|
21 May 06 - 10:34 AM (#1744634) Subject: BS: Julius Caesar/Jesus - fact or fiction? From: GUEST,Tunesmith On today's BBC TV programme "The Heaven and Earth Show", presenter Gloria Hunniford stated that there is more historical evidence to back up the existance of Jesus than there is for the existance of Julius Caesar. Surely, that can't be correct! Any comments? |
|
21 May 06 - 10:42 AM (#1744637) Subject: RE: BS: Julius Caesar/Jesus - fact or fiction? From: GUEST,Janine That's nonsense as anyone who has struggled through Ceasar's Gallic Wars during their Latin Lessons will tell you. Janine |
|
21 May 06 - 11:20 AM (#1744662) Subject: RE: BS: Julius Caesar/Jesus - fact or fiction? From: GUEST Seek and ye shall find Guest |
|
21 May 06 - 11:25 AM (#1744669) Subject: RE: BS: Julius Caesar/Jesus - fact or fiction? From: bobad Subject: RE: BS: Book of Judas From: GUEST,AR282 - PM Date: 08 Apr 06 - 09:31 PM >>You don't have a clue whether Jesus existed or not, nobody can prove it one way or another,<< Oh, but we have many clues. What you have been repeatedly asked for but have totally failed to supply are your sources for your spurious claims that there are thousands of historical references to Jesus made in his day. This is utterly false. There isn't ONE, sir, not a single solitary reference. To prove me wrong please feel free to produce it. And it isn't merely the breadth of the silence concerning Jesus in his day, it is the depth to which that silence reaches. By saying no one of his time or the generation after him wrote of him, we're talking Claudius, Livy, Tacitus, Suetonius, Philo, Josephus, Pliny, Seneca and so on. That's a pretty damning silence concerning someone for whom the entire earth supposedly went dark upon his death (because Christ is the sun as I said before) because that little episode isn't mentioned by any of them. In fact, almost nothing about Jesus other than the religious beliefs current at that time were mentioned by these men. >>and your opinion won't change anything.<< You have no more idea of that being true than anyone else. Who knows who might read what I just wrote and decide to check it out for themselves? There was a time when I took for granted that Jesus must have existed even if not as demigod. But once certain writers got through to me that there was no evidence of a Jesus of Nazareth (or a Paul for that matter) anywhere but in Christian literature, it awakened something in me without a doubt. So I wouldn't say I might change something. I don't expect the entire Christian edifice to tumble into a heap but my words could have some effect. That all I can reasonably hope for. I don't want anyone to believe me. Check it out. Let us know what you learn. |
|
21 May 06 - 11:31 AM (#1744672) Subject: RE: BS: Julius Caesar/Jesus - fact or fiction? From: GUEST,AR282 There are no historical references to Jesus from his time or the generation after. Anyone who says there is, show me. As for Julius, he likely existed in some form but has also become "heavenized." |
|
21 May 06 - 12:34 PM (#1744730) Subject: RE: BS: Julius Caesar/Jesus - fact or fiction? From: autolycus You don't want to believe all you read on television. Were there facts to back up Ms.Hunniford? Otherwise anybody can assert anything Ivor |
|
21 May 06 - 12:38 PM (#1744731) Subject: RE: BS: Julius Caesar/Jesus - fact or fiction? From: Don Firth "There are no historical references to Jesus from his time or the generation after. Anyone who says there is, show me." Okay. HERE. I make no brief for his supposed divinity, but there are contemporary historical references to a "Jesus" (Greek translation of the name Joshua), or of a Joshua or Yeshua bar Joseph ("son of Joseph") who was a teacher, had a number of followers, according to stories (unsubstantiated) performed wonders, and who made a sufficient pain in the neck of himself that he was executed by crucifixion. Make of it what you will. Don Firth |
|
21 May 06 - 01:06 PM (#1744753) Subject: RE: BS: Julius Caesar/Jesus - fact or fiction? From: GUEST,Tunesmith Of course, Josephus was talking years after the events. He is reporting second hand. The sort of evidence that would be thrown out in a court of law. We all know our "urban myths" can take on a life of their own in a very short time. |
|
21 May 06 - 01:43 PM (#1744767) Subject: RE: BS: Julius Caesar/Jesus - fact or fiction? From: Peace "Tacitus wrote [in 64 CE]: Nero fastened the guilt . . . on a class hated for their abominations, called Christians by the populace. Christus, from whom the name had its origin, suffered the extreme penalty during the reign of Tiberius at the hands of . . . Pontius Pilatus, and a most mischievous superstition, thus checked for the moment, again broke out not only in Judaea, the first source of the evil, but even in Rome. . . .{5}" If there was no Christ, then someone a whole lot like him caused a bunch of people to become Christians. |
|
21 May 06 - 02:02 PM (#1744778) Subject: RE: BS: Julius Caesar/Jesus - fact or fiction? From: Wolfgang Historicity of Jesus (link to Wikipedia article) The lack of a historicity of Caesar article in Wikipedia shows beyond doubt that the historicity of both is not treated as equal. Wolfgang |
|
21 May 06 - 02:11 PM (#1744790) Subject: RE: BS: Julius Caesar/Jesus - fact or fiction? From: Clinton Hammond I hope no one believes everything they read on Wiki..... |
|
21 May 06 - 02:14 PM (#1744795) Subject: RE: BS: Julius Caesar/Jesus - fact or fiction? From: Little Hawk Ha! I'm going to leave the rest of you alone to argue about all this for a change to your heart's content if it turns your crank... (Doesn't matter what anyone's opinion on here is about it anyway.) |
|
21 May 06 - 02:42 PM (#1744812) Subject: RE: BS: Julius Caesar/Jesus - fact or fiction? From: GUEST,Tunesmith Of course, Tacitus was writing 30 odd years after the supposed death of Christ,which is enough time for a myth to be developed; and it wasn't Jesus - if we take the Bible chronology as read, but Paul who created the Christian Church. And just because there are Christians, it doesn't mean there has to be a Christ. There are many pagan relgions that had millions of followers, worshiping "gods" who - most of us - now believe never existed. |
|
21 May 06 - 02:51 PM (#1744821) Subject: RE: BS: Julius Caesar/Jesus - fact or fiction? From: GUEST,AR282 >>Now there was about this time Jesus, a wise man IF IT BE LAWFUL TO CALL HIM A MAN, for he was a doer of wonders, A TEACHER OF SUCH MEN AS RECEIVE THE TRUTH WITH PLEASURE. He drew many after him BOTH OF THE JEWS AND THE GENTILES. HE WAS THE CHRIST.<< Please tell us what kind of Jew Josephus was to hold this view. this is Christian view being expressed and certainly not a Jewish one. >>When Pilate, at the suggestion of the principal men among us, had condemned him to the cross, those that loved him at the first did not forsake him, FOR HE APPEARED TO THEM ALIVE AGAIN THE THIRD DAY, AS THE DIVINE PROPHETS HAD FORETOLD THESE AND THEN THOUSAND OTHER WONDERFUL THINGS ABOUT HIM,<< What divine prophet foretold this? Book, chapter and verse please. And what Jews accept this passage as referring to Jesus? >>and the tribe of Christians, so named from him, are not extinct at this day (Antiquities 18:63-64).<< Being that Josephus would have written this only a short time after this Christ has supposedly walked, well less than a century, it is odd how he remarks on the longevity of his followers as though centuries had passed. That would be because centuries had passed. This passage was unknown to anyone before the 3rd century when Eusebius quoted it. That tells us who it was that inserted it since Eusebius was of utterly dubious character as a Christian historian. Origen scoured Josephus and never mentioned this passge and it would be utterly inconceivable that he could have possibly overlooked it. And after devoting some 40 chapters of this work to King Herod, for whom he expressed loathing, Josephus raves about this amazing, fantastic man so incredible that he ought not be called a man who performed the most amazing feats and even rose from the dead and fulfilled scripture!!!!!! And he tells us this is a paragraph and never mentions it again. It's an obvious and very clumsy forgery. This is easily the most referred to "evidence" that Christians have and it has been long disproven. What else do you have? |
|
21 May 06 - 03:09 PM (#1744835) Subject: RE: BS: Julius Caesar/Jesus - fact or fiction? From: Don Firth Well, as far as I know, we don't have a birth certificate and a stack of income tax returns from his employment as a carpenter, but it strikes me as a bit far-fetched to assert that a bunch of people suddenly decided to get together and form a religion spontaneously, without someone to lay down a few ideas and principles to initiate the whole process. Whether you call him "Jesus" or "Joshua" or "Yeshua" or "Fred," it seems a bit unlikely to me that this kerfuffle, that, incidentally, has lasted for some 2,000 years, got started without some central figure to start the ball rolling. Now, what I'm saying here says nothing about divinity or supernatural powers Then, when a whole bunch of folks get together afterward and wrote about this "Fred," or whatever his name was: four Gospels, the Book of the Acts of the Apostles, and a whole bunch of epistles scrawled by a guy named Paul—not to forget that there were actually about twenty Gospels (works about "Fred," what he taught, and some of his adventures) that didn't make the cut when a council of geezers decided arbitrarily to approve certain writings, put them together in a single book, exclude a whole bunch of other stuff on the same subject, and call it The Holy Bible—while lots of people started wandering about and spouting the same stuff as this alleged "Fred" spouted, and the movement gradually expanded to include hundreds of millions of people, one tends to get the idea that maybe there might actually have been a "Fred." The guy may not have looked like he does in the Renaissance paintings and he may not have actually walked on water, but it makes a helluva lot more sense to think that he actually existed than it does to try to cobble up a theory as to how it could all have got started without him. Believing that Jesus (or Fred) actually existed as a living, breathing person does not mean that one necessarily believes that the stories about his virgin birth, miracles, reappearance after his execution, or physical ascension into Heaven (head for the Moon and take a right turn) are true. Or that he is "the Son of God" or "God Incarnate" any more than any other person might be considered. Personally, I tend to believe that someone named Jesus (or something similar) actually did exist, and said a lot of things that inspired a whole bunch of people. I am deeply skeptical about a lot of the rest of the details. And I also think that many of the people who came later missed his central message, cobbled together a lot of garbage about who he was and what he did, and generally made a total cock-up of what is now called "Christianity." Tell me: other than a few writings, what evidence is there that Socrates existed? Don Firth |
|
21 May 06 - 03:17 PM (#1744841) Subject: RE: BS: Julius Caesar/Jesus - fact or fiction? From: SINSULL From GUESTAR282: "And it isn't merely the breadth of the silence concerning Jesus in his day, it is the depth to which that silence reaches. By saying no one of his time or the generation after him wrote of him, we're talking Claudius, Livy, Tacitus, Suetonius, Philo, Josephus, Pliny, Seneca and so on. That's a pretty damning silence concerning someone for whom the entire earth supposedly went dark upon his death (because Christ is the sun as I said before) because that little episode isn't mentioned by any of them. In fact, almost nothing about Jesus other than the religious beliefs current at that time were mentioned by these men." Tacitus, Book 15 Chapter 44 (at least in my Oxford edition) mentions Christ by name and says he was executed by Pontius Pilate during the reign of Tiberius. "auctor nominis eius Christus Tiberio imperitante per procuratorem Pontium Pilatum supplicio adfectus erat;" He also refers to Christianity as a superstition. Living human candles screaming in agony at banquets? Would put a kink in my evening. |
|
21 May 06 - 03:24 PM (#1744846) Subject: RE: BS: Julius Caesar/Jesus - fact or fiction? From: artbrooks Guest, AR282: did you catch the part in Don's link that said the words in ALL CAPS are likely interpolations added by Christian copyists over the centuries in an attempt to make Josephus support faith in Jesus as the Christ? |
|
21 May 06 - 03:38 PM (#1744854) Subject: RE: BS: Julius Caesar/Jesus - fact or fiction? From: GUEST,AR282 >>Well, as far as I know, we don't have a birth certificate and a stack of income tax returns from his employment as a carpenter, but it strikes me as a bit far-fetched to assert that a bunch of people suddenly decided to get together and form a religion spontaneously, without someone to lay down a few ideas and principles to initiate the whole process. Whether you call him "Jesus" or "Joshua" or "Yeshua" or "Fred," it seems a bit unlikely to me that this kerfuffle, that, incidentally, has lasted for some 2,000 years, got started without some central figure to start the ball rolling.<< It certainly did. His name was Constantine. Without him, there would be no Christian religion today. It would have been another interesting Judaic offshoot that ran its course and died with the rest of them that were as quirky and off-the-wall as Christianity was at that time. >>Now, what I'm saying here says nothing about divinity or supernatural powers<< The name "Jesus" means "savior." There was a savior movement--that's all it was. Palestine and the diaspora afterward were rife with these things. Aaparently, the group that persevered combined the savior with the messiah--managed to equate them and, hence, Jesus Christ, the Savior-Messiah. The savior was no more historical than the messiah. He was never a historical man made into a divinity. He was always a divinity made into a man. >>Then, when a whole bunch of folks get together afterward and wrote about this "Fred," or whatever his name was: four Gospels, the Book of the Acts of the Apostles, and a whole bunch of epistles scrawled by a guy named Paul—not to forget that there were actually about twenty Gospels (works about "Fred," what he taught, and some of his adventures) that didn't make the cut when a council of geezers decided arbitrarily to approve certain writings, put them together in a single book, exclude a whole bunch of other stuff on the same subject, and call it The Holy Bible<< Now you're referring to Constantine. He called the Council of Nicea where all this happened. You cannot remove his influence or you remove Christianity. And when you mention the four gospels as well as the apocrypha writings and the Nag Hammadi Library, etc. as some kind of proof Jesus existed, you may want to take note of the extremely different views and character ascribed to this Jesus and then tell me how he could be historical. The Nag Hammadi Library is clearly documenting a historical Jesus, which is probably why they were hidden away in the desert in the first place--to protect them from soldiers doing the bidding of the Roman Church which was championing the historical Jesus and determined to get rid of competing views. There's no reason such writings would have been buried in the desert--and without them, we'd have no real Gnostic writings. As for Paul, did he believe in a historical Christ? Certainly not from what I see or perhaps you'd be kind enough to piece together the life of Christ as described by Paul. Perhaps you could explain how Paul journeyed to Jerusalem as recounted in Galatians and never once called it the city where his lord was crucified. Did Paul mention a virgin birth? No. Bethlehem? No. Nazareth? No. Miracles? No. A ministry? No. A mother named Mary? No. A record of Christ's travels? No. A collection of Christ's sayings? No. Since he mentioned Christ rising from the grave, did tell us where Christ's tomb can be found? No. Did he even mention that Christ was a contemporary? No. He put Christ in NO TIME FRAME WHATSOEVER. He clearly states he learned his gospel from no man and made references to meeting Christ in the 3rd heaven. A vision. His entire knowledge of Christ was taken from a vision and came from no one and nowhere else and Paul himself says so. >>Believing that Jesus (or Fred) actually existed as a living, breathing person does not mean that one necessarily believes that the stories about his virgin birth, miracles, reappearance after his execution, or physical ascension into Heaven (head for the Moon and take a right turn) are true. Or that he is "the Son of God" or "God Incarnate" any more than any other person might be considered.<< Then why bother? It's the same as saying no such person existed. >>Personally, I tend to believe that someone named Jesus (or something similar) actually did exist, and said a lot of things that inspired a whole bunch of people. I am deeply skeptical about a lot of the rest of the details. And I also think that many of the people who came later missed his central message, cobbled together a lot of garbage about who he was and what he did, and generally made a total cock-up of what is now called "Christianity."<< There was no Jesus because his history is fraudulent and was an obvious invention of diaspora Jews. The gospel writers did not know the geography of Palestine making Jesus' travels through there impossible as they relate it which means it didn't happen. Jesus argues with Pharisees quoting verbatim the Greek bible which Pharisees would neve accept over the Hebrew but they don't even argue this point with him. Obviously, the writers didn't know Hebrew which is typical of most Jews in the diaspora. It was a religion invented in the diaspora and set in Palestine where the evidence for its historicity is incredibly lacking. >>Tell me: other than a few writings, what evidence is there that Socrates existed?<< I don't know but when people start calling him the son of god and telling me I must worship him and give him my money and vote for republican candidates because its what he wants me to do, I'll start looking into his life as well. |
|
21 May 06 - 03:41 PM (#1744857) Subject: RE: BS: Julius Caesar/Jesus - fact or fiction? From: GUEST,AR282 >>Tacitus, Book 15 Chapter 44 (at least in my Oxford edition) mentions Christ by name and says he was executed by Pontius Pilate during the reign of Tiberius.<< All he did was explain what Christians believed. He's allowed to do that and not be accused of believing the story, isn't he? In fact, he didn't believe the story and he made that clear. So, his info obviously did not come from historical sources but from Christian literature he could have gotten anywhere. |
|
21 May 06 - 03:41 PM (#1744858) Subject: RE: BS: Julius Caesar/Jesus - fact or fiction? From: Don Firth Yeah, Art, I thought the ALL CAPS thing should have made what was being said clear as a bell, but apparently not. One should really read carefully. Don Firth |
|
21 May 06 - 03:48 PM (#1744863) Subject: RE: BS: Julius Caesar/Jesus - fact or fiction? From: GUEST,AR282 >>Guest, AR282: did you catch the part in Don's link that said the words in ALL CAPS are likely interpolations added by Christian copyists over the centuries in an attempt to make Josephus support faith in Jesus as the Christ?<< All they did was remove the outlandish claims and say, "With the rest of this we make our case." And I say, how did you arbitrarily decide to remove some statements and not others??? Once again, even if the softened passage in the original writings of Josephus, why did no one mention this softened passage before it got embellished? You still cannot account for every Christian scholar overlooked until Eusebius. Clearly, the entire passage is fraudulent. |
|
21 May 06 - 03:59 PM (#1744868) Subject: RE: BS: Julius Caesar/Jesus - fact or fiction? From: Don Firth AR282, I think you need to get your hands on a book entitled The Closing of the Western Mind : The Rise of Faith and The Fall of Reason, by Charles Freeman. Freeman is a thoroughly grounded historian, and he is NOT advocating for Christianity. Anything but. He starts with the philosophical and scientific advances of the Greeks, then covers the whole development of Christianity, including Constantine's so-called conversion, which allowed a body of belief to take on the power of secular law, and what followed, which was not very nice. Definitely a warning for our current times! As I say, this book is not a brief for Christianity (hardly!), but it will help you get your rather scrambled historical facts straight. Don Firth |
|
21 May 06 - 04:05 PM (#1744872) Subject: RE: BS: Julius Caesar/Jesus - fact or fiction? From: GUEST,AR282 There's nothing scrambled about my facts. If there was, you'd quote something to prove it. Until you can do so, my facts stand. |
|
21 May 06 - 04:09 PM (#1744873) Subject: RE: BS: Julius Caesar/Jesus - fact or fiction? From: Peace So, uh, Julius Caesar didn't exist either? |
|
21 May 06 - 04:13 PM (#1744874) Subject: RE: BS: Julius Caesar/Jesus - fact or fiction? From: Big Al Whittle I think if you're looking for proof, in a way, you've missed the point. the whole point of reason is to point you in the opposite direction of faith. faith = a suspension of the scepticism and critical faculty that stands us in good stead in every other aspect of life. rather in the same way the Hemingway said about courage in battle, being a suspension of our powers of imagination. whether you suspend these great powers of reasoning and scepticism is very much up to you. But surely the whole business of doubting Thomas is a fair indication of what Jesus expected of us. Finally (for this is heavy stuff for a bear of very little brain) Hemingway also said that there has never was an army that didn't run, fled the field of battle at some point. Courage and faith, they aren't given to us all the time. Otherwise they wouldn't be a miracle. |
|
21 May 06 - 04:14 PM (#1744875) Subject: RE: BS: Julius Caesar/Jesus - fact or fiction? From: Peace Hemingway also blew his brains out. |
|
21 May 06 - 04:24 PM (#1744882) Subject: RE: BS: Julius Caesar/Jesus - fact or fiction? From: Don Firth "There's nothing scrambled about my facts. If there was, you'd quote something to prove it. Until you can do so, my facts stand." AR282, I don't have the time to sit here and write a treatise for your enlightenment and edification. I've given you a source—the aforementioned book by Charles Freeman—for all the facts you need to unscramble your scrambled history. That's quote enough. And your "facts" are not facts at all, they're the results of your own prejudgments. Get the bloody book and read it. Don Firth |
|
21 May 06 - 04:33 PM (#1744888) Subject: RE: BS: Julius Caesar/Jesus - fact or fiction? From: Peace Excellent essay here. |
|
21 May 06 - 05:31 PM (#1744926) Subject: RE: BS: Julius Caesar/Jesus - fact or fiction? From: Don Firth (Hells Bells! I never thought I'd be arguing on this side of the fence!) "I don't know but when people start calling him the son of god and telling me I must worship him and give him my money and vote for republican candidates because its what he wants me to do, I'll start looking into his life as well." So don't! What you're objecting to here is not some historical figure who may or may not have existed, but to a bunch of people who exist NOW. You're pulling a Dick Cheney. Be sure of your target before you pull the trigger. Besides, if you (and the bleedin' Republicans!) knew anything at all about what this alleged person referred to as Jesus Christ is supposed to have taught (try Matthew 25:35-40 HERE as a sample), you'd know that the Republicans are the last outfit Jesus would want you to vote for. Don Firth (Are you even going to bother to look at the link? I didn't think so.) |
|
21 May 06 - 05:46 PM (#1744931) Subject: RE: BS: Julius Caesar/Jesus - fact or fiction? From: Little Hawk "What you're objecting to here is not some historical figure who may or may not have existed, but to a bunch of people who exist NOW." Oh, yeah! LOL! Well said, Don! That oughta be carved in gold and glued to a bunch of people's foreheads for a month or two till they finally "get it", and find something else to bitch about endlessly instead. It's not like there aren't a few other things like that to choose from... ;-D |
|
21 May 06 - 06:03 PM (#1744943) Subject: RE: BS: Julius Caesar/Jesus - fact or fiction? From: Haruo What really solid evidence is there that anyone you haven't met "in the flesh" exists or existed? And what non-anecdotal evidence can you offer to prove even those you have met in the flesh exist(ed)? I certainly have no reason to believe "Guest AR282" exists in anything but name, and I have slightly stronger reason to believe Jesus was the Messiah of God foretold by prophets than to believe that "Guest AR282" read the source on Josephus before copypasting it. (Though my evidence for the former is private and that against the latter speculative.) Obviously what one considers "historical evidence" is pertinent here; I would recommend the arguments in A Marginal Jew and Saint Saul to those seriously interested in the issues involved. Both authors are serious historians; the former is more committed to Christian tradition than the latter, but both argue as historians rather than as apologists. Personally, although I am a Christian believer, I find Akenson more persuasive than Meier. Haruo |
|
21 May 06 - 06:04 PM (#1744944) Subject: RE: BS: Julius Caesar/Jesus - fact or fiction? From: Peace I have to ask: Has anyone here ever actually met William Shakespeare? |
|
21 May 06 - 06:10 PM (#1744948) Subject: RE: BS: Julius Caesar/Jesus - fact or fiction? From: Haruo No, but he has been prophesied. Haruo |
|
21 May 06 - 06:10 PM (#1744951) Subject: RE: BS: Julius Caesar/Jesus - fact or fiction? From: Peace LOL |
|
21 May 06 - 06:22 PM (#1744962) Subject: RE: BS: Julius Caesar/Jesus - fact or fiction? From: Haruo Incidentally and only FWIW I find your (Peace's) "excellent essay" leaves much to be desired; it does, however, point out when Tacitus lived, which makes it clear that Tacitus did not write what was attributed to him earlier at the time alleged (i.e. he wrote after the turn of the century, not in the mid-60s). He was an historian, not a journalist. Haruo |
|
21 May 06 - 06:26 PM (#1744968) Subject: RE: BS: Julius Caesar/Jesus - fact or fiction? From: Peace Even the suggestion that history may not be as we believe sure can bring out the vitriolic side of some folks. |
|
21 May 06 - 06:35 PM (#1744975) Subject: RE: BS: Julius Caesar/Jesus - fact or fiction? From: Little Hawk I'd guess that a great deal of real history was not as we believe it to be. Probably a good 50% of it. Everything is interpreted through the sujbective eyes and the blind spots and prejudices of whoever writes it down, and of those who repeat it in the generations after that. |
|
21 May 06 - 08:03 PM (#1745019) Subject: RE: BS: Julius Caesar/Jesus - fact or fiction? From: SINSULL GUEST - I was responding to your claim that no one of Christ's generation or immediately after it, mentions his existence. You brought up Tacitus. I gave you a quote from Tacitus disproving your claim. Tacitus does not say where his info came from. Can't help you there. |
|
21 May 06 - 08:14 PM (#1745024) Subject: RE: BS: Julius Caesar/Jesus - fact or fiction? From: Rapparee If Yeshua of Nazareth died in 33 (and the date is flexible) then the Gospel of Mark, the earliest, was written about 37 years later. Personally, I'd suggest a wait and see attitude. There is more coming out of Israel today than ever before -- and I'm talking about solid historical objects (including bodies). One new book (which I'm currently reading) is The Jesus Dynasty, in which the OT concept of the Messiah is pointed out to be not one person, but two: a descendant of the Levi priesthood and a descendant of the Davidic line; these descriptions fit the purported genealogy of John the Baptizer and Yeshua of Nazareth. By the way, the term "Christ" is not and never has been the man's last name. It comes from the Greek, means "The Anointed One" and shares the same root as "chrism" and "charisma". |
|
21 May 06 - 08:26 PM (#1745038) Subject: RE: BS: Julius Caesar/Jesus - fact or fiction? From: Don Firth And in that same ballpark, I used to have an upstairs neighbor who talked religion—a lot!! After one of his many diatribes, it occurred to me that he seemed to think that "Almighty" is God's first name. . . . Don Firth |
|
21 May 06 - 08:28 PM (#1745039) Subject: RE: BS: Julius Caesar/Jesus - fact or fiction? From: Little Hawk Yes, "Christ" is a title of spiritual honour, not the man's name. It's like calling someone an Avatar or a Buddha or a Saviour or a Messiah or any number of other such words. His actual name was most likely Yeshua Ben-Joseph, in the language of the time. Names tend to change a lot as they move from one language and culture to another. It's "Jesus" in Spanish, for instance, but they pronounce it "Hay-soos" (if you're English-speaking). It's "Jesu" in a number of languages, and that's usually pronounced "Yay-soo" in English terms. Yeshua would have been "yesh-oo-ah" in English terms. And all those would be just approximations of the name, in all probability. The only way to know for sure is go back there if you can figure out how to do time travel. If not, you are engaging in speculation, guesswork (educated or otherwise) and the repetitive playing out of your own emotional prejudices on the issue (for or against). That's why most of these debates here about it are mainly hot air, and yield a lot more heat than light. |
|
21 May 06 - 08:33 PM (#1745042) Subject: RE: BS: Julius Caesar/Jesus - fact or fiction? From: The Fooles Troupe ">>Tell me: other than a few writings, what evidence is there that Socrates existed?<< I don't know but when people start calling him the son of god and telling me I must worship him and give him my money and vote for republican candidates because its what he wants me to do, I'll start looking into his life as well. " LOL - I'm going to try to remember that quote... :-) "There is more coming out of Israel today than ever before -- and I'm talking about solid historical objects (including bodies)." You think we might find his... wait on a minute there... One, Two, OK, both legs are stll there... |
|
21 May 06 - 08:47 PM (#1745051) Subject: RE: BS: Julius Caesar/Jesus - fact or fiction? From: Little Hawk Hmmmm. And just how would a person go about giving their money to Jesus????? ;-D The real Jesus himself, I mean. Not easily done. I don't think he would want it anyway. He doesn't appear to have gone around soliciting money from people when he was doing his 3 years work in Palestine... Odd how hungry some of his so-called followers are for the folding stuff nowadays! But then, they're no different from many who don't believe in that respect, are they? It's money, money, money all the way around, regardless whether people are pushing organized religion or some other "ism" they are busy promoting. |
|
21 May 06 - 08:53 PM (#1745054) Subject: RE: BS: Julius Caesar/Jesus - fact or fiction? From: Peace Pilate's letters to Seneca. |
|
21 May 06 - 08:56 PM (#1745057) Subject: RE: BS: Julius Caesar/Jesus - fact or fiction? From: GUEST >>What you're objecting to here is not some historical figure who may or may not have existed, but to a bunch of people who exist NOW.<< To both actually. If you can prove Jesus is the son of god and that I am supposed to worship him, I will. But you can't even get that far because you can't prove he existed. Ergo, I don't even accept that much until you prove it. Now you're asking me about Socrates, well, guess what? I don't care about Socrates and don't know much about the man. But if you were trying to shove him down my throat, then I might care. >>You're pulling a Dick Cheney. Be sure of your target before you pull the trigger.<< Ad hominem attack. Invalid me boy. Either disprove my evidence or admit you been owned, baby. |
|
21 May 06 - 09:02 PM (#1745058) Subject: RE: BS: Julius Caesar/Jesus - fact or fiction? From: GUEST,PMS Hello, Guest. Could you please use the word mouthy as your name so that people don't get us mixed up? |
|
21 May 06 - 09:05 PM (#1745060) Subject: RE: BS: Julius Caesar/Jesus - fact or fiction? From: Little Hawk Why would you assume that people who think Jesus really existed are necessarily trying to convince you that he "is the son of god and that I am supposed to worship him" or anything like that? Sounds like setting up the old straw man argument to me... I bet you that a whole lot of people who believe that Jesus really existed do not adhere to those conditions in the least. I know some do...but others don'ts. I know I don't. Assuming that everyone who believes he was a real physical, historical man wants to "shove him down" your throat is an incorrect assumption, I assure you. I no more require that you worship Jesus than I would require that you worship Shakespeare, Robin Hood, Attila the Hun, Buddha, Krishna, Jack the Ripper, or a variety of other people who may or may not have existed in what the way they are reputed to have existed. You assume that your presumed "opponents" on this thread are all, and must all be Christian religous fanatics (in your view). That assumption is your error. I see Jesus as an inspired man who very likely existed and went around preaching in Palestine, and had a big effect on a number of people. I don't see him as someone who is the "only Son of God" or someone whom you are obliged to worship. If you don't want to worship anyone, no sweat! I don't care. ;-D |
|
21 May 06 - 09:07 PM (#1745061) Subject: RE: BS: Julius Caesar/Jesus - fact or fiction? From: Uncle_DaveO AR282 told us, in part: The name "Jesus" means "savior." That's news to me. What's your citation for that etymology? Dave Oesterreich |
|
21 May 06 - 09:08 PM (#1745062) Subject: RE: BS: Julius Caesar/Jesus - fact or fiction? From: GUEST,AR282 >>What really solid evidence is there that anyone you haven't met "in the flesh" exists or existed? And what non-anecdotal evidence can you offer to prove even those you have met in the flesh exist(ed)? I certainly have no reason to believe "Guest AR282" exists in anything but name<< Right. My posts type and post themselves. >>and I have slightly stronger reason to believe Jesus was the Messiah of God foretold by prophets than to believe that "Guest AR282" read the source on Josephus before copypasting it. (Though my evidence for the former is private and that against the latter speculative.)<< Appealing to the upper case/lower case issue isn't going to help you. I said it once already but I'll repeat: Show me how it was determined that the upper case of the Josephus quote was added to the lower case words already supposedly there. Name one single historian or commentator prior to Eusebius who quotes any part of that passage--even one single sentnce or even a partial sentence. Nothing. There is nothing to help you. Ergo, until you can answer my charge, you are blowing smoke and deluding only yourselves. Of course, if you're right, show me your evidence. You do have evidence, right? |
|
21 May 06 - 09:09 PM (#1745064) Subject: RE: BS: Julius Caesar/Jesus - fact or fiction? From: Little Hawk The most common incorrect assumption many people make when they argue about something like what's in this thread is this one: They assume the other people are idiots, and must believe in something totally stupid. They are almost always 100% wrong about that...regardless of which side of the debate they choose to be on. That kind of superficial, disrespectful attitude toward other people's intelligence is mostly what turns discussions around here into a sorry joke, rather than into something worth pursuing. |
|
21 May 06 - 09:21 PM (#1745072) Subject: RE: BS: Julius Caesar/Jesus - fact or fiction? From: Don Firth That's not an ad hominem attack, GUEST. I'm calling the logic of the statement into question, and that's fair game. Don Firth |
|
21 May 06 - 09:22 PM (#1745074) Subject: RE: BS: Julius Caesar/Jesus - fact or fiction? From: GUEST >>AR282 told us, in part: The name "Jesus" means "savior." That's news to me. What's your citation for that etymology?<< I'm only going to do your homework for you this once: "Jesus Christ, or more properly Jesus the Christ, Jesus, which is the given name of our Lord, was the Greek form of the Hebrew Joshua, meaning savior."--J. G. Ferguson KJV, 1965, p.21 of the "Scriptural Directory." "'Jesus' is a rendition of the original Yeshua both in the Hebrew temple language or in Aramaic, the common language of daily life in first century Palestine. It means 'one who shall help, save, or deliver' God's people."--James C. Winston KJV, 1993, p. 1377. After this, if you try to pull this on me, I will simply reply, "What is your evidence to the contrary?" |
|
21 May 06 - 09:23 PM (#1745076) Subject: RE: BS: Julius Caesar/Jesus - fact or fiction? From: GUEST,AR282 Sorry, all the last few GUEST posts were by me in case you didn't know. |
|
21 May 06 - 09:24 PM (#1745077) Subject: RE: BS: Julius Caesar/Jesus - fact or fiction? From: GUEST >>That's not an ad hominem attack, GUEST. I'm calling the logic of the statement into question, and that's fair game.<< Calling me Dick Cheney in the middle of an argument about the historicity of Jesus is not an ad hominem attack. Right. |
|
21 May 06 - 09:26 PM (#1745078) Subject: RE: BS: Julius Caesar/Jesus - fact or fiction? From: GUEST,AR282 >>Hello, Guest. Could you please use the word mouthy as your name so that people don't get us mixed up?<< Apparently your moniker was correctly chosen. |
|
21 May 06 - 09:29 PM (#1745079) Subject: RE: BS: Julius Caesar/Jesus - fact or fiction? From: The Fooles Troupe "Show me how it was determined that the upper case of the Josephus quote was added to the lower case words already supposedly there. " The earlier (Arabian) version in teh same reference omits the stuff mentioned in RED capitals... |
|
21 May 06 - 09:30 PM (#1745080) Subject: RE: BS: Julius Caesar/Jesus - fact or fiction? From: Uncle_DaveO And if "Jesus" means "savior", then so does Isaiah, which is another form of the same name. On another subject, Peace gave us a link to an essay about the writings of various ancient writers, and the article says, at one point, discussing Pliny the Younger: Some eighty years after Calvary, somebody was worshiping a Christ (Hebrew equivalent for Messiah)! That parenthetical comment is entirely different from the etymology I've always understood. As I understand from what I was taught in confirmation class 62 years ago, "Christ" is not Hebrew, or Aramaic; it's Greek, from "christos", and doesn't mean "messiah" but "anointed one". The parenthetical in the quote I suspect is not from Pliny the Younger, as it seems to imply, but the insertion (probably the editorial guess or self-serving argument) of an uninformed present-day commentator. Can anyone show any authoritative etymological source that "Christ" is "Jewish for "messiah"? Dave Oesterreich |
|
21 May 06 - 09:50 PM (#1745086) Subject: RE: BS: Julius Caesar/Jesus - fact or fiction? From: Uncle_DaveO AR282 said: "Jesus Christ, or more properly Jesus the Christ, Jesus, which is the given name of our Lord, was the Greek form of the Hebrew Joshua, meaning savior."--J. G. Ferguson KJV, 1965, p.21 of the "Scriptural Directory." "'Jesus' is a rendition of the original Yeshua both in the Hebrew temple language or in Aramaic, the common language of daily life in first century Palestine. It means 'one who shall help, save, or deliver' God's people."--James C. Winston KJV, 1993, p. 1377. "One who shall help" is not the same as "messiah". I assume that Winston would have said "Messiach" if that's what he meant. That terms was around when the King James Version was written, and also in 1993, I believe. And AR282 went on: After this, if you try to pull this on me, I will simply reply, "What is your evidence to the contrary?" I didn't say that it was not so; I merely said it was news to me, and inquired as to a source. I didn't and don't claim that I HAVE evidence to the contrary, but merely that I didn't know that to be the case. I said (and I quote), "That's news to me!" And it was. I also implied, I suppose, that I had doubts about the accuracy of that attribution, which I think I am allowed to do even in the absence of proof. Dave Oesterreich |
|
21 May 06 - 09:52 PM (#1745089) Subject: RE: BS: Julius Caesar/Jesus - fact or fiction? From: Don Firth AR 282, I didn't call you Dick Cheney, I said your were pulling a Dick Cheney. That's questioning your reasoning, not attacking you personally. Unless, of course, you regard someone's questioning your reasoning as an ad hominem attack. Please don't tell me about logical fallacies. Recognizing them is one of my areas of expertise. And please don't try to pick a fight when there isn't one. Now, back to our regular broadcast: I have a tendency to think that Yeshua or Joshua was, probably not as common as the name "Mohammed" is currently in the Middle East, but certainly common. There were a whole heap of Joshuas running around back then, including the one who fit the battle of Jericho. Probably just about every Jewish mother would have liked it if her son grew up the be the savior of his people. Everyone's name has some kind of meaning. For example, my first name is Donald. Celtic, it means meaning "proud chief, world leader." My middle name is Richard, French, German, or Old English, and it means "powerful ruler." With a pair of names like that, how come everybody bosses me around!?? I think that questioning the actual existence of Jesus on the basis that the name means "savior" is just a bit weak. Don Firth |
|
21 May 06 - 10:03 PM (#1745093) Subject: RE: BS: Julius Caesar/Jesus - fact or fiction? From: The Fooles Troupe "On today's BBC TV programme "The Heaven and Earth Show", presenter Gloria Hunniford stated that there is more historical evidence to back up the existence of Jesus than there is for the existence of Julius Caesar" That is the typical sort of statement made by many people of 'Faith' - if you have 'Faith' - who needs 'Facts' anyway. And the "Pauline-Constanian-Conspiracy" generated from of 'Christianity' has always been obsessed with blind obedience and lack of critical thinking by its followers, let alone anybody else - Control Freaks All! For support of this - see the canonical passages that mention that only those with the unquestioning minds of naive children can have 'Faith'!!! It's In The Book! Sorry... :-) |
|
21 May 06 - 10:17 PM (#1745096) Subject: RE: BS: Julius Caesar/Jesus - fact or fiction? From: GUEST,AR282 >>The earlier (Arabian) version in teh same reference omits the stuff mentioned in RED capitals...<< One more time: what historian or commentator prior to Eusebius mention this passage? |
|
21 May 06 - 10:18 PM (#1745097) Subject: RE: BS: Julius Caesar/Jesus - fact or fiction? From: Rapparee Actually, Don, "Yeshua" was a fairly common name in Palestine in the 1st Century or so CE. Jesus ben Sirach lived as early as 200 BCE; many ossiaries and other "name" records have been found with the name on them. It is even thought by some that "Barrabas" may have had the full name of "Yeshua bar Abbas" or Jesus Barrabas -- a revolt by a person of that name was recorded by the Romans. As for the "Gospels" -- reputable scholars list Matthew, Luke, Thomas, John, and the Egerton Gospel as derivative from M, Mark, Q, L, Thomas (an earlier version from which the later Thomas was derived), Signs, and an earlier Egerton. Another early writing appropriate to study is called the Didache. Then there are the Dag Hammani manuscripts, the Gospel of Magdala, the Gospel of Mary, the Gospel of Peter, the Gospel of James...not to mention the "Dead Sea Scrolls." Albert Schweitzer wrote "The Quest for the Historical Jesus" nearly a century ago. It's hard going, but quite good scholarship. |
|
21 May 06 - 10:23 PM (#1745099) Subject: RE: BS: Julius Caesar/Jesus - fact or fiction? From: GUEST,AR282 >>"One who shall help" is not the same as "messiah".<< Yes, well, we were discussing the meaning of the word Jesus not the meaning of the word messiah. If you're going to waste my time like this, please stop. We were never discussing the meaning of messiah and you know it. You're the one who asked me to cite a source for Jesus meaning savior and I have done that. Now if you have nothing else, I'd say we're through. |
|
21 May 06 - 10:24 PM (#1745100) Subject: RE: BS: Julius Caesar/Jesus - fact or fiction? From: flattop The the history of Jesus and the evolution of many religeous beliefs were covered nicely in Winwood Reade's outstanding book, The Martyrdom of Man, published in 1872. His book covers history in a passionate way that many later works missed. He seems to have understood the excitement and emotions of people and their beliefs as they battle through time. He also seemed to have access to historical material that has since disappeared from the mainstream of history. This scholarly work, which mentions Hull as well as Hell, is chocked full of human details from times when beliefs were a matter of life and death, long before they became catnip for web-pussies. You can read the book on-line or download a zipped file. Three long paragraphs on the rise of Christianity in Ancient Rome will give you the flavour of Winwood Reade's writing: ___ So passed the Roman street-life day, and with the first hours of darkness the noise and the turmoil did not cease; for then the travelling carriages rattled towards the gates, and carts filled with dung-the only export of the city. The music of serenades rose softly in the air, and sounds of laughter from the tavern. The night watch made their rounds, their armour rattling as they passed. Lights were extinguished, householders put up their shutters, to which bells were fastened-for burglaries frequently occurred. And then for a time the city would be almost still. Dogs, hated by the Romans, prowled about sniffing for their food. Men or prey from the Pontine Marshes crept stealthily along the black side of the street signalling to one another with sharp whistles or hissing sounds. Sometimes torches would flash against the walls as a knot of young gallants reeled home from a debauch, breaking the noses of the street statues on their way. And at such an hour there were men and women who stole forth from their various houses, and with mantles covering their faces hastened to a lonely spot in the suburbs, and entered the mouth of a dark cave. They passed through long galleries, moist with damp and odorous of death-for coffins were ranged on either side in tiers one above the other. But soon sweet music sounded from the depths of the abyss; an open chamber came to view, and a tomb covered with flowers, laid out with a repast, encircled by men and women who were apparelled in white robes, and who sang a psalm of joy. It was in the catacombs of Rome, where the dead had been buried in the ancient times, that the Christians met to discourse on the progress of the faith; to recount the trials which they suffered in their homes; to confess to one another their sins and doubts, their carnal presumption, or their lack of faith; and also to relate their sweet visions of the night, the answers to their earnest prayers. They listened to the exhortations of their elders, and perhaps to a letter from one of the apostles. They then supped together as Jesus had supped with his disciples, and kissed one another when the love feast was concluded. At these meetings there was no distinction of rank; the high-born lady embraced the slave whom she had once scarcely regarded as a man. Humility and submission were the cardinal virtues of the early Christians; slavery had not been forbidden by the apostles because it was the doctrine of Jesus that those who were lowest in this world would be highest in the next, his theory of heaven being earth turned upside down. Slavery therefore was esteemed a state of grace, and some Christians appear to have rejected the freeman´s cap on religious grounds, for Paul exhorts such persons to become free if they can-advice which slaves do not usually require. As time passed on, the belief of the first Christians that the end of the world was near at hand became fainter and gradually died away. It was then declared that God had favoured the earth with a respite of one thousand years. In the meantime the gospel or good tidings which the Christians announced was this. There was one God, the Creator of the world. He had long been angry with men because they were what he had made them. But he sent his only begotten son into a corner of Syria, and because his son had been murdered his wrath had been partly appeased. He would not torture to eternity all the souls that he had made; he would spare at least one in every million that were born. Peace unto earth and goodwill unto men if they would act in a certain manner; if not, fire and brimstone and the noisome pit. He was the emperor of heaven, the tyrant of the skies; the pagan gods were rebels, with whom he was at war, although he was all-powerful, and whom he allowed to seduce the souls of men although he was all-merciful. Those who joined the army of the cross might entertain some hopes of being saved; those who followed the faith of their fathers would follow their fathers to hell-fire. This creed with the early Christians was not a matter of half-belief and metaphysical debate, as it is at the present day, when Catholics and Protestants discuss hell-fire with courtesy and comfort over filberts and port wine. To those credulous and imaginative minds God was a live king, hell a place in which real bodies were burnt with real flames, which was filled with the sickening stench of roasted flesh, which resounded with agonising shrieks. They saw their fathers and mothers, their sisters and their dearest friends, hurrying onward to that fearful pit unconscious of danger, laughing and singing, lured on by the fiends whom they called the gods. They felt as we should feel were we to see a blind man walking towards a river bank. Who would have the heart to turn aside and say it was the business of the police to interfere? But what was death, a mere momentary pain, compared with tortures that would have no end? Who that could hope to save a soul by tears and supplications would remain quiescent as men do now, shrugging their shoulders and saying that it is not good taste to argue on religion, and that conversion is the office of the clergy? The Christians of that period felt more and did more than those of the present day, not because they were better men but because they believed more; and they believed more because they knew less. Doubt is the offspring of knowledge: the savage never doubts at all. In that age the Christians believed much, and their lives were rendered beautiful by sympathy and love. The dark, deep river did not exist-it was only a fancy of the brain: yet the impulse was not less real. The heart-throb, the imploring cry, the swift leap, the trembling hand out-reached to save; the transport of delight, the ecstasy of tears, the sweet, calm joy that a man had been wrested from the jaws of death-are these less beautiful, are these less real, because it afterwards appeared that the man had been in no danger after all? |
|
21 May 06 - 10:28 PM (#1745103) Subject: RE: BS: Julius Caesar/Jesus - fact or fiction? From: Don Firth Hunniford's pronouncement sounds like the sort of desperate statement that I've heard coming from the mouths of hard-charging evangelists who find themselves failing to save some soul they are hell-bent on saving. Or when they are confronted with the current broo-ha-ha over The Da Vinci Code. But to turn around and say that Jesus didn't exist (and I readily acknowledge that it is remotely—remotely—possible that he did not, sounds to me like just as desperate a statement from those who harbor an antipathy toward Christianity, or religion in general. ". . . full of sound and fury, signifying nothing." —William Shakespeare, who, we are pretty sure. did exist. Don Firth |
|
21 May 06 - 10:29 PM (#1745105) Subject: RE: BS: Julius Caesar/Jesus - fact or fiction? From: GUEST,AR282 >>It is even thought by some that "Barrabas" may have had the full name of "Yeshua bar Abbas" or Jesus Barrabas -- a revolt by a person of that name was recorded by the Romans.<< Maybe that was the real gospelic Jesus--a criminal. No wonder they cloaked him so much myth that we can't find the real man. After all Barabbas is Aramaic for "son of the father." Jesus Son of the Father. Sound familiar? Didn't Josephus make reference to a Jesus that led a band or "mariners and poor people" in Galilee who took to robbing people and vandalizing public buildings? Funny how Christians can cite all these Jesus references in Josephus and conveniently forget to mention this one. |
|
21 May 06 - 10:30 PM (#1745106) Subject: RE: BS: Julius Caesar/Jesus - fact or fiction? From: flattop Sorry, the web address: The Martyrdom of Man by Winwood Reade. http://www.exclassics.com/martyrdom/mrtintro.htm |
|
21 May 06 - 10:31 PM (#1745108) Subject: RE: BS: Julius Caesar/Jesus - fact or fiction? From: GUEST,AR282 >>The the history of Jesus and the evolution of many religeous beliefs were covered nicely in Winwood Reade's outstanding book, The Martyrdom of Man, published in 1872.<< I have his book on the Druids and it's one of the best things I have read on the subject. |
|
21 May 06 - 10:36 PM (#1745111) Subject: RE: BS: Julius Caesar/Jesus - fact or fiction? From: flattop Didn't know he had one on the Druids. Read this one years ago, after reading a bit on it by Orwell. Images still linger in my feeble mind. |
|
21 May 06 - 10:44 PM (#1745115) Subject: RE: BS: Julius Caesar/Jesus - fact or fiction? From: Little Hawk Flattop! Where the heck did you suddenly emerge from after all this time? How goes it? |
|
21 May 06 - 10:47 PM (#1745119) Subject: RE: BS: Julius Caesar/Jesus - fact or fiction? From: GUEST,AR282 Yep, he has one on the druids and if you haven't read it then you must do so. Meanwhile, I'll have to hunt this other title down. |
|
21 May 06 - 10:49 PM (#1745120) Subject: RE: BS: Julius Caesar/Jesus - fact or fiction? From: flattop He was a great writer. The Druid book is at: http://www.sacred-texts.com/pag/motd/motd.htm |
|
21 May 06 - 10:53 PM (#1745122) Subject: RE: BS: Julius Caesar/Jesus - fact or fiction? From: Alba I agree 'The Veil of Isis' is a great Book AR282. Jude |
|
21 May 06 - 10:55 PM (#1745124) Subject: RE: BS: Julius Caesar/Jesus - fact or fiction? From: Little Hawk Very interesting quote from Mr Reade, there, flattop. |
|
21 May 06 - 10:56 PM (#1745125) Subject: RE: BS: Julius Caesar/Jesus - fact or fiction? From: flattop Hey George, I'm still in Cape Breton. Things are fine, or maybe not, depends on the moment, you know how it is. I've got the book, Full Catastrophe Living, on my desk (by the same author as, Wherever You Go, There You Are) but I find it unreadable. You'd probably love it. What the 'D' stuff on your login? Are you there with little davey? David |
|
21 May 06 - 10:58 PM (#1745126) Subject: RE: BS: Julius Caesar/Jesus - fact or fiction? From: flattop Which quote? Didn't I pile it on? |
|
21 May 06 - 11:24 PM (#1745134) Subject: RE: BS: Julius Caesar/Jesus - fact or fiction? From: Little Hawk The long quote about night life in Roman cities and the Christians in the catacombs...I liked it. (No one has to convince me that organized religion can be weird.) ;-) Still, I have no difficulty imagining that Jesus/Yeshua was a real person who walked around and preached and got crucified and had a religion started afterward in his name. Some people seem to have a deep emotional need to prove he never existed....not an easy thing to do after all this time! Heh! But faith is unshakeable in both true believers and sworn non-believers. They both tend to suffer from the same kind of dogmatic obsession to prove themselves right and others wrong, in my opinion. It's a psychological illness commonly found in about 99.8 percent of humankind. Who is "little Davey"? Do you mean Walsh? What "D" stuff? I don't follow you. (But that's just because you aren't quite charismatic enough! Heh!) |
|
21 May 06 - 11:30 PM (#1745138) Subject: RE: BS: Julius Caesar/Jesus - fact or fiction? From: flattop Yes Walsh. One of your posts ends with ";-D" Is that a sign? |
|
21 May 06 - 11:44 PM (#1745149) Subject: RE: BS: Julius Caesar/Jesus - fact or fiction? From: flattop Bobad wrote: > By saying no one of his time or the generation > after him wrote of him, we're talking Claudius, > Livy, Tacitus, Suetonius, Philo, Josephus, Pliny, > Seneca and so on. May not prove anything. Christians were persecuted. Literature about Christianity may have been destroyed. Pliny wrote about Christians and Christ, (Book 10, #96-97). |
|
21 May 06 - 11:58 PM (#1745153) Subject: RE: BS: Julius Caesar/Jesus - fact or fiction? From: GUEST,Art Thieme Good people, we haven't even got a concensus on who or why or how many killed Jack Kennedy on Friday November 22nd, 1963. History is just the best educated guesses we can make. And then some crazy dude writes another book. Art |
|
22 May 06 - 12:01 AM (#1745154) Subject: RE: BS: Julius Caesar/Jesus - fact or fiction? From: Haruo From: GUEST,AR282 - PM Quite likely none. After all, there were very few people prior to Eusebius. That there is direct evidence of, anyhow, as opposed to later copyists' (who may have been authors') attestations. Eusebius is pretty shaky ground upon which to build a proof; he was clearly not an historian in any impartial "let the facts speak for themselves" sense. But then... what evidence do we have that Eusebius existed? Haruo |
|
22 May 06 - 12:07 AM (#1745157) Subject: RE: BS: Julius Caesar/Jesus - fact or fiction? From: Rapparee What seems to emerge is this: 1. There was a itinerant Rabbi named Yeshua who lived in Galillee between about 5 BCE to 30 BCE. He may or may not have claimed to be the Davidic messiah. 2. He founded a Jewish sect, such as the Quram community, the Essenes, and others of the period. 3. He was crucified by the Romans, probably for setting himself up as the King of the Jewish Nation. 4. After his death his followers scattered, probably to Galillee, and later regrouped. From there they had power grabs, theological spats, and schisms. 5. Paul (nee Saul of Tarsus) ramrodded his ideas through, remaking the original Jewish sect into the seed of what we now call Christianity. That Yeshua probably existed is all but certain, since many people wrote down what they think he said, did and taught. The rest of it becomes matters of Faith. |
|
22 May 06 - 12:17 AM (#1745160) Subject: RE: BS: Julius Caesar/Jesus - fact or fiction? From: Haruo It is even thought by some that "Barrabas" may have had the full name of "Yeshua bar Abbas" or Jesus Barrabas -- a revolt by a person of that name was recorded by the Romans. See this section in Wikipedia. I don't believe every wiki I run into, but the basic thrust of this section is right on the money: the canonical gospels say that the insurrectionist released at the crowd's behest, like the one left to be crucified, was named "Jesus Barabbas": "Salvador Fatherson", so to speak. It is this sort of thing that (while not buying into any particular alternative theory of how Jesus was an amanita mushroom or a space alien or Mary Magdalene's secret hubby or anything) makes insisting on the gospels (canonical or otherwise) as straightforward historical sources problematic for me. Haruo PS: And DaveO, AR282 was partly right, I think; there were places where you seemed to be confusing the Jesus/Savior/Soter etymologies with the Christ/Messiah/Anointed ones. |
|
22 May 06 - 12:23 AM (#1745163) Subject: RE: BS: Julius Caesar/Jesus - fact or fiction? From: Haruo Rapaire, I think you probably meant 30 CE? (Unless you're suggesting that, Merlin-like, Jesus lived backwards through time.) Haruo |
|
22 May 06 - 12:47 AM (#1745172) Subject: RE: BS: Julius Caesar/Jesus - fact or fiction? From: CapriUni Flattop -- ;-D is a way of "drawing" a person winking and grinning at the same time (imagine turning the image 90 degrees clockwise). It's called an 'emoticon' |
|
22 May 06 - 01:08 AM (#1745176) Subject: RE: BS: Julius Caesar/Jesus - fact or fiction? From: dianavan Christ was a concept long before the birth of Mary's child, Jesus of Nazareth. The concept of the Messiah existed among the Jews, as well. Although Jesus of Nazareth was a Jew, the Jews did not accept him as the Messiah. (Some even say that the forty years in the wilderness, were spent in the desert among the nomadic tribes. In the Wilderness, he preached the word of Allah) It may even be that Jesus and Mohammed were one in the same. Don't forget that these stories were told orally and passed down through time, long before they were recorded. Is it any wonder that the dates and times don't always coincide? Many of the older religions also had the birth (usually virgin, the life, the death and a Christ that arises or is re-born). These non-Jews then adopted Jesus of Nazareth as their own and incorporated many of the ancient rites and festivals. Peace - I think there is a big difference between Christ and Jesus. Christ is a concept. Jesus was a Man of God. I think there has been more than one Man of God. I think the Christ concept will live forever because it is rooted in the cycles of the earth. Jesus didn't live forever but the Christ concept did. |
|
22 May 06 - 04:16 AM (#1745225) Subject: RE: BS: Julius Caesar/Jesus - fact or fiction? From: Keith A of Hertford Just 40 days in the wilderness Dianavan, and that hundreds of years before Mohammed, peace be upon him. |
|
22 May 06 - 04:59 AM (#1745241) Subject: RE: BS: Julius Caesar/Jesus - fact or fiction? From: Haruo But the forty days Jesus spent in the wilderness were probably meant to recall both the forty days (and forty nights) Noah and family spent in the ark with all the clean and unclean critters and the forty years Moses and Aaron led the Israelites around the Sinai. So maybe Moses PBUH was really Muhammed, too, PBUHT. Haruo BTW, AR282, this means you can give all your money to your favorite mosque or synagogue and it'll be fine by God. Tell them I suggested it. |
|
22 May 06 - 06:02 AM (#1745267) Subject: RE: BS: Julius Caesar/Jesus - fact or fiction? From: Big Al Whittle or maybe he liked the Micheael jackson song Billy jean, it has that line in it - I bet that's what was running through his mind when he selected that length of time...... How long shall I spend in the wilderness he was thinking, and (then God had fitted his only son with an internal ipod, a last minute thought as a Christmas present before he was born) and Michael's track came up......... and the rest is history..... |
|
22 May 06 - 06:47 AM (#1745275) Subject: RE: BS: Julius Caesar/Jesus - fact or fiction? From: Keith A of Hertford Yes, you only get one present if your birthday is Christmas Day. Bummer. |
|
22 May 06 - 09:02 AM (#1745342) Subject: RE: BS: Julius Caesar/Jesus - fact or fiction? From: Rapparee Yeah, CE, not BCE. Yeshua was neither Merlin nor PDQ Bach. Why, do you suppose, the Epistle of James is rarely or never read in churches?? |
|
22 May 06 - 10:35 AM (#1745390) Subject: RE: BS: Julius Caesar/Jesus - fact or fiction? From: Little Hawk You summed it up nicely there, Rapaire. |
|
22 May 06 - 11:35 AM (#1745417) Subject: RE: BS: Julius Caesar/Jesus - fact or fiction? From: Big Al Whittle perhaps he should have sent it more places |
|
22 May 06 - 11:40 AM (#1745420) Subject: RE: BS: Julius Caesar/Jesus - fact or fiction? From: Amos I would submit that, for present intents and purposes, there may be some handful of viable policies in all the gospels stacked together, some very profound and basic and others less so. But aside from this thin set of applicable principles, the issues of existence, un-existence, time, character and events around this person are largely smoke and mirrors, not meant for resolution or for use, and only marginally contributing to good purpose or good action. A |
|
22 May 06 - 12:27 PM (#1745456) Subject: RE: BS: Julius Caesar/Jesus - fact or fiction? From: Rapparee Old joke from my Catholic college days: "Hey, didcha hear? Easter's been cancelled!" "Wow! How come?" "They found the body." Which brings to mind the question of what would happen if they DID find the body. With absolute proof as to identity.... I doubt that Christianity, Judaism, or Islam would much care for it. |
|
22 May 06 - 01:46 PM (#1745510) Subject: RE: BS: Julius Caesar/Jesus - fact or fiction? From: GUEST,AR282 >>Why, do you suppose, the Epistle of James is rarely or never read in churches??<< Probably because the epistle tells us nothing about Jesus Christ at all. Not even that he was crucified. In fact, James appears to be saying that Jesus Christ has not walked on earth yet. When he exhorts his readers to bear their suffering, he tells them to look to the prophets for their inspiration in this endeavor rather than to Jesus which would indicate he never heard the standard gospel story. Obviously, there were very different views as to who and what Jesus Christ was. A historical man is only one of many views at that time and a very minority view at that. He couldn't be historical and have such widely divergent views about him or he lived much, much earlier than we are led to believe and so his life is shrouded in mythology but that is really the same as saying he never existed. |
|
22 May 06 - 01:46 PM (#1745511) Subject: RE: BS: Julius Caesar/Jesus - fact or fiction? From: GUEST,thurg flattop - Thanks for the quote from Reade - it really is compelling writing. |
|
22 May 06 - 02:24 PM (#1745541) Subject: RE: BS: Julius Caesar/Jesus - fact or fiction? From: Little Hawk Whatever people believe about this matter...if they believe it strongly, and are willing to argue at length about it....is generally indicative of their own emotional needs, not their devotion to sorting out historical facts. This is as true of those who insist he didn't exist as of those who insist he did. In either case, they don't know. They are engaging in speculation, conjecture, and most likely a lot of wishful thinking. ;-) They want to rain on someone else's parade. They want to PROVE that a whole bunch of other people are WRONG, totally wrong, deluded, etc., and are not as smart as they are. Well, they can't prove it, and I wish them no luck in doing so. |
|
22 May 06 - 02:45 PM (#1745550) Subject: RE: BS: Julius Caesar/Jesus - fact or fiction? From: Charmain Quite a good thread at times this one but I do have a question - forget the did He exist what was His real name stuff - what I want to know is Peter, Andrew, Phillip, Bartholemew, Thomas, Matthew etc...what were all those English blokes doing hanging about with him in first millenium Palestine? |
|
22 May 06 - 03:30 PM (#1745587) Subject: RE: BS: Julius Caesar/Jesus - fact or fiction? From: Peace Even if he didn't exist, he does now. So do Julius Caesar and William Shakespeare. |
|
22 May 06 - 04:01 PM (#1745601) Subject: RE: BS: Julius Caesar/Jesus - fact or fiction? From: Rapparee Shakespeare exists?? C'mon...next you'll be telling me George W. Bush exists! Pull the other one so I won't walk funny. A member's name has been removed from this message at the request of the member. - Bert |
|
22 May 06 - 04:28 PM (#1745612) Subject: RE: BS: Julius Caesar/Jesus - fact or fiction? From: GUEST,AR282 >>Christians were persecuted.<< Actually, according to a number of historians, there is no evidence for this if you're talking about Rome. No one really talks much about it other than Tacitus who mentioned it apparently to discredit Nero whom he hated. |
|
22 May 06 - 04:38 PM (#1745618) Subject: RE: BS: Julius Caesar/Jesus - fact or fiction? From: Peace Not quite so. One of the reasons Constantine called the Council in 325 was because he had to accommodate the Christians who were being persecuted. His problem was getting something resembling peace in Italy--specifically Rome. Subsequently, we can see coins of the time bearing both the Cross and the Sun God (Ra). Constantine dealt in political realities. |
|
22 May 06 - 04:47 PM (#1745621) Subject: RE: BS: Julius Caesar/Jesus - fact or fiction? From: Peace "During the night of July 18, 64 AD, fire broke out in the merchant area of the city of Rome. Fanned by summer winds, the flames quickly spread through the dry, wooden structures of the Imperial City. Soon the fire took on a life of its own consuming all in its path for six days and seven nights. When the conflagration finally ran its course it left seventy percent of the city in smoldering ruins. Rumors soon arose accusing the Emperor Nero of ordering the torching of the city and standing on the summit of the Palatine playing his lyre as flames devoured the world around him. These rumors have never been confirmed. In fact, Nero rushed to Rome from his palace in Antium (Anzio) and ran about the city all that first night without his guards directing efforts to quell the blaze. But the rumors persisted and the Emperor looked for a scapegoat. He found it in the Christians, at that time a rather obscure religious sect with a small following in the city. To appease the masses, Nero literally had his victims fed to the lions during giant spectacles held in the city's remaining amphitheater." from www.eyewitnesstohistory.com/rome.htm |
|
22 May 06 - 04:55 PM (#1745628) Subject: RE: BS: Julius Caesar/Jesus - fact or fiction? From: Haruo Quite a good thread at times this one but I do have a question - forget the did He exist what was His real name stuff - what I want to know is Peter, Andrew, Phillip, Bartholemew, Thomas, Matthew etc...what were all those English blokes doing hanging about with him in first millenium Palestine? - Charmain Also, what denomination were the other ones? We know about "John the Baptist" and of course Peter must have been Catholic since he became Pope, but was it "Bartholomew the Greek Orthodox" and "Andrew the Presbyterian", "Philip the Anglican", "Thomas the Unitarian", "Matthew the Messianic Jew", etc., or what? Also, as far as Constantine's Sun God goes, remember his vision: it was the Sun God (Sol Invictus, not Ra; Ra spoke Coptic) who pointed him in the direction of the cross, saying "In Hoc Signo Vinces". And remember my little ditty, to Frère Jacques: Sol Invictus, Sol InvictusThere, now this thread doesn't have to stay down here in the BS since I gave it a folk music tie-in ;-) Haruo |
|
22 May 06 - 04:57 PM (#1745630) Subject: RE: BS: Julius Caesar/Jesus - fact or fiction? From: GUEST,AR282 What amuses on this thread more than anything is the constant fundie tactic of resorting to saying Julius Caesar never existed. Even if he didn't, that does nothing to bolster the case for Jesus--damages it in fact--and if he did that does nothing to bolster the case for Jesus either. Pointless but amusing endeavor. Really, folks, stick to the facts. I've laid them out for you. Let's go over it carefully: 1. The NT and the apocryphal and gnostic writings present extremely different Christs not only from each other but within the bodies of these works. No one historical 2000 years ago could be that mythologized in only 2 or 3 centuries unless there was a deliberate attempt to hide his identity and why would that be unless he was a criminal? 2. He is called a savior and his name just happens to mean savior. Obviously, Jesus was as much title as Christ. 3. He was not the first crucified savior much less the only one. 4. No historians or chroniclers of his time or the generation after have anything to say about him historically. 5. The gospel writers were unfamiliar with the geography of Palestine and his travels as laid out by them are often impossible and many of the cities mentioned in the bible are fictitious. 6. Josephus was governor of Galilee and visited every part of it, wrote a history of it and made detailed maps of it. No mention of a Nazareth or Jesus Christ. Origen couldn't find Nazareth despite being born and raised in that very area and he was an early Church Father!! 7. Philo invented the concept of the Logos made flesh, was a friend of Pontius Pilate and wrote a biography of the man. He also was in Jerusalem when Christ supposedly went there. Nowhere does he mention Christians, Christ or Jesus. No does he mention any trial or crucifixion of any such person. 8. Paul never wrote a word about a historical Jesus and did not place him in Palestine. In his own words, he stated he learned the Jesus story from no man but instead met with Christ in the third heaven--probably a drug-induced vision. 9. Strip away the myth from the man and tell me what you are left with. 10. Try to reconcile the gospel stories (no you can't add or omit anything from any of the gospels since you have no way or knowing what might be factual and what isn't) and tell me how this was an historical account. In fact, just tell me what the last words of Jesus were. 11. And if you cannot make the case for a historical Christ, then what was Jesus originally and how did belief in him arise and what did that belief signify to those who held it? |
|
22 May 06 - 05:04 PM (#1745636) Subject: RE: BS: Julius Caesar/Jesus - fact or fiction? From: Little Hawk Yeah, yeah... (grin) Wouldn't it be wonderful if you could browbeat everyone in the world into believing everything you believe, AR282? Heh! No...it would not be wonderful at all. Stop trying to save people from themselves. It's just as annoying as when religious people knock on your door and try to "save" you from yourself. |
|
22 May 06 - 05:04 PM (#1745637) Subject: RE: BS: Julius Caesar/Jesus - fact or fiction? From: Peace I don't think there are any 'fundies' who have posted here. |
|
22 May 06 - 05:17 PM (#1745642) Subject: RE: BS: Julius Caesar/Jesus - fact or fiction? From: Little Hawk You sure as hell don't need to be a "fundie" or even a Christian to believe it probable that Jesus existed. Vast numbers of non-Christians and plenty of atheists believe he existed. It's not that hard a thing to believe, unless you're got a huge chip on your shoulder about the matter. You might have to be a fundie to believe certain religious doctrinal stuff about him....but that's another matter altogether. |
|
22 May 06 - 05:22 PM (#1745643) Subject: RE: BS: Julius Caesar/Jesus - fact or fiction? From: Peace Picky, picky. "One of the principal pagan beliefs of the Romans that enjoyed widespread popularity, observed by millions was the cult of the Sun. From the beginnings of time, people have recognized its power. It rose every day to bring light over the land. In Ancient Egypt, he was known as Ra. The Greeks knew him as Apollo1. Sol was the name of the Roman's Sun God. (a.k.a. Mithra) He was the god that was above all others, the one with whom other deities were compared by. In Rome, the Sun played a large part of the culture. For example, the central opening in the Pantheon (built during Hadrian's time, one of the best surviving examples of Roman architecture) was representative of the solar sphere, and let its light in. The rosettes surrounding the opening are perhaps representative of the obscurity of the other deities in comparison. The worship of the Sun God was basically the state religon for many years. In 274, Aurelian established a huge temple of the Unconqerable Sun in Rome. It was to serve as the heart of the Roman's religon, much like how the Vatican is to Christans today." |
|
22 May 06 - 05:40 PM (#1745652) Subject: RE: BS: Julius Caesar/Jesus - fact or fiction? From: Rapparee 1. The NT and the apocryphal and gnostic writings present extremely different Christs not only from each other but within the bodies of these works. No one historical 2000 years ago could be that mythologized in only 2 or 3 centuries unless there was a deliberate attempt to hide his identity and why would that be unless he was a criminal? Yes, it could. And in Roman eyes he WAS a criminal -- Yeshua attempted to set himself up as "King of the Jews." Moreover, there are very different Yeshuas presented because there were additions and deletions from the writings about him -- usually to substantiate a claim or supposed role. Call it a result of "greed for power." I refer you to, among many other sources, the work of the Jesus Seminar. 2. He is called a savior and his name just happens to mean savior. Obviously, Jesus was as much title as Christ. My name translates as "Who Is Like God", but no one that knows me considers me Godlike. Yeshua was a rather common name, just as you can meet the occassional Jesus or Joshua today. 3. He was not the first crucified savior much less the only one. "Savior" is a name given by a belief that he died for the sins of Mankind. And not, he was certainly not the only person crucified -- not even the only one nailed to a cross (bodies which were so nailed have been found). 4. No historians or chroniclers of his time or the generation after have anything to say about him historically. Not strictly true, as we've discovered as more and more writings from that period come to light. You'd better do some reading in recent archealogical studies from Isreal and elsewhere. 5. The gospel writers were unfamiliar with the geography of Palestine and his travels as laid out by them are often impossible and many of the cities mentioned in the bible are fictitious. Well, no. They may no longer exist, but they are mentioned in other writings of the period. Also, if Yeshua was a hunted man (which he was) he wouldn't have followed the obvious path then any more than a person on the dodge does so now. 6. Josephus was governor of Galilee and visited every part of it, wrote a history of it and made detailed maps of it. No mention of a Nazareth or Jesus Christ. Origen couldn't find Nazareth despite being born and raised in that very area and he was an early Church Father!! Nazareth is not mentioned in the Hebrew Bible, nor in Josephus, nor in the Talmud. Jerome in the 5th century says it was a viculus or mere village, and modern estimates of its size in the first century are in the low hundreds. It was a satellite village of Sepphoris, a Hellenistic Roman city 6.5 km (4 miles) away. [Now known to have been built by Herod.] In 1962 a Hebrew inscription found in Caesarea, dating to the late 3rd or early 4th century, mentions Nazareth as one of the places in which the priestly divisions were residing after the Great Jewish Revolt. From the three fragments that have been found, it is possible to show that the inscription was a complete list of the twenty-four priestly courses (cf. 1 Chronicles 24:7-19; Nehemiah 24:1-21), with each course (or family) assigned its proper order and the name of each town or village in Galilee where it settled. There's more in the Wikipedia.... 7. Philo invented the concept of the Logos made flesh, was a friend of Pontius Pilate and wrote a biography of the man. He also was in Jerusalem when Christ supposedly went there. Nowhere does he mention Christians, Christ or Jesus. No does he mention any trial or crucifixion of any such person. And this proves only that he never heard of this man. Don't forget that Yeshua was Jewish, not Christian, and he founded and led a Jewish sect -- and a rather small one at that, no matter what the NT says. 8. Paul never wrote a word about a historical Jesus and did not place him in Palestine. In his own words, he stated he learned the Jesus story from no man but instead met with Christ in the third heaven--probably a drug-induced vision. Paul never met the "historical" Yeshua. I can't speak to the drug thing, but he did place him in Israel. 9. Strip away the myth from the man and tell me what you are left with. One of the several "Messiahs" who were running around at the time. An itinerant rabbi, of which there were also many. 10. Try to reconcile the gospel stories (no you can't add or omit anything from any of the gospels since you have no way or knowing what might be factual and what isn't) and tell me how this was an historical account. In fact, just tell me what the last words of Jesus were. Sure! "Peter...Peter...I can see your house from up here!" Actually, I suggest that you review the work of the Jesus Seminar and other scholars. You cannot get to the true teachings of this rabbi by accepting everything in the NT (whatever books make it up) 11. And if you cannot make the case for a historical Christ, then what was Jesus originally and how did belief in him arise and what did that belief signify to those who held it? Read Tabor's The Jesus Dynasty. |
|
22 May 06 - 05:44 PM (#1745654) Subject: RE: BS: Julius Caesar/Jesus - fact or fiction? From: Little Hawk To worship the sun is not a bad idea, if you want to select a visible manifestation out there to focus on! We'd all be dead without it in a very short time. The sun in the sky, of course, has been seen as a visible manifestation of divine power by a great many civilizations, if not most of them...and it is not coincidence that the word "sun" and the word "son" sound the same in our language...because the one archetype is contained within the other. Each is seen as "the light of the world", and the constant rebirth and resurrection of life...only manifesting on a different level, that's all. To call a Christ or a Messiah or such a figure a "Son" of God is, in a sense to give him the same role served by the sun in the sky. As it is seen to enlighten and sustain the physical worlds, he is seen to enlighten and sustain the inner worlds of spirit and conscious awareness. These things are all reflections of each other, like those Russian dolls within Russian dolls. You don't have to be a Christian to take note of that. In fact, being a Christian, for some, will get seriously in the WAY of taking note of it. ;-D |
|
22 May 06 - 05:47 PM (#1745662) Subject: RE: BS: Julius Caesar/Jesus - fact or fiction? From: Rapparee Yup. And Mithra came close to winning over Christiantity, too. It was especially popular with the Roman Army. (Me, I'd rather be baptized wiht water, even "holy water", than the blood of a bull as the Mithrans did.) |
|
22 May 06 - 05:54 PM (#1745668) Subject: RE: BS: Julius Caesar/Jesus - fact or fiction? From: Peter K (Fionn) Tunesmith, I would not normally go out of my way to defend Gloria Hunniford on anything, but as a matter of fact it was not she who made the Jesus/Ceasar comparison. The guilty party was one of her two guests. The one who was a hyperventilating crackpot. This same, wretched, man went on to imply equivalence, in terms of credibility, between the Jesus stories and Newton's universal law of gravitation. My apologies if someone has pointed out the error already. I skimmed quite a lot of the thread because I think we've been here before. Just one pooint to Don: I too think it likely that there was a real Jesus on whom the legend was founded. But keep in mind that the Council of Nicea which took such a controlling hand in pointing the future for Christianity, was conceived in somewhat febrile times and under great pressure from Constantine. The emperor was bent on making Christianity the state religion, having seen its potential as a stabilising factor in an unstable empire. Gibbon is the guy to read on this. He certainly didn't pull his punches, much to the discomfit of the One True Faith. |
|
22 May 06 - 06:02 PM (#1745672) Subject: RE: BS: Julius Caesar/Jesus - fact or fiction? From: Little Hawk There IS no one true faith. But they all would love to imagine that there is. It's so special being.......***special***........isn't it? If God was a zenophobic, insecure, dictatorial fanatic...then, there would be only one true faith. |
|
22 May 06 - 06:08 PM (#1745674) Subject: RE: BS: Julius Caesar/Jesus - fact or fiction? From: Peace Did it ever strike y'all that God don't give a shit about any of this? |
|
22 May 06 - 06:10 PM (#1745675) Subject: RE: BS: Julius Caesar/Jesus - fact or fiction? From: Peter K (Fionn) I was, of course, intending to be ironic George, when I used the Catholic Church's description of itself.*G* |
|
22 May 06 - 06:16 PM (#1745677) Subject: RE: BS: Julius Caesar/Jesus - fact or fiction? From: Rapparee Not only doesn't God give a shit about any of this, but she told me she's getting really, really pissed off with Some People. |
|
22 May 06 - 06:17 PM (#1745678) Subject: RE: BS: Julius Caesar/Jesus - fact or fiction? From: Peace LOL |
|
22 May 06 - 06:39 PM (#1745690) Subject: RE: BS: Julius Caesar/Jesus - fact or fiction? From: Little Hawk Yeah, I figured that, Greg. ;-P Bruce, I don't think God gives a toot about what religion anyone belongs to. And neither do I. |
|
22 May 06 - 07:02 PM (#1745712) Subject: RE: BS: Julius Caesar/Jesus - fact or fiction? From: The Fooles Troupe All Hail the Sun God! Ra! Ra! Ra! |
|
22 May 06 - 08:25 PM (#1745763) Subject: RE: BS: Julius Caesar/Jesus - fact or fiction? From: GUEST,AR282 >>I don't think there are any 'fundies' who have posted here.<< I didn't say there were necessarily any fundies here. I said the resorting to questioning the veracity of the existence of Caesar in an attempt to make a case for the historical existence of Jesus Christ is a typical fundie tactic. A sort of "We can't really know anything about anyone in the past anyway." To that I heartily agree and ask, "Why then?" |
|
22 May 06 - 08:33 PM (#1745768) Subject: RE: BS: Julius Caesar/Jesus - fact or fiction? From: GUEST,AR282 >>11. And if you cannot make the case for a historical Christ, then what was Jesus originally and how did belief in him arise and what did that belief signify to those who held it? Read Tabor's The Jesus Dynasty.<< I'm asking you. Since it is beyond question that many early Christian sects did not believe in Jesus as a creature of history, what might their belief systems have been based on? What did it mean to them to believe that way? |
|
22 May 06 - 08:55 PM (#1745778) Subject: RE: BS: Julius Caesar/Jesus - fact or fiction? From: GUEST,AR282 For those who are interested, we can make a good case for a non-historical Caesar. He represents the earth or its regenerative power. He is a Green Man--the mythical man of Old European lore who was decked in leaves and foliage, the very personification of the blooming greenery, it's heart and soul, so to speak. He is still depicted in old European churches and abbeys as a man with leaves on his head of entwined in his hair or his face is a leaf. Caesar means "bald head" and he covered it with a laurel. As "bald head" he represents a mythical time on earth when its life radiation was entombed within and the planet was said to be bald or bare. This life force radiated out and conquered the bald, "featureless" earth, breaking it down like tilled soil, and that life force grew from that soil and evolved covering the earth with life. So does Caesar the conqueror put a laurel of leaves upon his bald head. He was said to have been stabbed by 10 or 12 senators. These relate to the months of the lunar year and the solar year. The Roman calendar by Caesar's time has been a lunar one of about 10 months (it had intercalary months sometimes) and it was horribly obsolete. He replaced it with a new solar calendar named after himself--the Julian Calendar. It has 12 months. So there are your 10 or 12 senators. The earth is being dominated or "killed" by the calendar, the sun, by time, work, schedules, penalties, sorrow. How many stab wounds? 23. The number of degrees the earth is tilted on its axis. It is that tilt that gives us the 12 months of the solar year because the sun passes through the 12 constellations of the zodiac due to that tilt. That's why Caesar was told to beware the ides of March. That was springtime, the time of crossing the vernal equinox which had always been considered the start of the year in ancient times. Spring brought a new birth, a new calendar, a new heaven, and, ultimately, a new earth. This, in fact, appears to mark the true founding of Rome as a state. Before Caesar, we are back to the six mythical kings. Why couldn't Caesar have been as mythical? |
|
22 May 06 - 09:00 PM (#1745779) Subject: RE: BS: Julius Caesar/Jesus - fact or fiction? From: dianavan Whether or not Jesus actually existed doesn't really matter. If millions believe Jesus Christ is the son of God, the church has power. Those who are a part of the church take the existence of Jesus as a given and that is based on faith. What sustains the church is the power of that faith. Faith does not have to be reasonable or logical. Christ is a concept that has been around for a long time. As far as I am concerned, I can be a Christian and still not believe that Jesus was a person. I do not have to be baptised or read the gospels. I can find the Christ concept in many mythologies and in the cycles of nature. I call Christ, Jesus so that I have a common frame of reference. It doesn't mean I believe in Jesus. It means only that I can see the logic in the dying and rising Christ. If you understand seasonal cycles, then you can understand the concept of Christ. There are too many contradictions to believe that Jesus was the only Christ figure. What is unfortunate is that when you believe the Jesus story is the only story and that Jesus died and went to heaven, you may not know Christ when he/she is standing before you. Early church fathers knew that the word was power. To that end, the stories were documented, tweaked, and compiled. It is not by accident that the Church accepted the role of keeping the people in their place. They have been paid handsomely for their efforts. |
|
22 May 06 - 09:15 PM (#1745784) Subject: RE: BS: Julius Caesar/Jesus - fact or fiction? From: GUEST,AR282 And isn't it odd that the Julian year contained the month of July also named after Julius and representing the summer solstice when the sun reaches the highest point in the kingdom of heaven? On astrology charts, this area is marked "I.C." as an abbreviated Latin phrase meaning "bottom of sky." I.C. also stands for Iulius Caesar. It could also stand for Iesous Christos--another Green Man who was crucified in the spring and whose death brought forth rebirth. So here you have two "kings" (both of whom did not accept the title) that were killed by piercing by others in power who feared him. One betrayed by Judas, one of 12 disciples, and one by Brutus (they rhyme by coincidence, I quite assure you) one of 12 assassins. Maybe the diaspora Jews in the Greek Eastern Empire, who hated the Latin Western Empire, wanted their own Julius and coded him in the person of their savior, Jesus, and placed him in Palestine. Then they told everyone he was the true king while Caesar was merely an earthly, temporal one. They were told to render unto Caesar those things that are Caesar's and render unto God those things that are God's. And within 400 years, the Western Empire was reduced to little more than a smoking Goth-sacked heap of ruins. |
|
22 May 06 - 10:38 PM (#1745805) Subject: RE: BS: Julius Caesar/Jesus - fact or fiction? From: Don Firth Yes, Peter K, I am aware of that. The purpose of the Council of Nicea (Nicene Creed first codified in 325, and then again in 381, to amend the first version), was, among other things, to get the various bishops to stop arguing among themselves and frivolously excommunicating each other over petty disagreements about doctrine, particularly the nature of Jesus. Was Jesus God incarnate (in which case, his suffering on the cross was pure showmanship, hence, phony), or was he a mortal human, subject to all the human frailties (in which case, he was lesser being than God)? Neither of these positions was acceptable, but there were those who insisted that a choice had to be made. And what was his relation to the Holy Spirit? And just what the heck is the Holy Spirit, anyway? The whole thing was an orgy of argumentative nit-picking by a bunch of people who were less concerned with what Jesus taught than they were about one-upping each other. All of this was very much in the nature of "How many angels can dance on the point of a pin?" and had nothing really to do with the teachings of Jesus, which were, essentially, "Try to be a little bit nicer to each other and maybe we can all get along." Constantine rammed the creed through the council at Nicea mainly to try to consolidate Christianity into one body or movement so he could better control it. But contrary to AR282's earlier statement, Christianity had become a substantial force in Roman society before Constantine came along. Constantine's main concern seemed to be to gain control over the movement primarily to manipulate it as a means of enhancing his own political power (not too much unlike our current fearless leader). "Dogma," said Emperor Constantine, "is what I say it its!" All of this is detailed in Charles Freeman's The Closing of the Western Mind,which I recommended above. Really peculiar view of history you have there, AR282. Speculation. Interesting, though. Parable from an episode of recent, fairly popular television series: Kahless, the Klingon Messiah, is resurrected. Lieutenant Worf is extremely excited to meet him. But as the episode unfolds, it is learned that this is not actually Kahless, he is a clone created from the DNA of the original Kahless. Worf is extremely disappointed. He is contemptuous as he prepares to beam the clone of Kahless down to his next destination. The clone is fully aware of Worf's disappointment and says to him, "If the words are true, what does it matter who says them?" Don Firth |
|
22 May 06 - 10:42 PM (#1745808) Subject: RE: BS: Julius Caesar/Jesus - fact or fiction? From: Little Hawk Hmmm. Well, we are getting some interesting viewpoints here now. Lovely. |
|
22 May 06 - 10:58 PM (#1745818) Subject: RE: BS: Julius Caesar/Jesus - fact or fiction? From: GUEST,AR282 And the crucifixion is really related to the 23 stab wounds of Caesar--coded you might say. The cross Christ is crucified on is the intersection of the ecliptic plane with the celestial equator. In fact, it is when the sun crosses that point that spring or fall is said to begin. So the sun is nailed to the cross. And what forms that cross is the 23-degree tilt of the earth. And Caesar is as much the son of god as Jesus for the name "Julius" actually means "son of Jove" and Jove (a druid god) is a variant of Jehovah--Jesus' old man. The "Ju" of "Julius" is an old name for god and is variously called Yew (the king tree of the druids), Yu-el (yule), and Hu (as is "human" or "god-man"). Ju appears in Jupiter. Jupiter is really Ju-Pater or "God the Father." As Julius wore his laurel leaves, Jesus wore his crown of thorns. Do you see who Jesus really was now? |
|
22 May 06 - 11:07 PM (#1745822) Subject: RE: BS: Julius Caesar/Jesus - fact or fiction? From: Little Hawk Hey, man, I think we are ALL the sons (or daughters) of God. What you gonna do about that? ;-D I do find your alternate theories about Julius Caesar entertaining, though. Sure, it's easy to make stuff up like that about anyone. People just have to want to, that's all. Most of the more esoteric teachings in major religions suggest that "the Christ" is a latent presence hidden within ALL human beings like a seed waiting to sprout...the highest potential of each person's consciousness, waiting to be born into fullness. Accordingly, we are ALL the Christ, potentially, although we are clearly not all the man, Jesus. ;-P And I'm quite serious about that, I might add. |
|
22 May 06 - 11:18 PM (#1745824) Subject: RE: BS: Julius Caesar/Jesus - fact or fiction? From: GUEST,AR282 Religion is a tool of royals. The only religion found in a state are those the state approves of. Those it does not approve of are outlawed. Nor is that religion taught in ways the state does not approve of. Hence, Christianity was not taught in order to free people but to enslave them. Royals don't really want people free. They no more taught the secret of the Christ anymore than churches in America teach it today. It can't help anyone because it is deliberately weak. |
|
22 May 06 - 11:24 PM (#1745830) Subject: RE: BS: Julius Caesar/Jesus - fact or fiction? From: Rapparee I do not tell you the answers; I can only tell you where you might find an answer, maybe. An answer to a difficult questions, such as you pose AR282, is only valuable to you if you work for it. If I were to give you the answer you have obtained it through my "filter" -- and that makes it worthless as anything other than opinion. |
|
22 May 06 - 11:33 PM (#1745832) Subject: RE: BS: Julius Caesar/Jesus - fact or fiction? From: Little Hawk Organized religion is most definitely a tool (one of many) made use of with alacrity by not just royals, but by ANYONE in a position of power, except Communists who are religious about being anti-religious. ;-D Some other mind-control tools are: patriotism, money, race, status, class, material wealth, party affiliation, and so on. Religion is only one of them. In the case of Communists or certain extreme socialists, their chosen religion is Communist/socialist theory instead. It's equally pernicious, because it is driven by the same dour fanaticism and naked power-seeking that characterizes fundamentalist religions. The secret of the Christ is simply to love everyone, including yourself, and to love all of life as well. All of it. That's virtually impossible for about 99.999 percent of the human race at any given time, which is why it's a secret that will remain a secret (or a myth) as far as most people are concerned. The churches may talk about it now and then, but they are just as unlikely to realize it in practice as most individuals are. To the extent that a person is willing to love others (and self), and not judge or condemn them or self harshly, and to love life, that person is free. Most people are not very free at all, regardless of what they may imagine about their social or political freedoms. Most of them spend their whole lives walking around in self-imposed mental chains. I make no claim to have achieved that freedom...but I do at least know of it. That's a start. |
|
23 May 06 - 12:01 AM (#1745838) Subject: RE: BS: Julius Caesar/Jesus - fact or fiction? From: flattop What's this about 'Caesar means "bald head"?' Here I was, falling under the spell of the gospel according to GUEST AR282, hook, line and crucifix, when suddenly I’m jarred awake in my hard wooden pew. Could GUEST AR282 be a false profit? I’ve never heard of Caesar meaning bald â€" a salad dressing, sure, slicing womans’ stomachs to save babies, of course, but never baldness. Checking the web, I found, no mention of bald. Only the stuff below. [Caesar originally meant "hairy", which suggests that the Iulii Caesares, a specific branch of the gens Iulia bearing this name, were conspicuous for having fine heads of hair (alternatively, given the Roman sense of humour, it could be that the Iulii Caesares were conspicuous for going bald).] [Julius Caesar was bald, which is ironic because the name Caesar, from the Latin "caesaries," means "abundant hair."] [absolutist, adviser, autocrat, baron, boss, Caesar, caliph, chief, commander, czar, despot, disciplinarian, duce, emir, fascist, kaiser, lama, leader, lord, magnate, martinet, master, mogul, oligarch, oppressor, overlord, rajah, ringleader, sachem, shah, sheik, slave driver, strongman, sultan, taskmaster, terrorist, tycoon, tyrant, usurper] |
|
23 May 06 - 12:25 AM (#1745844) Subject: RE: BS: Julius Caesar/Jesus - fact or fiction? From: Little Hawk You see, flattop? Any gospel can sound reasonably convincing if it is spoken with utter assurance... (grin) This is how Pol Pot got his people to kill about 1/3 of all the people in Cambodia. He spoke and commanded with utter assurance of his own rightness. He was officially an atheist, but I've never seen a more rigorously fundamentalist faith than that employed by the Khymer Rouge. It simply substituted other idols in the place of a spiritual deity, that's all. It was a god of dialectical materialism, taken to the final insane paroxysm of genocide. Atrocities have been committed in the name of God...and against the name of God...over and over again in human history. Fanatics are not limited to only one side of the issue. |
|
23 May 06 - 12:26 AM (#1745845) Subject: RE: BS: Julius Caesar/Jesus - fact or fiction? From: GUEST,AR282 Maybe it means abundant hair then. I'm going from memory. Nor does it change the thrust of the issue--Caesar was bald and donned the laurel. Hairiness symbolizes the sun--its rays. In the case of Caesar, they refer to the star that earth was before it was earth. That star burnt out--went bald--and a hard compact planet was the result. Life sprouted on it and evolved and that is earth. And that is also Caesar. That the name means abundant actually makes more sense here. Good catch! |
|
23 May 06 - 12:34 AM (#1745847) Subject: RE: BS: Julius Caesar/Jesus - fact or fiction? From: GUEST,AR282 That's why the original trinities were all sun, moon and earth. They don't refer to ours but to past, present and future. We find Caesar encompasses them all--"Caesar"-abundant hair (sun/past), Caesar-laurel leaves (earth/present), Caesar-bald (moon/future). We say heaven is governed by the Trinity. Strange that Rome in Caesar's day was governed by the Triumvirate. |
|
23 May 06 - 12:34 AM (#1745848) Subject: RE: BS: Julius Caesar/Jesus - fact or fiction? From: flattop Tying baldness to Caesar appears hair-a-ticklish. Did this come from the writings of Pliny the elder or Pliny the younger? One of the Roman writers, I can't remember who, wrote about barbers taking so long that beards grew back in while patrons sat in the barbers chair. They had no stainless steel. I thought Raoul Glaber was the saint of baldness. However impressive his baldness, the Catholic Encyclopedia doesn't give Raoul's writings high marks. In fact, they seem to slander a bunch of middle ages writers in the quote below. I guess Glaber'd be edited off Mudcat, if he were alive, for both his baldness and his penmanship. ___ Abbot William of Dijon, who appreciated Raoul's literary talents, became his warm friend and took him in 1028 as his companion on a journey to Suza in Italy. Yielding again to his roving disposition, Glaber quietly ran away and entered the monastery of St-Germain d'Auxerre. Thanks to his learning, he was sure of a refuge, as he tells us, wherever he chose to go. Judging, then, by the mediocre talent displayed in his writings, this fact alone shows us to what depths literary culture had sunk in his time. ___ Rodulfus Glaber from Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia Changes too: Navigation, search Rodulfus Glaber (more glaber = latin. „the bald one ", also Radulfus Glaber, Raoul Glaber, * around 985 in Burgund, † around 1047 in Saint Germain d'Auxerre) was a burgundischer Benediktiner monk, historian and a Hagiograph. [Work on] Life Rodulfus was handed over to a monk, which educated him, as a twelve-year-old boy of its uncle, because of disobedienceness the monastery Saint Léger de Champeaux, where he was however soon hunted, since he did not subordinate himself to the monastery life and was considered as contentious. Its changeful personal record led it with the time into a number of burgundischer monasteries. However is not delivered, when he lived in which monastery. Its presence is proven in the following monasteries: Moutiers Saint Jean, Saint Bénigne à Dijon, Cluny, Moutier and Saint Germain d'Auxerre. Around 1028 it traveled with William of Volpiano, the abbott of Saint Bénigne, to Italy. From William lively, he began its Hauptwerk, „the Historiae ", a historical work, which treats the time of approximately 900 to approximately 1040. Special emphasis were the years around 1000 and around 1033, which particularly important he considered. In this five-restrained historical work Rodulfus describes or grey occurences, Häresien, devil work, miracle, visions and purge of the customs strange in particular. It reports also on hunger emergencies and even cannibalism in Burgund. This interpreted it as finaltemporal sign of the forthcoming world fall. This chronicle dedicated he Odilo of Cluny. Today some few handwriting „of the Historiae is "received, among them also an author copy. As the second received work Radulf wrote a Vita William of Volpiano, which developed probably briefly after its death in the year 1031. Radulf belonged to circles of the church reforms of the 11. Century on, which shows itself by its very party representation of events and persons. In particular its sympathy applies for the rulers Heinrich II., Heinrich III. and Robert II. of France, liked in Reformerkreisen. Negatively to be judged in the chronicle however Konrad of IITH and reform-hostile and customless Popes like e.g. Benedikt IX. As source for events the work is due to its chronological and geographical inadequacy of limited importance, however it is as culture-historical document for moral and customs of the 11. Century important. Radulf wrote its works in central latin, which is used however without literary requirement. A valuation of the events after their importance does not take place, so that Trivialitäten are mentioned equivalently apart from highlights. [Work on] Works * Historiarum libri quinque ad annum MXLIV or Historiae usque starting from anno incarnationis DCCCC (title contemporarily not delivered) * Wilhelmi abbatis gestorum more liber [Work on] Web on the left of * Entry in the Catholic Encyclopedia (English) Person data NAME Rodulfus Glaber ALTERNATIVE NAME Radulfus Glaber, Raoul Glaber SHORT DESCRIPTION Monk, historian and Hagiograph DATE OF BIRTH around 985 PLACE OF BIRTH DYING DATE around 1047 DYING PLACE Saint Germain d'Auxerre By „http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rodulfus_Glaber " |
|
23 May 06 - 12:51 AM (#1745849) Subject: RE: BS: Julius Caesar/Jesus - fact or fiction? From: GUEST The Rodulfus Glaber Wiki was a translation from the German web site. Rodulfus is sadly overlooked in land of hair transplants. Shame! |
|
23 May 06 - 12:52 AM (#1745851) Subject: RE: BS: Julius Caesar/Jesus - fact or fiction? From: GUEST Oops. Lost my cookie. Perhaps there is a god. |
|
23 May 06 - 12:58 AM (#1745852) Subject: RE: BS: Julius Caesar/Jesus - fact or fiction? From: Haruo If believing that George Washington existed means accepting that he could not lie, cut down his father's cherry tree, skipped a Sacajawea across the Potomac, and begat the entire United States, then no, I would have to say I don't believe George Washington existed. But what really gets my goat is all these people (including the government) who not only say I need to believe in him, but that I should give him all my taxes. Haruo |
|
23 May 06 - 12:58 AM (#1745853) Subject: RE: BS: Julius Caesar/Jesus - fact or fiction? From: flattop George still had nice hair, the last time I saw him. Other's amongst us are more glabrous, even if we're younger than George. Must enjoy our glabrescence. glabrous a. having smooth surface; hairless. glabrate, a. glabrescent, a. somewhat glabrous; tending to be glabrous. |
|
23 May 06 - 01:02 AM (#1745854) Subject: RE: BS: Julius Caesar/Jesus - fact or fiction? From: flattop The fantastic stories about George Washington were written by a british author after the brits lost the war. The author was trying to be satirical and trying to make fun. The stories stuck. Go figure. |
|
23 May 06 - 01:11 AM (#1745855) Subject: RE: BS: Julius Caesar/Jesus - fact or fiction? From: flattop Believers often do fanatically good things, Little Hawk. Mother Theresa was an extreme example - she and her girls kissing the dirty beggers in India, throwing mattresses out the upstairs windows so they would know no comfort, singing beautiful tunes to the heavens. |
|
23 May 06 - 01:35 AM (#1745859) Subject: RE: BS: Julius Caesar/Jesus - fact or fiction? From: Little Hawk Absolutely. So belief in itself is a neutral matter. It is how one applies one's beliefs that is vital. |
|
23 May 06 - 01:58 AM (#1745865) Subject: RE: BS: Julius Caesar/Jesus - fact or fiction? From: GUEST,Tunesmith A poster above says that it wasn't Gloria Hunniford that made the assertion about the exixtence of Caesar/Jesus, BUT, I tuned in some way into the discussion and Gloria did say it! She may have just been repeating what had been said previously - but she said it as if it were fact! |
|
23 May 06 - 08:28 AM (#1745961) Subject: RE: BS: Julius Caesar/Jesus - fact or fiction? From: Dave the Gnome I find all this rather confusing, AR282. Can you clarify for me whether you do not believe that anyone called Jesus or Joshua or Isiah or some such existed at all at the time in question? Or do you believe that someone with that name did exist but did not do anything that gained any noteriety? Or is it that you just do not beleive the myths and legends that have sprung up since? Look forward to your response. Dave the Gnome |
|
23 May 06 - 08:58 AM (#1745978) Subject: RE: BS: Julius Caesar/Jesus - fact or fiction? From: Rapparee I'm not always sure that I exist, having taken for my motto Cogito cogito cogito, ergo cogito cogito sum, cogito. |
|
23 May 06 - 12:04 PM (#1746072) Subject: RE: BS: Julius Caesar/Jesus - fact or fiction? From: Little Hawk It's simple, Dave. AR282 hates organized religion sooooo much for some reason that he would simply love to prove that the man the Christians have based their entire set of beliefs on for the past 2000 years never even existed! It would absolutely make his day, and delight him to be able to prove that. However, he is highly unlikely to succeed in such a Quixotic and impractical endeavour. ;-D If he hated Buddhism, he would be similarly unlikely to succeed in proving that Buddha never existed. He is stating an emotionally biased and basically arbitrary opinion....one which he would prefer to believe is a logical certainty. |
|
23 May 06 - 01:39 PM (#1746093) Subject: RE: BS: Julius Caesar/Jesus - fact or fiction? From: GUEST,AR282 >>I find all this rather confusing, AR282.<< If you didn't, you wouldn't be thinking very hard about it. It IS confusing. And I think it was meant to be. >>Can you clarify for me whether you do not believe that anyone called Jesus or Joshua or Isiah or some such existed at all at the time in question?<< There is not a shred of evidence to prove that any such person existed. The only literature from that time period to state it is so is the bible and other Church literature and let's just say that literature is likely to be somewhat biased. We need independent and impartial evidence and there is not a shred. None. Zilch. >>Or do you believe that someone with that name did exist but did not do anything that gained any noteriety? Or is it that you just do not beleive the myths and legends that have sprung up since?<< Tell me where the reality supposedly stops and the myths and legends begin. There was no Jesus Christ. We were sold of bill of false goods. The Roman Church repackaged Julius Caesar and put him back out on the shelf and we bought it again believing it to be something different. We simply bought a new Caesar bearing the face of Alexander. It is nothing but royal intrigue and its purpose was, as always, control of the state and its citizens. The Secret of the Christ is lost, gone. It is certainly not known or believed by any Christians today--none I've met at any rate. Some claim to know but certainly don't impress me. They always come back to the historical school of thought only because that's what they were raised on. When presented with the facts, they refuse to see. When asked to explain themselves, they say we can't know anything about anybody back then--not realizing that destroys any reason for them to believe. |
|
23 May 06 - 02:11 PM (#1746102) Subject: RE: BS: Julius Caesar/Jesus - fact or fiction? From: Haruo Is there any evidence you (AR282) will accept that there were any Jews in Palestine in the period when Jesus is generally alleged to have lived? Ossuaries maybe? (Since you don't accept literary evidence and seem to believe that there were no Christians prior to Eusebius, let alone any with Hebrew-sounding names.) I am trying to figure out how you or anybody else could seriously claim that there is no evidence that there was ever anybody named Jesus or Joshua or Isaiah at the time in question. The evidence that there were such people (though Isaiah may not have been a very common name) and that at least Jesus/Joshua was, like John and Joseph and Simon, a very very common name at the time seems to me incontrovertible. Yet you baldly assert the absurdity that there is no evidence of this. When did history begin in your view (I get the impression you're into a much younger earth than the Bishop Ussher-style creationists)? When asked to explain themselves, they say we can't know anything about anybody back then--not realizing that destroys any reason for them to believe. Ah, no wonder you don't believe. Haruo |
|
23 May 06 - 02:40 PM (#1746121) Subject: RE: BS: Julius Caesar/Jesus - fact or fiction? From: Dave the Gnome What Haruo said - Surely there must have been SOMEONE called Jesus or Joshua or Isaiah around at the time. I find the assersion that there was no-one of that name around at the time rather unlikely. Perhaps, as you seem to set great store by the burden of proof, you would like to explain why these popular names fell out of use during that period and the regained popularity again after. A miracle perhaps? OK. Perhaps not. Let's apply Occam's razor to the argument. 1. There was someone with a popular name who gained an element of noteriety at the period. Some time later the church that was being established picked up on this noteriety and decided to use the character as a figurehead for their religion. Using bits of history and bits of legend they start to build a believable story. Or 2. A very popular name at the time, for some reason, fell out of favour for a year or two. Some time later the church that was being established decided to pick a name that had not been used in that period and make up completely unreleated events. Instead of relying on events that some people had heard about they chose to start from scratch and forge completely unverifiable evidence. Let me see. Which is the simplest and and most likely. Hmmm... Cheers DtG |
|
23 May 06 - 03:02 PM (#1746141) Subject: RE: BS: Julius Caesar/Jesus - fact or fiction? From: Haruo Horseshit. (Not directed at you, DtG!) Haruo |
|
23 May 06 - 03:13 PM (#1746148) Subject: RE: BS: Julius Caesar/Jesus - fact or fiction? From: Don Firth Well put, Dave. And I think Haruo just won this round. Don Firth |
|
23 May 06 - 03:41 PM (#1746185) Subject: RE: BS: Julius Caesar/Jesus - fact or fiction? From: Peace "In his writings, Josephus mentions the Pharisees, the Sadducees, and the Herodians. He mentions Caiaphas, Pontius Pilate, John the Baptist, Jesus (twice) and James the brother of Jesus. He also mentions the Essenes - the strict religious sect within Judaism that founded the Qumran community, where the Dead Sea Scrolls were found. Historians think one part that talks about Jesus had been added to. With these extra bits taken away they think Josephus wrote: "About this time there lived Jesus, a wise man, for he was a performer of wonderful deeds, a teacher of such men as are happy to accept the truth. He won over many of the Jews and many of the Gentiles. When Pilate, at the suggestion of the leading men among us, had condemned him to the cross, those who had loved him at the first did not forsake him; and the tribe of Christians, so named from him, are not extinct to this day." Antiquities, Book 18, 63-64. He also said that the High Priest Ananias had: "Convened the Sanhedrin (the highest Jewish religious court / governing body). He had brought before them the brother of Jesus the so-called Christ, who was called James, and some other men, whom he accused of having broken the law, and handed them over to be stoned." Antiquities, Book 20, 200." Well, here is something about the brother of he who didn't exist. It is from www.request.org.uk/main/history/jesus/Jesus04.htm |
|
23 May 06 - 04:37 PM (#1746222) Subject: RE: BS: Julius Caesar/Jesus - fact or fiction? From: GUEST,AR282 >>Is there any evidence you (AR282) will accept that there were any Jews in Palestine in the period when Jesus is generally alleged to have lived?<< I suppose. >>Ossuaries maybe? (Since you don't accept literary evidence<< Evidence of what? >>and seem to believe that there were no Christians prior to Eusebius, let alone any with Hebrew-sounding names.)<< And I said this when? Quote it please. >>I am trying to figure out how you or anybody else could seriously claim that there is no evidence that there was ever anybody named Jesus or Joshua or Isaiah at the time in question.<< I'm sure plenty of people were named that. I'm saying none of them were the gospelic Jesus or served as the model or we'd have read something about him from many independent sources and there are none. >>The evidence that there were such people (though Isaiah may not have been a very common name) and that at least Jesus/Joshua was, like John and Joseph and Simon, a very very common name at the time seems to me incontrovertible. Yet you baldly assert the absurdity that there is no evidence of this.<< I've asserted no such thing. Quote me saying that please. Josephus's works are rife with men named Jesus and some of them suspiciously close to the life of the gospelic Jesus but could not have been him because one was a marauding bandit in Galilee and another was a nutcase in Jerusalem who got killed by a stone hurled from a siege engine. And they lived too late to line up with the chronology Christians insist we follow. >>When did history begin in your view (I get the impression you're into a much younger earth than the Bishop Ussher-style creationists)?<< You seem to think that histories were always written the way they are now. Our method of writing histories today is greatly changed from the time when only monks and scribes were literate. They had established no historical method. Histories and record-keeping in Europe were not likely written before the 11th century or so. There was a nova in the heavens back then that was ignored in Europe's writings but could not possibly have been ignored when looking up at the sky. The Chinese studied it and wrote about it voluminously. The Indians of the America drew it on the ceilings of caves. Europe? Not a single, solitary word. For a people who explored the world and founded science, their utter lack of curiosity of such an amazing spectacle as a nova seems completely unexplainable. Unless they simply weren't keeping records then. But feel free to insist that I just said Europeans didn't exist before the nova because that's the same weird conclusion-jumping you did earlier in your post. |
|
23 May 06 - 04:46 PM (#1746227) Subject: RE: BS: Julius Caesar/Jesus - fact or fiction? From: GUEST,AR282 >>1. There was someone with a popular name who gained an element of noteriety at the period. Some time later the church that was being established picked up on this noteriety and decided to use the character as a figurehead for their religion. Using bits of history and bits of legend they start to build a believable story.<< So they already had the religion, they just needed a figurehead for it? Ins't that the same as saying there was no person this religion was based on? >>2. A very popular name at the time, for some reason, fell out of favour for a year or two. Some time later the church that was being established decided to pick a name that had not been used in that period and make up completely unreleated events. Instead of relying on events that some people had heard about they chose to start from scratch and forge completely unverifiable evidence.<< They didn't rely on events of witnesses because there were none. They took a mystery religion and its various rituals and watered it down into useless fodder for the masses. |
|
23 May 06 - 06:16 PM (#1746259) Subject: RE: BS: Julius Caesar/Jesus - fact or fiction? From: Don Firth So what's your point? Don Firth |
|
23 May 06 - 06:40 PM (#1746269) Subject: RE: BS: Julius Caesar/Jesus - fact or fiction? From: Rapparee My last post here. Some sites to ponder, if you won't read books. One. Two. Three. Four. Five. Six. Seven. And no, I'm not pushing anything other than rationalism. |
|
23 May 06 - 07:32 PM (#1746299) Subject: RE: BS: Julius Caesar/Jesus - fact or fiction? From: GUEST,AR282 >>And no, I'm not pushing anything other than rationalism<< I disagree. This site is from some biblical group claiming no religious affiliation when it is clear they composed of Christians and Jews and the organization is in North Carolina, not exactly a fount of freethought there. Even if we accept that "house of David" is written on something does that mean David existed? No. Another relic was supposed to be from Herod's temple but we read it carefully and discover it was "attributed" to these ruins. Another refers to Caiaphas and tells us helpfully that he presided at the trial of Jesus, ergo the gospel story must be true. As though because someone was named Caiaphas that automatically validates the story. And even if it was the name of a high priest who fulfilled this office in the times attributed to this Jesus does that mean there really was a trial and he presided over it? This is the same old tired fundie garbage that proves nothing at all. |
|
23 May 06 - 07:47 PM (#1746307) Subject: RE: BS: Julius Caesar/Jesus - fact or fiction? From: Little Hawk You're simply a man with a deep emotional need to believe something, AR282, something for which there is no evidence whatsoever. You have an axe to grind. I think that emotional need of yours has made you just as dogmatic and unrealistic as the worst Christian fundamentalists. Perhaps you and they deserve each other. Perhaps it is even a strange form of psychological symbiosis. |
|
23 May 06 - 08:17 PM (#1746325) Subject: RE: BS: Julius Caesar/Jesus - fact or fiction? From: The Fooles Troupe Timing - when you can't post - the messages take ages to get thru.... ~~~~~ "the star that earth was before it was earth. That star burnt out--went bald--and a hard compact planet was the result. Life sprouted on it and evolved and that is earth." That's just Faith. Faith also says that the earth was not a sun, but an accretion of loose bits of rock, that by smashing together, became hot enough to melt. Technically, not a sun, but there (but for Science) you go.... "we are ALL the Christ, potentially" 'we are all the Buddha' |
|
23 May 06 - 08:28 PM (#1746328) Subject: RE: BS: Julius Caesar/Jesus - fact or fiction? From: Little Hawk Yes, and the Buddha and the Christ are two different words for expressing the same ideal, which is the perfectibility of humankind. These are ideals which predated all the historical religions we are presently familiar with and will outlive all of them too. They are also the same noble ideals which lay behind the development of modern science...the search for truth, knowledge, and perfectibility of ourselves and what we do in life. |
|
23 May 06 - 08:52 PM (#1746334) Subject: RE: BS: Julius Caesar/Jesus - fact or fiction? From: robomatic From "Too Much Joy: ...finally" "If I was God, no one would doubt it We wouldn't need church to get The mystery" |
|
23 May 06 - 09:03 PM (#1746338) Subject: RE: BS: Julius Caesar/Jesus - fact or fiction? From: dianavan AR282 - You keep trying to apply logic and reason to faith. Don't get me wrong, I am not a baptised Christian or anything else. I do, however, believe that when enough people believe in something, it becomes reality. It defies logic and reason. Sure, the bible (both old and new) were oral traditions that went through many revisions before the time they were actually written. The fact that there are embellishments, does not alter the truth, it only adds to the readability of the story. A good story is nothing more than a big old lie. So, even though Jesus may not have existed as a singular personality on this earth, the many stories compiled into one, serve to inform the general population that human beings can live a life of good works and deeds. Fundies might take the bible as an accurate historical record but most people will use their informed minds to take what they need and leave the rest. |
|
23 May 06 - 10:22 PM (#1746354) Subject: RE: BS: Julius Caesar/Jesus - fact or fiction? From: GUEST,AR282 >>"the star that earth was before it was earth. That star burnt out--went bald--and a hard compact planet was the result. Life sprouted on it and evolved and that is earth." That's just Faith.<< That's just mythology. Has nothing to do with faith. |
|
23 May 06 - 10:24 PM (#1746355) Subject: RE: BS: Julius Caesar/Jesus - fact or fiction? From: GUEST >>Don't get me wrong, I am not a baptised Christian or anything else. I do, however, believe that when enough people believe in something, it becomes reality.<< ??????? >>It defies logic and reason.<< We agree on something at least. |
|
23 May 06 - 10:27 PM (#1746357) Subject: RE: BS: Julius Caesar/Jesus - fact or fiction? From: GUEST,AR282 >>"Convened the Sanhedrin (the highest Jewish religious court / governing body). He had brought before them the brother of Jesus the so-called Christ, who was called James, and some other men, whom he accused of having broken the law, and handed them over to be stoned." Antiquities, Book 20, 200."<< Brother of Jesus appears to be a title here. James was apparently the founder of the brothers of Jesus or was a very prominent member and hence was identified as "James the Brother of Jesus" or "James the Brother of the Lord." There is nothing in Josephus's words to indicate that this Jesus was historical. Was there such an order? 1 Corinthians 9:5 would seem to indicate there was: "Do we not have the right to be accompanied by a wife, as the other apostles and the brothers of the lord and Cephas?" Here, "brothers of the lord" is not used as a term for a familial relationship but one associated with apostles and with Peter/Cephas. This savior was also called the messiah by this group but Josephus obviously finds such an assertion dubious. Why couldn't this still be the brother of a historical Jesus? The most problematic part is that Paul himself writes about his arguments with the "Pillars" of Jerusalem—Peter, John and James—but never quotes Jesus to back up his arguments and never quotes them quoting Jesus. You would think the man that was his actual brother would have had a little something to tell us in that area. Obviously, his word would carry some weight and yet Paul has no qualms about opposing him on issues. And neither apparently resorts to quoting anything from the historical man to back up their arguments. Nor does Paul give any indication that James is related to a historical Jesus other than Galatians 1:19 where Paul's "James the brother of the lord" in the Greek text is disingenuously translated as "James the lord's brother." |
|
23 May 06 - 11:13 PM (#1746373) Subject: RE: BS: Julius Caesar/Jesus - fact or fiction? From: Don Firth I think Little Hawk has the right of it when he characterizes AR282 as a person with a "deep emotional need" and that he is being "just as dogmatic and unrealistic as the worst Christian fundamentalists." The fact that AR282 seems to regard any statement that disagrees with his particular faith as "the same old tired fundie garbage," would seem to indicate the depth of that need. And I find his quoting of scripture to try to prove a point just about as convincing as when hard-charging fundies do it. I say "faith" because his assertions that Jesus, the man referred to as "the Christ," did not exist are considerably more far-fetched than the belief that he did indeed exist. What's really eating you, AR282? Don Firth |
|
24 May 06 - 01:48 AM (#1746402) Subject: RE: BS: Julius Caesar/Jesus - fact or fiction? From: dianavan Oh, I don't think AR282 is harmful or anything. Its just what happens when, all of sudden, you realize that the story of Jesus isn't quite so simple as The Sweetest Story Ever Told. It sorta makes you feel like everyone is being duped and you just want them to wake up to the fact that the bible is not history and Christ is everlasting. |
|
24 May 06 - 04:35 AM (#1746442) Subject: RE: BS: Julius Caesar/Jesus - fact or fiction? From: Big Al Whittle Diana I don't even think its a matter of faith. People think of themselves as Christian, Jewish, Muslim - people who would never dream of picking up a religious text or attending their church, as long as there was something decent on the tv to watch. It's more tradition than anything else. Human beings, being what they are, by and large they turn them into a decent tradition. Really as long as God stays like that in your life, you have some chance of remaining well balanced. Much better that than taking all those series of demands made by men thousands of years ago seriously. that's when you get people putting bombs under doctors cars and driving planes into buildings. |
|
24 May 06 - 04:45 AM (#1746448) Subject: RE: BS: Julius Caesar/Jesus - fact or fiction? From: Dave the Gnome I'm even more confused now AR282. First you say - There is not a shred of evidence to prove that any such person existed. Then you say - So they already had the religion, they just needed a figurehead for it? Ins't that the same as saying there was no person this religion was based on? The first is prety self explanatory. The second says that the religion was not based on a person. Not that the person did not exist? That part of the religion was based on an earlier one I have no doubt. I am more than surprised that in all your learned postings you have not mentioned the similarities to Mithraism and other eastern cults. However, leaving that aside for a moment. There is documentary evidence that Chritianity subverted other religions to it's own end. Lets look at the changing of the spring festival to the pagan godess Eostre for instance. The word Easter was not made up it was borrowed. Mithras himself from my earlier example was born on December the 25th. Why do you think that a religion that has so astutely borrowed from all other sources would go out on a limb and make something up from scratch for it's primary source? Why on earth would a religion so adept at borrowing choose the more complicated option of making up something from scratch? Just doesn't make sense. Sorry, but given the scratchy evidence that Jesus did or didn't exist, and it IS scratchy on both sides, I will go for the simple option and say yes he did. I am not saying he was the son of God or even a miracle worker, that is a completely different argument, but the fact that someone with that name and some noteriety existed around that time is pretty evident. I know you will continue to argue that he did not but let me ask you this. If you were to read an article which denied, in a very clever way, that the holocaust ever happened would you belive it? Well. There are such things. Articles that appear to be as learned as your sources. Just remember there is no such thing as a single history. Anyone who records 'facts' colours them in their own way whether they want to or not. There are academic works confirming and denying almost everything that ever happened. Choose your own path by all means. But please don't expect everyone to be of your opinion. And don't believe that yours is the only 'truth'. Cheers DtG |
|
24 May 06 - 10:08 AM (#1746488) Subject: RE: BS: Julius Caesar/Jesus - fact or fiction? From: bobad Despite the veiled and not so veiled ad hominem attacks on AR282, my impression is that this is someone who has invested considerable thought and study into the question at hand and, unlike many of those who oppose his position, provides attribution for his opinions. As Buddha said: Believe nothing just because a so-called wise person said it. Believe nothing just because a belief is generally held. Believe nothing just because it is said in ancient books. Believe nothing just because it is said to be of divine origin. Believe nothing just because someone else believes it. Believe only what you yourself test and judge to be true. [paraphrased] |
|
24 May 06 - 10:15 AM (#1746497) Subject: RE: BS: Julius Caesar/Jesus - fact or fiction? From: Dave the Gnome Didn't I just say that in my last paragraph bobad? I didn't know I was a buddha! :-) (Which Buddha said it btw?) Cheers DtG |
|
24 May 06 - 10:33 AM (#1746510) Subject: RE: BS: Julius Caesar/Jesus - fact or fiction? From: Peace That's well stated, AR282. However, one remark to something you said earlier: You said that people who 'supported' the idea of an historical Jesus quote from religious sites--most of which you presume to be fundamental. What sites do you think would argue on behalf of an historical Jesus if not religious sites? |
|
24 May 06 - 04:24 PM (#1746799) Subject: RE: BS: Julius Caesar/Jesus - fact or fiction? From: Peace PS (and last post to this thread). There are two living people who met my grandfather. He died in 1960. He was never written about and trying even to find his old service records isn't possible anymore. The town he was born in no longer exists. No record of his birth in 1884. I guess when I die he'll fade into total obscurity. However, he existed. |
|
24 May 06 - 04:41 PM (#1746814) Subject: RE: BS: Julius Caesar/Jesus - fact or fiction? From: Little Hawk "Believe only what you yourself test and judge to be true." Yes indeed! And then there will be a lot of stuff that you cannot test. As for that stuff, you will have to make the best guess you can about it, and accept that other people may see it differently. My best guess is that Jesus, and Buddha, and Krisha, and many other such figures existed...meaning only this: they were real, physical people upon whose lives and reputations great religions were inspired and eventually established. Whether any particular thing said about any of them in those religions is half-true, all-true, or wholly false is simply a matter of speculation and guesswork at this point, and no amount of talking about it on this forum will prove any of it one way or another. |
|
24 May 06 - 05:10 PM (#1746835) Subject: RE: BS: Julius Caesar/Jesus - fact or fiction? From: Don Firth Once again, I've got to agree with the Hawkster. Don Firth |
|
24 May 06 - 05:44 PM (#1746855) Subject: RE: BS: Julius Caesar/Jesus - fact or fiction? From: GUEST,AR282 Among religious liberals, the tactic has been to tout a historical Jesus but to strip him of his divinity. The reason is that because stories of the miraculous birth, the miracles, the necromancy and the resurrection raise serious questions as to their veracity. The religious liberals have no other reason for needing to strip Jesus of his divinity than because they simply cannot accept it without feeling gullible and foolish. Having accomplished this, the religious liberal then proceeds to pronounce Jesus a great, compassionate, peaceful and wise teacher who walked in Palestine, gained a loyal following and upset authorities with his revolutionary message that threatened to shake Jewish society to its foundations (as if this were necessarily a good thing) and so was arrested, tried and crucified. Afterwards, his followers kept his memory alive and eventually he was adapted as a figurehead for a church. This scenario is riddled with flaws. The most obvious flaw is that we have nothing but the bible and other Church literature to go on for our information of what this great, wise teacher supposedly taught. Strip Jesus of his divinity, most of what he teaches is pure nonsense and pure status quo. There was nothing revolutionary in what he taught. For example, he exhorts his followers to resist not evil (Mt 5:39). If we don't resist evil then we must, by necessity, succumb to it. He stated that if thy right hand offend thee, cut it off (Mt 5:30). Who in their right mind would steal something and then blame their hand for the theft and cut it off? Jesus stated that the slave who does not do his master's bidding "shall be beaten with many stripes" (Lk 12:47). Where is the revolutionary message that slavery is wrong and must be abolished? Nowhere. I would place Lincoln as superior to this Jesus. Jesus also stated that he did not come to bring peace "but a sword" (Mt 10:34). He claimed to he came to turn family against one another (Mt 10:35). Jesus also claimed that he who does not hate his family and himself cannot be his follower (Lk 14:26). And who can possibly explain Jesus' bizarre statement in Mark 4:11-12? Even the Golden Rule of "Do unto others as you would have them do unto you" is neither original nor particularly moral. The Old Testament already has the Golden Rule in it and Confucius was preaching it centuries before Jesus allegedly did. And if someone is a masochist who wants to be beaten and yelled at in the foulest of language, does that mean he should do it to you since that is how he would like you to treat him? In another example, one of the Jesus' followers begs off a journey because his father had died and he needed to attend to the funeral. Jesus basically says no (Mt 8:21-22). Where's the compassion and understanding? When told his mother, brothers and sisters wanted to see him, he blows them off and basically states that he no longer considers them family (Mk 3:31-35). Conclusion: Jesus was neither a revolutionary nor moral teacher. Some might counter that Jesus was not a teacher but a prophet. He wasn't there to teach, he was there to warn. The problem here is that Jesus' prophecies are generally lousy. The glaring flaw of his prophesying is that he told his listeners that there were those among them that "would not taste death before the son of man come again." That is, he was predicting the Second Coming to happen within the lifetimes of those he preached to. This is the same as saying that he predicted the end of the world to happen in their lifetimes (Mk 13:23-31, Lk 21:32). Did it? No. Was Jesus then a prophet? No. What Jesus taught presented no danger whatsoever to the establishment. He was just another doomsayer of which Palestine had plenty and the authorities cared not a wit about any of them. There is no reason he would have attracted the slightest bit of attention by his words other than perhaps to be called a lunatic—of which Palestine already had plenty. The next problem that arises then is how he managed to attract any followers at all considering he taught nothing of any particular value. Who were these people? According to Church literature, they were fishermen, common laborers and poor people. How did a church then manage to get established? Churches require funds and literacy. Where was one to find either among fisherman and poor people in Galilee some 2000 years ago? Who then founded this church and who appointed a common fisherman to be its pontiff? Obviously, such a thing would never happen. We are already hard pressed to explain how a church was founded for a Jesus that taught nothing in particular that anyone would have found interesting. This is further compounded by the fact that this church was not founded to honor this humble man. It would have been founded because he wanted it to be: "Upon this rock I will build my church"(Matthew 16:18). Now how did this humble teacher manage this with a handful of impoverished followers? Did he use his magical powers to influence the minds of the wealthy? Since we've already stripped Jesus of his divinity, no. If Jesus had such a power, he never would have been arrested, tried and executed (this was only to fulfill god's plan which doesn't apply with a non-divine Jesus). So, who built the church on Jesus' orders and how did they manage it? Perhaps we have a way out. This way out concerns a surprisingly little discussed feature of the gospel story: the men in white. At points in the narrative, mysterious men in white appear out of nowhere to assist Jesus in some manner (Mk 16:5, Lk 25:4). Who were these men? They appear to be assistants but who are they and what is their connection to Jesus? We would have to conclude from this that Jesus had the help of an unknown agency who appear to be well connected. Could they have built the church on Jesus' orders? Once again, we run into problems with this idea: Whoever the men in white were, they were not disciples. In the narrative, whenever these mysterious men appear, the other disciples do not recognize them. We get not so much as an impression from the narrative that Jesus' church was built or founded by these men or that they installed Peter as the pope. In fact, after their appearance in Acts 1:10-11, they are not mentioned again, their true purpose and identity never explained. Matthew and John call them angels but Mark, Luke and Acts are adamant that these were men. They represent the most mysterious aspect of the narrative but are all but ignored. This raises another problem and that is the narrative itself. From gospel to gospel, Jesus varies so widely in character that we can only marvel at how the man could possibly be historical. In Matthew, for example, Jesus is strictly a Jew while in Mark he is barely one. In John (8:44), Jesus seems to dislike the Jews on the whole. A different Jesus for each community. That might explain the two entirely different genealogies given for Jesus in Matthew and Luke. Further problems in the narrative involve the describing of incidents during which there were no eyewitnesses such as Jesus praying the garden. John 19:8 and other such examples tell us what Pilate was thinking or feeling at a certain moment when no eyewitness could possibly know this. Once we strip away the divinity from Jesus, we are left with a man who was not a wise, compassionate teacher but a cult-like egomaniac who was wrong on just about everything he said. Much of what is pointed out as valuable was not original but found in earlier sources than the NT. Some ask what my motives are for asserting this. If someone tells you 2+2 is 5 and you correct him and say 4, would it make sense for him to say, "You must have some kind of agenda." No agenda, he's just wrong. When he's wrong, you correct him. That's about as far as my agenda goes. Moreover, I do not expect this post to have any effect on their belief systems but perhaps others are more open-minded and are interested in this debate and would like some detailed background on this in order to make an informed choice. Now, decide as you wish. You're the decider. |
|
24 May 06 - 05:54 PM (#1746859) Subject: RE: BS: Julius Caesar/Jesus - fact or fiction? From: Wesley S So GuestAR282 - Did you cut and paste all of that from another site or is it original ? |
|
24 May 06 - 06:07 PM (#1746866) Subject: RE: BS: Julius Caesar/Jesus - fact or fiction? From: GUEST,AR282 It's original. |
|
24 May 06 - 06:08 PM (#1746867) Subject: RE: BS: Julius Caesar/Jesus - fact or fiction? From: GUEST,AR282 >>Oh, I don't think AR282 is harmful or anything. Its just what happens when, all of sudden, you realize that the story of Jesus isn't quite so simple as The Sweetest Story Ever Told. It sorta makes you feel like everyone is being duped and you just want them to wake up to the fact that the bible is not history and Christ is everlasting.<< Thank you, dianavan. You summed it up nicer than I. |
|
24 May 06 - 06:24 PM (#1746877) Subject: RE: BS: Julius Caesar/Jesus - fact or fiction? From: Dave the Gnome I'm still waiting for an answer AR282. Did jesus exist or not? In one post you say there is not a shred of evidence. In your last diatribe you state Once we strip away the divinity from Jesus, we are left with a man who was not a wise, compassionate teacher but a cult-like egomaniac who was wrong on just about everything he said. Much of what is pointed out as valuable was not original but found in earlier sources than the NT. I can read that no other way than he did exist. Which is it? Cheers DtG |
|
24 May 06 - 06:36 PM (#1746883) Subject: RE: BS: Julius Caesar/Jesus - fact or fiction? From: GUEST,AR282 >>I'm still waiting for an answer AR282. Did jesus exist or not? In one post you say there is not a shred of evidence. In your last diatribe you state Once we strip away the divinity from Jesus, we are left with a man who was not a wise, compassionate teacher but a cult-like egomaniac who was wrong on just about everything he said. Much of what is pointed out as valuable was not original but found in earlier sources than the NT. I can read that no other way than he did exist. Which is it?<< If you're willing to say there was a human Jesus but he was a self-righteous, nasty, little scumbag who said nothing of value then I'm willing to grant you that there was such a person. That a wise, wonderful, compassionate teacher would have had his entire life and identity erased and buried in mythology by his devoted followers is stupid and absurd. But if he was a rotten bastard, that makes sense. I'll grant you that such a human Jesus could certainly have existed. |
|
24 May 06 - 06:38 PM (#1746884) Subject: RE: BS: Julius Caesar/Jesus - fact or fiction? From: Peace You just spent lotsa posts saying Jesus didn't exist. Now he does. I got mixed-up confusion, and man it's killin' me. |
|
24 May 06 - 07:37 PM (#1746923) Subject: RE: BS: Julius Caesar/Jesus - fact or fiction? From: Don Firth I've run unto a lot of evangelists out to save my soul and I've had a fair number of run-ins with fundamentalists out to try to convince me that the power of their faith transcends rational thought. And I've also run into a fair number of disciples of Madalyn Murray O'Hair, not to mention those of Ayn Rand, also a hard-charging atheist, whose arguments are essentially the same as those of the evangelists and fundamentalists, but in the negative. They all exhibit a certain desperation in their desire—their need—to get others to agree with them. What I read above sounds awfully familiar. Ar282, if your long post above is original and not cut-and-paste, then it indicates to me that you seem to have a lot of time to devote to this, not to mention a pretty substantial emotional investment. I can't help but wonder what your motives are, beyond the relentless pursuit of truth. Don Firth |
|
24 May 06 - 07:55 PM (#1746943) Subject: RE: BS: Julius Caesar/Jesus - fact or fiction? From: GUEST,AR282 >>You just spent lotsa posts saying Jesus didn't exist. Now he does. I got mixed-up confusion, and man it's killin' me.<< I'm not saying he does or doesn't exist as a criminal or morally degenerate cult-leader. If you're willing to admit that that's what he would have to be in order to account for his statements and mission, then I'm willing to admit that there could be the human Jesus everybody is insisting had to exist. It's extremely unlikely but I'm willing to admit it is possible. I will not, however, accept the argument that he was this compassionate, wise, loving, peaceful itinerant philosopher with a loyal following who kept his memory alive after his death and eventually founded a church to honor him. No such person existed--certainly not in the pages of the bible. |
|
24 May 06 - 07:57 PM (#1746946) Subject: RE: BS: Julius Caesar/Jesus - fact or fiction? From: Peace That's a different cuppa, dontcha think? Now it's about the nature of Jesus and NOT his existence. OK. You are entitled to your interpretations of that, for sure. Thank you for the clarification. |
|
24 May 06 - 08:04 PM (#1746950) Subject: RE: BS: Julius Caesar/Jesus - fact or fiction? From: The Fooles Troupe "fundamentalists out to try to convince me that the power of their faith transcends rational thought" I'm certainly convinced of that... but in Medicine, it's also called Psychotic Delusional Behaviour... |
|
24 May 06 - 08:11 PM (#1746954) Subject: RE: BS: Julius Caesar/Jesus - fact or fiction? From: Don Firth "No such person existed--certainly not in the pages of the bible." Eh? What!?? Don Firth |
|
24 May 06 - 08:48 PM (#1746970) Subject: RE: BS: Julius Caesar/Jesus - fact or fiction? From: Little Hawk As emotional obsessions go, this is a really bad one revealing itself. ;-) AR282, you really need to study some other religious philosophy too, aside from Christianity. I recommend Vedanta (the source of both Hinduism and Yoga), Buddhism, Sufism, and Taoism...all of which can school in person in enough tolerance and compassion to grasp something useful about a figure such as Jesus, and not waste people's time here with obsessive hate progaganda, which is what your diatribes amount to, in my opinion. You are a person beating a dead horse. |
|
24 May 06 - 08:49 PM (#1746971) Subject: RE: BS: Julius Caesar/Jesus - fact or fiction? From: John O'L I think AR282's argument has always been that if Jesus-the-wise-compassionate-teacher-and-healer had existed as is suggested by Christians then we would know of it from unrelated sources. I think he is suggesting that the real Jesus was more likely a travelling snakeoil salesman & medicine show, which the Romans picked up on after the event and used for their own political purposes. What do I think? I think he was probably a small-b buddha who did not make a big splash in his lifetime but deeply touched everyone he met. I think his name (but not his vision) was picked up later and used by Christians and Romans for their own divergent purposes. Note that I do not say this with any scholarly authority. It's just my opinion. I present it here as though it did have academic clout because that's what you do at Mudcat. |
|
24 May 06 - 09:01 PM (#1746976) Subject: RE: BS: Julius Caesar/Jesus - fact or fiction? From: GUEST,AR282 >>Now it's about the nature of Jesus and NOT his existence. OK. You are entitled to your interpretations of that, for sure. Thank you for the clarification.<< Right. His nature. I was never saying Jesus didn't exist in some form. He is Julius Caesar. |
|
24 May 06 - 09:45 PM (#1746997) Subject: RE: BS: Julius Caesar/Jesus - fact or fiction? From: Don Firth I give up! Don Firth |
|
24 May 06 - 09:56 PM (#1747005) Subject: RE: BS: Julius Caesar/Jesus - fact or fiction? From: Little Hawk It is equally plausible that some of the vague similarities you draw between Caesar's tragic fate and Jesus' fate were used by the Roman civilization in designing and solidifying some of tenets of the Church of Rome. Such things have been done before, and I'm sure they shall be again. So they were most probably both real people, one as real as the other. We know Caesar was. It seems very probable that Jesus was also. Spartacus, by the way, sacrificed himself on behalf of the poor and disenfranchised, and he was crucified for it by the Romans, along with all his surviving followers who were taken prisoner with him. Why not build your theory around Spartacus instead? It sounds just as good as the Caesar theory, and it's a better fit in a number of ways. |
|
25 May 06 - 12:11 AM (#1747047) Subject: RE: BS: Julius Caesar/Jesus - fact or fiction? From: GUEST,AR282 >>Ar282, if your long post above is original and not cut-and-paste, then it indicates to me that you seem to have a lot of time to devote to this, not to mention a pretty substantial emotional investment. I can't help but wonder what your motives are, beyond the relentless pursuit of truth.<< What else is worth doing?? |
|
25 May 06 - 12:22 AM (#1747049) Subject: RE: BS: Julius Caesar/Jesus - fact or fiction? From: Little Hawk Any number of other things are worth doing. ;-) Just ask people at random, and they will tell you. What you are doing here is just like what Jehovah's Witnesses or Mormons do when they come knocking on my door with their chosen versions of reality. You're preaching a highly unconvincing and rather unconventional gospel that you have become emotionally wedded to, because it makes you feel 'right' and 'in the know'...and to feel right and in the know is to feel secure and superior...and when other people don't believe you, you'll fight indefinitely to change their minds and probably bore the bollocks off them in the process. |
|
25 May 06 - 03:04 AM (#1747084) Subject: RE: BS: Julius Caesar/Jesus - fact or fiction? From: Dave the Gnome I was never saying Jesus didn't exist in some form So, you never said... There is not a shred of evidence to prove that any such person existed. The only literature from that time period to state it is so is the bible and other Church literature and let's just say that literature is likely to be somewhat biased. We need independent and impartial evidence and there is not a shred. None. Zilch. I give up as well. Your anti-religious fundementalism is worse that the TV evangelists we hear preaching for it! And why should I admit anything like you request about the figure of Jesus? One minute he doesn't exist at all, Next he is a self-righteous, nasty, little scumbag who said nothing of value. What I am willing to accept is that no-one realy knows anything about him apart from the worlds major religion was built in his name. Why would you want to defame a person who you know nothing about, has been dead for 2000 years and can do nothing to defend himself? Sounds like insecurity to me. Perhaps you need to get yourself a religion:-) Cheers DtG |
|
25 May 06 - 03:59 AM (#1747106) Subject: RE: BS: Julius Caesar/Jesus - fact or fiction? From: Paul Burke Ahwell Dave. The whole point is that Jesus IS supposed to be able to do something to defend himself. In the good old days, AR282 would have been gnawed from inside by loathsome worms, or would have been struck dead in mid-blasphemous-sentence (like that woman on the memorial in Devizes market), or have been taken off to Hell by a burning stranger in a black coach... Julius Caesar can't do that. Religion ain't what it used to be. But back on topic. Here's a little bit of evidence that Julius Caesar existed. Of course, it might not be evidence about THAT Julius Caesar, but about another chap of the same name. Two inscriptions, apparently contemporary. And they are really only evidence of a contemporary BELIEF in Julius Caesar. And some coins, apparently contemporary. Same caveat, of course. that's history. No coins of Jesus until much later, but perhaps the contemporary ones were all rendered down. |
|
25 May 06 - 04:00 AM (#1747107) Subject: RE: BS: Julius Caesar/Jesus - fact or fiction? From: Paul Burke CC |
|
25 May 06 - 06:56 AM (#1747180) Subject: RE: BS: Julius Caesar/Jesus - fact or fiction? From: GUEST,AR282 >>So, you never said... There is not a shred of evidence to prove that any such person existed. The only literature from that time period to state it is so is the bible and other Church literature and let's just say that literature is likely to be somewhat biased. We need independent and impartial evidence and there is not a shred. None. Zilch. I give up as well. Your anti-religious fundementalism is worse that the TV evangelists we hear preaching for it!<< That was in reference to a wise, compassionate teacher that gained a following that founded a church in his honor after his death. Never happened. That a group of royals repackaged Julius Caesar, put the most unethical garbage anyone ever read into his mouth and said, "Here's you god, worship him or else" and people did without question? Now, that I believe quite easily. >>And why should I admit anything like you request about the figure of Jesus? One minute he doesn't exist at all, Next he is a self-righteous, nasty, little scumbag who said nothing of value.<< Once again, a wise, compassionate teacher that served as Jesus never existed. Not do I personally believe in a cult leader that gained a following. I believe Roman royals repackaged Julius Caesar and made him a total prick so that the masses would not get out of line. You can believe what you want. >>What I am willing to accept is that no-one realy knows anything about him apart from the worlds major religion was built in his name.<< Julius= "son of god" I think we know a lot more about him that we are willing to admit. >>Why would you want to defame a person who you know nothing about, has been dead for 2000 years and can do nothing to defend himself?<< Awww, poor son of god! I feel so bad. >>Sounds like insecurity to me. Perhaps you need to get yourself a religion:-)<< Looks you already did. And look what it's done to your mind. Thanks, but I'll pass. |
|
25 May 06 - 07:37 AM (#1747196) Subject: RE: BS: Julius Caesar/Jesus - fact or fiction? From: Dave the Gnome Looks you already did. And look what it's done to your mind. From where do you get the information that I have either got a religion or something wrong with my thought processes? Not once have I indicated that I have a religion of any sort. Moreover I have been very careful to point out that the divinity of Jesus is an entirely different argument to the one in question. As to my mental health. Well. I can differentiate between fact and supposition. I have never assereted that anything I have said about Jesus is fact. You on the other hand have stated quite categoricaly that it is a fact that Jesus did not exist. You have subsequently retracted that statement. I have never chosen to attack you personaly, relying instead on counter arguments to your assertions and doubts on the varacity of claims. You on the other hand have now implied that I am somehow mentaly inferior. Care to comment? Cheers DtG |
|
25 May 06 - 01:00 PM (#1747364) Subject: RE: BS: Julius Caesar/Jesus - fact or fiction? From: Don Firth I'm all for the relentless pursuit of truth, AR282, but that's not what you're about. You have what amounts to a religious (or anti-religious) belief and you're evangelizing. You have no more evidence for your belief—less, in fact—than those whose beliefs you criticize. Having realized that, I respond to you the same way I do to those who knock on my door, try to talk my ear off, and present me with copies of The Watchtower Don Firth |
|
25 May 06 - 01:07 PM (#1747369) Subject: RE: BS: Julius Caesar/Jesus - fact or fiction? From: Ron Davies What I find of note in this thread--over a super-emotionally charged topic--is the remarkably civil nature of the disagreement. Impugning powers of logic, pointing out self-contradictions, etc.--but no trips to the gutter. This tends to support the decision to remove perhaps the worst source of such behavior from Mudcat. Moderators, NB. |
|
25 May 06 - 01:12 PM (#1747370) Subject: RE: BS: Julius Caesar/Jesus - fact or fiction? From: Little Hawk What Don said... |
|
25 May 06 - 02:01 PM (#1747380) Subject: RE: BS: Julius Caesar/Jesus - fact or fiction? From: Don Firth I definitely agree, Ron. Much more civilized than things have all too often been for the past couple of years. Perhaps a new day is dawning. Don Firth |
|
25 May 06 - 02:20 PM (#1747391) Subject: RE: BS: Julius Caesar/Jesus - fact or fiction? From: Little Hawk Um...make that "Ron" not "Don". Heh! |
|
25 May 06 - 02:45 PM (#1747414) Subject: RE: BS: Julius Caesar/Jesus - fact or fiction? From: Don Firth No sweat, Little Hawk. We'll both take it! Don Firth |
|
25 May 06 - 03:30 PM (#1747446) Subject: RE: BS: Julius Caesar/Jesus - fact or fiction? From: GUEST,Tunesmith I've been thinking a lot about this thread and the points raised and the reponses to comments/opinions. I must say that I find the whole "faith" thing very disturbing. I think many of us have faith in a whole range of things - but they are usually things we have some knowledge of. For example, I have faith that if I needed them, certain friends would always come through for me. That belief - faith - is based on things I have directly experienced. But, to believe in fantastic stories from long ago - with no hard evidence that they are true - is another matter. The problem with the Jesus story is that there a number of versions out there. 1. Everything in the Bible relating to Jesus is true. 2. Most of version 1 is true but certain things have been added - a number of miracles e.g.( alot of Theologians believe version 2 more than one. 3. Jesus existed, but most of his "biography" has been "lifted" from earlier myths. 4. Jesus never existed, and was "invented" at a time when the Jews needed a Messiah i.e. when the Romans were devastating the Jewish civilisation. |
|
25 May 06 - 03:31 PM (#1747450) Subject: RE: BS: Julius Caesar/Jesus - fact or fiction? From: GUEST,Tunesmith I pressed the submit button on the above comment before I had finished! I'll get back in the while. |
|
25 May 06 - 03:32 PM (#1747451) Subject: RE: BS: Julius Caesar/Jesus - fact or fiction? From: Haruo AR282, with reference to your paragraph That a group of royals repackaged Julius Caesar, put the most unethical garbage anyone ever read into his mouth and said, "Here's you god, worship him or else" and people did without question? Now, that I believe quite easily. I'm curious as to when (on a timeline, and you may use AUC if it doesn't irritate you the way BCE/CE let alone BC/AD must) you think this marketing job by "a group of royals" (whatever that means; what does it mean?) would most plausibly have occurred. Are we talking contemporaneously with Nero, or Nicaea, or when? There's manuscript evidence for some of the New Testament going back into the first half of the first century, and not much later for some of the heterodox (gnostic) literature about him. What date, for example, do you suggest for the Gospel of Mark? Or are you of the opinion that Saul of Tarsus was an undercover operative from the Roman MI5 and that it was in his version of Jesus that the royals hid their repackaged Julius? What do you make of the fishes in the catacombs and all that? I was going to ask you about Jessica, Jesus' little sister, but if you don't think Jesus ever existed you probably don't think his sister did either. Haruo |
|
25 May 06 - 03:44 PM (#1747468) Subject: RE: BS: Julius Caesar/Jesus - fact or fiction? From: frogprince In 1918, Clarence Larkin published "The Greatest Book on Dispensational Truth in the World". Google that, and you'll find that you can still buy a copy today. One chapter explains the importance of the measurements of the chambers and passages in the great pyramid of Egypt to a proper understanding of the prophetic content of the Bible. The last time I saw a copy of the book, a dust-jacket blurb said "safe, sane, contains no speculative matter". AR282's explanation of the symbolism of the vertical and horizontal timbers of the cross obviously true, since it is no more speculative than is Larkin's material... |
|
25 May 06 - 03:58 PM (#1747477) Subject: RE: BS: Julius Caesar/Jesus - fact or fiction? From: Don Firth All this business of connecting various dots, then using selected patterns to establish that Julius Caesar and Jesus are the same person got me to pondering. What do we really want to accept as evidence? Erich Von Daniken told us that the lines in the Nazca desert were attempts to communicate with the beings from the stars who came and went frequently in times past. In fact the Nazca lines marked out a landing field for the visiting star ships. Von Daniken even pointed out what appeared to be a knee in the long, straight leg of an immense bird image. This, he said, was a turn-out for a space ship, so it could get out of the way for other ships landing. [Later, a researcher pointed out a small problem with this: that oval shaped "knee" turn-out was about five feet across. So the star ships must have been very small. Flown by little green men, perhaps?] The pyramids were impossible to build with human labor at the time they were constructed (says Von Daniken and a few others). They had to have been built by advanced races from the stars. You want proof? The three primary pyramids at Giza form a line exactly like the three stars in Orion's belt—even to one of them not being exactly on a straight line with the other two, as is the case with the stars in Orion's belt. Obviously, the pyramids were built by beings visiting the earth from some advanced civilization out among the stars. And Stonehenge. . . . Well, you get the idea. All of these constructions appear to be, and in some cases, indeed are lined up according to astronomical data. And we know, don't we, that the hairy, drooling, belly-scratching ancestors from whom modern humans sprang were too stupid and ignorant to have been able to observe the heavens, draw conclusions from their observations regarding relationships between the periodic repetitions they saw and the seasons, when certain crops should be planted, etc., and build any of these things by themselves either as calendars or for ritualistic purposes. And then sometimes a coincidence is just that A fellow named Henry Lincoln did a lot of heavy-duty research some decades ago and provided much "data" that Dan Brown may very well have drawn on for his writing of The Da Vinci Code. He spend hours, days, months pouring over maps of areas in southern France, to where (he tells us) Mary Magdalene, pregnant with Jesus's third child escaped for refuge after the execution of Jesus. The pentangle, Lincoln said, was a symbol for womanhood (I'd always been told it was a symbol used to call forth the Devil). Lincoln, playing "connect the dots" between various castles and cathedrals, managed to draw lines all over maps of, first in southern France, then in Europe in general. He found pentangles everywhere! Blithely telescoping a few centuries here and there, he tells us that the Knights Templars and the Freemasons were in on the plot, so it was the Freemasons (literally masons at the time) who built these castles cathedrals in these pentangle patterns. He even found several churches on an island between Denmark and Sweden that formed a pentangle. Well, that's pretty interesting. I'm not sure that it actually proves what Henry Lincoln was trying to prove, but it is interesting. I wonder what it all means. If anything. I'm reminded of the story about a fellow who didn't know what he wanted to do with his life, so he decided to wait for a sign from God. Several years went by, and then one night when he was out on his back porch drinking a beer and enjoying the night air, a meteorite landed in his back yard. It dug a 200 foot crater, shattered all the windows in the guy's house, cracked the concrete foundation in several places, and blew him back into the kitchen. He was certain that had to be the sign he'd been waiting for. Problem was, he couldn't figure out what God was trying to tell him to do, but he was pretty sure it was something fairly important. Don Firth |
|
25 May 06 - 03:59 PM (#1747478) Subject: RE: BS: Julius Caesar/Jesus - fact or fiction? From: Haruo And just for the record, flattop, Parson Weems was not British (though he was educated in London and was an Episcopalian). Haruo |
|
25 May 06 - 04:23 PM (#1747496) Subject: RE: BS: Julius Caesar/Jesus - fact or fiction? From: Don Firth Good Grief! Thanks for the head's up, tunesmith, I had no idea that such a thing existed. But one sees the signs all around us that there are those who believe in it implicitly. I don't know what your position on it is, but as for me, theologically speaking I find the whole thing pretty scary. Folks who believe in things like The Rapture are liable to behave in some fairly odd ways, which can be downright dangerous if they happen to be in positions of power. Film at 11:00. Don Firth |
|
25 May 06 - 04:43 PM (#1747507) Subject: RE: BS: Julius Caesar/Jesus - fact or fiction? From: flattop >And just for the record, flattop, Parson Weems was not British (though he was educated in London and was an Episcopalian). >Haruo Pardon? Why this? What did I write about Parson Weems? |
|
25 May 06 - 05:03 PM (#1747515) Subject: RE: BS: Julius Caesar/Jesus - fact or fiction? From: Haruo Subject: RE: BS: Julius Caesar/Jesus - fact or fiction?You didn't name him, but Parson Weems, an American, was the author of pretty much all of the famous far-fetched stories about Washington. Just an FYI sort of thing, I'm not saying George Washington was really just the Prince of Orange repackaged or anything.) Haruo |
|
25 May 06 - 05:05 PM (#1747521) Subject: RE: BS: Julius Caesar/Jesus - fact or fiction? From: Dave the Gnome Fiction and speculation seem to get pretty muddled around here at times. It is speculation whan it cannot be proven but there is pretty good reason to formulate certain theories. Fiction is completely made up. Much of the known life of Jesus is speculation. I believe that some is also fiction - but as I cannot prove that I am only speculating! The Lord of the Rings, for instance, is completely fictional. But Tolkien based a lot of his work on factual linguistics and speculative mythology. So part of his work may be termed speculative fiction. Confused? You should be. Read the 'Silmarilion' alongside the Old Testament and tell me which work an outsider would see as fiction, folklore or religion. Blows my mind. Think I'll go for a pint instead... Before I do the other thing that was a real eye opener was shown some years ago by the BBC and was a 'reality' program about dumping modern people in an Iron Age village. The smallest things show how wrong we can be. For decades, if not centuries, people have speculated over the significance of the trough across the door of Iron Age dwellings. Some were convinced it was a physical barrier, to stop rain, insects etc. Others were convinced it was spiritual and used for ceremonial purposes. The TV proved it was caused by chickens sheltering from the rain and scratcing in the doorways... Make you think doesn't it. :D (tG) |
|
25 May 06 - 05:09 PM (#1747523) Subject: RE: BS: Julius Caesar/Jesus - fact or fiction? From: Little Hawk LOL! |
|
25 May 06 - 05:20 PM (#1747526) Subject: RE: BS: Julius Caesar/Jesus - fact or fiction? From: flattop Thank you Haruo, I stand corrected. I read somewhere that it was an Englishman. You linked Wiki says, "He studied theology in London and was ordained in the Protestant Episcopal Church in 1784." Perhaps this explains my sources of confusions and half-truths. |
|
25 May 06 - 05:35 PM (#1747535) Subject: RE: BS: Julius Caesar/Jesus - fact or fiction? From: Haruo And apparently Weems was the pastor of the church Washington attended in Virginia, so who knows, he may even have got some of the stories from the grand old fart himself (Washington, not Jesus). Speculation. Haruo |
|
25 May 06 - 05:52 PM (#1747543) Subject: RE: BS: Julius Caesar/Jesus - fact or fiction? From: Ron Davies As I recall, Parson Weems' stories had no pretense to truth--even at the time. They were moralistic (and other) tales for the young. |
|
25 May 06 - 05:57 PM (#1747547) Subject: RE: BS: Julius Caesar/Jesus - fact or fiction? From: Dave the Gnome What a fabulous name though! Don't you wish you were called Parson Weems. You could achieve anything with a name like that. Specutively of course. And you probably wouldn't even need to be a real Parson nowadays... DtG |
|
25 May 06 - 06:05 PM (#1747556) Subject: RE: BS: Julius Caesar/Jesus - fact or fiction? From: GUEST,AR282 >>Or are you of the opinion that Saul of Tarsus was an undercover operative from the Roman MI5 and that it was in his version of Jesus that the royals hid their repackaged Julius?<< Paul likely did not exist. He, like Christ, is found in no other writings of that period other than church literature. Nor did he ever say his name was Saul or that he came from Tarsus and if he did he was most certainly not a Jew since Tarsus was a non-Jewish city. He claimed to be a Pharisee and yet Gamaliel was the Pharisaic teacher of that time and his school was in Jerusalem where Paul admits he had never been until some 14 years after his conversion. He was likely a Roman royal churning out pseudo-Jewish pap. Judiac affectations among Roman royals was actually quite common. For example, the Loeb Classical Library "The Apostolic Fathers Part I" p. 4 informs us, "More complicated and more interesting are suggestions that Clement may be identified or at least connected with Titus Flavius Clemens, a distinguished Roman of the imperial Flavian family. This Titus Flavius Clemens was in 95 A.D. accused of treason or impiety by Domitian, his cousin, owing, according to Dio Cassius, to his Jewish proclivities." Coincidence that Josephus's full name was Flavius Josephus? Supposedly a Jew captured by the Roman army after he commanded a contingent Jewish rebels to dump burning oil on Roman soldiers. Obviously, they would have taken his head upon his capture and certainly not made him a Roman royal Flavian!!!! He was another Titus Flavius Clemens—a true Flavian from the git-go who had "Jewish proclivities." His works were scoured by the Gospel writers to provide some substance to an otherwise historically sparse gospel narrative. Read these statements by Josephus and see for yourself: "So Jesus the son of Sapphias, one of those whom we have already mentioned as the leader of a seditious tumult of mariners and poor people, prevented us, and took with him certain Galileans, and set the entire palace on fire, and thought he should get a great deal of money thereby, because he saw some of the roofs gilt with gold. They also plundered a great deal of the furniture, which was done without our approbation; for after we had discoursed with Capellus and the principal men of the city, we departed from Bethmaus, and went into the Upper Galilee. But Jesus and his party slew all the Greeks that were inhabitants of Tiberias, and as many others as were their enemies before the war began." Vita, v. 12 "…for an actor was introduced, by whom a leader of robbers was crucified, and the pantomime brought in a play called Cinyras, wherein he himself was to be slain, as well as his daughter Myrrha, and wherein a great deal of fictitious blood was shed, both about him that was crucified, and also about Cinyras." Antiquities, Book XIX, Ch 1, v. 13 "Watchmen were accordingly posted by them on the towers, who gave warning whenever the engine was fired and the stone in transit, by shouting in their native tongue, "The Son is coming!" Jewish Wars, Book V, v. 272 (The Greek text of this passage found in Loeb's version renders the statement as "Ho uios erketai" or "The son is coming" while Whiston dishonestly omits it altogether) "Now, when they had given Jonathan and his companions these instructions, they gave them forty thousand [drachmae] out of the public money: but when they heard that there was a certain Galilean that then sojourned at Jerusalem, whose name was Jesus, who had about him a band of six hundred armed men, they sent for him, and gave him three months pay, and gave him orders to follow Jonathan and his companions, and be obedient to them." Vita, v. 40 Casts Jesus Barabbas in a whole new light, doesn't it? |
|
25 May 06 - 08:38 PM (#1747580) Subject: RE: BS: Julius Caesar/Jesus - fact or fiction? From: Little Hawk The name Parson Weems immediately got my attention too. Marvelous! ;-) You can't invent a much more classic or amusing name for a parson than that. |
|
25 May 06 - 10:07 PM (#1747602) Subject: RE: BS: Julius Caesar/Jesus - fact or fiction? From: John O'L JFK didn't exist either. He was a secondhand Lincoln convertible |
|
25 May 06 - 11:25 PM (#1747633) Subject: RE: BS: Julius Caesar/Jesus - fact or fiction? From: Little Hawk Geronimo never existed either. Don't believe all those faked photos and the relics and stuff. The real truth was, the army wanted some reason for funding after the civil war was over, so they made up stories about Apache raids and ran all over hell's half-acre looking for nonexistent "hostiles" and shooting the odd Mexican. What a boondoggle, eh? Almost as bad as the nonexistent WMDs in Iraq, and the nonexistent so-called worldwide terrorist organization "Al Queda"...another myth made up by today's "royals". Heh! ;-D |
|
25 May 06 - 11:26 PM (#1747635) Subject: RE: BS: Julius Caesar/Jesus - fact or fiction? From: Don Firth Mystery solved! That was Julius Caesar on the grassy knoll! Don Firth |
|
26 May 06 - 03:49 AM (#1747692) Subject: RE: BS: Julius Caesar/Jesus - fact or fiction? From: Dave the Gnome I am not Spartacus... No comments on my response to your query as to my well being AR282? Cheers DtG |
|
26 May 06 - 06:44 AM (#1747750) Subject: RE: BS: Julius Caesar/Jesus - fact or fiction? From: Haruo I asked if your well was AR282? ;-) Haruo |
|
26 May 06 - 07:19 AM (#1747759) Subject: RE: BS: Julius Caesar/Jesus - fact or fiction? From: Dave the Gnome OK, OK! I forgot the comma. Do I need to come to a full stop? Dunno though, perhaps it was a siginificant slip. Maybe that AR282 is the well of all knowledge? :-) :D (tG) |
|
26 May 06 - 11:43 AM (#1747935) Subject: RE: BS: Julius Caesar/Jesus - fact or fiction? From: GUEST,AR282 I will not comment on anything on this thread that does not deal with the subject matter at hand. Anything else is a useless distraction. I think I have made very good case that Jesus Christ was fleshed out of the writings of Josephus. Too many coincidences to account for otherwise. Nor did I mention them all. Here's another you may find interesting: "But, what is still more terrible, there was one Jesus, the son of Ananus, a plebeian and a husbandman, who, four years before the war began, and at a time when the city was in very great peace and prosperity, came to that feast whereon it is our custom for every one to make tabernacles to God in the temple, began on a sudden to cry aloud, "A voice from the east, a voice from the west, a voice from the four winds, a voice against Jerusalem and the holy house, a voice against the bridegrooms and the brides, and a voice against this whole people!" This was his cry, as he went about by day and by night, in all the lanes of the city. However, certain of the most eminent among the populace had great indignation at this dire cry of his, and took up the man, and gave him a great number of severe stripes; yet did not he either say any thing for himself, or any thing peculiar to those that chastised him, but still went on with the same words which he cried before. Hereupon our rulers, supposing, as the case proved to be, that this was a sort of divine fury in the man, brought him to the Roman procurator, where he was whipped till his bones were laid bare; yet he did not make any supplication for himself, nor shed any tears, but turning his voice to the most lamentable tone possible, at every stroke of the whip his answer was, "Woe, woe to Jerusalem!" And when Albinus (for he was then our procurator) asked him, Who he was? and whence he came? and why he uttered such words? he made no manner of reply to what he said, but still did not leave off his melancholy ditty, till Albinus took him to be a madman, and dismissed him. Now, during all the time that passed before the war began, this man did not go near any of the citizens, nor was seen by them while he said so; but he every day uttered these lamentable words, as if it were his premeditated vow, "Woe, woe to Jerusalem!" Nor did he give ill words to any of those that beat him every day, nor good words to those that gave him food; but this was his reply to all men, and indeed no other than a melancholy presage of what was to come. This cry of his was the loudest at the festivals; and he continued this ditty for seven years and five months, without growing hoarse, or being tired therewith, until the very time that he saw his presage in earnest fulfilled in our siege, when it ceased; for as he was going round upon the wall, he cried out with his utmost force, "Woe, woe to the city again, and to the people, and to the holy house!" And just as he added at the last, "Woe, woe to myself also!" there came a stone out of one of the engines, and smote him, and killed him immediately; and as he was uttering the very same presages he gave up the ghost." --Jewish Wars, Book VI, Ch. V, v. 3 Now we see where the story of Jesus journeying to Jerusalem came from. Even the last line "he gave up the ghost" is how both Matthew and John describe the death of Jesus as he utters his last words--even though both have a serious disagreement over what those last words were. There's another passage where another Jesus orders a bunch of marauders and vandals out of the temple. And on and on it goes. |
|
26 May 06 - 12:45 PM (#1747966) Subject: RE: BS: Julius Caesar/Jesus - fact or fiction? From: Ebbie In one area of Virginia a local accent pronounces 'Williams' indistinguishingly close to 'Weems'. 'Parson Williams' is fairly mundane. AR282, I'm following your research and reasoning - but it does seem that you're trying to have it both ways. Some of what you cite is parlously close to demonstrating the likelihood of other- and numerous - Jesus figures. Who is to say that one of those figures did not get much farther and have far more lasting impact? |
|
26 May 06 - 12:49 PM (#1747969) Subject: RE: BS: Julius Caesar/Jesus - fact or fiction? From: Dave the Gnome I will not comment on anything on this thread that does not deal with the subject matter at hand. Anything else is a useless distraction. No, I don't like to hear things that upset me either but I don't run away from them. Seeing as you have however set your unilateral limited scope let's see if this suits you. Did Jesus exist? No cut and paste. No sidestepping. No discussions on what type of person he was or was not. Did he exist. BTW - It was you that chose to change the subject in hand to the state of my mind. Not me. Will you comment on that? If so why have you not yet responded. It is, after all, one of the subjects you chose to throw out so freely. Or do you not have any arguments to back up that supposition? Cheers DtG |
|
26 May 06 - 01:31 PM (#1748002) Subject: RE: BS: Julius Caesar/Jesus - fact or fiction? From: Little Hawk Then there is the question of Captain Kidd and his supposedly lost treasure. Did the treasure really exist? If so, where is it? Hmmm. Much food for thought here. Could it tie into the missing Marc Antony dissertation on the plot to implicate Judas Iscariot in the pot to dispatch Crassus to his wretched fate at the hands of barbarian hordes? |
|
26 May 06 - 01:38 PM (#1748008) Subject: RE: BS: Julius Caesar/Jesus - fact or fiction? From: Ebbie Little Hawk, I perceive that there is much truth in your speculation. And there is another one to stir into the mix: Judge Crater. He walked out of his hime and disappeared 70 years later we still don't know where he went or where he is today. Assuming that he DID exist at one time, isn't it possible that he was another incarnation of Jesus/Julius/Cap'n Kirk? People can't just disappear, can they? Can they? |
|
26 May 06 - 01:41 PM (#1748011) Subject: RE: BS: Julius Caesar/Jesus - fact or fiction? From: Little Hawk Oh, they can, Ebbie, and they do. The question is, though, where do they go when they disappear? My theory is that they are all hiding in a phone booth in lower Manhattan that is positioned over a trapdoor which leads to an underground tunnel that surfaces in a dance club on Pitcairn Island. And if it wasn't for all that "Jesus" stuff distracting people, this would have been known years ago. |
|
26 May 06 - 01:53 PM (#1748023) Subject: RE: BS: Julius Caesar/Jesus - fact or fiction? From: Don Firth oAll of these matters have been argued before. This. This one seems to reflect AR282's position. And this. And there are lot—LOTS—more where these came from. In matters of faith—one way or the other—one can argue 'til Hell freezes over and when you finally run out of breath, it all boils down to the mountain laboring and bringing forth a mouse. And it's one puny mouse. Nobody's mind is going to be changed. Don Firth |
|
26 May 06 - 02:58 PM (#1748066) Subject: RE: BS: Julius Caesar/Jesus - fact or fiction? From: GUEST,AR282 >>Many scholars think the author of Luke lived as a gentile, or at the very least, a hellenized Jew and even possibly a woman.<< That statement came from one of Don Firth's links. I had not heard about Luke possibly being a woman before although he is often assumed to be a doctor. This gives us another strange parallel to Josephus: "Now there was one Joseph, the son of a female physician..." and this Joseph was another rabble rouser and his men "slew Cares, and with him Jesus, one of his kinsmen, and a brother of Justus of Tiberias..." Vita, v. 37 >>AR282, I'm following your research and reasoning - but it does seem that you're trying to have it both ways. Some of what you cite is parlously close to demonstrating the likelihood of other- and numerous - Jesus figures. Who is to say that one of those figures did not get much farther and have far more lasting impact?<< Because Josephus was writing about contemporaries to himself and he lived AFTER Jesus Christ supposedly walked the earth. >>In matters of faith—one way or the other—one can argue 'til Hell freezes over and when you finally run out of breath, it all boils down to the mountain laboring and bringing forth a mouse. And it's one puny mouse. Nobody's mind is going to be changed.<< Not only presumptuous but wrong because I once believed in a historical Jesus like most people do. I was never a Christian or anything but I just figured that he MUST have existed because everybody said he did and who was I to doubt? But after reading some atheist tracts in college, I found it hard to believe that his existence was hearsay as they claimed so I began to look into things myself and realized the atheists were right. So while I agree that most people's minds will not be changed, it would be a grave error to assume "nobody's" mind will be changed. 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. |
|
26 May 06 - 03:00 PM (#1748068) Subject: RE: BS: Julius Caesar/Jesus - fact or fiction? From: Little Hawk Well, I guess everyone has to have an obsession of some kind, right? |
|
26 May 06 - 03:04 PM (#1748072) Subject: RE: BS: Julius Caesar/Jesus - fact or fiction? From: Little Hawk Or to put it another way, everyone has to have a mission. ;-) Shambles has his, Martin Gibson had his, and you have yours. We all have a mission of some kind. Some missions draw more notice than others do, and that depends on how aggressive and persistent their proponents are. And then...we die. End of story. |
|
26 May 06 - 03:12 PM (#1748076) Subject: RE: BS: Julius Caesar/Jesus - fact or fiction? From: GUEST,AR282 >>No, I don't like to hear things that upset me either but I don't run away from them. Seeing as you have however set your unilateral limited scope let's see if this suits you.<< Guy, get used to the fact that I don't care about your well being and refuse to pursue that line of debate. Debate it with someone else. We're talking about the historicity of Jesus here and that is all I am going to comment on. If you're not feeling well, go see a doctor but leave it off this thread please because I, for one, don't care. >>Did Jesus exist?<< No. >>No cut and paste.<< The only thing I've cut and pasted is Josephus's words. >>No sidestepping.<< Don't tell me. Tell that to everybody talking about Parson Weems and Judge Crater and all this other garbage that has nothing to do with anything instead addressing the issues I've been trying to raise here. I don't really mind it because it demonstrates they are unable to debate me, that they have no evidence to support anything they are asserting and that their only response is to mock and ridicule in the pathetic belief that it somehow scores them points. But I will not respond to it. Stick to the subject if you want a response from me. >>No discussions on what type of person he was or was not. Did he exist.<< No. He was Julius Caesar redone by Roman royals to once again rule the masses--the man who would be king except he didn't want the title. Same recycled garbage. >>BTW - It was you that chose to change the subject in hand to the state of my mind. Not me. Will you comment on that?<< This thread is filled with examples that prove that, as usual, you're blowing smoke. Stick to the subject, please. >>If so why have you not yet responded. It is, after all, one of the subjects you chose to throw out so freely. Or do you not have any arguments to back up that supposition?<< This thread is filled with examples that prove that, as usual, you're blowing smoke. Stick to the subject, please. |
|
26 May 06 - 03:14 PM (#1748077) Subject: RE: BS: Julius Caesar/Jesus - fact or fiction? From: Little Hawk It indicates, AR282, that we do not take you seriously. |
|
26 May 06 - 03:24 PM (#1748081) Subject: RE: BS: Julius Caesar/Jesus - fact or fiction? From: GUEST,Tunesmith This "faith thing" really bothers me! Why do Christians believe in the New Testament? I think that an impartial look at the evidence as to the existence of Jesus - as presented in the Bible - would lead to the conclusion that the Jesus story, that all Christains have been taught, is a fabrication. That would be the sensible verdict. But Christians aren't interested in what makes sense; they, after all, have faith! |
|
26 May 06 - 03:40 PM (#1748087) Subject: RE: BS: Julius Caesar/Jesus - fact or fiction? From: Little Hawk Why do people believe in anything????? I'll tell you why. Because they like having a sense of identity, that's why. Everybody believes in a whole lot of stuff, and takes it for granted. Stuff you can't prove. Stuff that is conjecture. Everybody. I make the distinction here between "believing" and "knowing". I KNOW what an apple is, because I have encountered apples, touched them, picke them, eaten them. I believe, on the other hand, that tyrannosaurs had a certain appearance because I have been told so by a lot of other people that the few bones unearthed indicate that appearance, and I have accepted their general conjecture about the matter...but I don't KNOW it. Everyone believes all kinds of stuff that they do not have any direct knowledge or experience of. It's endless as a matter of fact. We all believe a veritable mountain of stuff on nothing but our faith, the common assumptions of our time, and our acceptance of what we are already accustomed to. 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. |
|
26 May 06 - 03:40 PM (#1748088) Subject: RE: BS: Julius Caesar/Jesus - fact or fiction? From: GUEST,AR282 >>This "faith thing" really bothers me! Why do Christians believe in the New Testament? I think that an impartial look at the evidence as to the existence of Jesus - as presented in the Bible - would lead to the conclusion that the Jesus story, that all Christains have been taught, is a fabrication. That would be the sensible verdict. But Christians aren't interested in what makes sense; they, after all, have faith!<< It's more hypocritical than that. They're 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. If science is wrong then stay away from it. |
|
26 May 06 - 03:49 PM (#1748093) Subject: RE: BS: Julius Caesar/Jesus - fact or fiction? From: Little Hawk Neither science nor spirituality are wrong. They support each other beautifully and always have. People who are incapable of anything except literal thinking, however, and bar literal reading of spiritual material may not be capable of seeing that. Neither can a pig evaluate the relative worth of several works of visual art, nor comment on why one is superior in technique or implied meaning to another. |
|
26 May 06 - 03:54 PM (#1748096) Subject: RE: BS: Julius Caesar/Jesus - fact or fiction? From: Little Hawk Made a typo in that sentence. What I mean to say is...if you interpret symbolic spiritual writings literally...instead of as allegorical tales, metaphors, and that sort of thing...then you will end up doing what the following people do: 1. religious fundamentalists 2. atheistic literalists 3. scientific reductionists Which is...you will do what a pig would do if asked to evalute the Mona Lisa. You will display no useful comprehension of the matter whatsoever. |
|
26 May 06 - 04:15 PM (#1748108) Subject: RE: BS: Julius Caesar/Jesus - fact or fiction? From: Dave the Gnome 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. You stated that Jesus did not exist and then he did and then he didn't. You accused me of having religion and then of being inferior to you and then tried to make out you were the injured party. Not that it matters realy. You are welcome to your two minutes of fame on the Mudcat. BTW - Can you prove that you exist? Where do you live? What songs do you sing? What folk music venues do you attend? I'll start the ball rolling. I am Dave Polshaw. I live in Salford, England. I can be found at Swinton folk club most Mondays. You are more than welcome to attend and I will buy you a pint. If you are never in my area I do travel a lot. Let us know where you are and I will come to you when circumstances allow. Or am I not sticking to the subject again? Like everyone but you always does? I cannot think who could have possibly said Looks you already did. And look what it's done to your mind. Absolutley bang on topic was that... Don't blame you for not wanting to discuss anything other than your pet peeve though. If I had only one cognitive thought I think I would stick to it as well. Cheers DtG |
|
26 May 06 - 04:27 PM (#1748113) Subject: RE: BS: Julius Caesar/Jesus - fact or fiction? From: Little Hawk LOL! Oh, Gawd... Nice one, Dave. |
|
26 May 06 - 04:55 PM (#1748127) Subject: RE: BS: Julius Caesar/Jesus - fact or fiction? From: Don Firth "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 |
|
26 May 06 - 05:17 PM (#1748135) Subject: RE: BS: Julius Caesar/Jesus - fact or fiction? From: GUEST,AR282 >>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. |
|
26 May 06 - 05:35 PM (#1748142) Subject: RE: BS: Julius Caesar/Jesus - fact or fiction? From: GUEST,AR282 >>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. |
|
26 May 06 - 05:40 PM (#1748146) Subject: RE: BS: Julius Caesar/Jesus - fact or fiction? From: Dave the Gnome 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 |
|
26 May 06 - 06:10 PM (#1748158) Subject: RE: BS: Julius Caesar/Jesus - fact or fiction? From: Peace "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. |
|
26 May 06 - 06:12 PM (#1748161) Subject: RE: BS: Julius Caesar/Jesus - fact or fiction? From: flattop 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). |
|
26 May 06 - 06:13 PM (#1748163) Subject: RE: BS: Julius Caesar/Jesus - fact or fiction? From: Peace I dislike condescending attitudes regardless of who the attitude comes from, and that includes from you, 282. Have a nice day. |
|
26 May 06 - 06:14 PM (#1748164) Subject: RE: BS: Julius Caesar/Jesus - fact or fiction? From: Little Hawk 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. |
|
26 May 06 - 06:16 PM (#1748166) Subject: RE: BS: Julius Caesar/Jesus - fact or fiction? From: GUEST,AR282 >>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? |
|
26 May 06 - 06:18 PM (#1748168) Subject: RE: BS: Julius Caesar/Jesus - fact or fiction? From: GUEST,AR282 >>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. |
|
26 May 06 - 06:23 PM (#1748173) Subject: RE: BS: Julius Caesar/Jesus - fact or fiction? From: GUEST,AR282 >>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. |
|
26 May 06 - 06:27 PM (#1748174) Subject: RE: BS: Julius Caesar/Jesus - fact or fiction? From: GUEST,AR282 >>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. |
|
26 May 06 - 06:29 PM (#1748176) Subject: RE: BS: Julius Caesar/Jesus - fact or fiction? From: flattop 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 |
|
26 May 06 - 06:43 PM (#1748179) Subject: RE: BS: Julius Caesar/Jesus - fact or fiction? From: Little Hawk Everything's spiritual. ;-) Science is particularly so. |
|
26 May 06 - 06:59 PM (#1748184) Subject: RE: BS: Julius Caesar/Jesus - fact or fiction? From: flattop >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. |
|
26 May 06 - 07:49 PM (#1748208) Subject: RE: BS: Julius Caesar/Jesus - fact or fiction? From: GUEST,Wesley S 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. |
|
26 May 06 - 08:18 PM (#1748217) Subject: RE: BS: Julius Caesar/Jesus - fact or fiction? From: Ebbie "...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. |
|
26 May 06 - 09:27 PM (#1748248) Subject: RE: BS: Julius Caesar/Jesus - fact or fiction? From: Little Hawk 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. |
|
26 May 06 - 10:03 PM (#1748261) Subject: RE: BS: Julius Caesar/Jesus - fact or fiction? From: Don Firth ". . . 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 |
|
26 May 06 - 10:09 PM (#1748263) Subject: RE: BS: Julius Caesar/Jesus - fact or fiction? From: Ron Davies 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. |
|
27 May 06 - 03:57 AM (#1748321) Subject: RE: BS: Julius Caesar/Jesus - fact or fiction? From: Peace 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. |
|
27 May 06 - 04:40 AM (#1748330) Subject: RE: BS: Julius Caesar/Jesus - fact or fiction? From: John O'L 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? |
|
27 May 06 - 04:42 AM (#1748331) Subject: RE: BS: Julius Caesar/Jesus - fact or fiction? From: John O'L That should have been "...the gospellers and he..." I didn't intend to diefy him. |
|
27 May 06 - 06:00 AM (#1748375) Subject: RE: BS: Julius Caesar/Jesus - fact or fiction? From: Haruo 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 |
|
27 May 06 - 06:02 AM (#1748377) Subject: RE: BS: Julius Caesar/Jesus - fact or fiction? From: Big Al Whittle 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. |
|
27 May 06 - 07:38 AM (#1748405) Subject: RE: BS: Julius Caesar/Jesus - fact or fiction? From: The Fooles Troupe "If God did not exist, man would have to invent him." |
|
27 May 06 - 10:45 AM (#1748465) Subject: RE: BS: Julius Caesar/Jesus - fact or fiction? From: Dave the Gnome 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 |
|
27 May 06 - 11:02 AM (#1748471) Subject: RE: BS: Julius Caesar/Jesus - fact or fiction? From: Little Hawk "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. |
|
27 May 06 - 11:04 AM (#1748476) Subject: RE: BS: Julius Caesar/Jesus - fact or fiction? From: Dave the Gnome Has to be a man, LH. A woman would not have made such a B"£$%^&s of things;-) Cheers DtG |
|
27 May 06 - 11:09 AM (#1748480) Subject: RE: BS: Julius Caesar/Jesus - fact or fiction? From: Keith A of Hertford My partner is emphatic that the God who invented menstruation and childbirth had to be a male. |
|
27 May 06 - 11:13 AM (#1748482) Subject: RE: BS: Julius Caesar/Jesus - fact or fiction? From: Little Hawk 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. |
|
27 May 06 - 11:15 AM (#1748483) Subject: RE: BS: Julius Caesar/Jesus - fact or fiction? From: Little Hawk Keith, you are forgetting about multiple orgasms! ;-) |
|
27 May 06 - 11:30 AM (#1748492) Subject: RE: BS: Julius Caesar/Jesus - fact or fiction? From: Dave the Gnome 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 |
|
27 May 06 - 12:04 PM (#1748508) Subject: RE: BS: Julius Caesar/Jesus - fact or fiction? From: Little Hawk 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. |
|
27 May 06 - 01:19 PM (#1748558) Subject: RE: BS: Julius Caesar/Jesus - fact or fiction? From: GUEST,AR282 >>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. |
|
27 May 06 - 01:27 PM (#1748563) Subject: RE: BS: Julius Caesar/Jesus - fact or fiction? From: Little Hawk 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. |
|
27 May 06 - 01:36 PM (#1748573) Subject: RE: BS: Julius Caesar/Jesus - fact or fiction? From: Dave the Gnome I would like your response to my points as well please, AR282. DtG |
|
27 May 06 - 01:36 PM (#1748576) Subject: RE: BS: Julius Caesar/Jesus - fact or fiction? From: GUEST,AR282 >>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. |
|
27 May 06 - 01:43 PM (#1748582) Subject: RE: BS: Julius Caesar/Jesus - fact or fiction? From: Ron Davies AR282-- Let's go back to Jesus being the invention of the "Roman royals" to "again rule the masses". Proof please. |
|
27 May 06 - 01:44 PM (#1748584) Subject: RE: BS: Julius Caesar/Jesus - fact or fiction? From: GUEST,AR282 >>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. |
|
27 May 06 - 01:48 PM (#1748587) Subject: RE: BS: Julius Caesar/Jesus - fact or fiction? From: Ron Davies 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. |
|
27 May 06 - 01:50 PM (#1748588) Subject: RE: BS: Julius Caesar/Jesus - fact or fiction? From: Dave the Gnome 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 |
|
27 May 06 - 01:52 PM (#1748589) Subject: RE: BS: Julius Caesar/Jesus - fact or fiction? From: Dave the Gnome Still waiting for my apolgy as well though. DtG |
|
27 May 06 - 02:00 PM (#1748591) Subject: RE: BS: Julius Caesar/Jesus - fact or fiction? From: Little Hawk Getting an apology from the average offended ego is like trying to get milk from a stone. |
|
27 May 06 - 02:08 PM (#1748597) Subject: RE: BS: Julius Caesar/Jesus - fact or fiction? From: GUEST,AR282 >>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. |
|
27 May 06 - 02:10 PM (#1748599) Subject: RE: BS: Julius Caesar/Jesus - fact or fiction? From: Little Hawk What a tortured thing the human intellect is. How vain. |
|
27 May 06 - 02:29 PM (#1748611) Subject: RE: BS: Julius Caesar/Jesus - fact or fiction? From: GUEST,AR282 >>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? |
|
27 May 06 - 02:49 PM (#1748617) Subject: RE: BS: Julius Caesar/Jesus - fact or fiction? From: Dave the Gnome 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 |
|
27 May 06 - 03:02 PM (#1748630) Subject: RE: BS: Julius Caesar/Jesus - fact or fiction? From: Don Firth "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 |
|
27 May 06 - 03:35 PM (#1748639) Subject: RE: BS: Julius Caesar/Jesus - fact or fiction? From: Haruo (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.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 |
|
27 May 06 - 03:40 PM (#1748643) Subject: RE: BS: Julius Caesar/Jesus - fact or fiction? From: Little Hawk And that makes 300 nails in this particular coffin. Well, no. 301 with this post. |
|
27 May 06 - 03:42 PM (#1748645) Subject: RE: BS: Julius Caesar/Jesus - fact or fiction? From: Haruo Don Firth wrote, "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." I've known many atheists and agnostics (and other non-Christian religionists, for that matter) who had a similar view of Christian teachings, but AR282 is not one of them. His central argument seems to be that there is no ethical content to Christian teaching worth following. Personally, I am closer to Don than to AR282 on this, though I also subscribe to pie in the sky when you die and the resurrection of the body. I certainly agree with Don that truth doesn't depend for its truthfulness on the name of the writer of the book it's in. FWIW Haruo |
|
27 May 06 - 03:55 PM (#1748652) Subject: RE: BS: Julius Caesar/Jesus - fact or fiction? From: Little Hawk The only absolutely sure way of determining any truth is by direct experience and observation, since any supposedly authoritative source, no matter who or what it is or was, no matter when it came into being, may be compromised in some way. If people are brought up to believe that the Bible is an umimpeachable and totally authoritative source...(which I was not)...then they will probably interpret its writings as the absolute truth. I don't. I don't consider any book to be the absolute guaranteed truth, but a given book may still be quite useful as a guide toward part of the truth. Whether it is or not, that's a matter of individual opinion, or anyone's best guess. The only thing that is an absolute guaranteed guide to the whole truth is life itself. |
|
27 May 06 - 03:59 PM (#1748656) Subject: RE: BS: Julius Caesar/Jesus - fact or fiction? From: Ron Davies AR-- Like Haruo, I can hardly wait for your evidence that "the Flavians" invented Jesus. And, of course, specifically which "Flavians". And exactly why. What is this dangerous "Jewish connection" you mention? You're nothing if not entertaining. But so far, not very convincing--but at least it's your very own conspiracy theory. As far as I know, you can claim ownership. |
|
27 May 06 - 04:06 PM (#1748663) Subject: RE: BS: Julius Caesar/Jesus - fact or fiction? From: Peace "The only absolutely sure way of determining any truth is by direct experience and observation, since any supposedly authoritative source, no matter who or what it is or was, no matter when it came into being, may be compromised in some way." John Godfrey Saxe's ( 1816-1887) version of the famous Indian legend, It was six men of Indostan To learning much inclined, Who went to see the Elephant (Though all of them were blind), That each by observation Might satisfy his mind. The First approached the Elephant, And happening to fall Against his broad and sturdy side, At once began to bawl: "God bless me! but the Elephant Is very like a wall!" The Second, feeling of the tusk Cried, "Ho! what have we here, So very round and smooth and sharp? To me `tis mighty clear This wonder of an Elephant Is very like a spear!" The Third approached the animal, And happening to take The squirming trunk within his hands, Thus boldly up he spake: "I see," quoth he, "the Elephant Is very like a snake!" The Fourth reached out an eager hand, And felt about the knee: "What most this wondrous beast is like Is mighty plain," quoth he; "'Tis clear enough the Elephant Is very like a tree!" The Fifth, who chanced to touch the ear, Said: "E'en the blindest man Can tell what this resembles most; Deny the fact who can, This marvel of an Elephant Is very like a fan!" The Sixth no sooner had begun About the beast to grope, Than, seizing on the swinging tail That fell within his scope. "I see," quoth he, "the Elephant Is very like a rope!" And so these men of Indostan Disputed loud and long, Each in his own opinion Exceeding stiff and strong, Though each was partly in the right, And all were in the wrong! Moral: So oft in theologic wars, The disputants, I ween, Rail on in utter ignorance Of what each other mean, And prate about an Elephant Not one of them has seen! |
|
27 May 06 - 04:10 PM (#1748670) Subject: RE: BS: Julius Caesar/Jesus - fact or fiction? From: Little Hawk So true, Peace. Good one. Yes, we all prattle on endlessly about our own little fragments of "the truth". Some men have the wisdom to know what fools they are, and they learn humility. Most do not. |
|
27 May 06 - 04:20 PM (#1748681) Subject: RE: BS: Julius Caesar/Jesus - fact or fiction? From: Don Firth The Flavians. HERE. MORE (images of Roman emperors during the period in question). STILL MORE (more extensive dissertation). Any significant connections between the Flavians, Christianity, and the historical Jesus seem pretty tenuous, if there at all. Don Firth |
|
27 May 06 - 06:17 PM (#1748758) Subject: RE: BS: Julius Caesar/Jesus - fact or fiction? From: Dave the Gnome Yes, but AR282s truth is obviously more valid than anyone elses because he keeps quoting references for it. Whenever anyone disputes or discredits those references they do not get a response because AR knows that he is right. Am I getting the general drift right here? :D (tG) |
|
27 May 06 - 06:36 PM (#1748766) Subject: RE: BS: Julius Caesar/Jesus - fact or fiction? From: Little Hawk Indeed you are, Dave. ;-) Every ego knows that it is "right". That's the way the ego operates. It's a spectacularly good rationalizer. |
|
27 May 06 - 06:45 PM (#1748773) Subject: RE: BS: Julius Caesar/Jesus - fact or fiction? From: The Fooles Troupe "As soon as you gain access to the fortress, you swarm in and lay it waste." Sane Generals have often been known to group their forces (allowing them to get a good night's sleep, sharpen their swords, restock on arrows, have one last fling and write home the last time to mum and the kids...) for an all out 'surprise' (even when they can see you camped out there...) Dawn Attack. Especially if the little buggers have no where to run to. And then, after all, should they REALLY want to all die before you murder them all by hand, well, that's more of your forces intact for the inevitable next battle... |
|
27 May 06 - 06:57 PM (#1748779) Subject: RE: BS: Julius Caesar/Jesus - fact or fiction? From: gnu According to the Witnesses who came into my castle's back yard today, after trying to gain access to the main gate, whilst I was up a ladder, we are all going to hell... except for the JW's... who, apparently, don't swear when the SOB of an air conditioner won't fit the same way it did last summer. |
|
27 May 06 - 07:09 PM (#1748785) Subject: RE: BS: Julius Caesar/Jesus - fact or fiction? From: Little Hawk I think that life provides plenty of support for the notion that we are already there. |
|
27 May 06 - 08:46 PM (#1748808) Subject: RE: BS: Julius Caesar/Jesus - fact or fiction? From: Don Firth Nah. Life is cool. Don Firth |
|
27 May 06 - 09:11 PM (#1748815) Subject: RE: BS: Julius Caesar/Jesus - fact or fiction? From: Little Hawk Well, that's a good attitude, Don. ;-) |
|
28 May 06 - 04:00 AM (#1748896) Subject: RE: BS: Julius Caesar/Jesus - fact or fiction? From: JohnInKansas Some might be interested in more than the article pertinent to this thread in the most recent issue of Smithsonian. The link is to the "issue lead sheet" and shows the major articles in the issue. Down toward the bottom, there is the link to Who Was Mary Magdalene?, that is the article of interest here. The article, of course, expresses opinion with which you may or may not agree, or even see if you're fully indoctrinated in some traditonal belief; but it does give a "once over lightly" outline of how some people study the origins and development of doctrinal "knowledge." Perhaps a review of a conventional approach to such information, even in a light article like this one, will help focus on the kinds of arguments that are pertinent here (and perhaps not.) Or you may enjoy the article just as a bit of light reading. For some really lost history also take a look at the article Below the Rim, the lead article at the first link. John |
|
28 May 06 - 01:10 PM (#1749070) Subject: RE: BS: Julius Caesar/Jesus - fact or fiction? From: Little Hawk Good article on Mary Magdalene. |
|
28 May 06 - 01:29 PM (#1749088) Subject: RE: BS: Julius Caesar/Jesus - fact or fiction? From: bobad Good article on the people of the Grand Canyon. |
|
28 May 06 - 02:06 PM (#1749102) Subject: RE: BS: Julius Caesar/Jesus - fact or fiction? From: Haruo Yes, both are good articles. Though in the case of the Mary M. one, the failure to tie it all in with the life of Julius Caesar makes the whole premise suspect - NOT. Haruo |
|
28 May 06 - 02:13 PM (#1749106) Subject: RE: BS: Julius Caesar/Jesus - fact or fiction? From: Little Hawk Heh! Yes, how could they have overlooked that???? |
|
28 May 06 - 02:24 PM (#1749110) Subject: RE: BS: Julius Caesar/Jesus - fact or fiction? From: GUEST,AR282 >>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?<< Are you asking me to prove Roman royals created the Christian religion as we know it? This what I mean about changing the subject. that was never what this thread was about. this thread is about the historicity of Jesus Christ. I've you my reasons why I don't there was any such person. You've given me two things that I've refuted. If you have anything else, I'd like to see it. If my refutations are wrong then I'd like to see that too. As for my assertions that Roman royals created the religion, I can't prove that beyond the changes Constantine made (helping to compile canon and moving Sabbath to Sunday). While it is my burden of proof, I'm not demanding you accept it. I could easily be wrong. That was never what this dispute was about. You are once again attempting to change the subject. WHAT IS YOUR EVIDENCE JESUS WAS HISTORICAL? THAT is the subject of this thread. If you don't buy the Roman royal theory that's fine. I'm demanding you accept it. It is my conclusion based on my researches over the years. I never said it was proven by anyone much less me. Please stick to the subject. |
|
28 May 06 - 02:27 PM (#1749111) Subject: RE: BS: Julius Caesar/Jesus - fact or fiction? From: GUEST,AR283 >>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)<< They spoke of the gods allegorically. It is extremely obvious they were never asserting these gods were for real. I believe it was the denial of gods that led to Socrates taking the hemlock. |
|
28 May 06 - 02:32 PM (#1749116) Subject: RE: BS: Julius Caesar/Jesus - fact or fiction? From: GUEST,AR282 >>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?<< This is once again changing the subject. The Roman royal theory is my own conjecture. I never said I had proof of it and I never said you have to accept it. The subject of this thread is the historicity of Jesus Christ, which you are failing miserably to make a case for. Forget about the Roman royals. If it will make you happy--I completely lied about it. There were no Roman royals. They never existed and had no hand in the creation of anything. I was completely off my rocker to suggest it. I apologize for my error and will never suggest it again. I WAS WRONG!!! Okay? Now--what is your evidence for the historicity of Jesus Christ? That is the subject of the thread and for which you have the burden of proof and for which are attempting to prove nothing so far. Please lay it out for me. |
|
28 May 06 - 03:25 PM (#1749144) Subject: RE: BS: Julius Caesar/Jesus - fact or fiction? From: Haruo Of philosophers: "They spoke of the gods allegorically. It is extremely obvious they were never asserting these gods were for real. I believe it was the denial of gods that led to Socrates taking the hemlock." This is not "extremely obvious", and the mere fact* that Socrates* was convicted of denial of gods certainly doesn't mean it was true. We Christians tend to overplay the extent to which we were persecuted by the Roman Imperial government in the early days of the movement, but there was clearly some actual persecution (even actual martyrdoms) and the charges, not infrequently, included "atheism". Now, I realize that this does not answer your notion of what this thread is about. But all this side stuff (both that you have brought up, like the Flavian thing and indeed the whole idea that the title / should be an =, and the things others of us have brought up like the elephant and Mary Magdalene) is quite pertinent to the assessment of the evidence (such as it is, and there ain't much that would "prove beyond a reasonable doubt" any of our points). I certainly don't have any proof that would convince you of the historicity of Jesus of Nazareth let alone that of Jesus the Anointed One of God and God's unigenitus Son. It's all speculative stuff, because what we have to do with history at this remove is to speculate as to what concatenation of prior realities is most likely to have eventuated in the reality we think we can prove. I think Josephus (without the interpolations) provides some evidence (not proof) of the existence of Jesus. I think this is buttressed by Origen. I think if Eusebius had wanted to create the Testimonium Flavianum he would also have changed his Origen citations. From what I think I know of the history of the early church (and there is a fair amount of archæological evidence that there was Christianity prior to both Constantine and Eusebius, and some evidence as to what beliefs were current at various points) it seems to me more likely (indeed, much more likely) that there was an itinerant rabbi, almost certainly named (not just titled) Jesus (Yeshu or Yeshua, if you prefer a semiticized spelling), some time prior to Saul of Tarsus, whom I likewise take to have existed despite the fact that some of the letters canonized in his name seem unlikely to have been his, and despite the fact that the Acts of the Apostles is not "history", on whom (antecedent: Jesus) the later Christianities that are documented were dependent. Having said all that, please be aware that the Jesus I believe in and through whom I believe I am being saved is not subject to historical proofs or disproofs; the history involved is my own life, the Jesus I believe in "lives within my heart" (using "heart" in a non-anatomical sense, I hasten to clarify) and acts within my life experience. The connection between this living Savior and the itinerant rabbi is not a matter of proof, but of faith. Paul (né Saul) wrote (I Cor. 15, KJV) "And if Christ be not risen, then is our preaching vain, and your faith is also vain. Yea, and we are found false witnesses of God; because we have testified of God that he raised up Christ: whom he raised not up, if so be that the dead rise not. For if the dead rise not, then is not Christ raised: And if Christ be not raised, your faith is vain; ye are yet in your sins. Then they also which are fallen asleep in Christ are perished. If in this life only we have hope in Christ, we are of all men most miserable. But now is Christ risen from the dead, and become the firstfruits of them that slept."Now, I believe that Paul was referring to Jesus here when he wrote "Christ", and that he was referring to some sort of relatively recent event in the way of a resurrection of Christ Jesus, but my own faith in Christ Jesus is not actually dependent upon Paul's testimony. For that matter, since I am of a universalist bent, I believe that you, too, AR282, are being saved—again a point upon which Paul and the historical rabbi Yeshu might have words with me. I don't believe there's anything you can do to thwart the salvific intent of God. (This is, I suppose, based on my effort to step back and imagine the whole elephant.) Haruo *fact...Socrates — am I to take it that you believe Socrates was historical? |
|
28 May 06 - 03:26 PM (#1749145) Subject: RE: BS: Julius Caesar/Jesus - fact or fiction? From: Don Firth "They spoke of the gods allegorically. It is extremely obvious they were never asserting these gods were for real. I believe it was the denial of gods that led to Socrates taking the hemlock." Sorry, AR282, no cigar. "Extremely obvious" they were not asserting these gods for real? Since when? Many thought the bloody Oracle of Delphi was real and based their actions on enigmatic pronouncements, sometimes with disastrous results. I'm quite sure that not all Greeks believed the gods were real, but many of them, including some of the philosophers spoke of them often—and not allegorically. And it was not Socrates denying of the gods that brought about his execution. In Socrates's time, the Greeks thought of gods and goddesses as associated with particular cities. E.g.Athens, Athena. When Athens was defeated in the Peloponnesian War, there were some who maintained that the defeat was because the citizens of Athens were insufficiently pious and a pissed-off Athena allowed them to be defeated as punishment. Socrates shot off his mouth and said that the defeat was not so much a matter of impiety as human incompetence. This didn't go over too big with The Powers That Be. They charged Socrates with impiety and of corrupting the youth of Athens. That was the excuse that was used to have him executed. You're really pretty good, AR282, but you're arguing with people who know more than you do. Don Firth |
|
28 May 06 - 04:31 PM (#1749190) Subject: RE: BS: Julius Caesar/Jesus - fact or fiction? From: dianavan AR282 - Constantine realized that instead of persecuting Christians, he could use the Vatican as a means of controlling the masses. That doesn't mean that Jesus did or didn't exist. The proof that he existed is, of course, speculative. It is quite possible that when centralizing the power of the Holy Roman Catholic church, and consolidating the Old Testament with the New Testement, stories were borrowed from mythology and oral history to create the New Testament as we know it today. We also know that shortly thereafter schisms resulted in a separation of the Roman church and the Eastern Orthodox Church. In additon, we know that the Celtic church resisted Roman rule for a long time. What we see is a major shift from a lunar calendar to a solar calendar. A shift from a matrilineal belief system to a patrilineal belief system with the son of God replacing the Earth Goddesses of the pagans. Following this, of course, was the first recorded case of genocide. The Cathars of Southern France were also Christian but were slaughtered as heretics. They did not believe in the central authority of the Vatican or that Christianity needed a central authority. I'm not sure if they even believed in Jesus. Yes, they were Christians but did not believe in the accumulation of wealth (the Vatican), the so-called communion (they were vegetarian) or celibacy. In fact, many of the Vatican's attempts to rule Christendom were rejected. Thats why so many were killed during the Crusades and the Inquisition. That doesn't mean that Jesus did not exist or that Christianity is invalid. I can go along with the possibility that Jesus did not exist as we have come to know him but I still believe that what remains of Christianity is still valid if you take away the central authority of the church and the hodge-podge of so-called historical accounts of the life of Jesus. You are free to believe what you wish. As for me, I'm an unbaptized Christian who understands and knows the spirit of Christ. Jesus doesn't have a lot to do with my faith or my system of beliefs. I do not respect the so-called Holy Roman Catholic Church or any of the churches that are essentially offsprings. Why do you think that the image of Jesus the Shepherd is so prevalent? Those that follow Jesus and the teachings of the church are also referred to as the flock. I refuse to be a member of a flock of sheep. This is exactly what Rome and the Vatican intended. What is amazing to me is that although Rome has fallen, the church remains. That tells me that the church is more powerful than any secular means of control. We are all free to believe what we wish but if you try to cram it down someone's throat you are considered to be psychotic. Time to give it up. Believe what you must but I know that science does not explain everything and because of that I have spent my life studying different religions. Faith begins where science ends and we all need something to lean on. This will never change. |
|
28 May 06 - 04:40 PM (#1749196) Subject: RE: BS: Julius Caesar/Jesus - fact or fiction? From: Don Firth What dianavan said! Don Firth |
|
28 May 06 - 05:34 PM (#1749224) Subject: RE: BS: Julius Caesar/Jesus - fact or fiction? From: Dave the Gnome AR282. I have already said you don't need to keep quoting me. Why do it? I am not asking you to do anything. You asked me to attack your argument. Remember? Look back up the thread if you can't. My attack is that your argument is so full of holes it is not even worth the effort of looking up your quotes. You aksed me to attack it. Why do you have a problem when I do? As to sticking to point of the thread you have managed to stay remarkably well away from it for a long time. Just look at it. Dead simple. Julius Caesar/Jesus - fact or fiction? It is up there in black and white. I have tried to explain over and over again that there is no fact or fiction about either. It is all supposition. That IS the point. Neither theroy is right or wrong. What is wrong is the assertion that either was or was not this or that. The whole point is no-one knows. Oh - and opening another thread on the same topic in another name does not validate your argument. Transparaent tactic. Cheers DtG |
|
28 May 06 - 05:43 PM (#1749230) Subject: RE: BS: Julius Caesar/Jesus - fact or fiction? From: Peace Is Guest AR282 also Guest Sori? |
|
28 May 06 - 05:46 PM (#1749233) Subject: RE: BS: Julius Caesar/Jesus - fact or fiction? From: Dave the Gnome Actualy I now have some doubt. Sori seems to argue with far more fluidity that AR282. So, my initial supposition is probably incorrect. If so, sorry, Sori. :D (tG) |
|
19 Jun 06 - 12:43 PM (#1763801) Subject: RE: BS: Julius Caesar/Jesus - fact or fiction? From: Clinton Hammond Bock to the ORIGINAL topic When you look for the existence of Jesus outside the bible you get two examples. You have Tacitus who makes mention of him in 115 AD, and Josephus, who mentions him in 70 A.D. Both references are nearly a half-century from the time Jesus was purported to be stirring up the dust in the holy land. Not a great track record there. Compare and contrast to that which is available by Julius Caesar, including his own account of the Gaulish Campaign (De Bellum Gallico) in SEVEN SODDING VOLUMES (the eighth was added later by Aulus Hirtius). These are books by the man himself. Add in Livy (We have 35 of his purported 142 books) and you begin to get just a slight idea of how much hard historical evidence we have as the old JC and the triumvirate sunshine band. There is an overwhelming amount of evidence documenting the existence Julius Caesar compared to the rather paltry evidence documenting Jesus. |
|
19 Jun 06 - 12:54 PM (#1763812) Subject: RE: BS: Julius Caesar/Jesus - fact or fiction? From: Little Hawk Oh, joy. It's back. Julius Caesar moved in high places. He was a politician. He commanded armies and ruled an empire. It is never hard finding written evidence for the past existence of such people. Jesus, according to the stories we have heard about him, never sought or held such positions of worldly power, wasn't rich, didn't enter politics, commanded no armies, ruled no earthly empires, and hung out with poor people. And you're surprised there isn't much written historical evidence available at this point about his earthly activities?????? LOL!!! It's always like that with such people. They go mostly unnoticed by the movers and shakers of this world who are concerned with money, material goods, physical pleasures, and temporal power. |
|
19 Jun 06 - 01:05 PM (#1763821) Subject: RE: BS: Julius Caesar/Jesus - fact or fiction? From: Clinton Hammond Lame excuse LH... just like most of your blather |
|
19 Jun 06 - 01:19 PM (#1763832) Subject: RE: BS: Julius Caesar/Jesus - fact or fiction? From: Don Firth Which, when you boil it down, doesn't really prove much. Julius Caesar was a world leader and of course there would be a lot written about him by both contemporaries and historians. Add to that that if the world leader kept journals, those journals would be entered as one of the main historical sources. For a period of three years, Jesus (or Yeshua, or Joshua) was an itinerant, unauthorized (unordained) rabbi. He didn't lead any armies or conquer any counties or do much of anything else to attract the attention of contemporary journalists. He just wandered around in a small area of the Near East talking to people. What is known about him comes mostly from the followers he attracted and by the time it was written down, had been "folk processed" quite a bit. Without implying anything about my own religious beliefs—or lack thereof—I do belief that Jesus (or Yeshua, or Joshua, or something similar) was a real historical person. Mortal, not some "divine" manifestation (well, that should be a clue as to my religious beliefs, or again, lack thereof). His basic message was that we ought to be nicer to each other and help those who need help. If he showed up again today, not in a flying chariot with a flaming sword, but just wandering around and talking to people with the same message, the Powers That Be would probably crucify him just as they did before. Don Firth |
|
19 Jun 06 - 01:31 PM (#1763837) Subject: RE: BS: Julius Caesar/Jesus - fact or fiction? From: Wesley S Clinton - why do you care ? Those who believe are going to continue to believe. Those that don't - won't. No one one is going to have a "revelation" and say - "Oh crap - Clinton's right - I've been wrong all along. Thank goodness he set me straight". There's no scoreboard - no points to be gained or lost. And nothing to win. Why does everyone here like to argue so much? Would you rather be right - or happy ? |
|
19 Jun 06 - 01:34 PM (#1763838) Subject: RE: BS: Julius Caesar/Jesus - fact or fiction? From: Clinton Hammond " Would you rather be right - or happy ?" I'm BOTH! LOL :-P (jealous? I knew you would be...) |
|
19 Jun 06 - 02:02 PM (#1763850) Subject: RE: BS: Julius Caesar/Jesus - fact or fiction? From: Wesley S I'm happy that you're happy. Now - why do you care so much ? Are you really expecting to change people's minds ? Is it important to you that we all think the same way as you do? |
|
19 Jun 06 - 02:17 PM (#1763863) Subject: RE: BS: Julius Caesar/Jesus - fact or fiction? From: Clinton Hammond Wo says I do care what others think? If no one posted here, what would be the point of this place? |
|
19 Jun 06 - 02:32 PM (#1763887) Subject: RE: BS: Julius Caesar/Jesus - fact or fiction? From: Wesley S Sorry - I thought you were able to answer my question about your own motivations. Carry on. |
|
19 Jun 06 - 02:57 PM (#1763907) Subject: RE: BS: Julius Caesar/Jesus - fact or fiction? From: Clinton Hammond My motivations are not at issue in this thread..... |
|
19 Jun 06 - 03:24 PM (#1763928) Subject: RE: BS: Julius Caesar/Jesus - fact or fiction? From: Wesley S Yup - you're happy AND right..... |
|
19 Jun 06 - 03:27 PM (#1763931) Subject: RE: BS: Julius Caesar/Jesus - fact or fiction? From: Clinton Hammond indeed! :-) |
|
19 Jun 06 - 03:33 PM (#1763937) Subject: RE: BS: Julius Caesar/Jesus - fact or fiction? From: Wesley S And we NEVER have thread drift and threads are always about whatever you want them to be about.... You're sounding kind of godlike to me...... Where do we send our tithes? |
|
19 Jun 06 - 03:34 PM (#1763938) Subject: RE: BS: Julius Caesar/Jesus - fact or fiction? From: Clinton Hammond "we NEVER have thread drift and threads are always about whatever you want them to be about" Now you're hearing things.... where did I say any of that? |
|
19 Jun 06 - 03:44 PM (#1763942) Subject: RE: BS: Julius Caesar/Jesus - fact or fiction? From: Little Hawk Unlike you, Clinton, I am not trying to prove anything... You're the one who appears to consider it his duty to prove a negative proposition here...namely, that Jesus never existed. And like others, I can only wonder about the source of your motivation in that regard. |
|
19 Jun 06 - 03:47 PM (#1763945) Subject: RE: BS: Julius Caesar/Jesus - fact or fiction? From: Wesley S Little Hawk - Sorry - Clinton isn't taking questions at this time. |
|
19 Jun 06 - 03:48 PM (#1763950) Subject: RE: BS: Julius Caesar/Jesus - fact or fiction? From: Little Hawk He's his own biggest fan, Wesley. He doesn't have to take questions. He's kind of like the Pope in that respect... ;-) |
|
19 Jun 06 - 03:57 PM (#1763957) Subject: RE: BS: Julius Caesar/Jesus - fact or fiction? From: Wesley S He does tend to think he's infallible doesn't he ? I'm just glad that he's will to rub elbows with us mere mortals. |
|
19 Jun 06 - 04:02 PM (#1763961) Subject: RE: BS: Julius Caesar/Jesus - fact or fiction? From: Little Hawk Well, that's the natural compassion of the mighty seeping through his pores, Wesley. He just can't help making the occasional compassionate gesture. |
|
19 Jun 06 - 04:05 PM (#1763962) Subject: RE: BS: Julius Caesar/Jesus - fact or fiction? From: Clinton Hammond "He does tend to think he's infallible doesn't he" Not at all... but yer mom thinks I do pretty well.... better than you ever did, if she's to be trusted :-P |
|
19 Jun 06 - 04:13 PM (#1763965) Subject: RE: BS: Julius Caesar/Jesus - fact or fiction? From: Wesley S So - I didn't know you were into necrophilia. Whatever floats your boat as they say. But if you can't stay on topic just say so. PS - Look up infallible in your dictionary - even in Canada it's not about erectile disfunction. |
|
19 Jun 06 - 04:34 PM (#1763974) Subject: RE: BS: Julius Caesar/Jesus - fact or fiction? From: 282RA Btw, did any of the Jesus-was-historical freaks ever prove their case on this thread? No? Then I hereby declare victory!! |
|
19 Jun 06 - 04:39 PM (#1763981) Subject: RE: BS: Julius Caesar/Jesus - fact or fiction? From: Wesley S 282RA - Have you run into a book called "Misquoting Jesus" by Bart Ehrman ? You might enjoy it. I just finished it last week. Interesting reading. |
|
19 Jun 06 - 04:41 PM (#1763983) Subject: RE: BS: Julius Caesar/Jesus - fact or fiction? From: Little Hawk I have NEVER attempted to prove Jesus existed, AR282. I think people who try to prove he did AND people who try to prove he didn't BOTH have a bee in their bonnets, and they both ought to find something useful to do instead. I don't KNOW if he existed or not, neither do you, nor does Clinton, and not one of us has any means of proving it one way or the other. |
|
19 Jun 06 - 04:46 PM (#1763988) Subject: RE: BS: Julius Caesar/Jesus - fact or fiction? From: Clinton Hammond "they both ought to find something useful to do instead" So Whiskey Tango Foxtrot are you doing here? |
|
19 Jun 06 - 04:55 PM (#1763993) Subject: RE: BS: Julius Caesar/Jesus - fact or fiction? From: Wesley S "Subject: RE: BS: Julius Caesar/Jesus - fact or fiction? From: ClintonHammond - PM Date: 19 Jun 06 - 02:57 PM My motivations are not at issue in this thread..... " So why should Little Hawk's ? Ya can't have it both ways eh. |
|
19 Jun 06 - 05:48 PM (#1764031) Subject: RE: BS: Julius Caesar/Jesus - fact or fiction? From: Little Hawk Clinton respects himself tremendously, so that puts a high value on what he has to say...in his opinion. He clearly does not respect most other people. Hardly any other people, if his behaviour here is any indication. Accordinly, what they say is not worth shit to Clinton. And that is why he is so popular and well loved at Mudcat Cafe... ;-) I'm not here to prove Jesus existed, Clinton, because it's neither provable nor unprovable. I'm here to identify you as the jerk you are, because it pleases me to do so. |
|
19 Jun 06 - 06:01 PM (#1764039) Subject: RE: BS: Julius Caesar/Jesus - fact or fiction? From: Wesley S But he's happy Little Hawk ! |
|
19 Jun 06 - 06:04 PM (#1764045) Subject: RE: BS: Julius Caesar/Jesus - fact or fiction? From: Little Hawk Clinton's always happy. ;-) Just ask him. |
|
19 Jun 06 - 06:05 PM (#1764047) Subject: RE: BS: Julius Caesar/Jesus - fact or fiction? From: Clinton Hammond "He clearly does not respect most other people." It only looks like MOST to you cause you're on the list LH.... |
|
19 Jun 06 - 06:06 PM (#1764050) Subject: RE: BS: Julius Caesar/Jesus - fact or fiction? From: Little Hawk Naw...it's me and almost everyone else on this forum, Clinton. Your lack of respect for people is your defining characteristic. |
|
19 Jun 06 - 06:16 PM (#1764058) Subject: RE: BS: Julius Caesar/Jesus - fact or fiction? From: Don Firth Bran muffins might help. Don Firth |
|
19 Jun 06 - 07:12 PM (#1764089) Subject: RE: BS: Julius Caesar/Jesus - fact or fiction? From: John O'L Clinton, are you agreeing with AR282 that Jesus was a fiction, made up after the event and based on the historical Julius? The amount of contemporary info about each would tend to support this suggestion. I just wonder why someone inventing a tool to use against the Jews would choose a reiteration of someone so famous and so recent. Why not someone new? Why not someone less famous? Why not someone more likely to have been forgotten by then? Why take such a risk of the whole deception falling over because people recognised the model? |
|
19 Jun 06 - 07:25 PM (#1764094) Subject: RE: BS: Julius Caesar/Jesus - fact or fiction? From: Don Firth "Btw, did any of the Jesus-was-historical freaks ever prove their case on this thread? No? Then I hereby declare victory!!" Not so fast, there. First of all, your characterization of "Jesus-was-historical freaks" is essentially a straw man of your own construction. There are a substantial number of non-religious historians who maintain that Jesus (or Yeshua or Joshua), an itinerant rabbi from whose teachings a movement sprang, actually did exist. Considering the spread of the movement (even prior to Constantine), it's obvious that something was afoot. At the very least, one of the several itinerant rabbis who were wandering the area at that time tickled the fancy of a fairly large number of people. It makes a lot more sense to believe that someone resembling Jesus actually did exist to spark it off. The idea of some conspiracy makes far less sense than the idea that Jesus—a mortal human being who may have been quite charismatic, but not necessarily divine—really existed. Proof? None that you would find acceptable, obviously. But sufficient for a large number of accredited, academic historians—who, once again, are not necessarily religious themselves—to believe that it was quite probably true. But then again, 282RA, what assurance do I have that you exist? All I see are some characters formed by LCDs on my computer's monitor. For all I know, you might be nothing more than some oddball glitch in the Windows XP operating system. There is more evidence—not actual proof, but sufficient evidence to indicate probability—that Jesus really existed as a genuine historical figure some +/-2000 years ago than I have that you exist now. Don Firth |
|
19 Jun 06 - 07:30 PM (#1764097) Subject: RE: BS: Julius Caesar/Jesus - fact or fiction? From: Dave the Gnome Yep, AR282, you have won. You are right and 2 billion people are wrong. Can I come and join your religion please? Or is it restricted to complete and utter wankers? :D (tG) |
|
19 Jun 06 - 09:11 PM (#1764179) Subject: RE: BS: Julius Caesar/Jesus - fact or fiction? From: dianavan Thats not very Christian of you, DtG. |
|
19 Jun 06 - 11:22 PM (#1764258) Subject: RE: BS: Julius Caesar/Jesus - fact or fiction? From: Ron Davies Clinton, AR282, etc. just think it's unfair that the only intolerant preachers should be Jerry Falwells, Pat Robertsons etc. They want a crack at that role themselves. And I'll have to say it's type-casting. |
|
19 Jun 06 - 11:23 PM (#1764259) Subject: RE: BS: Julius Caesar/Jesus - fact or fiction? From: Little Hawk LOL! I just love watching born-again atheist dimwits trying to recruit everybody else to join the ranks of the non-religious. It reminds me of the Jehovah's Witnesses...equally determined, equally blockheaded and fanatical, equally certain of the righteous value of their cause, tedious enough to bore the bollocks off a buffalo, and equally adept at wasting other people's time. I'll say this, though. The Jehovah's Witnesses are mostly a lot nicer on the whole. |
|
20 Jun 06 - 01:13 AM (#1764321) Subject: RE: BS: Julius Caesar/Jesus - fact or fiction? From: John O'L At least you can slam the door on the Jehovah's Witnesses. It's a lot harder to click that 'back' button isn't it... |
|
20 Jun 06 - 07:30 AM (#1764497) Subject: RE: BS: Julius Caesar/Jesus - fact or fiction? From: Dave the Gnome I'm not a Christian, Dianavan, I'm a Catholic;-) Cheers DtG |
|
20 Jun 06 - 12:15 PM (#1764731) Subject: RE: BS: Julius Caesar/Jesus - fact or fiction? From: Clinton Hammond "Why not someone new?" Because the vast majority of people are not very creative, even though they think they are... Take Mudcat, and Little Hawk for example..... "There is more evidence that Jesus really existed as a genuine historical figure some +/-2000 years ago" Lets see it.... we won't cause it isn't there... "2 billion people are wrong" IF they could be wrong about the Beatles they could be wrong about anything.... People are mostly scared, stupid and gullible.... See above for example.... "I'm a Catholic" Sorry for your trouble..... |
|
20 Jun 06 - 12:20 PM (#1764735) Subject: RE: BS: Julius Caesar/Jesus - fact or fiction? From: Little Hawk Heh! Lovely. Keep it up, Clinton... |
|
20 Jun 06 - 12:44 PM (#1764762) Subject: RE: BS: Julius Caesar/Jesus - fact or fiction? From: Dave the Gnome Yeah (yeah, yeah) but the Beatles were bigger than Jesus so there should be more people wrong about them:-) I am not sure what actualy WAS wrong with them but I guess you will be happy to tell us, Clinton? Did they not exist as well? Anyway, it has recently been discovered that there IS positive proof of his existance. In the recently unearthed and positively validated diaries of Tactus Vinimus, Roman scholar and house decorator of the period the following phrase has been found EGO said , somnium iens tenus pub Jesus? Tamen is said , haud EGO have praecessi ut nonnullus operor vel alius per Judas Loosley translates as "I said, fancy going down to the pub Jesus? But he said, no I have to go to some do or another with Judas" As to "I'm a Catholic" Sorry for your trouble..... It is no trouble at all, Clinton. I gave it up many years ago. What can you do about your troubles though? I didn't think you could give up being Canadian:-0 :D (tG) |
|
20 Jun 06 - 12:56 PM (#1764775) Subject: RE: BS: Julius Caesar/Jesus - fact or fiction? From: Clinton Hammond " I gave it up many years ago." Nice to hear a success story.... |
|
20 Jun 06 - 02:17 PM (#1764839) Subject: RE: BS: Julius Caesar/Jesus - fact or fiction? From: Don Firth Yeah, I'd say Little Hawk's post of 19 Jun 06 - 11:23 PM puts it right where it's at. As Eric Hoffer said in his book The True Believer, a fanatic is going to be a fanatic no matter what his cause. And even if he changes causes, he'll be just as rabid about the new cause as he was about the old one. Being a fanatic is what he's all about. It's a psychological condition, indicative of low self-esteem and an inability to cope with an uncertain world. Don Firth |
