|
|
|
|
|
| SFReader Forums > SF Fiction and Art > Right Now I'm Reading.... > Jesus: Fact and Fiction | Forum Quick Jump
|
 | 
Frank
Adept
      
Date Joined Aug 2005
Total Posts : 629
| Posted 5/16/2006 6:20 PM (GMT -4) |   | | Sounds like my kind of book. I was raised Catholic but I'm a born-again atheist. | | Back to Top | | |
|
Bitternut
Stablehand
Date Joined May 2006
Total Posts : 45
| Posted 5/17/2006 3:19 PM (GMT -4) | | I'm an atheist, too. My wife is a devout Catholic so we get into debates and disagreements periodically about our beliefs...My daughter is being raised Catholic. Part of the deal I had to make to be married in the Catholic Church...When she becomes a teenager, she can make up her own mind anyway.
Bitternut
aka the Sloth | | Back to Top | | |
|
Frank
Adept
Date Joined Aug 2005
Total Posts : 629
| Posted 6/19/2006 2:16 PM (GMT -4) | | I love throwing this little story at Christians and then watch them get all fired-up:
Jesus in fact never existed. He's based heavily on a 6th century B.C. Persian religious reformer named Zoroaster (Zarathustra in Europe) who did exist. How do we know? Because there are many records of Zoroaster from the time he was alive. But for Jesus the only record of him we have at all are the Gospels, written down centuries after he supposedly lived by devout Christians. There is absolutely no physical or written evidence contemporary with his supposed lifetime that Jesus ever lived. Astounding when you consider how exhaustively the Romans kept written records of everything from taxes and other matters of state to religeous practices to business and even everyday gossip. | | Back to Top | | |
|
Gabe Dybing
Neophyte
Date Joined May 2006
Total Posts : 147
| Posted 6/19/2006 3:53 PM (GMT -4) | |
Frank said...But for Jesus the only record of him we have at all are the Gospels, written down centuries after he supposedly lived by devout Christians. There is absolutely no physical or written evidence contemporary with his supposed lifetime that Jesus ever lived.
I'm no Biblical scholar, but I suspect that "centuries after he supposedly lived" is a bit loose. I think that our earliest "Biblical" evidence for Christ is within about 100 years. There is some "secular" evidence in Roman histories, but, of course, this is debatable, too, and, most likely, is some later interpolation by some pious Roman.
One of the more compelling arguments for historical Christianity is that the so-called apostles were very painfully executed for refusing to recant a "lie" that they had made up. Christians are crazy lunatics.
Just so you know where I stand and hopefully to avoid any kind of Da Vinci Code nuttiness in this thread, I call myself a "post-Christian" Catholic. I subscribe to Catholicism more on philosophical principles rather than by any notion of being "born again." Christianity (Catholicism) brought "reason" to the religious impulse and so seems to be the healthiest guide for mankind.
Keralen, a friend of mine read Moore's book and thought it was a hoot.
The bush burned with fire, and the bush was not consumed.
| | Back to Top | | |
|
Frank
Adept
Date Joined Aug 2005
Total Posts : 629
| Posted 6/19/2006 4:04 PM (GMT -4) | | | i wasn't actually trying to elicite any particular response just sharing a fun albeit mean little joke...please no one take offense | | Back to Top | | |
|
Gabe Dybing
Neophyte
Date Joined May 2006
Total Posts : 147
| Posted 6/20/2006 1:43 PM (GMT -4) | | Robert, I'm not quite sure what you're asking. But according to Donald Senior, PhD of studies in New Testament at the University of Louvain, Belgium, Herbew Union College, Cincinnati, Ohio, and Harvard University, from front matter to a Bible published by the Oxford University Press, 1990:
"The New Testament books were all written during the latter half of hte first century A.D. The letters of Paul were probably the earliest New Testament works to be put in writing, dating mainly from the decade of the fifties. The sayings of Jesus and the many sotires about his ministry circulated in the Christian community all during these early decades of the church but were probably not put in writing until shortly after A.D. 70, with Mark the first Gospel to be written. Matthew, Luke (and his second volume, the Acts of the Apostles), and John follow, with the compositions of their Gospels taking place sometime during the last quarter of the first century. The other non-Pauline letters and writings, including the Book of Revelation or the Apocalypse, also date from this period."
Even without caring a whole lot, fully willing to admit that the whole Christ story is merely a "myth" but a damn good one (making it so realistic), it seems difficult to claim that Jesus did not exist. The Christian movement began very much as a grass roots movement, transmitted orally by illiterate or semi-literate fishermen. Paul's contemporary writings with the movement very much treat with an undeniably historical Jesus, often quoting sayings and teachings of Jesus that later will appear in the gospels. The absence of Jesus in contemporary Roman histories seems simply accounted for by the fact that the Jesus movement was a grass roots movement created by nobodies in a "backwater province." Even so, after writing his letters between A.D. 48 and 62, Paul was arrested and brought to Rome in A.D. 60. (Mary Ann Getty PhD).
I'm puzzled by this insistence by many to link Jesus with Zoroaster or Mithra or any common corn god. Jesus does fit very well the death/rebirth archetype displayed by all these characters, he may not have been God, but he seems to very much have been his own live man.
The bush burned with fire, and the bush was not consumed.
| | Back to Top | | |
|
darkbow
Rabbit lord
Date Joined Oct 2005
Total Posts : 1627
| Posted 6/20/2006 7:22 PM (GMT -4) | | Jesus is mentioned at least twice in the ancient writings of Josephus, a Jew writing for a Roman audience (Josephus was a Jewish rebel against Rome, but was captured and sort of switched sides — most of this happening about 65-70 A.D.). There are some arguments about whether Josephus actually wrote the passages concerning Jesus, some scholars thinking those sections were added later on by Christian writers.
Regardless, Josephus did make mention in his writings of plenty of other Jewish and Christian figures. | | Back to Top | | |
|
Frank
Adept
Date Joined Aug 2005
Total Posts : 629
| Posted 6/23/2006 1:23 PM (GMT -4) | | I didn't really want to get drawn into a religious debate here. I'll say this: in broad strokes the historically unconfirmed life of Christ mirrors the older story of Zoroaster so closely that it seems difficult to believe that the one is not the other, simply adopted and renamed. This has happened many times before in countless ancient cults. The point I was trying to make is that there is some evidence that Zoroaster existed (though the resurrection thing is obviously a stretch of the imagination) while there is absolutely no firm evidence contemporary with his supposed lifetime that Christ, as he is decribed in the New Testament, ever did exist.
The "joke" in question is simply to imply this to any devout Christian and watch the extreme reaction that is so easy to provoke, as this thread proves.
The New Testament says Christ was crucified by a Roman for no other crime than simply representing a threat to Roman authority. My point here is that if Christ was so large a threat that he had to be sentenced to death, then where are the Roman records concerning this matter? Keep in mind we are speaking of an Empire that meticulously maintained written records of all important doings, especially legal matters and matters of state. The Romans invented the legal system we use today.
If you ask me, a group of Hebrews grew impatient while waiting for the Messiah, got really tired of squirming under Roman rule, and decided to take what was at the time the well known story of Zoroaster, tack on a new name and purpose, and run with it. Today we can point out the irony that the Roman Empire, by it's very nature, helped spread Christianity far quicker than would have been possible without Roman roads.
I'm sorry to say it but the existence of Christianity, no matter how close to year zero you can spot it, is not proof that Christ himself ever lived because it's too easy to take established religious traditions already in place and rename them. Christianity itself has been doing this for two thousand years. Every Christian tradition you can name, right down to the details of the ceremonies, has its roots in other religions and beliefs. Why not the big man himself as well? | | Back to Top | | |
|
darkbow
Rabbit lord
Date Joined Oct 2005
Total Posts : 1627
| Posted 6/23/2006 2:33 PM (GMT -4) | | Frank,
First, I'm not a Christian. Don't plan to become one. I have no agenda other than maybe to play devil's advocate.
I don't know if Christ existed, was son of God, or if anything else about ancient, historical Christianity is true.
However, one argument I can buy about early Christianity being true is that the Apostles had nothing to gain. True, it was a time of revolution and turmoil in Palestine (when isn't it?). True, there were probably plenty of Jews looking for a Messiah. However, Jesus ain't it. Jesus does not fit the traditional notion of a Jewish Messiah. Jesus was not preaching about ruling any kingdom on Earth, nor about overthrowing Rome or freeing the Jews. The Apostles had no political, monetary or social expectations; they had nothing to gain but lives of hardship and even harsher deaths. So why would they go through everything they did if none of it was true? Mass insanity would be the only thing that makes sense, and that's almost as hard to believe as a son of God dying for our sins. | | Back to Top | | |
|
Raph
Stubborn Scholar
Date Joined Oct 2004
Total Posts : 260
| Posted 6/23/2006 2:44 PM (GMT -4) | | As an agnostic, I always find these types of discussions interesting. Since I have no personal stake in either viewpoint, I can usually see some truth in both sides of the issue. Myself, I think that Jesus probably did exist as a person, but any evidence for or against his existence is so far in the past that it's pretty much impossible to prove one way or the other. Even if you did, it wouldn't make a bit of difference--anyone open-minded enough to consider the evidence objectively probably isn't stuck to one belief system anyway, and no ammount of evidence will change the minds of die-hard believers. NOTE-- this is not meant to bash anyone's religion in any way, shape, or form. Part of my belief as an agnostic is that it is possible that any (or none, or all) religion might actually be true. I just don't think any of us will ever know for sure until we die, if even then (after all, the atheists might also have it right).
And Frank makes a really good point about Christian traditions having roots in "pagan" religions. Christmas and Easter, the two major Christian holidays, steal extensively from pagan beliefs, not only in the time of year they are celebrated, but also in "traditional" symbols (you don't really think that rabbits, eggs, pine trees, mistletoe, etc. actually have anything to do with Christianity, do you?) As for the whole "ressurection" thing, there's something I've never been able to understand; why is it that it has to be either proof of J.C.'s divinity or an outright lie? There are many documented cases throughout history of people that "died", only to "return to life" days, or even weeks later. They even put bells in coffins, so that if one of these people were to awaken after being buried, they could alert someone to dig them up (thus the term "dead-ringer"). We now know that these people were in a coma, and mistaken for dead. My point is, if this is the case, what makes Jesus different? Again, not meaning to bash anyone's beliefs, just throwing out some observations as an unbiased observer.
Mike O. | | Back to Top | | |
|
Frank
Adept
Date Joined Aug 2005
Total Posts : 629
| Posted 6/23/2006 2:53 PM (GMT -4) | | | An excellent point, Mr. Darkbow. Now we're venturing into territory in which I don't feel very qualified to debate but my first instinct is ask how certain we are that the Apostles themselves existed? Isn't it possible they were invented decades or centuries later by whomever wrote the Gospels? Or that they are merely loosely based on several actual persons? As for what they had to gain one could argue they had the same martyrdom as Christ himself to gain. After all we are still taking them at their word two thousand years later, aren't we? | | Back to Top | | |
|
Gabe Dybing
Neophyte
Date Joined May 2006
Total Posts : 147
| Posted 6/23/2006 4:45 PM (GMT -4) | |
Frank said...my first instinct is ask how certain we are that the Apostles themselves existed?
No, Jeff. I feel like giving this comment more than a shrug. It seems frankly irrational.
Frank, I thought my earlier posts might already have established the historicity of the apostles, if not Christ.
Sure, the gospels are penned anywhere from 40 yrs to 100 yrs after Jesus "became absent from this world" (how do you like that for a non-confrontational phrase?).
But "Paul's" writings are penned around 40 A.D. - about ten years after Jesus' "absence," perfect for the Christological time frame. You mentioned that you're an ex-Catholic by heritage so I imagine you're somewhat familiar with the content of the apostolic letters. What you are proposing is that "Paul" claimed to meet with people who weren't actually the apostles (or maybe he never even met anyone) and even had something of a fight with this evanescent "Peter." "Somebody" composed letters pretending to be Peter, James and John and circulated them among the churches. These texts are there. Either they were written by the apostles or they were written by people, for whatever reason you might be able to think of, in the face of increasing Roman persecution (or isn't there enough Roman evidence that Christians were prosecuted?) who were "pretending" to be apostles. But whoever they were written by, they were written by people who were there at that moment in time, people that you "instinctively" question whether or not ever existed.
I'm sorry, Frank, but this is really hard for me to swallow. I think your instincts on this one might be leading you wrong.
The bush burned with fire, and the bush was not consumed.
| | Back to Top | | |
|
nathan
Sage
Date Joined Mar 2006
Total Posts : 2111
| Posted 6/23/2006 4:48 PM (GMT -4) | | |
You know I love this kind of stuff. I love intellectual debate and I have a hard time not playing devil's advocates simply to watch well constructed arguments frame themselves. I assume that we are removing the concept of faith and diety from the argument. These are non-academic constructs and any attempt to impose them over historical facts is a poor match, IMO anyway.
The nature from which people approach the argument can be as telling as what they say. For instance Frank's 'first instinct' is to question the very existance of the apostles. The motivation behind that kind of default position can potentially be as harmful to "learning" something new as blind faith in a dogma. It often goes likes this in some format: Pat Roberston pisses me off. Pat Roberson is a Christian. Christanity is a relgion and not based on intellectual thought but its opposite; faith. Faith isn't scientific proof there for there is no historical evidence.
Note, Frank I'm not saying you feel this way. I'm just saying having a closed mind in any direction isn't very academic. The fact that you thought any disagreement was automatically 'extreme reaction' doesn't make it seem like you'd be open to admit that most things from Antiquity are not sourced like a modern legal treatisie -- whether relgious or not.
Jesus may not have been sourced by Roman's. He may have been sourced in one ledge of 'who got crucified' at Golgotha on day XVI which was lost when Rome pulled out of Palestine. Jesus wasn't a problem to Rome. He was a real problem to the Jewish leaders of the time. Poncious was willing to let him go, it was the Pharisese (jewish leaders of the people) who found Jesus to be the heritic, the threat to their puppet government and the Pharisese were the ones who insited he be killed. Big picture Jesus wasn't a military threat to Rome occupation, he didn't rate. He was a big problem to the Pharasies (sp).
Okay, if he was such a big threat to the Pharasises then where is their documentation about him? Well, in the records the Jewish leaders kept at the time. Records that continue to be talked about today by Jewish Orthodoxy rabbis. Records that led the Phrophet Mohammad to also explicitly say Jesus was a great preacher but wrong to say he was a godhead.
The problem then, because we belive he didn't exist because the Roman's didn't mention him, then means we don't belive the Jews or the Arab record keepers because they layer their history as inseperatable from their faith.
I usually find (not saying this is true of anyone here on the board) that many people who don't like the idea of a historical Jesus have read books after book or article after article about why Jesus didn't but have never read a single Yale Theocracy and History doctroal dissertation on why he might have.
What we accept from Antiquity as 'proof' is more restritive than what we accept from the age of the dinosaur but less restritictive than what we accept from modern history for obvious reasons.
The apostles are well supported as any other figures from Antiquity in various writings. The first testimony of Christ is considered to be about 30 years old and written by an eye witness. This idea that the first Christ writings are hundreds of years old is simply not true.
Did, in the tradition of the time, the apostles infuse Jesus to make him seem more like Moses and possibly more like Zochaster? You bet they did. That was the style and part of their faith, but for historical debate that is about as important in refuting existance as the fact as to whether Christ was a middle eastern negro or Arryan.
Wasn't to pushy was I? I'm writing fast between breaks. 
EDIT NOTE: Frank you seem to be catching more than one response at a time -- I assure you I'm not trying to gang up on you. Your posts always seem intelligent and educationally based. I'm just asking if you have a open mind about this subject or whether you've become emotionally invested in the argument -- before I go any further.
VIEW IMAGE
"Writing the wet dreams of teenage boys" - Lindsey Llyod, Tangent Reviews | | Back to Top | | |
|
darkbow
Rabbit lord
Date Joined Oct 2005
Total Posts : 1627
| Posted 6/23/2006 4:52 PM (GMT -4) | | Okay, discounting the Apostles, then what did the early authors of the New Testament have to gain?
I believe there is enough historical and archaeological evidence to show the books were written prior to Constantine. So, unless there was some underground conspiracy going back to at least 70 A.D. that was planning to take over the Roman Empire, I don't see how anyone prior to Constantine could have expected to use Christianity to gain power in any shape or form. I'll admit there might be a few exceptions to the "gaining power" idea, such as some early philosophers, but they weren't generally interested in acquiring political might or monetary gain.
As for myself, I mostly agree with what Raph has to say above, though I don't claim to be an agnostic. I'm more of a modern deist, if anything. | | Back to Top | | |
|
Frank
Adept
Date Joined Aug 2005
Total Posts : 629
| Posted 6/23/2006 5:07 PM (GMT -4) | | Like some on this board I have no stake in the confirmed existence or non-existence of Christ historically. I really don't care one way or the other. I was, at first, merely adding my two cents to Keralen's comment on a humorous book about Christ. Everyone else can argue about it all until the cows come home and with the right evidence you may well convince me that there was once a man upon whom the story of Christ is based, though I'll never believe anyone lay clinicly dead in a tomb for three days and then decided to get up and show off his wounds to people for 40 days (possibly for the free beer) and then physically ascend to the sky to take his rightful place beside some omnipotent creator.
Zoroaster, a rather extreme religious reformer, is said to have lived in the sixth century before Christ in Persia and his story was already well known throughout the middle East by the time of Christ, including the bit about laying dead for exactly three days and then resurrecting. A bit odd, don't you think? | | Back to Top | | |
|
Gabe Dybing
Neophyte
Date Joined May 2006
Total Posts : 147
| Posted 6/23/2006 5:22 PM (GMT -4) | | | Frank, I want to apologize. Like nathan, I thought we were talking about the historicity of Christ, and not about him as deity. Since you are so well-read on Zoroaster, I thought you might have given considerations about the historical Christ the same ca | |
| | |