BS: Julius Caesar/Jesus - fact or fiction?

Subject: RE: BS: Julius Caesar/Jesus - fact or fiction?
From: Don Firth
Date: 26 May 06 - 04:55 PM

"They're [Christians are] the people who say science is wrong and science cannot replace faith and all this rot but then turn around and try to use science to prove their case."

Some Christians, those of the fundamentalist persuasion (and not the brightest bulbs on the Christmas tree) are the ones who are unhappy with science because it clashes with their beliefs—beliefs, which I might add, don't have anything to do with the teachings of Jesus. It has more to do with the Book of Genesis and the creation myth. That's PRE-Christian. This particular brand of "Christian" hasn't made it beyond the sixteenth century yet.

There is a fair number of Christians who are scientists. There is a fair number of scientists who are Christians. And I am not talking about the rather pathetic attempts to mimic science put forth by the "intelligent design" faction of crypto-fundies.

AR282, you're doing the "All Christians believe— All liberals believe— All conservatives believe— All druids believe" thing. That's a crock, and you know it.

Your arguments for your weak, unsupportable beliefs are beginning to sound a little desperate.

(Why do I waste my time? This is like arguing with a used-car salesman who's standing there with his bare face hanging out and trying to sell me a heap that's obviously been totaled. I should just turn my back and walk off the lot, leaving him to talk to himself.)

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: Julius Caesar/Jesus - fact or fiction?
From: GUEST,AR282
Date: 26 May 06 - 05:17 PM

>>Ah well. I did try. I supposed that you were a reasoned and reasonable person, AR282. You have proven yourself beyond sense. You changed the subject and then refused to discuss what you changed it to<<

I have repeated myself to you so many times, it is utterly inconceivable that you have the nerve to keep repeating this accusation. Your whole shtick has been to keep harrassing me into repeating myself until I give up in exasperation. When that didn't happen, it was you that became exasperated. That's what happens you when argue with someone without presenting any evidence to back up your claim.

I have not accepted anything you've said for that very reason and that makes you angry. sorry about that. But you have to offer some sort of proof, some evidence, of what you're asserting. You're groping and it shows so you instead accuse me of changing the subject. Actually, I have refused to allow you to change it and now you're angry. Learn of what you speak and you won't have this problem. Don't get testy with me because I've done my homework. Blame youself.

Subject: RE: BS: Julius Caesar/Jesus - fact or fiction?
From: GUEST,AR282
Date: 26 May 06 - 05:35 PM

>>AR282, you're doing the "All Christians believe— All liberals believe— All conservatives believe— All druids believe" thing. That's a crock, and you know it.<<

When did I say this. Examples please. I'm hopeful if I demand evidence enough, one of you may actually respond correctly.

>>Your arguments for your weak, unsupportable beliefs are beginning to sound a little desperate.<<

I'm the only one of the two of offering any evidence and you have yet to address any of it. All I get is "AR282 talks nonsense. AR282 is must be a fundie in search of a religion. AR282 is full of insecurities and takes them out on religion." These are not acceptable responses to evidence. Attacking me witll get you nowhere. Attack the evidence. If you can't, admit defeat.

>>Why do I waste my time?<<

I dare say it is you who have wasted mine. but that's okay, it cgave me the opportunity to make my case of the non-historicity of Jesus Christ. And it is amusing to watch you people claiming not to be Christian literalists then proceed to act exactly like one.

>>This is like arguing with a used-car salesman who's standing there with his bare face hanging out and trying to sell me a heap that's obviously been totaled. I should just turn my back and walk off the lot, leaving him to talk to himself.<<

Better yet, disprove my evidence.

Subject: RE: BS: Julius Caesar/Jesus - fact or fiction?
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 26 May 06 - 05:40 PM

I don't need to do any homework. You have already proved my point. You use the argument that everything about Jesus was written many years after the alleged events. Yet the proof you quote was written many years after that. You insult people but cry foul when they defend themselves. You contadict yourself over and over. I am quite open about who I am and what my views are. You hide behind a nom de plume and rely on the invective of others.

I do not think it fair to challenge you to a battle of wits because it is not right to fight an unarmed man. Do yourself a favour and quit while deluding yourself that you are ahead.

Cheers.

DtG

Subject: RE: BS: Julius Caesar/Jesus - fact or fiction?
From: Peace
Date: 26 May 06 - 06:10 PM

"I'm hopeful if I demand evidence enough, one of you may actually respond correctly."

In the vernacular, no one here owes you a thing. Like, who died and left you boss? Respond correctly? Shove off, mate.

Subject: RE: BS: Julius Caesar/Jesus - fact or fiction?
From: flattop
Date: 26 May 06 - 06:12 PM

Passages on this thread are getting repetitious and anal, particularily the fundie stuff.

Fundie is spelled Fundy up here and it is not a nasty term for someone with opposing beliefs. Fundy is a breathtaking body of water between Nova Scotia and New Brunswick teeming with marine life, birds and clittering insects, where, each year, we dump billions of tons of raw sewage.

Let's face it, we're Infidels, with our quibbling over the the petty stuff. They are all Fidels, with their fabulous tune, Adeste Fidelis.

Devil's Dictionary, Ambrose Bierce
http://www.alcyone.com/max/lit/devils/i.html
Infidel, n.

    In New York, one who does not believe in the Christian religion; in Constantinople, one who does. (See GIAOUR.) A kind of scoundrel imperfectly reverent of, and niggardly contributory to, divines, ecclesiastics, popes, parsons, canons, monks, mollahs, voodoos, presbyters, hierophants, prelates, obeah-men, abbes, nuns, missionaries, exhorters, deacons, friars, hadjis, high-priests, muezzins, brahmins, medicine-men, confessors, eminences, elders, primates, prebendaries, pilgrims, prophets, imaums, beneficiaries, clerks, vicars-choral, archbishops, bishops, abbots, priors, preachers, padres, abbotesses, caloyers, palmers, curates, patriarchs, bonezs, santons, beadsmen, canonesses, residentiaries, diocesans, deans, subdeans, rural deans, abdals, charm-sellers, archdeacons, hierarchs, class-leaders, incumbents, capitulars, sheiks, talapoins, postulants, scribes, gooroos, precentors, beadles, fakeers, sextons, reverences, revivalists, cenobites, perpetual curates, chaplains, mudjoes, readers, novices, vicars, pastors, rabbis, ulemas, lamas, sacristans, vergers, dervises, lectors, church wardens, cardinals, prioresses, suffragans, acolytes, rectors, cures, sophis, mutifs and pumpums.




The Online Etymology Dictionary

infidel
1460 (adj., n.), from M.Fr. infidèle, from L. infidelis "unfaithful," later "unbelieving," from in- "not" + fidelis "faithful" (see fidelity). In 15c. "a non-Christian" (especially a Saracen); later "one who does not believe in religion" (1526). Also used to translate Ar. kafir, from a root meaning "to disbelieve, to deny," strictly referring to all non-Muslims but virtually synonymous with "Christian;" hence, from a Muslim or Jewish point of view, "a Christian" (1534).

Subject: RE: BS: Julius Caesar/Jesus - fact or fiction?
From: Peace
Date: 26 May 06 - 06:13 PM

I dislike condescending attitudes regardless of who the attitude comes from, and that includes from you, 282. Have a nice day.

Subject: RE: BS: Julius Caesar/Jesus - fact or fiction?
From: Little Hawk
Date: 26 May 06 - 06:14 PM

Every human ego deludes itself that it is ahead when arguing. Every human ego is deeply impressed by the "wisdom" of its own logic, and finds its opponents' logic flimsy and wrongheaded, if not downright laughable. Every human ego sees its opponent's foolishness and grandiosity, but NOT its own. What you need to do, AR282, is stop worrying about Jesus altogether, and start examining the functioning of the human ego, and apply what you learn there to understanding yourself and your weaknesses. The ego is your real foe, not organized religion. Your real enemy is in the mirror. Take a good look.

Subject: RE: BS: Julius Caesar/Jesus - fact or fiction?
From: GUEST,AR282
Date: 26 May 06 - 06:16 PM

>>I don't need to do any homework.<<

I wonder how many your teachers heard that one.

>>You have already proved my point. You use the argument that everything about Jesus was written many years after the alleged events. Yet the proof you quote was written many years after that.<<

That would be because the alleged events didn't happen. That's what you can't seem to comprehend. Like any true believer, you assume the events had to happen. I'm trying to show you that they didn't.

To say that Jesus was whipped and scourged in Jerusalem because Josephus wrote of it--maybe the details are different but there's the kernel of it--is problematic when we remember the event Josephus wrote of happened AFTER the bible story not before. The gospels were supposedly already written and so there is no possible way Josephus could have been talking about a person who served as the model of Jesus Christ in the narrative. Yet the coincidences are too great to write off as chance. The ONLY conclusion then that can be reached is that the gospel writers pulled the material from Josephus and modified it for their purposes. Then they backdated the material to make it look earlier than Josephus in the apparent hope of not looking like they copied him but they apparently forgot that the events he wrote of had not yet happened at their backdate. It sticks out like a sore thumb with "FRAUD!" written on it.

>>You insult people but cry foul when they defend themselves.<<

Once again, the thread has recorded the whole exchange and people can read it and judge for themselves if they really care.

>>You contadict yourself over and over. I am quite open about who I am and what my views are. You hide behind a nom de plume and rely on the invective of others.<<

Not sure what you're referring to but I'm sure you're sincere.

>>I do not think it fair to challenge you to a battle of wits because it is not right to fight an unarmed man. Do yourself a favour and quit while deluding yourself that you are ahead.<<

Wouldn't it just be easier to attack the evidence? What's the problem?

Subject: RE: BS: Julius Caesar/Jesus - fact or fiction?
From: GUEST,AR282
Date: 26 May 06 - 06:18 PM

>>In the vernacular, no one here owes you a thing. Like, who died and left you boss? Respond correctly? Shove off, mate.<<

When someone makes an accusation against you, you do have the right to demand evidence of it. You're statement to the contrary displays a surprising arrogance. It is time for you to shove off. Mate.

Subject: RE: BS: Julius Caesar/Jesus - fact or fiction?
From: GUEST,AR282
Date: 26 May 06 - 06:23 PM

>>Fundie is spelled Fundy up here and it is not a nasty term for someone with opposing beliefs. Fundy is a breathtaking body of water between Nova Scotia and New Brunswick teeming with marine life, birds and clittering insects<<

We know. That's why we spell it differently.

Subject: RE: BS: Julius Caesar/Jesus - fact or fiction?
From: GUEST,AR282
Date: 26 May 06 - 06:27 PM

>>I dislike condescending attitudes regardless of who the attitude comes from, and that includes from you, 282. Have a nice day.<<

Peace, has this whole argument been you posting under different nicks again? You know how Joe hates that.

Subject: RE: BS: Julius Caesar/Jesus - fact or fiction?
From: flattop
Date: 26 May 06 - 06:29 PM

How about that Loudon Wainwright song, I Am The Way? Sounds spiritual to me.


Don't tell nobody I kissed Magdalene
Don't tell nobody I kissed Magdalene
Don't tell nobody I kissed Magdalene
I said Mary It's OK, I am the way

http://top-lyrics.elizov.com/lyrics/Loudon+Wainwright+III.html

Subject: RE: BS: Julius Caesar/Jesus - fact or fiction?
From: Little Hawk
Date: 26 May 06 - 06:43 PM

Everything's spiritual. ;-) Science is particularly so.

Subject: RE: BS: Julius Caesar/Jesus - fact or fiction?
From: flattop
Date: 26 May 06 - 06:59 PM

>Everything's spiritual.

You're sounding like the Surrealists. They claimed that surrealism was art developed with a certain frame of mind. So the claimed Shakespeare as a Surrealist, even thought he lived years before they thought up the idea.

Subject: RE: BS: Julius Caesar/Jesus - fact or fiction?
From: GUEST,Wesley S
Date: 26 May 06 - 07:49 PM

AR282 - I'm curious - have you ever believed in a higher power of any sort? Did you ever consider yourself a Christian or have you always been an atheist? You seem to be very knowledgeable about the bible that why I asked.

Don't worry - I'm not trying to "fix" or convert you. I'm just wondering where your passion for this subject comes from. If you've addressed this subject before - sorry I missed it. Thanks.

Subject: RE: BS: Julius Caesar/Jesus - fact or fiction?
From: Ebbie
Date: 26 May 06 - 08:18 PM

"...Someone's will and that makes it worth it for me. If I at least sow seeds of doubt and skepticism in some people's minds, it's worth it to me. AR282

You might ask yourself just why "it is worth it" to you. Why does it matter to you?

The true atheist is not threatened by anyone else's beliefs. If the atheist truly believes that when he dies he has lost all consciousness forever then surely he feels only pity with just a touch of amusement at the idea that someone else holds on to the idea that his life will continue.

By the way, judging by my own experience, I imagine that many people don't so much debate the earthly existence of Jesus on the basis of Biblical recounting as that they are trying to find some tangible, concrete explanations for the many, many spiritual events and 'coincidences' everyone encounters in life. Things such as love and hope and dreams, synchronicity, moments of epiphany and the mysterious connections that we all make. Remmber the 'five senses of man'? Well, it doesn't take much living to discover that you have far more senses than that.


"To realize this level of credulity...to recognize and admit it in onself as well as in others...is to gain a measure of compassion and tolerance for the many differing beliefs that other people hold.

"To not do so is to become a zealot, a fanatic, an evangelist, a pest...on an endless mission to convert others to one's own belief. Such people may be dangerous in extreme cases. Usually, though, they are just an annoyance." Little Hawk

I agree. I'd say that anyone who has lost all doubt in his conclusions is already dangerous. That person may not take a vow to exterminate anyone or be a physical threat to any group of people but if push came to shove he may well feel free to sacrifice others - whose beliefs don't matter because he has already discounted them.

In the past, AR, I've enjoyed some of your posts. I suspect that that is over. Pity.

Subject: RE: BS: Julius Caesar/Jesus - fact or fiction?
From: Little Hawk
Date: 26 May 06 - 09:27 PM

flattop - I don't have much interest in surrealism...but I've no real objection to it. I'm sure the surrealists were very proud of themselves, and found evidence everywhere to support their views. Who doesn't? ;-) That's human nature.

When I say that everything is spiritual, I mean it. But I don't necessarily expect someone who doesn't believe in "spiritual" things to get what I mean by that. Does it matter if they don't? No. Why would it matter? I don't belong to anything that they could theoretically join, unless you count the human race itself, and they're already part of that.

Subject: RE: BS: Julius Caesar/Jesus - fact or fiction?
From: Don Firth
Date: 26 May 06 - 10:03 PM

". . . disprove my evidence."

Offer me some and I'll see what I can do. So far, all you've managed is to attack historical figures such as Josephus, called their writings into question, even going so far as to question the identity of Josephus, cite "a number of historians" (unnamed) who you claim support your view, present some weird idea about Jesus and Julius Caesar being the same person, point out that many of the attributes of Christianity have roots in prior belief systems, which is very old news, and in general, speculate all over the map and claim that this is evidence to prove your belief.

Evidence? What evidence? That's not evidence.

Read my comments above about Henry Lincoln playing "connect the dots." What you've offered as evidence is no better than his.

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: Julius Caesar/Jesus - fact or fiction?
From: Ron Davies
Date: 26 May 06 - 10:09 PM

AR282--

You were doing great-- demanding proof of Jesus' existence and rejecting most (all?) of what you were given.

But then we have 26 May 2006 3:12 PM: "He (Jesus) was Julius Caesar redone by Roman royals to once again rule the masses." If that's the club you belong to, you won't find many to join it.

If you start out with a serious assertion, descending to a ridiculous hypothesis will not help your cause.

Constantine certainly used Christianity as a unifying force--but that does not establish that Jesus was his invention. And that's what you're alleging--(otherwise who are the "Roman royals?"). That puts the burden of proof on you. Bad move.

Subject: RE: BS: Julius Caesar/Jesus - fact or fiction?
From: Peace
Date: 27 May 06 - 03:57 AM

AR 282: Only posted under my own 'nick'. There really is no argument. You think Jesus didn't exist at all. Then you think he does but wasn't really the guy many accept as the Son of God. Then you think he was a rebel. Then you think he was a piece of trash. Fact is, you don't seem to know what you think, and you are very snobbish as you go after people on this thread. I think you are seriously mixed up and you don't really know what you think at all. When you do, please post. Until then, you are wasting lots of time--yours and that of others. Ta ta.

Subject: RE: BS: Julius Caesar/Jesus - fact or fiction?
From: John O'L
Date: 27 May 06 - 04:40 AM

It seems to me that Josephus is entirely unreliable as a source of information regarding Jesus since we don't know where his simpathies lay but we can strongly suspect he had some kind of an agenda. On top of that it seems he has been tampered with. When, by whom, for what reason and which passages we can only guess at.

It seems that he wrote before the gospellers but what he actually wrote and for whom he wrote it is anybody's guess. Did you consider that the gospellers and He may have both plagiarised a third source?

Subject: RE: BS: Julius Caesar/Jesus - fact or fiction?
From: John O'L
Date: 27 May 06 - 04:42 AM

That should have been "...the gospellers and he..."

I didn't intend to diefy him.

Subject: RE: BS: Julius Caesar/Jesus - fact or fiction?
From: Haruo
Date: 27 May 06 - 06:00 AM

Based on his name I'd say there's a good chance Josephus (note: Latin for "Joseph") was Jesus' mother.

No, seriously, AR282, when you write things like this:

To say that Jesus was whipped and scourged in Jerusalem because Josephus wrote of it--maybe the details are different but there's the kernel of it--is problematic when we remember the event Josephus wrote of happened AFTER the bible story not before. The gospels were supposedly already written and so there is no possible way Josephus could have been talking about a person who served as the model of Jesus Christ in the narrative. Yet the coincidences are too great to write off as chance. The ONLY conclusion then that can be reached is that the gospel writers pulled the material from Josephus and modified it for their purposes. Then they backdated the material to make it look earlier than Josephus in the apparent hope of not looking like they copied him but they apparently forgot that the events he wrote of had not yet happened at their backdate. It sticks out like a sore thumb with "FRAUD!" written on it.

you make it hard to take you seriously. It is patently absurd to say that anything is "the ONLY conclusion … that can be reached" about this sort of thing. And knowing that one will only be berated and accused of mendacious stupidity for having pointed out such an obvious truth makes it that much less likely that you will be seriously engaged.

For what it's worth, I am a Christian and I am reasonably sure that Josephus wrote in the same general period as the canonical gospel writers/compilers. (By which I mean the last thirty years of the first century, basically. I'm inclined to think that even Mark postdates the Roman capture of Jerusalem in 70.)

I think you vastly underestimate the amount of actual coincidence that there is in the world. Plenty to account, for example, for the parallels between the Jesus Josephus writes about without positing that Jesus of Nazareth is based on him.

I'm still unclear, too, in what period you place the "royals" that you assert pulled the whole thing off. Based on what you have written in this thread it looks to me like these royals may have been just about anytime between the late first century and the early fourth century.

Haruo

Subject: RE: BS: Julius Caesar/Jesus - fact or fiction?
From: Big Al Whittle
Date: 27 May 06 - 06:02 AM

Okay - lets decide it on a quick show of hands.
I say they were both fictional - just something the Disney Corporation came up with.

a bit like the da Vinci Code and Errol Flynn as general Custer. makes for a good movie. But if you want the way the truth and the light - try Stefan grossman's book of alternative guitar tunings.

Subject: RE: BS: Julius Caesar/Jesus - fact or fiction?
From: The Fooles Troupe
Date: 27 May 06 - 07:38 AM

"If God did not exist, man would have to invent him."

Subject: RE: BS: Julius Caesar/Jesus - fact or fiction?
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 27 May 06 - 10:45 AM

OK, AR282, I did take a cheapshot. But it was in retaliation. I apologise. Will you do the same. Lets stick to the thead title then.

Julius Ceasar/Jesus - fact or fiction.

You state that Jesus did not exist but he was Julius Ceasar. The opening post states quite clearly that, in someones book, there is more to prove that Jesus existed then Julius Ceasar. You, in your last post, say Jesus was Julius Ceasar. If they are one and the same person how can there be more evidence for one to exist than the other?

Forget paraphrasing others works. For every peice of 'evidence' you give in such a manner there are more giving the opposing viewpoint. We could spend all day quoting and counter quoting.

You may well say that all the evidence for his existance are from Religious works. So what? All the evidence to the contrary is from those who are anti-religious. Would you expect it any other way?

So lets hear YOUR 'proof' that Jesus did not exist. Not someone elses 'proof'. Yours. I guess that you cannot supply any. Just as I cannot supply any for his existence. All the evidence both for and against is heresay and uncorrobarated. Neither side would stand up in a court of law.

What I can do though is show my reasons for supposing he did exist. I can draw and give sound logical reasons for those suppositions and am quite happy to do so. Will you do the same for your suppositions? Remember my earlier point about the difference between fact fiction and supposition? If not please refer back.

And please don't cut and paste any more long boring passages. Lets hear YOUR OWN reasoning for drawing your conclusions.

Cheers

DtG

Subject: RE: BS: Julius Caesar/Jesus - fact or fiction?
From: Little Hawk
Date: 27 May 06 - 11:02 AM

"Him", Foolestroupe? Where did you get the idea that God is male? ;-) In a Universe where the vast majority of living things (as far as we know and can observe) exist in two genders, how in God's (if you'll excuse the expression) name could whatever brought them forth be of only one gender!???!


Heh!

Methinks you are referring to the archaic, abysmally primitive notions of a male "God" that arose in a strictly patriarchal tribal society of Jews several thousand years ago. Ha!

For a far more rational concept of "God" or "Divinity" or "the Great Unmanifest" or "the Way" or whatever you might call it, investigate any number of Eastern religions which posit a Godhead that DOES seamlessly include both genders as well as the genderless archetype within itself. Infinity is, by definition, not limited to expressing itself only in the male form, and if people imagine it as a male, they are only reflecting their own customs and blind spots.

And you may well know all that, Foolestroupe. ;-) I bring it up only to raise an interesting point about the way most cultures think: like a horse sees when it's wearing blinders. They see only what they already believe in, and nothing more whatsoever.

Subject: RE: BS: Julius Caesar/Jesus - fact or fiction?
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 27 May 06 - 11:04 AM

Has to be a man, LH. A woman would not have made such a B"£$%^&s of things;-)

Cheers

DtG

Subject: RE: BS: Julius Caesar/Jesus - fact or fiction?
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 27 May 06 - 11:09 AM

My partner is emphatic that the God who invented menstruation and childbirth had to be a male.

Subject: RE: BS: Julius Caesar/Jesus - fact or fiction?
From: Little Hawk
Date: 27 May 06 - 11:13 AM

Heh! Amusing...

But it isn't "God" who's made a mess of things. It is the human race who have made a mess of things. We have free will, so you can't fob it all off on God as an excuse. We are totally responsible for the messes we make.

On the other hand, were the dinosaurs responsible for whatever brought their much lengthier reign on this planet to an end? Probably not.

Perhaps our passing will affect the planet even less than theirs did in the long run! We are temporary. Our strutting and complaining and blaming others doesn't amount to anything more than an ant complaining about a change in the weather.

Subject: RE: BS: Julius Caesar/Jesus - fact or fiction?
From: Little Hawk
Date: 27 May 06 - 11:15 AM

Keith, you are forgetting about multiple orgasms! ;-)

Subject: RE: BS: Julius Caesar/Jesus - fact or fiction?
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 27 May 06 - 11:30 AM

We didn't mess up everything though - Who planned a creature that stood on two legs but who's back was not equiped for it? Or how come we did not evolve a better mechanism for disposing of our waste matter than having to excete it just after we get out of the shower... ;-)

(Sorry about not sticking to the point AR but even you must admit that this spate of asides IS funny!)

Cheers

DtG

Subject: RE: BS: Julius Caesar/Jesus - fact or fiction?
From: Little Hawk
Date: 27 May 06 - 12:04 PM

Well, the back problems can be avoided pretty much if you do yoga and stuff like that regularly, but most people are too lazy to bother, and they let themselves get out of shape.

Dachshunds suffer a lot from back problems too, but that again is the fault of people. We created the little monsters through selective breeding.

I submit that God is to blame for absolutely nothing. He/She/It is totally guiltless. We do it all ourselves. As for earthquakes and stuff like that...well, those are just natural changes that come through whenever they do, and you have to accept and deal with stuff like that. No point blaming anyone for it.

Subject: RE: BS: Julius Caesar/Jesus - fact or fiction?
From: GUEST,AR282
Date: 27 May 06 - 01:19 PM

>>AR282 - I'm curious - have you ever believed in a higher power of any sort?<<

I believe in a higher perception.

>>Did you ever consider yourself a Christian or have you always been an atheist? You seem to be very knowledgeable about the bible that why I asked.<<

Thanks. It's an ongoing study. And, no, I have never been a Christian. Atheism is a discipline to me for diggin at truth, it is NOT a belief system. "There are no gods" is at the root of every philosophy.

>>Don't worry - I'm not trying to "fix" or convert you. I'm just wondering where your passion for this subject comes from. If you've addressed this subject before - sorry I missed it. Thanks. <<

No problem.

Subject: RE: BS: Julius Caesar/Jesus - fact or fiction?
From: Little Hawk
Date: 27 May 06 - 01:27 PM

That higher perception you refer to, AR282, is the way I think of God. Not as a being...not as a judge...not as someone who needs to be worshipped or appeased...but as a higher perception that is latent within all of us. We ARE that, but it's not fully developed as yet in most individuals. Nor are our various other qualities fully developed. It's all an ongoing process, like evolution. It is evolution, in fact.

Taoism and Buddhism propose no God in the sense of a great individualized being. But they do propose a higher perception.

Subject: RE: BS: Julius Caesar/Jesus - fact or fiction?
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 27 May 06 - 01:36 PM

I would like your response to my points as well please, AR282.

DtG

Subject: RE: BS: Julius Caesar/Jesus - fact or fiction?
From: GUEST,AR282
Date: 27 May 06 - 01:36 PM

>>You state that Jesus did not exist but he was Julius Ceasar. The opening post states quite clearly that, in someones book, there is more to prove that Jesus existed then Julius Ceasar. You, in your last post, say Jesus was Julius Ceasar. If they are one and the same person how can there be more evidence for one to exist than the other?<<

What is the evidence that Caesar didn't exist. All kinds of people wrote about him during his life, coins were minted in his name and image while he ruled. Sounds like he existed to me.

>>Forget paraphrasing others works.<<

I didn't paraphrase other works. I quoted them verbatim.

>>For every peice of 'evidence' you give in such a manner there are more giving the opposing viewpoint. We could spend all day quoting and counter quoting.<<

I would be more than willing to do that if you think you can beat me at it.

>>You may well say that all the evidence for his existance are from Religious works. So what? All the evidence to the contrary is from those who are anti-religious. Would you expect it any other way?<<

We're talking about writings contemporary to Jesus and the generation after. The only writings of that period to mention are Church literature. There has to be more than that. Inevitably, they fall back on Josephus but that raises more questions than it answers. The especially damning silence comes from Philo since he came up with John's Logos-Made-Flesh and was contemporary to Jesus. He never wrote a word about Christians or Jesus. He was supposedly living in Jerusalem when the trial and crucifixion took place. The man who came up with the concept of the Logos Made Flesh promptly failed to recognize it when it came riding into Jerusalem on the back of an ass.

>>So lets hear YOUR 'proof' that Jesus did not exist. Not someone elses 'proof'. Yours. I guess that you cannot supply any. Just as I cannot supply any for his existence. All the evidence both for and against is heresay and uncorrobarated. Neither side would stand up in a court of law.<<

This is a disingenuous attempt to discredit my argument. When I ask for your proof, I'm not asking for "yours." I'm asking you for any at all. The Josephus quote is a forgery. It was not known before Eusebius quoted it some 300 years later. The Tacitus reference is a retelling of the Christian story and certainly not being quoted or culled from historical documents. Odd also that Roman historians of that period never heard of "Jesus Christ" but "Christ" only.

>>What I can do though is show my reasons for supposing he did exist. I can draw and give sound logical reasons for those suppositions and am quite happy to do so. Will you do the same for your suppositions? Remember my earlier point about the difference between fact fiction and supposition? If not please refer back.<<

I will not fall for this. I have given you the evidence already and I am still waiting for your refutation.

>>And please don't cut and paste any more long boring passages. Lets hear YOUR OWN reasoning for drawing your conclusions.<<

Once again, a disingenuous attempt to discredit my argument. You have no evidence for any of this--quit jerking me around. If you had it, you'd spill it. You're once again trying to get me to repeat myself. I've already given you my argument and I'm waiting for you to attack it instead of me.

Subject: RE: BS: Julius Caesar/Jesus - fact or fiction?
From: Ron Davies
Date: 27 May 06 - 01:43 PM

AR282--

Let's go back to Jesus being the invention of the "Roman royals" to "again rule the masses". Proof please.

Subject: RE: BS: Julius Caesar/Jesus - fact or fiction?
From: GUEST,AR282
Date: 27 May 06 - 01:44 PM

>>you make it hard to take you seriously. It is patently absurd to say that anything is "the ONLY conclusion … that can be reached" about this sort of thing.<<

Why do you all keep saying I'm not to be taken seriously but you're here arguing with me? If I'm not to be taken seriously, it must be because my argument is easily refuted. Then refute it.

As for it being only conclusion that can be reach is because that is the case. We can't say Josephus wrote of men that served as models for the gospelic Jesus when the men Josephus wrote of were his contemporaries and not those of Jesus. It is impossible then that Josephus could have served as the model. And yet, we cannot deny the remarkable parallels are there--too many to account by mere chance. Since the at least Matthew and Mark were supposedly already written before Josephus ever put pen to paper, we have a problem.

How did Josephus's later Jesuses get into earlier gospel narratives?? Because the narratives were written AFTER--they had to be--and then were backdated to look earlier because there is no way they could be earlier than by backdating.

>>And knowing that one will only be berated and accused of mendacious stupidity for having pointed out such an obvious truth makes it that much less likely that you will be seriously engaged<<

Then you're free to move on to bigger and better things.

Subject: RE: BS: Julius Caesar/Jesus - fact or fiction?
From: Ron Davies
Date: 27 May 06 - 01:48 PM

AR--

In fact, your claim is that Jesus is "Julius Caesar redone" also--need proof for that too.

Thank you.

As it stands, your theory sounds as likely as the hoariest story of the Creationists.

Subject: RE: BS: Julius Caesar/Jesus - fact or fiction?
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 27 May 06 - 01:50 PM

OK - You did ask me to attck your argument so here goes.

Your argument relies on evidence written by people who were not there at the time.

By your own admission evidence written after the event cannot be relied upon.

Therefore your argument is based on a false premise.

No need to cut and paste all my words btw. I can usualy remember what I said.

Cheers

DtG

Subject: RE: BS: Julius Caesar/Jesus - fact or fiction?
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 27 May 06 - 01:52 PM

Still waiting for my apolgy as well though.

DtG

Subject: RE: BS: Julius Caesar/Jesus - fact or fiction?
From: Little Hawk
Date: 27 May 06 - 02:00 PM

Getting an apology from the average offended ego is like trying to get milk from a stone.

Subject: RE: BS: Julius Caesar/Jesus - fact or fiction?
From: GUEST,AR282
Date: 27 May 06 - 02:08 PM

>>You were doing great-- demanding proof of Jesus' existence and rejecting most (all?) of what you were given.<<

I was given a Josephus quote that was unknown by any scholars that studied him until Eusebius some 3 centuries later. That's particularly difficult to maintain as genuine.

The other was a Tacitus quote that wasn't a historical reference but a quick retelling of the Christian belief which Tacitus could have learned by asking any Christian in Rome.

Beyond that, there is no evidence.

>>But then we have 26 May 2006 3:12 PM: "He (Jesus) was Julius Caesar redone by Roman royals to once again rule the masses." If that's the club you belong to, you won't find many to join it.<<

Actually, there is school of thought that has concluded this since the 19th century. You may want to look up Bruno Bauer.

>>If you start out with a serious assertion, descending to a ridiculous hypothesis will not help your cause.<<

What's ridiculous about it. All I get is this kind of thing from you folks. Dogmatic statements but no attempt to back them up.

>>Constantine certainly used Christianity as a unifying force--but that does not establish that Jesus was his invention.<<

I never said it was. I said he pushed it and made it the religion it is today. Certainly he didn't invent it as it was around before him.

>>And that's what you're alleging--(otherwise who are the "Roman royals?"). That puts the burden of proof on you. Bad move.<<

I never said Constantine invented Jesus Christ. As for who actually did, we'd have to go back to Josephus himself and his family. They were the Flavians with the Jewish connections. They had the most to lose by the Jewish revolts against the empire.

Subject: RE: BS: Julius Caesar/Jesus - fact or fiction?
From: Little Hawk
Date: 27 May 06 - 02:10 PM

What a tortured thing the human intellect is. How vain.

Subject: RE: BS: Julius Caesar/Jesus - fact or fiction?
From: GUEST,AR282
Date: 27 May 06 - 02:29 PM

>>It seems to me that Josephus is entirely unreliable as a source of information regarding Jesus since we don't know where his simpathies lay but we can strongly suspect he had some kind of an agenda.<<

This is, by far, the most sensible post here. Yes, he had an agenda. And no, he was entirely unreliable. His Masada account is ridiculous. The Romans breach the walls of the fortress and then turn around and go back down the ramp they'd built and decide to sack the place in the morning. RIGHT!!! Let's give the Jews the chance to mount a suicide charge down the ramp. Get real. As soon as you gain access to the fortress, you swarm in and lay it waste. Everybody knows you do it that way. Then while the Romans inexplicably go back down the ramp and get some shut eye, the Jews in Masada draws lots and kill themselves and Josephus gives us a touching account of it. There's only one problem. THERE WERE NO EYEWITNESSES!!! How could Josephus know how it was done??? He couldn't. Isn't odd too that Josephus wrote his Masada account in Rome while Flavius Silva was also living at the time? Silva, as we know, conducted the Masada campaign. Yet, did Josephus--writing this account at the behest of the Flavians--ever go talk to Silva and get his side of things? No. He never spoke to him, never interviewed him. We have two possibilities to account for that: Josephus lied and Silva was not the general that campaigned against Masada or Flavius Josephus WAS Flavius Silva.

>>On top of that it seems he has been tampered with. When, by whom, for what reason and which passages we can only guess at.<<

Well, we know the Jesus quote everybody resorts to prove Josephus wrote about him was forged. But, yes, certainly more would have likely been tampered with.

>>It seems that he wrote before the gospellers<<

Depnds on what ou mean. by the standard chronology, he wrote after. His earliest work was the Jewish Wars which was supposedly composed around 75-80 CE. Mark and Matthew were already written. Jewish Antiquities that contains the spurious Jesus quote was supposedly written about 90-93 CE. By then, all four gospels were already supposed to have been composed or close to it, maybe John was still being written. So if he wrote before the gospel writers, then the standard chronology is wrong. Indeed, many scholars think the gospels are much later--no earlier than 140 CE. No one mentioned all four until Irenaeus aroudn 180-185 CE.

>>but what he actually wrote and for whom he wrote it is anybody's guess. Did you consider that the gospellers and He may have both plagiarised a third source?<<

Well, we have supposition about Q documents and such. Hard to say. But, sure, there could be other sources also. The Nag Hammadi Library being discovered buried inthe deserts of Egypt indicates that they were being hidden. From whom? From someone looking to destroy them. My guess would be the Roman army. They didn't want competitors. This is borne out by the fact that the Nag Hammadi Library are the ONLY Gnostic writings available to us. Had it not been discovered we would have only Irenaeus's "Against Heresies" which provided only quotes he chose to dispute. Obviously, someone got rid of them all--or so they thought. What was destroyed that we will never know about?

Subject: RE: BS: Julius Caesar/Jesus - fact or fiction?
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 27 May 06 - 02:49 PM

I have done exacly what you asked of me AR282. What else can I do to get you to respond? Or was my attack on your argument not to your liking either?

Cheers

DtG

Subject: RE: BS: Julius Caesar/Jesus - fact or fiction?
From: Don Firth
Date: 27 May 06 - 03:02 PM

"Atheism is a discipline to me for diggin at truth, it is NOT a belief system. 'There are no gods' is at the root of every philosophy."

I would question whether atheism is a belief system or not. But a discipline? No. It's a position, not a discipline. I do, however agree that trying to explain something by invoking God and saying "God caused it" is a six-lane highway to total ignorance. It really explains nothing.

And as to your second sentence, that is also highly questionable. Many of the Greek philosophers often referred to "the gods" (some later Christian theologians translated Plato using "God" [singular, upper-case G] instead of "the gods" in the original, but that's spurious), and many later philosophers referred to God. I'm not saying that that is a good thing, however. In line with my contention that invoking God explains nothing, any philosopher who tries to base his philosophical system on God is building on a structure which may very well not be there at all.

From that, you might assume that I am an agnostic as opposed to a believer or a nonbeliever. The jury is still out on that. But if there is some kind of transcendent intelligence behind the universe, I'm sure that it bears no resemblance to the cranky, bearded old man wearing a bed sheet, living on Arcturus Twelve, logging all our sins, marking the fall of sparrows, and firing thunderbolts at people who piss him off that the less philosophically-oriented believers like the fundamentalists (of several religions) seem to believe in so avidly. Considering the immensity and complexity of the universe, if there is such an intelligence, it is truly beyond our comprehension, and most assuredly does not need or want to be worshipped, any more than a biologist needs or wants to be worshipped by the bacteria he or she is growing in a Petri dish.

To me, Christianity is—or should be, if one reads it properly (unfortunately, a rare occurrence)—something akin to an ethical system. The core readings in the Gospels, sayings ascribed to Jesus, outline principles for how people should treat each other. I've often linked to Matthew 25, verses 35 through 40 as that core. That, and the Beatitudes in the Sermon on the Mount. Very good principles for human interaction to be found there. Someone said or wrote these things, and whether or not it was Jesus of Nazareth, Matthew himself, or some unknown copyist in a monastery somewhere makes no essential difference.

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: Julius Caesar/Jesus - fact or fiction?
From: Haruo
Date: 27 May 06 - 03:35 PM

(1)I never said Constantine invented Jesus Christ. As for who actually did, we'd have to go back to Josephus himself and his family. They were the Flavians with the Jewish connections. They had the most to lose by the Jewish revolts against the empire.
…
(2)Well, we know the Jesus quote everybody resorts to prove Josephus wrote about him was forged. But, yes, certainly more would have likely been tampered with.

Ron and I have been asking for some sort of specificity about the "royals" you allege invented (or perhaps historicized?) Jesus, and you have been singularly unforthcoming on that point. But the quote (1) above suggests it was not so much "royals" as "Flavians" you are fingering, and much closer to the time of both Jesus and Josephus than most of your hints on the subject have suggested. So, let me try again. Who are these royals and what period do you allege they were operating in?

(2)Again your flair for the exaggerated (I note you came to atheism through reading atheist tracts, and this is the style of tracts): "everybody" does not cite the Josephus "testimony"; in fact, hardly anybody does, because as usually found it is so implausible in Josephus and so plausible as a later, and clumsy, insertion. But for the less monkish version of the quote, from the Arabic source cited by Shlomo Pines in the 1970s, you have provided no serious refutation, merely the unproven statement that it too must be based on Eusebius.

As for why I continue to engage in this thread, it's because I (like you) find it hard to watch people (you in my case) assert falsehoods without attempting to correct them, and also because I enjoy watching others' attempts in the same vein, and not least because every once in a while I think of a witty saying that I just have to put online. I also, as a Christian, am fascinated by the evangelical fervor of a certain kind of atheist. I used to hang out on "The Godless Zone" for the same kind of fun, but that was long ago when I had much more time to kill.

Haruo