Before you closed the last post (nice move by the way) you said this:

"Trying to discuss this with uninformed people who have an emotional need for a non historical Jesus is like beating my head against a brick wall.I mistakenly thought I could have a rational discussion with a new poster. Boy, was I wrong. Thanks. It isn't like I believe Jesus was anything but a man either, but I guess that is too threatening for some non believers."

----

You keep repeating like a mantra that you can't have a rational discussion with non-believers.

You made a positive claim that a historical man named jesus, from nazareth, was crucified by the romans in the 1st century.

You didn't say "I believe" or "I make believe" or "I pretend", because if you did we would have left you alone. You made an assertion and then provided no evidence to support it.

When the rest of us asked you simply for evidence to support your claim, you folded your arms, pouted, and called us irrational.

Here's your chance to end this once and for all. This forum is especially for you to provide empirical evidence for the existence of a historical jesus.

If you can't, please just admit it and be honest about things and say "you believe."

Thanks for being patient with a "new poster" :)

bona dea is a regular poster here who starts threads and posts responses to the threads of others.

She does not have the power to close a thread. Only Admin can do that.

So that is one criticism you can dial back.

Just so you know.

If I thought you were interested, I would be happy to debate it with you, but I do not get that sense at all. All I see is you hijacking a thread on Easter with sarcastic references to baby Jesus and then being demanding, snarky, sarcastic and rude. Sorry, I don't need it. I did give you an article which you dismissed without giving any real reason other than they never met Jesus and lived a few years later. Sorry, but I am done. There is plenty of information out there on the subject if you are interested. Start with the Wiki article, look at the footnotes and references. That would be a good start.Read some of the books I listed. Let me mention again that I do not believe Jesus was divine or that the NT is the word of God-points you and your buddies seem to have missed.I also didn't say I can't have rational discussion with unbelievers. I can't have a rational discussion with you, MJ, Timothy and Happy Heretic.There are plenty of non believers who are very rational.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 04/25/2011 07:32PM by bona dea.

Sounds to me like you provided plenty of evidence. I know in the past you have directed me to a lot of books and information, so I'm not sure I believe the new poster.

I still disagree with you though.

BTW, when did you develop the power to close threads?

snb Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Sounds to me like you provided plenty of evidence.
> I know in the past you have directed me to a lot
> of books and information, so I'm not sure I
> believe the new poster.
>
> I still disagree with you though.
>
> BTW, when did you develop the power to close
> threads?
Oh, I close threads all the time. LOL

With so many new documents available to us, it is very obvious that there were many, many factions of the new spiritual movement in the first century. Most documents that didn't support the victorious faction (that became the Catholic Church) were destroyed. There is much in the remnants of these documents that have been recovered that the Christ is a spiritual being, which is even supported by the writer we know as Paul. It was only after this initial movement became popular that the "histories" of Jesus were written. Many believe that there was a rebelious rabbi that the stories were started from, but they also included elements of god-men from other pagan beliefs written in.

There may or may not have been an historical "Jesus", but the name was common at the time, and any facts of his life would have been so distorted and exaggerated that even without the mysticism, nothing accurate may be derived from any of the documents. With no historical documents to back up the census, it is also highly unlikely that a family in Nazereth (which is also of questionable existence at the time of Jesus) would have traveled to Bethlehem and had a child there.

Bona Dea, there is just so much that doesn't stand up to scrutiny that if there was, indeed, an historical Jesus, anything factual about him doesn't exist. It has nothing to do with an "emotional need". The evidence just doesn't add up.

Little nevermo Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> With so many new documents available to us, it is
> very obvious that there were many, many factions
> of the new spiritual movement in the first
> century. Most documents that didn't support the
> victorious faction (that became the Catholic
> Church) were destroyed. There is much in the
> remnants of these documents that have been
> recovered that the Christ is a spiritual being,
> which is even supported by the writer we know as
> Paul. It was only after this initial movement
> became popular that the "histories" of Jesus were
> written. Many believe that there was a rebelious
> rabbi that the stories were started from, but they
> also included elements of god-men from other pagan
> beliefs written in.
>
> There may or may not have been an historical
> "Jesus", but the name was common at the time, and
> any facts of his life would have been so distorted
> and exaggerated that even without the mysticism,
> nothing accurate may be derived from any of the
> documents. With no historical documents to back
> up the census, it is also highly unlikely that a
> family in Nazereth (which is also of questionable
> existence at the time of Jesus) would have
> traveled to Bethlehem and had a child there.
>
> Bona Dea, there is just so much that doesn't stand
> up to scrutiny that if there was, indeed, an
> historical Jesus, anything factual about him
> doesn't exist. It has nothing to do with an
> "emotional need". The evidence just doesn't add
> up.

Actually new achaeological digs have found things in Nazareth dating to the time of Jesus.That came out about two years ago I think. I posted a link at the time. Also I disagree that Paul saw Jesus as only a spiritual being.Certainly he was more intersted in Jesus as divine, but he nver denied that he existed. In fact he met with his brother and they were rivals. I do agree that much of the history is lost and that people disagree on who or what Jesus was. That includes the early Christians.

Bona Dea:

http://www.nazarethmyth.info/

Sorry, no such evidence supporting has been presented in a peer-reviewed format, nor even formally in the scientific community. Any evidence from the original find has been covered up already and not available for scrutiny.

Paul's only interaction with the "Christ" was only through a vision. All of his writings point to a spiritual persona and not a physical being. Maybe you have heard of the terms "Paulianity" vs. the teachings of Jesus. The conflict in many passages. Paul's supposed interactions with the Apostles were not written by him and are part of the questionable "histories" recorded in the gospels and the Acts of the Apostles, written much later.

Again, it could go either way; there may or may not have been an actual, physical Jesus. But if there was, the actual facts surrounding his life are non-existent.

Little nevermo Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Bona Dea:
>
> http://www.nazarethmyth.info/
>
> Sorry, no such evidence supporting has been
> presented in a peer-reviewed format, nor even
> formally in the scientific community. Any
> evidence from the original find has been covered
> up already and not available for scrutiny.
>
> Paul's only interaction with the "Christ" was only
> through a vision. All of his writings point to a
> spiritual persona and not a physical being. Maybe
> you have heard of the terms "Paulianity" vs. the
> teachings of Jesus. The conflict in many
> passages. Paul's supposed interactions with the
> Apostles were not written by him and are part of
> the questionable "histories" recorded in the
> gospels and the Acts of the Apostles, written much
> later.
>
> Again, it could go either way; there may or may
> not have been an actual, physical Jesus. But if
> there was, the actual facts surrounding his life
> are non-existent.

I can't find the link on Nazareth but it was widely reported at the time and seemed pretty official.I disagree about Paul. It is possible you are right, but I do not see the evidence.
Correction, I did find the link.
http://www.facingthechallenge.org/nazareth.php



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 04/25/2011 08:06PM by bona dea.

He goes all nutso and kills a playmate. Wonder why that one didn't make it into the canon.

N.B. I was whacked out on cold meds when I saw the documentary that discussed Apocrypha, and I'm too lazy to go searching online for the title. I'm just hoping someone knows the name off the top of their head.

Beth Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> He goes all nutso and kills a playmate. Wonder why
> that one didn't make it into the canon.
>
> N.B. I was whacked out on cold meds when I saw the
> documentary that discussed Apocrypha, and I'm too
> lazy to go searching online for the title. I'm
> just hoping someone knows the name off the top of
> their head.

I think it is called The Infancy Gospel. Aside from the fancifulcontent, it disn't make the canon because it was written much later.BTW, he did restore his friend to live after killing him.

The Gnostic Gospels sound interesting.

Beth Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> The Gnostic Gospels sound interesting.I think they are one and the same.

Don't get all paranoid on us, man! ;o))

Threads are closed, in general, at 25 posts, though it can be more, depending on several factors.

MJ said, "Seems to me that Biblical Scholars make up a few things on their own". This assertion is tantamount to the criticism that scientists are often wrong or make mistakes or fabricate evidence. No doubt, all of the aforementioned have happened at one time or another. But when it does happen, who exposes the error or fraud? Other scientist (researchers, scholars, etc.) do, that's who! This has been discussed at length here in the past so I do not want to belabor it, however, the strength of science is that it is self-correcting. When errors or forgeries arise they are found out and exposed and corrected sooner or later by other scientists doing their job.

Now, as to my belief in an historical Jesus, I stated my reasoning for my belief is "just because". And that is so. But just because the biblical evidence is weak and contradictory - it is - does not mean that a historical person who we know of as Jesus did not exist. My reasoning for "just because" is this, every major religion that I can think of has begun with the work of a charismatic prophet. Whoever the real Jesus was, his legacy seems to fit the mold of a charismatic prophet. Unfortunately, we will likely never know who that man really was - if he did, indeed, exist.

If you re-read my post, I was talking about a tool that seems to be MADE UP only for biblical research. I call that into question because if it is valid in researching the bible, why not other myths?

Pleas, nebularry, don't take what I have said out of context. What I said was NOT "This assertion is tantamount to the criticism that scientists are often wrong or make mistakes or fabricate evidence." I was being critical of a methodology and wondering why, if it was valid science, it was not applied to all the places (all ancient myths) it could be useful. Why would such a methodology be limited to only biblical studies?

Please, address what I was critical of and don't just go off on a "How dare you question biblical science" rant.



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 04/25/2011 09:05PM by MJ.

Before I started reading this board, I had never been exposed to the idea that Jesus the Guy might not have existed. When I saw one of these, er, discussions, I was flabbergasted when I realized that something I always thought was true (not the divinity part -- the simple existence part) *might not be*. I'm thankful that I was exposed to that idea: Jesus might not have existed. Interesting.

Anyway, before it was interesting, the notion really rocked my world in a not so great way. Now I'm at the point that I still find these discussions interesting until they devolve into silliness where the central point is lost. But, meh. I'm glad I've been exposed to the idea nonetheless, and I don't really care (*anymore*) whether he existed or not. I'm still trying to make my mind up about Shakespeare. ;-)

Carry on.

He was real and he died for our sins!

Freevolved Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> He was real and he died for our sins!

No, Elizabeth I wrote the sonnets and plays attributed to Shakespeare when she had a spare minute between reforming the church and defeating the Spanish Armada.QUITE THE LADY!

woe unto ye elizabeth/francis bacon/edward earl of oxford nuts, ye shall be smitten with the rod of prospero and thrust into a fiery lake whose flames will not be quenched...

Meh. I don't really care if he was real, either.

"Come live with me and by my love..."

It's the words -- the words.

And no Beth, they aren't just words. Bill Shakeseare deserves his credit dammit! :)

Okay Marlowe is pretty good. And Kyd has some nice tricks. But Shakespeare is unbeatable.

I apologize, Bona Dea, for accusing you of closing the thread. I was wrong in my assumption that you closed the thread because you didn't want to continue the conversation.

Now that I know you didn't want the thread to be closed, i'm even happier I opened this one so you can provide empirical evidence of the existence of the historical jesus.

You didn't, though. You just pointed at books you've read. That's the equivalent of saying "ask someone else." That's like kolobian missionaries telling people "just read the book of mormon." If the books you're referencing contain some great secret that the rest of us aren't in on, why can't you just post it here?

To you it seemed to say:

>You didn't, though. You just pointed at books you've read. That's the equivalent of saying "ask someone else."

To me it seemed to say: "I found these books of interest. You might, too."

Well, I guess I could write you a long essay on the subject, but considering your attitude, I think I'll pass. You probably wouldn't read it anyway, but thanks for the apology. Just so you know, only Susan can close threads.

damn those cap locks!!
anyway.... thats what makes thing interesting! things that make ya go HMMMMMMMM........
personally i tend to think there was a Jesus..... not sure on the divinity thing...just call me doubting Thomas!! :)

Chulotc, maybe she doesn't want to waste her time typing it all in since you probably wouldn't read it objectively anyway?

I'm with Beth on this one. It's interesting until it devolves into this silliness. To me any discussion that includes the words "you didn't provide me with empirical evidence" when neither person talking is a scientist or historian is pointless. Pointing to the experts is the only "empirical" evidence any of us can provide.

And yes, I know Jesus was real because just yesterday on Easter Sunday, I was driving into a gas station and this guy dressed up like Jesus (from an Easter play at a Christian church) was walking through the parking lot just as I pulled in. I yelled out to him, "Hey Jesus, what are you doing walking around, I thought you were dead?!" "I've been resurrected," he shouted back from behind his synthetic beard.

It's interesting that the Catholic church made up many of the historical "facts." Including the census story and trip into Egypt. None of that is persuasive to me about whether he existed or not. All good fabrications begin from a prexisting canvas to embellish. If anything it gives more credence that he did exist and the fabrications grew out of a reality that was significantly altered.

Cristina wrote:

"All good fabrications begin from a prexisting canvas to embellish. If anything it gives more credence that he did exist and the fabrications grew out of a reality that was significantly altered."

So the lack and fabrication of facts constitutes credible evidence?

How do you reckon that one, sparky?

Whenever their faith or "facts" come under challenge, mormons say it only serves to strengthen their testimony.

Sound familiar?

Timothy

Gwylym Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Chulotc, maybe she doesn't want to waste her time
> typing it all in since you probably wouldn't read
> it objectively anyway?
Exactly. It would take time and he/she isn't going to be objective anyway

Btw...the nag hammadi library collection is a great read...

Ot, but I saw y'all discussing the gnostic gospels



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 04/25/2011 11:50PM by lostmystic.

Bona dea is not a xtian apologist. And I am a chinese transvestite mutant ninja jedi buttfxxxxing jet pilot who likes Dunkin donuts.

... that bona dea can't have a rational discussion with non-believers.

Even herself!

Love to see that essay though. Lots 'o' links, I'm sure, but no emperical evidence.

That would be because none exists.

Timothy

"Love to see that essay though. Lots 'o' links, I'm sure, but no emperical evidence.

That would be because none exists."

that would be correct young man!!
so it stands to reason that..... people get to make their own decisions on the matter..... who is to say who is right and who is wrong!! .
just sayin! :)

Don't normally have a problem neither. At least not until folks start using the fairy tales found in the bible to work their will on others.

Prop H8, anyone?

Timothy