Did Jesus, Buddha & Mohammed really exist?

[JoeB131]

[
As long as you pretend to look busy, hide when the boss is around, and keep your idiotic fantasies to yourself everywhere but here, right cog?

Actually, I [sic] more like the guy the boss goes to when he needs something done...

You more like that guy? Your English is almost as poor as Miss Saigon's.


Oh, and you still suck at guessing, cog.

Wow, so you've been following me around waiting for a typo, eh?

(Psst. I get paid for my writing. Sorry, guy.)

Look, I think I have you pretty much pegged, and I'm going to be honest here. I honestly think you suffer from some kind of serious mental illness. Most right wingers here are kind of selfish, racist assholes who don't understand the country is rejecting their world view, but you have some serious issues in general, just by the fact that nearly everything you post here is attacking people, even people who agree with you.

I'd recommend therapy, but I can't think of a shrink I dislike enough to wish you upon.

 

[JoeB131]

There is some debate whether he actually wrote this or not, but until that it's verified that he didn't, which has not been done yet, I'll stick with it, and with the opinion of the many who believe he did. Furthermore, there is zero debate about the other mention of Jesus in his writings, intersting you did NOT post that.

There's no debate at all about whether that forgery was a forgery.

For the other reference to Jesus, the phrase is taken out of context. If you read the whole text, the "Jesus" referred to as the brother of James is a high priest who was having a power struggle, not your magic God Man.

Dumbass says what?
Opinion on the authenticity of this passage is varied. Louis H. Feldman surveyed the relevant literature from 1937 to 1980 in Josephus and Modern Scholarship. Feldman noted that 4 scholars regarded the Testimonium Flavianum as entirely genuine, 6 as mostly genuine, 20 accept it with some interpolations, 9 with several interpolations, and 13 regard it as being totally an interpolation.

Guy, you can do cut and pastes all day... but the fact is, most serious scholars from universities that don't teach about Talking Snakes in Science Class, accept that references to "Jesus" in Josephus are either interpolations or taken out of context.

Debunking Christianity: Why Josephus? So-called Testimonium Flavianum Must be Rejected

The principal internal argument against the genuineness of the Testimonium is that it says that Jesus was the Christ, whereas Josephus, as a loyal Pharisaic Jew, could hardly have written this. To be sure, there was several claimants to the status of Messiah in this era, and those who followed them were not read out of the Jewish fold; but in view of the fact that Josephus nowhere else uses the word Christos (except in referring to James, the brother of Jesus, Ant. XX.200) and that he repeatedly suppresses the Messianic aspects of the revolt against Rome because of the association of the Messiah with political revolt and independence, it would seem hard to believe that he would openly call Jesus a Messiah and speak of him in awe. The fact that Jerome (De viris illustrious 13) read that ’he was believed to be the Christ (credebatur esse Christus) would suggest that his text differed from ours. Another objection to the authenticity of the passage is that it breaks the continuity of the narrative, which tells of a series of riots. Those, such as Eisler, who regard the passage as interpolated, suggest that the original spoke of the Christian movement as a riot.

 

[Unkotare]

(Psst. I get paid for my writing. Sorry, guy.)
.

If that were true, someone would be getting ripped off big time.

 

[jtpr312]

There's no debate at all about whether that forgery was a forgery.

For the other reference to Jesus, the phrase is taken out of context. If you read the whole text, the "Jesus" referred to as the brother of James is a high priest who was having a power struggle, not your magic God Man.

Dumbass says what?
Opinion on the authenticity of this passage is varied. Louis H. Feldman surveyed the relevant literature from 1937 to 1980 in Josephus and Modern Scholarship. Feldman noted that 4 scholars regarded the Testimonium Flavianum as entirely genuine, 6 as mostly genuine, 20 accept it with some interpolations, 9 with several interpolations, and 13 regard it as being totally an interpolation.

Guy, you can do cut and pastes all day... but the fact is, most serious scholars from universities that don't teach about Talking Snakes in Science Class, accept that references to "Jesus" in Josephus are either interpolations or taken out of context.

Debunking Christianity: Why Josephus? So-called Testimonium Flavianum Must be Rejected

The principal internal argument against the genuineness of the Testimonium is that it says that Jesus was the Christ, whereas Josephus, as a loyal Pharisaic Jew, could hardly have written this. To be sure, there was several claimants to the status of Messiah in this era, and those who followed them were not read out of the Jewish fold; but in view of the fact that Josephus nowhere else uses the word Christos (except in referring to James, the brother of Jesus, Ant. XX.200) and that he repeatedly suppresses the Messianic aspects of the revolt against Rome because of the association of the Messiah with political revolt and independence, it would seem hard to believe that he would openly call Jesus a Messiah and speak of him in awe. The fact that Jerome (De viris illustrious 13) read that ’he was believed to be the Christ (credebatur esse Christus) would suggest that his text differed from ours. Another objection to the authenticity of the passage is that it breaks the continuity of the narrative, which tells of a series of riots. Those, such as Eisler, who regard the passage as interpolated, suggest that the original spoke of the Christian movement as a riot.

I just gave you the opinions of serious scholars, you reject them out of hand not because you have studied the topic for yourself, both for and against, but you reject it because you reject Christ period. I don't much care slick, it is what it is and you allowing your prejudice and bigotry to stilfe your learing is your problem not mine. Think I'll go with these scholar's opinions over the opinions of some anti-Christ poster or anti-Christ web site thanks for your input though. Especially your confirmation that there is no debate about his 2nd writings on Jesus Christ.

 

[Unkotare]

Look, I think I have you pretty much pegged.

I know you want to believe that and you think that if you just keep repeating yourself like JakeFakey you might make it true, but reality doesn't work that way, cog.

 

[JoeB131]

(Psst. I get paid for my writing. Sorry, guy.)
.

If that were true, someone would be getting ripped off big time.

Yup. all those folks who found better paying jobs with resumes I wrote for them... totally ripped those folks off.

Guy, you are kind of proving my point about your mental illness. You seriously need to get back on your meds.

 

[JoeB131]

[
I just gave you the opinions of serious scholars, you reject them out of hand not because you have studied the topic for yourself, both for and against, but you reject it because you reject Christ period. I don't much care slick, it is what it is and you allowing your prejudice and bigotry to stilfe your learing is your problem not mine. Think I'll go with these scholar's opinions over the opinions of some anti-Christ poster or anti-Christ web site thanks for your input though. Especially your confirmation that there is no debate about his 2nd writings on Jesus Christ.

There's no debate that he mentioned someone named "Jesus" in his second writing, not that he was talking about Jesus Christ.

And sorry, "Serious" scholars don't take Josephus seriously, nor do they work at universities where they try to prove humans and dinosaurs co-existed.

I have studied this issue. Jesus was a myth.

If he weren't, Christians wouldn't have spent 2000 years trying to exterminate the Jews for calling bullshit on him.

 

[JoeB131]

Look, I think I have you pretty much pegged.

I know you want to believe that and you think that if you just keep repeating yourself like JakeFakey you might make it true, but reality doesn't work that way, cog.

Guy, you keep proving my point... much better than I could.

Seriously, man, get help. You aren't even contributing to this thread.

Pete the Racist might be relying on Cut and Paste from Talking Snake U., but at least he's TRYING to add something to the discussion.

When you can't meet that low standard, you really shouldn't get out of bed.

 

[JoeB131]

Getting back on track from Unkytard's mandatory therapy session..

THE JESUS INTERPOLATION IN JOSEPHUS

Josephus described Ananus, the High Priest responsible for the death of James in the Antiquities, thus: "...a bold man in his temper, and very insolent."

Josephus did not mention the martyrdom of James in his Jewish Wars and his description of Ananus there is quite different to what is found in the Antiquities, describing him this time as: "...a venerable, and a very just man; and besides the grandeur of that nobility, and dignity, and honour, of which he possessed, he had been a lover of a kind of parity, even with regard to the meanest of the people; he was a prodigious lover of liberty, and an admirer of democracy in government; and did ever prefer the public welfare before his own advantage, and preferred peace above all things; he was thoroughly sensible that the Romans were not to be conquered."

 

[Unkotare]

(Psst. I get paid for my writing. Sorry, guy.)
.

If that were true, someone would be getting ripped off big time.

Yup. all those folks who found better paying jobs with resumes I wrote for them... totally ripped those folks off.

If anyone succeeded despite 'help' from an idiot like you, they must have been very lucky.

 

[Unkotare]

Look, I think I have you pretty much pegged.

I know you want to believe that and you think that if you just keep repeating yourself like JakeFakey you might make it true, but reality doesn't work that way, cog.

Guy, you keep proving my point... much better than I could.

The point that you are an idiot playing guessing games and repeating your nonsense over and over like the Rain Man? Yeah, ok.

 

[JoeB131]

[
If anyone succeeded despite 'help' from an idiot like you, they must have been very lucky.

Right... you see, you keep proving my point.

I mean, honestly, there are a few posters here who are so nuts I seriously have to wonder about them. If you were adding anything to a thread or conversation, it would be one thing, but I'd be hard pressed to find a thread where you've ever done that. Most of your posts are attacking other posters, and I really have to wonder.

You've found a format where you can't really be bullied, I guess, so it's a unique thing in your life. You sound like a guy whose been bullied most of his life.

 

[Unkotare]

[
If anyone succeeded despite 'help' from an idiot like you, they must have been very lucky.

Right... you see, you keep proving my point.

I see you mindlessly repeating your idiotic imaginings, just as I predicted you would.

 

[JoeB131]

[
If anyone succeeded despite 'help' from an idiot like you, they must have been very lucky.

Right... you see, you keep proving my point.

I see you mindlessly repeating your idiotic imaginings, just as I predicted you would.

I see your limited bandwith can't respond to more than once sentence at time, either.

 

[PratchettFan]

That's true!!

A disturbing thought...but very true.

Why is that disturbing?

You don't think the idea that Jesus might look like Saddam is...um....off-putting?

No. Isn't that kind of like saying that Saddam would have been an ok guy if he just looked like Tab Hunter?

 

[PratchettFan]

[

No doubt we do have different definitions of evidence. I take into account human nature and don't expect photocopies of birth certificates.

However, you are now in the position of basically denying the existence of the early church. You seem to be of the opinion that it suddenly burst into existence in the 2nd century. That seems a tad odd to me, but to each his own.

No, I'm not denying the existence of the early church. Just it's pedigree. If you look at Jesus, he has waaaayyy too much in common with characters like Sarapis and Mithras, phony God-men who proceeded him.

The real problem was that you had this urban legend that appeared, someone in the "Early Church" as you say decided they needed to get their story straight. SO a whole bunch of Gospels appeared. Then when the "Early CHurch" became the "State Religion" in the 4th century (The Dark Ages were the first Faith Based Iniative), they went through those 200 Gospels and found the four that best reflected the "official" story they wanted to tell.

Once more, you are confusing the myth with the man. If the early church existed, and you say you are not denying it did, then it would have been populated with the contemporaries of Jesus. So what you seem to be arguing now is that people who would have known whether he existed - first hand - were actually fooled into thinking he existed through some conspiracy. I honestly don't understand how you can come to that conclusion.

 

[JoeB131]

Once more, you are confusing the myth with the man. If the early church existed, and you say you are not denying it did, then it would have been populated with the contemporaries of Jesus. So what you seem to be arguing now is that people who would have known whether he existed - first hand - were actually fooled into thinking he existed through some conspiracy. I honestly don't understand how you can come to that conclusion.

Not necessarily.

The early church DID exist in the 2nd century, but by that time, anyone who knew Jesus was dead and buried.

Most of what we know about Jesus was written by people who had never met him personally. For instance, St. Paul is the first person to write anything about Jesus, but never met him personally. It is equally possible that Jesus was a literary device Paul (or Saul of Tarses) made up.

So here's a more plausible theory. Saul of Tarses has a whacky new idea for Judaism, so he writes about this fellow named Jesus who is a paragon of all virtues. (Unlike Saul himself, who was just another Pharisee dick.) And he wanders around Asia minor telling tales, which of course, borrow from Mithras and Sarapis and all the other God-men of the time.

The problem with the "Early Church" is that you had a lot of different groups that believed different things- Arians, Monophysites, Gnostics, etc.

What we don't have evidence for is a flesh and blood man at the center of all these beliefs. We have a lot of stories, just like we have a lot of stories about Robin Hood, Paul Bunyon and other legendary characters.

An interesting tidbit.. The Emperor Hadrian visited the east in the middle of the second century and remarked as follows....

'Egypt, which you commended to me, my dearest Servianus, I have found to be wholly fickle and inconsistent, and continually wafted about by every breath of fame. The worshipers of Serapis (here) are called Christians, and those who are devoted to the god Serapis (I find), call themselves Bishops of Christ.'

 

[Saigon]

Why is that disturbing?

You don't think the idea that Jesus might look like Saddam is...um....off-putting?

No. Isn't that kind of like saying that Saddam would have been an ok guy if he just looked like Tab Hunter?

I have no idea who Tab is, but assuming you are referring to race - that isn't my point.

I just think it's better if a messiah looks less like a Stalin, Mobutu Sese, Hitler or Saddam than he does like a sane person.

 

[PratchettFan]

Once more, you are confusing the myth with the man. If the early church existed, and you say you are not denying it did, then it would have been populated with the contemporaries of Jesus. So what you seem to be arguing now is that people who would have known whether he existed - first hand - were actually fooled into thinking he existed through some conspiracy. I honestly don't understand how you can come to that conclusion.

Not necessarily.

The early church DID exist in the 2nd century, but by that time, anyone who knew Jesus was dead and buried.

Most of what we know about Jesus was written by people who had never met him personally. For instance, St. Paul is the first person to write anything about Jesus, but never met him personally. It is equally possible that Jesus was a literary device Paul (or Saul of Tarses) made up.

So here's a more plausible theory. Saul of Tarses has a whacky new idea for Judaism, so he writes about this fellow named Jesus who is a paragon of all virtues. (Unlike Saul himself, who was just another Pharisee dick.) And he wanders around Asia minor telling tales, which of course, borrow from Mithras and Sarapis and all the other God-men of the time.

The problem with the "Early Church" is that you had a lot of different groups that believed different things- Arians, Monophysites, Gnostics, etc.

What we don't have evidence for is a flesh and blood man at the center of all these beliefs. We have a lot of stories, just like we have a lot of stories about Robin Hood, Paul Bunyon and other legendary characters.

An interesting tidbit.. The Emperor Hadrian visited the east in the middle of the second century and remarked as follows....

'Egypt, which you commended to me, my dearest Servianus, I have found to be wholly fickle and inconsistent, and continually wafted about by every breath of fame. The worshipers of Serapis (here) are called Christians, and those who are devoted to the god Serapis (I find), call themselves Bishops of Christ.'

The early church did exist in the 2nd century. It also existed in the 1st century. The problem stands. You are arguing that people who would have known first hand were fooled by a conspiracy. I do not find that to be a credible argument.

Just because stories crop up around someone does not mean they never lived.

 

[chikenwing]

Ignoring what it says in the holy books themselves, what evidence is there that any of these three gentlemen actually walked the earth?

Or, to put it another way, even if they were real people - what evidence is there that they were 'special'?

How do you know Plato existed?

Evidence.

The Greeks kept pretty good records.

So did the Romans