He told his followers to buy weapons or are you thinking of Feel-good Jesus who never did any of those things and is not a person actually in the Bible?

The Bible can be used to support virtually anything including the "Prosperity Gospel," wars, bigotry, slavery and the oppression of women. Cherry picking the Bible to support your particular view of a forgiving and peaceable Jesus is as bad as cherry picking it to support the converse image.

inane rants like yours.

who doesn't even make a pretense of intellectual integrity any more.

Sorry that intaglio's "inane rant" was too accurate for the comfort of you and the other religionistas here. Feel free to answer it with some actual facts and logical arguments, if you're capable of that.

who doesn't even make a pretense of fact-based logic any more.

Sorry that okasha's "fact-free response" was too accurate for the comfort of you and the other antireligionistas here. Feel free to answer it with some actual facts and logical arguments, if you're capable of that. Oh, and civility too, if you're capable of that.

who doesn't even make a pretense of an original, coherent thought anymore.

Sorry that skepticscott's "fact-based" response was too accurate for the comfort of you and the other religionistas here. Feel free to answer it with some actual facts and logical arguments, if you're capable of that. Oh, and civility too, if you're capable of that.

Nary a smiley or cartoon in sight.

He needs a better surrogate.

your kung-fu is weak.

Now comes the part where you try to come up with something better....























...and then fail.

Along with the "facts" that support it.

I can't say I'm surprised you favor such surly, empty posts.

WTF are you on about? I was responding to your post which posited the idea that there were some facts in okasha's post. There were no facts, of course merely an inaccurate accusation of inanity.

How, by the way, was my original post surly or empty?

The "facts" (sic) post that you referred to was.

Nor do I claim that my views about mythological beings are supported by a supernatural creator.

In respect of inanity, how are my views "silly" or "lacking sense"? Would you care to elaborate?

You seem to imply a negative interpretation to Jesus' telling his followers to observe the Torah, even to find it shocking or conducive to somehow scoring a point off those who believe Jesus was/is a positive figure. So what we have here is an orthodox, observant Jew, advising other, orthodox, observant Jews to follow the Torah. This is surprising how? Of course he upheld the Law. He also condensed it very succinctly into "Love God and love your neighbor." The prophet Micah before him also got it all into one sentence: "Do justly, love mercy and walk humbly with your God." Both Jesus and Micah strip the Law down to its essentials. Jesus also pointed out that when human need and the Law were in conflict, human need prevailed. "The Sabbath was made for man, not man for the Sabbath.)

There was no such thing as "Christianity" during Jesus' lifetime. His followers were Jews, and his teachings created not a new religion but a new interpretation of Judaism. Bishop John Shelby Spong makes a strong argument that the four canonical gospels were not written as biographies in the normal sense but as theological documents organized around the Jewish liturgical year, with major events in the narratives corresponding to the major feasts of Judaism. As such, they were read by Jews, to Jews, in synagogues, as part of Jewish Shabbat services. The split between Judaism and Christianity did not come until around the year 90 CE, when the remnants of the Jerusalem church became permanently disassociated from gentile, Pauline Christianity in the West. (See Spong's Re-Claiming the Bible for a Non-Religious World.)

Your comments on the man's name are likewise much ado about nothing. His given name in his native language was Yeshua (or, more formally, Yehoshua.) In Greek, it become Iesous, which in turn was Latinized to Jesus in the Vulgate and other writings in that language. Why do you think this is an issue? Is it any stranger than the difference between, say, Roger and Rogelio or Ambrose and Ambrosius?

If you are trying to make a point here, you're missing it.

Given both the Torah and the Tanakh contain mitzvah, (what you wrongly term laws) that insist on the death of men women and children, the thrashing of disobedient children, loathing of homosexuality, justifications for rape and slavery, concubinage and not least the restriction of grace to but one race. Add in the irrational restrictions on diet, dress, hairdressing, jewelry, tattoos, leisure time and worship. Then there are the distortions of history, the fraudulent editing and outright lies on origin. Somehow I think this might be viewed as negative by rational humans.

Then there is the segment when you claim that Jesus abrogated all these mitzvah by one sentence is wrong. The Jesus you think existed stated explicitly

You see you are cherry picking, selecting only those parts of the Bible that you find pleasing; if you can do that then others can take the parts you find hateful and use those as guides and with precisely the same justification as yourself.

As usual you completely misinterpret sections of the Gospel as is displayed by your selection of "The Sabbath was made for man, not man for the Sabbath," what you miss is that The Sabbath was an absolute and keeping the Sabbath was a mitzvah because God had decreed the day of the Sabbath i.e. it was not of man's making. The element of the statement regarding men just states that men are sinful and as such will sometimes break the Sabbath when there is need.

I actually agree with a lot of what Bishop Spong says about the Gospels but even he admits that although these books were written with a liturgical year in mind they are supposed to contain actual biographical detail. The problem is that when you do such separation the details are confused, contradictory or plain wrong.

Next you say, with a loose connection to reality, that Christianity did not exist at the time of Jesus. It is true that name did not exist but, according to the Bible, Jesus preached and drew followers, gave them guidelines for worship and insisted that families be abandoned if they did not follow him. The name Christianity had not been coined but it existed, just as the term Mormonism had not been coined at the time of Joseph Smith - but it existed. What you claim about the Jerusalem Church is that it was not part of the community of Christianity and that Christianity, as a faith, had nothing to do with Jesus except to treat Him as an avatar of the (Jewish) deity and the tales about Him as exemplars of behaviour.

Why do I think that the name we use for the putative Saviour is important? Because its use speaks to the dreadful chasm that exists between the actual words of that man and the vast complexity of writing, editing, translation and yet more editing that are used to guide the teachings of the Church. You insist upon selecting the words that you find relevant and pleasing then justifying that by appealing to the authority of Jesus or the Bible. I do not object to you claiming that you find "love your neighbor" a wonderful guideline but if you had clused a prefix like "The Bible tells us to ..." it becomes a mere appeal to a dubious authority.

is as bad as claiming his endorsement for wars, bigotry, slavery, and female oppression? Are you sure about that? What definition of "bad" are you using?

No, I did not mention wars; but I did say that you can find texts to support all of the rest in the New Testament. Claiming the support of Jesus for a particular position of peace and love is as bad as finding words said by George W Bush in support of peace and democracy - it does not tell the whole tale. Jesus, as he appears in the Gospels, is largely a mythological figure saying many things depending upon which author or group of authors wrote or reported about him.

1) The source character or characters for the Saviour was not called Jesus for that is not Aramaic or Hebrew name. A later Jewish tradition has it that the name was originally Yeshua (which is more normally rendered as Joshua) badly transliterated into Latinised Greek

2) There is no contemporary record of this, supposedly, influential figure. There is not even a contemporary record in the synoptic Gospels which were all written decades later by persons who were not the those traditionally named as the authors and later edited by others.

3) Most, if not all, of the teachings are taken from Greek and Latin philosophy, or Hebrew teachings.

4) I have read that most, if not all, of the parables have been found to be taken from earlier sources; they are not original.

5) Much of the life story of the source figure was cut to fit supposedly prophetic detail.

6) Some of the tale contains images from other mythological sources such as Bacchus, Mithra and Osiris.

7) What is left is a tale of one of the apocalyptic prophets who were present in the area at that time, no more.

And interpretation inevitably emphasizes some things at the expense of others.
-
There are no contemporary records for most people in the ancient world, even highly influential ones. Time destroys records. Having writings about someone produced within a couple of decades (Paul and the hymns he quotes) after their death is actually pretty amazing. But what about all the historians writing at the time, you say. Not one of them mentions Jesus, except maybe Josephus. True, but not one of them except for Josephus mentions any of the other peasant prophetic leaders either, so their lack of interest in such things isn't any kind of proof of non-existence. Speaking of Josephus, he's got one reference to Jesus which is indisputedly authentic (it mentions "James, the brother of Jesus" being executed in the 60s) and the other reference is interpolated, but not completely forged.
-
Jesus was a Jewish prophet in a time when Judea was under Roman rule, and therefore in contact with Greco-Roman culture. Are we supposed to believe that nothing in any of these traditions was worth endorsing?
-
What do you mean when you say his life was "cut to fit" supposedly prophetic detail? If his followers were making things up to fulfill prophecy, why didn't they pick the actual prophecies? Instead they went to the Tanakh and quoted things that were not originally considered prophetic (or prophetic, but not of the messiah). Seems like they were reshaping the "prophecies" to fit Jesus more than the other way around.
-
The creation stories in Genesis were commentaries on the Babylonian Enuma Elish, and the story of Noah reworks Gilgamesh. So even if you are right, what would it prove beyond the fact that scriptures in Jewish culture communicate by riffing on other cultures?
-
I entirely agree that Jesus was one of many apocalyptic prophets and messiah claimants at the time. But how many of them kept their followers after they died? That makes Jesus unique, does it not?

We know that the 4 gospels weren't even written by the men whose names they bear, so it's impossible to say whether it was Jesus' "followers" or someone else who collected various ideas of the time and formed a new religion around a mythical amalgamation of them.

This mystery myth compiler you are positing is more mysterious than Jesus himself, by the criteria intaglio was using. Where in the historical records of the time is the suggestion made that someone made up Jesus, or identification of that person or their motives? If that was the suspicion, why didn't Tacitus say that? He was a pagan historian who thought very little of Christianity. Why would he stay silent if the enemies of Christianity were calling Jesus made up?

The standards being used to judge Jesus are abandoned as soon as they become inconvenient.

Where in the historical records (outside the bible) can be found proof the Jesus OF the bible was a real person exactly as described? The Tacitus passage only confirms that someone was crucified, which wasn't exactly an uncommon event.

We need to be on guard about trying to apply our 21st century standards of news and communication to the people of the 1st century.

people claiming Jesus was a myth because he didn't have "contempory records," such as intaglio above. Perhaps when he/she sees that we both agree on not applying modern standards, he/she will drop that argument. But in the meantime, that sentiment still applies to Jesus just as much as your mystery man. Josephus and Tacitus are two more historical references for Jesus than your mystery myth compiler, who has no references, "exactly as described" or not.

The standard for what is required of Jesus keeps increasing (not just that he exists as a person rather than an amalgamation, but also that he exists exactly as described), and the mystery myth compiler still gets a free pass.

Like I said, an amalgamation of various individuals, teachings, stories, and a few historical details thrown in as part of the myth.

But I will say at this point if you're going to use Josephus as a reference, I'll have to drop out of this discussion as that passage is widely recognized as a forgery.

Something to consider: if the evidence for your Jesus fellow, exactly as you believe him to be, is so strong, how could any human being NOT be a Christian at this point? More importantly, how could ANYONE who was actually witness to those events not become a follower? How could there have possibly been any doubt at all as to the man's divinity?

When you're done pondering that, explain to me why you don't believe Mohammed split the moon in two. After all, there are contemporary accounts in India confirming that it happened.

the myth, that doesn't help your case because now there are multiple people in your story with zero historical references, not just one. Still no historical references to accusations that this happened, identifications of who was involved, or discussions of their motives. Still applying a high standard for the existence of Jesus, and a free pass for the existence of the people involved in your alternate scenario.

I referenced Josephus in my reply to intaglio (the post that you first replied to), and I explained that there were two passages in Josephus about Jesus. One that historians believe to be added to by Christians, but with an authentic nucleus, and another which is completely genuine ("James, the brother of Jesus&quot . I did that before you even joined the discussion, so you've been a part of the discussion with Josephus on the table the whole time. Why choose now to drop out?

Let's finish with your alternate scenario and the matter of Josephus before we move on to the two new questions you raise. I'm happy to discuss them, just not as a distraction from the matters already on the table.

There are millions of people who were alive back then with zero historical references.

We're talking plausible origins, I'm not proposing something that happened in just one particular way. That's what YOU are doing, and that's why the burden is on YOU to provide the evidence. Far more plausible is a mish-mosh of local legends and old stories that were cobbled together over time. The best evidence supporting that theory are the glaring contradictions and massive editing and retelling that's been done to the story.

But as intaglio has pointed out, both Josephus passages are suspect and besides, if Josephus reported that Jesus was the messiah, why did he (Josephus) remain a Jew? I am highly disappointed in anyone claiming to approach the origins of Christianity with a critical eye who tries to use Josephus as evidence. Again I ask, if your Josephus reference is such incredible proof that your Jesus existed, why would anyone NOT be a Christian today? Are we all blinded by the devil?

are the agreements evidence of existence? Jesus existed and was crucified, for example, is attested to by Paul, Josephus, Tacitus, and all four gospels. Will you concede, then, that even viewing your evidence in the light most favorable to you, that Jesus's existence as a single historical person, and his crucifixion by the Romans is more plausible than the hypothesis that he did not exist at all, or was more than one person (since there is still no source, not even in a "contradiction passage," claiming that)?

Intaglio's wrong about the second passage being interpolated or forged, and the first passage, as I've said, was interpolated. So in the second passage, Josephus is reporting that Jesus was called the Christ, not that Josephus himself believed that. The "he was the messiah" part of the Testimonium Flavium was one of the interpolations, since as you say, why would Josephus say that and remain a Jew?

I think it's entirely possible to agree that Jesus historically existed, and disagree with the theological meaning Christians give to that existence. Jews, for example, can agree that God exists, does miracles through people, and even raises the dead (see: Elijah), and yet disagree with the idea that someone can get crucified and still be the messiah. Ancient Roman pagans can likewise agree with Gods and miracles, but disagree that gods would manifest as peasants from conquered territories. And if they, who shared far more of the background culture with early Christians can disagree with Christianity, how much more understandable if people who share none of those ideas (about gods and miracles and so on) don't agree that Jesus was the messiah?

And besides which, if you're using the people who don't agree with Christianity as evidence that Jesus didn't exist, do all the millions of Christians down through the centuries count as evidence that he did?

I said that contradictions and editing indicate the cobbling together of multiple stories with different details. I have said what I consider to be the most plausible scenario, so no, I don't agree with your preferred view of history that you have obtained from your bible. Much like there was no single global flood that covered the earth, but rather many cultures and civilizations near rivers that experienced massive regional flooding, and those flood stories later came together to form myths like the story of Noah.

As I have said, I am disappointed you would even consider Josephus to be worthy of serious consideration.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Josephus_on_Jesus
The general scholarly view is that while the Testimonium Flavianum is most likely not authentic in its entirety, it is broadly agreed upon that it originally consisted of an authentic nucleus, which was then subject to Christian interpolation or forgery

Tell you what - you prove to me that Josephus really wrote that section, and I'll accept it. Deal?

Oh, and every religion has martyrs - does that make them all true? I'd still like to know, if your evidence is so strong, how anyone could reject Christianity.

Rather than this whole process going on with no single person at the center, and nobody raising the accusation that Jesus never existed. All you end up having on your side is one analogy purporting to describe how your story could have happened, supported by nothing more than a bare assertion that it did in fact happen that way. Against that, I have the testimonies of Josephus, Tacitus, the gospel writers, and Paul which agree on much, even though they do not agree on everything.
-
That quotation from wikipedia is what I've been saying to you about Josephus all along: the Testimonium Flavianum has an authentic nucleus that was altered by Christians. I'm glad we can agree on this.
-
I just gave you a paragraph on why people reject Christianity. You're the one suggesting the idea that people rejecting Christianity demonstrates that the evidence is too weak. But you don't agree with the idea that people believing in Christianity shows that the evidence is strong, so this would seem to be a standard that's only valid for you if it can be used against Christianity.

Not with the blatant contradictions and serious lack of independent evidence. Even if I were to accept your Josephus passage as altered by Christians... that's it? That's all you've got? For a man who transformed water to wine, healed the sick, fed multitudes with magic, walked on water, raised the dead, and himself rose from the dead? A brief passing mention by a historian who wrote volumes about lesser historical figures?

Enjoy your myth. I can see this will go nowhere. Lots of people believe lots of things. I don't see you becoming a Muslim because a billion people believe Mohammed.

Thanks for the discussion!

As to there being "no contemporary records" of people in ancient times you are of course either completely ignorant or lying.

In addition to their own writings there are numerous records of Galen, both Catos, Livy, Strabo, Sallust, Josephus and more.

Paul, in his early epistles makes no mention of Jesus as a living person. Josephus as you should be well aware was not contemporary and the entries that relate to Jesus were probably forged by, or at the behest of, Eusabius. The reference to James does exist but the "brother of Jesus" element is disputed - more especially so since Jesus is not mentioned anywhere else in "Antiquities". One thing that Josephus was fairly good about was explaining why relationships were important to a Roman audience unaware of the context.

You state, absolutely, that Jesus was a Jewish prophet who endorsed elements of the Greek and Roman philosophies - tricky, that as Jewish teaching of the time castigated such foreign elements and Jesus was explicit in his support for Jewish tradition and laws.

About prophecy, part of the supposed legitimacy of Jesus as Saviour is based upon such prophecies.

What your words come to is that the Gospels were written to glorify the life of a derivative teacher of second-hand philosophy and morals and just happened to include these details because of ... something. You add that these details were not considered prophetic in the Tanakh; the trouble is that they were obviously considered prophetic by the people who wrote about Jesus and it matters not at all which way round the addition happened, one way or another it was cut to fit

The conclusion to be drawn is that the Gospels are inaccurate. Worse is that we have no guide as to what parts (if any) of these hagiographies are actual history.

You ask what does the derivation of (or outright invention in) of the Old Testament prove? Well it proves that it is of no more relevance to modern thought than any other collection of legends and hero stories. Indeed if Paul had not founded Christianity as we know it the OT would just be a cultural reference that we would study in the same way as the Mahabharata or the Analects.

Finally you observe that not many prophets retained their followers after their death. Well, lets begin with the Essenes whose "Teacher of Righteousness" was definitely deceased; the founder of the Nazarites had been dead for centuries; followers of the Tzadikim are still around and we now term their observances Kabbalah.

I said that most ancient people, especially peasants, did not have contemporary records. I never said nobody did.
-
Paul did refer to Jesus as a living person. See this post from an atheist who is sympathetic to mythicism: http://www.patheos.com/blogs/crossexamined/2012/12/what-did-paul-know-about-jesus-not-much/
-
As i discussed with Trotsky, the Testimonium Flavianum has an authentic core with interpolations, and serves as the other reference to Jesus in "Antiquities" that explains why Josephus would refer to "the brother of Jesus who was called the christ".
-
First, I didn't "state absolutely." I responded with a rhetorical question. Second, it's not as tricky as you think, as one of the themes running through the gospels is Jesus's openness to outsiders and his disagreement with prominent "official" interpretations of Jewish teaching. Nonetheless, there doesn't have to be direct influence. Parallel moral ideas can spring up separately in different cultures.
-
The gospels include reinterpreted prophecies because something (that none of the actual prophecies contained) happened to convince the disciples that Jesus could still be the messiah even though he had been shamefully crucified by the Romans. So they went back and re-read the Tanakh looking for any possible passage that could be made to fit and explain what happened. This matters because if Jesus had been made up, they would have shaped his life to fit the undisputed prophecies, rather than try to gin up prophecies to support his life.
-
There are many academic discussions of criteria for determining what can and cannot be historically said about Jesus based on the gospel materials. The best example is the criterion of embarrassment (if an earlier gospel says something that a later gospel waters down, downplays, or changes, the earlier gospel is more likely to be historical, or they would have just dispensed with the detail altogether). By this criterion, we can say with a high degree of probability that Jesus was originally a disciple of John the Baptist, because Matthew and Luke struggle to explain why Jesus would be baptized by John if he was the messiah, and the gospel of John doesn't mention the baptism at all.
-
Again, not what I said. I was saying that if there are things in the gospels that suggest Horus, etc. (I'm not saying that there are such parallels since you've not provided any evidence on this point, but lets assume for the sake of argument that you're right), that wouldn't be shocking at all in light of the Tanakh's commentary on originally foreign stories to make theological points.
-
Not just prophets, messiah claimants. There were many such people around the time of Jesus, and they lost their followings on their death. A dead messiah was no messiah at all. That's the population we are discussing. So your examples miss the mark.

From Bob Seidensticker and then look at his conclussions - which you have conveniently ignored.
Corinthians 1:15 3-8 This has been quoted at me before. First the reference that Christ died for our sins does not refer to a real creature but rather an idealised one that fulfills scripture. The same applies to the claim that He rose on the 3rd day. The appearance (first to Cephas etc.) does not refer to a physical event any more than the appearance of Mithra to his followers. These appearances are all post mortem and refer to a spirit therefore not a living Saviour. There is no account in this passage of any living being. I could go on but note that the appearances end with Paul refers to the road to Damascus where Jesus definitely did not appear physically according to other Pauline biography.

Jesus died "for our sins" - So did Osiris and Mithra (BTW Chrestus was a known acronym of Osiris) and is no indication of anything more than an ideal.

Verses that report Jesus as a Sacrifice are not about a living creature with a biography many other godlings have been sacrificed and have died for our sins.

The (conflicting) genealogies citing Him as a descendant of David - By parallel that would indicate that Mallory was writing about a real human rather than the idealised King in describing Arthur, who also had an impressive genealogy. Only the element "... who in his earthly life ..." seems to refer to a real human but then you realise that Paul is separating an earthly Jesus from the Saviour Jesus.

Preaching the Christ crucified again is avoiding reference to a living creature. Just because Baldur was considered nailed to a tree does not mean Baldur existed.

"The Lord Jesus on the night He was betrayed" again separates a Lord Jesus from a flesh and blood Jesus - other demigods were betrayed as well.

Asking that bread be eaten and wine drunk in remembrance proves nothing - it was a normal part of the Passover Seder and sacred meals are and were part of many faiths.
Now look at the conclusions drawn by Bob Seidensticker

I.e. there is no biographical detail of a living, breathing Saviour.

Next, the Testamentum - the later references to Jesus are the interpolations (actually forgeries) placed there by Eusabius. Firstly no person prior to Eusabius saw those passages in the text even though they did refer to the text and it would have suited their argument. Secondly the copies of Josephus found outside of Eusabius's area of influence do not contain those passages. Note that John the Baptist is indisputably mentioned in Antiquities and the style of text is utterly different from the off-hand, by-the-way mentions of Jesus.

Examining the extra-biblical appearance of John the Baptist rather ruins your observation about ordinary people not being recorded. According to your belief Jesus was not ordinary, he was a rabbi with significant influence who required the attention of sufficient troops (a cohort) to put down a small rebellion. Additionally, according to Paul, there were sufficient numbers of Jewish Christians to require the attention of a semi-official persecutor, Paul himself. By the time Paul had his vision and began writing his letters there were sufficient Gentile followers of the new mystery cult outside of Judea to require guidance. These facts do not speak to an insignificant real human who none outside his followers noticed. But if the Saviour was an ideal separate from the man would plausibly explain why real records of the man would be missing.

And that problem is that you're trying to prove your points not from the texts--with which you seem to be unfamiliar--but from what Seidensticker says about the texts. Here are a few things he left out of his "gospel of Paul." Romans 6:15: ...Jesus Christ our Lord, a descendant of David according to the flesh." Paul also refers to "the man, Jesus Christ. " (Romans 6:15, 17) Galatians 1:19. "I saw none of the apostles except James, the Lord's brother," who is mentioned again in 2:12. Galatians 4:4: "In the fullness of time, God sent his Son, born of a woman, born under.the law." The author of Acts also reports two meetings between Paul and "James, the brother of the Lord." (Acts 15:13 , 21:18) And in only one of the passages in which he refers to Jesus's physical death: "If the dead do not rise, then Christ was not raised." (1Corinthians 15:16)

So Paul's Jesus, far from being some ethereal creature, had a real, physical ancestor in King David: a real, physical mother, who passed on to him her real, physical identity as a Jew; a real, physical brother, with whom Paul met in person; and who not only died a real, physical death, but upon whose real, physical death Paul's whole theology of salvation depends, as does the individual salvation of every single real, physical believer. This is something Paul reiterates over and over.

As for some of the rest of Seidensticker's argument, neither Osiris nor Mithras dies "for our sins." Osiris dies because his brother Set is wildly jealous of their sister Nephthys' s love for Osiris and her resulting pregnancy with Anubis. (Nephthys is Set's wife.) It's his own adultery he dies for, even though he's unaware that he's not making love to his own sister-wife, Isis. (That's his story, anyway.)

Mithras never dies at all. At the winter solstice, he emerges from a rock, full grown and carrying two torches. (Good thing his mother was a chunk of granite. That'd be a pregnancy and delivery from hell for any woman smaller than a whale. ) He then kills the sacrificial bull, instructs his followers in ethical and moral behavior, institutes a ceremonial meal, and goes back to the sky. That's it. No virgin birth, no death--and no girls allowed in his worship.

And where, for gods' sake, does your source get the idea that "Chrestus" is an "acronym" of Osiris? What language are you talking about here? Which writing system?

... and I was not the one who ignored the conclusions of Seidensecker.

What you are parsing into your readings is false references to "the man" Firstly the reference to the lineage of this successor (not ancestor) of David ignores the conflicting genealogies supplied for this person and also makes a separation between the "Flesh" and the Saviour. I am not arguing that there was no person whose name transliterates as Jesus but rather that the person is not the the Saviour, the ideal demigod, worshiped by the early Christians.

Next the reference to "the Lord's Brother," sounds impressive - until you look at the detail where priests of mystery cults were often referred to as relatives of the deity worshiped because the congregation were the children of the deity.

Acts was not discussed, is much later than Paul's early epistles and has its own problems of variant texts in various early codices. It also includes the impossible journey to Rome.

Your last reference in the first paragraph is not impressive. It is one of the later epistles and is rather circular in its logic; the dead will rise because Jesus and Jesus rose because the dead will rise. If you want to get into the resurrection remember that the Gospel accounts are conflicting and the accounts ascribed to Paul conflict with the Gospels - not exactly evidence of a real, recorded event happening to a real person.

Dying and resurrecting gods - seasonal death was as real as their resurrection. The death of the god is always attributable to their acts to rescue man and the world from darkness.

Chrestus means "The Good One" one of the acronyms of Osiris in Alexandria where Greek was largely spoken

For example, Trajan's Column is a contemporaneous record of the emperor trajan:

Same thing with an Egyptian pharaoh. Again, I'm not saying that no ancient person does, I'm saying that most don't.

collections of ancient artifacts. There are records of various sorts of lots of influential people. This argument re the lack of historical records is not a particularly good one. It is a problem for those who claim both an historical jesus and the relative accuracy of the gospels. There really should be more artifacts. It is much more likely that the stories in the gospels are just made up.

four gospels devoted to their life, multiple surviving letters about them, and two major ancient historians referencing them, all within a hundred years of their existence? Using the wrong standard of comparison is misleading.

when Peter drew a sword and struck the high priest's servant?

Is there any account in the bible or history during the persecution where Jesus' followers took up arms against the persecutors?

(Luke 22:36 - 38) also remember His words about peace in the family and how He was not there to bring peace?

told them if they did not have a sword to sell their cloak and buy one and then shortly after telling the one with a sword to put it away. Perhaps there is a metaphor that we don't get that was plain to the people of that time and place.

For his followers during the 1st-3rd centuries there was no peace. They were rejected by society, family and friends, and often killed. But I don't see any stories of them fighting.

But if you want to paint Jesus as a war monger that's OK. I just don't see it that way. .

You cherry pick him to be a man of peace. Others cherry pick to show he had a vengeful side. You're both equally right (or wrong, I guess).

Actually nobody does.

If the account of the night the garden is accurate then Jesus advising his followers not to fight was purely self preservation given there were between 400 and 600 troops in the arresting band.

The account of striking the ear off may be just a frame for the later miracle story.

When a tree has some good fruit and some that is not so good, it makes perfect sense to go for the good and leave the rest.

I've never understood why someone would find this objectionable.

Only fundamentalists think you have to swallow the bible whole if you are going to taste any of it at all.

to prove he was a benign president who supported peace and democracy? Additionally, using the words of Jesus or the Bible as if the supposed source gives some sort of extra cachet is bad because it is but one step from justifying cruelties by quoting from the same person or book. What is worse that cachet is no more than an argument from authority

To extend the metaphor there is a quote from the Bible that is often used to justify such cherry picking "By his fruits shall ye know him," the problem is you can pick good ripe fruit, unripe fruit and rotted fruit from the same tree or even the same branch. Selecting only the ripe fruit allows the remainder, bitterness worms and all, to be forced down the throats of unwitting followers.

Note I do not object to people quoting from the Bible, the Q'ran, the Sutras, the Tao te Ching or any other religious source but such quotations should always be isolated from the bulk of the nonsense and not be justified because of its source.

If you want to try and "prove" that W was a benign president, you can go ahead and try.

I think using the stories and quotes about Jesus that support social justice, civil rights and taking care of the neediest is a good thing. Whether or not one believes that he was a messiah, there is some good stuff in there and I'm all for using it to achieve positive goals.

You think the bulk is nonsense, and that's fine. Others think that there is much good there and are able to recognize the parts that are nonsense and reject them.

It's a collection of books and I don't see many, if any, around here claiming any kind of absolute authority. If some if it is important to some people and they are not trying to force it down your throat, why would you care?

And more specifically, why would you object when they use it for good and to further causes that I presume you support?

This just comes off as intolerant anti-theism, something I find a objectionable as intolerant theism.

you would have to pick out individual words from his typical word salad and piece them back into something that makes sense. And that might not be possible.

Read more at http://www.brainyquote.com/quotes/authors/g/george_w_bush.html#LhxPGoXQSrLTkpUu.99

This is why context is everything

When, in theory, he has just made a triumphal entry to Jerusalem. He and a few disciples are just about to go off to the Garden of Gethsemane where 400 to 600 soldiers will come to arrest him and 2 swords will be useless. Another element was His teaching, according to Matthew, He came not to bring peace but a sword.

That sufficient context?

Immigration reform and Medical liability reform, in particular.

Does that mean that I supported Bush? Does that mean that I would ever vote for him? No to both questions.

But it does mean that I can find quotes from him both in and out of context that I support. So what?

The stupid thing, it seems to me, would be to say that everything he ever said was moronic and I rejected it all.

What you have been told - endlessly - is not that cherry picking is "bad" but that there is really no justification for cherry picking one item over another. What you consider "good," someone else thinks is "bad," and if you're both religious, then each of you thinks YOUR view is god-sanctioned, and there we go.

So quit with the straw men, quit with the insults, and just try to support your point of view.

the problem with cherry picking, and it's not only the fundamentalists, is that people don't just use it to support there agenda, but say their cherry picked stance is exactly what God wants. You are not debating them, you are denying the wishes of God.
The "good" or "bad" of it is immaterial.

It's the ones who say that the bible has to be taken as true throughout, despite it's contradiction and obvious culturally based biases.

And it's those who aren't even believers that insist upon this that I also have big problems with. It doesn't take muck to see that literalism, when it comes to the bible, is impossible.

People can say whatever they want about what god wants or doesn't want. I feel pretty secure that they don't know. So if what they say is something I can support and they are getting it from the bible, that's ok by me. If what they say is something I don't support and they are getting it from the bible, I will still reject it.

It doesn't make any difference what the source is or whether they think I'm denying the wishes of god. Why would it?

cherry pick as well, they just say the whole bible is true.



Because you can't dissuade people when they think they are doing what God wants.

Many of the the Catholics you might want to work with on social justice issues will work just as hard to ban abortions.
Their motivations should matter to you if you want to effect change.

And you are never going to dissuade them from their belief that they are doing what god wants.

So I would argue that this approach is fruitless.

I will hold hands with them when we are working together and use what I believe to be facts and reason when we disagree. I worked with many catholics who were anti-choice during the height of the AIDS crisis. I don't have a problem with that. Should I not work with them because there is a separate issue on which we disagree?

The only reason to care whether their motivations are religiously driven or not is if my goal was to "save" them from their beliefs.

And I'm not in the saving business.

but it points out the problem with people doing things for religious reasons from cherry picking.

for religious reasons due to cherry picking.

That's life and I am fine with it.

abjection to abortion is religious, and if the majority swung into the end abortion camp, you would have no desire to try and convince them that they should change their minds?

BTW, I just had a conversation with libertarian last night who is anti-choice because he believes that the fetus is a human being with rights. And his ideas about this are not religiously motivated at all.

The argument for pro-choice when it comes to abortion does not require that one convince someone that their religious beliefs are wrong. The whole deal with pro-choice is that an individual has the right to decided when life begins for themselves.

If someone's religion guides them in this and they believe life begins at conception, that is their right. What they need to understand is that not everyone else feels that way and, in light of that, we have to leave the decision up to the individual.

I have had more success making this argument than I will ever have trying to convince someone that life does not begin at conception.

So, yes, I would very much want to change people's minds and would work towards that end using the pro-choice argument.

and don't challenge all the people who say they are passing anti-abortion laws because that is what God wants?
The ones who are winning in a lot of States to take away any woman's choice?

You seem to be jumping to the conclusions that best suit your agenda and not really responding to what I am saying.

Why?

I am saying the religious basis for banning abortion should be challenged as well. It is to big a weapon to cede to the opposition.

Both have suggested that we explore ways of teaching/challenging those who hang onto beliefs that fly in the face of what we scientifically know to be true. They have specifically talked about evolution and global climate change.

They have been looking at ways of presenting data in a form that does not challenge someone's religion or their most deeply held beliefs. They think, and I agree, that there are ways of explaining these things that can be somewhat compatible with their religious views.

The point is that if you try to strip someone of their religious beliefs or call them stupid and ignorant, you are very likely to drive them further away and may even lose them completely.

So, with the abortion debate, I think the win lies in the choice argument, which allows them to have their own beliefs while recognizing that others don't share them.

Whether they think those people are going to hell or not doesn't really concern me. What concerns me is when they think they are obligated to save those fetuses that are not considered human yet by the person carrying them. That is, I will strongly intervene when they try to make their "choice" the choice for everyone.

"The point is that if you try to strip someone of their religious beliefs or call them stupid and ignorant, you are very likely to drive them further away and may even lose them completely. "

I am saying their religious beliefs must be challenged. I actually think this is better done by progressive religious leaders (rather than atheist) to show that maybe God doesn't want laws to be passed to end abortions.

the underlying theology that drives many in the religious right.

They are much more likely to be effective than those that come at it from a position that dismisses all beliefs.

There have been quite a few articles posted here that do exactly that (religious left challenging religious right) and I think they have a degree of gravitas that others don't necessarily have.

So I suspect we really are on the same page about this.

It is the opposite,

They say the whole Bible is true but then ignore the parts that they don't like the message of. They also ignore the fact of the Bible's many contradictions that make it impossible for the whole Bible to be true. I'm not sure exactly how they pull this off in their own mind but the fact is that they do. Is that not your experience as well? I suspect it's very widespread.

If they believe every word is true, then they live in a state of constant contradiction.
I guess they think all the fruit on the tree is holy, but some is too bitter to eat.

but when you point to a contradiction or why they are following one thing and not the other (i.e.: the famous Leviticus examples) you see they are cherry picking.
What they say and what they do are different, Surprise, surprise!

But fundies of all stripes tend to be biblical literalists. Not much thinking outside of the box.

I was raised in and this is somewhat reflective of the religious philosophy I am most familiar with.

Many if not most people who claim to be Christians are not.. I work at it, and on most days it is the best I can do.. Not that being a Christian is difficult..its not.. but that it is so simple.. that most cannot handle the simplicity of caring for others as you would want to be cared for.. and not making a God out of anything.. money, cars.. etc etc.. it amazes me what we elevate to importance over the welfare of our fellow man and woman..



I may be wrong in this, but it seems to me, those with the least grasp of what faith means, will try and use it for power grabs over others.

Maybe just the act of being inclusive of all is difficult.

There is that old Vonnegut chestnut.. I'm a Hoosier, your a Hooier.. It seems like so many of us want to find a group that then can exclude others.. and that crosses all political spectrum's.

My experiences with people who call themselves christian have been pretty positive. I grew up in a very activist community that was church based. It wasn't until somewhat later that I realized that not all christians are like that.

I really like the "Not All Like That" campaign, because I think some people make assumptions that are exactly the opposite of mine and classify all christians in a pretty negative light.

Bottom line is that each should be judged on their deeds, not just their words, whether they be believers or not.

I think the Vonnegut quote speaks to tribalism. Tribalism is a strong drive and has its good points and its bad. It can protect us from other when we do, in fact, need protection.

But it can also lead to isolation and exclusion and bigotry.

I like your reference.. of good points and bad point.. it protects us from "the other" it also isolates us from "the other"

Its a difficult thing for people to accept the individual.

People seem to always reflect back to when "the other" was not there.. Even if they have only been there 10 minutes themselves.

The way things used to be..You get into some of these faith bodies who have literally thousands of years of codification.. and they are anything but inclusive.. its our nature.

DU is like that too.. Churches, families, political parties, political philosophies..etc etc etc

to accurately assess the "other" and determine who the real enemies may be and who you may be able to build alliances with.

As much as I love DU and feel at home here, there is a degree of tribalism that makes me uncomfortable. The wholesale rejection of whole groups of people as "others" is disturbing at times and I think we sometimes miss the opportunity to form coalitions for shared causes or to find common ground.

The lockstep philosophy held by some keeps us deeply divided and is used by our true enemies to defeat us at times.

I'm still a fan of the big tent and know that I am not going to agree with everyone here about some thins, even some relatively big things.

But that's the struggle.

As always, it is a pleasure having a discussion with you Peacetrain.

I have observed it myself.. the inability to form coalitions among like minded participants in most things is always worrisome. It is the enemy of democracy..


Always good to catch up with you too cbayer

To make a very awkward analogy, I think there is a "silent majority" of self defined Christians that take the words of Jesus to heart and into action. They aren't saving souls, per se, they're helping people as best they can, when and where they can. The rest is up to each individual as they see fit. I think for most, that's putting their faith into action. I'm good with that.

(aside) I'm meeting on Monday with a local non-profit that operates a daily free lunch program for those who could use it. They've decided to institute drug testing for access to a lunch. Ironically, most of the volunteer groups that make, transport and serve the meals are faith based organizations. I'm not clear if any of them were involved in the decision - which is one of my questions. I put the question to the non-profit's board of directors and got no response. I suspect the volunteer groups weren't asked for input.

Yet they agreed to meet and talk about the changes, which is a good thing. I know many of the players personally from my work in the county so I hope for some productive discussion.

There would be no Christianity...Because a number of Jews, believed he was the messiah of prophecies, come true. I'm not sure the Jesus is the worst thing to happen to christianity, means anything. Since Jesus is Christianity.

And how they overlook much of the messages the guy made, as reported later.

I will just say that Jesus himself was an OK Guy. Many of his followers? I could write a book.