Eh, there are a number of skeptics who currently advocate the Jesus myth, but none of the arguments follow historical method and so no historians take their arguments seriously. But yes, I'd like a source for the claim too.
1. Why were Adam and Eve cast out of the Garden of Eden for disobedience? If God's mercy is infinite, as we are told, then there can be NO limits to it, and he would have forgiven Adam and Eve on the spot.
ah, that's because that happened in the old testament, the one with the angry, vengeful god who rains fire and brimstone down on sinners, and stomps on infidels with his size fifteen thousand sandals.
the god with the infinite mercy is the kindly one with the fluffy beard from the sequel, erm, I mean new testament
It's true that athiests mostly don't force their views on others, and certainly don't start wars over atheism, but I would argue with you about atheism (if you and others don't mind) - I just don't understand the atheist viewpoint. How can you believe, with absolute certainty, that God doesn't exist? There's no proof of that, any more than there's proof that he does exist. I don't mean to sound offensive, and I've seen enough of your posts to know that you're intelligent and don't take offensive where none is clearly meant, but to me atheism is as blind and closed minded as the insistant belief in a religion.
I'm an atheist too, but that doesn't mean I believe there are no gods any more than I believe there are.
they call it implicit atheism according to wikipedia.
you assume I believe there are no gods, just because I don't believe there are gods. it's not the same. I couldn't care less whether there's a god or not, cause clearly gods don't actually do anything. they're like aliens, they might be out there, but they never come and park their spaceship outside and come in for tea.
it's possible to prove something exists (assuming it does!) but impossible to prove that something doesn't, so the best a religious atheist will get out of me is that I think it is improbable that gods exist.
as for God, I don't believe he exists, not all the different things that it says in religious texts that all contradict each other, just reading it, you can tell that the stories have been passed down by illiterate people as explanations for things they didn't understand. the people who take them literally need their heads examining :-)
I tell them that they're too late, that the world ended years ago, and we're all in the afterlife, waiting for our chance to be re-born on a new world. :D:D It's funny when they tell you that you must be mad!
Maybe Iesous was Isus back in them days huh? :)..looks close!
I asked you who Isus was. Your name looks like something I eat with chips.
Do a google on Yeshua....its pretty much all you need to do. hundreds of pages about it...granted its up for debate but seems pretty clear Jesus would not have responded to 'hey Jesus!' if you yelled at him in the street!
Cut and paste example.
"Yeshua is the original Hebrew proper name for Jesus of Nazareth, a Jewish Rabbi (and more) who lived from about 6 B.C.E. to 27 C.E. (A.D.) In other words, Yeshua was the name His mother called Him when shall called Him for supper.
Wonderful, your example refutes your claim. A jewish rabbi who lived from about 6 BCE to 27 CE? Thank you !
Jesus is a mis-transliteration of the Greek mis-transliteration, Yeysu. (Some say the name Jesus probably developed from the name of the pagan god Zeus, but there is little or no evidence for this.) It is true that Emporer Constatine mistook Jesus for the Greek god Apollo, but that is another story.
:roll: Might be good if you looked up some Jewish history before you say such things. The Jews were specifically opposed to imbibing anything pagan. Who cares about some emperor who lived three centuries later??? What's that got to do with the existance of Jesus?
I know about the whole blood thing being holy (human blood, not the same with animals) and there are a few other points which have been posted here which I believe are quite wrong but I shall not go into detail because I am not an expert in JW matters.
Yep inaccurate or misrepresented statements, some (or all) probably deliberately made to be inflammatory and painting of entire groups with one brush for the nasty weaknesses of a minority. It's all about feeling superior to morons; no atheists don't shove it down others' throats (except the militant ones of course) they just like belittling others for their own unprovable convictions.
Please, please read with a smiley. If I were religious I would take offense to being deliberately misrepresented and here's a little return from the unheard masses. But I won't lie -- I do think there's a grain of truth in the above...
Eh, there are a number of skeptics who currently advocate the Jesus myth, but none of the arguments follow historical method and so no historians take their arguments seriously. But yes, I'd like a source for the claim too.
why does anyone care that much about the correct name of a confidence trickster from over a thousand years ago, who played on people's desire for a prophesied saviour to gain poularity? :wink:
that oughta wind a few people up :D
/me boards up the windows
I'm an atheist too, but that doesn't mean I believe there are no gods any more than I believe there are.
they call it implicit atheism according to wikipedia.
you assume I believe there are no gods, just because I don't believe there are gods. it's not the same. I couldn't care less whether there's a god or not, cause clearly gods don't actually do anything. they're like aliens, they might be out there, but they never come and park their spaceship outside and come in for tea.
it's possible to prove something exists (assuming it does!) but impossible to prove that something doesn't, so the best a religious atheist will get out of me is that I think it is improbable that gods exist.
as for God, I don't believe he exists, not all the different things that it says in religious texts that all contradict each other, just reading it, you can tell that the stories have been passed down by illiterate people as explanations for things they didn't understand. the people who take them literally need their heads examining :-)
That would surely make you agnostic, as I thought atheism was the strong belief that there's no God. I think it's improbable that gods exist - particularly the one from the new testament. But I'll never know for sure. I take the Confucian view that we should concentrate on the here and know, because questions on the existence or not of God(s) are pointless and distracting, since we can never know for sure what the answers are.
:roll: Might be good if you looked up some Jewish history before you say such things. The Jews were specifically opposed to imbibing anything pagan. Who cares about some emperor who lived three centuries later??? What's that got to do with the existance of Jesus?
the emperor bit was not meant to mean anything...was just in the cut and paste..ALL regions have some basis on Paganism...though few will admit it.
No.. :) not familiar with the guy so can't comment. Did you do a google on Yeshua yet? I could cut and paste all day but really its interesting reading (even if it turns out to be wrong).
I'm not trying to stir anything up...Just think is another interesting fact that most people are not aware that his name is in dispute...as it is....Fact is Jesus was not a name of the time and he would not have responded to it...that bits pretty much given if you do some research.
That would surely make you agnostic, as I thought atheism was the strong belief that there's no God. I think it's improbable that gods exist - particularly the one from the new testament. But I'll never know for sure. I take the Confucian view that we should concentrate on the here and know, because questions on the existence or not of God(s) are pointless and distracting, since we can never know for sure what the answers are.
nope Atheism means; a - not, theism - the belief in a god
so it means not believing in a god.
I don't believe in a god, therefore I'm an atheist
Beanz: I am a researcher. I prefer reading books to using google and Wikipedia thanks (do you use these resources critically?). I have a whole library on the subject of Jesus/Yeshua.
Believing in god(s) and explicitly disbelieving in god(s) are conceptually identical. Both require faith.
If anything, the believers stand more chance of proving their case because, as has been stated previously, it is impossible to prove the non-existence of something.
In any case, I'm of the opinion that the mass of evidence strongly argues against the existence of invisible sky-fairies.
The only thing that *really* gets my goat about religion are the completely idiotic tools that try and present religious ideas as science; google the wedge document, bananas: the atheist's nightmare and life from peanut butter as good examples of their idiocy. People like that should be kicked out of the gene pool.
I actually worked with someone who believed vehemently in Intelligent Design. So I asked her to explain gravity. She could not, but she thought my theory of Intelligent Falling - little fairies whose job it was to pull the objects to the ground - was ridiculous.
The point that just because we don't understand a mechanism doesn't make it magical was lost on her... And that's really an attitude we should have left behind in the middle ages.
I'm not trying to stir anything up...Just think is another interesting fact that most people are not aware that his name is in dispute...as it is....Fact is Jesus was not a name of the time and he would not have responded to it...that bits pretty much given if you do some research.
Ah yes. I can see now that you're not disputing that the historical figure existed. You're merely saying that he wasn't called "Jesus". I can agree with you - I was already aware of this.
Until beanz provides his evidence, I'm inclined to agree with you. As an agnostic, I will only believe what can be proven / demonstrated - and independent historical sources are good enough for me.
What he didn't tell you is that they were written many years after the events took place, and presumably never met him. Tacitus was written in about 115CE, and Josephus in about 94CE. Given that Jesus was supposed to have died some time before 36CE, that hardly makes them contemporary sources.
Personally, I'm of the opinion that Jesus probably existed. However, given that everything we know about him is from secondary sources, written and re-written many years after him, we've only got a very sketchy idea of what he was actually like, which is hardly something worth laying down and worshipping.
I still want to know who his dad was.
you'd think he'd have come forward and admitted it, seeing as Jesus was the son of God, therefore, by definition his dad must have been God.
it's not every man who gets mistaken for a deity just because he got a married woman pregnant :-) in fact, that's the only case I can think of :lol:
I actually worked with someone who believed vehemently in Intelligent Design. So I asked her to explain gravity. She could not, but she thought my theory of Intelligent Falling - little fairies whose job it was to pull the objects to the ground - was ridiculous.
The point that just because we don't understand a mechanism doesn't make it magical was lost on her... And that's really an attitude we should have left behind in the middle ages.
:lol: Hilarious!
This Intelligent Design business just infuriates me. It just amazes me how people insist that black is white and refuse to acknowledge the reams of evidence for evolution.
Matt: your methods would throw doubt upon 99% of people who ever lived from the history books. (sentence edited for clarification)
Beanz. Clarify if you will, do you mean the founder of the Christian faith existed but did not use the English name "Jesus"? If I misunderstood your initial claim as meaning the historical figure didn't exist, then I apologise.
Beanz: I am a researcher. I prefer reading books to using google and Wikipedia thanks (do you use these resources critically?). I have a whole library on the subject of Jesus/Yeshua.
I'm a great believer in getting cross sources and form my own opinion based on the info I have gathered and a smattering of common sense...a book is no more valid as proof of anything than a whispered gossip or a internet page.
I'll certainly defer to your knowledge as I only take a passing interest in the 'popular' press so to speak but I've seen/read an awful lot regarding his name for it all to be made up?
Basically I have an open mind on pretty much everything...I do have leanings towards certain idea/suggestions and on this subject I'm leaning towards Jesus was not his name or the correct pronunciation of it.
Anyway...your not so mad at me your gonna hold my Deus ex machina hostage are you? :)
Matt: your methods would throw doubt upon 99% of people who ever lived from the history books. (sentence edited for clarification)
Beanz. Clarify if you will, do you mean the founder of the Christian faith existed but did not use the English name "Jesus"? If I misunderstood your initial claim as meaning the historical figure didn't exist, then I apologise.
Oh no..I belive the historical figure existed...I just think we have his name spelt wrong! :)
Oh no..I belive the historical figure existed...I just think we have his name spelt wrong! :)
Ah gotcha. Sorry for the confusion then. And no, I'm sending you Deus Ex Machina whether you believed in Jesus' existance or not - it has no bearing on our prior agreement.
Why does God (the one I was brought up to believe in), the all powerful all knowing power of ultimate good, need me, something he created, to battle Satan for him? Why can't this all powerful force of good get rid of satan once and for all? Because he can't? - In which case, he ain't that strong. Because he can't be bothered? In which case, he ain't so perfect! 'Cos it isn'ty that simple? Ah, but something as powerful as god could make it so, right? Well, I'd have thought so anyway. Sorry, but if I gave a crap, I could feel very let down about the whole thing.
Why does this god let his children die or kill in his name? Would any parent on this forum let their child kill another for your love? Would any parent on this forum be happy if their child killed their brother or sister?
See, that's the "all powerful" and "all caring" diety out the window as far as I'm concerned. So, in my mind, any religion that says their god is all powerful or all caring are in error. And, that's most if not all of them. So, assuming there is an all powerful being, it doesn't give a shit about you, me or the whole feckin planet - for the reqsons already stated.
Of course, if somebody chooses to see things differently, that's fine - just don't bother to tell me all about it and tell me I'm wrong - cos you can't prove you're right, and besides, I don't want to know. Greater minds than mine have been trying to prove things one way or the other for 2,000 years now - they've failed, so why should I bother?
Things like people claiming to know the true word of god etc are obvious liars - even if they believe what they say to be true. You cannot base a faith upon what people say - or indeed what they don't say. You can only base a belief in something that is factual, as anything else is pure folly. You can believe yopu can fly as much as you want, you can even truly believe it. Jump off a high building though, and you'll hit the ground very hard indeed - your belief you can fly will not save you. Is a belief in god any different? If so, WHY? Oh, and don't allow faith or fantasy to cloud your answer, just hard facts please.
This isn't quite what I want to say - it'll have to do tho since I don't really have the vocabulary to express this properly.
Ah gotcha. Sorry for the confusion then. And no, I'm sending you Deus Ex Machina whether you believed in Jesus' existance or not - it has no bearing on our prior agreement.
You know, I've been trying to avoid this thread all day....I am weak :(
Matt: your methods would throw doubt upon 99% of people who ever lived from the history books. (sentence edited for clarification)
That's the rub though. We don't really know anything about people who lived that long ago, other than by what they wrote or what other people wrote about them. Whether they were actually anything like that, especially when practically all we know about them is from their devotees and sycophants, is highly dubious.
An oft-made comparison is between Jesus and Julius Caesar. In the case of the latter, we not only have some of his own writings but those of his enemies, so we can form something more of a balanced picture about him.
Why does God (the one I was brought up to believe in), the all powerful all knowing power of ultimate good, need me, something he created, to battle Satan for him? Why can't this all powerful force of good get rid of satan once and for all? Because he can't? - In which case, he ain't that strong. Because he can't be bothered? In which case, he ain't so perfect! 'Cos it isn'ty that simple? Ah, but something as powerful as god could make it so, right? Well, I'd have thought so anyway. Sorry, but if I gave a crap, I could feel very let down about the whole thing.
Yeah, it's all a load of rubbish, isn't it. Reminds me of the Father Ted episode where Dougal's questions about the meaning of Catholic faith cause that bishop to acknowledge that it's all a load of crap, and leave the church to become a hippy.
Comments
the god with the infinite mercy is the kindly one with the fluffy beard from the sequel, erm, I mean new testament
I'm an atheist too, but that doesn't mean I believe there are no gods any more than I believe there are.
they call it implicit atheism according to wikipedia.
you assume I believe there are no gods, just because I don't believe there are gods. it's not the same. I couldn't care less whether there's a god or not, cause clearly gods don't actually do anything. they're like aliens, they might be out there, but they never come and park their spaceship outside and come in for tea.
it's possible to prove something exists (assuming it does!) but impossible to prove that something doesn't, so the best a religious atheist will get out of me is that I think it is improbable that gods exist.
as for God, I don't believe he exists, not all the different things that it says in religious texts that all contradict each other, just reading it, you can tell that the stories have been passed down by illiterate people as explanations for things they didn't understand. the people who take them literally need their heads examining :-)
I asked you who Isus was. Your name looks like something I eat with chips.
Wonderful, your example refutes your claim. A jewish rabbi who lived from about 6 BCE to 27 CE? Thank you !
:roll: Might be good if you looked up some Jewish history before you say such things. The Jews were specifically opposed to imbibing anything pagan. Who cares about some emperor who lived three centuries later??? What's that got to do with the existance of Jesus?
No comment on Tacitus then. :roll:
Yep inaccurate or misrepresented statements, some (or all) probably deliberately made to be inflammatory and painting of entire groups with one brush for the nasty weaknesses of a minority. It's all about feeling superior to morons; no atheists don't shove it down others' throats (except the militant ones of course) they just like belittling others for their own unprovable convictions.
Please, please read with a smiley. If I were religious I would take offense to being deliberately misrepresented and here's a little return from the unheard masses. But I won't lie -- I do think there's a grain of truth in the above...
Write games in C using Z88DK and SP1
why does anyone care that much about the correct name of a confidence trickster from over a thousand years ago, who played on people's desire for a prophesied saviour to gain poularity? :wink:
that oughta wind a few people up :D
/me boards up the windows
That would surely make you agnostic, as I thought atheism was the strong belief that there's no God. I think it's improbable that gods exist - particularly the one from the new testament. But I'll never know for sure. I take the Confucian view that we should concentrate on the here and know, because questions on the existence or not of God(s) are pointless and distracting, since we can never know for sure what the answers are.
?? how so?...they are referring to the guy we accept as Jesus.
the emperor bit was not meant to mean anything...was just in the cut and paste..ALL regions have some basis on Paganism...though few will admit it.
No.. :) not familiar with the guy so can't comment. Did you do a google on Yeshua yet? I could cut and paste all day but really its interesting reading (even if it turns out to be wrong).
I'm not trying to stir anything up...Just think is another interesting fact that most people are not aware that his name is in dispute...as it is....Fact is Jesus was not a name of the time and he would not have responded to it...that bits pretty much given if you do some research.
Edit: the wiki link
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yeshua_%28name%29
so it means not believing in a god.
I don't believe in a god, therefore I'm an atheist
It's OK - I've looked it up, so I understand the distinction now.
Edit: Best argument on the web against the Jesus myth:
http://www.tektonics.org/jesusexist/jesusexisthub.html
On the reference by Tacitus
http://www.tektonics.org/jesusexist/tacitus.html
If anything, the believers stand more chance of proving their case because, as has been stated previously, it is impossible to prove the non-existence of something.
In any case, I'm of the opinion that the mass of evidence strongly argues against the existence of invisible sky-fairies.
The only thing that *really* gets my goat about religion are the completely idiotic tools that try and present religious ideas as science; google the wedge document, bananas: the atheist's nightmare and life from peanut butter as good examples of their idiocy. People like that should be kicked out of the gene pool.
I actually worked with someone who believed vehemently in Intelligent Design. So I asked her to explain gravity. She could not, but she thought my theory of Intelligent Falling - little fairies whose job it was to pull the objects to the ground - was ridiculous.
The point that just because we don't understand a mechanism doesn't make it magical was lost on her... And that's really an attitude we should have left behind in the middle ages.
/rant over.
Andrew
Ah yes. I can see now that you're not disputing that the historical figure existed. You're merely saying that he wasn't called "Jesus". I can agree with you - I was already aware of this.
What he didn't tell you is that they were written many years after the events took place, and presumably never met him. Tacitus was written in about 115CE, and Josephus in about 94CE. Given that Jesus was supposed to have died some time before 36CE, that hardly makes them contemporary sources.
For that, all we've got is the gospels of the new testament, and it's widely agreed that they were all written well after the fact and contain many contradictions.
Personally, I'm of the opinion that Jesus probably existed. However, given that everything we know about him is from secondary sources, written and re-written many years after him, we've only got a very sketchy idea of what he was actually like, which is hardly something worth laying down and worshipping.
you'd think he'd have come forward and admitted it, seeing as Jesus was the son of God, therefore, by definition his dad must have been God.
it's not every man who gets mistaken for a deity just because he got a married woman pregnant :-) in fact, that's the only case I can think of :lol:
:lol: Hilarious!
This Intelligent Design business just infuriates me. It just amazes me how people insist that black is white and refuse to acknowledge the reams of evidence for evolution.
Beanz. Clarify if you will, do you mean the founder of the Christian faith existed but did not use the English name "Jesus"? If I misunderstood your initial claim as meaning the historical figure didn't exist, then I apologise.
I'm a great believer in getting cross sources and form my own opinion based on the info I have gathered and a smattering of common sense...a book is no more valid as proof of anything than a whispered gossip or a internet page.
I'll certainly defer to your knowledge as I only take a passing interest in the 'popular' press so to speak but I've seen/read an awful lot regarding his name for it all to be made up?
Basically I have an open mind on pretty much everything...I do have leanings towards certain idea/suggestions and on this subject I'm leaning towards Jesus was not his name or the correct pronunciation of it.
Anyway...your not so mad at me your gonna hold my Deus ex machina hostage are you? :)
Oh no..I belive the historical figure existed...I just think we have his name spelt wrong! :)
Ah gotcha. Sorry for the confusion then. And no, I'm sending you Deus Ex Machina whether you believed in Jesus' existance or not - it has no bearing on our prior agreement.
Why does this god let his children die or kill in his name? Would any parent on this forum let their child kill another for your love? Would any parent on this forum be happy if their child killed their brother or sister?
See, that's the "all powerful" and "all caring" diety out the window as far as I'm concerned. So, in my mind, any religion that says their god is all powerful or all caring are in error. And, that's most if not all of them. So, assuming there is an all powerful being, it doesn't give a shit about you, me or the whole feckin planet - for the reqsons already stated.
Of course, if somebody chooses to see things differently, that's fine - just don't bother to tell me all about it and tell me I'm wrong - cos you can't prove you're right, and besides, I don't want to know. Greater minds than mine have been trying to prove things one way or the other for 2,000 years now - they've failed, so why should I bother?
Things like people claiming to know the true word of god etc are obvious liars - even if they believe what they say to be true. You cannot base a faith upon what people say - or indeed what they don't say. You can only base a belief in something that is factual, as anything else is pure folly. You can believe yopu can fly as much as you want, you can even truly believe it. Jump off a high building though, and you'll hit the ground very hard indeed - your belief you can fly will not save you. Is a belief in god any different? If so, WHY? Oh, and don't allow faith or fantasy to cloud your answer, just hard facts please.
This isn't quite what I want to say - it'll have to do tho since I don't really have the vocabulary to express this properly.
You know, I've been trying to avoid this thread all day....I am weak :(
That's the rub though. We don't really know anything about people who lived that long ago, other than by what they wrote or what other people wrote about them. Whether they were actually anything like that, especially when practically all we know about them is from their devotees and sycophants, is highly dubious.
An oft-made comparison is between Jesus and Julius Caesar. In the case of the latter, we not only have some of his own writings but those of his enemies, so we can form something more of a balanced picture about him.
Ah, obviously the work of satan then, putting all that temptation in your way - can't possibly be anything else :D
I wonder when this thread will get locked/deleted... Anybody want to start a book :) ?
Yeah, it's all a load of rubbish, isn't it. Reminds me of the Father Ted episode where Dougal's questions about the meaning of Catholic faith cause that bishop to acknowledge that it's all a load of crap, and leave the church to become a hippy.
I can almost feel my post count dropping...