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

Greetings

 

I have had an interesting career (see below) and presently find myself

researching the field of ancient history with a view to present a

revisionist history of the 4th century of our "common era".

 

My position can be most appropriately summarised by quoting the

opening lines from the three books which Emperor Julian authored

c.361 CE "Against the Christians".

It is, I think, expedient to set forth to all mankind

the reasons by which I was convinced that

the fabrication of the Christians

is a fiction of men composed by wickedness.

  • Though it has in it nothing divine,

    by making full use of that part of the soul

    which loves fable and is childish and foolish,

    it has induced men to believe

    that the monstrous tale is truth.

I have researched this material now for over five years

and am happy to attempt the answer of any questions

any skeptical people may ask here, or elsewhere, on this

material.

 

 

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

literary invention may at first sound impossible and counter-

intuitive, however if people are interested and willing to ask

critical and skeptical questions about the reasons why I

believe that the historical truth is best explained in this manner,

then I will be happy to do my best to answer these questions.

 

 

ABOUT ME

http://www.mountainman.com.au/about.html

 

 

Finally, I wish to state that I feel that I am acting and researching

this material out of a desire to establish the ancient historical truth

of "christian origins" -- what really happened in the 4th century?

 

Best wishes to one and all.

 

 

 

Kookaburra Jack

http://www.mountainman.com.au/essenes/

 

 

 

Views: 1028

Reply to This

Replies to This Discussion

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?

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. 

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.

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.

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.

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)

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.

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.

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.   

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