The fundamental Question.....
I want evidence that Jesus actually existed and was what your belief or religion states, and evidence that Jesus is not a personification of the Sun, and I have it all wrong.
I nominate master theologian 'Segovius' to start the discussion.
PS. I do not count problems with thermodynamics as proof of Jesus's existance.
I nominate master theologian 'Segovius' to start the discussion.
PS. I do not count problems with thermodynamics as proof of Jesus's existance.
Comments
Originally posted by MarcUK
I want evidence that Jesus actually existed and was what your belief or religion states, and evidence that Jesus is not a personification of the Sun, and I have it all wrong.
I nominate master theologian 'Segovius' to start the discussion.
PS. I do not count problems with thermodynamics as proof of Jesus's existance.
Jesus H Christ : why is it so important for you the answer to this question ?
Did you recieved a religious trauma while you where a kid ?
Originally posted by Powerdoc
Jesus H Christ : why is it so important for you the answer to this question ?
Did you recieved a religious trauma while you where a kid ?
Perhaps the answer to the question is in the below thread. I must admit that I did not checked this thread for a long time ...
Originally posted by MarcUK
I want evidence that Jesus actually existed and was what your belief or religion states, and evidence that Jesus is not a personification of the Sun, and I have it all wrong.
I nominate master theologian 'Segovius' to start the discussion.
I know I'm not supposed to answer this question, in deference to segovius, but it's a free country.
I don't think anyone at this point could prove for sure that Jesus existed, but I think the evidence is good enough. I do think it's possible that he never existed and was a conglomeration of Mithras and others. Some of those parallels do seem fishy enough that they could be more than just later additions, to the point of Jesus actually being completely invented by Jews 2000 years ago.
But I think the simpler explanation is that he existed, preached, was executed, and had such an impact on the people that knew him that they came up with this "God's sacrifice" explanation in order to give themselves a reason for his senseless death.
What does the H in Jesus H. Christ stand for?
(I don't need to get into the second middle, sometimes inserted after the H. For some reason that name is usually explicitly pronounced in full. But it does bring up an ancillary question: What were Mary and Joseph thinking !?)
Originally posted by shetline
For me the fundamental question is this:
What does the H in Jesus H. Christ stand for?
(I don't need to get into the second middle, sometimes inserted after the H. For some reason that name is usually explicitly pronounced in full. But it does bring up an ancillary question: What were Mary and Joseph thinking !?)
This is just the americanised version of his name
H for holy ?
It doesn't illuminate any real depth, as far as what is being contemplated by Monotheisms, to say that they are merely derived from Sun worship . .
It might reveal something, but I tend to think that it merely overlooks the profound difference between the notion of an Abstract Wholeness in favor of a historically contingent object worship: that means that the level of religious discussion will remain always at the surface, at the exoteric level and never really ask the "Fundamental Question" . . .
That might be good for questioning mainstream religion (exoteric) etc . . . but it will completely miss the Spirit of any real theological contemplation.
. . .
Now with that said . . .I'll go back and read the rest of the thread and catch up when I get a chance . . .
Originally posted by segovius
The second problem stems from this and is more conclusive: MarcUk's argument against the existence of Jesus is essentially an argument against the Church's portrayal of Jesus. I agree. The Church's Jesus did not exist but that does not rule out a historical figure.
We even have evidence of the Historical/mythical split in the split between Paul and Peter. Peter argues with Paul because he misportrays the figure of Christ. This Pauline doctrine then becomes the official Church line so Peter is in effect opposing the Church. So is MarcUk and so am I - BUT we know that if Jesus was made up then Peter must have done it rather than Paul.
And Peter disagreed with Paul. Therefore Paul invented the character of Jesus (ie the Jesus of the Church) and based his creation on a historical religious teacher that Peter knew personally and that's why they fell out.
OK, so you've essentially ruled out the divinity of Jesus, as Gods son, I think. That must mean Jesus was just a random preacher who had some good ideas, if what is written about him, is actually what he said. Isn't that the opinion of a the Jewish religion today?
So this Pauline doctrine became the official Church doctrine, Ok, evidence show Paul as a Gnostic, Gnostics were into Astrotheology, news of Precession (hipparchus 150 B.C) filtered through to Paul, who thinks its a good idea to rewrite the ancient star myths to include the new solar discovery based on new ideas from a wacky preacher known to Peter. Some people think its real, form the literal Church. Romans know they're talking shite, so they burn 'em. Literalists persucute the Gnostics for their liberalism, and despise Paul - but realised he was such an important figure in Christianity that they had to accept him, so they changed the history of Paul to suit. Constantine declares Christianity the State religion. Astrotheology (osiris, sun-worship etc) becomes the Church's doctrine. (explains everything about Catholic style worship). Religious writings collected - Bible cannonised by Vote. Other mentions of Jesus not fitting are destroyed. Crusades. Forgery. Torture. 1000 years later it is accepted as literal truth, just as the Pope admits Jesus was a myth. Christians in denial breakaway from Church because it is corrupted, and virtually admitting its false origins in astrotheology, call themselves Protestants, but use the Catholic-Astrotheological-voted for Book-as the "word". Duh!. (explains fundamentalists hatred of Catholics). Modern Science comes along, Theory Of E shows that protestants literalism is wrong, Fundies find a new hate idol. Pope says nothing wrong with Evolution, Fundies throth at mouth. Catholics become the new Mithra, Fundies become the new Catholics, Fundies go on a crusade of emotional torture, lies, and deceptions.
So Jesus for all extents and purposes did not exist and the Bible is reworked astrotheology.
Fuck me I've been a Catholic for some time!
Originally posted by segovius
Why must it ? Why random ? And he was a Jew so you may be onto something there....
Just an expression of speech to mean he wasn't divine, inspired directly by God etc. Just a human, probably Jew. Is being Jewish a fact, or just a hearsay?
Show us this evidence - I have seen no such evidence.
I keep giving you the links of the books, I ain't typing out 1000 pages into the forum! http://www.jesusmysteries.demon.co.uk/
Gnostics were into many things - there were too many disparate groups for the name to have any relevance, Some were even gay
OMG, not a Gay sun-worshipper. No wonder they were persecuted!
Yes, but just because they are insane maniacs doesn't mean that anything they oppose is by definition correct. Sometimes lunatics can speak the truth - the fundies are a kind of idiot savant except that they're so out there they don't know it.
And of course the truth they speak needs to be understood in a rather different way but in the main they are right on the money. [/B]
If only they'd stop talking crap about Evolution, not vote for Satan, and stop being judgemental extremeist pricks, I'd probably side with them. They are right on the money, but they don't understand a word Jesus said.
I notice you left out a review of Hipparchus. Reason?
Originally posted by segovius
idiot savant
Looked it up! Cheers, a new expression
On a serious note, [psychology head] I wonder if that means that people actually choose to be stupid? [/psychology head]
Originally posted by segovius
Btw - did you ever read that book by John Allegro that 'proved' Jesus was in fact a psychedelic mushroom and that the disciples were tripped off their nuts ?
No I havn't, are you trying to associate something ridiculous to my evidence as to prove it wrong? There's the blue pill (or was it the red one?). Paganism--> Gnosticism-->Churchian Xianity.
Anyway, I think I am near the end of the journey. I don't think I need to know anymore about Jesus, evolution or Osiris. I just got Flash, so I'm off to learn something useful, before I end up in peatbog.
transition from object oriented forms of worship
It took my computer science oriented brain a few moments to figure this out...
Originally posted by Stoo
It took my computer science oriented brain a few moments to figure this out...
So that's it then? I'm kinda disappointed, I thought Sego was going to hit me with something. Perhaps he's playing cryptic mystic again
Originally posted by segovius
Hehe - what do you want to be hit with ? I won't charge this time
I don't recall I paid for it last time, butt thats a bit offtopic.
I don't believe your sole evidence of Jesus's existance relies on someone who knew someone who knew Jesus, but he might have made it up anyway.
I fully accept your argument, it's perfectly rational, and I even want to believe it, but the bit I have a problem with is 'within 5 years' of his alleged death. Can you expand on that a bit, what was there around 38A.D at the latest, and what does it refer to?
Originally posted by segovius
It was a figure off the top of my head but I don't care - you know why ??????
Because there's one less fascist blighting our lives
The drinks or on me - give me a moment to collect myself....
You won't get off that easily my master....but tonight we celebrate. Free drinks all round.
I need to find reference to this argument between Paul and Peter. Where do I find it?
Ta