Apparently you can't do polls on here.... but

Do any of you think that Jesus actually existed? What do category do you fall into?

A. Believed he existed, claims are false

B. Believed he existed, claims are exaggerated

C. Don't believe he existed

D. Believe he existed, claims are true (sorry had to leave the idiot category open)

Views: 2147

Reply to This

Replies to This Discussion

Are you aware of what a fallacy is?
It was an actual honest question, not an accusation. I realize you're tired or losing interest, but the way you seem to present the stance of those who you are discussing/debating with appears a bit out of context with what they're actually saying.

I thought it was pretty clear that Matt makes a distinction with a secular approach to what information one can deduce from the bible using logic and healthy skepticism. You seem to be saying that Matt was supporting the idea that, for instance, Adam and Eve were real. You even began to argue against the idea that Moses and his deeds were factual. It seems like many of the points you were addressing had nothing to do with his points. That's not a bad thing I am calling you out on, it happens a lot in a discussion like this, but it's good to be aware of the common shortcomings and mistakes someone can make in a debate when they lose focus.
Hi Orange,

"I was being analytical, well I thought I put together real solid fact’s, you wouldn’t find them in the text book’s but that probably speak’s volume’s about how xtianty has controlled and policed information, has happened in the past (catholic church) and still happens to day (media/text books school)"
Errr... yup, that's certainly a convenient excuse for the lack of evidence and scholarly support for your claims, but it won't fly: my objections to the "facts" you mention do not come from textbooks; they are the same objections scholars make to discredit your position, which is why no scholar on the planet is a Jesus Mythicist.

"As for spiritual? huh?? O.K spiritual Atheist, that’s a odd label, if you wish to wear it then fine, BTW? you sound like fresh meat if you know what I mean, maybe still a little bias perhaps? sorry no more said."
That was a typo. I meant to say "critical and sceptical" but it came out as "critical and spiritual". My bad.
And no, I'm not fresh meat; but I understand why you'd assume that because of the typo. Again, sorry for the misunderstanding.

"No, not entirely true, I was a little hash there, you can’t dismiss the whole Zeitgeist argument completely, there are still truths in their way of thought, ok their were major flaws in their info, though not all was lost, one particular fact I’m certain of is that the xtian god/jesus was the sun.
Also do some research in regards to moses, it obvious he some how connected with the Akhenaten (a sun worshiper/aten)
I also know I’ve seen god depicted as the sun in early xtian art/churches, I also know I’ve seen the zodiac in early xtian art/churches with the sun central to the zodiac symbol’s and also some time’s represented as a human figure (jesus) Why? Why would you find these pagan symbol’s? there are more example’s of a fusion of pagan and xtian symbolism, why? Simply because god/jesus is the sun maybe?."

Humans tend to think we're a more creative lot than we really are. What you find when you analyse various religious symbols is that they get recycled all the time. Nearly every religious symbol has been part of various religions (some coincidental, some not so coincidental). But to claim that because Christianity or Judaism used symbols that once related to pagan religions, that means Jesus and other characters in the Bible are metaphors for pagan concepts (like sun worship), is a bridge too far. It would be like claiming that because Hitler used a swastika, he was influenced by Tibetan buddhism.

So, no, you'll have to come up with some more concrete evidence that does more than show that human symbolism and art tends to steal from other traditions; you'll have to actually show us that the Jesus story is an allegory for sun worship, and not the far more straightforward explanation that the Christian cult was based on a real person.

"Lunar and solar cycle’s, it’s that simple, astrological observations, the priest of that period and long before hand built their religion/faith based on astronomy as all major religions of that time did, they were obsessed and fanatical about charting the star and their movement’s, only high ranking clergy of that time knew or could decipher the heaven’s, god’s manual to the future (solar/lunar eclipses) and seasonal change"
And your evidence that early Christians and First Century jews were charting the heaven for the stars and their movements would be...
Some religions were fascinated with astrology, others much less so. Judaism falls into the latter category, as evidenced by the fact that none of the Old Testament stories are about the sun; they are about flesh-and-blood figures (unless you start applying some outlandish metaphor games). Thinking you're at the centre of the cosmos tends to temper your enthusiasm for charting that cosmos.

"Do angels (star’s) exist? No of course not!

Doe’s satan the fallen angel (falling star/meteorite) exist? No of course not!

Do you believe the above to be true? Just curios, it‘s a pretty good interpretation to me."

This is the sort of metaphor games I mean. They're fun, but silly.
Of course you can compare the fallen angel Lucifer (an event not actually mentioned in the Old Testament, by the way) to a falling star, because you can compare any falling movement to a falling star. But these few lucky hits don't exactly impress me: go through the Bible and find how many stories make sense from an astrological context. You'll be sadly disappointed.

"They also spoke of satan, god, angels, demons in a flesh and blood fashion, they certainly didn't and never have been flesh and blood, as for moses, adam and eve, seriously, he may have spoken of them in the blood, but bugger me, adam and eve? really?"
Red herring. Just because many characters in the Bible are not exactly flesh-and-blood (though they are often portrayed that way) does not help your argument that they are therefore astrological phenomena in disguise.

"Moses is a fabrication and also the myth of his deed’s were ether a distortion of event’s of that time and or simply could not have happened "impossible", their’s no evidence to support enslavement/parting the red sea/exodus as Egypt already occupied that territory under Ramses …..and there are many more examples, even history books contradict the moses story, it’s a complete fabrication."
Yes. And? Where did I claim otherwise?

"I thought it was a pretty good attempt to interpret adam and eve in an astrological sense, the biblical account certainly doesn’t make any sense what so ever, I have physical proof of eve and it’s sitting in the heavens above (sky/clouds?) bugger me, I know which interpretation I prefer to support."
Seriously? The astrological interpretation of Adam and Eve makes sense to you? What does the snake signify? What does the tree of knowledge signify? Hell, what does Adam's loneliness and Eve's curiosity signify? What do their nakedness and the fruit of knowledge signify?
It doesn't make any sense whatsoever, unless you try really, reaaaaaaally hard . These are mythic stories, but they are about human beings.

"The peoples of that time period and region (Mediterranean/middle east) were fanatical record keepers, yet jesus is not recorded at all, there are detailed records of many events and so on….. Where’s was jesus?"
Er... you seem to be quite confused here. Yes, the Romans and the Greeks were fanatical record keepers, but that doesn't help because barely any of these records survived. Undoubtedly the Romans had a list of what trouble-makers they crucified and when. But that list has long been lost. Undoubtedly there would have been census reports mentioning Jesus. But we don't have those census reports.
We have very little source material about ancient times, because all the original manuscripts have been lost one way or another, and the only books preserved are the ones that were genuinely interesting enough to be transcribed (like Ovid, Tacitus, Josephus, Pliny). But we don't have much (if any) records the Romans kept about anything. These things were simply not interesting.

And as a result, our knowledge about the ancient world is rather slim, to the extent that we don't even know how many cities First Century Palestine had, let alone who got crucified and when.

So the situation is not that we have thousands of Roman records about Palestine, and only two of them (the Annales of Tacitus and the works of Josephus) mention Jesus. The situation is that we have a handful of sources about Palestine and Jesus is mentioned in two of them.

"Why are only a few years of his life mentioned, why didn’t his closest followers (as friends do) know details of his younger years and share them? theres a huge hole in the life of jesus."
Because story after story about Jesus working with his father as a carpenter, nailing pieces of wood together and building cribs did not make for a very interesting story. I don't understand why that's so hard to see.

P.S. I'm more than willing to continue this discussion, but if so you might do best to seperate the discussion of whether Jesus existed or not from the stuff about the supposed sun worship in Judaism. You can make another thread about that if you like.
"Red herring. Just because many characters in the Bible are not exactly flesh-and-blood (though they are often portrayed that way) does not help your argument that they are therefore astrological phenomena in disguise."

I need to work on getting to the point, as you have just done here.
Take all the time you need.

Cheers.
Oh I disagree with that sentiment. I thought Zeitgeist was highly entertaining. I also thought that, if you disregard the huge leaps to indefensible conclusions, the whole astrology parallel was interesting and adds a bit of flavour to the whole debate about jesus' existence. You just can't take it seriously on the whole. ;D
Don't get me wrong: I was laughing hysterically all the way through. The stuff they taught could be presented as even an attempt at an argument were just laughable. My favourite was when they claimed that the small etymological difference between "Son of God" and "Sun" was not a coincidence. It took everyone with an IQ above room temperature about a nanosecond to figure out why that was garbage (Hint: Jesus did not speak English). But yeah, it was entertainment for anyone who knew anything about the matter; but it became a whole lot less annoying when we starting seeing people (including to my regret, many atheists) swallowing that garbage.

Regardless, I don't think unresearched crap like Zeitgeist can possibly add flavour to a rigorous academic discussion ("What can we know about the historical Jesus?") or 'make people think'. Unless we also recognise that a film with the arguments in favour of a Flat Earth add some 'flavour' to the discussion.
I don't see anyone here arguing for the truth of a biblical Jesus.
You're crazy sir. A loon. Eyes open.
If you believe Jesus is a fabrication because of the above arguments, then your scepticism is not rationally based in reason, evidence and knowledge. So don't be surprised when people who do think rationally will find your case against a historical Jesus convincing.

That doesn't make them Christians, it makes them rational.

"Oh yeah I was a little hash in regard's to "Zeitgeist' being totally shredded to bit's, not quit true, Ive seen the video counter argument to "Zeitgeist' it wasn't that disarming as a counter argument heh anyhow"

You've seen the video counter argument? That explains a lot.
Tell me: would you watch a video to educate yourself about evolution or would you read a book? I hope it's the latter, so why are you basing your knowledge on pagan parallels on a couple of badly written documentaries?

If you had read some more scholarly books you'd soon learn why no scholar on the planet takes Zeitgeist's theory even a little bit seriously. And that's just a statement of fact.
No, you're a loon for your emotionally charged responses and bazaar choice of words. Wound up and persecuted you are, lad.
And, verily, I was saying your eyes were open, not telling you to open them. You make the poetry of a homeless vagrant.

RSS

Support Atheist Nexus

Donate Today

Donate

 

Help Nexus When You Buy From Amazon

Amazon

AJY

 

© 2014   Atheist Nexus. All rights reserved. Admin: Richard Haynes.

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service