35
   

Did Jesus Actually Exist?

 
 
Olivier5
 
  2  
Reply Fri 17 Oct, 2014 07:16 am
@Setanta,
My arguments do not rest on the Testimonium. I have said more than once that it cannot be trusted. Write this to someone else.

Beside, you have already shared this data from the survey of scholar on the Testimonium. No need to repeat yourself.
Krumple
 
  -1  
Reply Fri 17 Oct, 2014 07:20 am
@Frank Apisa,
Frank Apisa wrote:

Krumple wrote:

Frank Apisa wrote:

At some point, there was a person (or some people) who realized that loving one another was a better option for civilization than constantly hating and fighting.

So the "message" was born.

To most of us...the ones who feel the message is a worthwhile message, it doesn't really matter how the message arose...if it came from one guy named Jesus or a whole bunch of people.

The only people to whom it really does seem important are the people who are screwing over the message.

Weird that!



Was this before or after the message to murder disobedient children?


The supposed Jesus lived after what we now call the Old Testament was written...and that message is in the Old Testament...so it would have to be after.

Jesus essentially was saying that we should love one another.



Yeah but didn't Jesus deliver the parable of the fig tree? He cursed it for not bearing fruit out of season. It's a metaphor for anyone who does not bear wisdom should be cast down and burned, tossed away and forgotten. This was just his colorful poetic way of repeating the Torah's message. If he was all about love he wouldn't have cursed the tree at all. Some people get it and some people don't but should they be punished for not understanding?
Olivier5
 
  1  
Reply Fri 17 Oct, 2014 07:30 am
@Krumple,
There are many fig trees in the gospels. Quote please.
Krumple
 
  -1  
Reply Fri 17 Oct, 2014 07:33 am
@Olivier5,
Olivier5 wrote:

There are many fig trees in the gospels. Quote please.


Why don't you do your own look up of the parable of cursing the fig tree for yourself? I wouldn't want to contaminate the message board any more than it already is by pasting bible quotes.
Olivier5
 
  1  
Reply Fri 17 Oct, 2014 07:36 am
@edgarblythe,
That was quick!
0 Replies
 
Olivier5
 
  3  
Reply Fri 17 Oct, 2014 07:54 am
@Frank Apisa,
I agree that the message is more important than the messenger. The thing is that, as you perhaps imply, spreading doubt about the messenger's historical existence (maliciously, I repeat -- their arguments have little to do with facts as I have shown) result in debasing the gospels entirely, making them fake documents, forgeries. Therefore it decredibilise the message and makes any attempt by humanists and secular people to use any pieces of wisdom there might be in it.

That's why the historicity of Jesus is important to a secular humanist like me: he proposed a new ethic which has historical and philosophical and moral importance. I care about the message and, and I believe there's ample evidence a precise guy -- a Jew from Galilea as it turned out -- actually said it.

And just to be clear, I don't think he was a god. IMO he was a bastard, an outcast, an unruly yeshiva student, yet brilliant. Evidently likable, crazy if you will judge him rationally, yet very courageous. And ultimately influential beyond any other man perhaps.
Krumple
 
  0  
Reply Fri 17 Oct, 2014 08:16 am
@Olivier5,
Olivier5 wrote:

I agree that the message is more important than the messenger. The thing is that, as you perhaps imply, spreading doubt about the messenger's historical existence (maliciously, I repeat -- their arguments have little to do with facts as I have shown) result in debasing the gospels entirely, making them fake documents, forgeries. Therefore it decredibilise the message and makes any attempt by humanists and secular people to use any pieces of wisdom there might be in it.

That's why the historicity of Jesus is important to a secular humanist like me: he proposed a new ethic which has historical and philosophical and moral importance. I care about the message and, and I believe there's ample evidence a precise guy -- a Jew from Galilea as it turned out -- actually said it.

And just to be clear, I don't think he was a god. IMO he was a bastard, an outcast, an unruly yeshiva student, yet brilliant. Evidently likable, crazy if you will judge him rationally, yet very courageous. And ultimately influential beyond any other man perhaps.


Not a bad synopsis but he could also just be a make up multiple individuals to put forth an agenda or as an invisible delivery system for an anti-jewish worldview. What better delivery than from a proclaimed Jew right? He often quoted from the Torah but within almost the same breath he would challenge or push the quotes to their extreme revealing them to be lacking.

An example of this is the prostitute in the temple. When she goes there to seek refuge from two guys who want to stone her to death. They confront Jesus who defends her and he ends up sending them away with a good line of reasoning. "If you are just as guilty as her how can you condemn her?" But it explicitly states in the Torah that she should have been stoned to death yet he saves her.

I personally would have taken it a step further but who am I? I mean even today you can't get any more ironic when the US military spouts out how christian it is yet it teaches it's troops to murder which there is a commandment against that christians want to put on every government building. I guess there is a foot note with that commandment that states if someone is your enemy it's fine to murder them.
Olivier5
 
  3  
Reply Fri 17 Oct, 2014 08:21 am
@Krumple,
You won't quote the passage you wish to criticize? Now that's odd, or as I said before, malicious.

Assuming we talk of the same fig tree, to me this parable is about creativity and generosity, a life without which is not worth living. A barren fig tree is a waste of arable land. The theme comes frequently in the gospel: don't put your lamp under a shade; what have you made of your talent? You can also find it in Hillel: "if not now, when?" is about doing something useful with your life, as I read it.
Krumple
 
  0  
Reply Fri 17 Oct, 2014 08:23 am
@Olivier5,
Olivier5 wrote:

You won't quote the passage you wish to criticize? Now that's odd, or as I said before, malicious.

Assuming we talk of the same fig tree, to me this parable is about creativity and generosity, a life without which is not worth living. A barren fig tree is a waste of arable land. The theme comes frequently in the gospel: don't put your lamp under a shade; what have you made of your talent? You can also find it in Hillel: "if not now, when?" is about doing something useful with your life, as I read it.


See that does not live up to an all loving attitude in my opinion. Just because something isn't productive it doesn't deserve to exist? Is that what you are saying? I think that is a pretty low attitude to hold (if it is).
Lustig Andrei
 
  2  
Reply Fri 17 Oct, 2014 08:26 am
@Olivier5,
Olivier5 wrote:
And just to be clear, I don't think he was a god. IMO he was a bastard, an outcast, an unruly yeshiva student, yet brilliant. Evidently likable, crazy if you will judge him rationally, yet very courageous. And ultimately influential beyond any other man perhaps.


That he was considered crazy by some of his own people is clearly stated in Mark 3:21-22.

I've never been able to understand the kind of position that my good friends edgarblythe and cicerone imposter take, denying even the historical existence of this mentally disturbed itinerant preacher from Nazareth. Certainly there is no need to attribute Godship to him (and for an atheist this would be an impossible condition anyway); but to deny his very existence flies in the face of all logic and reason.
Olivier5
 
  4  
Reply Fri 17 Oct, 2014 08:33 am
@Krumple,
As I explained in many posts up thread, the fact that the Jews of the time or soon thereafter never denied his existence, but instead proposed in the Talmud a different version of a very similar figure, Yeshu the bad guy, the magician, the fake prophet... That fact is a powerful argument for the historicity of Jesus. If the good rabbis of the 1st, 2nd and 3rd century had had the slightest doubt about the Jesus character being a forgery or a myth, the Talmud would reflect that. Instead it provides us with a possible name for Jesus' father (Pantera).

The rabbis of the time wanted to get rid of Christianity, and they were not so stupid as to validate in the Talmud a putative conspiracy by some heathen or another to invent a fake messiah wannabe, right under their nose.
Olivier5
 
  2  
Reply Fri 17 Oct, 2014 08:40 am
@Krumple,
If you love all things. you love no things. You have no priorities. It's all the same for you... That detached attitude is not a messianic characteristic.
0 Replies
 
Krumple
 
  0  
Reply Fri 17 Oct, 2014 08:43 am
@Olivier5,
Olivier5 wrote:

As I explained in many posts up thread, the fact that the Jews of the time or soon thereafter never denied his existence, but instead proposed in the Talmud a different version of a very similar figure, Yeshu the bad guy, the magician, the fake prophet... That fact is a powerful argument for the historicity of Jesus. If the good rabbis of the 1st, 2nd and 3rd century had had the slightest doubt about the Jesus character being a forgery or a myth, the Talmud would reflect that. Instead it provides us with a possible name for Jesus' father (Pantera).

The rabbis of the time wanted to get rid of Christianity, and they were not so stupid as to validate in the Talmud a putative conspiracy by some heathen or another to invent a fake messiah wannabe, right under their nose.


Maybe but there could be elements to why it couldn't be handled. There are many con-artists even today who go years and years making profit off stupid people even when they have a whole army of people debunking their claims revealing them to be frauds and scamming society. In some ways even challenging such people it seems to sometimes have the opposite effect.

So if these rabbis did know it was all made up, if they were to challenge it they might actually cause more harm than they were trying to get rid of. But then again information was handled a lot different then. When the majority of the populous was illiterate how could you actually go about educating the people against false claims without actually going to the very location where the preachers were teaching just the opposite? With the power of the church it would be easy to just claim these people as heretics and two days later they were a pile of ashes in the town square.
izzythepush
 
  0  
Reply Fri 17 Oct, 2014 08:54 am
@Lustig Andrei,
Lustig Andrei wrote:

I've never been able to understand the kind of position that my good friends edgarblythe and cicerone imposter take, denying even the historical existence of this mentally disturbed itinerant preacher from Nazareth....... but to deny his very existence flies in the face of all logic and reason.


I disagree, the jury is very much out on whether or not Jesus actually existed. The historical evidence is scant.
glitterbag
 
  0  
Reply Fri 17 Oct, 2014 09:17 am
@Krumple,
We'll at least we can agree on something. I think you're a sorry ass too.
Olivier5
 
  4  
Reply Fri 17 Oct, 2014 09:29 am
@Krumple,
That couldn't be further from historical truth. The Babylonian Talmud (a longer version than the one from Palestine) was written in a place and time (3rd - 5th century, under the Sassanids) where and when Rome and the Church had no power. That's PRECISELY why it can afford to be polemic about Jesus. In fact, the most virulent passages were deleted from most versions of the Talmud in the Middle Ages, when the Church objected to them.
Krumple
 
  -1  
Reply Fri 17 Oct, 2014 09:29 am
@glitterbag,
glitterbag wrote:

We'll at least we can agree on something. I think you're a sorry ass too.


Wait just to make it clear, we are agreeing that you are a windbag?
0 Replies
 
Krumple
 
  0  
Reply Fri 17 Oct, 2014 09:30 am
@Olivier5,
Olivier5 wrote:

That couldn't be further from historical truth. The Babylonian Talmud (a longer version than the one from Palestine) was written in a place and time (3rd - 5th century, under the Sassanids) where and when Rome and the Church had no power. That's PRECISELY why it can afford to be polemic about Jesus. In fact, the most virulent passages were deleted from most versions of the Talmud in the Middle Ages, when the Church objected to them.


So no heretics were killed during the 3rd to 5th century then?
Olivier5
 
  2  
Reply Fri 17 Oct, 2014 09:39 am
@Krumple,
Not in Babylon by the Church against the Jews, to my knowledge. The official religion was Zoroastrian.
0 Replies
 
neologist
 
  1  
Reply Fri 17 Oct, 2014 10:08 am
@Krumple,
Krumple wrote:
. . . Yeah but didn't Jesus deliver the parable of the fig tree? . . .
For what it's worth. The sterile fig tree represents the sterile religious organizations claiming to represent God but doing the works of his adversary. Note the similarity with other parables such as sowing weeds among the wheat, etc.
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

 
Copyright © 2021 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.05 seconds on 06/20/2021 at 08:06:51