Good article on did Jesus exsist?

[Kim323]

Mike, this is really my last word. You are and haven't been fair in this discussion, and are being disingenuous about reading what I suggested in a mere ten minutes. I've noticed that after saying with exasperation that you had read it, you must have rushed over and read some bits you could go in and add as an edit to what you'd just written. No way even now have you read what I suggested. You are picking a few quick bits out to add in and "prove" you read what would take a full hour minimum to fully comprehend. I have learned a lot from this experience, and confine myself to the shows. That is not childish petulance. You have simply not given me the same consideration in this discussion I have given you in reading what you have submitted. I really regret it has come to this, but I will respond no more. You did not read fully what I suggested. Take care, Mike. Good luck with your brewing. Kim

 

[mike]

Ms Murdock isnt saying anything the church itself hasnt acknowledged

Christian father Justin Martyr acknowledged the similarities between the older Pagan gods/religions and Christianity

Many of these Mithraic parallels were remarked upon by the Church fathers, who were flummoxed by them and who blamed them on the prescient devil


And the pagan elements of easter and Xmas are clear as can be

You are missing the forest for the trees Kim

You really are not in a position to complain about selective comentary, when you yourself havent bothered to answer my question as to what judaism thinks about jesus, ie that he is the most damaging of false messiahs ?
Instead you prefer to steer the conversation to Ms Murdock, shes not the only scholar to make the connection between the christ myth and previous ones, you are trying to make this about individual trees, not the forest.

i expect you will continue to dodge the issue of judaism's view of jesus, because its not a question you want to consider nor can answer

Judaism's view of Jesus - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The belief that Jesus (or any other human) is God, any deity, the son of God, or a person of the Trinity, is completely unacceptable according to every tradition of Jewish law, and incompatible with Jewish philosophical tenets. The same applies to belief in Jesus as the Messiah or a prophet of God: those beliefs are also contrary to traditional Jewish views. The idea of the Jewish Messiah is different from the Christian Christ because Jews believe Jesus did not fulfill Jewish Messianic prophecies that establish the criteria for the coming of the Messiah.[7] Authoritative texts of Judaism reject Jesus as God,

Fundamentally, Judaism believes that God, as the creator of time, space, energy and matter, is beyond them, and cannot be born or die, or literally have a son. Judaism teaches that it is heretical for any man to claim to be God, part of God, or the literal son of God. The Jerusalem Talmud (Ta'anit 2:1) states explicitly: "if a man claims to be God, he is a liar

In accordance with judasim's tenets your belief in jesus as the son of god, makes you a sinner, and idolater and a heretic.....im very interested as to why you think you are right and the Rabbis wrong on this

 

[stonehart]

Kim i paid for a speed reading course many years ago, i have a library that takes up two walls ,floor to ceiling of the largest room in my house, i can knock over a paperback with full retention in less than a day.
Its presumptous erroneous and argumentative to state as fact i didnt read it
I read both his articles and her rebuttal which i found by far the more honest and compelling

Its funny isnt it that the man who says



then goes on to use this



as a rebuttal, without a single reference we can cross check to establish his claim

Just i saw no similarities........

Rebuttal to Licona's "Refutation of The Christ Conspiracy"

Keep in mind here liconas premise that

A Jewish man is the God of the cosmos and rose from the dead , is not even supported by judasim itself which views this figure as a false messiah

How do you reconcile that ?
That according the the very source that wrote the OT, the worship of jesus is idolatry and a mortal sin.

Jews and christians dont both eat at the pearly buffet, according to the tenets of each sect, they cant both be right......but they can both be wrong.

Superstitious nonsense covers both bases

Could not have said this better myself Mike thank you.
As for speed reading it is an asset and for those that love to study well worth the effort to learn. Like you I have a library that more or less takes up a room and then some.
But anyway I digress.

Now as for there being no connection between Buddhism and Christianity all this sort of statement shows me is a persons lack of knowledge concerning Buddhism.
Learn to read Pali and Sanskrit and you start to see many similar story's being told in much the same way as you see in other cultures and religions of the Middle East, Europe, and Africa. I remember when in my first year of Anthropology my professor saying that nothing is ever in isolation, trade routs this is how these thoughts and ideas were transmitted. So it is no accident that many ideas and philosophy's appear the same in one as they do in the other.

Well since I doubt the origins of Jesus are going to be solved here and unless we call upon "argumentum ad numerum" letting the people decide (which is no answer just a consensus) then let it go.

 

[tyder001]

Wow, I just thought the book the dude (who is agnostic) wrote was interesting. I do think this is a great forum for discussion. Even when we get heated we try to keep a certain amount of civility and you don't see that everywhere. Let me just say this. I was born and raised in "the church" which in the south means Christian which was Southern Baptist on one side and Pentacostal on the other. No, my religion has not survived my education and by education I don't simply mean "school." I still have a very real inner life and I still have a belief in the personal conscious purpose of the "I am" for want of a better word. But, how and who and what is beyond me. On the other hand how and who and what I am is also beyond me or at least I haven't understood yet. I still say Christian but not in a bible thumping way. I can't accept virgin births and long dead bodies knitting back together and coming out of the ground. I can't accept a "man" on a throne at the right hand of a spriritual being call father sitting on a cloud. But, what I can accept is the idea that love would be so strong that it would clothe itself in flesh and participate in the dance of life and death and rebirth. I'm a non religious reincarnationist Christian Agnostic heretic. To be honest none of us knows ultimate truth. We can say that we simply start and end when the brain chemicals start and end. We can say we are pure thought or consciousness and that we clothe ourselves with many forms to complete this dream we call life. Honestly? I really do believe I've lived and died before. Sound silly? Well, at one time the earth being round sounded silly. A craft heavier than air flying in the sky sounded silly. Quantom entaglement sounded and still does at times silly. We are at the infant stage of our knowledge and I hope still learning. For me, yes Jesus walked and taught. For me he was the Son of God but for me so am I. So are you all sons/daughters of the dream. I'm rambling now so I'll hush. But, I do love the mythos of Easter and don't much care what the roots are as far as pagan or Christian or a hybrid. The going down into death and decay and yet rising in a new birth is (for me) hope and part of the eternal dance.

Peace

 

[tyder001]

I pull some of this stuff out of my ass! But, when I read it I find that it has a beat and you can dance to it. At least I can.

 

[trainedobserver]

Please clarify: when you say the image or idea of Jesus you have in your mind is so far apart from Jesus of the Bible, which is which? I mean, may I ask you to describe the Jesus in your mind as contrasted with the Jesus you see in the Bible? That seems to have had an effect on you, but could you differentiate in more detail? Which Jesus do you find difficult to come to grips with?

I'm talking about the Jesus formulated in my imagination as taught and presented by the Baptist Church I attended as a child, my family, popular culture, numerous other teachers, preachers, and churches I encountered and my own studies while under their influence vs. what is actually known about the character and what is actually contained in the books of the Bible. The type of thing that comes from the highly problematic claim of a personal relationship with a character given life by the imagination probably has some play in there as well. Once the veil is torn (permission to doubt is granted to self) and one peers into the holy of hollies (your belief system) with the scales removed from your eyes (objectively restored through the collapse of faith in it) the surreal and absurd nature of these claims and beliefs can be pretty jarring to the psyche, however the image of the romatised character of Jesus created by these various influences remains. These emotional ties to an ideal are probably more difficult for the ex-believer like myself to shake, even after achieving some clarity about it in my thinking. I hope that makes sense.

Once I was blind but now I see . At least out of one eye anyway, I had cataract surgery yesterday.

 

[trainedobserver]

All known gods and goddesses spring from the imaginations of small semi-hairless primates inhabiting a mud ball hurtling through space on a journey to nowhere in particular. This can be demonstrated through the identification of the authors of all known religions, myths, and legends that describe such supernatural beings and their habits. They are all human beings. These are all human stories about human needs and desires. The fact that they are populated by fantastic beings who make no appearance in reality doesn't prevent many, many, people taking them as portraying a reality that transcends that which they observe and experience (a logical and practical impossibility no less.) Arguing for the reality of Jesus is no different than arguing for the reality of Hercules. We don't even need to enter into the details concerning one particular supernatural being or another. We might as well argue who is stronger, Flash Gordon or Tarzan? (The answer of course is neither, they are both fictional characters possessing whatever characteristic deemed necessary by the storyteller.)

Was there a rabbi named something you could transliterate into Jesus? There were several. Do the gospels present the life story of one such person in antiquity? It would seem to be impossible IMHO for numerous reasons, some of which have already been mentioned in this thread.

 

[trainedobserver]

Is there anything that can be directly attributed to the Jesus of the New Testament that is in anyway unique, original, or ground breaking that would make proving the historical reality of his existence worthy of the interest of anyone not believing in his divinity? Long dissertations aren't necessary, a simple bullet list would suffice.

 

[CitizenK]

Good grief! I guess I should've read it all before opening my mouth lol Apparently Mike can say it way better (and did ) than I can...WOW!
Trained Observer ; love your take on it all too , I must conquer!
Peace!

 

[cottonzway]

No...

 

[stonehart]

Is there anything that can be directly attributed to the Jesus of the New Testament that is in anyway unique, original, or ground breaking that would make proving the historical reality of his existence worthy of the interest of anyone not believing in his divinity? Long dissertations aren't necessary, a simple bullet list would suffice.

Short answer is no there is nothing new in the Jesus story that had not been thought of attributed to other savoir persona's.

Where are we left .. well right back where we started.

It reminds me of this:

Leave the final word to George Carlin ( yeah we have all seen this before but it fits)

There is a difference between being spiritual and religious.

 

[trainedobserver]

Short answer is no there is nothing new in the Jesus story that had not been thought of attributed to other savoir persona's.

I would agree with you. I'm not really talking about the alleged spiritual aspect of it though. I'm asking from a purely human point of view, are there any signs of practical philosophical, scientific, sociological, political, etc. genius transcending human ability in the Biblical account of the character's words or implied teaching? To be fair I would throw this challenge out for any alleged divine or alien source of knowledge or wisdom. Where is the evidence of an intelligence other than that of human beings behind any supposed sacred scripture or alien communication?

 

[stonehart]

I would agree with you. I'm not really talking about the alleged spiritual aspect of it though. I'm asking from a purely human point of view, are there any signs of practical philosophical, scientific, sociological, political, etc. genius transcending human ability in the Biblical account of the character's words or implied teaching? To be fair I would throw this challenge out for any alleged divine or alien source of knowledge or wisdom. Where is the evidence of an intelligence other than that of human beings behind any supposed sacred scripture or alien communication?

Ouch just noticed I must have typed that reply before fast.. the grammar is awful. To answer your question I still see it as a no.. I can not think of anything myself. The Jesus story is so much like others that I personally see little or no difference.

 

[mike]

There are literally thousands of religions being practiced today. Here are 20 of the most popular, along with an estimate of the number of followers:

1. Christianity: 2.1 billion
2. Islam: 1.3 billion
3. Hinduism: 900 million
4. Chinese traditional religion: 394 million
5. Buddhism: 376 million
6. African Traditional & Diasporic: 100 million
7. Sikhism: 23 million
8. Juche: 19 million
9. Spiritism: 15 million
10. Judaism: 14 million
11. Baha'i: 7 million
12. Jainism: 4.2 million
13. Shinto: 4 million
14. Cao Dai: 4 million
15. Zoroastrianism: 2.6 million
16. Tenrikyo: 2 million
17. Neo-Paganism: 1 million
18. Unitarian-Universalism: 800 thousand
19. Rastafarianism: 600 thousand
20. Scientology: 500 thousand

[Source: Encyclopedia Britannica]
If you believe in God, you have chosen to reject Allah, Vishnu, Budda, Waheguru and all of the thousands of other gods that other people worship today. It is quite likely that you rejected these other gods without ever looking into their religions or reading their books. You simply absorbed the dominant faith in your home or in the society you grew up in.
In the same way, the followers of all these other religions have chosen to reject God. You think their gods are imaginary, and they think your God is imaginary.
In other words, each religious person on earth today arbitrarily rejects thousands of gods as imaginary, many of which he/she has never even heard of, and arbitrarily chooses to "believe" in one of them.
The following quote from Stephen F. Roberts sums up the situation very nicely:

• 
  "I contend that we are both atheists. I just believe in one fewer god than you do. When you understand why you dismiss all the other possible gods, you will understand why I dismiss yours."

A rational person rejects all human gods equally, because all of them are equally imaginary. How do we know that they are imaginary? Simply imagine that one of them is real. If one of these thousands of gods were actually real, then his followers would be experiencing real, undeniable benefits. These benefits would be obvious to everyone. The followers of a true god would pray, and their prayers would be answered. The followers of a true god would therefore live longer, have fewer diseases, have lots more money, etc. There would be thousands of statistical markers surrounding the followers of a true god.
Everyone would notice all of these benefits, and they would gravitate toward this true god. And thus, over the course of several centuries, everyone would be aligned on the one true god. All the other false gods would have fallen by the wayside long ago, and there would be only one religion under the one true god.
When we look at our world today, we see nothing like that. There are two billion Christians AND there are more than one billion Muslims, and their religions are mutually exclusive. There are thousands of other religions. When you analyse any of them, they all show a remarkable similarity -- there is zero evidence that any of these gods exist. That is how we know that they are all imaginary.

God is Imaginary - 50 simple proofs

 

[stonehart]

There are literally thousands of religions being practiced today. Here are 20 of the most popular, along with an estimate of the number of followers:

1. Christianity: 2.1 billion
2. Islam: 1.3 billion
3. Hinduism: 900 million
4. Chinese traditional religion: 394 million
5. Buddhism: 376 million
6. African Traditional & Diasporic: 100 million
7. Sikhism: 23 million
8. Juche: 19 million
9. Spiritism: 15 million
10. Judaism: 14 million
11. Baha'i: 7 million
12. Jainism: 4.2 million
13. Shinto: 4 million
14. Cao Dai: 4 million
15. Zoroastrianism: 2.6 million
16. Tenrikyo: 2 million
17. Neo-Paganism: 1 million
18. Unitarian-Universalism: 800 thousand
19. Rastafarianism: 600 thousand
20. Scientology: 500 thousand

[Source: Encyclopedia Britannica]
If you believe in God, you have chosen to reject Allah, Vishnu, Budda, Waheguru and all of the thousands of other gods that other people worship today. It is quite likely that you rejected these other gods without ever looking into their religions or reading their books. You simply absorbed the dominant faith in your home or in the society you grew up in.
In the same way, the followers of all these other religions have chosen to reject God. You think their gods are imaginary, and they think your God is imaginary.
In other words, each religious person on earth today arbitrarily rejects thousands of gods as imaginary, many of which he/she has never even heard of, and arbitrarily chooses to "believe" in one of them.
The following quote from Stephen F. Roberts sums up the situation very nicely:

• 
  "I contend that we are both atheists. I just believe in one fewer god than you do. When you understand why you dismiss all the other possible gods, you will understand why I dismiss yours."

A rational person rejects all human gods equally, because all of them are equally imaginary. How do we know that they are imaginary? Simply imagine that one of them is real. If one of these thousands of gods were actually real, then his followers would be experiencing real, undeniable benefits. These benefits would be obvious to everyone. The followers of a true god would pray, and their prayers would be answered. The followers of a true god would therefore live longer, have fewer diseases, have lots more money, etc. There would be thousands of statistical markers surrounding the followers of a true god.
Everyone would notice all of these benefits, and they would gravitate toward this true god. And thus, over the course of several centuries, everyone would be aligned on the one true god. All the other false gods would have fallen by the wayside long ago, and there would be only one religion under the one true god.
When we look at our world today, we see nothing like that. There are two billion Christians AND there are more than one billion Muslims, and their religions are mutually exclusive. There are thousands of other religions. When you analyse any of them, they all show a remarkable similarity -- there is zero evidence that any of these gods exist. That is how we know that they are all imaginary.

God is Imaginary - 50 simple proofs

Bravo simply awesome

 

[mike]

Thanks Mate, though i can only take credit for the cut and paste.
I take no joy in debating this subject, i have a genuine affection for Kim, and while i must remain true to my pov on this subject, the cost weighs heavy on me.

Its a pattern thats repeated itself time and time again, i dont seem to be able to express my stance on this subject, without it hurting those who take the opposite view in the debate.
Its never been my intent to do so, but invariably it happens.

But i dont know what else i can do, the quote says it all.
There is little difference between myself and those i debate this subject with

I just believe in one fewer god than you do. When you understand why you dismiss all the other possible gods, you will understand why I dismiss yours."

And yet its cold comfort to both of us, when the cost is so often so high

 

[CitizenK]

Mike said "Everyone would notice all of these benefits, and they would gravitate toward this true god. And thus, over the course of several centuries, everyone would be aligned on the one true god. All the other false gods would have fallen by the wayside long ago, and there would be only one religion under the one true god."
Yes, there is a difference between being spiritual and being religious (which was stonehart's comment, but it goes with what Mike said and I'm saying) to reply to this statement above I would like to say that in my findings (not just my opinion) I believe we are all god or the I am if you will...we have this amazing ability to have our prayers answered, or receive miraculous things including being healed of illness and disease when we "know" it will be "heard" and answered. In my opinion and I have tested this, WE create the outcome of much more than we acknowledge simply because so many of us wish to view ourselves as less than or not worthy of such miracles. If anything, THAT is what Jesus stood for, that is the point of his message whether it truly was his message or just an age old lesson trying to survive time, it is a good lesson. And it is echoed throughout the ages in all religions. It may be the one thing we should all take heed to. If you really look at the teachings you will see that it is a lesson for all of us to go within to find ourself. Once you do you realize how much you are truly capable and worthy of.
Just me putting my two cents worth in again and giving all of you food for thought.
Peace

 

[mike]

Ive always held the view the "i am" is logically sublimated by "we are"

That conciousness operating under the old paradigm of "I am" must eventually evolve to the "we are" mindset.

If anything (to me at least) the jesus story reflects that, an ability to sacrifice the self, the I am, for the sake of everybody else.

The meme is clearly by shedding the blood of the "I" the "we" is saved.

Imo decisions about the planet would be better made from the perspective of the "we are" than they are of the "i am"

 

[tyder001]

Just and observation here but I noticed that the "book" I referenced here was not actually taken to task or looked at seriously. Some of the same posters that get onto "believers" in u.f.o.'s for not looking at "all" the evidence just breezed right through this one. I'm not saying I didn't agree with a lot of what y'all posted. Some of it was right in line with my own thoughts and some of course wasn't. But, as a person in the "field" of the "social sciences" I find it interesting. It became a gaggle fuck to an extent of why religion is silly and belief in Christ is silly. Your minds are made up. I don't mind really. I do the same thing. If Lance or Angel or anybody else comes on here and links page after page as to why the paranomal is bunk I simply "filter" it. It's a human trait. I just thought it interesting that it is a something that most of us are blind to when we are the ones doing it. Kim, although I don't agree with your theology per say I do salute you for holding your own. It's harder to do that when the majority is against you than it is to do it when you are the "home team." Anyway, good arguments and valid points all around and I hope you take this in the spirit it is given. I'm just observing it at this time. I'm certainly not a bible thumping born again christian or a fundi. But, I do notice that you can be a fundi and not even be religious. We all do it.

 

[Kim323]

I want to thank those who sent me emails. And Tyder, who started the thread, great post just above. I have only endeavored to stay on the topic, and stuck to Jesus, and yes, put forth my conclusions that scholars, dispassionate and hardnosed, have studied Jesus, the gospels, and his miracles, healings, and exorcisms from a rational perspective and have come up with some intriguing conclusions. I've suggested books, and like Tyder says above, have had my suggestions ignored. I've pointed out the complexity of history, and have pointed out that adhering to vast conspiracy stuff spanning so much language, time, culture, just basic human psychology, and even statistical common sense, is a mistake. I've confronted the Christianity as myth school, which stonehart and mike advance, not nearly so much with their own thoughts or even research, but loads and tons of quickly cut and pasted pages of written stuff and even quite a bit of video. I read and listened to it all. Mike, especially, would hardly pause for breath before cutting and pasting something else. My whole point in this post is to review this discussion with that brief preface, and encourage you to go back through the whole history of it and see for yourself. I just want to reiterate something else very basic which I have maintained: the fundamental fact that the discussion is lopsided. I am made of sterner stuff than my boo hoo post would imply. Go back and read it. It was an effort to grin and bear it with some humor, and stonehart and mike took it seriously, but even that didn't cause them to pause and just ask, well, Kim, could you follow up on your point here or there? There was and is this basic assumption that to cut and paste and overwhelm and ignore the fact that there is another person in the debate is the a fair sort of mode of discourse. Now to my final point, and I've made it before. One of my final efforts in this discussion was to steer stonehart and mike to Mike Licona's site, where he rebuts Ms. Murdock, whose writings, among others culled from who knows where, stonehart and mike relied on so heavily: the Christianity as myth school. It seemed to me only fair that if I have read and listened to their side, they should at least read, finally, something I suggested. So I posted exactly where to find Licona's essays. Within scant minutes, and I mean several at most, mike responded with more of the same, no mention of what I'd just posted, and clearly he had read what I'd just posted about Licona. I responded back that he hadn't even bothered to go read what I'd just suggested a scant few minutes before. But then I noticed what I can only see as more edited in to his post just after that response by me. And then another post minutes later asserting that he'd paid for and benefited enormously from a speed reading course. And so, I responded back that what Mike Licona had written would take much (much) more time to simply read, much less comprehend, than the minutes that had passed with mike writing responses to my suggestion that he read Licona's very detailed response to Murdock. I'd pointed out that Licona was a gentleman and professional, and simply in great detail had rebutted Murdock. After all, if Murdock is so extremely detailed in her BOOK (and stonehart and mike so overwhelmingly depend so much on Murdock, who specializes in great detail), that Licona would have to respond in similar detail and specfically to her in an ESSAY. He even wrote an essay replying to her rebuttal of his essay, again in equal detail. There were even footnotes, a very professional and thorough job. It took me quite some to read Licona, but then I haven't invested in a speed reading course. But, and this is simply the hard fact: Mike had never read Licona in those few minutes. Anyway, I find myself wearying of all this. I was told in emails that I was coming into the forums with expectations that there were reasoned discussions about anything of consequence, and that the method of discourse here was often overwhelming cut and paste. Though I've been a forum member and listener of The Paracast since 2006, I'd posted little, and had never really addressed something you'd call controversial. After talking with mike about beer brewing, I figured he was an ok guy and would extend his mind equally to things more weighty. In my opinion, I was wrong. Again, I simply maintain that in order to have a reasonable discourse, you have to have intellectual honesty and a willingness to address what the other person addresses and brings up. I have been mistaken. Now, get set: here we go again. Mike will no doubt respond, and I'm glad he has genuine affection for me, but it seemed he was taking a victory lap a bit too soon! However, this isn't about a victory lap: this is about basic human decency toward each other if we decide that we're going to debate something. Kim