janeeliot, in the interest of being pro-logical, pro-rational, pro-evidence, why don't you respond directly to my comments on your first post before sharing another missive?



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 03/21/2012 09:51PM by lulu.

janeeliot, if after reading bona dea's and Benson's exchanges on this topic you can't figure out how RfM is different from FAIR and FARMS, whether or not there was a historical Jesus is the least of your problems.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 03/21/2012 10:00PM by lulu.

Jane, why are we being unreasonable, from where I stand the logic is flimsy and the evidence is scant.

If I'm skeptical enough to need more evidence to decide if Jesus existed, I'm sure as heck too skeptical to think the fabrication of Jesus was some kind of conspiracy theory.

I certainly don't buy janeeliot's slippery slope suggestion that I would then think it was a hook to make me believe in Gods. Only people who don't evaluate evidence would think that way.

If (big if) there was a seed character for the Jesus tales, it would not prove any of the divine claims of Christianity anyway.

Humans have a rich history of myth making. We also have a history of writing all kinds of versions of accounts of people who were alive. There just isn't enough about Jesus to be convincing, let alone plan my life around.

>“Once you take out the paranoid conspiracy theory -- they are just telling us this to hook us into being Christians! -- all you have left is a guy reporting this is the accepted research in his discipline, and he finds it irritating that in the name of "science" and "evidence" people are -- oddly enough -- ignoring both to set forth instead a theory that satisfies their emotional need to damn Christianity roundly.

ROTFL! Yeah, historical jeezus theory has THAT much power. It instills fear in atheists. NOT!, and xstianity does an excellent job of damning itself roundly. Who needs MORE reasons. There are plenty already.

>"I thought that was what it was all about -- learning to evaluate scholarly research dispassionately to find something ever closer to the truth. If that scholarly research proves there was a historical Jesus, don't you want to understand it?”

No. It would make no difference to me. Do I care about the pursuit of the "historical" Odin, Zeus or Osiris? How many gawds had human models? It does not change anything.

You talk like there's something to be fascinated about with the idea of a historical jeezus. There are no contemporary accounts. There is NOTHING to be fascinated about, except that, as with JS, we have a study in abuse of power, and exploiting people in the name of an imaginary sky daddy, and his religion. That's worth knowing so we can stop repeating it one day.

>“It is as though you imagine that the more anti-Christianity you are, somehow the better. Isn't the real point to be pro-logical, pro-rational, pro-evidence? You act as though believing Jesus never existed is even better than – say – just believing he wasn’t a god! Huh? How is that “better”? Whatever position is supported by the evidence is "better." And, as I say, what if the evidence points (as indeed it seems to do) to a historic Jesus? Don’t you want to go where the evidence points?”

What an imagination! I don't think you understand a lot of atheists. I don't believe in the supernatural. I don't have to try harder to be anti-xstian. It's not about being "more atheist" by not believing in or caring about a historical jeezus; it is that your jeezus is irrelevant except to scholars of that time period. Why the hell would I want to go "where the evidence points" when it leads to a dead end? I love evidence, but it proves nothing in this case, because there are no supernatural beings. So, let's say you find an "actual" carpenter named jeezus. What would that change? You cannot prove it with certainty. You can rehash what apologists have tried to fix for thousands of years, you can put it under a microscope, but you are looking at the same sad "evidence". You are just becoming more expert at polishing the same turd. Polish it all you want; it won't make it magic.

Really, you advocate we all become amateur apologists, because that's what it would take. You want us to read some books, and get educated about jeezus, because *just maybe* there was a Jewish carpenter roaming the desert with that name. Big deal. Who has time to waste on that when it changes nothing? If there was one, he sure missed his chance to make a real impact, and difference in the world. If there was, he was insignificant to history, and since there are no supernatural beings, that would make him even more insignificant.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 03/21/2012 10:45PM by atheist&happy:-).

Sorry lulu. I shouldn't have thrown you so many curve balls. I do think there are many great posters on this site, but I was being sarcastic at that moment in time. But thanks for the perhaps undeserved welcome.

I completely disagree. If Buddha didn't transcend being human, then he isn't Buddha, it seems to me, just as if Jesus wasn't resurrected, then he wasn't a Christ. My point, which I should have made more directly, is that you would be stunned how many historical figures we would lose if we just applied the same odd standards I find here applied to the historic Jesus. Among a long list -- including -- as I said -- every religious person in history, we would also lose the first kings of Egypt, as well as all of European aristocracy. Denying Elizabeth II exists because -- hey -- we all know she doesn't represent god on earth -- there not being a god -- just gets too weird. And as for Buddha, there is absolutely no more evidence there was a historic Buddha than there is there was a historic Jesus. Dismissing Plato because he wrote about Atlantis, and there wasn't an Atlantis, not quite the way the story has come down to us, also seems daft. I suggest everyone make peace with the pervasiveness of myth in human culture and human history – and get on with your life.

If you are going to come up these strange standards, you are going to have to apply them across the board. Not to do so is too damning as evidence you just have this anger thing with Jesus -- whatever that is about.

Really. The evidence and logic are faulty. And the entire feild of history is deceived by that faulty logic and evidence. Hmm. no matter their religious beliefs, they are deceived. Satan at work? You decide.

Just as all those experts are deceived by that faulty evidence the Smithsonian throws around about the Book of Mormon? Funny how that works -- how all those experts don't know what they are talking about -- unless they do -- and then you are upset that religious people just won't get on board with them.

I don't think Joseph Smith and Jesus have anything in common. Nor I think Shakespeare and the latest episode of "Mike and Molly" have anything in common.

Actually -- there is less in common between Joseph Smith and Jesus. Shakespeare and a bad sit-com are at least both plays.

Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 03/21/2012 11:31PM by steve benson.

Okay, Steve. Did you go to BYU? Not insulting you. Just asking.

You seem to be mooshing together the original definition of "myth," which is the only one I use, with about the third definition of "myth," which I scrupulously never use. I like to keep them straight, personally. Joseph Smith invented a preposterous story. That is not my definition of "myth." Myths are created over time by a people, not one person, and are meaningful in their culture although not literally true. The Book of Mormon is neither true -- nor -- alas -- meaningful. Myths are often read by people outside the culture because they are great stories. No one in her right mind reads Book of Mormon for entertainment or enlightenment.

Jesus didn't teach many myths either, but his work couldn't be more different, no matter how you cut it. He was more cryptic, poetic, political and into parables. I can't think of any example of "myth" in his teachings, although sometimes he used the language and symbols of myths. What "myths" did Jesus speak about? Just wondering...

Try Joseph Campbell. He really can't be beat for straightening you about myths. You will never moosh the first and third definitions again.

a&h -- Claiming Jesus lived is not "extraordinary." It needs no "extraordinary" evidence. It says that a human being lived! Since when is that "extraordinary"?

Geesh.

A point the Jesus/myh th people are incapable of understanding.

Are you Christian?

And I have my own collection of Campbell's books. I particularly enjoyed "The Hero with a Thousand Faces."

As far as the mythical Jesus and his silly myths go, read Matthew. You know, the ol' lake of fire he said is set aside for the Devil and his angels.

Ooooooh.



Edited 3 time(s). Last edit at 03/22/2012 12:45AM by steve benson.

It seems like the story is based in some reality, and many historians think there is some archetype for Heracles. However, it is all just guessing because there is no evidence, not written or archaeological. The only Heracles is the one of legend, just as the only Jesus is the one of legend.

Those myths have little impact on society.

No one is dismissing jeezus, and all those historical personages, because there happen to be legends about them. Jeezus is dismissed, because there is no contemporary evidence for him. European aristocracy has ample contemporary evidence.

As for legend, and myth associated with jeezus - those legends, and myths are supernatural, and people REALLY believe it. These supernatural claims have dominated Western Civilization. It's not "jeezus anger". By claiming the supernatural, you have made an extraordinary claim. You have raised the bar. Where is your extraordinary evidence?

Janeelliot isn't making any supernatural claims. She is claiing that a guy named Jesus lived. She didn't claim she believes in the miracles. Geesh.

... that supports the notion of a divine JuHEEsus and even less that supports the notion of a non-divine JuHEEsus who set the stage for the divine JuHEEsus myth.

I often employ a guy named Jesus who is one helluva carpenter and quite the miracle worker as he always completes his tasks within the assigned time frame and never goes over budget. He's also quite talented in the sheetrock, tape & bedding and texturing arts. I highly recommend him!

Son 'O' God? I don't think so. I know his dad. There's no way!

I'm sure there were many guys named JuHEEsus wandering about back in the day. Maybe one was a carpenter - a real lousy carpenter - so, like Joe Smith, he turned to talkin' spiritual ca-ca and folks fed him. Someone may have even given him a donkey to ride around on, but I doubt that it talked. Who knows?

And that's the point. No one knows because here simply isn't enough information, and what is there is highly questionable at best.

As always, any verifiable evidence to the contrary is more than welcome!

Love,

Timothy

janeeliot Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Sorry lulu. I shouldn't have thrown you so many
> curve balls.

(friendly chuckle) I would say you were the batter and hitting foul balls.

I do think there are many great
> posters on this site, but I was being sarcastic at
> that moment in time. But thanks for the perhaps
> undeserved welcome.

All welcomes here are deserved.


>
> I completely disagree. If Buddha didn't transcend
> being human, then he isn't Buddha,


But Buddha's own point was that you don't need a transcendant Buddha. It's nice that he came along, taught some stuff, set an example and transcended but on his own terms he was not absoluting necessary to you individually reaching nirvana in the way that you need Jesus' atonement to be saved. Serious, Buddha taught the opposite, if you meet me on the road, kill me. What does that mean?


> it seems to me,
> just as if Jesus wasn't resurrected, then he
> wasn't a Christ.

We may have to disagree. But in almost all types of Buddhism, Buddha is not a salvific figure like Jesus is. I can make it to nirvana without him. In fact, once I have learned what he has to teach, he instructs me to ignore him.

> My point, which I should have
> made more directly, is that you would be stunned
> how many historical figures we would lose if we
> just applied the same odd standards I find here
> applied to the historic Jesus. Among a long list
> -- including -- as I said -- every religious
> person in history, we would also lose the first
> kings of Egypt,

That we would be stunned is not proof of existence. It's not a historical argument from empirical evidence.

> as well as all of European
> aristocracy. Denying Elizabeth II exists because

Elizabeth II exists because there is empirical evidence. I just saw her on youtube in her yellow hat at the royal wedding. She's the Supreme Governor of the Church of England because there's an act of parlement that you can go hold in your hands. That's really not a good analogy.

But whether a historical figure, Jesus originally started that church in Judah, that's a different question.

> -- hey -- we all know she doesn't represent god on
> earth -- there not being a god -- just gets too
> weird.


And as for Buddha, there is absolutely no
> more evidence there was a historic Buddha than
> there is there was a historic Jesus.

I'd say the evidence for Jesus is a little better than for Buddha. But still, we went over this in the prior thread, just because there was not Buddha does not mean there had to be a Jesus.

Dismissing
> Plato because he wrote about Atlantis, and there
> wasn't an Atlantis, not quite the way the story
> has come down to us, also seems daft.

Again you have the analogy backwards. There being no Atlantis does not disprove Plato's existance. A question about Plato's existance would be based on extant contemporary accounts about Plato. But even if he did not exist, Platonic philosphy on its own terms could be valid, it does not need the death, atonement and resurection of a real human being.

> I suggest
> everyone make peace with the pervasiveness of myth
> in human culture and human history – and get on
> with your life.

I agree, everyone should make peace with the pervasive myth (your word) of Jesus, but some peoples' peace will be that the historical evidence is not convinicing.

>
> If you are going to come up these strange
> standards,

Specifically, what standard do you claim is strange, extant, contemporarly recorded witnesses. That's not strange at all.

you are going to have to apply them
> across the board.

I agree.

> Not to do so is too damning

I agree

>as
> evidence you just have this anger thing with Jesus
> -- whatever that is about.

Again, just because someone is pissed with Jesus isn't proof that he exists.

lulu Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> janeeliot Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > Sorry lulu. I shouldn't have thrown you so many
> > curve balls.
>
> (friendly chuckle) I would say you were the batter
> and hitting foul balls.

Thanks for patronizing me. I appreciate it.

>
> I do think there are many great
> > posters on this site, but I was being sarcastic
> at
> > that moment in time. But thanks for the perhaps
> > undeserved welcome.
>
> All welcomes here are deserved.
>
>
> >
> > I completely disagree. If Buddha didn't
> transcend
> > being human, then he isn't Buddha,
>
>
> But Buddha's own point was that you don't need a
> transcendant Buddha. It's nice that he came
> along, taught some stuff, set an example and
> transcended but on his own terms he was not
> absoluting necessary to you individually reaching
> nirvana in the way that you need Jesus' atonement
> to be saved. Serious, Buddha taught the opposite,
> if you meet me on the road, kill me. What does
> that mean?
>
I think Buddha is reassuringly exotic, foreign, and basically an unknown quantity -- and no one here is angry at him. I think many Buddhists would argue that the supernatural elements in his story are hugely important and cannot be tossed out so casually. I also think many verions of Christianity have existed, such as the gnostic, which have not stressed either a divine Jesus or a need for Jesus as a savior. One of the nice things about becoming familiar with the historic Jesus is it helps you sort out what has accumulated over the years with anything a historic Jesus might possibly have meant. For example, even if we could assume he said, "I am the way and the light," (and I don't think we can assume it), there are plenty of unsupernatural possible meanings. In fact, I think it is a bit of stretch to go from that to "You have to be a good Catholic to get into heaven!" Really. Seems like a reach to me. It is, actually, a very Buddha-like pronouncement. Many Christians demonination have said we need Jesus as our personal savior. I am less convinced that historic Jesus said anything of the sort. Think about it -- The way -- the Tao. And light has always been knowledge, life, the sun. If it were credited to Buddha, you would probably drool.
>
> > it seems to me,
> > just as if Jesus wasn't resurrected, then he
> > wasn't a Christ.
>
> We may have to disagree. But in almost all types
> of Buddhism, Buddha is not a salvific figure like
> Jesus is. I can make it to nirvana without him.
> In fact, once I have learned what he has to teach,
> he instructs me to ignore him.
>
> > My point, which I should have
> > made more directly, is that you would be
> stunned
> > how many historical figures we would lose if we
> > just applied the same odd standards I find here
> > applied to the historic Jesus. Among a long
> list
> > -- including -- as I said -- every religious
> > person in history, we would also lose the first
> > kings of Egypt,
>
> That we would be stunned is not proof of
> existence. It's not a historical argument from
> empirical evidence.

It is empirical evidence that convinced historians there was a historic Jesus! Aaaaahhhhhhh! And my point is that I don't see you guys out there saying, "How do we know there was really a historic Buddha?!!? Huh? How can we?" Actually, I don't see how we can know. But let's face it, no one around here has gotten his panties in a twist about Buddha -- so frankly everyone couldn't care less if there is no particular evidence he lived! No one believes the first Egyptian kings didn't really live because they were supposedly fathered by the gods. People just take it for granted -- as they should. I mean -- if you are going to hold this standard you should apply it evenly throughout history -- instead of obsessing about Jesus as some special case. I think the posters on this thread would not believe he lived if he published his long-form birth certificate. They would say -- oh, I can tell it's a computer forgery!
>
> > as well as all of European
> > aristocracy. Denying Elizabeth II exists
> because
>
> Elizabeth II exists because there is empirical
> evidence. I just saw her on youtube in her yellow
> hat at the royal wedding. She's the Supreme
> Governor of the Church of England because there's
> an act of parlement that you can go hold in your
> hands. That's really not a good analogy.
>
> But whether a historical figure, Jesus originally
> started that church in Judah, that's a different
> question.
>
> > -- hey -- we all know she doesn't represent god
> on
> > earth -- there not being a god -- just gets too
> > weird.
>
>
> And as for Buddha, there is absolutely no
> > more evidence there was a historic Buddha than
> > there is there was a historic Jesus.
>
> I'd say the evidence for Jesus is a little better
> than for Buddha. But still, we went over this in
> the prior thread, just because there was not
> Buddha does not mean there had to be a Jesus.
>
> Dismissing
> > Plato because he wrote about Atlantis, and
> there
> > wasn't an Atlantis, not quite the way the story
> > has come down to us, also seems daft.
>
> Again you have the analogy backwards. There being
> no Atlantis does not disprove Plato's existance.
> A question about Plato's existance would be based
> on extant contemporary accounts about Plato. But
> even if he did not exist, Platonic philosphy on
> its own terms could be valid, it does not need the
> death, atonement and resurection of a real human
> being.
>
> > I suggest
> > everyone make peace with the pervasiveness of
> myth
> > in human culture and human history – and get
> on
> > with your life.
>
> I agree, everyone should make peace with the
> pervasive myth (your word) of Jesus, but some
> peoples' peace will be that the historical
> evidence is not convinicing.
>
> >
> > If you are going to come up these strange
> > standards,
>
> Specifically, what standard do you claim is
> strange, extant, contemporarly recorded witnesses.
> That's not strange at all.
>
> you are going to have to apply them
> > across the board.
>
> I agree.
>
> > Not to do so is too damning
>
> I agree
>
> >as
> > evidence you just have this anger thing with
> Jesus
> > -- whatever that is about.
>
> Again, just because someone is pissed with Jesus
> isn't proof that he exists.

janeeliot Wrote:

> Thanks for patronizing me. I appreciate it.

If "friendly" is patronizing to you, I don't know what I can do.

> I think Buddha is reassuringly exotic, foreign,
> and basically an unknown quantity -- and no one
> here is angry at him.


Why should US and European ex-mormons be angry at Buddha? If RfM got good and pissed of with Buddhism, would that mean there was a historical Jesus.


I think many Buddhists would
> argue that the supernatural elements in his story
> are hugely important and cannot be tossed out so
> casually.

Then you need to study up on Buddhism. And you could find any number of scholars who would doubt a historical Buddha, some of them would be practicing Buddhist. You don't need a historical Buddha for Buddhism.


>I also think many verions of
> Christianity have existed, such as the gnostic,
> which have not stressed either a divine Jesus

Most all gnostics stressed the opposite, that Jesus was divine, and that in some groups he was so divine that he was not human.


or a
> need for Jesus as a savior. One of the nice things
> about becoming familiar with the historic Jesus is
> it helps you sort out what has accumulated over
> the years with anything a historic Jesus might
> possibly have meant.

You're presuposing an historic Jesus. Not good historical practice. First prove with empirical evidence that there was a Jesus. Next prove with empirical evidence what he said. Then you can start to work on what his saying meant.


For example, even if we could
> assume he said, "I am the way and the light," (and
> I don't think we can assume it), there are plenty
> of unsupernatural possible meanings. In fact, I
> think it is a bit of stretch to go from that to
> "You have to be a good Catholic to get into
> heaven!" Really. Seems like a reach to me. It is,
> actually, a very Buddha-like pronouncement.

You really misunderstand Budhhism. There is one strand of Buddhism that might come close (note only close) to what you are saying and worldwide it is not the major, nor arguably the most authentic strand of Budhhism.

1. You've studied enough to think Jesus has been mis-understood.
2. Study enough so that you know the observable evidence that Jesus did or did not exist.


Many
> Christians demonination have said we need Jesus as
> our personal savior. I am less convinced that
> historic Jesus said anything of the sort.

So keep digging, farther and farther back. If you have empirical evidence that convinces you there was a historical Jesus, than that's what you think. The argument here has always been (for years) state the empericial evidence.


Think
> about it -- The way -- the Tao. And light has
> always been knowledge, life, the sun. If it were
> credited to Buddha, you would probably drool.


Not seeing what your mean here. But Buddha and Jesus, on their own terms are not comparable figures.


> It is empirical evidence that convinced historians
> there was a historic Jesus! Aaaaahhhhhhh!

OK, state what empirical evidence you have observed that convinces you there was a historical Jesus.



And my
> point is that I don't see you guys out there
> saying, "How do we know there was really a
> historic Buddha?!!? Huh? How can we?" Actually, I
> don't see how we can know.

As to Buddha, I don't see who we can know either. In fact, in a prior post I said the evidence for Jesus is stronger than for Buddha.


But let's face it, no
> one around here has gotten his panties in a twist
> about Buddha -- so frankly everyone couldn't care
> less if there is no particular evidence he lived!

No one here is Buddhist?
A book hasn't just been published a the historical Buddha?
Buddha does not play the same role in Buddhism that Jesus does in Christianity?



> No one believes the first Egyptian kings didn't
> really live because they were supposedly fathered
> by the gods. People just take it for granted -- as
> they should. I mean -- if you are going to hold
> this standard you should apply it evenly
> throughout history -- instead of obsessing about
> Jesus as some special case.

Former Mormons (a Christian religion) who in many cases were quite badly treated by it, living in a country were Christianity predominates, whose basic culture comes from a Christian Europe, obsess about a historical Jesus rather than the historicity of the first Egyptian kings.

You have a go at it. Why should that be?



I think the posters on
> this thread would not believe he lived if he
> published his long-form birth certificate. They
> would say -- oh, I can tell it's a computer
> forgery!

Feel free to state the affirmative emperical evidence for a historical Jesus.

Everything you have written so far has been negative comparisons to Buddha and other figures.

But then I thought of the first vision and the restoration of the priesthood which never actually happened either. It's perfectly possible for religious folk to pull stuff out of their asses and pretend it's real.

Give it a few centuries and you'll have all kinds of people giving these "events" the benefit of the doubt just because it's so long ago, so hard to evaluate and, most importantly, so hard to swallow that the thing in which they have invested so much isn't real.

Joseph Smith was such a fraud that it is almost impossible to think people took (or take) him seriously. I do think this whole thing has materialized due to the heavy handed leadership of Brigham Young and the Utah economy which kept people in the cult for economic reasons- plus the LDS intensive breeding program.

As far as the Jesus thing, does it really matter if he existed? Will it change outlook? Whether he existed or not, one may assume that many of his miracles etc. have been exagerated to say the least. I personally think Jesus was concocted by the Roman powers that be for political purposes...and those political purposes are still used today.

I also think myths are meant to be busted. However, true believers, in whatever cult they cheer for, do not listen to reason, as faith is always used as a trump card.

I do find it disturbing how the influence of these myths shapes public policy and society. The current war on homosexuality is probably the best example, and LDS Inc is going to lose big time there.

The fortunate thing for those of us who champion reason is the use of control of information, the actual power of religions, is being exposed by the free flow of information on the internet. The church cannot control the internet, and google will kill them. The internet is the place where religions come to die.

The most dangerous commandment is the 'thou shalt not covet' because in that case a thought is sin. The power of a church relies on its ability to control the thinking processes of its following.

Individual empowerment comes when people think for themselves. A quick 'cheers' to Christopher Hitchens who taught us HOW to think rather than WHAT to think.