Jesus Christ - reasons for skepticism

[CranE]

What good reason is there to believe in a being of "another dimension/world/etc?"

Religion itself.

These two assumptions are contradictory. Either Jesus (assuming his existence) was human or he was not.

No they are not. I stated that Jesus was the human incarnate of God in that he was the most enlightened person to walk the earth. His natural moral judgment is what makes me believe he was who he is proclaimed to be.

If the former, he must, necessarily have 46 chromosomes. The process of egg fertilization in the woman's womb includes obtaining 23 chromosomes of hers and 23 from the father. If all 46 came from Mary (assuming she existed), then Jesus was a clone of Mary which happened to have a "Y" chromosome. This would be interesting for you to explain to us. If the latter, then you can't consider him the "human incarnate of god" (whatever that means) since he does not posses the necessary quality for the description: being human.

I guess you didn't read one of my previous posts where I clearly stated that I do not believe Mary Magdalen was impregnated without insemination.

Why should I agree on something that is so far-fetched and has no evidence? If your god (whatever it might be) is alleged to have impregnated a human, then it must, necessarily have human DNA. There's no getting around this with rational discussion. For you to get around it, you have to invoke magic and the supernatural.

Once again, I believe Jesus was a real person who was very whole-hearted, and incredibly wise and enlightened. But i do not believe he was conceived by unnatural means.

I'm not using science, necessarily, but one of the tools of science: logic. The premises are thus:

Jesus was a product of a god and a human.
Jesus was human.
Humans require DNA.
The mother provides 23 chromosomes; the father 23.
Humans have 46 chromosomes.
Jesus either had 23 chromosomes or 46 chromosomes.
If he had 23, he was not human and could not have been born without invoking magic and the supernatural.
If he had 46, he was born of human parents.
If all 46 matched those of his mother, he was a clone and he obtained the "Y" chromosome from his mother (or Jesus was actually a female); -OR- he obtained 23 from his mother and 23 from his father like every other non-cloned human.
Conclusion, if Jesus was human, so was his mother and father.

Congratulations for agreeing with me that Jesus Christ was a real person.

This sort of wild speculation is useless and clearly based on hope, wishful-thinking, and cultural indoctrination and has no utility in a rational discussion. Sorry, I have nothing to offer here except to say if your delusions work for you, more power to you. Asserting your beliefs as true, however, isn't enough to make them true without evidence or good reason to believe in them.

It is Wild Speculation to say that Jesus was a real human being who was driven internally by all that is good? Gandhi was driven by all that is good in my opinion, is that wild speculation as well?

Case closed. My point is made. And this:

You made your point of proving that I was raised in an almost-semi Christian household? I'm glad I was able to make that clear for you. Now you know something about me.

... does little to change the fact of your cultural indoctrination. The core tenants of Christianity that run through all Christian cults and adherents (i.e. that Jesus existed) still ring true to your indoctrinated psyche. Unlike fundamentalists, you appear to be (and I might be wrong) a liberal Christian who cherry picks which portion of biblical mythology is right/wrong, valid/invalid, history/mythology, truth/allegory.

I don't cherry pick anything but cherries. Of what I know of the Christian religion, I try to use logic to determine the plausibility of it. Hence me saying I do not believe Mary was impregnated by unnatural means.

Don't get me wrong, I'm glad that most Christians aren't fundamentalists in their views, but I do find it difficult to understand how one compartmentalizes their beliefs and decides where to draw a line between fact and fantasy, truth and fiction. If a supernatural god didn't suddenly and abruptly stop the rotation of the Earth for a day so a battle could be fought, then why should we believe this deity provided a messiah? If the Earth isn't younger than 10,000 years, why should we accept that this alleged messiah paid for our "sins" (whatever that truly means).

in regard to the bold sentence: "Surely the arm of the Lord is not too short to save, or his ear too dull to hear, but your iniquities have separated you from your God; your sins have hidden his face from you, so that He will not hear." (Isaiah 59:1-2)

To me, along with other entries; that means Confess your sins, repent for change, or sacrifice. Know and accept the ramifications of your negative actions, and you will be forgiven in the eyes of the lord for your sins. To me; Christianity offers a form of redemption for the moments where pride, wrath, envy, gluttony, etc, control us. For moments where we as people do not follow good moral code. That is what Christianity is to me.

"For if you forgive men when they sin against you, your heavenly Father will also forgive you. But if you do not forgive men their sins, your Father will not forgive your sins." (Matthew 6:14,15)

"Be kind and compassionate to one another, forgiving each other, just as in Christ, God forgave you." (Ephesians 4:32)

"If we confess our sins, He is faithful and just to forgive our sins and purify us from all unrighteousness." (1 John 1:9)



Back on subject:


earth is much older than 10,000 Years lol...

And Like I have been saying, You are looking to much at the Story itself, and not so much the meaning behind it. I could care less if Christianity as we all knew it, was replaced with talking monkeys and insects, as long as it conveyed the same message about doing what is good, and treating yourself and others with respect and courtesy.

With that said, that is where i draw the line between truth/fantasy. It is VERY plausible that Jesus Christ was a real human, a very wise one at that; Hence why I believe He was a real human. It is implausible to believe that earth is only 10,000 Years old, and that Mary Magdalen was impregnated whilst being a virgin by a being she never saw... I find it hard to believe statements like those two.

I believe 100% in the fundamental life-teachings of Christianity. Not 100% in the story attached to those teachings...

 

[SkinWalker]

Religion itself.

Circular and, thus, fallacious reasoning.

I stated that Jesus was the human incarnate of God in that he was the most enlightened person to walk the earth. His natural moral judgment is what makes me believe he was who he is proclaimed to be.

A belief held only through circular and fallacious reasoning.

I guess you didn't read one of my previous posts where I clearly stated that I do not believe Mary Magdalen was impregnated without insemination.

Considering that she was about Jesus' age, according to biblical mythology -and never mentioned as being pregnant at all by biblical mythology, we must be left to conclude you have some special, private pipeline of information?

Once again, I believe Jesus was a real person who was very whole-hearted, and incredibly wise and enlightened. But i do not believe he was conceived by unnatural means.

Again, a belief held without evidence. One that is the result of your culture and not your observation or due to evidence. One that is wishful thinking. The only accounts of Jesus exist long after he was alleged to have been executed. There simply is no good reason to accept that there was a Jesus as described by the New Testament. Surely there were people named Jesus, apparently it was a common enough name. But there are zero -that is ZERO- accounts of this person that don't originate from early Christian cult leaders seeking to propagandize his existence with the intent to further their status.

Congratulations for agreeing with me that Jesus Christ was a real person.

Your congratulations are obviously misplaced. I made no such agreement, but I do, for the record, acknowledge the possibility of an Essene or Essen-like cult leader who may or may not have lived around the period as the mythical being described in the NT did. This person may or may not have been the person the mythical Jesus was based upon, but the resulting myth clearly isn't believable to a rational person nor is there any rational and good reason to think the Jesus of biblical mythology was real.

There simply is no supporting or credible evidence to support it.

It is Wild Speculation to say that Jesus was a real human being who was driven internally by all that is good? Gandhi was driven by all that is good in my opinion, is that wild speculation as well?

It's wild speculation to believe that there was a god who needed a person to be its "incarnate" on Earth. Its wild speculation to believe that the character portrayed in biblical literature was any more real than Jim, the freed slave of Huck Finn. There were former slaves named Jim. Perhaps some of them befriended poor white boys. This hardly implies Mark Twain's Jim was an actual person.

You made your point of proving that I was raised in an almost-semi Christian household? I'm glad I was able to make that clear for you. Now you know something about me.

I already did know something about you, as I pointed out: you were raised in a Christian culture. Its no surprise that you were indoctrinated to believe Christian myths were true. There's an a priori assumption by people raised in a religious culture that there is truth to their cultural icons, motifs, and myths -especially those religious ones. If you were raised in an Islamic culture, I'd expect you to have beliefs about Muhammad and Allah. If it were a Buddhist culture, you might have some thoughts about the Four Noble Truths and the Eight Fold Path. Even if your cultural experiences were "semi-Islamic" or "semi-Buddhist."

I don't cherry pick anything but cherries. Of what I know of the Christian religion, I try to use logic to determine the plausibility of it.

Right. Then perhaps your knowledge of Christianity *is indeed* limited. It would then be easy to ignore the things that you don't like, giving favor to those things you do. Instead of a cherry-picking adherent, this would make you an adherent of convenience, believing in only those parts of Christianity which are convenient to you, ignoring those parts that seem strange or illogical. If I'm right, we might find errant statements and assumptions about specifics in Christian dogma and doctrine to which anyone even slightly read on the topic might not share.

Hence me saying I do not believe Mary was impregnated by unnatural means. [...] ...and that Mary Magdalen was impregnated whilst being a virgin by a being she never saw...

Like your assumption that Jesus' mother was Mary Magdalene. Your twice mention of Mary Magdalene indicates my assertion above has merit. You see, "Mary" was a common name too. Magdalene was the woman Jesus, according to the myth, cast demons from and, who then, became one of his followers.

And then you have the audacity to quote scripture to me, preaching its "gospel" to me as if this were legitimately a good reason to accept anything the gospels say. More fallacious, circular reasoning. Such reasoning is, thus, discarded from reasoned discourse and best served by preaching to your choir. It gets no such pass here.

earth is much older than 10,000 Years lol...

Of course it is. But, more to the point, a literalist reading of biblical mythology demands that you deny this fact and accept that it must be less than 10 kya. Lucky for you, you aren't one that has actually studied christian mythology, or you would have to either be a hypocrite or a cherry-picker. It truly is an either or proposition for anyone who professes to be a Christian who understands biblical literature.

And Like I have been saying, You are looking to much at the Story itself, and not so much the meaning behind it.

For cherry-pickers, hypocrites, and those ignorant of Christian dogma, this is okay.

I believe 100% in the fundamental life-teachings of Christianity. Not 100% in the story attached to those teachings...

To be honest, we can't be sure what you really believe in. I don't mean to sound like I'm picking on you either. This is an issue that many, many Christians -probably the majority- seem to face. They're either ignorant of Christian dogma and only accept "what they hear" and sounds good, ignoring what doesn't; are hypocrites -saying they're believers with public displays of piety they don't actually hold; or are cherry-pickers -those that are fully aware of the doctrine and dogma but only pick those "logical" or "rational" bits to accept, discarding the "illogical" and "irrational" bits.

In a way, it is the Christian fundamentalist who is the most honest.

 

[Pete]

I cannot agree with all parts of Christianity. Like I stated before, I look at Christianity as a set of moral teachings; and logically, I know it does not make sense for Mary Magdalene to [A] Be an adulteress, Become pregnant without insemination. Science and logic prove those to be fallacies that will never be answered, only pondered.

Just quietly, Mary Magdalene is a different Mary from Mary, mother of Jesus. Mary, friend of Martha and Lazarus, is different again.

 

[Quantum Quack]

Just quietly, Mary Magdalene is a different Mary from Mary, mother of Jesus. Mary, friend of Martha and Lazarus, is different again.

An equally quiet chuckle in agreement with Pete

Also just to make things a little bit interesting who says that Mary wasn't inseminated using a quantum teleportation worm hole from some alien entity....hmmmmm...[even our science may one day be able to open worm holes, but to get the accuracy might take a while....ha]

Might account for all those mysterious pregancies where the girls'and guys say

"I didn't do it!":m:


Seriously though we may find out later the science to perform this rather miraculous feat of "immaculate conception"

In a sense we already have it and to be frank we virtually always have had it. Artificial insemination has been around for ages....

 

[CranE]

Circular and, thus, fallacious reasoning.

A belief held only through circular and fallacious reasoning.

Considering that she was about Jesus' age, according to biblical mythology -and never mentioned as being pregnant at all by biblical mythology, we must be left to conclude you have some special, private pipeline of information?

Again, a belief held without evidence. One that is the result of your culture and not your observation or due to evidence. One that is wishful thinking. The only accounts of Jesus exist long after he was alleged to have been executed. There simply is no good reason to accept that there was a Jesus as described by the New Testament. Surely there were people named Jesus, apparently it was a common enough name. But there are zero -that is ZERO- accounts of this person that don't originate from early Christian cult leaders seeking to propagandize his existence with the intent to further their status.

Your congratulations are obviously misplaced. I made no such agreement, but I do, for the record, acknowledge the possibility of an Essene or Essen-like cult leader who may or may not have lived around the period as the mythical being described in the NT did. This person may or may not have been the person the mythical Jesus was based upon, but the resulting myth clearly isn't believable to a rational person nor is there any rational and good reason to think the Jesus of biblical mythology was real.

There simply is no supporting or credible evidence to support it.

It's wild speculation to believe that there was a god who needed a person to be its "incarnate" on Earth. Its wild speculation to believe that the character portrayed in biblical literature was any more real than Jim, the freed slave of Huck Finn. There were former slaves named Jim. Perhaps some of them befriended poor white boys. This hardly implies Mark Twain's Jim was an actual person.

I already did know something about you, as I pointed out: you were raised in a Christian culture. Its no surprise that you were indoctrinated to believe Christian myths were true. There's an a priori assumption by people raised in a religious culture that there is truth to their cultural icons, motifs, and myths -especially those religious ones. If you were raised in an Islamic culture, I'd expect you to have beliefs about Muhammad and Allah. If it were a Buddhist culture, you might have some thoughts about the Four Noble Truths and the Eight Fold Path. Even if your cultural experiences were "semi-Islamic" or "semi-Buddhist."

Right. Then perhaps your knowledge of Christianity *is indeed* limited. It would then be easy to ignore the things that you don't like, giving favor to those things you do. Instead of a cherry-picking adherent, this would make you an adherent of convenience, believing in only those parts of Christianity which are convenient to you, ignoring those parts that seem strange or illogical. If I'm right, we might find errant statements and assumptions about specifics in Christian dogma and doctrine to which anyone even slightly read on the topic might not share.

Like your assumption that Jesus' mother was Mary Magdalene. Your twice mention of Mary Magdalene indicates my assertion above has merit. You see, "Mary" was a common name too. Magdalene was the woman Jesus, according to the myth, cast demons from and, who then, became one of his followers.

And then you have the audacity to quote scripture to me, preaching its "gospel" to me as if this were legitimately a good reason to accept anything the gospels say. More fallacious, circular reasoning. Such reasoning is, thus, discarded from reasoned discourse and best served by preaching to your choir. It gets no such pass here.

Of course it is. But, more to the point, a literalist reading of biblical mythology demands that you deny this fact and accept that it must be less than 10 kya. Lucky for you, you aren't one that has actually studied christian mythology, or you would have to either be a hypocrite or a cherry-picker. It truly is an either or proposition for anyone who professes to be a Christian who understands biblical literature.

For cherry-pickers, hypocrites, and those ignorant of Christian dogma, this is okay.

To be honest, we can't be sure what you really believe in. I don't mean to sound like I'm picking on you either. This is an issue that many, many Christians -probably the majority- seem to face. They're either ignorant of Christian dogma and only accept "what they hear" and sounds good, ignoring what doesn't; are hypocrites -saying they're believers with public displays of piety they don't actually hold; or are cherry-pickers -those that are fully aware of the doctrine and dogma but only pick those "logical" or "rational" bits to accept, discarding the "illogical" and "irrational" bits.

In a way, it is the Christian fundamentalist who is the most honest.

You know, there is no answer that is good enough for you. As much as I would like to reply to each individual little smug comment that you left in regard to my Personal beliefs, I'm not going too. I'm going to try to rationalize my beliefs for you. As dumbed down, and ill-mannered as I can for you.

It is not irrational to believe that Jesus was a real person, at all.

It is not irrational to believe he was very enlightened and virtuous, at all.

If someone gave birth to a child, it would require them at one point to be pregnant. Or is that circular reasoning as well?

Again, a belief held without evidence.

you wrote that^ in response too,

I believe Jesus was a real person who was very whole-hearted, and incredibly wise and enlightened. But i do not believe he was conceived by unnatural means.

so you're saying that my belief that he was a human being is a belief without evidence? haha, wow...

I believe that You are a real person, even though I have never spoken to you, seen you, nor do I know anything about you. Do I need evidence to prove to You that you exist as well? That's about how much sense you've made in commenting my post's. Telling me that I'm irrational for believing the simple theory that Jesus was a real human.

And yes, there is supporting evidence. How about ummm, The Bible? The Scripture? hmmm, how about maybe even the fact that the year we are in, is based solely around his death?? i guess none of those are considered 'supporting evidence'

Mark twain is the only person who knows of this 'Jim', How many sources attest to Jesus' Life? go ahead and count them and get back to me.

You want to know how 'Christian based' my home was?

my mom is a catholic. That's about how religious my WHOLE family is. But nice try on ASSUMING how I was raised based solely around the fact that my mother is a catholic. I am not part of a 'church' family as much as you would like to think I was, in fact, I was forced to practice Mormonism by my father much more than I was Catholicism. Like I stated before; I looked into specific religions before deciding which one was the best for me as a person.

I'm not 'inclined' to believe jack shit other than what I want to believe in, no matter what religion says.

It's not cherry picking. You fail to understand that even though a religion might require certain actions or behavior, in America we have the religious freedom to choose to believe in whatever aspects we want from whatever religions we want. You aren't criticizing Christianity anymore, you criticizing my beliefs. Nazi.

 

[Thoreau]

a newborn baby died and 20 minutes or so later came to life.

did you hear about that?

isnt it odd that the only people we have here talking about Jesus are the ones who dont believe.

for myself, i never read more about him until i came to sciforums.

With all due respect, friend...

In your belief, if a person dies and comes back to life, than that is proof that God exists?

What if a person just dies? Is that proof that God doesn't exist?

 

[Kapyong]

CranE -

You can't even tell Mother Mary from the Magdalene?
Completely different people.

Why should we listen to a word you say?


K.

 

[CranE]

CranE -

You can't even tell Mother Mary from the Magdalene?
Completely different people.

Why should we listen to a word you say?


K.

A simple mistake on my part. you can choose to ignore it, or judge the content of my character based on 1 simple mistake. your choice :]

 

[SkinWalker]

It is not irrational to believe that Jesus was a real person, at all.

It is not irrational to believe he was very enlightened and virtuous, at all.

Agreed. I've only held that it is irrational to think him more special or important than any other human. I do, however, contend that the there is no more reason to accept the historicity of Jesus, as outlined in Christian fiction (i.e. the New Testament) than there is Jim of Huck Finn.

I also hold that there is an irrational and superstitious process if one is to hold that the Jesus of Christian mythology was accurately portrayed -replete with all magical powers and abilities of an episode of Heroes.

If someone gave birth to a child, it would require them at one point to be pregnant. Or is that circular reasoning as well?

I've not suggested this. Your point here is a strawman argument. I do, however, contend, that to give birth to a child requires DNA donation from two parents -both human. This, therefore, precludes any non-human involvement, therefore Jesus is the son of no god. QED.

so you're saying that my belief that he was a human being is a belief without evidence? haha, wow...

Yes. There is no physical, tangible evidence that the Jesus portrayed in biblical mythology existed. You casually and fallaciously cite biblical mythology as evidence of itself, but this is evidence only in the minds of those that have preconceived their desired outcomes and fail to rationally examine the issue.

I believe that You are a real person, even though I have never spoken to you, seen you, nor do I know anything about you. Do I need evidence to prove to You that you exist as well?

By this logic, you're implying that you've engaged in dialog and discourse with Jesus or someone who at least claims to be Jesus. Either this is the case or you've made a bad analogy (another fallacious argument).

That's about how much sense you've made in commenting my post's. Telling me that I'm irrational for believing the simple theory that Jesus was a real human.

Again, a "theory" includes tested hypotheses and factual statements or expectations about a given subject. Theories are not wild speculations and untestable or non-falsifiable hypotheses.

And yes, there is supporting evidence. How about ummm, The Bible? The Scripture? hmmm

,

This is fallacious since it is circular. You're stating that biblical mythology is evidence for biblical mythology.

how about maybe even the fact that the year we are in, is based solely around his death?? i guess none of those are considered 'supporting evidence'

This would no more be evidence than the Mayan or Aztec calendars are evidence for Quetzacoatl. More fallacious reasoning.

Mark twain is the only person who knows of this 'Jim', How many sources attest to Jesus' Life? go ahead and count them and get back to me.

Mark Twain at least existed and was contemporaneous with the period he wrote about. To answer your question about "how many sources attest to Jesus' life," the answer is ZERO if we qualify that with how many of these sources were contemporaneous with Jesus. Zero. Zilch. Nada. Nil. Not a single written word about Jesus the alleged christ comes from someone who lived and wrote about at the time Jesus was alleged to have lived and died.

You want to know how 'Christian based' my home was?

Not really. The very fact that you were raised in Christian culture has made the only point I needed to make. Had you been raised in a Buddhist culture, we would be having a very different conversation.

I'm not 'inclined' to believe jack shit other than what I want to believe in, no matter what religion says.

It wouldn't be called 'indoctrination' if you had an over-whelming conscious control over it. You believe what your culture has provided for you.

It's not cherry picking. You fail to understand that even though a religion might require certain actions or behavior, in America we have the religious freedom to choose to believe in whatever aspects we want from whatever religions we want.

Not if you consider yourself a true adherent of that religion. True, your free in our nation to cherry-pick and define your own religious superstitions. That's a freedom I agree with whole-heartedly and will defend. However, if you want to consider yourself a true adherent of a given religion, you'll need to follow its doctrine -otherwise you're a cherry-picker, a hypocrite, or an ignorant believer (please understand, I do not mean "ignorant" in a pejorative manner -but rather the literal one. I simply know of no other parsimonious way to say this). If you don't adhere to the parts of your religion's doctrines that you don't like, embracing only those parts you like and agree with, it is intellectually dishonest to claim yourself to be anything else.

You aren't criticizing Christianity anymore, you criticizing my beliefs. Nazi.

That is my right. Moreover, that's the essence of this thread. Your beliefs are your basis for providing your opinions on the existence of Jesus Christ. Did you think you would begin posting in a thread on a science forum on the topic of Jesus Christ with "reasons for skepticism" in the title and not expect critique?

I don't mind if you call me names. I'm used to that sort of behavior from Christians. So far, I'm a "dim witted nazi" in your eyes -neither label has been demonstrated. My wit is well-known on this board and my politics are far from fascist, so I'm left to assume you are making an attempt at riposte in order to hurt -perhaps in retaliation for being hurt yourself.

If my words have stung, hurt, or provided you with a perceived bit of injury, I encourage you to read them again but with an understanding that you entered an on-going and existing debate and discourse on a topic that many believers find to be very touchy. My intent isn't to offend solely for the purpose of offending -my use of words like superstition, cult, and deluded are not meant to be pejorative but clinical and academic.

To close, I reiterate that I don't mind you calling me names like those used above. But should you level such insults at other members -be they Christian, atheist, Jew, whatever- as moderator of this forum, I'll be forced to attach an infraction against your profile.

 

[Woody]

Why would I. Your liberal and juvenile use of forum smilies notwithstanding, if I sought out and spoke to a Rabbi (I actually work with one), you'll just come back and say, "you didnt' talk to the right rabbi," or "I don't believe you actually spoke with one."

So one data point is good enough for you. Need I say any more?

Jesus of Nazereth is covered pretty well in the jewish encyclopedia.

Jewish Encyclopedia

I suggest you ask the Jesish rabbi about several Jewish synagogues that accept Jesus as a religious teacher and no more. My wife and I are friends with jewish synagogue members. We have spoken with them about this subject on many occassions -- not just once or twice. This is very common knowledge that I have verified with a lot of people. I can only conclude you are quite ignorant about this -- and deliberately so.

You said this link I provided is from a christian apologist, but he is a messianic jew.

With you, the goal post always moves. With you, its always bigotry hidden behind the thin veil of denial.

With you, a single conversation with a Jewish Rabbi was enough. In statistics one data point is statistically insignificant -- but for you it is proof. I'm flabberghasted that you propose yourself as objective and unbiased -- it's comical really.

With you, its always "the big, bad atheists are out to get me and they don't play nice." The only time bitch and cry about "ad hominem" remarks is when you get your bullshit called upon. Indeed, you cry and moan about "personal attacks," but never have any qualm about attacking others personally. That's very Christian of you, so I expect it.

I just hate to see a lot of emotional outburst. Isn't this supposed to be a logical forum?

Where's your blog? You dropped mentioned this blog of yours that's "syndicated by at least 2 major" media outlets. I'm betting you've got a Wordpress.net or blogspot.net account that probably hasn't had a new post in 4-6 months and no regular commenters. Which major media outlets would bother syndicating this? I'm also betting its nothing but a bitch rant about atheists taking over the intertubes and a hate-site for anti-gay bullshit.

What's the link?

I provided the link before, but it was deleted -- and not because of its content.

So you admit that the Talmud and Jewish tradition has nothing to say about Jesus Christ. Thank you. Your argument is officially squashed. You bitched and cried that no one responded. I did ... then you moved the goal post. Guess what? We're not moving the goal post this time. Either show the evidence or shut the fuck up. QED.

So tell us why you won't go debate at the Jesus Seminar which is an open forum for bible criticism? Maybe you are scared your views won't stand up to scholarly scrutinity....

 

[Woody]

Jesus Seminar

The Jesus Seminar is an open forum for bible skeptics.

http://ourworld.compuserve.com/homepages/dp5/jesus.htm

Unfortunately the Jesus Myth group isn't taken very seriously by the history and religion scholars that criticize the bible:

The Jesus Seminar, an association of progressive biblical scholars based in California, was formed in the 1980s and has played an important role in exposing the unreliability of the early Christian record. Its members believe that Jesus was primarily a sage who taught that the kingdom of heaven is within. They dismiss the gospel stories of him working miracles, and regard him as too enlightened to have threatened his opponents with damnation on Judgement Day. In fact, they reject as inauthentic some three quarters of the sayings attributed to Jesus in the gospels. But their selective portrayal tells us more about their own preconceptions and preferences than about an historical Jesus [2].

 

[SkinWalker]

You still haven't cited which Jewish tradition supports the existence of Jesus and specifically what is said. You've made some very fallacious reasoning, i.e. that I somehow support a single data point of information (actually, this is an outright lie on your part). And you continue with various appeals of authority.

Sure, you'll find some modern mentions of Jesus the alleged Christ in various texts of various religions -but these are modern texts and modern ideas of inclusion and political correctness.

The question is, what traditional mentions of Jesus the alleged Christ are there?

I even set you up with a goal and you totally missed it. You even quote it above. Hint, when I fallaciously (but intentionally) accuse you of admitting that the Talmud and Jewish tradition have nothing to say about Jesus the alleged Christ, I fully expected that you'd actually look to the Talmud and discover where Jesus is mentioned.

You end with more fallacious argument about "why don't you debate the ...." blah, blah, blah.

Woody, you're a liar, a bigot, and completely and utterly ignorant. At first glance, by someone who hasn't read past exchanges you've had with me or anyone else, these words look like pure ad hominem attack. But they're accurate assessments of your character and, as such, indicative of your continued level of participation here. We expect you to lie. We expect you to act the bigot. And we expect you to display ignorance.

By the way, I've been to your blog. No post since September, eh? Syndicated to two major world publications, eh? Right. Someone's a legend in their own mind.

 

[Woody]

You still haven't cited which Jewish tradition supports the existence of Jesus and specifically what is said. You've made some very fallacious reasoning, i.e. that I somehow support a single data point of information (actually, this is an outright lie on your part).

You only gave one example where you actually spoke to a real live jewish person face-to-face. Is this is the only example you have? Skinwalker, I know you are fairly intelligent and educated when you aren't emotional, but you are really losing credibility with me because I know for an absolute FACT that you are WRONG. It's pretty stupid to debate the obvious.

My wife's best friend is a jew raised in a jewish family. We've spoken with several jews over our lifetimes regarding Jesus and what is taught about him. I've also asked people I've worked with regarding the jewish approach to this historical person. It's just so common and so obvious that it's not even worthy of debate.

And you continue with various appeals of authority.

Sure, you'll find some modern mentions of Jesus the alleged Christ in various texts of various religions -but these are modern texts and modern ideas of inclusion and political correctness.

The question is, what traditional mentions of Jesus the alleged Christ are there?

Probably none of them say Jesus was the Christ. It sounds like you are confusing the issues here and need to reset. Isn't this thread about Jesus as a historical person? Why do you confuse this with "Jesus the Christ"? That's an entirely different subject altogether?

I even set you up with a goal and you totally missed it. You even quote it above. Hint, when I fallaciously (but intentionally) accuse you of admitting that the Talmud and Jewish tradition have nothing to say about Jesus the alleged Christ, I fully expected that you'd actually look to the Talmud and discover where Jesus is mentioned.

Most of the comments about Jesus were quite condescending and they were erased after 1631 under this edict:

http://www.answering-islam.org/Shamoun/talmud_jesus.htm

Thus, in 1631 the Jewish Assembly of Elders in Poland declared: ‘We enjoin you under the threat of the great ban to publish in no new edition of the Mishnah or the Gemara anything that refers to Jesus of Nazareth... If you will not diligently heed this letter, but run counter thereto and continue to publish our books in the same manner as heretofore, you might bring over us and yourselves still greater sufferings than in previous times.’

Woody, you're a liar, a bigot, and completely and utterly ignorant.

Well you know, that's my opinion of you as well. I understrand Christianity a lot better than you think you do and I've been studying it for 30 years like my life depends on it. Don't you think I've had doubts and questions? I've believed there is a God based on my own experiences and my own conscience -- but is Jesus the one? I couldn't say yes until I was 29. That's a lot of time to debate the pros and cons.


I think if you really had a credible point about a Jesus Myth you could debate it at the Jesus Seminar with some real scholars instead of hiding out here on your sheltered little bigoted forum that claims to be home to science.

You wouldn't find Einstein at this forum for narrow-minded atheists:

As a child I received instruction both in the Bible and in the Talmud. I am a Jew, but I am enthralled by the luminous figure of the Nazarene...No one can read the Gospels without feeling the actual presence of Jesus. His personality pulsates in every word. No myth is filled with such life. [3]

[3] George Viereck, "What Life Means to Einstein," THE SATURDAY EVENING POST, Oct. 26, 1929.

By the way, I've been to your blog. No post since September, eh? Syndicated to two major world publications, eh? Right. Someone's a legend in their own mind.

The two syndicates are Real Proposal Magazine and Gay Christian Movement Watch just look me up on the blog roll.

I would like to make an entry regarding the Jesus Myth, but we are currently in a 6 week study called "reset" where we are going to start from ground zero. We might have a few atheists in our group. Our church is not your stereotype of the bible thumping fundie.

We invite people to our church that no other church wants, and we help the helpless and hungry in our community. Isn't this better than the Darwinist approach of survival of the fittest? Jesus said the meek shall inherit the earth. Do you really want the mean ape with the big stick instead?

 

[Woody]

You still haven't cited which Jewish tradition supports the existence of Jesus and specifically what is said. .

Here, I'll help you out a little.

Why Jews Don't Believe in Jesus

Jews do not accept Jesus as the messiah because:

1) Jesus did not fulfill the messianic prophecies.

2) Jesus did not embody the personal qualifications of the Messiah.

3) Biblical verses "referring" to Jesus are mistranslations.

4) Jewish belief is based on national revelation

Jesus appeared on the scene approximately 350 years after prophecy had ended.

There you have it -- straight from the orthodox jews, and no more excuses for ignorance.

Funny thing is, some atheist is going to tell the jews they don't know their own history. That's going to sound pretty silly too.

 

[SkinWalker]

blah, blah, blah -appeals to authority- blah, blah -appeals to popularity- blah, blah, blah -appeals to ignorance- blah, blah, blah - straw man- blah, blah, blithering blah -red herring-.....

Funny thing is, some atheist is going to tell the jews they don't know their own history. That's going to sound pretty silly too.

Which Jewish (it is actually a capitalized word, you know) people are you referring to? The religious nuts that go on and on about they mythical past as being chosen by their god, burning bushes talking to Moses, wandering the desert, etc. -those folks seem to know very little. Like the so-called "biblical archaeologists" (an oxymoron if ever there was one), they start with a conclusion then seek confirming data, ignoring anything that doesn't fit the conclusion.

The circularity of the ignorant shines through with such myth and legend.

Sure, there might have been a guy named Jesus. It hardly matters since it's clear the guy that ended up being described in biblical mythology is such a departure from any real person, the concept is rendered mythical. Indeed, this is all I've ever argued.

Trolls like you, Woody, like to come to a science board, pretend you have some sort of education and importance in the world (i.e. your world syndicated blog) and pretend you aren't a bigot (i.e. "some of my friends are Jewish...") and pick fights with the big, bad atheists.

In doing so, you create straw man arguments, attempting to erect something you feel you can knock down. Sorry Woody, but swinging your erection around here just makes you look silly.

This thread is about the reasons for skepticism of Jesus the alleged Christ. Not a guy named Jesus in Near Eastern history.

There are many reasons to be skeptical of the biblical claims about Jesus as depicted in the New Testament. There are no good reasons to accept the biblical literature on this character as historical accounts -they're too laden with hyperbole, embellishment, and flat out fantasy to be taken seriously.

I suspect this is what you've always understood and, on some level, see as a point. Which is why you've succeeded thus far in creating a series of straw man and red herring arguments that turn the tide of discussion away from "reasons for skepticism" to attempting to argue the fact that ignorant and superstitious people a couple thousand years ago (a little less, for the most part) mention one or more people named Jesus in texts that come decades after the person was supposed to exist.

The Jewish tradition of Jesus includes mention that he was hanged and that he was a self-proclaimed or accused sorcerer. Several scholars dismiss the Talmud's mentions of this Jesus on various grounds: some because of the "sorcerer" claim; some because the method of execution isn't consistent with the mythical claim; some because the chronology is around 100 years prior to the mythical Jesus' alleged birth; etc.

So, if you want to continue discussing this topic, it'll need to stay focused on-topic. Any posts that follow this one which stray from the topic in the title and go off on tangents in whole or part are subject to deletion without warning or notification. If you want, feel free to start a new topic.

Your trolling has been entertained long enough and the only reason I've not moderated your posts to date in this thread is because I've allowed you some latitude since I've been admittedly harsh.

I'm reining myself in, so the latitude has reached its limit.

 

[Woody]

Which Jewish (it is actually a capitalized word, you know) people are you referring to? The religious nuts that go on and on about they mythical past as being chosen by their god, burning bushes talking to Moses, wandering the desert, etc. -those folks seem to know very little. Like the so-called "biblical archaeologists" (an oxymoron if ever there was one), they start with a conclusion then seek confirming data, ignoring anything that doesn't fit the conclusion.

like the dead sea scrolls..... Just admit -- you can't come up with a motive for the jews to include Jesus of Nazareth in their traditional discussion -- albeit in the villain role with numerous expletive deleted comments.

The circularity of the ignorant shines through with such myth and legend.

Circularity fits the denial roll even better.

Sure, there might have been a guy named Jesus.

Actually there were quite a few guys named Jesus, and several messiah imposters according to the Jewish Encyclopedia. But there is only one Jesus of Nazareth.

It hardly matters since it's clear the guy that ended up being described in biblical mythology is such a departure from any real person, the concept is rendered mythical. Indeed, this is all I've ever argued.

The Jewish people know their own history far better than you ever will, and they say legendary features were ascribed to a real person named Jesus of Nazereth who died in Jerusalem during the month of nissan in AD 29 as a result of a crucifiction that he probably deserved.

Trolls like you, Woody, like to come to a science board, pretend you have some sort of education and importance in the world (i.e. your world syndicated blog) and pretend you aren't a bigot (i.e. "some of my friends are Jewish...") and pick fights with the big, bad atheists.

That's the way you feel, but I feel like you are browbeating me all the time with these smug little commentaries of yours. This is supposed to be a forum for reasoned debate, not for your own personal vendetta. You are a moderator so you can be the bully calling everyone the same that disagrees with your brand of ignorance.

In doing so, you create straw man arguments, attempting to erect something you feel you can knock down. Sorry Woody, but swinging your erection around here just makes you look silly.

Is this all you have for an argument? and now you are into manhood issues. wow.

This thread is about the reasons for skepticism of Jesus the alleged Christ. Not a guy named Jesus in Near Eastern history.

Jesus of Nazareth is both.

There are many reasons to be skeptical of the biblical claims about Jesus as depicted in the New Testament. There are no good reasons to accept the biblical literature on this character as historical accounts -they're too laden with hyperbole, embellishment, and flat out fantasy to be taken seriously.

Wouldn't it be so much easier for the jews to just say so from the beginning if Jesus of Nazereth never existed as a person?

I suspect this is what you've always understood and, on some level, see as a point. Which is why you've succeeded thus far in creating a series of straw man and red herring arguments that turn the tide of discussion away from "reasons for skepticism" to attempting to argue the fact that ignorant and superstitious people a couple thousand years ago (a little less, for the most part) mention one or more people named Jesus in texts that come decades after the person was supposed to exist.

Jerusalem, the epicenter for the event, was razed in 70 AD.

You fail to explain why Jesus of Nazareth is accepted as a historical person, though not messiah among the Jews who know their own histroy better than you do. They attribute legend to his miracles.

The Jewish tradition of Jesus includes mention that he was hanged and that he was a self-proclaimed or accused sorcerer.

Like in the salem witch trials. I guess those didn't happen either because people were executed for sorcery.... yawn...

Several scholars dismiss the Talmud's mentions of this Jesus on various grounds: some because of the "sorcerer" claim; some because the method of execution isn't consistent with the mythical claim; some because the chronology is around 100 years prior to the mythical Jesus' alleged birth; etc.

You want to believe your own myth so so bad. It doesn't look good for you.

So, if you want to continue discussing this topic, it'll need to stay focused on-topic. Any posts that follow this one which stray from the topic in the title and go off on tangents in whole or part are subject to deletion without warning or notification. If you want, feel free to start a new topic.

So Jesus of Nazareth isn't relevant to the debate in your opinion. OK then you are right -- whoever the other jesus is that you think Christians believe in really is a myth. Now we can all agree. Gee I don't think anyone will debate that. I certainly won't. We are done I see.

Your trolling has been entertained long enough and the only reason I've not moderated your posts to date in this thread is because I've allowed you some latitude since I've been admittedly harsh.

I'm reining myself in, so the latitude has reached its limit.

Well what can I say except, thank you for being so merciful, and I'll close from a quote from the jewish encyclopedia:

How far in his own mind Jesus substituted another conception of the Messiah, and how far he regarded himself as fulfilling that ideal, still remain among the most obscure of historical problems (see Messiah).

my work is done... see ya.

 

[Woody]

What do historians believe regarding the historical person, Jesus of Nazereth? I've looked at several resources, and the vast majority of historians believe Jesus of Nazereth was a real person.

Christians and atheists both have a dog in the fight, and will answer accordingly.

So I've quoted a coversation with an Orthodox Jewish history teacher and archaeologist living in Jerusalem:

----------------------------------------------------

W. Walker says:
Phlogiston,

What is your background? Are you a rabbi, an archaeologist or what? I assume you are an Orthodox Jew.

Phlogiston: I have done quite a bit of archeological work in Israel and other places. I teach Hebrew, Greek, Aramaic and a few other languages. I have translated ancient books and manuscripts (and even a few engravings and inscribed magical bowls and amulets). I also teach ancient and medieval history and philosophy, as well as Jewish history and philosophy. Occasionally I will be co-opted into the classics department to teach some classical poetry or literature, which is always fun. I've even taught some classes on Koine Greek and the Christian Scriptures.

I do not care to use the title, but I have served as a Rabbi. I am an Orthodox Jew, as I said in my first post.

I also served as a police officer in the Old City of Jerusalem, back when I was a younger man. Finally, I love my wife and family and enjoy cooking (strictly kosher food, though).

------------------------------------------------------------------------

Phlogiston said:

Now, please understand, there is NOTHING in Jewish belief, Orthodox or otherwise, that requires us to believe the Jesus existed.

W.Walker says:

Precisely the point.

Phlogiston said:

"Some might believe that he was nothing more than a trouble-maker. Others might believe that he was some kind of a teacher. I believe that he had a small following whom he probably sermonized. I do not, however, believe that he was accredited with any kind of ordination (IOW he was not a Rabbi, a Chacham, a Dayan, a Shofet or the bearer of any sort of equivalent title that might have been in use at the time). In any case, a Jew can believe any number of things about Jesus, just as a Jew can believe any number of things about Caesar, Archilochus or Homer, and just like a college professor of church history can believe any number of things about Jesus. Jesus is in no way central to our faith."

W. Walker says:

Caesar, Archilochus and Homer are real people that historians accept as real people. How does Jesus of Nazareth make the same category of real historical people? Is this coming from Jewish tradition, Jewish historians, some recent decision of authority or what?

Phlogiston said:

"Why do I believe that the Christian Scriptures are largely unreliable?"

W. Walker says:

If you believe the Christian Scriptures are unreliable, then how do you believe Jesus of Nazareth was a real person coming from that source? Or please tell, Where is your information coming from to believe Jesus of Nazareth ever existed?

Plogiston said:

"I meant no offense by any of this, but you were frank with your question and I wanted to give you a frank response."

W. Walker says:

no offense taken. I am just confused why the Jewish leaders didn't nip the whole thing in the bud if Jesus of Nazareth never even existed, and why even today Jews continue talking about him as a real historical person.

I accept your view that someone can be made "bigger than life" by telling and re-telling stories about them. On the other hand, what other historical person has been exaggerated in such a way from carpenter to son of God?

------------------------------------------

W. Walker says: So if Jesus of Nazareth did not exist, why are Orthodox Jews spreading the myth that he did exist (if in their view he never existed)?

Phlogiston: I don't think that we are. We might discuss it just as professors might discuss whether he existed. Some might decide yes, others no. It doesn't really affect our belief. If a Jew were to say that he believed that Socrates did not exist it would also not be religiously important to us.

W. Walker says:

Caesar, Archilochus and Homer are real people that historians accept as real people. How does Jesus of Nazareth make the same category of real historical people? Is this coming from Jewish tradition, Jewish historians, some recent decision of authority or what?

Phlogiston: I am not saying that Jesus and the stories connected to him rank the same as these others. I merely used them as other examples. These others were not the objects of worship. Socrates was the founder of a movement, so I am suspicious of Plato's constant lionizing of the fellow. With Jesus, much more was at stake and his followers had to set him up to compete with Mithra, Zeus, Ba'al, etc. His resume needed more padding and his resume received more padding. Some of the rejected gospels padded it so much that even the church decided that it was too much. The gospels that were accepted certainly pad it enough for me to not view them as reliable historical resources. What they say about Judaism is falsifiable enough for me to doubt them about everything else as well.

W. Walker says:

If you believe the Christian Scriptures are unreliable, then how do you believe Jesus of Nazareth was a real person coming from that source? Or please tell, Where is your information coming from to believe Jesus of Nazareth ever existed?

Phlogiston: As I said, I, personally, believe that there was some sort of a core story in there that got padded and padded over and over again (snowball metaphor in the last post). I think that it is akin to the tall tales told about Pecos Bill, Davey Crocket, Paul Bunyan, John Henry, etc. Again, more was at stake with Jesus than with Pecos Bill, Paul Bunyan, Davey Crocket and John Henry, so it does not shock me that his resume was padded more generously.

In any case, I answered why I believe he existed. I believe that it explains why the padding started and why people felt compelled to build an edifice around him in the first place.

W. Walker says:

I accept your view that someone can be made "bigger than life" by telling and re-telling stories about them. On the otherhand, what other historical person has been exaggerated in such a way from carpenter to son of God?

Phlogiston: Mithra. I've already cited other tall-tales of people who were dozens of feet tall, could ride on the back of a tornado, were unhumanly strong, killed a bear at the age of three, etc. Heck, even George Washington's was mutated this way. The books that have him throwing silver dollars across the Potomac are the books that I reject as being unhistorical.

W. Walker says:

no offense taken. I am just confused why the Jewish leaders didn't nip the whole thing in the bud if Jesus of Nazareth never even existed, and why even today Jews continue talking about him as a real historical person.

Phlogiston: Lies and rumors are hard to nip in the bud, especially when one exercises power only over a small group of people. The blood libel is an outright lie, but it has persisted for thousands of years. However, I do believe that there was somebody at the center of these stories (although I reject all the pericopes, just about everything in John and several other stories, for reasons I have already explained). Others on this list disagree with me and I respect their right to do so. As I said, it doesn't really have any importance regarding Jewish belief.

Even if every miracle and saying that the Christian Scriptures attributed to Jesus were true, this would still not make him the messiah and would not even make him terribly admirable according to Jewish standards. Ergo, whether he existed is not terribly important and not a matter that really comes of for discussion in Jewish circles. It is just not an important issue.

 

[Woody]

Survey Sez

On a Messianic Jewish forum I asked what Orthodox Jews typically believe about Jesus of Nazereth as a historical person. Messianic Jews follow Orthodox Judaism, except they believe Jesus is the Messiah. As a result their ties with the other Jewish denominations are under strain. They understand Orthodox Jews better than most.

Survey sez

Orthodox Jews believe J of N was historical, according to their observations.

 

[swarm]

Never actually seen an actual messianic Jew that follows Orthodox Judaism, except they believe Jesus is the Messiah. They've always turned out to be fundy xtians claiming to be messianic Jews.

 

[John99]

They've always turned out to be fundy xtians claiming to be messianic Jews.

well that settles it, swarm has spoken.