NEWSFLASH: Jesus Is Fiction As Are The Gospels.

[phrenzy]

Anybody with an ounce of understanding of Mithra and Dionysus or even Gnostic texts know that the entire Jesus 'godman' story was dreamt up the same way all other pagan religions were. It is just a hybrid of many legends and popular tales from before. There was no historical Jesus. Period.


OOPS - sorry this was meant to go in the 'Da Vinci Code' thread.

[bryant69]

1. Thank you for your opinion

This is sure to be recieved well, and not cause an ounce of controversy. Why I am certain this post won't be locked for intentionally drawing flames.

Bryant
Check it out --> http://politicalcomment.blogspot.com

[Jed Dilligan]

25. Yeah, we can't have controversy on this political website. nt

[bryant69]

27. Having discussion is one thing

Having controversy just for the hell of it is something entirely different. It's a matter of what divides us vs what brings us together.

Bryant

[Jed Dilligan]

30. I'm 100% for division

Especially after being here and seeing what "moderates" think and have planned for me.

[bryant69]

32. Well good luck with that

Although as a Moderate, I presume you'd also enjoy being divided from me.

We'll have to see what happens.

[Jed Dilligan]

33. Well, the system you love does appear to be falling apart

which only bodes well for me

[bryant69]

36. Depends on where you stand I suppose.

I don't know what system you are talking about exactly, but while there are problems and storms ahead, I think we'll work through this.

[pnwmom]

38. So what do the moderates here have planned for you?

No one told me.

[TallahasseeGrannie]

64. Excuse me?

I'm a moderate. I have...believe me on this...no plans for you.

And if you think you can win back the Congress and the White House without us, well, gosh. I just kinda think your wrong, ya know?

[Dorian Gray]

176. I don't consider myself a moderate, but I suspect

that you may consider me a moderate. But, what, praytell, do moderates have planned for you?

[TallahasseeGrannie]

62. LOL

Great minds run in the same direction, I guess.

[mr blur]

2. No! Who'd have thought it? (nt)

[Dr.Phool]

21. Attention! Attention!!

Elvis is still alive,

[Jed Dilligan]

3. Don't the Roman records corroborate

that some Jew of that name got tacked up for speaking out of place? I understand that the story goes back to Osiris but there's no reason it can't encompass a real dude later, stories are like that. Euhemerization is a really interesting topic to me, Noah and Herakles going from god to man, etc.

[MadHound]

5. No, actually not

There are no contemrarneous Roman records that mention Jesus. In fact the Romans only mention Jesus in relation to his followers.

[Jed Dilligan]

8. Posthumous followers? nt

[MadHound]

22. Yes, they mention the followers of Jesus well after his death

Then mention Christ and his teaching as a motivational factor in the Judiac uprising in the first century, and also as a cult until they were officially recognized by Constantine.

[ladjf]

50. The Koran mentions Christians as "the followers of the man from

Nazareth". (This is a paraphrase from having read the sentence in the Koran about 30 years ago. Some Islamic scholar needs to help me out here. It was from a passage that was saying that the "...followers of the man from Nazareth are not true believers" but shouldn't be slain, or something to that effect. My apologies for inaccuracies.)

[jukes]

255. the koran was written centuries later.

excuse me, i can't put a date on it, but surely after 800 CE.

[vssmith]

10. Josephus did

[DavidDvorkin]

13. That passage in Josephus is fake

Added later by churchmen, not written by Josephus.

[papau]

16. wrong ... look up the actual reviews of that passage - the worst you get

is one line - not all that critical - may have been added at a later date.

[Euphen]

29. The passage in Josephus is almost certainly a fake.

The passage was first cited in the 4th century by a Christian bishop. Origen, writing in the 3rd century, says about Josephus: "not believing in Jesus as the Christ" (Cels, i 47) "he did not accept Jesus as Christ" (Comm. Matt., x 17), and "he says nothing of the wonderful deeds that our Lord did" (Stromateis, ii 2), showing that as of the 3rd century, the passage did not exist.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Testimonium_Flavianum#Critical_view

[papau]

44. nope - the textual analysis says one line written later than the other -no

proof the other line did not exist day one - and indeed a lot of proof that it did.

It can be a bit of a read really wants to get beyond the atheist's sites on the web and the all early Christians are liars analysis books and read a bit of the "other side" - as in the actual research - but it is worthwhile - at least in my opinion!

:toast:

[Euphen]

48. Do you have a source for that?

The earliest manuscript of Antiquities is from the 10th century.

If the passage was in the original, how do you explain the quotes from Origen?

[papau]

51. Michael Gleghorn's summary of the sources is excellent IMHO - but you

are correct that there have been forgeries that folks tried to pass off as real - a recent one being Acts of Pilate: And Ancient Records Recorded by Contemporaries of Jesus Christ Regarding the Facts Concerning His Birth, Death, Resurrection (Paperback)
by W. D. Mahan, W. D. Manan, M. McIntosh, T. H. Twyman (the "Archko Volume" or the "Archeologicial Writings of the Sanhedrin and Talmuds of the Jews," is another name) is a fun read if you read it along with E. J. Goodspeed's Modern Apocrypha (1956)(an earlier edition of which went by the title Strange New Gospels (1931)) which does a great job of tearing it apart! :-)
===========================================================================
IN ANY CASE HERE IS A SUMMARY
====================================================================
Ancient Evidence for Jesus from Non-Christian Sources
Written by Michael Gleghorn
Evidence from Tacitus
Although there is overwhelming evidence that the New Testament is an accurate and trustworthy historical document, many people are still reluctant to believe what it says unless there is also some independent, non-biblical testimony that corroborates its statements. In the introduction to one of his books, F.F. Bruce tells about a Christian correspondent who was told by an agnostic friend that "apart from obscure references in Josephus and the like," there was no historical evidence for the life of Jesus outside the Bible.{1} This, he wrote to Bruce, had caused him "great concern and some little upset in spiritual life."{2} He concludes his letter by asking, "Is such collateral proof available, and if not, are there reasons for the lack of it?"{3} The answer to this question is, "Yes, such collateral proof is available," and we will be looking at some of it in this article.

Let's begin our inquiry with a passage that historian Edwin Yamauchi calls "probably the most important reference to Jesus outside the New Testament."{4} Reporting on Emperor Nero's decision to blame the Christians for the fire that had destroyed Rome in A.D. 64, the Roman historian Tacitus wrote:

Nero fastened the guilt . . . on a class hated for their abominations, called Christians by the populace. Christus, from whom the name had its origin, suffered the extreme penalty during the reign of Tiberius at the hands of . . . Pontius Pilatus, and a most mischievous superstition, thus checked for the moment, again broke out not only in Judaea, the first source of the evil, but even in Rome. . . .{5}

What all can we learn from this ancient (and rather unsympathetic) reference to Jesus and the early Christians? Notice, first, that Tacitus reports Christians derived their name from a historical person called Christus (from the Latin), or Christ. He is said to have "suffered the extreme penalty," obviously alluding to the Roman method of execution known as crucifixion. This is said to have occurred during the reign of Tiberius and by the sentence of Pontius Pilatus. This confirms much of what the Gospels tell us about the death of Jesus.

But what are we to make of Tacitus' rather enigmatic statement that Christ's death briefly checked "a most mischievous superstition," which subsequently arose not only in Judaea, but also in Rome? One historian suggests that Tacitus is here "bearing indirect . . . testimony to the conviction of the early church that the Christ who had been crucified had risen from the grave."{6} While this interpretation is admittedly speculative, it does help explain the otherwise bizarre occurrence of a rapidly growing religion based on the worship of a man who had been crucified as a criminal.{7} How else might one explain that?

Evidence from Pliny the Younger
Another important source of evidence about Jesus and early Christianity can be found in the letters of Pliny the Younger to Emperor Trajan. Pliny was the Roman governor of Bithynia in Asia Minor. In one of his letters, dated around A.D. 112, he asks Trajan's advice about the appropriate way to conduct legal proceedings against those accused of being Christians.{8} Pliny says that he needed to consult the emperor about this issue because a great multitude of every age, class, and sex stood accused of Christianity.{9}

At one point in his letter, Pliny relates some of the information he has learned about these Christians:

They were in the habit of meeting on a certain fixed day before it was light, when they sang in alternate verses a hymn to Christ, as to a god, and bound themselves by a solemn oath, not to any wicked deeds, but never to commit any fraud, theft or adultery, never to falsify their word, nor deny a trust when they should be called upon to deliver it up; after which it was their custom to separate, and then reassemble to partake of food--but food of an ordinary and innocent kind.{10}

This passage provides us with a number of interesting insights into the beliefs and practices of early Christians. First, we see that Christians regularly met on a certain fixed day for worship. Second, their worship was directed to Christ, demonstrating that they firmly believed in His divinity. Furthermore, one scholar interprets Pliny's statement that hymns were sung to Christ, as to a god, as a reference to the rather distinctive fact that, "unlike other gods who were worshipped, Christ was a person who had lived on earth."{11} If this interpretation is correct, Pliny understood that Christians were worshipping an actual historical person as God! Of course, this agrees perfectly with the New Testament doctrine that Jesus was both God and man.

Not only does Pliny's letter help us understand what early Christians believed about Jesus' person, it also reveals the high esteem to which they held His teachings. For instance, Pliny notes that Christians bound themselves by a solemn oath not to violate various moral standards, which find their source in the ethical teachings of Jesus. In addition, Pliny's reference to the Christian custom of sharing a common meal likely alludes to their observance of communion and the "love feast."{12} This interpretation helps explain the Christian claim that the meal was merely food of an ordinary and innocent kind. They were attempting to counter the charge, sometimes made by non-Christians, of practicing "ritual cannibalism."{13} The Christians of that day humbly repudiated such slanderous attacks on Jesus' teachings. We must sometimes do the same today.

Evidence from Josephus
Perhaps the most remarkable reference to Jesus outside the Bible can be found in the writings of Josephus, a first century Jewish historian. On two occasions, in his Jewish Antiquities, he mentions Jesus. The second, less revealing, reference describes the condemnation of one "James" by the Jewish Sanhedrin. This James, says Josephus, was "the brother of Jesus the so-called Christ."{14} F.F. Bruce points out how this agrees with Paul's description of James in Galatians 1:19 as "the Lord's brother."{15} And Edwin Yamauchi informs us that "few scholars have questioned" that Josephus actually penned this passage.{16}

As interesting as this brief reference is, there is an earlier one, which is truly astonishing. Called the "Testimonium Flavianum," the relevant portion declares:

About this time there lived Jesus, a wise man, if indeed one ought to call him a man. For he . . . wrought surprising feats. . . . He was the Christ. When Pilate . . .condemned him to be crucified, those who had . . . come to love him did not give up their affection for him. On the third day he appeared . . . restored to life. . . . And the tribe of Christians . . . has . . . not disappeared.{17}

Did Josephus really write this? Most scholars think the core of the passage originated with Josephus, but that it was later altered by a Christian editor, possibly between the third and fourth century A.D.{18} But why do they think it was altered? Josephus was not a Christian, and it is difficult to believe that anyone but a Christian would have made some of these statements.{19}

For instance, the claim that Jesus was a wise man seems authentic, but the qualifying phrase, "if indeed one ought to call him a man," is suspect. It implies that Jesus was more than human, and it is quite unlikely that Josephus would have said that! It is also difficult to believe he would have flatly asserted that Jesus was the Christ, especially when he later refers to Jesus as "the so-called" Christ. Finally, the claim that on the third day Jesus appeared to His disciples restored to life, inasmuch as it affirms Jesus' resurrection, is quite unlikely to come from a non-Christian!

But even if we disregard the questionable parts of this passage, we are still left with a good deal of corroborating information about the biblical Jesus. We read that he was a wise man who performed surprising feats. And although He was crucified under Pilate, His followers continued their discipleship and became known as Christians. When we combine these statements with Josephus' later reference to Jesus as "the so-called Christ," a rather detailed picture emerges which harmonizes quite well with the biblical record. It increasingly appears that the "biblical Jesus" and the "historical Jesus" are one and the same!

Evidence from the Babylonian Talmud
There are only a few clear references to Jesus in the Babylonian Talmud, a collection of Jewish rabbinical writings compiled between approximately A.D. 70-500. Given this time frame, it is naturally supposed that earlier references to Jesus are more likely to be historically reliable than later ones. In the case of the Talmud, the earliest period of compilation occurred between A.D. 70-200.{20} The most significant reference to Jesus from this period states:

On the eve of the Passover Yeshu was hanged. For forty days before the execution took place, a herald . . . cried, "He is going forth to be stoned because he has practiced sorcery and enticed Israel to apostasy."{21}

Let's examine this passage. You may have noticed that it refers to someone named "Yeshu." So why do we think this is Jesus? Actually, "Yeshu" (or "Yeshua") is how Jesus' name is pronounced in Hebrew. But what does the passage mean by saying that Jesus "was hanged"? Doesn't the New Testament say he was crucified? Indeed it does. But the term "hanged" can function as a synonym for "crucified." For instance, Galatians 3:13 declares that Christ was "hanged", and Luke 23:39 applies this term to the criminals who were crucified with Jesus.{22} So the Talmud declares that Jesus was crucified on the eve of Passover. But what of the cry of the herald that Jesus was to be stoned? This may simply indicate what the Jewish leaders were planning to do.{23} If so, Roman involvement changed their plans!{24}

The passage also tells us why Jesus was crucified. It claims He practiced sorcery and enticed Israel to apostasy! Since this accusation comes from a rather hostile source, we should not be too surprised if Jesus is described somewhat differently than in the New Testament. But if we make allowances for this, what might such charges imply about Jesus?

Interestingly, both accusations have close parallels in the canonical gospels. For instance, the charge of sorcery is similar to the Pharisees' accusation that Jesus cast out demons "by Beelzebul the ruler of the demons."{25} But notice this: such a charge actually tends to confirm the New Testament claim that Jesus performed miraculous feats. Apparently Jesus' miracles were too well attested to deny. The only alternative was to ascribe them to sorcery! Likewise, the charge of enticing Israel to apostasy parallels Luke's account of the Jewish leaders who accused Jesus of misleading the nation with his teaching.{26} Such a charge tends to corroborate the New Testament record of Jesus' powerful teaching ministry. Thus, if read carefully, this passage from the Talmud confirms much of our knowledge about Jesus from the New Testament.

Evidence from Lucian
Lucian of Samosata was a second century Greek satirist. In one of his works, he wrote of the early Christians as follows:

The Christians . . . worship a man to this day--the distinguished personage who introduced their novel rites, and was crucified on that account. . . . was impressed on them by their original lawgiver that they are all brothers, from the moment that they are converted, and deny the gods of Greece, and worship the crucified sage, and live after his laws.{27}

Although Lucian is jesting here at the early Christians, he does make some significant comments about their founder. For instance, he says the Christians worshipped a man, "who introduced their novel rites." And though this man's followers clearly thought quite highly of Him, He so angered many of His contemporaries with His teaching that He "was crucified on that account."

Although Lucian does not mention his name, he is clearly referring to Jesus. But what did Jesus teach to arouse such wrath? According to Lucian, he taught that all men are brothers from the moment of their conversion. That's harmless enough. But what did this conversion involve? It involved denying the Greek gods, worshipping Jesus, and living according to His teachings. It's not too difficult to imagine someone being killed for teaching that. Though Lucian doesn't say so explicitly, the Christian denial of other gods combined with their worship of Jesus implies the belief that Jesus was more than human. Since they denied other gods in order to worship Him, they apparently thought Jesus a greater God than any that Greece had to offer!

Let's summarize what we've learned about Jesus from this examination of ancient non-Christian sources. First, both Josephus and Lucian indicate that Jesus was regarded as wise. Second, Pliny, the Talmud, and Lucian imply He was a powerful and revered teacher. Third, both Josephus and the Talmud indicate He performed miraculous feats. Fourth, Tacitus, Josephus, the Talmud, and Lucian all mention that He was crucified. Tacitus and Josephus say this occurred under Pontius Pilate. And the Talmud declares it happened on the eve of Passover. Fifth, there are possible references to the Christian belief in Jesus' resurrection in both Tacitus and Josephus. Sixth, Josephus records that Jesus' followers believed He was the Christ, or Messiah. And finally, both Pliny and Lucian indicate that Christians worshipped Jesus as God!

I hope you see how this small selection of ancient non-Christian sources helps corroborate our knowledge of Jesus from the gospels. Of course, there are many ancient Christian sources of information about Jesus as well. But since the historical reliability of the canonical gospels is so well established, I invite you to read those for an authoritative "life of Jesus!"

Notes


1. F. F. Bruce, Jesus and Christian Origins Outside the New Testament (Grand Rapids, Michigan: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1974), 13.

2. Ibid.

3. Ibid.

4. Edwin Yamauchi, quoted in Lee Strobel, The Case for Christ (Grand Rapids, Michigan: Zondervan Publishing House, 1998), 82.

5. Tacitus, Annals 15.44, cited in Strobel, The Case for Christ, 82.

6. N.D. Anderson, Christianity: The Witness of History (London: Tyndale, 1969), 19, cited in Gary R. Habermas, The Historical Jesus (Joplin, Missouri: College Press Publishing Company, 1996), 189-190.

7. Edwin Yamauchi, cited in Strobel, The Case for Christ, 82.

8. Pliny, Epistles x. 96, cited in Bruce, Christian Origins, 25; Habermas, The Historical Jesus, 198.

9. Ibid., 27.

10. Pliny, Letters, transl. by William Melmoth, rev. by W.M.L. Hutchinson (Cambridge: Harvard Univ. Press, 1935), vol. II, X:96, cited in Habermas, The Historical Jesus, 199.

11. M. Harris, "References to Jesus in Early Classical Authors," in Gospel Perspectives V, 354-55, cited in E. Yamauchi, "Jesus Outside the New Testament: What is the Evidence?", in Jesus Under Fire, ed. by Michael J. Wilkins and J.P. Moreland (Grand Rapids, Michigan: Zondervan Publishing House, 1995), p. 227, note 66.

12. Habermas, The Historical Jesus, 199.

13. Bruce, Christian Origins, 28.

14. Josephus, Antiquities xx. 200, cited in Bruce, Christian Origins, 36.

15. Ibid.

16. Yamauchi, "Jesus Outside the New Testament", 212.

17. Josephus, Antiquities 18.63-64, cited in Yamauchi, "Jesus Outside the New Testament", 212.

18. Ibid.

19. Although time would not permit me to mention it on the radio, another version of Josephus' "Testimonium Flavianum" survives in a tenth-century Arabic version (Bruce, Christian Origins, 41). In 1971, Professor Schlomo Pines published a study on this passage. The passage is interesting because it lacks most of the questionable elements that many scholars believe to be Christian interpolations. Indeed, "as Schlomo Pines and David Flusser...stated, it is quite plausible that none of the arguments against Josephus writing the original words even applies to the Arabic text, especially since the latter would have had less chance of being censored by the church" (Habermas, The Historical Jesus, 194). The passage reads as follows: "At this time there was a wise man who was called Jesus. His conduct was good and (he) was known to be virtuous. And many people from among the Jews and the other nations became his disciples. Pilate condemned him to be crucified and to die. But those who had become his disciples did not abandon his discipleship. They reported that he had appeared to them three days after his crucifixion, and that he was alive; accordingly he was perhaps the Messiah, concerning whom the prophets have recounted wonders." (Quoted in James H. Charlesworth, Jesus Within Judaism, (Garden City: Doubleday, 1988), 95, cited in Habermas, The Historical Jesus, 194).

20. Habermas, The Historical Jesus, 202-03.

21. The Babylonian Talmud, transl. by I. Epstein (London: Soncino, 1935), vol. III, Sanhedrin 43a, 281, cited in Habermas, The Historical Jesus, 203.

22. Habermas, The Historical Jesus, 203.

23. See John 8:58-59 and 10:31-33.

24. Habermas, The Historical Jesus, 204. See also John 18:31-32.

25. Matt. 12:24. I gleaned this observation from Bruce, Christian Origins, 56.

26. Luke 23:2, 5.

27. Lucian, The Death of Peregrine, 11-13, in The Works of Lucian of Samosata, transl. by H.W. Fowler and F.G. Fowler, 4 vols. (Oxford: Clarendon, 1949), vol. 4., cited in Habermas, The Historical Jesus, 206.

©2001 Probe Ministries.



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


About the Author

Michael Gleghorn is a research associate with Probe Ministries. He earned a B.A. in psychology from Baylor University and a Th.M. in systematic theology from Dallas Theological Seminary. Before coming on staff with Probe he taught history and theology at Christway Academy in Duncanville, Texas. Michael is married to his beautiful wife Hannah.

What is Probe?
Probe Ministries is a non-profit ministry whose mission is to assist the church in renewing the minds of believers with a Christian worldview and to equip the church to engage the world for Christ. Probe fulfills this mission through our Mind Games conferences for youth and adults, our 3 1/2 minute daily radio program, and our extensive Web site at www.probe.org.

[Euphen]

56. Sources on Jesus

First of all, your source isn't very good. The author should at least have a degree in the area we're discussing.

Second of all, this doesn't support what you said about Josephus. Some scholars believe the passage is heavily edited, others believe it is a complete interpolation. To me the latter seems to be the more likely explanation. It is impotant to note that in Josephus' earlier work, The Jewish War, written in the 70s, he does not mention Jesus.

As for the other sources, they merely offer proof of the existence of Christians, which no one disputes. The earliest of these, Tacitus, was written nearly a century after Jesus' death. Some dispute the authenticity of this passage, but assuming Tacitus actually wrote it, he was clearly relying on oral history, not written documents, as he refers to Pontius Pilate by the wrong title (he was a prefect, not a procurator), and refers to Jesus as Christus as if it were a proper name, and not by his real name. The remaining sources are even more vague and removed from the historical Jesus.

[papau]

135. see the 1991 analysis by John Meier n/t

n/t

[Imperialism Inc.]

236. .

[papau]

238. Why did he divorce his wife in 70 AD and marry a pagan? n/t

n/t

[Imperialism Inc.]

240. Sorry but I withdrew my comment.

I did so because , frankly, I think you are just too credulous on the subject to discuss it. Your source reminds me of the guy from Tektonic(sp?) ministries who knows what answer he wants to get and twists his "analysis" any way he has to to arrive at his destination. even if it means excusing genocide in the process.

But, since you responded as I was self-deleting I will re-post what I said and add some. There is good reason why most disagree with your source.

1) The paragraph in question is far too "perfect". It confirms in one paragraph the entire Christian story. This is extremely unlikely. It is the Jesus equivalent of the magic bullet theory.

2) The author would surely have converted to Christianity if he really believe everything he wrote. that Jesus existed and was more than a man. If he thought him the messiah then why stay a Jew. I don't see how who he divorced or married has anything to do with anything. Did he convert to Christianity? No! Why not if he truly believed that?

3) Not one single early church father/apologist mentions this passage (or the other one about James). Despite its magic bullet quality no one ever uses it. Not even apologist Origen, who used Josephus extensively for other purposes, once mentions this passage. Does this make any sense at all?

4) The James reference is without any doubt not a reference having anything to do with Christianity:

... when, therefore, Ananus was of this disposition, he thought he had now a proper opportunity. Festus was dead, and Albinus was but upon the road; so he assembled the Sanhedrin of judges and brought before them the brother of Jesus, who was called Christ, whose name was James, and some others; and when he had formed an accusation against them as breakers of the law, he delivered them to be stoned.

... Albinus complied with what they said, and wrote in anger to Ananus, and threatened that he would bring him to punishment for what he had done; on which king Agrippa took the high priesthood from him, when he had ruled but three months, and made Jesus, the son of Damneus, high priest.

As you can see, he is talking about a completely different Jesus. Jesus Son of Damneus. It was not an uncommon name (and franklly neither was a the claim to be the messiah but it is not clear that part is authentic). The only phrase that points to the Christian Jesus is the Christ phrase but that can easily have been added just like the other passage that almost all experts agree is a later addition. The fact that Josephus is quite clear he is talking about Jesus Son of Damneus makes that all the more likely.


I'm sure this won't convince you but who knows maybe you'll think it through and see the light (pun intended ;-) ) There is actually much more but that is a good start. The guy who mentioned Josephus' earlier work and it's failure to mention any James at all is another hint.

Personally I gave it a fair hearing. I don't care either way whether he existed or not. My current view is that he probably didn't. But even if he did it seems obvious to me that his life was heavily mythologized and paganized. I just don't see any way these supposed proofs hold up to the strong light of logic.

[Imperialism Inc.]

242. A small addition

A question raised by Earl Doherty author of The Jesus Puzzle I think is interesting and has bearing on the matter.

"If Josephus knew of, and referred to James as 'the brother of Jesus, him called the Christ', why does he not refer to James in regard to his membership in any Christian sect, let alone his leadership of it? If James was the head of a Jerusalem church which had spread its tentacles far and wide across the empire (a la Acts), including right into Rome where Josephus lived and worked, would such an organization, such a success story, have been ignored by him? "

Would he indeed? Would he refer to him simply as a "law breaker" and fail to mention he heads a highly successful church? And just how is the reader to know who this "Christ" is? The only place sucha person is mentioned is in the other , thoroughly discredited, passage.

[papau]

243. Logic I believe favors the side that the quote is real - the only question

is the portion refering to "3rd day" - and even that may be real.

Frankly, I think you are just too credulous - But I respect those that have faith in their enlightment (I dare not use belief or religion for those who are atheist if I want to avoid being called a bigot and hurtful).

http://64.233.161.104/search?q=cache:hPQv0f-o4dcJ:en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_the_Just+Jesus,+the+son+of+Damneus&hl=en&gl=us&ct=clnk&cd=2

According to a passage in Josephus's Jewish Antiquities, "the brother of Jesus, who was called Christ, whose name was James" met his death after the death of the procurator Porcius Festus, yet before Clodius Albinus took office (Antiquities 20,9) — which has thus been dated to 62. The High Priest Ananus ben Ananus took advantage of this lack of imperial oversight to assemble a Sanhedrin who condemned James "on the charge of breaking the law," then had him executed by stoning. Josephus reports that Ananus' act was widely viewed as little more than judicial murder, and offended a number of "those who were considered the most fair-minded people in the City, and strict in their observance of the Law," who went as far as meeting Albinus as he entered the province to petition him about the matter. In response, King Agrippa replaced Ananus with Jesus, the son of Damneus.

Though the passage in general is almost universally accepted as original to Josephus, some challenge the identificaton of the James whom Ananus had executed with James the Just, considering the words, "who was called Christ," a later interpolation.

The ragged structure of Antiquities involves frequent disruptions to the narrative, not least because it was mainly composed by a number of scribal assistants. Linguistic analysis has not proven conclusive when compared with other passages in Josephus which likewise exhibit unusual features. The supposed confession of Josephus relies on the standard text. But a recent study by Alice Whealey has demonstrated that a variant Greek text of this sentence existed in the 5th century—"He was believed to be the Christ." The standard text, then, has simply become corrupt by the loss of the main verb and a subsequent scribal "correction" of the prolative infinitive. In any event, the audience for the work was Roman, and the Romans always referred to Jesus as "Christus", which would make this merely an identification. Finally, it has been pointed out that every line of the passage can be objected to, or supported, by one argument or another.

The Testimonium Flavianum was treated with suspicion as long ago as the times of Archbishop Ussher (1581–1656), and by the early 20th century, it was generally believed by scholars to be an interpolation. However, over the last century, the consensus of scholars has moved, not least under the influence of manuscript discoveries.


Arabic version
In 1971, professor Shlomo Pines published a translation of a different version of this passage, quoted in an Arabic manuscript of the tenth century. The manuscript in question appears in the Book of the Title written by Agapius, a 10th century Christian Arab and Melkite bishop of Hierapolis. Agapius appears to be quoting from memory, for even Josephus' title is an approximation:

For he says in the treatises that he has written in the governance of the Jews: "At this time there was a wise man who was called Jesus, and his conduct was good, and he was known to be virtuous. And many people from among the Jews and the other nations became his disciples. Pilate condemned him to be crucified and to die. And those who had become his disciples did not abandon their loyalty to him. They reported that he had appeared to them three days after his crucifixion, and that he was alive. Accordingly they believed that he was the Messiah, concerning whom the Prophets have recounted wonders" - Shlomo Pines' translation, quoted by J. D. Crossan
Pines suggests that this may be a more accurate record of what Josephus wrote, lacking as it does the parts which have often been considered to have been added by Christian copyists. However, Pines' theory has not been widely accepted.

Pines also refers to the Syriac version cited by Michael the Syrian in his World Chronicle. It was left to Alice Whealey to point out that Michael's text in fact was identical with that of Jerome at the most contentious point ("He was the Christ" becoming "He was believed to be the Christ"), establishing the existence of a variant, since Latin and Syriac writers did not read each others' works in late antiquity.


Modern consensus
Over the last century, the consensus seems to have changed, and the subjective nature of many of the arguments used in the 19th century has been recognized. Judging from the 2003 survey of the historiography, it seems that the majority of modern scholars consider that Josephus really did write something here about Jesus, but that the text that has reached us is corrupt to a perhaps quite substantial extent. In the words of the Catholic Encyclopedia entry for Flavius Josephus, "The passage seems to suffer from repeated interpolations." There has been no consensus on which portions are corrupt, or to what degree.

[Imperialism Inc.]

244. What no clanking cups of beer this time.

Why would I be credulous one way or another? I could not care less if he lived or not. That his life is a retelling of a very old story of a savior god could not be more plain or obvious.

Believe what you want but your post changes nothing about what I said unless you count unsubstantiated assertions about where modern opinion is supposedly turning.

Like I said. There is just no way you can possibly give it a fair viewing. Your mind is far too clouded with your pre-supposed conclusion. Which is exactly why iself-deleted. You are just hopeless.

[Imperialism Inc.]

246. Oh brother it is worse than I thought.

If you go to the current Wikipedia article instead of an archived version that you liked better you would have found this link: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Josephus_on_Jesus .

It basically supports everythign I said with a small exception and allowance that it could be otherwise.

How pathetic and dishonest is that behavior papau?

Busted :toast::toast::toast::toast::toast:

I really have nothing left to say to you. I'm tired of your dishonest behavior and your passive-agressive toasting whenever you think you have made a point.

[papau]

247. Here is the current version-where is the proof of "pathetic and dishonest"

Modern consensus
Over the last century, the consensus seems to have changed, and the subjective nature of many of the arguments used in the 19th century has been recognized. Judging from the 2003 survey of the historiography, it seems that the majority of modern scholars consider that Josephus really did write something here about Jesus, but that the text that has reached us is corrupt to a perhaps quite substantial extent.

THE ABOVE (and below) SEEMS WORD FOR WORD THE SAME as originaly posted. The only WIKI change was the removal of "In the words of the Catholic Encyclopedia entry for Flavius Josephus, "The passage seems to suffer from repeated interpolations." There has been no consensus on which portions are corrupt, or to what degree." - which changes nothing. Or do object to the non-WIKI cut and paste - if it is not WIKI it is a lie? - and beyond that, what did the non-Wiki preface change the sense of?

Your apology is accepted.... :-)

=======================================================================
The ragged structure of Antiquities involves frequent disruptions to the narrative, not least because it was mainly composed by a number of scribal assistants. Linguistic analysis has not proven conclusive when compared with other passages in Josephus which likewise exhibit unusual features. The supposed confession of Josephus relies on the standard text. But a recent study by Alice Whealey has demonstrated that a variant Greek text of this sentence existed in the 5th century—"He was believed to be the Christ." The standard text, then, has simply become corrupt by the loss of the main verb and a subsequent scribal "correction" of the prolative infinitive. In any event, the audience for the work was Roman, and the Romans always referred to Jesus as "Christus", which would make this merely an identification. Finally, it has been pointed out that every line of the passage can be objected to, or supported, by one argument or another.

The Testimonium Flavianum was treated with suspicion as long ago as the times of Archbishop Ussher (1581–1656), and by the early 20th century, it was generally believed by scholars to be an interpolation. However, over the last century, the consensus of scholars has moved, not least under the influence of manuscript discoveries.


Arabic version
In 1971, professor Shlomo Pines published a translation of a different version of this passage, quoted in an Arabic manuscript of the tenth century. The manuscript in question appears in the Book of the Title written by Agapius, a 10th century Christian Arab and Melkite bishop of Hierapolis. Agapius appears to be quoting from memory, for even Josephus' title is an approximation:

For he says in the treatises that he has written in the governance of the Jews: "At this time there was a wise man who was called Jesus, and his conduct was good, and he was known to be virtuous. And many people from among the Jews and the other nations became his disciples. Pilate condemned him to be crucified and to die. And those who had become his disciples did not abandon their loyalty to him. They reported that he had appeared to them three days after his crucifixion, and that he was alive. Accordingly they believed that he was the Messiah, concerning whom the Prophets have recounted wonders" - Shlomo Pines' translation, quoted by J. D. Crossan
Pines suggests that this may be a more accurate record of what Josephus wrote, lacking as it does the parts which have often been considered to have been added by Christian copyists. However, Pines' theory has not been widely accepted.

Pines also refers to the Syriac version cited by Michael the Syrian in his World Chronicle. It was left to Alice Whealey to point out that Michael's text in fact was identical with that of Jerome at the most contentious point ("He was the Christ" becoming "He was believed to be the Christ"), establishing the existence of a variant, since Latin and Syriac writers did not read each others' works in late antiquity.


Modern consensus
Over the last century, the consensus seems to have changed, and the subjective nature of many of the arguments used in the 19th century has been recognized. Judging from the 2003 survey of the historiography, it seems that the majority of modern scholars consider that Josephus really did write something here about Jesus, but that the text that has reached us is corrupt to a perhaps quite substantial extent.

[Imperialism Inc.]

248. What apology?

Welcome to my ignore list.

[papau]

249. WakingLife hurts to be found out - to be shown to be a ... - insert your

thought here ....

Funny - I thought you and your friends come here to attack believers for being so stupid.

Day after day all religious threads become places to rant that the poster beieves their is no God and that he has proof that he can cut and paste from the various atheist sites to prove this.

Day after day attacks on DU on fellow progressives.

And now "ignore" LOL

Have you ever walked a precinct in your life pushing the Democratic candidate?

What percent of your income goe to electing progressive Democratic Party candidates?

Do you even like Democrats that are not atheists?

[Imperialism Inc.]

250. you posted a version

that excluded everything that you didn't want to be seen. everything that substantiated my criticism and left only the unsubstantiated assertions that modern scholarship had changed. supposedly because of a 10th century manuscript? huh? at least 6 centuries after the change happened. that is dishonest.

further, the more complete article basically put the notion that james , the brother, was a reference to the Christian Jesus completely to rest. It is dishonest to leave that stuff out. Why else would you post some archived version if not to dishonestly avoid giving out that information?

i'm done with you. i was wrong a couple months ago. you have nothing to add to the conversation but sarcastic beer toast and bad , dishonest information.

g'bye.

[papau]

251. I posted the other side - like you always post the other side - don't you?

:-)

Posting both sides of the question does not seem to be the standard in R/T.

[Imperialism Inc.]

252. I gave a link to the article didn't I ?

Not some modified version that excluded everything I didn't want anyone to see. I mentioned that it didn't totally agree with me and that it allowed for the possibility that it was authentic , so yes. I did.

I knew I should just have stopped with the self delete. Not worth the effort.

[Zhade]

275. You're right, he's NOT worth the effort.

I mean, you're trying to inform someone who has been caught plagiarizing others' works on this site twice, and who refuses to believe anything but what fits his presuppositions.

The annoyance factor alone is why he's the sole person on my ignore list. Advice? Don't worry about him using logic or seeing your point, he won't. But your arguments are still worthy, and others might see them and learn something.

(And they're solid arguments, btw.)

[okasha]

267. Okay, let's take it from the top. Josephus 101.

"Not one single early church father/apologist mentions this passage (or the other one about James). Despite its magic bullet quality no one ever uses it. Not even apologist Origen, who used Josephus extensively for other purposes, once mentions this passage. Does this make any sense at all?"

Wrong about the James passage. Origen does mention it. Origen also mentions, quite clearly and firmly, that Josephus did not believe Jesus to be the Messiah. Now, how do you suppose Origen knew that? Was he channeling? Or did he read something in Josephus that led him to that conclusion--something that did in fact mention Jesus? More about that in a moment. Let's tidy up James first. To wit:

"As you can see, he is talking about a completely different Jesus. Jesus Son of Damneus."

No, sorry, don't see that. The two mentions are separated by a largish chunk of text. And I hate to break it to ya, but Greek references to Jews do not always use the patronymic. Jesus is commonly referred to in the gospels as "Jesus the Nazorean/Nazarene," not as "Jesus, son of Joseph." Ditto "John the Baptizer," not "John, son of Zacarias." At a guess, Josephus, like any decent history writer, was using the relationship that identified James most clearly. "James, son of Joseph" might be anyone; "James, brother of Jesus called the Messiah" can only be one person. Some experts do dispute the passage, but there's no firm textual reason to do so.

By the way, Josephus also mentions the Baptizer. That passage is certainly authentic, since its understanding of John's baptism is quite different than that found in the gospels and in developing Christian theology. It's not a matter of repentence but rather something much more like the traditional Jewish mikvah.

Okay, the TF. The Testemonium Flavium in the Slavonic Josephus has suffered interpolation of at least three phrases/sentences: "He was the Messiah;" "if indeed he can be called a man," and the reference to the resurrection. Interestingly enough, the Arabic Josephus lacks precisely those phrases and is therefore likely to be much closer to what Josephus actually wrote. Which brings us to the matter of translation.

The translation of Josephus that is normally used is very respectful of Jesus in these passages, for the simple reason that the translators were Christians. It is, however, possible to translate the passage in a much less favorable way: "worker of wonders," for instance, could equally be "mountebank" in English. Etc., etc.. My guess is that a version of the TF, interpreted in a far more derisive vein than the modern English translation, was what Origen actually saw, and the source of his assertion that Josephus was not a Christian.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

19. Josephus born 37 CE.

Thus not contemparaneous.

[papau]

23. He writes in the 50's about what was reported in the 30's per the docs he

has seen.

But you are correct - the actual oral history from the early contemparaneous Chrisatians reporting on Jesus as recorded in the Gospels were obviosly all lies - those early Christians were known for their low moral and ethical values, so it all fits together very nicely.

[Euphen]

39. He wrote in the 90's, and used oral history as a source.

[papau]

54. Neither of us should trust our memory! - He began writing in 71 AD?

After he divorced his first wife he moved to Rome in 71 AD and began writing - or at least that is what my notes say (there is always a strong possibility I screwed up my notes!).

Actually my notes say he began "writing the histories" after he got to Rome in 71 AD (after being in Roman custody since 67 AD). Do you have a source that says this is in error?

[Euphen]

57. Antiquities, the source of this passage, was written in 93 AD.

http://www.britannica.com/eb/article-9044007

[papau]

136. Beginning in 71Josephus had Vespasian's access to all archives

Indeed Josephus appears to have studied Jesus and concluded he was innocent!

The "on the 3rd day" passage implies to many if not most that some Christian author (did Josephus convert and become a Christian?) added those words to the original thought. In 1991, John Meier suggested that Josephus did in fact mention Jesus, but that the text was improved by a Christian author. His reconstruction of the corrected text is as follows:

At this time there appeared Jesus, a wise man. For he was a doer of startling deeds, a teacher of the people who receive the truth with pleasure. And he gained a following both among many Jews and among many of Greek origin. And when Pilate, because of an accusation made by the leading men among us, condemned him to the cross, those who had loved him previously did not cease to do so. And up until this very day the tribe of Christians, named after him, has not died out.

Since Flavius Josephus liked to show the justice of deserved punishment and would normally have written 'Pilate executed the man from Nazareth because he was considered to be the king of the Jews', he, by not mentioning the actual charge and rather mentioning the accusers, was stating that he thought mentioning the charge improper because it was a bogus charge of which Jesus was innocent.

[Euphen]

138. The fact is that the legitimacy of the Testimonium Flavium is,

at the very least, dubious. Like I said, some believe it is a complete interpolation, others that it is heavily edited.

But even if one were to accept the reconstructed passage, it was still written sixty years after the death of Jesus. It is exceedingly unlikely that any documents of the historical Jesus existed, because that is exactly the kind of thing the early Christians looked for, and if they had found anything we wouldn't be having this debate today. Therefore if Josephus wrote this passage he must have been basing it on oral history. The gospels had already been written by this point and there was already a Christian movement, so we know that these stories were circulating. And, like I said, he did not mention Jesus in any of his earlier works, so its likely he didn't hear of him until very late.

A highly questionable passage in a work written sixty years after Jesus supposedly died does not seem like very good evidence for his existence to me. And there really is nothing else in the way of evidence.

Therefore one must conclude one of the three things:

1 - Jesus did not exist.
2 - Jesus did exist, but attracted so little attention that no one bothered to write about him.
3 - Jesus did exist, and people wrote about him, but all the documents were lost.

If the second is true, then the historical Jesus must have borne no resemblance to the Jesus we know today. If he did any of the things that are described in the gospels, and if he had become such a target of the religious establishment, then someone surely would have written about him.

The third is highly unlikely since, as I said above, any written documents supporting Jesus' existence would have been copied and discussed among early Christian writers.

[papau]

140. post 71 Xtians and Jews were on the Roman shit list - so why would they

power to search for documents. The archives of the Romans were still around 300 years later - and the fact that they were drawn on to make reports at that later date that mention the Xtians and Jesus does not mean they did not have solid docs at that point that originated at the same time as Jesus.

Your thought that he attracted so little attention that few bothered to write about him fits the relative importance of Judea to the Romans - although later writings imply the Xtians and Jesus were noticed at least.

You say "If he did any of the things that are described in the gospels, and if he had become such a target of the religious establishment, then someone surely would have written about him." - and I agree in the sense that most folks tend to think the world revolves around themselves - and overestimate the importance to others of their actions. So "such a target of the religious establishment" might mean one of many targets that were taken care of each week by the religious establishment - heck he did not even lead an army - how important could he be?

I agree "all the documents were lost" does not make sense once the war ended in 71 and the Romans calmed down and stopped burning all things Jewish and Xtian. I would have thought that post 90 there would be a bit more writings and a little less dependence on oral tradition - but for me the amount of writing that we do have, plus the growth of an unstructured mass movement well before folks thought of a "Bishop/priest" organization, suggest there was no secret cabal thinking up sales slogans so as to sell the latest new age religion.

By the way "early Christian writers" were few and far between as the movement drew so few of the privileged and schooled that the early church had an office just for those that could read so they could read any letters sent between congregations and to read whatever was written down as the local Gospel. Lack of archived Xtians writing does not seem so unlikely in the circumstances that existed at the time.


But many atheists feel more secure in their enlightenment by believing there was no Jesus. What ever floats your boat! By the way I seem to get in these discussions more often at Unitarian gatherings these days as some of the congregations seem to be rapidly approaching 50% atheist in many locations. It makes for a fun afternoon conversation. While UU's tend to be very polite if firm and loud in whatever belief or non-belief they have, the conversation usually heads toward secular humanist discussions fairly quickly. Still I enjoy attending UU with those friends that are members - and the UU ministers seem as well trained as any other group of ministers in the history of religion.

[Critters2]

253. One word:

Josephus

[slackmaster]

4. There's nothing like watching a nice train wreck on a Monday afternoon

:popcorn:

[TallahasseeGrannie]

65. God, I love this stuff

Oh... I mean ...

nevermind

[Pathwalker]

6. Flamebait. Flamebait. Flamebait.

:puke:

[Jed Dilligan]

24. I'd argue that it's not

Only because of the provocative reference to Mithras and Dionysus. I think the pan-Mediterranean roots of Christianity are a really interesting topic. I tend to believe in the historical Jesus myself, and I never met anyone who didn't. I hope the thread doesn't get locked because I'd like to learn more.

[bryant69]

7. Why would you want to hide a point as brilliant as this

In the Da Vinci Code thread? I know I lack even an ounce of understanding, so please enlighten us.

Bryant

[Dr.Phool]

12. I'll give you a couple of pointers

You can find an entire treasure trove of information, including debates, at this site.

www.infidels.org

Also check out a book called "Gospel Fictions" by Randel Helms. A good timeline and critique of the evolution of the gospels.

[bryant69]

14. It's nice to see people always ready to spread the "good news."

Kind of comforting in a way. No matter what the belief system, it attracts it's missionaries.

[pnwmom]

40. Nothing to see here. Just another fundie atheist,

as rigid in views as any fundie Christian.

Note: I'm not referring to "agnostic atheists" here, just the "true believers"!

[Bill McBlueState]

53. What is a fundie atheist?

"Fund<amentalist> atheist" is an odd thing to call the OP. When used to describe Christians, "fundamentalist" means one who adheres to a list of beliefs considered "fundamental" to the religion. Not to believe in the historical reality of Jesus isn't a fundamental belief of atheism.

The claim that Jesus really existed is a statement about history. Thus, it should be subject to the same standard of proof as any other statement about history. Demanding evidence for statements about history is a sign of critical thinking, not of adherence to any particular philosophy about the (non)existence of gods.

[pnwmom]

55. A fundie atheist, by my definition, is an atheist who promotes

an absolute certainty that God does not exist with the evangelical fervor of a religious fundie promoting his or her concept of God.

[Evoman]

58. That doesn't make sense

Since there are no athiest writings to take literally, there can be no fundie atheists. If you want to call people who believe there is no god "Fundie" then I guess we should start calling people who believe with certainty in god fundies as well. An theist who is not agnostic is therefore a fundie as well.

Do you really want to go down that road?

[TallahasseeGrannie]

68. Good point!

[pnwmom]

75. Fine. You can call them "evangelical atheists."

[Evoman]

95. Doesn't evangelical

Actually come from the root angel..and mean something like "gospel" or "good news". Also not a very good description. Thats like calling REAL fundies "Agnostic Fundamentalists". It really doesn't make sense. Though there are some people who equate evangelical with prosetylizing or conversion...is that what you mean? Although, thats really not fair to real evangelicals because in that case, when we say Evangelical christians, do we mean "Evangelical" christians or just christians who attempt to convert others? Besides that, attempts to converst really isn't something atheist do....so that doesn't really apply anyways. The poster certainly wasn't trying to convert anyone...he was ridiculing instead. And although that may seem mean on the surface, it is really not a personal attack...it is more like criticism. Since he isn't trying to convert anyone, then evangelical, again, doesnt really apply.


Why not just use the old standbye Extremist Atheist? Lol...of course, that has certain conatations...I.e "that extremist muslim blew up that building", "that extremist christian blew up that building" or "that extremist communist ate my baby". Not a very good word for someone who is characterized as just "believing with certainty that god is a delusion or does not exist".

The thing is, you would have to call anyone with a certainty in a belief or non-belief the same thing if you want to play the name game. So anyone on DU who believes, with certainty, that Jesus was god would also have to be labelled Extremist Christian, Fundie Christian or Evangelical Christian. And there are, according to certain polls performed in this forum, LOTs of people who have those particular beliefs.

But thats really not the purpose of your names anyways....your whole purpose is to piss off a certain population of people on DU because you disagreed with one poster, who actually never admitted to being atheist in the first place. Lots of people believe that jesus was bullshit...for example, buddhists, jews and pagans...and none of these people are atheist.

You just thought: "hmm, I disagree with him and he made me mad...so what I'm gonna do is try to make him mad too. Him and all those clever atheists. Hmmm...I know! I'll call them fundie atheists."

Well, you didn't make me mad ;)

[Proud_Democratt]

59. Do you have an absolute certainty that God does exist???

[pnwmom]

76. Nope. Lots of Christians don't.

That's why we say we have a "belief" or a "faith."

[davidinalameda]

98. no, and millions like me don't need proof of God's existence

we just believe

doesn't get much simpler than that

it's called faith for a reason

[Proud_Democratt]

101. ok...so? millions of delusional people.

[davidinalameda]

104. it's against the rules on DU to call someone a bigot

even though they are

it's a good thing I play by the rules

have a blessed day

[Proud_Democratt]

111. You can have the "Blessed day"...I'll have a Freethinkers night.

[davidinalameda]

123. have a good one

[TallahasseeGrannie]

160. Hey

I resemble that remark!

[Proud_Democratt]

102. And how many MILLIONS have died due to this delusion????

[davidinalameda]

105. and how many people have been killed by atheistic regimes

humans will use any reason in the book to justify killing their fellow humans

doesn't make those who say that they kill in the name of Jesus real Christians anymore than me saying I'm a lemon tree makes that true

[Proud_Democratt]

107. Not many when comparing. numbers or frequency.

[davidinalameda]

110. how many people died under the Soviet Union

and how many people continue to die under the Chinese regime

Eastern Europe?

Cuba?

southeast Asia?

[Proud_Democratt]

112. That's Christian propaganda.

[riderinthestorm]

115. Communism, socialism. Not atheism

Try again.

Or are you really saying that atheism equals communism and socialism?

Cause they really ARE different.

[davidinalameda]

121. what was the official policy on religion under communist governments

they were ATHEISTS!!!!!

churches were closed; ministers were locked up

the Chinese government persecutes Christians to this day-those who aren't part of their "Patriotic" churches

the state replaced God as the object of worship under these regimes

[riderinthestorm]

127. Nope. Communism and socialism are economic /social models

Not religious models. You can try to squeeze atheism in there all you want, but it doesn't make it true.

[davidinalameda]

137. so atheism wasn't the official policy of the Soviet Union

and Cuba, and China, and the Warsaw Pact nations?

I bet that would come as news to a heck of a lot of people then

[trotsky]

146. Actually, no, it wasn't.

The only country that was officially atheist was Albania. The USSR, for instance, guaranteed religious freedom in its constitution.

On edit: Besides, the vast majority of the deaths in the Eastern bloc were due to the horrible inefficiencies of central planning and the economic model used by the Soviets. Famine, shortages, etc. Blaming atheism for those is like blaming Christianity for all the deaths & suffering during the Great Depression because FDR was a Christian, and he presided over the country at the time.

[neonmessiah]

173. This does not mean anything.

What the constitution of the USSR says about religion means nothing when the official policy of the only recognized political party (the Communist Party of the Soviet Union) did not allow anyone who was not an atheist to be a member, and thus hold power in the government. The constitution of the USSR never meant anything other than what the Communist Party wanted it to mean.

[Inland]

174. One can also point out

the structure of the USSR as a set of autonomous republics based on nationality. Or the outlawing of the death penalty. Or a judicial system with judges and everything. On paper, the USSR was a lovely place.

None of that de jure stuff meant much when one party, with an official ideology, has a legal and de facto monopoly on all the machinery of the state.

Welcome to DU.

[trotsky]

179. Back so soon, Inland?

Usually you slink away longer when you get spanked so badly. Are you ready to answer my question yet? Or keep avoiding it?

[davidinalameda]

198. and we know how well freedome of religion went over in the USSR

you can blame some of those deaths on central planning but how about the persecution of Jews, Christians and other believers?

[trotsky]

200. How about it?

Can you provide stats or info that show people were persecuted (or executed) for the sole crime of having religious faith?

[davidinalameda]

202. you can take a look at China today

where the government is going after non-official churches

and why does it matter if they commit other crimes

in a bizarro world like most communist countries, the definition of what constitutes a crime is different from the traditional western idea

how many communist countries had laws against free speech or free press?

[trotsky]

204. Why do you keep shifting around?

State your point, and argue it. I don't even know what you're trying to say anymore. Atheism, USSR, communism, now China... what exactly are you railing against, and why?

Because if your beef is with communism, you've got no argument from me. Where you err is in trying to make atheism responsible for the crimes of communist countries.

[davidinalameda]

216. I was talking about communist countries

doesn't China fall under that category?

I'm not trying to make atheism responsible for their crimes but it certainly added to their world view

in attempting to remove religion from people's lives, they replaced God with the state

[trotsky]

224. Hard to say if China is still communist.

Seems they're rapidly moving toward a capitalistic totalitarian state.

So what point are you left with? Only that atheism "added to their world view"? That's it? Well cripes, not getting the puppy he wanted on his 5th birthday probably added to Stalin's worldview. Not getting into art school added to Hitler's. Is that what your beef becomes?

[Inland]

155. They weren't true communists.

Yes, it's a tired old R/T reference, but it's so much fun to keep raising it in the threads where the protests about atheism and communism being two entirely different creatures.....

I suppose it's easier to ask, in these states where there is only one party that is expressly given control of the state, is atheism a condition of membership? If yes, then the party is atheist, officially, contains only atheists, officially, and the control of the state is limited to atheists, officially. I'm not sure what more there could be.

The entire effort to diassociate that official ideology universally held from specific acts against religious establishments smacks of apologia for communism.

[Goblinmonger]

169. Since your announced policy

for putting people on ignore is when what they have to say is so predictable, you don't need to read the post, do you have yourself on ignore?

Please explain the logic as to why atheism is the same thing as communism. I am atheist. I am not a communist. You have to go through contortions to get to the "logic" that communism was atheism because even the policies of the government didn't formalize atheism with the exception of one small country.

[kwassa]

180. Communist murderers practiced atheism

in fact, and as part of history. They don't have to be the same. The most murderous regimes in history practiced atheism.

Having it as official policy is completely unnecessary. It is what they do that counts.

[Goblinmonger]

186. How exactly does one

practice atheism?

But anyway, how are we defining "most murderous"? Why not look at percentage of population. It is pretty damn hard to compare the death counts of the Crusades to Mao given the difference in population size and military weaponry. If Pope Innocent had tanks and shit, I reckon the Crusade death count would be through thre roof. The 30 Years War killed almost 6 million and that was over religion. What percentage of the population do you think that was? The Crusades killed a million. That's a pretty good hunk of the population of the involved areas. What about the Native American genocide. That's almost 14 million and that was done by some pretty damn religious people. It is easy to throw around phrases like "most murderous" but I want some definition of terms first.

Plus, others think they are mocking atheists by bringing up that I say this, but why can't I just take a page from your book and tell you that they aren't really atheists? No atheist would do that.

"It is what they do that counts." When did they kill in the name of atheism? That is what counts by your thread.

[jukes]

256. you're forgetting the secret squirrel xian baby sacrifices

an important sacrement to all atheists.

i'll concede that most apologists in this thread vote for Democrats (& i only do because their game is LESS rigged than the republicans')


& that's their ONLY claim to liberalism. they're absolutely biased, they cite clearly faulty sources, and they become argumentative and insulting whenever confronted w/ an argument they can't challenge because their sources are flawed.

this isn't a discussion, it's a gangbang, & i doubt seriously that i, or any other critical thinker is welcome here.


BTW, "atheism" is NOT a religion. religions organize to believe, atheists fail to believe w/o actual proof.

[Inland]

194. I suspect mass murder wasn't "official policy", either. nt

[Goblinmonger]

212. If you are looking for me to defend communism

in the 20th century, you are barking up the wrong tree. But the point still is that these killings were not done in the name of atheism. You dismiss all the things in the constitution of the USSR that they "never did" like freedom of religion and other things, but you sure latch on to the atheism thing like a damn barnacle. Why do you get to toss out the things that support you and not everyhting?

And why not just take me off your ignore list rather doing this litte "I respond to you, kwassa responds to me, you respond to me through kwassa" game. We aren't in middle school any more. You don't have to call your friend and then have them call my friend so my friend can call me to ask me if I like you. We don't like each other, but I think we can handle this like adults.

[Zebedeo]

231. "No true Scotsman"

Some of the atheist posters love to lampoon the "no true Scotsman" argument when it is applied to Christians. But when applied to atheists, why, it is a very, very, valid argument indeed.

[trotsky]

232. Correct me if I'm wrong,

but I haven't seen any atheist say that Stalin et al couldn't have been atheists (at least not in jest), only that their atheism couldn't have been the motivating factor for their deeds.

Keep working on applying logic Zeb. I have confidence that one day you'll do it correctly.

[Proud_Democratt]

116. And how many died in Nazi Germany due to a delusional

fascist Christian leader?

http://www.nobeliefs.com/nazis.htm

[davidinalameda]

119. just because someone says they're a Christan

doesn't make them one

if you remember, Hitler was pretty open minded about who he sent the death camps

[riderinthestorm]

125. Just because someone says their an atheist doesn't make them one

Remember, Mao was pretty open minded about who he killed too.

And Mao didn't do it because he was an atheist - he did it in the name of economic warfare.

[Proud_Democratt]

120. Here's more NEEDLESS deaths due to delusion

The Spanish Inquisition
1478-1834


The concepts of an inquisition and inquisitorial procedure lie deep in the roots of world history. Inquisitions were used during the decline of the Roman Empire until the Spanish Inquisition's decline in the early 1800s. An inquisition can be run by both civil and church authorities in order to root out non-believers from a nation or religion. The Spanish Inquisition was one of the most deadly inquisitions in history.

[davidinalameda]

122. how many people died under Mao

and the Cultural Revolution?

[Proud_Democratt]

143. The European Witch-Hunts, c. 1450-1750

Between 40,000 and 50,000 executions....due to delusions.

[riderinthestorm]

108. Can you provide proof of how many people have been killed in the name of

"atheism"?

Just askin....

[davidinalameda]

109. take a look at the communist regimes during this century and the last

those regimes were officially atheist, no?

[Proud_Democratt]

113. Have you seen any people from China fleeing to the US

lately?

[Inland]

177. Hell's bells. Never mind.

delete.

[riderinthestorm]

114. Communism. Not atheism

Try again.

[davidinalameda]

117. and one of the major parts of communism isn't atheism?

[riderinthestorm]

129. The crimes of communism are social and economic

Not religious. No matter how much you wish it were true.

[Inland]

175. Well, by definition, since communism was anti-religion,

all of its crimes were not religious. Some of its crimes were anti religion. How does that fit into a worldview that states that religion and the religious are the bane of mankind? Not so good.

[Proud_Democratt]

131. Here's the top 50 Atheistic/Agnostic countries

Country Total Pop.(2004) % Atheist/actual # Agnostic/Nonbeliever in God (minimum - maximum)
1 Sweden 8,986,000 46-85% 4,133,560-7,638,100
2 Vietnam 82,690,000 81% 66,978,900
3 Denmark 5,413,000 43-80% 2,327,590-4,330,400
4 Norway 4,575,000 31-72% 1,418,250-3,294,000
5 Japan 127,333,000 64-65% 81,493,120-82,766,450
6 Czech Republic 10,246,100 54-61% 5,328,940-6,250,121
7 Finland 5,215,000 28-60% 1,460,200-3,129,000
8 France 60,424,000 43-54% 25,982,320-32,628,960
9 South Korea 48,598,000 30%-52% 14,579,400-25,270,960
10 Estonia 1,342,000 49% 657,580
11 Germany 82,425,000 41-49% 33,794,250-40,388,250
12 Russia 143,782,000 24-48% 34,507,680-69,015,360
13 Hungary 10,032,000 32-46% 3,210,240-4,614,720
14 Netherlands 16,318,000 39-44% 6,364,020-7,179,920
15 Britain 60,271,000 31-44% 18,684,010-26,519,240
16 Belgium 10,348,000 42-43% 4,346,160-4,449,640
17 Bulgaria 7,518,000 34-40% 2,556,120-3,007,200
18 Slovenia 2,011,000 35-38% 703,850-764,180
19 Israel 6,199,000 15-37% 929,850-2,293,630
20 Canada 32,508,000 19-30% 6,176,520-9,752,400
21 Latvia 2,306,000 20-29% 461,200-668,740
22 Slovakia 5,424,000 10-28% 542,400-1,518,720
23 Switzerland 7,451,000 17-27% 1,266,670-2,011,770
24 Austria 8,175,000 18-26% 1,471,500-2,125,500
25 Australia 19,913,000 24-25% 4,779,120-4,978,250
26 Taiwan 22,750,000 24% 5,460,000
27 Spain 40,281,000 15-24% 6,042,150-9,667,440
28 Iceland 294,000 16-23% 47,040-67,620
29 New Zealand 3,994,000 20-22% 798,800-878,680
30 Ukraine 47,732,000 20% 9,546,400
31 Belarus 10,311,000 17% 1,752,870
32 Greece 10,648,000 16% 1,703,680
33 North Korea 22,698,000 15% ( ? ) 3,404,700
34 Italy 58,057,000 6-15% 3,483,420-8,708,550
35 Armenia 2,991,000 14% 418,740
36 China 1,298,848,000 8-14% ( ? ) 103,907,840-181,838,720
37 Lithuania 3,608,000 13% 469,040
38 Singapore 4,354,000 13% 566,020
39 Uruguay 3,399,000 12% 407,880
40 Kazakhstan 15,144,000 11-12% 1,665,840-1,817,280
41 Estonia 1,342,000 11% 147,620
42 Mongolia 2,751,000 9% 247,590
43 Portugal 10,524,000 4-9% 420,960-947,160
44 United States 293,028,000 3-9% 8,790,840-26,822,520
45 Albania 3,545,000 8% 283,600
46 Argentina 39,145,000 4-8% 1,565,800-3,131,600
47 Kyrgyzstan 5,081,000 7% 355,670
48 Dominican Rep. 8,834,000 7% 618,380
49 Cuba 11,309,000 7% ( ? ) 791,630
50 Croatia 4,497,000 7% 314,790



Look at the top 10....how many war-mongering countries do you see??

[riderinthestorm]

132. I LIKE this! Mind if I swipe it? nt

[Proud_Democratt]

134. I posted this topic last month...feel free to the info

[Goblinmonger]

124. How nice for you

You get to dismiss Hitler without so much as a glance because he wasn't a "real" christian, but you are hopping out of your shoes to pin any shitty communist regime on the board of the atheists.

Give me a break.

[riderinthestorm]

130. I know. How convenient.....

:eyes:

[kwassa]

144. round and round and round we go, same arguments, different day

Hitler wasn't a Christian, except to atheists.

The Communist regimes were atheistic, and probably murdered a hundred million between them.

Most deaths in the world have NOT occured as a result of religion, but for other reasons.

Not that this merry-go-round ever stops.

[Goblinmonger]

145. Yet you keep commiting the fallacies

so we must keep up with the same old arguments.

Don't you see the problems with saying "Hitler wasn't a real christin, but Pol Pot, Stalin, and Mao were 100% pure-blood atheists that you have to live with." Hypocrisy. Look it up.

MURDERED a hundred million. That I would like to see a source for. Sure, Stalin's death count is often estimated to be around 60 million. Please show me a source which says that Stalin had all of those people murdered. The VAST majority of those deaths were due to mismanagement and resource shortage (make that the fault of his atheism). Sure Stalin killed and had people killed, but nowhere near the numbers you want.

I'll tell you what. I agree that Stalin, Mao, and Pol Pot were atheists. Please explain to me how all of them killed for atheism. Then please provide sources as to the number of people that were actually killed by those people. Then we will do the numbers count.

Then, you need to just realize that there are assholes that are Christian. I know Hitler was a fuckhead, but he was a Christian fuckhead. Come on. You can do it. I recognized the atheist fuckheads, certainly you are not weaker than I.

Now. Do some reading and realize that Hitler killed the Jews as punishment for killed Jesus. I know you are still in denial, but the truth will set you free. But hey, I'll give you just a percentage of the Hitler deaths.

What about the Inquisitions? Those are CLEARLY for religious reasons (though I'm sure you'll tell me those people weren't REAL christians). How about the Crusades? Gonna try and deny those? I know, I know, the Pope's that ordered them weren't real Christians. Take a look at Rwanda and Darfur. Nice solid religious people committing genocide for religious reasons. I think you are going to lose this death count business pretty solidly.

But, go ahead, spew your apologetic crap.

[kwassa]

147. Here is the public policy of atheism in the U.S.S.R.

http://wwwa.britannica.com/eb/article-42047

The Bolsheviks, in common with other socialists, regarded religious belief as gross superstition, and they were determined to eliminate it by a combination of repression, ridicule, and scientific enlightenment. A decree issued on Jan. 20, 1918 (Feb. 2, New Style), formally separated church from state, but it went far beyond its declared purpose by prohibiting religious bodies from engaging in instruction and from collecting dues from their members. Since the state nationalized all church property, the clergy were left destitute. In 1919 major campaigns were undertaken to discredit church observances by staging mock Christmas holidays and exposing the remains of saints. Schools and youth organizations were ordered to engage in atheist propaganda.

These measures do not seem to have had the desired effect; on the contrary, the hardships and bloodshed accompanying the Revolution intensified religious feeling and led to increased church attendance. In March 1922 Lenin decided to launch a direct assault on the Orthodox church, the only organized body in Soviet Russia (apart from the minuscule Academy of Sciences) still outside Communist Party control. Using as a pretext the catastrophic famine of the previous year (see below), he ordered the church to surrender its consecrated vessels, essential for services, to be sold for famine relief. In fact, knowing that the church could not comply, he sought a pretext for charging it with refusal to obey laws and, at the same time, discrediting it in the eyes of the people for alleged callousness to human suffering. In the spring and summer of 1922 numerous incidents of resistance occurred, in consequence of which priests were arrested and numerous faithful killed. On Lenin's orders mock trials were staged in Moscow, Petrograd, and other cities, in which some priests were sentenced to death and prison terms. A splinter “Living Church,” composed of renegade priests and operating under instructions from the Cheka, was created to serve the interests of the state.

Lenin concentrated on the Orthodox establishment because of its traditional links with the monarchy and its hold on the Russian population. But he did not spare the other faiths. A trial of Catholic priests resulted in death sentences and the closure of churches. Synagogues were also desecrated and Jewish holidays subjected to public derision. Muslim religious institutions suffered the least because of Lenin's fear of alienating the colonial peoples of the Middle East, on whose support he counted against the Western imperial powers.

[Goblinmonger]

153. So how many deaths is that?

Sounds like a hell of a lot less severe than Darfur right now.

And those Bolsheviks sound like bastards. How dare they engage in "repression, ridicule, and scientific enlightenment"? Didn't they know that the best way to get people to stop thinking contrary things is to burn them at the stake and torture them?

"A trial of Catholic priests resulted in death sentences and the closure of churches." Death sentence does not equal death penalty. Again, what is the number of deaths?

Was Lenin a prick about it? Yes. Do you honestly think that the atheists here on DU are advocating this? No way.

[kwassa]

149. Stalin's murders

"Please show me a source which says that Stalin had all of those people murdered. The VAST majority of those deaths were due to mismanagement and resource shortage (make that the fault of his atheism). Sure Stalin killed and had people killed, but nowhere near the numbers you want."

You asked for it. (this mismanagement meme is totally false, by the way, though it gets repeated a lot around here.)

There are many different stats here, and much disagreement about total numbers, but none of them attribute anything like the massive death tolls to famine, unlike in China under Mao. This is the only was mismanagement causes death.

Here is a small excerpt of a very large web page about death toll in the 20th century

http://users.erols.com/mwhite28/warstat1.htm#Stalin

Rummel, 1990: 61,911,000 democides in the USSR 1917-87, of which 51,755,000 occurred during the Stalin years. This divides up into:
1923-29: 2,200,000 (plus 1M non-democidal famine deaths)
1929-39: 15,785,000 (plus 2M non-democidal famine)
1939-45: 18,157,000
1946-54: 15,613,000 (plus 333,000 non-democidal famine)
TOTAL: 51,755,000 democides and 3,333,000 non-demo. famine

[Goblinmonger]

157. Interesting that you use Rummel

First, though, you do know that those numbers are heavily in dispute. You will find credible historians that put the Stalin numbers anywhere between 15-60+ million deaths.

Secondly, you do know that Rummel's argument is that democracy is the best form of government. Not that atheism is a pile of crap and the reason for the deaths (it is totalitarianism). So your source is pretty much countering your claim that these deaths were done IN THE NAME OF ATHEISM (something which you have yet to prove other than a couple deaths by Lenin).

[kwassa]

167. I never said that these deaths were done in the name of atheism

Merely that they were done by atheistic regimes.

Lots and lots of deaths.

[Goblinmonger]

168. Atheistic Regimes

Please show me where the atheism was official in the USSR. Not true.

I'm saying these were done in the name of communism and a mis-interpretation of Marxism.

We need to keep our eye on the ball. I am saying that there are lots of murders that have been committed in the name of religion. There are not an equal or similar number of murders that have been committed in the name of atheism. That has been my point all along. I don't know what you are trying to shift it into, but that is where we are at.

[kwassa]

178. say whatever pleases you

"I'm saying these were done in the name of communism and a mis-interpretation of Marxism."

Say whatever you like, I already cited the history. Misapplied communism is the history of communism. Atheism is part of their social policy.

"I am saying that there are lots of murders that have been committed in the name of religion."

A misapplication of religion. Funny, isn't it? Nothing is done in the name of atheism, because atheism is nothing. Same result, though. Lots of dead people.

[trotsky]

181. Christianity is part of the United States' social policy.

At least under the current administration it is. I mean, the Constitution guarantees religious freedom but we all know that's just a piece of paper.

Are all the deaths in Iraq, and the deaths here and around the world due to outdated social policies, the fault of Christianity?

[kwassa]

185. No, it's not.

[trotsky]

190. Well I guess that's the final word on that.

:eyes:

[jukes]

259. !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

i guess he told us, nah nanyah!

:rofl:

[jukes]

258. not to mention the amerinds, vietnamese, filipinos

et al.

[Goblinmonger]

184. But the difference is clear

It may be a misapplication of religion, to you (again this gets us into the "why is your version better" debate), but it is still done in the name of religion. The deaths you want to attribute to atheism have nothing to do with atheism. They were not done in the name of atheism. They are not a misapplication of atheism.

[kwassa]

187. Impossible parallel, as one is a belief, the other isn't.

And you can't prove that the deaths of any of these people have nothing to do with atheism.

It was the praticed social policy to eliminate religion and those who practiced it, as athesim was the stance of the Bolsheviks.. They were quite successful.

[trotsky]

191. But atheism does not have a requirement to eliminate religion.

Atheism simply doesn't accept religion's claims.

Communism was what called for the elimination of religion, not atheism.

[kwassa]

195. how do you know that?

Their interpretation might be different than yours for atheism. They might view it as active disbelief, rather than your interpretation.

From what history says, they took it quite actively.

[trotsky]

199. Because there's nothing to interpret.

No sacred texts, no decrees from prophets, nothing. And besides, even if they did view it as "active disbelief" that still doesn't require the elimination of religion.

[Goblinmonger]

207. "active disbelief"

is just buzzword jibberjabber. What they hell does that mean? What would passive disbelief mean? I don't believe, but kinda do. Not really sure.

Give me a break. This is the same argument we had above. You CANNOT show that any of this is because of atheism but communism.

[Goblinmonger]

192. But the Bolsheviks

weren't the ones killing the millions. Remember your source? They did it through "ridicule, repression, and scientific enlightenment" or something pretty much exactly like that.

Yeah, you're right I can't prove that because it puts us back in the old "proving a negative" fallacy. You would be the one that needs to prove that it did. And you can't. So you revert to charging me with something that is logically impossible to prove so that you can claim victory. Well, sorry, Homey don't play like that. Sure, Lenin killed some people that were religious because they were religious. So did Stalin. That is not the 60 million figure that you are throwing around.

[kwassa]

196. Reading is fundamental

Your lack of knowledge about the Soviet Union is really appalling. You apparently didn't even read the quote from Britanica that I posted for you. You just make stuff up.

The Bolsheviks murdered lots of people. There were purges all the way through, particularly under Stalin as he consolidated power.

I'll give you a free clue. Lenin was a Bolshevik. Russian History 101. Follow the persecution under Lenin.

[Goblinmonger]

197. Oh, Please

Here is a direct quotation from the beginning of you Britanica snippet:

The Bolsheviks, in common with other socialists, regarded religious belief as gross superstition, and they were determined to eliminate it by a combination of repression, ridicule, and scientific enlightenment.

I got it dead on from memory.

And if you are going to deride someone for a lack of knowledge of the Soviet Union, you may want to ratchet back your claims that Stalin was a Bolshevik. Ever heard of Trotsky? Stalin so strayed from the tenets of the Bolsheviks it isn't even funny. And don't think you can put the deaths of Stalin on Lenin and the Bolsheviks.

[kwassa]

203. They were all Bolsheviks!

Straying from what tenets? They were murderers from the beginning. Stalin was a Bolshevik

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bolshevik
quotes:

Bolsheviks led by Vladimir Lenin seized power in Russia in 1917 in an event known as the October Revolution. Shortly after seizing power, the party changed its name to the All-Russian Communist Party (Bolsheviks) in 1918 and was generally known as the Communist Party after that point. However, it was not until 1952 that the party formally dropped the word "Bolshevik" from its name.

The Bolshevik political platform has often been referred to as Bolshevism. Leon Trotsky frequently used the terms "Bolshevism" and "Bolshevist" after his exile from the Soviet Union to differentiate between what he saw as true Leninism and the regime within the state and the party which arose under Stalin. However, "Bolshevism" today is commonly associated with the ruthless Stalin regime which existed in the Soviet Union, and the millions of deaths for which it was responsible

[Goblinmonger]

206. Coming from someone

who disclaims anyone from being a christian if they are the least bit an asshole, you draw pretty grey lines for everyone else.

And again, you don't seem to be reading what you cut and paste. Don't you see the distinction that Trotsky was making? It is right there in your snippet. Sure they still used the name, but Trotsky points out that Lenin had it right and Stalin had it wrong. Didn't you ever read Animal Farm?

[kwassa]

208. News Alert! Animal Farm, like the DaVinci Code, is FICTION.

So, we now use fictional sources for references?

Trotsky's definition is his own. That doesn't make it true.

get thee to a history book. Your attempts to use my quotes against me are pretty damn funny.

[Goblinmonger]

210. So you are denying

that Animal Farm is an allegorical work that relies on the USSR to discuss the problems inherent in totalitarian regimes.

Trotsky was one of the originals. You don't think his views on Bolsheviks and Stalin's bastardization of the principles isn't relevant. And, by the way, YOU USED THAT QUOTATION, not I. Don't get pissed at me because I point out what the quotations you provide are saying. If you don't want to talk about Trotsky's view of Stalin, then DON'T POST A QUOTATION THAT TALKS ABOUT TROTSKY'S VIEW OF STALIN.

You have presented a quotation that says we don't know Hitler's political beliefs and then you say we do know them. You say it is not relevant to know what Trotsky said about Stalin, yet that came from a quotation you posted. My using your quotations against you is pretty damn funny, but not in the way you are intending that sentence.

[kwassa]

213. Allegories are not proof of anything.

my quote:
"Leon Trotsky frequently used the terms "Bolshevism" and "Bolshevist" after his exile from the Soviet Union to differentiate between what he saw as true Leninism and the regime within the state and the party which arose under Stalin."

your argument:
"Trotsky was one of the originals. You don't think his views on Bolsheviks and Stalin's bastardization of the principles isn't relevant."

I never said that.

"And, by the way, YOU USED THAT QUOTATION, not I. Don't get pissed at me because I point out what the quotations you provide are saying. If you don't want to talk about Trotsky's view of Stalin, then DON'T POST A QUOTATION THAT TALKS ABOUT TROTSKY'S VIEW OF STALIN."

but ... but ....

Reading the content of the entire quote, which seems to elude you, is that the generally accepted definition of who is a Bolshevik is not Trotsky's definition.

I have great trouble believing you are a teacher. Content and context. You have the most bizarre analysis of text that I have seen in awhile.

[Goblinmonger]

215. Oh, come on

you aren't really that obtuse are you. Commonly accepted definition means that is what the average person thinks. If you want to go with that standard for definitions, that is fine by me, but you are then stuck with what the average person thinks a christian is. That sentence means the meaning has been changed. The accepted definition of tragedy is nowhere near the original meaning of the word. You do get that about the way words change, don't you?

See Trotsky WAS ONE OF THE ORIGINAL Bolsheviks. I don't fucking care what your average numbnuts down the street thinks it is. They can't identify Iraq on a globe, either. Stalin was not following the tenets of the Bolsheviks. For someone who puts themself off as a scholar of Russian history and mocks other people for their "lack" of knowledge, you sure don't seem to understand the way things changed in Russia under Stalin. Why did they get rid of his image and name and shit if he was 100% Bolshevik and the Bolshevik party was around after him? Hmmmmm. They reverted back to Lenin for what reason?

[neonmessiah]

227. Lenin was a murderer

Every thing that Stalin did was done under Lenin: the rule of terror (in the Red Terror), the creation of the one party state (in the elimination of the left Social Revolutionaries), the creation of political police (with the Cheka), the creation of what would become the GULAG camps, and the purging of the party organization.
Stalin was undoubtedly more ruthless and bloodthirsty than Lenin, but this does not make Lenin the good guy. I have seen the letters, (or I should say microfilmed copies of the letters) signed by Lenin, where he orders the execution quotas of kulaks for various villages.

[jukes]

262. that's a VERY broad brush your using

careful or you'll fill in the screwheads and we'll never take it apart!

[neonmessiah]

266. Who am I broad brushing?

My point was specifically addressing the assertion that Stalin's crimes did not have a foundation in Lenin's murderous policies.

[jukes]

269. "Every thing that Stalin did was done under Lenin"

one interpretation of that fuzzy statement cd be that lenin was personally responsibly; ie, directing stalin's actions.

i didn't read it that way. what i can parse from the statement is: "they did the same types of things, so they must have had the same motive and lenin is responsible for stalin's actions."

lenin was indeed violent; revolutions are frequently bloody. lenin killed czarists who resited the revolution. lenin was *not* delusionally paranoid as stalin was; stalins murders were primarily party members that he perceived as rivals or non-political populations he suspected wd not embrace his rule.

apples/oranges. and neither was motivated by their "atheism"; neither picked victims on religious grounds.


also, honestly, there really is no "war on christianity" and atheists are *mostly* rational, non-violent people.

[neonmessiah]

273. Not apples and oranges

Stalin’s crimes differed from Lenin’s only in degree. Lenin was certainly not directly responsible for Stalin’s crimes, but he set the precedent within the Communist party of rule through death and terror; Stalin built upon this foundation. The means Stalin used (terror, forced famine, death quotas, mass arrests, labor camps) were the same means used by Lenin. Apples and bigger apples.
To suggest that Lenin only directed his revolutionary malice toward czarists is untrue. The liquidation of the kulak class of peasants is a matter of record and it was done on Lenin’s orders. As under Stalin this was accomplished using death quotas: if X number of kulaks were not found in a village, then enough people to make up the difference were found and executed with the rest. Again I have seen the microfilms of the letters with these orders signed by Lenin. After the Communists and their allies emerged victorious from the civil war it was Lenin who outlawed all other political parties, including the allied ones. The Red Terror, started under Lenin in reaction to his attempted assassination and the assassination of another party leader, began the practice of using vast conspiracies to justify mass terror and oppression. I somehow doubt all of the approximately 10,000 people killed and 70,000 people sent to camps were responsible for those assassinations.
On the larger point of how this relates to atheism, I agree that atheism should not be held responsible for the crimes of international Communism. The existence of Communist governments does, however, counter the argument (made by others) that the world would be a better place if religions or religious thinking did not form the basis of a government.
Tough I do not believe in the “war on Christianity,” I do think anti-religious feelings in general, and anti-Christian feelings in particular, have become more popular and more accepted by society as a whole. Interestingly this loss of respect for religion has not seemed to increase society’s acceptance of atheism. This is why the popular portrayal of all Christians as closet fundamentalists can exists side by side with the still popular notion that atheists are all immoral nihilists.

[jukes]

261. hhmmmm

don't xians use allegories to illustrate their points. isn't the (mythical) personage jesus said to have used allegory?

so, it's ok for you, but we're excluded. because it doesn't suit your reality-view...

[jukes]

260. so's the bible

and there's fuckall proof it isn't.

the poster was trying to give you the simplist explanation of stalin's divergence from leninism. an "allegory".

he wasn't quoting orwell as a source, just a "primer".

[Proud_Democratt]

148. Take a look at these pics...Hitler praying,attending church,etc.

What type of Atheist attends church and prays???

http://www.nobeliefs.com/nazis.htm

[kwassa]

150. Never said he was an atheist, just not a Christian

this is very old stuff

[Proud_Democratt]

151. Who did he pray to? On what platform did he base his "ethnic

cleansing"???

[Inland]

154. Who did he pray to? Wow, what a telling question.

I guess it the thought that Hitler was merely *pretending* to pray never occurred to you. Wonder why THAT is?

[Proud_Democratt]

156. A person could equate "pretending to pray" to anyone with fame

couldn't they? So, how does one know an honest,legitimate prayer? So when a ball player prays for a win, this is to be classified as "pretending"?

[Inland]

158. Um...yes, how COULD anyone know, so why do you assume?

Like I said, the fact you asked the question, unable to concede the possibility that Hitler was just pretending, is telling.

[trotsky]

182. Oh, cool!

I suppose you have evidence that Hitler was merely *pretending* to pray?

I'll wait right here.

[kwassa]

161. The philosophy of Naziism

He created his own nationalist belief system out of a mismash of different beliefs, including references to paganism.

The idea that Christianity is the essential component is a false proposition. It wasns't about any religion, it was about the German state.

[Goblinmonger]

164. On several occasions

He said that the paganism to which you refer was foolish. Hell, Christianity itself is a "mismash of different beliefs, including references to paganism." Perhaps Christianity isn't really Christian :crazy:

[Proud_Democratt]

152. They blame atheism for Hitler's philosophy

But the historical record shows that Hitler believed in God and was convinced he was carrying out God's will.

http://www.humanismbyjoe.com/hitler.htm

[kwassa]

163. Who blames atheism for Hitler's philosophy?

[Goblinmonger]

162. He said he was a Christian

He received Catholic sacraments.
He went to church.
He never denounced his religion.
He said he was killing the Jews for religious reasons.
He gave religious reasons for hating the Jews.

Why do you think you have the ability to deny what is very public in regard to Hitler? He didn't seem to be hiding anything.

[kwassa]

165. Hitler said many different things to sway different audiences

He was a politician, after all, and in fact hid many things. He said opposing things on different occasions.

Some atheists want to cherry-pick his life to satisfy their political agenda, but it is about the agenda, not about history. Hitler can only be described as a German nationalist and supremicist.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hitler's_political_beliefs

Historians and biographers note some difficulty in attributing the political beliefs of Adolf Hitler. His writings and methods were often adapted to need and circumstance although anti-Semitism, anti-communism, anti-parliamentarianism, German expansionism, belief in the superiority of an "Aryan race" and an extreme form of German nationalism were steady themes. Hitler personally claimed he was fighting against Jewish Marxism.

[Goblinmonger]

166. Do you even read what you cut and paste?

Historians and biographers note some difficulty in attributing the political beliefs of Adolf Hitler.

That quotation says NOTHING about his religious beliefs. Though it does support that he said he did what he did because of the Jews.

[kwassa]

172. Always

What's the problem?

[Goblinmonger]

193. I thought I made the problem

pretty clear with my bolding of your quotation. You said we don't know his religion and you posted a quotation that said people are undecided about his POLITICAL beliefs. Just so you know, my point is that your quotation is talking about POLITCAL beliefs and not RELIGIOUS beliefs. And in case it still isn't clear, POLITICAL is not the same as RELIGIOUS.

[kwassa]

205. Just to make it utterly clear to you ....

since your historical knowledge is rather sub-par.

Hitler was not known for his theology. He was known for his political ideology of German nationalism. His beliefs were in the German state, they were nationalistic and supremicist in nature, as I have said before.

Designating Hitler a Christian is a transparent strategy of atheists who attempt to associate his murders with Christianity. It is historically false.

[Goblinmonger]

209. I don't know why you continue with the ad homs, Hector Projector?

Why do you have to take jabs at me. YOU claimed that we don't know Hitler's religious beliefs and then, IN THE SAME MESSAGE, you posted a quotation that says nobody is sure of his POLITICAL beliefs and then you get pissed at me and tell me my historical knowledge is bad. And additionally, after the quotation YOU GAVE that says we don't know his POLITICAL BELIEFS, you lecture me that he is known for his "political ideology." Which one is it, kwassa? Do we not know his politcal beliefs or is that what he is known for. You have given me evidence on both sides of that argument. But of course it is I that has a problem with historical knowledge. Give me a break. This is your problem with evidence not mine.

"Hitler was not known for his theology." He killed millions and millions of Jews. He made it clear that he was doing so because they were an inferior race that killed Jesus. Sounds a lot like theology to me. Sure, you want to be an apologist for religion and claim Hitler wasn't a Christian, but he was. NOTHING you have stated shows he wasn't.

Show me where Hitler denounces the religion he was raised in, received sacraments in, and killed Jews for. Please show me where that denouncing of religion is. I'll wait right here.

[kwassa]

211. Making observations, not ad hominem attacks

goblinmonger:
"after the quotation YOU GAVE that says we don't know his POLITICAL BELIEFS, you lecture me that he is known for his "political ideology.""

Just to clarify for you, since you don't get it, there is a public Hitler and a private Hitler. He is known for the ideology of the Nazi state. He is one and the same as the public Hitler. What he expressed in private, or how he actually felt, is more complex, and somewhat unknown, as he would opportunistically use many things to gain and use power.

you:
""Hitler was not known for his theology." He killed millions and millions of Jews. He made it clear that he was doing so because they were an inferior race that killed Jesus. Sounds a lot like theology to me."

It isn't, though. Anti-Semitism was well-grounded in secular German life, dating back hundreds of years. This alone is not theology. Since you don't seem to understand the word meaning:

the·ol·o·gy ( P ) Pronunciation Key (th-l-j)
n. pl. the·ol·o·gies
The study of the nature of God and religious truth; rational inquiry into religious questions.
A system or school of opinions concerning God and religious questions: Protestant theology; Jewish theology.
A course of specialized religious study usually at a college or seminary.

"Show me where Hitler denounces the religion he was raised in, received sacraments in, and killed Jews for. Please show me where that denouncing of religion is. I'll wait right here."

I can show you, but you won't accept it. Table Talk, of course.

Bottom line, his actions. Nothing in his behavior smacks of the teachings of Christ. Not a Christian.

Just atheist agenda talking.

[Goblinmonger]

214. Table Talk

You are going to go to Table Talk with me. :rofl: I've read table talk, and I have two things:
1. If you are going to tell me that Hitler said some things in public that were controlled but spilled his guts in Table Talk you are seriously dillusioned. He edited the transcripts of table talk for christ sake.
2. There is PLENTY in table talk about how he hates the jews for diluting the message of the Jesus who was the son of god. He talks about Paul being the worst. He hates the Jews for that.
Take my word for it, don't go to table talk with me. But if you insist, let me know. Here's a snippet from page 76:
"Nevertheless, the Galilean, who later was called Christ, intended something quite different. He must be regarded as a popular leader who too up His position against Jewry. Galilee was a colony where the Romans had probably installed Gallic legionaries, and it's certain that Jesus was not a Jew. The Jews, by the way, regarded Him as the son of a whore-- of a whore and a Roman soldier.

The decisive falsification of Jesus's doctrine was the work of St. Paul. He gave himself to this work with subtlety and for purposes of personal exploitation. For the Galiean's object was to liberate His country from Jewish oppression. He set Himself against Jewish capitalism, and that's why the Jews liquidated Him."
Yeah, use table talk to prove your point. Sure he doesn't like where the Catholic Church is going because it is against the true teachings of Christ. But if that were the case, anyone who questions the current proclomations of the RCC is not a Christian.

Nothing in his actions smack of Christianity. Is this the same christianity of the Crusades?

Oh, and where do you think the anti-semitism of Germany came from? The RCC? Martin Luther? That's probably where I'd start looking. Christians, right? Or is the RCC now no longer considered Christian by you?

[jukes]

263. so no-one's a REAL

christian, unless you can use them as an example to justify your position; hence, Torquemada wasn't a real christian?

not only wd he take exception to that, he wd have drawn you over a hurdle till you were half-strangled, racked you, removed your intestines while you were still alive, and burnt them while you watched.

or merely set you on fire, depending on how busy his schedule was that day.

[jukes]

257. those regimes killed

because of the political paranoia of their totalitarian leaders. stalin killed millions to protect his power. trotsky (not our worthy poster, but his namesake) was ordered killed by stalin. was that motivated by stalin's atheism?

sweeping generalizations are the bastions of a weak premise.

[TallahasseeGrannie]

159. Yes

but it isn't based on logic so I don't get to play.

[TallahasseeGrannie]

67. Which begs the question

ARE there fundamental atheist views? I won't say beliefs, because I know that atheism = non belief.

I get the feeling everybody had a rough Monday and has come here to bash one another. But darn, this post is up to like 70 some responses in a couple of hours. When I post something it dies on the vine.

I need to work on my approach.

[Bill McBlueState]

71. i suppose there's just one

- that one has no belief in gods. Otherwise, one wouldn't be an atheist! :) Beyond that, atheists have opinions ranging all over the place.

[pnwmom]

80. I have no problem at all with people who don't believe in

any god; in other words, with atheists in general.

But I do have a problem with people like the poster who say things like "anyone with an ounce of understanding" would know that Jesus never existed. That "NEWSFLASH" was nothing but an attempt to insult Christians.

[riderinthestorm]

82. Have you studied history?

The OP isn't flamebait. It's reality. Go check his/her (very small and the most non-inflammatory) references.

Your kneejerk reaction that the OP was simply an attempt to insult Christians is why atheists are endangered in the US.

Sigh.

[Bill McBlueState]

85. I agree with that

I think it's difficult to speak with absolute certainty about anything that happened 2000 years ago to everyday people in a remote part of the Roman empire.

But that's not the point. If tomorrow, Jesus were proven conclusively either to have existed or not to have existed, most Christians would go on being Christians, most Jews would go on being Jews, and most atheists would go on being atheists. All of our opinions regarding religion are based on more than just one particular historical fact.

[Inland]

90. Maybe he meant "TRUE understanding".......

R/T reference.

[Goblinmonger]

126. Let me rephrase that for you

You don't have a problem with atheists. Just those that actually state in public what they think about religion. As long as we shut up, you have no problem. Theists, on the other hand, get to say what they believe without punishment or disdain?

[pnwmom]

77. I think there is.

I'm not certain.

But, in my opinion, some fervent atheists are certain that nothing is REAL, that nothing exists, that can't be rationally comprehended; that can't be explained with logic or science.

[jukes]

264. "fundamental atheism"

is an oxymoron-ic catch-phrase used by christians when their world-view is threatened.

atheism isn't organized into sects.

[Evoman]

60. Um the poster didn't say that god didn't exist

He just said that the whole jesus is real thing was bullshit. And it is.

[pnwmom]

79. And that's your opinion. And it's just an opinion.

You can't PROVE that Jesus or God do not exist any more than I can than they do.

[Evoman]

96. !!! OH YEAH...OH YEAH

WEll....um....YOU CAN'T PROVE that Jesus wasn't a pink elephant! In fact, you can't prove that Pink elephants don't exist.

Here is a list of other things I can't prove.

I can't prove Santa doesn't exist.

I can't prove Unicorns don't exist (although they are mentioned in the bible, so maybe I can lol)

I can't prove talking fish don't exist

I can't prove that my doppleganer doesn't exist

I can't prove purple horses with five legs don't exist.

I can't prove that the toothfairy doesn't exist.

I can't prove that the toothfairies husband doesn't exist.

I can't prova that the toothfairies husbands mistress doesn't exist.

I can't prove that the toothfairies husbands mistress's purple horse with five legs doesn't exist.

Yet, I'm still certain they don't exist.

Okay..you got me, maybe I'm not 100% sure....closer to 99.9999999999999 % sure.

[Proud_Democratt]

97. AND you can't prove their existance. 2000 years and waiting.

[TallahasseeGrannie]

66. LOL

Now THERE's a nice, unbiased source.

infidels.org


The problem is, everyone has an agenda.

[trotsky]

183. Actually, Internet Infidels is a vast collection of articles and info.

Biased? Well, it's designed to be a place where atheists and other freethinkers can get information and news. So I guess it's biased in the same sense that DU is biased.

[TallahasseeGrannie]

226. It appears to me to have

a strong agenda, to promote atheism.

Which is fine with me. But if I presented argument from a similar religious site, I'd get pounded for it.

But don't worry, I'm not going to because just reading the whole Hitler/Communist stuff has my head spinning.

I'm just not quite sure why we keep going through this whole "your guys killed more than my guys" routine.

I am certain that if suddenly the part of our brain that quests for the spiritual were eliminated tomorrow, we'd still be a dreadfully violent species. Just look at gangs. We have a territorial group need that trumps all. We kill.

I'd like to point out that most killing is done by one gender. And while women certainly don't have clean hands all the time when it comes to violence, it is for the most part a male tradition.

I just think we need to look elsewhere for the roots of violence. It is not, I don't think, religion. Religion is a convenient facade that makes violence "pure."

[trotsky]

229. The roots of violence are in our DNA.

We evolved in a violent world. Kill or be killed is not just a clever saying, it really was how things worked on this planet for hundreds of millions of years before we came around, and continues to this day. What allowed us to somewhat break out of that cycle was the development of reason - that if you expend all your resources and effort and most of your tribe to eliminate the other guy, what are you left with? What did you "win"? Coexistence, partnership, cooperation are infinitely preferable to conflict, and rational agents acknowledge that.

The problem that many of us non-religious see is that with religion, you don't need a rational justification for slipping back into the violent mode. "Why do you want me to kill the gay guy?" "Because god said so." There you go. End of discussion. God doesn't speak for himself, so there's no way to check on that, but you trust your spiritual leader because you have faith. Can theists be rational and reject things? Sure, but they're not using religion to do so - they're using secular-inspired reason. Using their OWN moral sense rather than what a book told them.

What's worse is that for many religionists, their faith TRUMPS reason. You can give them any number of rational reasons why they shouldn't do something, but if they truly believe their god wants them to do it, it's pointless. Many view it as a badge of honor to cling to their myth in the face of overwhelming evidence to the contrary, even.

On edit - this quote is one of the best I've seen summing it all up:

Religion is an insult to human dignity. With or without it, you'd have good people doing good things and evil people doing bad things, but for good people to do bad things, it takes religion. ~ Steven Weinberg

[jukes]

265. latino gangs are almost 100% catholic

your example doesn't hold up.

humans are violent. sometimes they have "spiritual" reasons, sometimes they don't.

[Inland]

87. GD too crammed with hot, braking Rove indictment news. nt

[0rganism]

9. Alerting -- at the least, this needs to be merged with the other thread

Top-level and out of context, this is just flamebait begging to be locked.

[Howardx]

26. are you a mod?

whats with all the self appointed moderators around here?

[Proud_Democratt]

47. It's too contraversial for them..boo hoo...boo hoo

[0rganism]

118. Why do you suppose that is?

Why would I, myself an atheist, object to having an opinion with which I happen to agree posted in GD, of all places?

Hmm. Tough one, huh? See if you can figure it out.

[0rganism]

103. you don't have to be a moderator to alert on a topic

Theres a link right there in the corner, you can alert on anything, anytime. In fact, many of the moderators' actions in terms of locking and removing threads are driven by user alerts.

Why do I say this? I've been a moderator before and I've seen how it works.

[BlueEyedSon]

11. yeah they made a movie too

http://www.thegodmovie.com/

[jobycom]

15. There probably was a historical Jesus

The documents, letters, and texts describing him began within a generation of his reported death, and as they were being circulated people who still knew him would have been alive and able to describe the story.

We know nothing for certain about him historically, other than what people who claimed to be his followers said about him. And they were filtering the stories through their perceptions, and some of them may have had questionable motives. But it would have been difficult to create a fictional character and spread him that quickly.

I see him more like George Washington or Abraham Lincoln--mythologized perhaps beyond the point of reality, but not fictional.

[papau]

20. Very True - but some athiest's prefer"becoming Xtian makes you a liar"

Esp. true of those early Christians :toast: - all early Christians were liars, or dupes of liars - heck - I heard that on DU so it must be true.

[Howardx]

28. says who?

"The documents, letters, and texts describing him began within a generation of his reported death" sorry but your word on it isnt enough, links? an author? anything?

[jobycom]

49. Says me

And every book written on the subject. Do the research. It's not a hidden subject.

And yes, I'm a trained historian. And an atheist.

[Howardx]

188. EVERY book?

you have read EVERY book on the topic? i doubt that

[Finder]

237. An historian and an atheist???????

What history would that be?

[L A Woman]

42. I agree

The walking on water, and water-into-wine stuff is likely just storytelling gone mad, but I do believe the man existed and was probably a social reformer.

...and one, I might add, who would be disgusted with the way his name has been abused.

[Imperialism Inc.]

245. And how do you know when he died?

The only documents are the ones you are talking about. That is circular reasoning.

He may have just as easily been invented a century earlier and finally become popular much later.

[leftofthedial]

17. but the pope's fiction is more right than Dan Brown's fiction

enjoy your eternity in the sulphurous, burning fires of hell . . .

[Proud_Democratt]

43. How do you know this?????? Can you prove it to be less

fictional than the other?

[manic expression]

18. The difference

is that the religions of Mithras and other polytheistic/pantheistic deities were not monolithic, nor were they unreasonable. They also saw their deities far different than the Judeo-Christians did and do.

[StellaBlue]

31. I agree, but

:popcorn:

[pnwmom]

34. "Anyone with an ounce of understanding"

doesn't talk as if s/he is the Ultimate Authority on anything, much less religion.

Period.

[bryant69]

37. Yep.

[Inland]

217. I think I'm readying one definition of flamebait.

The OP doesn't see the difference between a) Having an opinion and b) Having two opinions, the second opinion being that only a dummy wouldn't agree with the first opinion.

If I were to make a definition of flamebait, I would pick an OP that jumps out of nowhere with both guns blazing in support of the second opinion in scenario (b). Just saying.

[Mr_Spock]

35. Yeah, but you'll never convince people who "want" to believe

I think the teachings are right on - I just ignore all the magical crap.

Some people want to believe in 200 year old magic even though it hasn't happened since and likely will never happen again as we can disprove all magic in this day and age. :shrug:

[Burma Jones]

41. So What?

It doesn't matter......

If you believe in Jesus' existence because you are a literalist then any evidence to the contrary will never be considered valid.

If you believe in Jesus' existence as God, then mere mortal history doesn't mean crap.

If you believe in Jesus as a metaphor for one's own relation to the ultimately unknowable, then good for you - it doesn't matter whether He walked the earth or not because the myth is far more important and true than the historical fact.

If you're merely being controversial, then you could say all sorts of things about Jesus and gain a lot of attention.....

To me, Jesus is the way to get some sort of idea of the infinite, and that's what constitutes salvation.

[TallahasseeGrannie]

69. Succinct and lovely

congratulations.

[Burma Jones]

92. Thank You

and Joseph Campbell too, he got me going into thinking that way......

[Kailassa]

45. The whole universe is a work of fiction.

But my fictional self still enjoys its universe playground and loves fictional literature.

[TallahasseeGrannie]

70. Boom!

head exploded

[Kailassa]

73. Oh NO !!!!!

Last time it was God's head that exploded.



Don't tell me we have just experienced the second "big bang".

[TallahasseeGrannie]

74. very small bang in the scheme of things

actually

[Proud_Democratt]

46. I agree!!!!

[Ron Green]

52. Maybe it doesn't matter if there was a historical Jesus or not.

Why would someone who is seeking spiritual truth and walking the path described and demonstrated by Jesus need to care whether he actually existed? It seems to be the same mistake as trying to prove or disprove the existence of God using the Scientific Method. Just as science and spirit are two different realms, so are history and spiritual practice. It doesn't matter how many angels can dance on the head of a pin when you're working on forgiving the assholes around you, not to mention the one in the mirror.

[TallahasseeGrannie]

61. Thanks for sharing

your OPINION. That's what we're all about here on DU. Sharing opinions.

Because nobody knows for sure.

[pnwmom]

81. Exactly.

[WritingIsMyReligion]

63. Ahhhh......Nothing like watching a flame fest on a rainy Monday afternoon.

Popcorn, anyone?

:popcorn:

[Proud_Democratt]

93. Got marshmallows?

[phrenzy]

72. The TRUTH matters..

I can't for the life of me understand why people would willingly practice self delusion. I know many (even casual) Christians feel that if they allowed themselves to believe that Jesus was not an actual historical figure that their entire world would fall apart. There are many Christians who would quite literally rather die than admit that.

The fact remains, if you have studied the history of religions, especially in the time that the Jesus myth was born then you would understand that it was simply one of many invented religions that hit all the right 'notes' to catch fire and spread and thrive. Then, much later, once Constantine converted, that's all she wrote. And Constantine, my Christian friends is the only reason you are a Christian (not Jesus).

There was one group who DID in fact understand that Jesus was not a historical figure, but they were eraddicated (by Constantine - surprise surprise): The Gnostics. They openly fought with the literalists and lost. Most likely because a literal Christian religion is much 'easier' to believe than the one the Gnostics practiced.

People attempting to prove the existence of a historical Jesus often cite the same, highly questionable sources for proving that he was a true figure. Nevermind that there have been countless examples of translation errors, forgeries and redacted texts.

Speaking of that, again, the Christians took great pains to erradicate any evidence that the Gnostics even existed, much less the fact that they rejected the existence of a historical jesus, while at the same time respecting the ideas in their gospels as a valid moral code.

Finally, one of the most damning elements to the whole story is the ridiculously derivative nature of the Jesus figure as told in the gospels. Just about EVERY element that was attributed to Jesus was derived from other religions of the time. Not only that, but the punchline is that later Christians realized this and were confronted with the blatant similarities. Their answer? It was the work of the devil. The devil (preemptively) planted these false religions with (false) stories that he knew would one day cause people to question the validity of the gospels.

I am not an atheist. I am not even an agnostic. I don't know what I am. Some days I believe in "The Force", other days "Buddha" seems to be the one to go to, and still others "Christ" has the answers. But, I have the presence of mind to know that these figures are not to be looked to as real people, but as an embodiment of certain ideas put together in a story. I have NO NO NO problem with people following the Christian code of ethics. In fact, I agree with most of them. I DO feel a responsibility to inform people who are ill informed about the history of their own religion. If nothing else, it might wake up literalists who use the exact words of the gospels to justify things that are clearly not in the SPIRIT of the teachings.

[riderinthestorm]

78. My own path to atheism came when I studied Constantine

and later, the Council of Nicea.

I then took a religious iconography course and it becomes overwhelmingly clear that the Jesus story is an amalgam of earlier religious narratives, shaped by politics and brute force, bound into the Bible and dictated to be "the truth!"

It's astounding that the OP's points are denounced as flamebait if anyone took even one afternoon to google some relevant historical information.

Thanks for your informative post. The TRUTH does matter.

May the force be with you! (Alas, it's not with me but it would be nice if it were with someone here on DU!)

[pnwmom]

84. I think his post was "flamebait" because of the verbal fuel that

he used. He said that "anyone with an ounce of understanding" thinks as he does. That's insulting a lot of other people.

This could have been an entirely different kind of discussion if he had begun it in a less aggressive way.

[Goblinmonger]

128. What if the OP were

"anyone with an ounce of understanding knows that KKKarl Rove is a fucking criminal"? Any alerts then?

How about
"anyone with an ounce of understanding knows that there were no WMD in Iraq." Watch out--its a flamefest.

No, but when the post is something else that history seems to hold is true (at least there are NO CREDIBLE sources to back it up), yet is believed by 85% of Americans, well, then, the OP is just an asshole.

Sometimes it would really be easier to just stop being an atheist. Too bad that is impossible for me.

[Proud_Democratt]

142. I refuse to stop "speaking out" ...we've been silenced

and voluntarily silent way too long! We need more rationalism, reason, and logic in our world.
There are religious faiths that can help and support Atheism in this quest, but NOT Christian or Moslem Fundamentalists!

[TallahasseeGrannie]

228. The flamebait portion of the OP

is NOT his opinion about the existence of Christ as a historical figure. It is the little phrase "anyone with an ounce of understanding.." which means "If you don't agree with me you are an idiot."

Not, anyone with an ounce of understanding must know that this is a very old argument and there are libraries of books written on each side. A simple Google search might be interesting, but men and women have spent entire scholarly lives debating this issue. To think that just because you heard a professor say such and such or read a document you are now enlightened and know the TRUTH is egocentric and naive at the same time. Which I am sure you are not, as you appear to be a sensible, thinking person.

Had the OP simply put out the argument that in his/her opinion Jesus was a myth, and then supported it with facts, that would have not been flamebait.

However, being honest, it would have gotten about ten responses. So maybe flamebait is a good thing sometimes?

[pnwmom]

83. You're attacking a straw man when you speak of waking up

"literalists" among D.U.ers. Give me a break. I've never run into a fundamentalist Christian here. Though there must be some, they're few and far between. And you know what, if they're here anyway (because of a progressive social agenda), despite the verbal abuse that's heaped on them, then I respect them even more.

And by the way, I studied religious history too, at a secular college (where most majors are atheists, as I was, for a time). But ultimately I reached different conclusions than you did.

Again, you can't prove, rationally, the non-existence of God, who by definition exists outside of rational limits.

[riderinthestorm]

86. It's not up to non-believers to prove a negative

It's up to believers to prove God exists.

[Proud_Democratt]

89. There may never be proof....it is based on faith. Will faith

alone carry Christianity another 2000 years? I doubt it.

[The Straight Story]

99. But one can act on said belief until it is proven - like in math

Fermat, prime number theory (Riemann's zeta function), and so on.

Sure we work to prove them (and in fermat's have) but many still operated under the assumption such was true.

Same with physics and newton/einstein. Sure, newton was right - but only within limits. We still operated fine on his principles (and still do) even if they don't work well enough in all frames.

You derive a belief and search to prove it - and until you prove it if strong evidence is not there to destroy you act as though it will be proven.

[riderinthestorm]

106. Fine by me.

Then don't destroy/exclude/demonize those of us who insist on proof. Until such proof is provided, all theories are valid.

For now, the greater balance of proof suggests that Jesus was not the person posited in the Bible. For now, the greater balance of proof suggests no divine entity.

[The Straight Story]

133. I don't look for proof

of the faith of the American Indians, or those of Islamic faith, or buddhists, et al. But I don't see how we gain, as a party, by telling them they are full of shit and that their beliefs are a bunch of crap. Not very inclusive to me.

Being a Democrat is a belief - ie, you believe democrats are the best party. If that could be PROVEN than we would all be democrats, but not all are (greens, independents, conservatives, liberals, et al).

We all have to go on something - and proof, at times, seems relative.

[Proud_Democratt]

141. There are alot of people just plain tired of the Right Wing

intrusion in our politics since the Reagan years. They have too much power in our daily lives and our Constitution.
IMO...Christianity is based on many lies, as is the Bush Administration.
When many people think of Bush, they think of Christian BS "at work"

[phrenzy]

94. Not All Christians Are Literalists..

But those who refuse to investigate the historical basis for their religion in the name of 'keeping faith' etc are enabling the fundies who use the literal interpretation of their religion for a host of bad things.

I fully recognize there are plenty of 'spiritual christians' who basically hold the 'Christ Spirit' in their heart. That is totally cool. What I'm talking about here is intellectual honesty.

[okasha]

100. Sorry, but your post is no more "intellectually honest" than "the Bible

says it, I believe it, and that settles it." A bald declaration with no supporting facts has no validity.

[Inland]

88. It's not much of a point, really.

So what if Jesus is a derivative figure, in some sense? Christians admit that, indeed, Jesus is derivative of the very concept of sacrifice found in the old testament.

Moreover, one would expect god and man to be clued into the same themes that have resonated throughout history. If it's a good theme, and resonates, and is inspiring, I would expect it to be used, not skipped by god by some concept of copyright.

Even so, there's nothing much about the jesus mythology that says "this is a winner" to me. As Keith Richard said, a guy hanging on a piece of wood....what kind of logo is THAT?

To some extent, this is a repeat of the threads that tell christians that christmas trees and easter eggs are pagan symbols, put on stilts. Really, it's the least of the problems of faith.

[moose65]

170. Wow.... that was well-said!

Great post! I have long believed that the single most significant event in all of history was Constantine's "conversion" to Christianity. Without that, the faith would not have spread into Europe and by extension, to America. And, like you, I don't know what I am, either! I grew up attending church every time the door was opened, but now at 40 I have effectively Lost My Religion (tm). I just got tired of it after all that time!

[TallahasseeGrannie]

171. See, Phrenzy

you have said it all. You "can't for the life" of you figure out why....etc. You can't. You can't get into another person's brain. You can't experience their life, their emotions, their private world. To you, it seems evident that you have the scoop because it makes sense to YOU. But there are some of us who have different world views, different perspectives and different experiences. And to even attempt to go there is useless. Some of us believe because it is our culture, and a bright person like you must realize how pervasive culture is. Some of us believe because of a life-long history of prayer and personal answer to prayer. We work at it. I'm not going to trot out every single personal evidence I have, because I have no interest in trying to make you believe what I believe. I would never presume to do that.

I know a lot of evil has been done by Christians. But a lot of evil has been done by...men, period.

T-G

[patrice]

91. As are All - to some extent.

[bluesbassman]

139. I guess it all depends on the "history book" your reading.

Seems like there have been a lot of posts here citing one reference or another to support the supposition that Jesus was not a historical figure. I find it rather humorous actually, that in order to refute some writings that are close to 2000 years old we are supposed to take at face value other writings that are close to 2000 years old. :shrug:

So who are we supposed to believe? Did the early Christians have an agenda? Did the Gnostics? Were the Gnostic scribes that much more accurate than their Christian peers? I'm guessing that if we had access to the exact documents that are the basis for these differing views and accounts, we would not be having this discussion.

I suppose it really comes to what supports ones own core beliefs. While there is much in the Scriptures that I cannot scientifically or even logically explain, there is also much which I identify with, and answers questions that I can find no answer to in the physical/scientific realm. Does that mean it's correct and the truth? It is for me. But that doesn't mean that it has to be so for anyone else. I think we all have to find our own way through life, and what's absurd to me is to believe that every piece of literature, whether written 2000 years ago or just yesterday, and whether it's fiction or non-fiction, is going to guide everyone in the same fashion.

For the record, I didn't take the OP as flamebait or an insult to my faith. But do you think we would have had this many posts if the post had just said "Jesus was not real"?

[phrenzy]

189. You Are Not Entitled To Your "Own Facts"

You ARE, however, entitled to your own opinion.

Many people are mistaking my OP for some kind of attack on the notion of Christianity as a religious dogma. That is not what I am saying. I'm saying that any rudimentary examination of the evidence points to Jesus NOT being a historical figure. That doesn't mean you still can't believe in Christianity - the spirit of the religion.

You can argue that you 'choose' to believe that Santa was/is a 'real' person in history, that doesn't make it so. It also certainly doesn't mean that we should teach the stories of his life as if they were hisotircal events. The problem with the Jesus story is that it has been IMPOSED on everyone that this person actually existed. The only thing even left open to debate is just how miraculous he really was. That is BS. The fact of the matter is, there is way more evidence pointing to his non-existence and that is rarely even addressed.

If you choose to plug your ears and scream LA-LA-LA at the notion that Jesus wasn't a historical figure, fine - but don't expect me to respect it any more than I do with any other fundie's contradictions of common sense.

[Ron Green]

201. See my post #52. The allegory is far more important than the history.

[bluesbassman]

222. And neither are you.

You too are entitled to your own opinion. But you are not really trying to state your opinion here, are you? You continue to assert that YOUR evidence is the absolute truth. As I indicated in a previous post, you want to use the ancient writings of a various religious entities to "prove" that Jesus of Nazareth did not exist. That's fine as long as you present it for what it is; verification of your opinion. Why should you expect a believer to accept what you're presenting as true, because you believe it to be true? Because "experts" have concurred?

Then you try to sugar coat your disdain for Christianity by saying that you're not trying to attack it and that a person can still be a "Christian" through the "spirit of religion". That is pure hogwash and you know it. Without Christ, there is no Christianity. Christ, His life on Earth and His death were all the culmination of God's promises to the Israelites first, and then to the rest of the world, and was the fulfillment of the prophecies supporting those promises. Those are the facts of Christianity and to suggest that Christianity does not require Christ is absurd. Now I'm not suggesting that you believe any part those promises or prophesies, I'm just saying that there is a reason for the appearance of Christ and documentation (the Bible) to support it. You obviously do not accept the validity of that documentation and that is your right. But try to tell me that because of the writings that you believe support your view, I am supposed to believe that I can be a Christian without Christ.

And you know what? The "problem" with the Jesus story is not that poor you is having it "imposed" upon him, the "problem' is that it's there for you to believe or not to believe. You don't believe, fine, share why you don't believe and present your evidence to support your position. But your rigid adherence to the "facts" you hold true, with little or no respect for the opposing position, puts you right in the same leaky boat as the religious extremists and fundies you so obviously loathe.

[phrenzy]

223. Intelligent Designer

I guess people promoting I.D. have the 'right to their opinion' - I have the right to tell anybody who will listen that this is idiocy and deliberate ignorance of the facts. So, yes, if your entire basis of 'faith' is belief in a historical Jesus, then you are wrong. It is not a matter of opinion, it is simply a matter of the record of history objectively analyzed with no religious agenda. You claim the Bible is a historical document? O.K. I guess that's ends all debate in your mind over the age of the earth, the origin of man, etc.

Claiming Jesus didn't exist in history makes your entire religion fall apart? Well, you might want to have a word with the Gnostics about how 'valid' their faith was seeing as they also didn't believe in a literal historical Christ.

Also, do you believe all of gospels or just the one the council of Nicea and Constantine chose for you?

[okasha]

218. Some questions.

1. Gnosticism is not a "folk" religion. It is a highly intellectualized approach to, among other things, the problem of evil and the nature of divinity, not the sort of faith that arises in the context of a subsistence economy. That being so, your mythical Jesus religion must have a founder or founders, and they must have lived in Judea in a rather narrow time frame of about 35 years, ending with the destruction of Jerusalem by the Romans. Said founder(s) must also have arisen from the upper classes of the region, since no one else would have either the mythological/literary knowledge or the time on their hands to create a religion. Identify the founder(s) of this faith, at least as a class of persons. An individual or group of individuals would be preferable. What evidence do you have to support the founder(s)' identity?

2. For more than a century before the fall of Jerusalem and the resultant Diaspora, the people of Judea had been in imminent expectation of one or more Messiah figures. Each of these Messiahs was to be recognized by certain very specific features involving ancestry, social position and actions in the real world. What would persuade a large number of pious, monotheistic Jews that an essentially pagan figure, invented on the spot, fulfilled these requirements?

3. Many undeniably historical figures--Alexander the Great, for example--accrued a thick layer of mythological associations, including the attribution of divinity. A good many more lived lives that follow quite closely the heroic/mythic pattern laid down by Campbell and Raglan. (By Raglan's scale, Richard III was mythical.) Why would the accretion of by no means uncommon mythological tropes around the figure of Jesus of Nazareth make a decisive argument for his fictional nature when it makes no such case for other figures?

4. Which of the above characteristics do you regard as decisive?

5. If Gnosticism was "stamped out" by Constantine, how do you account for the several Gnostic sects that flourished during the Dark and Middle Ages? How do you account for the infiltration of the Catholic hierarchy, both ecclesiastical and secular, by Gnostics? On what grounds do you equate Arianism and Gnosticism?

That will do for starters.

[phrenzy]

219. Good Points But...

Are you saying that

A: Simply because Christianity exists, it is evidence that Christ existed? By that standard there are many things of fantasy that should also exist. Should I believe in Thetans because L Ron Hubbard proclaimed their existence relatively recently? If a group of people in an upstart religion decided to invent a figure to embody their ideas would that not do it? There are plenty of examples of this happening both before and after the legend of Jesus was born. And all of those legends had to have 'inventors' as well.

Do you deny that there was a concerted and organized effort to erradicate and erase an existence of Gnostisism?

You pose a bunch of complicated questions that seem designed to make some kind of point, I don't see what the point is, or what the expected conclusion is. If it is to say that by the fact that "A lot of people believed in Jesus early on" must be evidence of his existence - well, that's just wrong. There are plenty of examples of up-start religions that simply did not find the 'perfect storm' of social circumstance to thrive in the way Christianity did.

[okasha]

220. I am saying that your assertions, if they're to be taken seriously,

must account for a number of known factors in the historical context of the rise of Christianity. I'm asking you to respond to questions designed to elicit an accounting of those factors. Very simple, actually.

[phrenzy]

221. The factors you listed...

Pale in comparison to the dozens and dozens of similar questions that can be asked to debunk any evidence of his true existence. All you listed were a bunch of arguments that ring similar to the creationist questions of "Well, how could the universe NOT be created by God?! There are too many signs of 'intelligent design!'"

Just because a bunch of his contemporaries all agreed on the Jesus legend does not make him real. Indeed, much of what is written in the Gospels are decades or even centuries after his supposed existence. But, let me account for your questions. Answer? People at that time were very susceptible to myths and cults and there were many people who felt the need to fill people's need for new dogmas that may be more spiritually fulfilling at a given time. A few guys dropped acid and came up with "The Christ" and named him Jesus. Started wandering around spreading the tale, and people believed it. Good enough?


Again, please list ONE extra-biblical first-hand account of 'meeting' Jesus.

[okasha]

225. Everyone is entitled to an opinion.

Not everyone is entitled to credibility.

Anyone who has "studied the history of religions, especially in the time that the Jesus myth was born" realizes that your hypothesis raises a number of essential questions. If you cannot answer those questions, then your hypothesis cannot be taken seriously. You seem to be vigorously resisting giving answers to those questions. Surely, since you imply that "you have studied the history of religions, especially in the time that the Jesus myth was born" you've considered them in the process of arriving at your conclusions and should have ready answers for them. Since you make such a definite assertion, it would be appropriate for you to share those answers with us.

[papau]

239. LOL - nice try to get real thought from the cut and paste crowd :-)

:toast:

:-)

[TallahasseeGrannie]

230. Phrenzy,

your certainty about these issues is simply amazing. Your complete trust in your sources, their reasoning and judgments is obvious. But how deeply have you studied the other side of the issue? Certainly there are compelling points for both sides.

And in the absence of a time machine, in my opinion, the wise person says: "I choose to agree with so-and-so for such-and-such reason; but the bottom line is that nobody knows for certain."

I wonder, from your enthusiam, if you are very young? And that is not a dig or an insult.

Just be careful. People who are entirely convinced they are RIGHT are very often the same types of folks that can be convinced easily in the other direction, if the convincer is good enough. Always hold out just a bit of doubt. Always. It keeps you strong.

[phrenzy]

234. Ask yourself this:

If Christianity had not been mainstreamed by Constantine, and you just stumbled upon the Gospels, would you believe that Jesus was a true historical figure, or a religious allegory?

Sure, it doesn't prove that he does NOT exist, and I can never be 100% certain that there was no man named Jesus, but the proponderance of the evidence points dramatically to his being an invented figure.

[TallahasseeGrannie]

235. Okay, I'm thinking hard.

If I stumbled across the Gospels but had never heard of the man... That's really difficult to say. I think I would be enormously intrigued because of the similarities of the stories and the fact that they were written within a couple of generations. I am not certain whether the gospels were written far enough away from the events to have become allegories.

If I knew a bit about the histories of his followers, and the fact that many were martyred, I would draw the conclusion that something happened that made these men willing to give their lives for a very strange cause. Using my own values as a guide, I would conclude that they would only be willing to do so if the story in the Gospels was true and they witnessed it. They didn't appear to have any reason to lay down the party line, because at that time, the "party" wasn't powerful, wealthy.

I think I would conclude that something extraordinary happened in those years that resonated with the energy to create the Church, despite persecution. (the real kind!)

I question your use of the word "preponderance" of evidence. I question but can't prove. This is not my area. But my common sense tells me that there have been humans studying, searching, for 2000 years to both prove and disprove this man's existence. I'm not very logical, but my logic tells me that much. This is not a new topic. Just the fact that we have information available to us in bytes on the Internet does not mean suddenly we have the proof we need.

And then...it flips into faith mode. Because my emotions, my intuition, my heart, my soul, tells me there is truth to the story. And sadly, you can't go there with me. I am sure the story has been changed, bastardized, and tailored to fit agendas. And yet there is a chord that resonates in me, and when I access this place I get answers. It is not facts. It is an inner truth that I hear, and it is not based on my five senses or my intellect. It is based somewhere else. If I knew where, I would explain.

But because I have this faith, I also have faith that everything is for a reason, including your disbelief. It all fits as part of the puzzle. We all play roles in this universe that I don't understand, which is why I don't waste time trying to prove anything. But I think this chord will resonate in humans forever, and it can't be educated out of them.

Peace


T-Grannie

[Finder]

241. Then Jim Jones, David Koresh were prophets you are saying?

The logic/rationale you suggest:

"If I knew a bit about the histories of his followers, and the fact that many were martyred, I would draw the conclusion that something happened that made these men willing to give their lives for a very strange cause. Using my own values as a guide, I would conclude that they would only be willing to do so if the story in the Gospels was true and they witnessed it. They didn't appear to have any reason to lay down the party line, because at that time, the "party" wasn't powerful, wealthy."

Makes me wonder if a couple of hundred years from now, these nutcases will be the new Jesus figures based on the actions of their followers.

[trotsky]

233. Your questions are misleading and incomplete.

But I would ask that you focus on just one aspect: How does ANY religion come about? Yes, we do need to consider just how many people of that time were literate and even had one iota of a clue about other religions out there. Surely you accept that religions can merge and evolve, right? Why couldn't an existing pagan myth have undergone a few substitutions/changes and ended up as fulfillment of the Jewish Messiah prophecy? Isn't this just as likely, knowing how religions originate and change, as there being an actual, real messiah? Maybe even MORE likely, given just how superstitious and ignorant much of the population of the world was at the time?

[okasha]

268. I disagree; the questions are not misleading. They are certainly

incomplete, however. Given that poor phrenzy couldn't even cope with five, it would have been unkind to bombard him with a couple dozen.

"How does ANY religion come about?"

In the ancient world, religions came about over spans of hundreds, perhaps thousands of years. Most began with a divine couple and their offspring and reflected the agrarian or pastoralist cultures of the people among whom they arose. They arose out of observation of the natural world, with divinity found in the sources of power in that world: the fertility of the earth, the terror of lightning, sun, moon, stars. It was a very long, very gradual process, developed through social consensus about what was important to a given people.

Individually "invented" religions, such as Scientology or the Unification Church, are a modern phenomenon and depend heavily on mass communication. Their process is entirely different.

"Surely you accept that religions can merge and evolve, right?"

Obviously. There's even a name for that. It's called syncretism. Note the introduction of significant male gods into the goddess culture of the Agean area with the coming of the Myceneans. Note the evolution of the Canaanite/Hebrew El into Yahweh, shedding his divine consort Asherah along the way and going from sky/storm/war god to a national deity whose prophets preached the Peaceable Kingdom of Isaiah. No surprise there. It should also be noted that it is, strictly speaking, the human perception of deity that is changing, not necessarily the deity
him/herself.

"Why couldn't an existing pagan myth have undergone a few substitutions/changes and ended up as fulfillment of the Jewish Messiah prophecy?"

Quick answer: because the fulfillment of the Jewish Messiah prophecy required a real person interacting with real history. The Davidic Messiah was not to be a god, but a righteous king of the line of David;
the Priestly Messiah was to be a righteous High Priest of the line of Aaron; and the Prophetic Messiah was to be a lawgiver of a stature similar to Moses. It would not have been possible to say, circumcise Hermes, take away his funky sandals and claim the makeover turned him into the prophesied king, priest or prophet. People would notice.

"Isn't this just as likely, knowing how religions originate and change, as there being an actual, real messiah?"

No. Especially knowing how religions originate and change.

And, just for Phrenzy: Here are three extra-Biblical works in which followers claim to meet Jesus in the flesh: The Gospel of Thomas, the Gospel of Mary and the Gospel of Judas. Deal with it.

[phrenzy]

271. You haven't proven anything...

Someone as studied in religion as you are must be able to see the evidence that early Christianity was the latest incarnation of a savior godman incorporating various elements from an eclectic mix of various other "mystery" religions. The birth, death and resurrection were well established religious metaphors for the search for 'spiritual wisdom'

And you must also know that many early Christians were docetic - they believed in Jesus as an allegory and spiritual being. In fact, in the letters attributed to Paul state that he never even MET Jesus, but saw him in 'visions'

Oh, and is that you trying to be funny? Using the excluded Christian Gospels as 'evidence' of his historicity?

Again, your argument boils down to: People wouldn't become Christians if there wasn't a "real" person Christ. You forget, legends can be born and written about as if true, especially when dealing with religions. Never mind the evolution the 'gospels' must have gone through when being embellished during the oral recounts of such a fantastic figure.

[okasha]

272. Oh, I do think I've proved something.

Not necessarily what you had in mind, though.

Look, phrenzy. You obviously can't address the historical context in which Christianity, and Jewish eschatology before it, arose. You have no credibility until you do. End of that discussion.

Now, you've noticed that the story of the gospels, and especially the events of Jesus' life and death, fit an archetypal pattern. Bully for you. Hundreds of thousands of people have been there before you. I suggest you get away from the websites and do some serious reading. Start with something nice and thick about Roman Judea. Then read Campbell and some European history. Notice that some indisputably historical people fit the same pattern of savior-who-dies-for-the-land.

"Oh, and is that you trying to be funny? Using the excluded Christian Gospels as 'evidence' of his historicity?"

Nope. Just answering your demand that I name some extra-Biblical works that claim first hand knowledge of a real Jesus. With some Gnostic texts.

Now--get thee to a library.

[godhatesrepublicans]

254. If the words attributed to Jesus have meaning, does it MATTER?

I hate to flog a dead horse, but if the Sermon on the Mount and the Sermon on the Plain are good ideas to live by, why the hell debate his existence or nonexistence?

I believe he was real, and that he did what the gospels said, but the POINT is that what he preached MADE SENSE as a good way to live in a society.

I don't need his fingerprints and a notarized birth certificate if the philosophy has merit.

Now if anyone wants to debate me on his ethical teachings, fine. But the "real vs. not real" debate is pointless, because no one can "prove" Socrates was real either, and no one bothers to try.

[SPKrazy]

270. I Agree Totally, Even If It Was All Made Up

it still is a message that God loves us

and that we should love our neighbors as we love ourselves, and we should love ourselves as we love our neighbors.

peace

[rug]

274. Yes, the parallels are uncanny.

An old-Iranian god of light, contracts and friendship. He also maintains the cosmic order. Sometimes mentioned as the son of Ahura Mazda, he assists him in his struggle against the forces of evil, represented by Angra Mainyu. Mithra was born from a rock (or a cave). He fought with the sun and managed to capture the divine bull and slayed it before he ascended to heaven. From the blood of the bull came forth all the plants and animals beneficial to humanity.

www.pantheon.org

:eyes:

[TreasonousBastard]

276. And you know this how? For one thing...

most Gnostic texts disappeared long ago and, aside from the few found at Nag Hammadi, pretty much all we have to go on are early Church apologetics decrying Gnosticism.

Which Gnostics anyway? Valentinius? Even his followers seem to have thought he was a bit nuts.

But, be that as it may, some modern churches are getting away from doctrinaire beliefs about Jesus and looking further at the systems behind the myths and stories. It is getting to the point among the more liberal churches that "belief in Jesus" is more belief in the ideal of Jesus than belief in the actual person. In many Christian circles, one can be quite agnostic about divinity, but still be a Christian.