My message is that Jesus did not exist but was a 4th century literary fabrication

Replies to This Discussion

Permalink Reply by Matt VDB on April 15, 2013 at 7:55am

> He was clearly not Jewish and he obviously didn't believe in the God of the Jews.

Since that is precisely what most secular scholars have concluded based on decades of research into the area, why is it so "clear" to you that the opposite is true?

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Gail on April 15, 2013 at 9:18am

The basic philosophy is opposite of Jewish - especially Pharisee Judaism that has evolved into core Judaic philosophy today.  Jesus didn't refer to God as his father.  He referred to his abba that lived within it and was one-with it, as I do.  He said that the kingdom of heaven is within, and that his abba's mansion has many rooms.  He is speaking of universal consciousness and a multidimensional world.  If Jesus died on the cross, as the texts state, then Jesus was a liar.

Having tested his assertion that I could do all that I want because the abba exists, and have discovered that I really can make things appear in my reality, and I don't need to believe that Jesus is the only son of god who allowed himself to be tortured to death so that I can go to heaven.  He never called himself the only son of God.  He was referring to the abba in John 3:16.

Those who use modern texts rather than ancient ARamaic and ancient Koine Greek to translate previously rewritten (rather than translated) texts are doing the world no service. 

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Matt VDB on April 15, 2013 at 10:25am

> He said that the kingdom of heaven is within, and that his abba's mansion has many rooms.  He is speaking of universal consciousness and a multidimensional world. 

Wrong, wrong and wrong.

Please back up those claims, because right now they're simply assertions. 

Unless you're going to start spouting that universal consciousness BS, in which case don't bother.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Gail on April 15, 2013 at 10:58am

1) Get out your Koine Greek dictionary to see that Jesus never referred to his “father”, but rather, his abba.  Abba is not a word with any reverential connotations.  It meant papa.  It is a word that a young child would use in referring to his daddy.  The “term” bar abba, which was applied to Jesus, means son of papa.  And as the balcony scene says, bar abba (in ancient Aramaic or bar-abba in Koine Greek) was released unharmed, if the Bible contains ANY accuracy at all, the one referred to as Jesus was released unharmed.

2) John 14:2  My abba’s mansion has many rooms.

3) Luke 17:20-21:  And when he was demanded of the Pharisees, when the kingdom of God should come, he answered them and said, The kingdom of God cometh not with observation:  21 Neither shall they say, Lo here! or, lo there! for, behold, the kingdom of God is within you.

4) I concluded that the kingdom of heaven is consciousness itself – that I call universal consciousness.  It is consistent with a lot that is being discovered in quantum mechanics and the even newer study of consciousness itself.  It comports comfortably with the multiple worlds theory of quantum mechancis.  If the kingdom of heaven is within – and not in the sky somewhere where you go after you die (and Paul even talked about the third heaven of all things!) – then that which is within me is my consciousness, and when I became self-aware, I became aware of a much grander world than most of the world has even discovered.  I even have the ability to do that which many say that I cannot do.  But that is not my loss.  That’s theirs.  They simply deny in themselves what I have discovered in myself.

None of this is to suggest that I take the whole work as literal truth.  I am an atheist, after all, as I believe that Jesus (if such a person existed at all) was – given all that he said about the matter of heaven and his/our relationship to it – was an atheist.

By the way, there is no reason to be rude and offensive.  You can ask with a civil tone if you really try.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Matt VDB on April 16, 2013 at 5:19am

Abba is not a word with any reverential connotations.  It meant papa.  It is a word that a young child would use in referring to his daddy.

Largely accurate. Abba is only used three times in the entire NT, and each time it's followed by the greek "o pater", indicating the intended translation for the readers (who did not know Aramaic). And while abba is used as a diminutive in modern Hebrew, it did not carry that connotation in Aramaic. That idea was popularized by Joachim Jeremias but was shot down quickly afterwards, for the reasons above.

But since we all know abba means father and Jesus refers to God as the father numerous times throughout the NT, that's not exactly something you need to argue.

John 14:2 My abba’s mansion has many rooms.

At which point he elaborates this proto-Trinitarian concept (of which there are many in John; like John 5:7) and explains the analogy of the house.

Sorry, but you can't simply take one sentence out of context and press it into service as something that sounds kinda sorta like a universal consciousness metaphor. That's called quote-mining.

3) Luke 17:20-21:  And when he was demanded of the Pharisees, when the kingdom of God should come, he answered them and said, The kingdom of God cometh not with observation:  21 Neither shall they say, Lo here! or, lo there! for, behold, the kingdom of God is within you.

Again, you're cherry-picking very specific verses.

But this one doesn't even work, because in most modern translations, the phrase is rendered as "the kingdom of heaven is among you" or "in your midst". That's because Jesus goes on to explain what he means by his statement in the following paragraphs:

²² Then he said to his disciples, “The time is coming when you will long to see one of the days of the Son of Man, but you will not see it. ²³ People will tell you, ‘There he is!’ or ‘Here he is!’ Do not go running off after them. ²⁴ For the Son of Man in his day^[d] will be like the lightning, which flashes and lights up the sky from one end to the other. ²⁵ But first he must suffer many things and be rejected by this generation.

²⁶ “Just as it was in the days of Noah, so also will it be in the days of the Son of Man. ²⁷ People were eating, drinking, marrying and being given in marriage up to the day Noah entered the ark. Then the flood came and destroyed them all.

²⁸ “It was the same in the days of Lot. People were eating and drinking, buying and selling, planting and building. ²⁹ But the day Lot left Sodom, fire and sulfur rained down from heaven and destroyed them all.

Here Jesus is quite literally continuing in the spirit of Mark's apocalypticism. He's not saying that the kingdom of heaven is "within you", he's saying that to look out for the return of the Son of Man is meaningless, because the Apocalyps will be swift and none shall see it coming.

How does this passage mesh with your universal consciousness when it's placed back in its proper context?

I concluded that the kingdom of heaven is consciousness itself – that I call universal consciousness.  It is consistent with a lot that is being discovered in quantum mechanics and the even newer study of consciousness itself.

Leaving aside the fact that leaping from quantum mechanics to universal consciousness is a claim very few actual scholars would be comfortable with, did you then actually conclude that Jesus -a 2000-year-old Jewish prophet- was talking about universal consciousness based on two passages?

I even have the ability to do that which many say that I cannot do.  But that is not my loss.  That’s theirs.  They simply deny in themselves what I have discovered in myself.

Errr, okay.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Gail on April 15, 2013 at 11:05am

I happen to worship the holy Flying Spaghetti Monster (all praise be to His noodly appendages that boiled for my sins).  I will speak in Biblical terms when someone mentions the Bible.  That allows me to be better understood.  That doesn't mean that I accept the Bible as my guide, nor does it mean that I need saving (having already been saved through my faith in the FSM)

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Mathew T. on April 15, 2013 at 12:35pm

Yeeeeaaaah I agree with Gail, Matt VDB. I happen to not accept Gail's universal consciousness claim myself, but it seems parochial and snide, the way you've addressed those claims.  I've perused through a number of the topics you've posted on and you don't come across very well in most of them. By my estimation, you openly condemn and ridicule anyone who disagrees with you, while spuriously mounting a "smartest man in the room" complex.

I'm not an expert on communication or anything psycho-analytical, but it seems an ineffective way to get people to translate your opinions, if you ask me.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Matt VDB on April 16, 2013 at 4:53am

I happen to not accept Gail's universal consciousness claim myself, but it seems parochial and snide, the way you've addressed those claims.

My bad. I thought we were on a reason-based forum here, where people who pretended to know things who they clearly didn't know or clearly hadn't researched, were not treated with kid gloves.

I thought that was once the basis of our movement, but then again I've never quite had my pulse on the movement so I could be wrong.

By my estimation, you openly condemn and ridicule anyone who disagrees with you

Actually, if you perused as many topics of mine as you claim, you'd notice that the actual arguments are central to my criticisms. The ridicule only comes when they pretend to know things they do not know or employ emotion-based arguments.

But since I didn't ask for your estimation of my posting habits, I don't really care about it either way.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Mathew T. on April 16, 2013 at 1:05pm

“My bad. I thought we were on a reason-based forum here, where people who pretended to know things who they clearly didn't know or clearly hadn't researched, were not treated with kid gloves.”

I’m not sure what kid gloves are, but nevertheless I understand what the metaphor is trying to say, and reject its insinuation that constructively disassembling poor reasoning instead of blasting it with ineffective ridicule is to treat something with “kid gloves”. This is also a fantastic example of your ego. If anyone should present conflicting ideas to your own, the only logical explanation must be that either they don’t understand the topic, or they haven’t researched it. You’ve attacked almost everyone whose conclusions you disagreed with in an almost identical manner to how you’ve addressed Gail: disdainfully - a manner in which you seem to almost animalistically relish the opportunity, if I’m being honest - and I think the sarcastic way you wrote the above demonstrates the exact point I’m trying to make.

***As an aside, if the message of your above sentence is that the people you ridicule don’t understand or haven’t researched what they’re talking about, thereby deserving said ridicule because their positions are ungrounded, how is it you explain the many quasi-altercations you have had with the following person (there are many others just like her), who clearly has spent more time researching the topic you berated her over than you’ve even been alive, and has demonstrable credentials in an arena where you have none (aside from you yourself pointing out to everyone just how much you know about history)?

http://www.atheistnexus.org/profile/DianaAgorio

"I thought that was once the basis of our movement, but then again I've never quite had my pulse on the movement so I could be wrong."

It must be because you're just so different and unique, right? The messiah of historicity, sent to set free the rest of us atheist dunderheads who can't interpret scripture properly with our chimp-like brains? Again, the sarcastic tone and underlying assumption that your intellect makes you so unique compared to the rest of us, is an example of an incredibly inferior way to defend what ultimately is nothing more than treating people terribly, to mentally masturbate over how smart you think you are, finally calling it “speaking your mind”. There are a lot of outspoken people in this community, and I haven’t come across a single one who has had half of the misunderstandings and run-ins that you have. 

Coincidence? Maybe. But probably not. Or, maybe it’s just that we’re all too god damn sensitive, and you’ve been busy trying to keep it “on the real”. Maybe. See how pointless the sarcasm is? It really is just a filler people use when they don’t really have anything of substance to say.

"Actually, if you perused as many topics of mine as you claim, you'd notice that the actual arguments are central to my criticisms. The ridicule only comes when they pretend to know things they do not know or employ emotion-based arguments."

I feel confident enough in how I've measured you up in this regard that I don't need to pull from the archives; your sometimes needlessly insulting writing style comes across often enough that anyone who looks for it will find it, and arguments are not central to insults. You've made several borderline ad hominem attacks in this one thread alone, and it just doesn't cut it if your goal is to effectively convince people of your position (which you acknowledged it is). If someone hasn't presented a strong, or in some cases, I'll grant even logically admissible argument, then state that. Don't make statements like "anyone with a brain would know/see/understand this", or the myriad of other similarly discourteous things you've written to people who you intend to refute. I notice you didn't quote or address me on that one, by the way. Do you agree it's an ineffective way to argue (unlikely) or did you simply disregard it? If you don’t agree that it’s an ineffective way to argue, how do you defend that it is, infact, an effective way to argue? Have a lot of people come to accept your positions based on your affront-heavy method of defending your points?

"But since I didn't ask for your estimation of my posting habits, I don't really care about it either way."

You obviously cared enough to take 2 minutes and meticulously whip up this sarcastic and biting response, which was every bit as close-minded and snarky as I had anticipated it would be, and that you intended it to be - and trust me, I have no illusions about you hitting me back with another one.

Why is that? Did you really think you were going to zing me - refute my stupid comment and show everyone that you can talk to people however you want? No, that’s not why you wrote it. Did you think you were going to change my mind, or make me see the light and recognize that correcting you was a pointless frivolity? No, that’s not why, either. So why then, take the time out to write what amounted to nothing more than your void attempt to blithely riff off of me? Well, I have a theory, and I’ve already mentioned it above... 

I think you get off on your monolithic ego, which regards itself as the superior intellect in any room, and you quite simply couldn’t help yourself. I think you love insulting others and feeling like an educated overlord, but you don’t want to acknowledge it because life will be much easier under the heading: “outspoken and proud of it”. Just my non-professional, inferior opinion (which you’ll quote, and respond to with something like: “took the words right out of my mouth”, or “wow, you’ve got me pegged, Freud!”).

Listen, I’m sure you’re going to have a doosy for me (whether you actually respond or not is another thing), where you witfully and with great malice point out how sanctimonious and self righteous I must be, rescuing the internets with my goodness. Before you do that, consider the following:

-I’m not much of a history buff at all (don’t enjoy studying it, never will), but I feel that it is due diligence to make sure I at least try as best I can, because history matters.

-I actually AGREE with many of your conclusions on history, based on my own findings.

-In spite of this, I don’t enjoy reading your posts. They’re non-constructive, self-aggrandizing, and usually somewhat childish. Do something about it! Can’t you see the far more winsome outcome of carefully dissecting what someone says, with links to demonstrate whatever errors they may have made in their research, rather than the minimal effort it takes for you to write what most often is probably interpreted as “you’re fucking stupid if you believe that”? 

If you intend on another snippy response, save both of us some time and make a facebook status that states how stupid I am instead. If all you need is to feel smarter, then I’m willing to make that sacrifice for you. If, on the other hand, you see any merit in anything I’ve had to say and feel as though a constructive and engaging conversation could be profit, then by all means - I’m awaiting your reply.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Matt VDB on April 16, 2013 at 2:33pm

Mathew,

I must say I'm a little taken aback from your response. As far as I remember, we've never talked to each other before this thread, so it's really a bit unfair of you to judge me on the basis of interactions with other people (and in such detail!).

So for what it's worth, I'll answer some of your questions (I'm sorry to say I can't plausibly defend myself against all the allegations you made) in the non-snippy way.

You’ve attacked almost everyone whose conclusions you disagreed with in an almost identical manner to how you’ve addressed Gail

That actually entirely depends on the tone of their posts. People who come to a thread asking questions or saying "I read this somewhere and I think it might be true" will get a polite answer or a polite correction.

Sadly there's not that many of those, and most people simply burst into a thread spouting certainties and pretending that there's no debate... even though the things they're saying are simply relayed from Youtube clips and not taken seriously by anyone outside of Internet fora.

So the second group receives some conversational pressure right off the bat, because since they're so clearly the experts and speak in absolutes, they should be able to handle it. I view that as fair.

> As an aside, if the message of your above sentence is that the people you ridicule don’t understand or haven’t researched what they’re talking about, thereby deserving said ridicule because their positions are ungrounded, how is it you explain the many quasi-altercations you have had with the following person (there are many others just like her), who clearly has spent more time researching the topic you berated her over than you’ve even been alive, and has demonstrable credentials in an arena where you have none (aside from you yourself pointing out to everyone just how much you know about history): DianaAgorio.

Again, this is where basing yourself off of cursory research into my posting history just doesn't work. You don't know about Diana banning previous critics from her profile for correcting her, or straight up lying about corrections that were made. So I dare say you don't have all the information available to judge whether my tone was appropriate there.

So to answer your question, Diana had a similar habit as the one noted above, where she would tout her personal theories (shared by precisely no-one in the academic community) as the absolute truth even though she had zero intention of ever getting her theories peer-reviewed. She just tried to sell books by teasing us with some of the great revelations she had made... that would remain forever hidden from academia.

Mix that with her behaviour above and I'm sorry to say that the fact that she had a degree in history did not entirely impress me. So me and a few others poked quite a bit of fun at her theories to show people that her theories were not cut-and-dry, and to not get others to waste their money.

After all, I'm not a scholar and I've never pretended to be one. So you won't see me trumpeting my personal pet theory as the absolute truth. However, what I will do is point out what kinds of opinions have gotten through the peer-review process consistently, and point out the flaws in the argument of the armchair historian from that perspective.

Do you agree it's an ineffective way to argue (unlikely) or did you simply disregard it? If you don’t agree that it’s an ineffective way to argue, how do you defend that it is, infact, an effective way to argue? Have a lot of people come to accept your positions based on your affront-heavy method of defending your points?

A few things to unpack there. First, it's simply *not* my only way of arguing. Civil people get civil replies, people who qualify their statements somewhat won't get sarcastic replies, etcetera. And yes, staying polite with those people works perfectly.

As for the other group of people, yes, I do find that the use of some sarcasm and ridicule helps. If someone is actually trying to defend a position that no one on the planet holds, I find it quite normal to point out the absurdity and arrogance that that requires - in addition to the arguments that refute their position.

Now of course, anyone who's spent some time debating on the internet knows that to see someone say "Wow, I was totally wrong and had no idea what I was talking about!" is a rare occurrence indeed. But I have seen it happen on numerous times that holding people's feet to the fire makes it click for people that they shouldn't post crap without some basic fact-checking. The odds of success are quite low to begin with, but it does have its use and spectators usually get the point as well.

Perhaps unfailing respectfulness at every step would work even better. Perhaps not. Either way, I'm not pacifistic enough for that and I don't think I have any obligation to be.

Can’t you see the far more winsome outcome of carefully dissecting what someone says, with links to demonstrate whatever errors they may have made in their research

See above: I do carefully dissect the errors in people's positions, and arguments virtually always comprise the majority of my post. The only thing that differs is whether there's going to be a sauce of sarcasm on top of the arguments, and that's generally decided by the tone and/or air of certainty of the other person.

That, I think, is as far as I need to go in my defense. I hope it provides some context with my posting history. My rules of engagement are my own, but I think you'll find I follow them quite closely.

Speaking of rules of engagement, I'm not sure what yours are, but I'm pretty sure they don't warrant this many assumptions on what I masturbate to, this early in a conversation. So I'd appreciate it if you left that out in your next reply.

Permalink Reply by nick altman on April 16, 2013 at 9:13pm

Typical covert passive aggressive mind games. Constantly putting Matt on the defensive and keeping him defending himself instead of  the issues. I would predict this style of manipulative arguing probably has served you very well in the past, Mathew T.   

• ‹ Previous
• 1
• …
• 7
• 8
• 9
• Next ›
• Page