quote:

Originally posted by gatz:
i've heard many things from many different people regarding this matter and am myself convinced that no such thing happened, but would like to hear the views and opinions of everyone else. i've listened to a lecture wherein which the lecturer himeself was once an orthodox Roman Catholic and has after much deliberation, questioning, and research has come to the conclusion that its completely illogical to belive that Jesus died on the cross.
if you look at the facts, Christians believe that Jesus is God and had to die on the cross to wipe clean the sins of all of mankind. if this is the case then does this mean that God died? How is it possible for God to die?

Many strange events take place in myths. The story of Jesus et al is a myth like there are hundreds in the history of mankind.

Maybe there was a guy called Jesus, maybe there was not -the historic evidence is less than scant. Maybe somebody who was a popular preacher in Palestine in those days was crucified. Whatever the historic facts, Paul and many years later the gospel writers added all the magical elements -some making up stories in the obvious attempt to make the "prophecies" of the old testament be "fulfilled".

It is true, though, that the christian mythology is one of the most absurd and cruel: A god gets very angry with his own creation and decides to kill himself (in the figure of his son) to quench his own wrath. But, obviously, the barbaric idea of this chap being sacrificed for us in the cross stroke a chord and became a big hit. And now billions of people around the globe have this lovely image of a guy dying painfully on a cross and covered in blood, hanging on their walls. The human mind is indeed a mystery.

quote:

Originally posted by gatz:

quote:

Originally posted by via Crucis:
The Koran was written centuries after the Bible and is fact a mixture of ideologies, with many adapted from the Bible. Fact. No offence, but there it is.
VC

"the Kora...a mixture of ideologies"? Please explain to me where in the Koran the religion of Islam differs regarding the ideology that it is trying to preach? please direct me to a particular chapter in the Koran so that i may look it up for my self.

The belief of Jesus' existence and in his Prophethood is absolutely imperative in Islam that if you reject this, you are no longer considered a muslim. This is how important Jesus is to Islam and to Muslims!

Could you explain how the Qu'ran is not a mixture of what went before it? I wouldn't say that I've studied it in detail, but my understanding is that its not exactly full of original material wrt morals. Only the names and bullshit stories have changed.

Acts 5 vs 33-39:

33 -37When they heard that, they were furious and wanted to kill them on the spot. But one of the council members stood up, a Pharisee by the name of Gamaliel, a teacher of God's Law who was honored by everyone. He ordered the men taken out of the room for a short time, then said, "Fellow Israelites, be careful what you do to these men. Not long ago Theudas made something of a splash, claiming to be somebody, and got about four hundred men to join him. He was killed, his followers dispersed, and nothing came of it. A little later, at the time of the census, Judas the Galilean appeared and acquired a following. He also fizzled out and the people following him were scattered to the four winds.

38 -39"So I am telling you: Hands off these men! Let them alone. If this program or this work is merely human, it will fall apart, but if it is of God, there is nothing you can do about it—and you better not be found fighting against God!"

RJ:
Still waiting to hear your take, as a historian, on the contemporaneous accounts of jesus.

quote:

Originally posted by free_thinker:
RJ:
Still waiting to hear your take, as a historian, on the contemporaneous accounts of jesus.

They are wonderful - studied by scholars for century's and found true! Thousands of original documents/manuscripts = the Bible. The Gospels written as recently as 60AD - different accounts of the same story!

Doubt it and you may as well doubt the Battle of Hastings as just a fight by a couple of farmers in Sussex that just became exaggerated as the century's rolled by!

Alexander the Great was just a rather rich and exremely vain Macedonian, who did a bit of travelling with some of his yuppie friends and liked to spin a good yarn when he got home!

The pyramids, were just early man's first over-scale design for the Toblerone chocolate bar of the ancient world and then made it into a theme park - they thought it would be fun to hide some goody's and wrap one of their friends up for a laugh - but the joke went too far... !

Where do you stop in dismissing historical events??

Oh yeah, and what year do we live in? And how many years is that after?? When was 0?

quote:

Originally posted by via Crucis:
Precisely because of His great love for us. But He didn't 'choose a human to be His Son'...His Son came to live among us on earth, born as a human baby. But not losing any of His divinity. He was born in the humblest situation and He died in the way that common criminals were executed. God underwent all of this precisely because He loved us so much.

It's the greatest love story in history.

p.s Hey via - welcome on board - stick around for a little while, some of these chats do get interesting!!

quote:

Originally posted by RedJooles:

quote:

Originally posted by free_thinker:
RJ:
Still waiting to hear your take, as a historian, on the contemporaneous accounts of jesus.

They are wonderful - studied by scholars for century's and found true! Thousands of original documents/manuscripts = the Bible. The Gospels written as recently as 60AD - different accounts of the same story!

So not much of a historian either then.
An account written 60 years after the event is not a 'contemporaneous' one. As a historian I would have thought you would know that.
Tell you what lets make this a bit easier. Detail one independent contemporaneous account. Given who he was, what he was said to be able to do and the interest the record-keeping Romans would have had in him, surely there must be plenty.

Just what 'truth' did these scholars find, btw?
The different accounts are copies and not even good ones as they don't even agree.

quote:

Doubt it and you may as well doubt the Battle of Hastings as just a fight by a couple of farmers in Sussex that just became exaggerated as the century's rolled by!

Where is the Bethlehem Tapestry hanging?

quote:

The pyramids, ...

quote:

We do actually have both physical evidence and records written at the time so we know rather a lot about not only the pyramids but the pharaohs.
Where do you stop in dismissing historical events??

quote:

When there is no evidence for them.

Oh yeah, and what year do we live in? And how many years is that after?? When was 0?

Certainly not when jebus was said to be born.

I was expecting a rather more learned reply than an empty "there's loads" given your claimed field of study. I was expecting at least a reference to Josephus. (Go on, look it up).

quote:

Originally posted by RedJooles:

quote:

Originally posted by via Crucis:
Precisely because of His great love for us. But He didn't 'choose a human to be His Son'...His Son came to live among us on earth, born as a human baby. But not losing any of His divinity. He was born in the humblest situation and He died in the way that common criminals were executed. God underwent all of this precisely because He loved us so much.

It's the greatest love story in history.

p.s Hey via - welcome on board - stick around for a little while, some of these chats do get interesting!!

You do realise this was posted two years ago and via Crucis hasn't posted anything since.
Did your forensic analysis of the evidence (i.e the date on the posting) not spot that.
I suppose the welcoming someone two years after they went away is not particularly odd behavior for someone whose grasp of history is as tenuous as his grasp of science.

Oh, and the poster is 'via Crucis' not 'via'. It means 'way of the cross'.
No Latin in your education either then?

More like Via Dolorosa.

Someone who displays such cringeing certitude and belief in the recollections and scriptures of our ancestors whilst at the same time decrying the fallibilities of the human race is surely heading down the path of sorrow and sadness.

quote:

Originally posted by RedJooles:

quote:

Originally posted by free_thinker:
RJ:
Still waiting to hear your take, as a historian, on the contemporaneous accounts of jesus.

They are wonderful - studied by scholars for century's and found true! Thousands of original documents/manuscripts = the Bible. The Gospels written as recently as 60AD - different accounts of the same story!

Nice piece of satire, man.

quote:

[QUOTE]Originally posted by free_thinker:
So not much of a historian either then.
An account written 60 years after the event is not a 'contemporaneous' one. As a historian I would have thought you would know that.
Tell you what lets make this a bit easier. Detail one independent contemporaneous account. Given who he was, what he was said to be able to do and the interest the record-keeping Romans would have had in him, surely there must be plenty.

60 years after Jesus, is well within the boundary's of authenticity and acceptable as historical fact!

St Paul's letters to the different Churches.

Why would the Romans report on Jesus' life - they did not feature heavily until the end of each Gospel!

And where is the Vatican, by the way?

quote:

Where is the Bethlehem Tapestry hanging?

The Bayeux Tapestry was knitted by a couple of bored farmers wives in 1067... I thought everyone knew that?

quote:

[QUOTE]The pyramids, ...

quote:

We do actually have both physical evidence and records written at the time so we know rather a lot about not only the pyramids but the pharaohs.

Maybe they were forgery's? Maybe they were written way after the events? Maybe the Egyptians lied in their written accounts?

Maybe it's all a conspiracy and the Americans built the Pyramids during the 18th Century, so that years from then, they could build a replica in Las Vegas??

Where do you draw the line between what you want to take as fact from history, and the bits you wish to ignore?

quote:

Originally posted by free_thinker:
You do realise this was posted two years ago and via Crucis hasn't posted anything since.
Did your forensic analysis of the evidence (i.e the date on the posting) not spot that.
I suppose the welcoming someone two years after they went away is not particularly odd behavior for someone whose grasp of history is as tenuous as his grasp of science.

Oh, and the poster is 'via Crucis' not 'via'. It means 'way of the cross'.
No Latin in your education either then?

Oh yeah, duh, good rainman-like spot there F-T! Saw the posting at the top and presumed it had just been posted - thought it had racked up 3 pages quick-sharpish!

Your sharp as a button tonight... hang on a minute, buttons aren't sharp??

Do I have to write people's full names... i thought just the first three letters and the fact that I had quoted them, was enough to signify who I was speaking to???

Ho-hum!!

quote:

Originally posted by RedJooles:
60 years after Jesus, is well within the boundary's of authenticity and acceptable as historical fact!

Would you like me to post a link to contemporaneous?
'At the same time' does not mean 60 years afterwards.

quote:

St Paul's letters to the different Churches.

And this is the best independent evidence you could come up with.

quote:

Why would the Romans report on Jesus' life - they did not feature heavily until the end of each Gospel!

Someone claiming to be king of the jews, leading a movement that could become an uprising, feeding 5 thousand. All of these would interest the Romans, and they would record it.

quote:

And where is the Vatican, by the way?

It's in Rome. Is your geography not to hot either?

quote:

Where do you draw the line between what you want to take as fact from history, and the bits you wish to ignore?

Yes, well that would be where historians come in. They look at the evidence weigh it up within the framework of credibility and vested interests and independence and come to a judgment.
In the case of the pyramids the evidence is extremely good.
In the case of jebus it is entirely absent.
It is not a case of ignoring 'bits'. I'm still waiting for you to post some.

St Paul? LOL!

Wiki:

quote:

Unlike the Twelve Apostles, there is no indication that Paul ever met Jesus prior to Jesus' crucifixion.

Yeah, that's credible evidence that is!

quote:

Originally posted by RedJooles:

quote:

[QUOTE]Originally posted by free_thinker:
So not much of a historian either then.
An account written 60 years after the event is not a 'contemporaneous' one. As a historian I would have thought you would know that.
Tell you what lets make this a bit easier. Detail one independent contemporaneous account. Given who he was, what he was said to be able to do and the interest the record-keeping Romans would have had in him, surely there must be plenty.

60 years after Jesus, is well within the boundary's of authenticity and acceptable as historical fact!

St Paul's letters to the different Churches.

Why would the Romans report on Jesus' life - they did not feature heavily until the end of each Gospel!

And where is the Vatican, by the way?

quote:

Where is the Bethlehem Tapestry hanging?

The Bayeux Tapestry was knitted by a couple of bored farmers wives in 1067... I thought everyone knew that?

quote:

[QUOTE]The pyramids, ...

quote:

We do actually have both physical evidence and records written at the time so we know rather a lot about not only the pyramids but the pharaohs.

Maybe they were forgery's? Maybe they were written way after the events? Maybe the Egyptians lied in their written accounts?

Maybe it's all a conspiracy and the Americans built the Pyramids during the 18th Century, so that years from then, they could build a replica in Las Vegas??

Where do you draw the line between what you want to take as fact from history, and the bits you wish to ignore?

I would give up now RJ
You lost this argument ages ago!

quote:

Yes, well that would be where historians come in. They look at the evidence weigh it up within the framework of credibility and vested interests and independence and come to a judgment.
In the case of the pyramids the evidence is extremely good.
In the case of jebus it is entirely absent.
It is not a case of ignoring 'bits'. I'm still waiting for you to post some.

OK - Find us some serious academic historians who will lend credence to the "Jesus myth"

quote:

Originally posted by greenbelt:OK - Find us some serious academic historians who will lend credence to the "Jesus myth"

what has that got to do with the lack of evidence for the real jesus?

quote:

Originally posted by greenbelt:

OK - Find us some serious academic historians who will lend credence to the "Jesus myth"

Allegro, John M. (1992). The Dead Sea Scrolls and the Christian Myth, 2nd rev. ed., Buffalo, N.Y.: Prometheus Books. ISBN 0-87975-757-4.

Atwill, Joseph (2003). The Roman Origins of Christianity. J. Atwill. ISBN 0-9740928-0-0.

Atwill, Joseph (2005). Caesar's Messiah: The Roman Conspiracy to Invent Jesus. Berkeley, Calif.: Ulysses. ISBN 1-56975-457-8.

Brodie, Thomas L. (2000). The Crucial Bridge: The Elijah-Elisha Narrative as an Interpretive Synthesis of Genesis-Kings and a Literary Model for the Gospels. Collegeville, Minn.: Liturgical Press. ISBN 0-8146-5942-X.

Ellegård, Alvar (1999). Jesus: One Hundred Years Before Christ: A Study in Creative Mythology. London: Century. ISBN 0-7126-7956-1.

Freke, Timothy; and Peter Gandy (1999). The Jesus Mysteries: Was the 'Original Jesus' a Pagan God?. London: Thorsons. ISBN 0-7225-3676-3.

Price, Robert M. (2000). Deconstructing Jesus. Amherst, N.Y.: Prometheus Books. ISBN 1-57392-758-9.

Price, Robert M. (2003). The Incredible Shrinking Son of Man: How Reliable is the Gospel Tradition?. Amherst, N.Y.: Prometheus Books. ISBN 1-59102-121-9.

Price, Robert M. (2005). "New Testament narrative as Old Testament midrash". Encyclopaedia of Midrash: Biblical Interpretation in Formative Judaism. Ed. Jacob Neusner and Alan J. Avery-Peck. Leiden: Brill. ISBN 90-04-14166-9.

Seznec, Jean. 1972, The Survival of the Pagan Gods, Princeton University Press, ISBN 0691017832

Thompson, Thomas L. (2005). The Messiah Myth: The Near Eastern Roots of Jesus and David. New York: Basic Books. ISBN 0-465-08577-6.

Wells, G. A. (1982). The Historical Evidence for Jesus. Buffalo, N.Y.: Prometheus Books. ISBN 0-87975-180-0.

Wells, G. A. (1999). The Jesus Myth. Chicago: Open Court. ISBN 0-8126-9392-2.

I think I may have another to add to this list.

I have just started reading Dr Barbara Thiering's "The Book that Jesus Wrote".
It's early days yet but I think she is suggesting that the gospel attributed to John was in fact written by Jesus and that he was instrumental in developing the "myth" like story about himself. I will report back in more detail when I have finished it.

Now for some real controversy:

I think the understanding of Jesus as outlined by Unification Church solves a lot of the problems regarding the divinity and humanity of Jesus.

Supposing Jesus did not come to die on the cross, and his early death was a consequence of the massive persecution he received. The early Christian church would have needed to build a theology which explained why Jesus came to die. Without such an explanation, the early Church may have collapsed.

The problem with such a theology is that not all the pieces fit together correctly. Hence we end up with mysteries such as the Trinity which can only be understood by staring at them for long enough and throwing in a few technical Greek words for good measure.

We are often branded as idiots, yet the theology of UC fits together quite well.

quote:

Originally posted by Steve and Tomoko:

We are often branded as idiots, yet the theology of UC fits together quite well.

...yet struggles from the same basic flaw, which is that there's absolutely no evidence for it whatsoever.

Here's my theory. Jesus was a spaceman from the planet zog who'd lost his way.

I haven't really worked it through yet, but I'm getting there.