Judaism that would eventually result. But also no one could have envisioned the American Evangelical movement either....which now has reverted Christianity back to being a Jewish subservient sect again (albeit blasphemous).

Of course if it was not for Constantine's ex-slave Christian mother we would have never had Christianity today and thus Paul could have never envisioned that a slave woman would have a Roman Emperor son who would listen to her and change the world. And Martin Luther who all he wanted was to reform Catholicism would have never dreamed that his protestations would result eventually in the American Evangelical churches.

Religion is TRULY like a virus.....you try to treat it but it MUTATES and ADAPTS and becomes more VIRULENT with every new mutation and the treatment may even help it.

 

[pakeha]

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

i'm curious to see your quote to prove this.
are you aware that all of the gospels were written later than paul?

I'll second that request.

 

[Leumas]

deleted // I am a klutz today...sorry


Can some administrator delete this post please??

 

[Leumas]

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.

i'm curious to see your quote to prove this.
are you aware that all of the gospels were written later than paul?

I'll second that request.

Yes he did....here are the verses

Matthew 7

15 “Watch out for false prophets. They come to you in sheep’s clothing, but inwardly they are ferocious wolves. 16 By their fruit you will recognize them. Do people pick grapes from thornbushes, or figs from thistles? 17 Likewise, every good tree bears good fruit, but a bad tree bears bad fruit. 18 A good tree cannot bear bad fruit, and a bad tree cannot bear good fruit. 19 Every tree that does not bear good fruit is cut down and thrown into the fire. 20 Thus, by their fruit you will recognize them.


21 “Not everyone who says to me, ‘Lord, Lord,’ will enter the kingdom of heaven, but only the one who does the will of my Father who is in heaven. 22 Many will say to me on that day, ‘Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in your name and in your name drive out demons and in your name perform many miracles?’ 23 Then I will tell them plainly, ‘I never knew you. Away from me, you evildoers!’ ​

 

[Greediguts]

Oh please - that's a terrible analogy and you know it
There is no need to ignore my actual words and step off into silly analogies or exaggerated claims, like you've done twice now.
My claim is quite clear - the vast majority of NT scholars would risk their friends and reputation and even jobs if they suddenly announced they believed Jesus was a myth - because they are faithful Christians and/or work for Christian organisations.
I don't think such a claim is radical, or untrue - it's reasonable, and I think it's clearly true. The actual numbers maybe argued, sure; but it's pretty clear that a person who held an honorary priest-hood, or who sat in a religious chair, or even just members of a unversity with a religious patron, would be in big trouble if they suddenly denied Jesus.
If you disagree, feel free to argue why - but please no more strawmen or broken analogies.

Well, I didn't think it was a horrible analogy...

There are such things given out -"honorary priest-hood"? Seriously?

Bart Ehrman does not worship Jesus and is an admitted agnostic. Has it hurt his career? Paula Fredriksen doesn't believe in god, yet she was picked by PBS to be an advisor on the series "From Jesus to Christ". Bad move career-wise? John Dominic Crossan left the priesthood in 1969 and doesn't think Jesus had superpowers or was god made man. Did this hurt his career? If you read or view interviews with Elaine Pagels, you can see she doesn't really believe the creeds of mainstream Christianity. Is she just following the status quo? Do these people not jump on the MJ bus because they are afraid of the repercussions or is it because their work and examination of the evidence has led them to a different conclusion?

Looking at this from a different perspective, some Jews have argued for a historical Jesus throughout the years even though the opposite was the entrenched position. (In 1925, Rabbi Stephen Wise gave a lecture at Carnegie Hall entitled “A Jew's View of Jesus". He argued against the predominant Jewish view at that time (Jesus did not exist). He was still able to be very active in the Jewish community.) Rabbi Samuel Sandmel wrote A Jewish Understanding of the New Testament which treats Jesus as a historical Jew, not as a myth. More Jews are feeling comfortable engaging in looking for a historical Jesus with a majority having no problems accepting the historical Jesus hypothesis. This was NOT the dominant view for quite some time.

When you talk about Christians, are you referring to fundamentalists? If so I would agree with you, but if that brush becomes broader I think you need to re-examine your claim.

No. I did not claim any vision of a "spiritual Christ".
Please - a little more care in reading my posts, may I suggest
My point then was about how it was possible for someone like Paul to truly believe in a Jesus who existed, who was REAL, but not yet physical. In short, I wanted to emphasize that the word "real" does not necesarily mean "physical" and "historical". In fact this word "real" is so vague as to be useless - I suggest we avoid it.

Kapyong, I had gotten the impression that since you were not an atheist you held some sort of spiritual view and seemed to hint in various threads you had a (for lack of a better word) spiritual vision. My point was I felt you implied that no Christian scholar could be taken seriously if they professed any sort of faith. This to me then seemed odd, given that I thought you were professing some sort of belief in the supernatural/spiritual/"energy" ideas that require quite a bit of faith to support. I actually do sincerely apologize if I am assuming too much, but previous posts muddled the issue and pointed me in that direction.

Well .. I don't have too much to say on what Tom said, Doherty said, Neil said....
But I don't think they would actually claim "conspiracy", but people LOVE to use that word Of course there can be an entrenched position, especially in religious matters - and Jesus is a the perfect sacred cow of our culture.
K.

Neil Godfrey stated "I understand that if one wants to get ahead in a guild one must play the game. Hoffmann has acknowledged that the reason the question of the nonhistoricity of Jesus is not more on the agenda among scholars has more to do with concern for security of academic appointments than “common sense”. So I understand that to be accepted into the club one must learn to think a certain way. But that club is only showing its tribal side when some of its members can crucify certain targeted incorrect outsiders while the rest of its members find excuses to remain silent. "

I can withdraw the word conspiracy, but what is implied here? An elite club? The Borg collective?
Some of the most visible faces in biblical academia are not Christians or believers in mainstream Christian creeds (such as the people I named before), yet they have no problem holding teaching positions and being heard. The HJ theory is NOT trying to prove a supernatural Christ. How does a historical Jesus offer support to churches???

Thomas Verenna replied to Neil's statement this way:
"How naive and ignorant. Nobody is forced to think a certain way; if that were the case, we would still be uttering church law and dogma at all academic conferences and at the beginning of every paper. And rather than discussing the intricacies of intertextuality in the Gospels we would be singing hymns and praises towards the miracles of Jesus. This is a completely fallacious and slanderous statement about the status of current scholarship, and speaks volumes about ones own understanding and misgivings about the academic process. The whole PhD process is bent around producing a new and unique work in the field. Quoting the so-called ‘status quo’ is not going to get one anywhere. It won’t even get them by a PhD board. They’ll probably be cited for plagiarism. The ‘status quo’ argument is nothing more than a myth, idealized by those who refuse to do what is necessary to earn respect.
And the only thing one must do to ‘join the club’ is to be realistic. You’re being ‘anything but realistic’ in your analysis."
(quotes taken from Thomas' blog here).

 

[Puppycow]

It's probably more likely that Jesus existed than that he didn't (I'm an atheist so I don't believe any of the tall tales about miracles he performed).

It's simply that religions tend to have founders. Without L. Ron Hubbard, Scientology wouldn't exist. Without Joseph Smith, Mormonism wouldn't exist. Therefore, it's likely that Jesus existed too.

 

[BobTheDonkey]

It's probably more likely that Jesus existed than that he didn't (I'm an atheist so I don't believe any of the tall tales about miracles he performed).

It's simply that religions tend to have founders. Without L. Ron Hubbard, Scientology wouldn't exist. Without Joseph Smith, Mormonism wouldn't exist. Therefore, it's likely that Jesus existed too.

(Ahem, um...L. Ron Hubbard:Scientology:aul (not Jesus):Christianity)

 

[RandFan]

It's probably more likely that Jesus existed than that he didn't (I'm an atheist so I don't believe any of the tall tales about miracles he performed).

It's simply that religions tend to have founders. Without L. Ron Hubbard, Scientology wouldn't exist. Without Joseph Smith, Mormonism wouldn't exist. Therefore, it's likely that Jesus existed too.

The history that we have doesn't point to that. There is no founder of Cargo Cults. The closest we have is John Frum but there is no evidence that he lived and if he did that he was trying to start a religion.

The history of Christianity is far closer to cargo cults. I honestly don't know. I've heard arguments both ways. If there was a founder I don't think it was Jesus. The Bible doesn't even support that thesis.

 

[Lord Emsworth]

Yes he did....here are the verses

I think the request was about Paul being prophsied (about).

 

[Cavemonster]

The history that we have doesn't point to that. There is no founder of Cargo Cults.

We can't say that there is no founder of cargo cults. We just don't have that kind of record, and it seems less likely that even a population the size of a village would spontaneously generate a set of rituals and expectations with any cohesion unless somebody stood up and said "Look! this is the way to make it rain Coke bottles!"

But let's say that there wasn't any charismatic individual shaping each cult, there was still undeniably an impetus, the new kinds of items and technology they were faced with. Some cults might be formed around a volcano or earthquakes, but there has to be something.

Religions don't just spontaneously come into being. Given enough time and separation, they can mutate into different faiths, but they don't just start to exist without some cause, and seeing how Christianity doesn't seem to respond to any new and dramatic information from the natural or cultural worlds, a human invention seems most likely. Whether it was based on a crucified preacher, or that preacher himself was an invention of a later preacher (Paul) or if both of them were made up by a group speaking metaphorically (Gnostics-like early Christians) Some human foundation is more likely than Christian beliefs spontaneously mutating from Judaism in a population far from geographically or culturally isolated, in a fairly short time period.

 

[Puppycow]

(Ahem, um...L. Ron Hubbard:Scientology:aul (not Jesus):Christianity)

The history that we have doesn't point to that. There is no founder of Cargo Cults. The closest we have is John Frum but there is no evidence that he lived and if he did that he was trying to start a religion.

The history of Christianity is far closer to cargo cults. I honestly don't know. I've heard arguments both ways. If there was a founder I don't think it was Jesus. The Bible doesn't even support that thesis.

You may be right. Personally, I'm happy to consign the whole question to a black box and label it 'Doesn't Matter.'

What really matters to me it whether the central claims of Christianity (and organized religions in general) are true, and on that point I can confidantly say that they are not. Organized religions all make unsupported claims which are either disprovable or untestable. That's all I really need to know.

 

[RandFan]

We can't say that there is no founder of cargo cults.

I made a categorical without sufficient evidence. I'm sorry. I misspoke. It's very, very unlikely that there is a founder of cargo cults.

Religions don't just spontaneously come into being.

Categorical? What is the record to support yours? BTW: Lacking a founder isn't the same thing as "just spontaneously" coming into being. If a group of people share some common beliefs they could come together to discuss and share those beliefs without any conscious effort on any persons part to create a religion. It most certainly could be organic and to be sure, it's very likely that is exactly the basis of cargo cults.

 

[RandFan]

You may be right. Personally, I'm happy to consign the whole question to a black box and label it 'Doesn't Matter.'

What really matters to me it whether the central claims of Christianity (and organized religions in general) are true, and on that point I can confidantly say that they are not. Organized religions all make unsupported claims which are either disprovable or untestable. That's all I really need to know.

Cool.

 

[Leumas]

I think the request was about Paul being prophsied (about).

It was a JOKE....you see Jesus says to beware of false prophets. I say that is Jesus foretelling Paul. So that implies that Paul is a false prophet.....you see since Paul made christianity something that Jesus would not have approved of. Even Peter and James and the other disciples thought Paul was wrong. Peter later changed his mind.


So you see I am making a JOKE that Jesus mentioned Paul as the false prophet..... get it?

 

[RandFan]

It was a JOKE....you see Jesus says to beware of false prophets. I say that is Jesus foretelling Paul. So that implies that Paul is a false prophet.....you see since Paul made christianity something that Jesus would not have approved of. Even Peter and James and the other disciples thought Paul was wrong. Peter later changed his mind.


So you see I am making a JOKE that Jesus mentioned Paul as the false prophet..... get it?

I didn't but I do now. Good one.

 

[Kapyong]

Gday,

Kapyong, I had gotten the impression that since you were not an atheist you held some sort of spiritual view and seemed to hint in various threads you had a (for lack of a better word) spiritual vision. My point was I felt you implied that no Christian scholar could be taken seriously if they professed any sort of faith. This to me then seemed odd, given that I thought you were professing some sort of belief in the supernatural/spiritual/"energy" ideas that require quite a bit of faith to support. I actually do sincerely apologize if I am assuming too much, but previous posts muddled the issue and pointed me in that direction.

That's perfecty allright, no apology necessary.
I see my words were a little ambiguous, and I think I have mentioned spiritual experiences before.

So here is a clear description of my experiences and views:

Firstly -
I have never had an experience, vision, or anything from Jesus - with one possible exception. I do NOT make any specific claims about Jesus based on any personal experiences.

But -
I have been a Christian, and I have had spiritual experiences, even one in a Christian context. In that case I was serving as a sub-deacon in a Eucharist celebrated by the Liberal Catholic Church (who take this seriously as actual magic ritual.) The priest had the power it seems, and he often cried as the performed the magic (I always wondered why?), the congregation liked his power (all old women of course Anyway on this day it all came together - as he invoked the Christ, I felt the heavens open and light poured down thru him. Wow! The highest sort of divine light one could imagine - so pure, so vast, so clean, so perfect and amazing. So I cried too. Why? Well, in that light a mere human is dirty and weak and flawed and mean, so we cried like babies. Quite an experience. Nothing to do with Jesus.

Also -
I have travelled in various of my super-physical bodies - I have travelled some meters in the etheric plane, I have travelled all over W.A. and even as far as Malayasia in the astral. I have even made it up to the golden 'Buddhic' plane - an experience so joyful I am ready to die anytime having had that one. I have passed smoothly from sleep to waking without the 'gap', following a superphysical interview. I have had the Cosmic Consciousness experience in which I became aware of the entire Cosmos. I have met a vastly powerful superphysical being who did physical magic for me. And later, having rejected his offer to join his coven, he came back to kill me. He squeezed me all the way down to the dark tunnel of death with the light at the end - but I beat him! Two of us shared that near-death experience. Telepathy is a common experience for me. I have met various witches and healers who can deal with 'the others' competently.

But I don't seen those experiences as making me special - I avoided the pressure to become a guru.

Yet maybe there is a certain bias there - I see Jesus in spiritual terms, and I have had spiritual experiences - far cop.

But I don't actually base my claims on my experiences - they are private and subjective. However - it DOES make me open to the idea that people can see spiritual things as REAL. Paul thought Jesus as REAL - but nothing physical.

Make sense?


K.

 

[Kapyong]

Gday,

It's probably more likely that Jesus existed than that he didn't (I'm an atheist so I don't believe any of the tall tales about miracles he performed).
It's simply that religions tend to have founders. Without L. Ron Hubbard, Scientology wouldn't exist. Without Joseph Smith, Mormonism wouldn't exist. Therefore, it's likely that Jesus existed too.

Christianity had a founder - Paul, inter alia.

Did Zeus found the Greek religion?
Did Demeter found her mysteries?
Did Bacchus found the revelries?
Did Krishna found Hinduism?
Did Xenu found Scientology ?

No.

Jesus was not the founder.
Jesus is not required at all.


K.