There is no evidence for a biblical jesus

[MaxVel]

Are the Vedas actually History or mystery, is the Qu'ran actually history or mystery, the point is without evidence none of them can be regarded as history, just mystery, that may have a little historical truth in them.
What is the difference between the harpi's and centaurs in the Iliad and the cockatrice and flying serpent's in the bible, Why should one book get more regard than the other.

Genre; date; textual preservation; names, places, events referred to; gap between the events and the earliest copies; number and distribution of copies; culture of the authors; culture of the people who preserved the texts; style of writing; inclusion of unfavourable details; comparison with similar texts of the time and genre; external evidences.

Just a few of the things that come to mind, that differentiate the gospels (and mostly, the epistles) from something like the Iliad.

I'm not going to go into any detail, or defend or discuss these further. As you point out below, you have been doing this for some time. Either you'll already be fairly familiar with most of the points I've raised - if you've actually been doing real research in any depth - or, as I suspect, you are woefully ignorant on the matter, and I really don't have the time to educate you, nor the inclination to educate someone who clearly thinks they're the smartest person in the room.

I been doing this for some years, I'm sorry there has not been anything new brought to the table, and no I don't skim I check and research.
Why do you thing that even religious scholars call it a faith. because it is an apt name. There is no evidence for any of it.

That last statement shows you're either really quite stupid (and arrogant with it); or painfully uninformed (and close-minded, with no interest in learning, to boot).

Either way you don't actually have anything and I'd be wasting my time in an exchange with you. See ya.

[Rational Gaze]

That it took bertatberts "years" of "research" to come up with his "arguments" then it is a massive indictment against him. Essentially, all he has done is parrot the claims of fringe lunatics, and ignore all the evidence against his "hypothesis." Of course, I say "arguments" I should really say "has a bash at."

[Kane]

And why would there be a need to exaggerate the quality of the deeds of someone who already stuck out amongst the population as an inspiring and unique figure?

A modern-day example of the same thing being done -- exaggerating the quality and deeds of an inspiring, unique person -- could easily be pointed to: Elvis. Certainly he's not Jesus, but he does draw quite a following even after his death, and sensationalized notes on his life and death continue to circulate. For example, some people believe firmly that because Elvis's name can be rendered an anagram of 'lives' that Elvis never really died, but is continuing on into his dotage in hiding somewhere.

My postulation about Jesus's life being exaggerated by his followers is not a unique theory but, to me, it is an interesting one. To answer your question though, the need to exaggerate the quality and deeds of Jesus may have been derived of the need to stave-off embarrassment that Jesus's rather bold claims ended with his death. In other words, being the inspiring figure that he was, it would be a tad difficult to identify with the fact that he is gone, and there will be no more of his seemingly miraculous deeds or wise statements. So, to continue to elevate his status amongst his followers and detractors alike, simply attribute to him incredible things; e.g., multiplying of food to feed the masses, the resurrection, the ascension, etc.

It is not that far of a stretch to suggest this as a possible explanation for Christ's elevated status in history. All one need to do (and I keep bringing this up) is look at modern India: self-styled gurus and miracle-workers enjoy the same laudation and post-death fandom as would be expected from their inspirational status when they were alive. More close to home, the legends surrounding Mary Baker G. Eddy suggest that she could never die, just enter a prolonged repose. Nevertheless, she did die at 89 years old and Christian Scientists have had to accept this whether they like it or not.

Also, what is resurrection an exaggeration of?

To put it simply: life. The notion of the dead rising to live again is sufficiently explained by people's desire to do away with the finality of death, the discomfort mortality imposes on us, and the need to remember those we loved as they lived not as they will eventually be: dead.

[bertatberts]

Simple things please simple minds.

Well you are the authority.

You have yet to refute anything, now, put your money where your mouth is and bring something new to the table.

If you get a backbone and stop hiding, then I will go through your posts, and refute them again, ok.

In other words, you've been soundly beaten, don't have anything to respond with and don't have the balls to admit it. :

See above comment, ( I wonder if the mods will remove, your use of these words, I very much doubt it)

No, it does not.

Good answer, very informative.

Mine was composed in a matter of months.

Hence why it's lacking, then.

That it took bertatberts "years" of "research" to come up with his "arguments" then it is a massive indictment against him.

No, more was added over the years, to get to this final document.

Essentially, all he has done is parrot the claims of fringe lunatics, and ignore all the evidence against his "hypothesis." Of course, I say "arguments" I should really say "has a bash at."

I’ve yet to see any evidence against it, you certainly failed didn’t you.

How many acres do you need to squeeze that hubris into?

I wouldn't know, I suggest you ask Rational Gaze and Darth Ovious, about that.

Why in the world does something like 'Why is there no table of contents or index in the Bible?' and 'Why didn't God have to marry Mary?' even need refutation

So you haven't got a backbone then, oh well it is what I expected.

Genre; date; textual preservation; names, places, events referred to; gap between the events and the earliest copies; number and distribution of copies; culture of the authors; culture of the people who preserved the texts; style of writing; inclusion of unfavourable details; comparison with similar texts of the time and genre; external evidences.

If it had some you mean, oh and most of those are fallacies.

Just a few of the things that come to mind, that differentiate the gospels (and mostly, the epistles) from something like the Iliad.

But most are fallacies and what is left is about as valuable as the Iliad.

I'm not going to go into any detail, or defend or discuss these further. As you point out below, you have been doing this for some time. Either you'll already be fairly familiar with most of the points I've raised - if you've actually been doing real research in any depth - or, as I suspect, you are woefully ignorant on the matter

I'd go with the latter if I were you, then you revert to type.

and I really don't have the time to educate you,

I would love you to educate me, if you had something.

nor the inclination to educate someone who clearly thinks they're the smartest person in the room.

I'm far from the smartest person, I'm just not gullible enough to take something simply on faith.

That last statement shows you're either really quite stupid (and arrogant with it); or painfully uninformed (and close-minded, with no interest in learning, to boot).

As said I would love it.

Either way you don't actually have anything and I'd be wasting my time in an exchange with you. See ya.

Oh how sad, yet another invertebrate.

[seanD]

A modern-day example of the same thing being done -- exaggerating the quality and deeds of an inspiring, unique person -- could easily be pointed to: Elvis. Certainly he's not Jesus, but he does draw quite a following even after his death, and sensationalized notes on his life and death continue to circulate. For example, some people believe firmly that because Elvis's name can be rendered an anagram of 'lives' that Elvis never really died, but is continuing on into his dotage in hiding somewhere.

My postulation about Jesus's life being exaggerated by his followers is not a unique theory but, to me, it is an interesting one. To answer your question though, the need to exaggerate the quality and deeds of Jesus may have been derived of the need to stave-off embarrassment that Jesus's rather bold claims ended with his death. In other words, being the inspiring figure that he was, it would be a tad difficult to identify with the fact that he is gone, and there will be no more of his seemingly miraculous deeds or wise statements. So, to continue to elevate his status amongst his followers and detractors alike, simply attribute to him incredible things; e.g., multiplying of food to feed the masses, the resurrection, the ascension, etc.

It is not that far of a stretch to suggest this as a possible explanation for Christ's elevated status in history. All one need to do (and I keep bringing this up) is look at modern India: self-styled gurus and miracle-workers enjoy the same laudation and post-death fandom as would be expected from their inspirational status when they were alive. More close to home, the legends surrounding Mary Baker G. Eddy suggest that she could never die, just enter a prolonged repose. Nevertheless, she did die at 89 years old and Christian Scientists have had to accept this whether they like it or not.



To put it simply: life. The notion of the dead rising to live again is sufficiently explained by people's desire to do away with the finality of death, the discomfort mortality imposes on us, and the need to remember those we loved as they lived not as they will eventually be: dead.

But once again you’re making the mistake of not looking at the differences in the nuances of the cultures. You can't compare the 21st century with the culture of Palestine pre-Diaspora 2,000 years ago. This is the typical mistake newbs make. Crucifixion was Rome's definitive acquisition over the individual's potency and status in society, because it degraded and humiliated them. The way our culture views pedophiles or sexual perverts is probably analogous to how they viewed the fate of crucifixion victims. It’s sort of like the situation with Anthony Wiener. You notice that you don’t see his Democratic peers rallying around him in support, but instead avoiding him like the plague because his status has been publicly degraded and humiliated in way that he’s become a “toxic” individual, thus it would be foolish, let alone politically unwise, to not only show any support for him but to even be associated with him. Continuing Jesus’ legacy as Messiah and then worshiping him as a deity and even aggrandizing the way he was executed would not have been an option for these people, and would have made themselves susceptible to much worse public derision and ridicule than before. But of course you need to understand how this culture perceived crucifixion, and this comes by reading the ancient literature in regards to this subject. Therefore it would have been far better and much more likely they would have opted to either remain in hiding, or just left the country all together to avoid the situation than to actually highlight it to the public this way.

Another difference is that your theory indeed works in our culture because we can see this is typical pattern. It didn’t just happen with Elvis. It happened with Jimmie Hendrix. It happened with Bruce Lee. It happened with John Lennon. It happened with Tupac. It’s happening with Michael Jackson. In fact, I would bet if you google just about every famous person who has ever died in the last 50 years, this belief has been attributed them. IOW, this is a familiar meme with famous people in our culture, not theirs. We don't see this pattern at all in the ancient world. This didn’t happen with John the Baptist, the Teacher of Righteousness, Gamaliel, Hillel, Shammai, Bar Kokhba (even though his followers believed he was the Messiah), etc., or even any of the Caesars or famous kings. So when we don’t see this pattern in a particular culture or era, then perhaps there is a reason why we don’t. They had completely different psychological, sociological, theological, and cultural perceptions. They didn’t think like we do.

[Rational Gaze]

To put it simply: life. The notion of the dead rising to live again is sufficiently explained by people's desire to do away with the finality of death, the discomfort mortality imposes on us, and the need to remember those we loved as they lived not as they will eventually be: dead.

Except ancient religions already had that. The Jews believed in a general resurrection of the dead at the end of time (apart from the Sadducees) and the ultimate hopes of the pagans were to escape their mortal bodies and live on as spirits.

All one need to do (and I keep bringing this up) is look at modern India

Your ignorance of the monumental and massive differences between the two is noted and dismissed as such.

[Kane]

Your ignorance of the monumental and massive differences between the two is noted and dismissed as such.

I'm concerned about the psychological impact of self-appointed authorities and spiritual figures on their followers. And on that level, the crossover between ancient Israel and modern India is roughly the same. You can dismiss that if you like. It's still of interest to me, and to a good many other people.

[Kane]

SeanD,

Thank you for your comment. I will put some thought into what you have written, and respond as I can.

[Rational Gaze]

Well you are the authority.

Yup, I have you on hand as my object for study.

If you get a backbone and stop hiding, then I will go through your posts, and refute them again, ok.

In other words, you've been soundly beaten, don't have anything to respond with and are too much of a chicken to admit. Now, grow a backbone and actually post some responses instead of your current Black Knight routine.

See above comment, ( I wonder if the mods will remove, your use of these words, I very much doubt it)

Your delusion is once again noted and dismissed as such. I would also like to see how using a synonym for 'bravery' is a moddable offence, but then again since you are a delusional moron, I doubt I would get an answer that made coherent sense.

Good answer, very informative.

It is good to see that I have succeeded in combating your ignorance.

Hence why it's lacking, then.

I'm not a barely literate moron such as yourself, so nothing is lacking at all.

No, more was added over the years, to get to this final document. I’ve yet to see any evidence against it, you certainly failed didn’t you.

Because you are delusional. There are massive amounts of data against your failed hypothesis and you are thus incapable of responding. Presumably, because you are too much of a coward.

[Rational Gaze]

And on that level, the crossover between ancient Israel and modern India is roughly the same.

Even though you have, currently, ignored all the social, cultural and religious differences.

[seanD]

I need to correct myself. It did happen with John the Baptist, but this wasn't a belief propagated by his followers but by Herod his executioner, so this was obviously a different situation and psychological dynamic with Herod. And of course John died honorably, he wasn't crucified.

[Kane]

Even though you have, currently, ignored all the social, cultural and religious differences.

What is your understanding of the human psyche as it relates to the influence of charismatic and/or salvific figures? Because you see, by gaining an understanding of that -- which I'm currently learning about -- one comes to see how social, cultural, and religious differences have, in part, come about. What you're requiring of me is to deal with the conclusions before I examine the premises, to put the cart before the horse, as it were. I don't think it particularly helpful to entertain such denigrations to rationality. On the other hand, if you can show me why it is that I should oblige your demand to examine the conclusions before the premises, I would be happy to take such a venture on. Until then, I will continue as I am, thank you.

[rogue06]

I wouldn't know, I suggest you ask Rational Gaze and Darth Ovious, about that.

Seriously? That's the best you can offer? The equivalent of "I-know-you-are-but-what-am-I?"

But then looking back to your response at post #26, it does appear that really is all you've got

[Rational Gaze]

What you're requiring of me is to deal with the conclusions before I examine the premises, to put the cart before the horse, as it were.

Your confusion is not rational. In order to explain why Christianity succeeded, you would first to need to understand the social, cultural and religious trends of the day. Your method so far is to look at Y and then proclaim: "this explains X" without taking into account the differences between the two. For example, a religion that promotes something one culture finds offensive is not likely to succeed in that particular culture. Whereas it is more likely to succeed in a culture where such a thing either is not offensive, or, better yet, promoted. Christianity broke pretty much every taboo, for both Jews and Pagans.

[Challenger Grim]

How many acres do you need to squeeze that hubris into?

The similarities between this joker and Lunchy continue to grow...