Page 3 of 5 FirstFirst 12345 LastLast
Results 41 to 60 of 83

Thread: Some Salient Points on Jesus of Nazareth

  1. #41
    Monarchist's Avatar Civitate
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Location
    Canada
    Posts
    4,803

    Default Re: Some Salient Points on Jesus of Nazareth

    Quote Originally Posted by Elfdude View Post
    Christians all believe Jesus was Divine. That's one of the main defining points of christianity. The problem is that most simultaneously know the miracles attributed to him are probably impossible and probably never occurred. This leads to a weird type of incoherence between historical representation of a man like jesus and trying to find jesus himself. The closest figure we can point to is Yuz Asaf but he wasn't killed by Ponti, he was removed from the cross and smuggled away by his followers. Which defeats all of christianity if it's true.

    So yeah, I'm sorry but there's no historical jesus. There's at best people who hold some traits in common with him and they range over the period of hundreds of years.
    And yet Arianism & Adoptionism (and all their strands and strains) did asert that Jesus was not originally divine, but started as a man. These were major Christian beliefs, the former of which was the majority of Christianity for most of the 4th century in the Empire, and formed a vast swath of Christian population in the Italian & Spanish Gothic kingdoms into the 500s.

    Not that this means there was a historical Jesus. It's just important to say that even the seemingly core belief of the Divinity of Christ wasn't accepted by all from day one. It's fascinating, and to me is just another point in favour of the idea that he was made up as a divine myth (why else would there be endless contradictory mythical and historical ideas about him?) or simply a total muddle of a real, if insignificant, person -- a muddle so total that the real person disappears, in which case I'd say there is no "historical Jesus", not because he never existed but because all the theological and mythical accretion has erased him. Very interesting, how history and belief work.
    "Pauci viri sapientiae student."
    Cicero

  2. #42
    Monarchist's Avatar Civitate
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Location
    Canada
    Posts
    4,803

    Default Re: Some Salient Points on Jesus of Nazareth

    Quote Originally Posted by bigdaddy1204 View Post
    It seems controversy about the significance of Jesus is unlikely to end any time soon.
    That's actually why I love the subject. As history, legend, myth, theology, doctrine, ethics, it's just endlessly fascinating. There must have been a million Jesuses by now: Roman spy, anti-Roman rebel, communist, capitalist, mystic, practical utilitarian, Pharisee, anti-Pharisee, etc., and he's almost become a factory stamp for a brand that a person holds or believes in. There are as many Jesuses as there are human beings.

    The main reason his significance will remain controversial is precisely because he is shrouded in mystery. We only know about him from anonymous writers, who didn't cite or name their sources, from a few decades after the events occurred. His teachings are an amalgamation of many Jewish ideas, with a sort of Stoic twinge. His battles are very human battles, and his questions are universal questions. It is very odd: unique, yet not at all.
    "Pauci viri sapientiae student."
    Cicero

  3. #43

    Default Re: Some Salient Points on Jesus of Nazareth

    Quote Originally Posted by Monarchist View Post
    And yet Arianism & Adoptionism (and all their strands and strains) did asert that Jesus was not originally divine, but started as a man. These were major Christian beliefs, the former of which was the majority of Christianity for most of the 4th century in the Empire, and formed a vast swath of Christian population in the Italian & Spanish Gothic kingdoms into the 500s. 
    While very popular, Arianism and adoptionism never formed the overall majority in the empire, only local areas. The very reason that Arianism was rejected by the Empire was because it was not the majority - Emperor Constantine went with the majority, he didn't particular care which as long as everyone was unified.


    The German barbarians who ruled western Europe eventually abandoned Arianism, and adopted Catholicism was adopt the views of the majority of their subjects.

    Not that this means there was a historical Jesus. It's just important to say that even the seemingly core belief of the Divinity of Christ wasn't accepted by all from day one. It's fascinating, and to me is just another point in favour of the idea that he was made up as a divine myth (why else would there be endless contradictory mythical and historical ideas about him?) or simply a total muddle of a real, if insignificant, person -- a muddle so total that the real person disappears, in which case I'd say there is no "historical Jesus", not because he never existed but because all the theological and mythical accretion has erased him. Very interesting, how history and belief work.
    The historical portion of Jesus never entirely disappeared, and the core of the historical person was not forgotten, Jesus, after is a real historical name, and the title "Christ" never completely replaced, in contrast to both Buddha and Muhammed. Buddha was a tittle, not a person's name, and no one refers to Buddha by his birth name, and most people don't even know it, Nor can many give the name of Buddha's father./ The same goes for Mohammed - that really is a title, and there is no evidence it was used as a personal name before Islam. The name lf Mohammed's father and mother all but forgotten.

    Jesus had brothers, and Paul clearly disliked Jqmes, and has disputes with him. Why invent not only a man and his brother, onky to have to all but edit him out in just a few decades, all within the life span of a potential eyewitness who could expose those claims as a lie. It makes the invention needlessly complicated - it would be simpler, and just as effective, to make Jesus an only child, like Buddha and Mohammed. The Gospels and Acts practically wrote out Jesus brothers. Acts barely mentions James, and no detail is given on how his brothers became followes. If you depended just on the Gospels, including Lukes own, you would think his brothers never became followes All of thst smacks of real history, rathet than invention. Acts couldn't ignore James and Jesus brother completely, they were too important historically, but Jesus brothers seem to have wound up on the losing side on the debate as to whether all Christians should follow the Jewish Law and ritual, and so they were minimalized as much as possible.

    Even during Jesus own lifetime, the Gospels made it plain that there was a lot of uncertainity o who Jesus really was. Was Jesus just another prophet, just a teacher, the long awaited Messaih? It should not come as a surprise there was just as much controversy and debate over his message and who he was after he was as while he was alive. But those contdoversies do not in anyway indicate a lack of historical person.

    I have this to ask you - name another example where a totally fictious person is taken as bein a real historical person just 20 years after this allegedly non existent person's death, and is universally accepted as real historical person even by the critics just 70 years later, and where all the main details, such as who killed him and why, and where he was kulled, everyone is un universal agreement on. Both Christians and pagans like Tacitus agree that Jesus was killed by Pilate in Jerusalem for example.

    Moreover, if you are going to invent someone, why not make him a prince like Mithras and Buddha? Why invent a shameful death reserved for slaves and traitors, and just had him die of old age like Buddha? You could have had Jesus die naturally, and still be raised from the dead. The death by crucifixion created a lot of problems for the early Chrisrians, as Paul said it was stublung block for Jews and Gentiles alike.

    Mythicist make a big deal about Nazareth, and a big deal of how Paul never mentions any of Jesus healing miracles, but then do about face and completely ignore the fact that Paul doesn't mentipn Nazareth at all. If Nazareth was as important as you claim, then Paul should have mentioned it. Mythicist seem tripping over their own arguments.

    Ultimately, what makes more sense that there was a real person whose legends got expanded later, or that people completely invented a character based on a complete nobody, whose stories created all kinds of headache and forced the early Christians to spend a lot of time defending, and subject them to the ridicule of everyone? Mythidist avoid dealing with the illogic of the position, by just ignoring it, but it won't go away. Why didn't critics just refute the Christians by pointing out Jesus never existed? Just pointed out the Christians invented him? Remember, Paul was writing a mere 20 years after Jesus death, there were many alive who could say, "Hey, I was living in Jerusalem under Pilate, and there no guy named Jesus who was crucifid. You guys made the whole thing up."


    Paul certainly met Jesus brother, and if a man's brother is real, then the man himself must be real. .

  4. #44
    Monarchist's Avatar Civitate
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Location
    Canada
    Posts
    4,803

    Default Re: Some Salient Points on Jesus of Nazareth

    Common Soldier, what do you think of the idea that "brother of the Lord" is a formulaic descriptor of an early Christian believer, and that the James in question was simply one of the early sojourners or disciples who was particularly close to Jesus, thus being specially given that title often?

    I've wavered on whether to accept it, myself. It seems like a bit of a stretch, vs. the clear and direct and usual meaning of "Brother".

    To be fair, Tacitus and the pagans agreed that Christians/Chrestians believed such-and-such a person had undergone those things. They do not act as witnesses or testimony. Interestingly neither Tacitus nor Pliny nor any pagan epistle/history writers mention "Jesus", but rather Christ. I've always found that interesting.
    Last edited by Monarchist; January 21, 2018 at 02:50 AM.
    "Pauci viri sapientiae student."
    Cicero

  5. #45
    bigdaddy1204's Avatar Campidoctor
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    Dar al-Islam
    Posts
    1,896

    Default Re: Some Salient Points on Jesus of Nazareth

    Quote Originally Posted by Common Soldier View Post
    The name of Mohammed's father and mother all but forgotten.
    His mother's name was Aminah. That's well known. His father was Abdullah ibn Abdul-Muttalib. While it's true many Arabic names have descriptive meanings (e.g. Abdullah = abd meaning servant + al lah meaning the most high, ie. God), that doesn't necessarily mean these names are titles.

    Historicity of Jesus' family members isn't as interesting/controversial as the Virgin birth concept. The virgin birth of Jesus is problematic from a modern standpoint as it's obviously impossible.

    Although technically it is just about theoretically possible from a scientific perspective in the lab, the chances of it happening in real life would require such a string of extremely unlikely events to come together one after the other as to make it very, very, very unlikely.

    This link does a good job of explaining the steps that would need to happen. http://www.slate.com/articles/news_a...ive_birth.html
    Quote Originally Posted by Adar View Post
    I am quite impressed by the fact that you managed to make such a rant but still manage to phrase it in such a way that it is neither relevant to the thread nor to the topic you are trying to introduce to the thread.

  6. #46

    Default Re: Some Salient Points on Jesus of Nazareth

    Quote Originally Posted by bigdaddy1204 View Post
    The virgin birth of Jesus is problematic from a modern standpoint as it's obviously impossible.
    You do realize that same thing can be said about any religion, right?

  7. #47

    Default Re: Some Salient Points on Jesus of Nazareth

    Quote Originally Posted by Monarchist View Post
    I spent most of the last 2-3 years, during my search, generally agreeing that if the vast majority of scholars consider "Mythicism" to be fringe, then it's not worth my time. Eventually I bumped into a mythicist video on YouTube by accident. I decided to see what it was all about. Much of it was convincing. I don't adhere to it rigidly, but because they often make good arguments (especially Dr. Robert M. Price, featured there in your video, sumskilz), I stopped caring whether the view is "mainstream" or "accepted by most scholars" or "fringe". If something rings true, I'll believe it until it's pretty definitely shown to be implausible. Some mythicist ideas are plausible, some not. This is the work of all history and the sciences. Saying something is fringe is a scare tactic on the part of scholars who don't like an idea.

    We really have to ask exactly how this "majority" is tallied, rather than just accept its beliefs. Who defines what is fringe? An idea is an idea. Let is be disproved by reasons, not numbers. The "vast majority" of Christians are Catholics, so is Catholicism true? The "majority" of scholars either are Christians who need Jesus to exist for obvious reasons, and/or are counted as the "majority" solely by extrapolating from the votes of the Jesus Seminar. All of this is argumentum ad populum, and shouldn't be the sole basis of credibility or investigation.
    I agree with your point here. I presented the mainstream academic judgement as a matter of fact, rather than as an argument. I could have otherwise said, they nearly unanimously consider the primary mythicist arguments sufficiently refuted. In that, I agree with them, pending further evidence.

    Quote Originally Posted by Monarchist View Post
    The main question I have is: why do "the majority" consider it definite that Jesus only preached and was crucified? And what is the basis of their assertion that those specific things are true about Jesus? As far as I can tell, the basis is that the Four Gospels and St. Paul agree that Jesus preached and was crucified, and that later pagan sources mention that he was crucified. That's the majority census reasoning. But there's a problem. The Gospels & Paul also all agree that Jesus was raised from the dead and that he did miraculous things (Paul doesn't mention the healing miracles though). Why is that set of data not accepted, but only his preaching & crucifixion are accepted? Both miracles/resurrection and preaching/crucifixion have the same basis in manuscript evidence, no? Clearly this majority don't accept the miraculous bits because they don't believe in miracles. A priori. But that simply makes them reject one aspect of the Jesus story out-of-hand whilst accepting the other aspects based on exactly the same texts & evidence.
    The miracles require a higher standard of evidence from an academic perspective. The rest is accepted based on the same standard of evidence that anything else would be accepted by historians of this period. Common Soldier has done a good job addressing this, so I won't elaborate. I will however add that Tacitus, the one passage from Josephus which appears untampered with, taken along with Paul's almost certainly authentic seven letters are the strongest evidence, and constitute more evidence than we have for many other accepted historical individuals of the ancient world. So the question comes down to what standard of evidence are you willing to accept just to believe a particular individual existed, and why should that standard be different than for anyone else historians believe existed?

    In my experience (and this is not an argument, just something to consider for yourself) those who tend to buy the mythicist argument broadly speaking, seem to have a reasonably strong emotional stake in it, which you've admitted may be an influence on you. I can say that from the perspective of someone who has no horse in the race, the mythicist position seems to be more speculative than just accepting there was a guy who some Jews believed was the messiah that was crucified.

    Quote Originally Posted by Monarchist View Post
    Common Soldier, what do you think of the idea that "brother of the Lord" is a formulaic descriptor of an early Christian believer, and that the James in question was simply one of the early sojourners or disciples who was particularly close to Jesus, thus being specially given that title often?
    Okay, I'll barge in on this one. Paul writes, "Then after three years I did go up to Jerusalem to visit Cephas and stayed with him fifteen days; but I did not see any other apostle except James the Lord’s brother." Cephas is almost certainly Peter. It's my understanding that the Greek rendering is Κηφᾶς (Kēphâs), which is clearly כיפא (kēp̄ā) in Aramaic, that is "stone" analogous to πέτρος (petros). This identification as Peter is further supported by 1 Corinthians 15:5. So then the supposition is that James was particularly close to Jesus, but Peter was not. It makes more sense that James was his brother. Another reason he couldn't be written out despite his disagreements with Paul.

    Josephus also refers to James in the same way: "Festus was now dead, and Albinus was but upon the road; so he assembled the sanhedrin of judges, and brought before them the brother of Jesus, who was called Christ, whose name was James, and some others; and when he had formed an accusation against them as breakers of the law, he delivered them to be stoned"

    EDIT:
    Quote Originally Posted by bigdaddy1204 View Post
    His mother's name was Aminah. That's well known. His father was Abdullah ibn Abdul-Muttalib. While it's true many Arabic names have descriptive meanings (e.g. Abdullah = abd meaning servant + al lah meaning the most high, ie. God), that doesn't necessarily mean these names are titles.
    I mean, it's hardly a name that strains credibility, like Khalid ibn al-Walid (eternal son of the boy).
    Last edited by sumskilz; January 21, 2018 at 06:58 AM.
    Quote Originally Posted by Enros View Post
    You don't seem to be familiar with how the burden of proof works in when discussing social justice. It's not like science where it lies on the one making the claim. If someone claims to be oppressed, they don't have to prove it.


  8. #48
    Monarchist's Avatar Civitate
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Location
    Canada
    Posts
    4,803

    Default Re: Some Salient Points on Jesus of Nazareth

    Quote Originally Posted by sumskilz View Post
    The miracles require a higher standard of evidence from an academic perspective. The rest is accepted based on the same standard of evidence that anything else would be accepted by historians of this period. Common Soldier has done a good job addressing this, so I won't elaborate. I will however add that Tacitus, the one passage from Josephus which appears untampered with, taken along with Paul's almost certainly authentic seven letters are the strongest evidence, and constitute more evidence than we have for many other accepted historical individuals of the ancient world.
    So what exactly is up with Paul consistently saying he received all he knows about Jesus from visions and revelations? He didn't even go to Jerusalem to learn anything; it was specifically to see if his "doctrine" accorded with the Jerusalem Apostles' beliefs. How can he have learned of an historical individual solely by mystical visions? How do historical critics and historians understand this? How are these doctrinal, theological letters - which don't go into any of Jesus' preaching/words/life circumstances, and don't even mention Judas or Pilate or Mary by name - strong evidence for a historical individual?

    I keep thinking this thread should be in Vestigia Vetustatis, because it's not really about theology or the God debate. But it does stray enough into theology to belong in EMM, I guess.

    So the question comes down to what standard of evidence are you willing to accept just to believe a particular individual existed, and why should that standard be different than for anyone else historians believe existed?
    My big bugbear about Jesus' existence is that, everywhere the historically realistic stuff occurs (crucifixion, say), it is accompanied by some magical event. You can't have him preaching without some healing, or giving a sermon without multiplying loaves & fishes before or after; you can't find him even dying without some peace and quiet, he's attended to by an impossible eclipse and an earthquake and a temple subsidence that never happened. Almost every event we'd expect to be historical is accompanied by a non-historical event. This has raised a red flag for me.

    However, one thing has been my worst problem with Mythicism: just because a few miracles and impossibilities are attributed to Jesus, therefore he was made up whole cloth out of Egyptian, Babylonian, Mithraic, etc., cults?! So how can we know anything about anybody beyond the invention of photography or film? Mythicism is so postmodern that it opens up far too many questions about knowing, memory, and perception to remain in just one field of study. It really becomes an entire worldview or system. And it's not one I epistemologically agree with, regardless of Jesus Christ.

    In any case, if we can say Jesus was invented because of some "Campbellian Hero Myth" archetype he fulfills, or because he's "like" some Eastern god-myths, then surely Alexander must be made up, and perhaps Romulus, and many other people, given the divine honours and stories attributed to them. Alexander Romances were common back then, and none of them are historically realistic... but Alexander lived. We can see from the collapse of the Persian Empire and all the other effects that something certainly happened, and so we might as well call the super-general who did it "Alexander", because everyone else has done so.

    In a sense, this very point was, ironically, an important one for me in accepting some aspects of the Jesus Myth theory. One of the best indicators someone lived is that they had a measurable effect on reality. The effect of Caesar being real is that the Roman Republic became the Empire. The effect of Alex. being real is that the Persian Empire failed, Hellenism was spread across the East, and all the rest of it. What is the effect of Jesus being real, or raised from the dead, or anything else claimed for him? Only that a small cult came into existence. Nothing else. No actual effect, apart from that. So does that mean Mithras or other such figures were real, originally, because their followers came into being?

    Now obviously Jesus was no commander or general or emperor, or person of note, so we cannot compare the effects of his existence with those of Caesar or Alexander, but when Christian rhetoric talks about his fame spreading across the East within his lifetime, and his resurrection changing the course of history and human nature itself, and the imminent end of all things, it does all sound rather important. Maybe I take the Bible too seriously. Obviously we have to separate his historical existence from the accrued theology, but I do like to think about how the two have influenced each other.

    I'd like to read more thoroughly about how we really know things from so far back.

    In my experience (and this is not an argument, just something to consider for yourself) those who tend to buy the mythicist argument broadly speaking, seem to have a reasonably strong emotional stake in it, which you've admitted may be an influence on you. I can say that from the perspective of someone who has no horse in the race, the mythicist position seems to be more speculative than just accepting there was a guy who some Jews believed was the messiah that was crucified.
    I have no doubt that many mythicists have strong emotional stakes in these things. Robert Price seems to be expiating his sin of being a conservative evangelical for years, despite his jolly outward appearance. Acharya S., I really can't decide, as I know so little about her. Seems to really be up in herself, though, from interviews I've heard... and she was definitely an esotericist at heart. Richard Carrier has multiple issues of credibility for me, and he seems to have a need for his theories to be true on a rather annoying level.

    So I understand why you'd say that. But they also apply logical criteria, arguments, theory, etc., to their emotionally-charged worldview. Just like anybody else. I'm sure Ehrman feels as strongly about his opinions, as the liberal Christian and conservative Evangelical do about theirs. As I said, we all have our emotional stakes. They're simply in different areas. I don't really mind it in anybody.

    Josephus also refers to James in the same way: "Festus was now dead, and Albinus was but upon the road; so he assembled the sanhedrin of judges, and brought before them the brother of Jesus, who was called Christ, whose name was James, and some others; and when he had formed an accusation against them as breakers of the law, he delivered them to be stoned"
    Great Pauline stuff. Worthy of reflection.

    As to Josephus: assuming the Jesus & James passage is authentic, and not referring to Jesus the high priest who died in 66 AD, how do we interpret the fact that Acts clearly says the same James was executed by the sword, by Herod? Stoning is a totally different punishment. How can it be the same person?
    Last edited by Monarchist; January 21, 2018 at 09:28 AM.
    "Pauci viri sapientiae student."
    Cicero

  9. #49
    basics's Avatar Vicarius Provinciae
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Location
    Scotland, UK.
    Posts
    11,280

    Default Re: Some Salient Points on Jesus of Nazareth

    Quote Originally Posted by Monarchist View Post
    Common Soldier, what do you think of the idea that "brother of the Lord" is a formulaic descriptor of an early Christian believer, and that the James in question was simply one of the early sojourners or disciples who was particularly close to Jesus, thus being specially given that title often?

    I've wavered on whether to accept it, myself. It seems like a bit of a stretch, vs. the clear and direct and usual meaning of "Brother".

    To be fair, Tacitus and the pagans agreed that Christians/Chrestians believed such-and-such a person had undergone those things. They do not act as witnesses or testimony. Interestingly neither Tacitus nor Pliny nor any pagan epistle/history writers mention "Jesus", but rather Christ. I've always found that interesting.
    Monarchist,

    James came later to Christianity than the other disciples, why? Because of all things he was a Jew in character and belief and couldn't accept that his brother was the Christ. He became the ruler of the church on the simple fact that he was the next in line to Jesus and it was his ruling that even Gentiles had to be circumcised to be accepted as believers. That is why Peter got into trouble for even eating with Gentile converts and why Paul had to go up to Jerusalem to confront them both regarding the essence of Justification by Faith and that alone. At some point Jesus revealed Himself to His brother in vision and dreams which was enough to bring him around to the Way so it was no surprise that many Christians did not want James's book inserted into Scripture on the belief that in the book he preached works before faith. This of course is not true in the respect that his book was primarily written for converts, not unbelievers, to encourage them that the fruit of the Spirit of God is works, works that reflect what Jesus did.

    Concerning Constantine and his so-called conversion which was supposedly made on his deathbed, it is no surprise that the bishop who was present was Arian in belief and so we must take this conversion with a pinch of salt. Before that Constantine routinely interjected in church meetings and in time began to see a political element that could benefit the Empire and so because of that he made Christianity the religion of the Empire. There is no doubt that Constantine was as ruthless as his predecessors right up until his death.

  10. #50

    Default Re: Some Salient Points on Jesus of Nazareth

    Quote Originally Posted by Monarchist View Post
    So what exactly is up with Paul consistently saying he received all he knows about Jesus from visions and revelations? He didn't even go to Jerusalem to learn anything; it was specifically to see if his "doctrine" accorded with the Jerusalem Apostles' beliefs. How can he have learned of an historical individual solely by mystical visions? How do historical critics and historians understand this? How are these doctrinal, theological letters - which don't go into any of Jesus' preaching/words/life circumstances, and don't even mention Judas or Pilate or Mary by name - strong evidence for a historical individual? 
    Paul specifically said he was passing down what he received from others, and he did say he talked to Jesus followers, such as Peter. He did not say that everything single thing he knew about Jesus was from visions and revelationa, you are misreading what he said, That the crux of his message, Jesus was alive and Lord, was from revelation, and not received from men, true, but nowhere did he say that was his only source of knowledge. Paul was trying to establish his independence and authority, so he emphaiszed that his message came from God directly, but that does not mean that all his knowledge came from that.

    As is noted, Paul was not particularly interested in the details of Jesus earthly life, but that does not menan he didn't know it. A fact that mythicist overlook is that Paul's letters were addressed ro fellow Christians, who already knew the details of Jesus life, as well as he did. Only when some were challenging some key historical point, such as the resurrection, did Paul recount some historical point. But it was in response to claims Jesus had not been resurrected, and he emphasized that he was passing down what he had received. Nor did he as a rule discuss Jesus actual teachings, since most could be found in the Old Testament itself, and Paul would refer to the OT itseld rather than Jesus quote of it. Only, as in the case of divorce, when there wasn't a relavent OT passage to quote, did he directly refer to a teaching of Jesus, and on those occassions, his reference is what the Gospels also say. Paul is clear to distinquish what Jesus said, and his own judgment on the matter of divorce

    Paul just doesn't say much about Jesus earthly life, because he was writing to people who already knew it, so there was no need to waste valuable paper on the subject . It must be pointed out that Paul also doesn't mention Nazareth either, which demolishes the mythicist argument it was of any real importance where Jesus grew up. Mythicist take Paul's silence about some topics as very important, but ignore his silence on other topics when it undermines their arguments.


    My big bugbear about Jesus' existence is that, everywhere the historically realistic stuff occurs (crucifixion, say), it is accompanied by some magical event. You can't have him preaching without some healing, or giving a sermon without multiplying loaves & fishes before or after; you can't find him even dying without some peace and quiet, he's attended to by an impossible eclipse and an earthquake and a temple subsidence that never happened. Almost every event we'd expect to be historical is accompanied by a non-historical event. This has raised a red flag for me. 
    The story of the philospher Apollonious is also full of miracles. Reputable ancient historians talk agout the emperoe Vespasian performing miracles. That the followers of Jesus did a better job of integrating them with the historical narrative is no justification for ignoring the historical narrative. And there is nothing unhistrorical that people believed Jesus could do miracles. There are modern people who believe faith healers can actually perform miracles, so nothing would be against history for contemporaries of Jesus believe he could perform miracles, Whether he actually did, is another story altogether and not something a historian could answer. Most of Jesus healings, are curing sickness that could have pyschological nature, blindness, deafness, lameness, all could be due to a pyschological problem that a highly charimastic person might indeed "heal". Others could be just exaggeration of the original story to make it sound more impressive.

    Ultimately, we should judge all the elements on their own merits, not saying the historical elements can't be true because you don't believe miracles are possible. Simply because some clearly nonhistrocial elements are included, doesn't mean everything in a work must be false too. The best books I believe on the subject of a historical Jesus is John Meier's first volume of "A Marginal Jew"

    However, one thing has been my worst problem with Mythicism: just because a few miracles and impossibilities are attributed to Jesus, therefore he was made up whole cloth out of Egyptian, Babylonian, Mithraic, etc., cults?! So how can we know anything about anybody beyond the invention of photography or film? Mythicism is so postmodern that it opens up far too many questions about knowing, memory, and perception to remain in just one field of study. It really becomes an entire worldview or system. And it's not one I epistemologically agree with, regardless of Jesus Christ.

    In any case, if we can say Jesus was invented because of some "Campbellian Hero Myth" archetype he fulfills, or because he's "like" some Eastern god-myths, then surely Alexander must be made up, and perhaps Romulus, and many other people, given the divine honours and stories attributed to them. Alexander Romances were common back then, and none of them are historically realistic... but Alexander lived. We can see from the collapse of the Persian Empire and all the other effects that something certainly happened, and so we might as well call the super-general who did it "Alexander", because everyone else has done so. 
    That the story of an real person was reshaped to match the legend is entirely possible, so even if the story now matches the Campbellian Hero Myth, that doesn't mean the man wasn't real behind it. Which is rather unique about Jesus is that the early Christians said the events occurred in the recent past, in known real locations, amonng real historical persons, The cults of Mithras didn't assert Mithras had lived just a few decades befoee, and talked to real historical persons. The Romans did believe Romulus was a real person, but Romulus was not the recent past, and none of the people he interacted witn were known historical persons. Romulus is not showing interacting with a historical person like Cyrus the Great, or a Sargon, or Ramses., the people he interacts with in the distant past are as myrhic as himself.

    In the case of Alexander, there is a story in his biographies of him killing the historian Callisthenes. While the stories all agreed on who Alesander killed, they don't agree on how Alexander had him killed, some accounts say the man was starved ro death, other say he crucified him. These are the actual biographies, not the Romances. The analogy of Alexander is a good one, because we shouldn't say Alexander was all a myth because of the excesses of the Romances. While the Gospels aren't as good as the biographies of Alexander, which were based on written accounts made by Alexander contempories, the Gospels are far better than the Romances as historical sources.


    [quore=]
    In a sense, this very point was, ironically, an important one for me in accepting some aspects of the Jesus Myth theory. One of the best indicators someone lived is that they had a measurable effect on reality. The effect of Caesar being real is that the Roman Republic became the Empire. The effect of Alex. being real is that the Persian Empire failed, Hellenism was spread across the East, and all the rest of it. What is the effect of Jesus being real, or raised from the dead, or anything else claimed for him? Only that a small cult came into existence. Nothing else. No actual effect, apart from that. So does that mean Mithras or other such figures were real, originally, because their followers came into being? [/quore]

    But the small cult he founded changed the world eventually. That Jesus didn't have a big impact immediately doesn't have a direct bearing on whether he was real or not. Your argument is addressing the Jesus of Myth, not history. 999.9999% of the people of rhe world had no major impact on the world either alive or dead, that is hardly a reason to dispute they lived.

    The belief Jesus luved and was raised from the dead certainly had a huge effect on the world, it just took time. Our entire dating system was influenced by the belief Jesus lived. Now, the effect would be the same whether Jesus actually lived or not, as long people believed he lived, that is true. But the same can be said for any teacher, or philosopher, etc.

    Now obviously Jesus was no commander or general or emperor, or person of note, so we cannot compare the effects of his existence with those of Caesar or Alexander, but when Christian rhetoric talks about his fame spreading across the East within his lifetime, and his resurrection changing the course of history and human nature itself, and the imminent end of all things, it does all sound rather important. Maybe I take the Bible too seriously. Obviously we have to separate his historical existence from the accrued theology, but I do like to think about how the two have influenced each other.

    I'd like to read more thoroughly about how we really know things from so far back. 
    Not easy, but we can separate Jesus the man from Jesus the myth, and a number have done so. As I said, the best is John Meier's a 'Marginal Jew" in 4 volumes.



    
    Great Pauline stuff. Worthy of reflection.

    As to Josephus: assuming the Jesus & James passage is authentic, and not referring to Jesus the high priest who died in 66 AD, how do we interpret the fact that Acts clearly says the same James was executed by the sword, by Herod? Stoning is a totally different punishment. How can it be the same person?
    The case of James is no different from the case of Alexander killing the historian Callisthenes. While they agree that Alexander had him killed, the manner of death varies from being crucified to dying in prison of natural causes.

  11. #51

    Default Re: Some Salient Points on Jesus of Nazareth

    Quote Originally Posted by Monarchist View Post
    The salient points that gradually dissolved my Faith are here. They are just referenced, not sourced; we can talk about each one if anyone is interested.
    Honestly seems to me that you were never Christian in the real (religious) sense. Being Christian isn't a tribal identity, it is a sincere, personal belief, and has nothing to do with mindless incantations or memorization of history and dogma.

    It seems to me, even when you identified as Christian, you still believed deep down that it was all false. Unsurprisingly you gave it up after a sufficient exposure to the "evidence" against it. The Bible actually talks about this.

    3 Then he told them many things in parables, saying: “A farmer went out to sow his seed. 4 As he was scattering the seed, some fell along the path, and the birds came and ate it up. 5 Some fell on rocky places, where it did not have much soil. It sprang up quickly, because the soil was shallow. 6 But when the sun came up, the plants were scorched, and they withered because they had no root. 7 Other seed fell among thorns which grew up and choked the plants. 8 Still other seed fell on good soil, where it produced a crop—a hundred, sixty or thirty times what was sown. 9 Whoever has ears, let them hear.”

    ...


    18 “Listen then to what the parable of the sower means: 19 When anyone hears the message about the kingdom and does not understand it, the evil one comes and snatches away what was sown in their heart. This is the seed sown along the path. 20 The seed falling on rocky ground refers to someone who hears the word and at once receives it with joy. 21 But since they have no root, they last only a short time. When trouble or persecution comes because of the word, they quickly fall away. 22 The seed falling among the thorns refers to someone who hears the word, but the worries of this life and the deceitfulness of wealth choke the word, making it unfruitful. 23 But the seed falling on good soil refers to someone who hears the word and understands it. This is the one who produces a crop, yielding a hundred, sixty or thirty times what was sown.”
    That's my impression based on your insistence that "miracles" aren't possible, for instance. Presumably, you consider yourself a person of facts, not beliefs. And reality, not fantasy. That's why you consider the claims of miracles false. However, your belief that miracles are impossible, is also a baseless metaphysical belief, yet you still hold it. The reason why you left Christianity isn't because it is a baseless belief. It is because Christianity contradicts your other baseless beliefs.

    A Soviet defecter explained how some people have been so thoroughly indoctrinated in a particular worldview, that these people simply can't even imagine viewing the world through a different lense. I think you've absorbed the modern worldview a bit too much. Rather than judge naturalism by Christianity, you instead judge Christianity by naturalism.

    So what's the cure? I think spending some time in a culture, that accepts the supernatural and Christianity as uncontroversially and unquestioningly true, might be good. The Internet makes this very easy.

    Someone made a thread like this once. You might also find it interesting. My discussion with Iskar on the first page may be relevant.

    http://www.twcenter.net/forums/showt...892-I-miss-God
    Ignore List (to save time):

    Exarch, Coughdrop addict

  12. #52
    cfmonkey45's Avatar Praeses
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Location
    Los Angeles, California
    Posts
    8,222

    Default Re: Some Salient Points on Jesus of Nazareth

    Quote Originally Posted by Monarchist View Post
    Hello everybody,

    Anyone here who was around in 2009-2010 may recall me going through a process of Christian conversion, making a lot of posts and having a lot of debates, then ultimately settling upon Roman Catholicism. Now, some 7 or 8 years later, with a mixture of sadness, joy, and relief, I can finally say that I reject Jesus of Nazareth both spiritually as a focus of dogma & doctrine, and also historically, with all attendant claims upon him, be they Christian, Jewish, or Muslim.

    I came to this conclusion in Winter 2017 after about two years of very deep crisis, on many levels: existential, emotional, philosophical, ethical, and religious. In the end, despite wanting to believe in the God-Man - and having an undying respect for Christendom, and all the empires & states & warriors & saints to have pledged allegiance to him - I simply have to acknowledge that I'm convinced it isn't true. After having spent literally years memorising the Apostolic & Church Fathers, and all aspects of Church History, I consider it to have been almost a complete waste of time.

    In my Faith, I did not allow myself to look at anything that wasn't pious or didn't adhere to the official line of the broader Church, and its historical-theological consensus. Having given myself permission to stop worrying that the "God of Truth" (as the Bible calls him) would condemn me for seeking truth, I read every bit of Bible criticism from the most moderate questioners to the most extreme "Jesus Myth" scholars.

    The salient points that gradually dissolved my Faith are here. They are just referenced, not sourced; we can talk about each one if anyone is interested.
    Hey, Monarchist, how's it going. I'm sorry to hear about your intense existential crisis. It seems like you have dealt with a lot, and I wanted to say that you are not alone. Surprisingly, I had an extremely similar event that occurred between Winter 2009-Spring 2010 when I was an evangelical Protestant. It basically involved a binge of extreme self-study of Biblical Scholarship and New Atheism (probably identical, or at least very similar to your own study). I currently have a small library of biblical texts around this area and this time frame. Ultimately, I came to deal with a lot of the same issues as you did, and I became an atheist for a while (about six months). However, paradoxically, I felt that I wasn't 100% done investigating, and I wanted to exhaust all possible options, so I looked around at different churches to completely rule out all denominations of Christianity. That ultimately led me from a Charismatic Evangelical upbringing to a 1) Baptist, 2) Lutheran, 3) Catholic, and, finally, 4) Eastern Orthodox church.

    At virtually all of those churches, I found them completely and utterly inadequate to deal with my questions until I went to the Eastern Orthodox Church. The Priest and his wife were both scholars who specialized in Biblical Scholarship, and were fluent in most of the languages. Pretty much one by one, virtually all of my questions were answered or alleviated, so in my personal experience (and your mileage may vary), my experience was a very positive one and I became an Eastern Orthodox Christian.

    I'll set aside your personal religious beliefs (since they're specific to you), and address some of the points you brought up.

    Firstly, you mentioned that all of this basically was a waste of your time. In reality, you're not doing yourself enough justice. You literally researched, to the best of your ability, the internal workings of a major world religion that has well over 2 billion followers, which is quite an accomplishment in and of itself. When I suffered my crisis of identity, I was extremely fortunate to have a solid support network, and I felt that I dealt with my deconversion in a very constructive manner. My basic method was that I analyzed why I had believed what I had believed (I was brought up in a faith that I didn't choose), why I deconverted (I was faced with cognitive dissonance by being in a secular culture in conflict with fundamentalism, and couldn't justify my worldview). So I approached the situation by immersing myself in a large amount of philosophy, anthropology, religious studies, and history during my time at university. I was strongly affected by Classical Graeco-Roman Philosophy, and Moral Philosophy (specifically Kantianism and Consequentialism, as well as Existentialism). My goal was to investigate as many different interpretations as possible and select whichever ideology most appealed to me. I rationalized any past, present, or future investigation of religions, philosophies, or cultures as being investments in broadening my understanding of culture and history, as well as it being a form of personal development, rather than being written off as a pointless waste of time.


    Regarding this,

    Quote Originally Posted by Monarchist View Post
    "In my Faith, I did not allow myself to look at anything that wasn't pious or didn't adhere to the official line of the broader Church, and its historical-theological consensus. Having given myself permission to stop worrying that the "God of Truth" (as the Bible calls him) would condemn me for seeking truth, I read every bit of Bible criticism from the most moderate questioners to the most extreme "Jesus Myth" scholars."
    I would argue that that wasn't a healthy outlook on two parts. The first part is that you isolated yourself to an intellectual bubble, and when that was challenged, you faced a significant identity crisis. The second part, is that you read every bit of Bible Criticism, including 'Jesus Myth' Scholars, is also problematic, because there's a lot of junk scholarship around the Bible. In most areas of historical scholarship, there's a niche community of scholars that attempt to create a broader consensus across a multidisciplinary approach, and their frame of reference and scholarship is extremely close and very professional. With Biblical Scholarship it touches on multiple nerves and there's a complete wide range of people from basic amateurs, to fundamentalist, to anti-theistic crusaders, to quacks, as well as people attempting to bolster their religious outlook on life.

    When I was on my journey of self-discovery, I was fortunate enough to have access to a vast library of primary, secondary, and tertiary sources, as well as access to scholarly seminars where I could get a sense of broad opinion or consensus. My general understanding was that a lot of biblical scholars resented the mercenary aspect of "Biblical Scholarship" in which people attempt to aggressively overstate a case to laymen, while glossing over scholarly dissent and controversy surrounding specific issues.

    One particular culprit was the Jesus Seminar, which was a self-selected group of individuals (some of whom were not at all scholars themselves), who would use a flawed voting method by "consensus" to determine whether or not they felt that a statement was actually said by Jesus or was authentic. They also relied more heavily on non-Canonical Gospels (including the Gospel of Thomas and of Peter, which antedated the Canonical Gospels), and also had a tendency to deliberately downplay traditional interpretations without good cause.

    Quote Originally Posted by Monarchist View Post

    I. Nazareth

    Christianity's theological claims of the supremacy of Jesus Christ for salvation of humanity relies on the historical claims of a real, living, crucified, dead, and risen man located in a specific place and time. This begins with his birth and early life, supposedly around 4 BC (BCE) - 30 AD (CE) in Nazareth. One of my first "wow" moments came when I learned that Origen the priest (who lived in Palestine) inquired where Nazareth was around the early 200s CE... and nobody whom he asked knew where it was! He couldn't find it on any maps. The town of Nazareth that exists in Israel today was essentially built around a church that was erected by Empress Helena, the mother of Roman Emperor Constantine I, in the 320s CE. The location had been settled prior to 200 BCE, but had not been inhabited, as far as we can tell, from 200 BCE until around 70 CE -- i.e. well before and well after Jesus' time. After 70 CE, it was again abandoned or depopulated until Helena was pointed in its direction by locals. This means that Jesus could not have been born or lived there. Learning this fact shocked me.

    Quote Originally Posted by Monarchist View Post
    This shock was reinforced when I discovered that our "Nazareth" is located in a valley, not atop a cliff or along a ridge, which is how it's described in Luke 4:29. In fact, it's nowhere near such a place. The final point that made me start to panic was that limited archaeology which has been allowed in the area actually discovered Jewish graves under Nazareth, from before the alleged time of Jesus. This means there was no way any Jews would ever build a town, village, house, or even a water-well on that plot of land, knowingly. It was utterly impure, from the standpoint of their law. Clearly no-one had lived there for a very long time when Jesus is said to have resided there, and likely nobody did until the destruction of the Jewish Temple in 70 CE forced people to fan out into the countryside and find new places to live.
    Jesus being from Nazareth is almost universally accepted among critical Biblical Scholars precisely because it fulfills the criterion of embarrassment, and the fact that virtually all Christian sources are unanimous in its point of origin. If the writers were fabricating Jesus from scratch, they would have likely have had him as a native of Bethlehem, where he was allegedly born, rather than add in the unnecessary plot element of being from Nazareth. In all likelihood, Nazareth existed as an unremarkable rural village which Jesus was genuinely from. Additionally, to your point, that Nazareth simply did not exist during that time, 1) we have substantial archaeological evidence to suggest that inhabited Jewish houses existed in the first century, 2) virtually all literary sources describe it in detail, 3) its absence from the following historical record are likely the result of significant events that affected Judea at the time.

    The primary reason for why Origen was forced to ask where Nazareth was, and when it existed is because the hamlet was likely ravaged and destroyed during the Jewish Wars.

    Quote Originally Posted by Monarchist View Post
    II. The Fame of Jesus

    Matthew 4:24 says that because Jesus of Nazareth went around healing the sick, giving sight to the blind, and preaching "the Kingdom of God", his fame spread throughout all Syria. But this was not the country we know today. It was the broad regional name for the entire area south of Antioch and north of Sinai; a gigantic cultural and political area. Importantly, it was an area full of writers, philosophers, natural historians, memoir-writers, and essayists... and yet not a single word about Jesus ever seems to have spread throughout even the Decapolis region - the most literate and educated area in Israel - let alone the massive generic area of Syria. Matthew seems to be making a very grand claim for show, something he's very much prone to. In his story of the crucifixion, a good number of dead people come out of their tombs and go into Jerusalem, "seen by many" people. Not even the other Gospel writers of the New Testament had the temerity to make such a claim.
    There is no reason to assume that they would, since it was not within their cultural context. Jesus preached to an immediate clique of followers that overlapped with those of John the Baptist. To them, he would likely have been obscure.

    Quote Originally Posted by Monarchist View Post
    Beyond Matthew and the Gospels, neither Philo of Alexandria (a Jewish philosopher with great experience and wisdom on the matters of his faith in the homeland) nor any other person wrote of this supposedly famous Jesus from the 30s CE to the 90s CE. Josephus the historian may have mentioned him, but the parts of his histories which talk about "Jesus" have been heavily edited by Christians at times, or simply inserted entirely. It's almost impossible to tell. Christians of all sorts are known to have forged many things over the early centuries, from supposed writings of the Apostles, to actual letters written by Jesus himself. All references to this sect by Romans and other pagans are actually references to Christians, which can be ambiguous or simply attests to their existence as a cult around 100-150 CE. And all that tells us, is that Christians or Chrestians worshiped someone called Christus or Chrestus. And since those words mean "Anointed" and "Good", respectively, they could be anyone, even normal pagan gods.
    The Gospels and the Epistles themselves are highly remarkable pieces of primary and secondary sources. We literally have four explicit secondary sources, as well as numerous primary epistles in which people interacted heavily with Jesus of Nazareth and his followers. Moreover, there are explicit references to his immediate family, including James, his Brother, and the leader of the Church in Jerusalem, whom St. Paul interacts with. Imaginary people quite simply don't have brothers.


    Quote Originally Posted by Monarchist View Post
    The fact that the Bible claims Jesus actually was famous in his lifetime, and that later Christians were eager to find (or forge) any and all non-Christian references to their Saviour (but didn't preserve any that we know of), makes me think that maybe he didn't exist in the way the Gospels claim he did.
    He was famous in Judea in his lifetime. Josephus writes about him (twice). First, in the famous (or infamous) Testimonium Flavianium. There is a Western Greek manuscript, which is likely corrupted by a scribe in the middle ages, as well as well as an Eastern Syriac Manuscript (which is likely not corrupted). Here is the source to the original Syriac translation of the text.

    Additionally, Josephus refers to John the Baptist, and to James, Brother of Jesus, who was executed just prior to the start of the First Roman Jewish War.

    Quote Originally Posted by Monarchist View Post
    III. John the Baptist & Co.

    The Gospels are choc-full of historical names: Herod, Quirinius, Pontius Pilate, John the Baptist, and Augustus. Very credible. The problem is that the chronology is very difficult and messy. For one, Matthew says Jesus was born when Herod the Great was still ruler of Judaea, which was before 4 BCE; yet, Luke says Jesus was born around the time Quirinius called a census of the land, which could not have happened before 6 CE, i.e. 10 years later than Matthew. If these two writers were writing their claims with reliable oral testimony close to the events they describe, why would they not be able to agree on the very birthday of their Saviour? Every divine figure had a birthday in the ancient world. Feast days were rigorously observed. But not only do the Gospel accounts give the wrong date, they give the wrong year entirely.

    This is certainly a long-standing issue, but there are several resolutions to it that don't require appealing to the assertion the Jesus was simply a myth. To give a bit of background, this would have occurred under the Principate system, in which the Roman Empire was operating under a hybrid-Republican-Monarchical system with parallel chains of commands. Coastal regions around economic cores were governed by Proconsuls, using the old provincial system. However, the periphery were governed by military legates under the direct authority of the Emperor. However, to maintain the facade of the old Republic, there was substantial ambiguity about the political and military roles.

    The Gospel of Matthew records Jesus as being born near the end of Herod's reign in 4 BC, where Mary and Joseph live in Bethlehem and Mary gives birth to Jesus, but are forced to flee to Egypt due to political instability within the region. They only returned when Herod had finally died either in 4BC or 1BC (the chronology is disputed by scholars). The Gospel of Luke records that Mary and Joseph are required to return to Bethlehem to be registered for a tax, which Luke records as being undertaken when Publius Quirinius (Kyrēniou) was governor (hēgemoneuontos) of Syria. Regarding Jesus' birth, Luke 2:2 states that explicitly that it was during the First Census, of which there were several. The problem with this is that Publius Quintilius Varus was governor of Syria at this time and that Josephus records Quirinius (Cyrenius) as arriving much later with Conopius. This is dated primarily using Josephus' chronology, because Josephus is the only one that records in detail the interactions of King Herod of Judea. Herod, despite his vast construction projects and patronage, was widely viewed as a tyrant, and Josephus records a similar episode to Matthew's Massacre of the Innocents. However, Josephus records in detail that it was Publius Quintilius Varus who interacts with him, and upon Herod's death attempts to manage the tumultuous province of Judea, and ultimately reorganizes it into a tetrarchy, under the hegemony of Syria. Generally, there is assumed to be a local census that may have been part of a broader campaign of Augustus to account for all of the censuses in Rome's various provinces, many of which were newly acquired.

    Now, there are problems on all sides. For instance, Josephus refers to Publius Quirinius as being a complete stranger to Syria and only arriving in Syria with his lieutenant Conopius around 6 AD. This is actually very inaccurate, however, Josephus was likely writing his history in a specific narrative format so as not to confuse his audience. Quirinius was extremely active in the Eastern Mediterranean from 11 BCE until 11 AD, whereas Varus was only governor of Syria for four years. Quirinius was made Consul in 12 BCE, and was appointed as the Legatus to Galatia and Cilicia, which neighbors Syria. Galatia and Cilicia were a patchwork of territories that Rome had acquired after the Mithridatic Wars with Pontus, which were ruled by a patchwork of tribes and ethnarchs. During this time he worked to integrate Galatia and then campaigned against the Homonadenses, a tribe in the mountains of Cilicia, from around 11 BCE to possibly as late as 5-3 BCE. Cilicia was typically considered part of Syria, but the province was reorganized several times. This chronology is confusing because the sources are scant on it. However, it appears that Quirinius likely served several terms around this region, and held extremely high esteem with Augustus (he was awarded a Triumph and was appointed personal guardian of Gaius Caesar, Augustus' son and heir). Based on the sources, it would appear that Quirinius operated for much of the time out of Antioch, which was the capital of Syria, given that he was made a duumvir of the city (though, this reference may possibly refer to Psidian Antioch), and was recorded as being given Proconsular authority. This may have made him a superior to Quinticilius Varus, and thus the Gospel of Luke may not have been inaccurate in labeling him a hegemon, which would have been a general title for governor, rather than referring to the specific hierarchy of the Roman Empire.

    Additionally, Roman sources are silent on whom the governor of Syria is between 4 BC, when Varus was recalled, to 1 BC, when Gaius Caesar was appointed governor of Syria. Generally, scholars assume that Quirinius had an additional governorship somewhere in the Eastern Mediterranean, possibly in Asia, but Quirinius may have acted as acting governor in Syria. We do know that from between 1 BC to 3 AD, Quirinius was the guardian and key advisor to Gaius Caesar, as he was still young and inexperienced. The purpose of this was to oversee a major eastern campaign into Armenia and possibly Parthia, with Gaius Caesar being groomed by Quirinius for leadership. Unfortunately, Gaius Caesar seems to have been gravely injured and succumbed to his injuries, thus moving the line of succession to Augustus' adopted son, Tiberius. Following Gaius Caesar's death, Quirinius was recalled to Rome, and Lucius Volusius Saturninus was appointed governor, while Quirinius succeeded him in 6 AD, when he performed another census. This is often considered as the Census of Quirinius (hence the confusion), however, the Gospel of Luke might have additional knowledge and might simply be referring to an earlier governorship.



    Quote Originally Posted by Monarchist View Post
    John the Baptist, according to Josephus, died around 35-36 CE. There is no other way to date his death, because Josephus says the controversy over John's preaching caused a minor war to break out between Israel and Damascus. This definitely occurred in 36 CE. Why is this a problem? Because Pontius Pilate is known to have been recalled from the governorship of Judaea in 37 CE for his brutality. But since all the Gospels agree that Jesus' ministry and preaching began after the execution of John, this gives us a very limited time-frame for the events of the Gospels. The Fourth Gospel ("John") is completely ruled out by this, because it takes place over 3 years' time, which is too long. The first three Gospels say his ministry lasted 1 year, so it's just possible that Jesus was the very last person tried by Pilate before he left Judaea in 37 CE, but if that's true then another problem comes up.
    The dating of John the Baptist's execution at 36 AD is highly dubious. Josephus' explicit passage makes no mention of the exact time, simply that after Herod's army had been destroyed, the Jews retroactively claimed that it was divine punishment for executing John. Instead, John the Baptist was likely executed around 27-29 AD.

    Quote Originally Posted by Monarchist View Post
    The supposed darkness that covered "the whole land" for 3 hours when Jesus was crucified must've been caused by some sort of eclipse (if it happened at all), but that's another astonishing fact not recorded by anyone but the Gospel writers, despite the fact that Pliny the Younger (among others) later chronicled all previous earthquakes and eclipses in the known world. Even worse, if the Crucifixion happened on a Friday, it was during Passover and thus on a full moon, which makes a lunar eclipse totally impossible. Worst of all, the Passover fell on a Friday (i.e. "Good Friday") only in 30 and 33 AD, i.e. before John the Baptist was killed. So which is it? You either have John or you have Jesus. And ultimately, why didn't anybody else record this long dark except the supremely theological (and thus biased) Gospel "historians"?
    There was a partial lunar eclipse visible in Palestine on April 3, 33 AD at around 3:00 PM.



    Quote Originally Posted by Monarchist View Post
    Back to Pontius Pilate: every source outside the Gospels portrays him as a ruthless, bloodthirsty governor who used any excuse to oppress Jews. But the Gospels (curiously all very positive towards the Roman occupiers) show him as either a kind & just, or confused & neutral governor who can't decide what to do with a criminal, so he appeals to the Jewish people for advice. That makes no sense from any Roman's point of view. Also, there are no recorded instances of any Roman governor ever having a policy of releasing one condemned criminal every year, especially not in a violent province like Judaea. It's out of keeping with everything we know about Pilate and Romans, from other sources. Almost nothing holds up here.
    Apart from some minor quotations amongst Roman historians, we know basically nothing about Pontius Pilate and the customs of Roman governors.

    Quote Originally Posted by Monarchist View Post
    The real historical figures are also spiced up with some clearly made up people. A lot of the names of non-famous characters in the Gospels are just clear symbol for their purpose in the narrative: "Martha", of Lazarus' family, just means "Lady (of the house)" which, indeed, is her role in the story. Nicodemus is "victory of the People", i.e. one of the few Jews (scribes/pharisees) who "conquered" his unbelief in Christ. Joseph of "Arimathea" (a non-existent town) seems to be a combination of ari (best) mathe (disciple) -aia (placename suffix), i.e. "the guy from the town of the best disciple". Barabbas, the "robber" or "rebel" set free by Pilate, means "Son of the Father". Some manuscripts even say he was called "Jesus Barabbas". So, two identical names: Jesus (Christ) Son Of The Father (God in Heaven) was rejected by the wicked Jews in favour of Jesus Son of the Father (Barabbas), a false human insurrectionist. Reminds one of the choosing of two identical lambs for Yom Kippur, one to be slaughtered and the other to be driven into the wilderness (i.e. where robbers lived) for the sins of Israel. So many layers of allegory. All a bit too conveniently Ancient-Mystery-Play-like for me to believe it's real history.
    Not really, these were extremely common names. I feel like this suggests special pleading. We know very little of the minor towns or regions around Judaea at this time, apart from Josephus--who can be unreliable.


    Quote Originally Posted by Monarchist View Post
    IV. The Strange Case of Paul

    A careful reading of the Epistles of Paul (Romans, 1-2 Corinthians, etc.), which were written before the Gospels, shows a very strange theological-mystical being called Iesous (Salvation/God Saves) Christos (Anointed/Messiah). He is persecuted by "the archons of this age", strange spiritual powers of the air, and there is much teaching about somehow eating his body and blood, and being "one" with him mystically... yet Paul says he was "born of a woman" (a virgin? no, not a mention of that), and that he was crucified and resurrected, but pretty much nothing else. No Sayings of Jesus. No Judas Iscariot. No Pontius Pilate. Even if Paul was writing to Christians who already knew these things, it's very strange that in places where it'd strengthen his argument to mention this stuff, he doesn't do it. It's just a lot of treatises and doctrines about a Being that Paul learned about in revelations and visions. He is very careful to say he received his doctrines not from any human source, but directly from God or Jesus. The Gospels come much later, after Paul. Were they using him as a source to build a historical narrative around a theological cult?
    I strongly suggest that you read up on the Jewish beliefs and practices of the Second Temple era. Regarding the eucharist and virtually all Christian sacraments, they are inversions of Jewish Temple worship. The Temple, and specifically the Holiest of Holies is believed to be the site where the Shekinah of God (literally presence, or dwelling) exists on earth. The High Priests would basically offer sacrifice, prayers, and incense to God, represented by the Shekinah. Specific offerings (labeled in Leviticus) were to be awarded in a complex system that governed their laws. Jews believed that these were symbols of the Covenant, but generally believed that they would be superseded by a new covenant in the world to come (Jews today still literally believe this and its explicitly stated in Jeremiah). Before the Shekinah, dating back all the way before Solomon's temple, the High Priests would placed bread on the table of Showbread (also referred to as the Bread of Presence, or Shekinah) for a week, where they believed that the Shekinah dwelt within it. This archetype copied the Mana that Moses and the Hebrews encountered in the wilderness, and was believed to give sustenance to them. The Jewish priests (kohenim) would consume this bread after a week, probably alongside wine. This almost exactly mirrors the eucharistic adoration of Liturgical Christian churches (and the altars and actual church structures are based on the Second Temple, with the altar being the Holiest of Holies, and the actual building being the Court of the Gentiles, with the Sacrament of Confession being based on the purification rituals and sin offerings of Judaism).

    Additionally, Jews of this time period began to develop a theology of a multi-part godhead, which in Christianity would become the Trinity, and in Judaism would become the Ten Sephirot. Philo of Alexandria explicitly conceives of God as the Platonic unmoved mover, with a created intermediary, the Logos, acting as his intermediary. Within Judaism, they have a consistent theme of theophanies/epiphanies (i.e. apparitions of God in humanish form). This is typically denoted as the Angel of the Lord, but this can be confusing, since that's used a lot. Christianity uniquely refers to Christ as a theophany, but makes pains to stress that he had both human and divine natures. This is explicitly sketched out in the introduction to the Gospel of John.

    Also, regarding Paul. He 1) met with James, brother of Jesus (he specifically mentions this), as well as Jesus' disciples. Given that later Christians (even Christians around the same time) excommunicated others for basically less than wholly inventing a mythological figure out of thin air, I'm going to take that heavily with a grain of salt. Regarding the Archons, there's two interpretations. The first is basically that he is referring to secular rulers (in which they literally were being persecuted by the Jewish hierarchy, the Pagans in Ephesus, and around the Eastern Mediterranean, and Paul was eventually executed during Nero's persecution of the Christians during the First Jewish War). Regarding his silence on specific portions of the Gospels, absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. I've noticed that when people interact with Paul's gospels, there's typically special pleading all around. For instance, scholars like to assert that they can prove that certain letters are Pseudoepigraphia, however, that's extremely dubious because all of Paul's letters have around 5,000 words in them, whereas stochastic samples to identify authorship usually require a minimum of 10,000 words to establish some certainty of authorship.



    Quote Originally Posted by Monarchist View Post
    V. Manuscripts

    Many Christian apologists have made a big deal out of the fact that we have more Bible manuscripts attesting to Jesus (and close to his lifetime) than we do of Alexander the Great, Julius Caesar, and other famous personages; therefore, if we believe they existed, we must believe Jesus existed, and that everything that's said about him is true. But one problem I've always had with this argument, is that it ignores many details underlying the broader facts. Okay, we have actual papyrus writings of Bible verses... how early? About as early as 100 CE, 70 years after Jesus. That's not bad. Only a couple of generations. However, on another level of detail: what do these manuscripts SAY? The very earliest - which has been dated based on its handwriting style alone - is definitely from about 125-175 CE. It's also the size of a small business card or ID card. It has a few fragments of John 18. The next manuscripts after that, chronologically, are a bit bigger but also have very little and are in scrap form. Then even later we start to get whole pages and even books, after 200-250 CE.

    There's a problem here. Yes, our earliest manuscripts detailing the life of, say, Julius Caesar, only survive from 9th-10th century copies made by monks. Okay. But we've also found Letters of Cicero surviving from the late Republic. They mention Caesar. They talk about his invasions. Many are addressed to Caesar himself. It's just real life political struggles. There's no reason to say "maybe this is invented": no theological, dogmatic, doctrinal reason to invent a whole life story. So why do it? But in the case of Christian scriptures, written by confirmed sectarians who proved to enjoy pious fraud and forgery to propagate their faith? Why should they be admitted as legitimate history? The Gospel of Bartholomew. The Gospel of Philip. Of Peter. Of Thomas. Of Pilate. Of Mary Magdalene. It goes on and on. Why not add "of Matthew, of Mark, of Luke, of John"? They're all equally written by people who desperately need their faith to be true: the poor, the disenfranchised, women, slaves. Yearning for the release of eternal life, martyrdom, union with Christ. So much at stake!

    A manuscript's chronological closeness to a supposed person, and its great age, are not indicators of its accuracy. As far as we know, from strictly manuscript evidence, sometime before 125 CE there was a conversation between two people about truth, life, and kingship (the John 18 fragment). That's pretty much it. Sure, they're "close" to 30 CE, but most manuscripts tell us nothing but theology and mysticism. All the stories of Jesus in the manuscripts diverge so wildly and become so ridiculous (talking crosses, rocks turned into snakes, etc.) that it's clearly just a bunch of myth.
    1. We can recreate virtually all of the new testament via quotations amongst early Christian writers.
    2. If there were broader variations in manuscripts, they would appear far more divergent as they get translated into other languages (i.e. if there was literary drift, you would expect to see wild differences between Ethiopian, Armenian, Syriac, Latin, Greek, and other translations). They exist (there's a whole field call Lower Criticism), but not to the extant that its detractors would argue in favor for.

    Quote Originally Posted by Monarchist View Post
    VI. Rock of Ages

    I have to conclude that I can have no real certainty that Jesus of "Nazareth" was the Saviour, the "rock of ages, cleft for me", the eternal blood-washing font of divine grace, who lived as a human being in the early 1st century CE. There are too many reasons to think that Jesus Christ was invented or misconstrued from real history: either he was one of the many claimed inheritors of Joshua ("Jesus") Son of Nun, all of whom thrived in messianic movements from 6 CE to 135 CE... or, much worse, he's a strange sort of mystery-play protagonist metaphor for Israel itself, crucified by the Romans (the Temple destroyed), but ultimately vindicated (resurrected) by God and victorious in a future age.

    In conclusion, with all of these facts on hand, it seems to me almost as if the stories of Jesus we have are not history, but rather texts of the ancient "romance" genre; i.e. historical fiction, set in a broad era, using famous names and stealing a bit from the history of Josephus & others to have a credible narrative. I don't know why it was done and I don't really care anymore. There's just enough implausibility that I can't believe it anymore.

    Also I can't believe I typed all that. Phew. But it feels right and just to type it all out, and get it off my chest. I am so much happier without Christian faith, now: without the burden of invented duties, obligations, and sins foisted on the masses by scrupulous, neurotic, doubtless-genuine mystics and powerful bishops and kings for so many centuries. I am free to be myself, not a "Brother of the Lord" or a "Slave of Christ". Just me. And those are my reasons.

    Feel free to ask anything, bring something else up, or discuss what I said, if you'd like.

  13. #53
    Monarchist's Avatar Civitate
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Location
    Canada
    Posts
    4,803

    Default Re: Some Salient Points on Jesus of Nazareth

    Quote Originally Posted by Dr. Legend View Post
    Honestly seems to me that you were never Christian in the real (religious) sense. Being Christian isn't a tribal identity, it is a sincere, personal belief, and has nothing to do with mindless incantations or memorization of history and dogma.
    I believed in Jesus and was baptised. Those are the two prerequisites that most of the New Testament asks, in order to at least begin "being Christian". But for some reason I have to prove that I had a "sincere" belief. Well, I can't do that. I had it, and it was a belief, and now I'm not sure it was right just to give up my mind to that belief. One can't will belief without any reason behind it. Might as well believe the moon is the face of God. Why not?

    Whether I (or the 1 billion others who belonged to my first denomination) was a "true Christian or not", according to you, will inevitably come from your own interpretation of what Christianity is. The denomination(s) to which I belonged saw the matter very differently. Community and belonging and mutual responsibility were just as important to Christianity as "sincere, personal belief", which is a bit ephemeral. Matthew 25.

    Anyway, who are we to say what "the real religious sense" of Christianity is? There are so many various teachings, sayings, and commands in the New Testament -- especially since the books focus on different things at different times, and were written by different authors -- that pretty much the only prerequisite left for anyone to be a Christian is that they claim to be a Christian. You can dismiss "memorising of dogma" all you want, but frankly unless a person knows what they have believed, and "always have a reason for the hope that is in them", then they're just believing whatever they want. And if it's just "sincere belief", without needing "cunning reasons" or the "wisdom of this world", then why not believe Islam or any other faith? If f we don't place before ourselves a firm prerequisite, demanding that any faith's claims need to possess real credibility, then honestly there is equal reason to believe pretty much any faith you discover.

    It seems to me, even when you identified as Christian, you still believed deep down that it was all false.
    For my entire time as a Christian, I had these doubts, yes. When I shared them with others, I was assured that faith is enough. My doubts were deemed by pastors, and friends, to be rationalistic. I was advised that they had no place in true faith. So I just had faith, to the best of my ability. I refused to read non-Christian historians/philosophers, etc., for several years, so I would not expose myself to danger. Eventually the temptation to learn the "real truth", buried in manuscripts and evolving beliefs and communities, became too strong, and I went searching. I found so much forgery and fraud in early Christian writings and controversies, all legitimised by Faith, that I began to wonder about its origins, whether they were as pure, innocent, direct, and real as they're deemed to be.

    That's my impression based on your insistence that "miracles" aren't possible, for instance. Presumably, you consider yourself a person of facts, not beliefs. And reality, not fantasy. That's why you consider the claims of miracles false. However, your belief that miracles are impossible, is also a baseless metaphysical belief, yet you still hold it. The reason why you left Christianity isn't because it is a baseless belief. It is because Christianity contradicts your other baseless beliefs.
    Your Bible quote struck me. I'd forgotten about the parable of the seeds. Verses 20-21 certainly describe me, there's no doubt about it.

    You're wrong in one thing: I don't believe miracles are impossible. I never, ever said that. That would be pretentious. I don't know if they're impossible; I've just never experienced any -- nor have I known anybody who has experienced them. And every case of miracles I ever investigated sounded like hoaxes, or were actually hoaxes. The most I'd ever personally hear of, would be "a miracle" experienced by "a friend of a friend of a friend", or vague, superstitious stories - typical of some older Catholic women - about feeling dark presences at times, or hearing Jesus talk to them for advice.

    I use a simple principle of analogy for miracles: whether they happened or not 2000 years ago, they don't seem to happen now. Since nothing has fundamentally changed about man's duplicity, arrogance, greed, and sinfulness, it's likely that they probably didn't happen back then. I guarantee I've never known of the blind seeing, the lame walking, the dumb talking, the deaf hearing, or the dead rising. Those things don't happen. I'm not saying they're impossible or can't happen; I'm saying they don't seem to happen, and I'd have to have a lot of cheek to claim that they do happen. It would frankly be an insult to the blind, lame, dumb, deaf, and dead for me to say such a thing.

    A Soviet defecter explained how some people have been so thoroughly indoctrinated in a particular worldview, that these people simply can't even imagine viewing the world through a different lense. I think you've absorbed the modern worldview a bit too much. Rather than judge naturalism by Christianity, you instead judge Christianity by naturalism.
    Why should I prefer a faith with no proofs, to act as judge over natural science, which attempts to discover the mechanics of life and the world, and has changed our world mulitple times over with its direct applications? The modern worldview helps us to understand the world we live in. It's not bad. We are able to help ourselves cope with disease, famine, natural disaster, and other difficulties in life much more by naturalistic study, than by prayer or reliance on an uncertain divine will.

    Anyway, why ought I tojudge a naturalistic worldview (which seems to accurately explain the mechanics of the world) by the claims of a group of anonymous hellenized Jews who were self-described mystics, apocalyptics, celibates, ascetics, and preachers? They expected the world to end in their day, and thus had no interest in understanding the world outside a strict theological-moral sense. In a way, I don't think the "naturalistic modern worldview" can judge Christianity, nor can Christianity judge it. They are in separate categories. One worldview says that claims require demonstration by reasoning or practice; the other worldview says that claims (or rather, its claims, and its alone) require only sincere belief, for no other reason than that the worldview says so. The former has the capacity to be self-critical, and is more trustworthy by nature because of that. The latter is simply assertion.

    So what's the cure? I think spending some time in a culture, that accepts the supernatural and Christianity as uncontroversially and unquestioningly true, might be good. The Internet makes this very easy.
    Thank you, but I did this for several years in Catholic and Protestant denominations. Real, believing Christians. A supernatural-affirming culture. It left me in a perpetual spiral of doubt about salvation and sin and virtue and vice. I am scrupulous by nature.

    Someone made a thread like this once. You might also find it interesting. My discussion with Iskar on the first page may be relevant.

    http://www.twcenter.net/forums/showt...892-I-miss-God
    I'll read it, thank you!
    "Pauci viri sapientiae student."
    Cicero

  14. #54
    basics's Avatar Vicarius Provinciae
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Location
    Scotland, UK.
    Posts
    11,280

    Default Re: Some Salient Points on Jesus of Nazareth

    Monarchist,

    Probably the most honest account of Jesus is by the one who seemed to hover on His every word seeing both the Spiritual as well as the human aspect of Him and of course I'm talking of John especially at a time when most of the disciples were filled with confusion about Him. I'm not saying that the others wrote nonsense but during His ministry John was the one who seemed to have a grasp of what Jesus was saying and perhaps since he referred to many words that were spoken but not written down, Jesus divulged to him things that to the others He did not. Indeed an instance of that could well be when Peter took umbrage over John's life expectancy and Jesus put him in his place. John did what none of the others did when in the first verses of his book he determines that Jesus is not only the Christ but our Creator and comes to the near end of his life giving us how the story all ends by being taken up into the heavens to witness something of what is there. And to cap all that off he was given to look after Mary at the crucifixion from whom many hours of conversation from that lady's knowledge must have been discussed thus adding to his inquiring mind which we see in his first book.

    There are lots of things that have been said and written against all of the Biblical narrative just as that great book says yet in reality its words hold and have held sway regardless of its opposition. Could it be that its core is about love, the love that God has for man that no other belief system indoctrinates that super-abounds all else? He provides all that is necessary for man who deserves nothing but wrath, to be saved and that out of nothing but love. All man is asked to do is admit that he is not worthy and God will do the rest through the blood shed at Calvary by the Lord Jesus Christ. Having been on both sides of the argument all I can say is that it worked for me, my wife and all those I know of.

  15. #55
    Monarchist's Avatar Civitate
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Location
    Canada
    Posts
    4,803

    Default Re: Some Salient Points on Jesus of Nazareth

    basics,

    The Bible basically claims to have the key to salvation from the wrath of God, from death, and from sin. The problem is that these concepts, and their specific articulation, are found only in the Bible. Others, like the Quran, have copied it, but they remain Biblical ideas at base. Most religions might have had something similar to it but the Bible is full-blown in its ideas of hellfire and salvation, at least in the New Testament.

    I think that it's important to stand back from looking straight into the Bible and simply assuming that the claims it makes about God and man are true. After all, what reason do you have to believe that any of the things it claims are true? Why do you believe there is is a supernatural force called sin? Why does it lead to death, rather than just natural processes? Why is there salvation from death, or why does there have to be? The Bible claims it, so it's true. But why? I don't understand what has established the Bible's credibility to talk about these subjects. Why not the Quran or any other sacred texts? Even if the Bible has some deep insight into human nature that the others lack, that doesn't mean every single thing it says is true.

    What has "worked" for you, your wife, and all those you know of? Salvation? The Bible? Faith? You can't know, since you've not yet died and seen God. How can you say it works?
    "Pauci viri sapientiae student."
    Cicero

  16. #56
    Ludicus's Avatar Comes Limitis
    Citizen

    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Posts
    13,065

    Default Re: Some Salient Points on Jesus of Nazareth

    Quote Originally Posted by Dr. Legend View Post
    I think spending some time in a culture, that accepts the supernatural and Christianity as uncontroversially and unquestioningly true, might be good.
    I wonder why.
    Btw, Americans love the bible. In Island, no one below 25 believe world was created by God.
    Il y a quelque chose de pire que d'avoir une âme perverse. C’est d'avoir une âme habituée
    Charles Péguy

    Every human society must justify its inequalities: reasons must be found because, without them, the whole political and social edifice is in danger of collapsing”.
    Thomas Piketty

  17. #57
    Copperknickers II's Avatar quaeri, si sapis
    Citizen

    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    Scotland
    Posts
    12,647

    Default Re: Some Salient Points on Jesus of Nazareth

    Quote Originally Posted by Ludicus View Post
    I wonder why.
    Btw, Americans love the bible. In Iceland, no one below 25 believe world was created by God.
    This is not actually true. Nobody in a survey in Iceland commissioned by the Humanist society believed in the literal Genesis creation story, but a few of the respondents said they believed that a higher power instigated the Big Bang and thus created the universe indirectly, which was not an option in the questionnaire and so comes under 'other' in the results. Besides, the survey also did not have an option for 'the universe was created by the evil ice giant Ymir, when he sweated out the giant cow Audumla who then licked the first humans out of the ice of Niflheim' which obviously is the correct answer.
    A new mobile phone tower went up in a town in the USA, and the local newspaper asked a number of people what they thought of it. Some said they noticed their cellphone reception was better. Some said they noticed the tower was affecting their health.

    A local administrator was asked to comment. He nodded sagely, and said simply: "Wow. And think about how much more pronounced these effects will be once the tower is actually operational."

  18. #58

    Default Re: Some Salient Points on Jesus of Nazareth

    Quote Originally Posted by sumskilz View Post
    The miracles require a higher standard of evidence from an academic perspective. The rest is accepted based on the same standard of evidence that anything else would be accepted by historians of this period. Common Soldier has done a good job addressing this, so I won't elaborate. I will however add that Tacitus, the one passage from Josephus which appears untampered with, taken along with Paul's almost certainly authentic seven letters are the strongest evidence, and constitute more evidence than we have for many other accepted historical individuals of the ancient world. So the question comes down to what standard of evidence are you willing to accept just to believe a particular individual existed, and why should that standard be different than for anyone else historians believe existed?
    Yep. If proof standards for a historical "secular" Jesus are not enough, from a purely logical point of view this would question countless other Historical characters as well, turning our history books into one big mess.
    It will be seen that, as used, the word ‘Fascism’ is almost entirely meaningless. In conversation, of course, it is used even more wildly than in print. I have heard it applied to farmers, shopkeepers, Social Credit, corporal punishment, fox-hunting, bull-fighting, the 1922 Committee, the 1941 Committee, Kipling, Gandhi, Chiang Kai-Shek, homosexuality, Priestley's broadcasts, Youth Hostels, astrology, women, dogs and I do not know what else.

    -George Orwell

  19. #59
    basics's Avatar Vicarius Provinciae
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Location
    Scotland, UK.
    Posts
    11,280

    Default Re: Some Salient Points on Jesus of Nazareth

    Monarchist,

    When I was breaking up from my then mistress, on collecting my Napoleonic books from out of the loft of a new house that no-one had lived in before, I had to balance myself on the edge of the banister to reach in where they were. I brought them out one by one until I felt a book that was strange to me, nonetheless I puled that out too. It was a King James version of the Bible. How it got there I don't know and how it got in between my books I don't know as my then mistress was an atheist so it wasn't mine and it wasn't hers. I had moved into that house just after the builders had finished so if it was one of them, who can say? The thing is how did it get in between my pile of books? Once I had moved out and got settled elsewhere I opened it and began to browse and it is then that the dreams started. A chance to take on a toy shop franchise up in the north and so I took it. It was there that the dare to go into a Baptist church came and the rest is history but not without many incidents along the way.

  20. #60

    Default Re: Some Salient Points on Jesus of Nazareth

    Quote Originally Posted by Ludicus View Post
    I wonder why.
    Btw, Americans love the bible. In Island, no one below 25 believe world was created by God.
    That... is completely irrelevant to my discussion with Monarchist, Ludicus.

    Also in Iceland no one is intentionally born with Down Syndrome. Because, any child that displays a hint of Down Syndrome, is immediately killed.

    I wonder if maybe these two things are related?
    Ignore List (to save time):

    Exarch, Coughdrop addict

Page 3 of 5 FirstFirst 12345 LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •