Originally posted by rwingett🙂
Oh, so then you're probably interested in knowing more about how Jesus was a socialist! 😀
I see socialism a method, not as an end in itself. I doubt I'd disagree much with you about the goals, just on how we can best achieve them (which is still a very large difference, mind). In that sense, a lot of the socialist message also appeals to me.
Interesting idea. Jesus the God exists despite any record of him as man. That is to say that even if this particular man didn't exist, there are entire peoples that recognize him. As for proving him to have existed? I feel is not necessary. All the god characteristics and qualities associated with him has been pinned on plenty other characters around the mediterranean.
Originally posted by rwingettIt seems beyond dispute that many of the mythological attributes (like Jesus' divinity) are wrong
I find the arguments intriguing, but not necessarily compelling. It seems probable to me that Jesus existed in some form. It seems beyond dispute that many of the mythological attributes (like Jesus' divinity) are wrong, but I think the legends are based on something. Of course parsing out any concrete details from the available information is probably impo ...[text shortened]... art, I choose to start from the assumption that Jesus did exist in some form and go from there.
how do you prove someone isn't god? i have a problem with your use of "beyond dispute"
- Joined
- 07 Mar 09
- Moves
- 32471
Originally posted by PalynkaHistoricity is for dweebs. It just demonstrates out how weak someone's principles are when they can only derive them from particular events. Real principles are an affirmation of life that don't need the support of an historical authority. As a buddhist I have read before that there is more independent historical verification for Shakyamuni than for Jesus. I don't care. Many buddhists believe things that are not historically accurate. I correct those errors when I hear them but none of it affects the teaching which stands or falls in our lives right now.
Despite wikipedia claiming that there is no controversy (and locking the page because of controversy), the Jesus Myth hypothesis is still very much alive.
The Jesus project is a project that seeks to investigate and determine the historical evidence for the existence of Jesus.
Here's an interesting article from a skeptic:
http://www.centerforinquiry. ...[text shortened]... ew Testament as Old Testament midrash:
http://www.robertmprice.mindvendor.com/art_midrash1.htm
As for Jesus, it is uncanny how many similar stories you can find in the middle east around the same time. There were numerous religions sporting sacrificed divinities. There seems to have been an obsession with that idea. Of course, ignorance drives many now to believe that the Jesus story is some kind of unique event. It is almost the same with the flood. The Sumerian Utnapishtim was written about long before there were Jews but lots of people puff out their chests now talking about their own odd-shaped boat. "Most of the trouble in the world is caused by people trying to be important" - T. S. Eliot
Originally posted by TerrierJackIt's hilarious how you say historicity is for dweebs, but then go on to cite historical sources of other religious texts to support your argument.
Historicity is for dweebs. It just demonstrates out how weak someone's principles are when they can only derive them from particular events. Real principles are an affirmation of life that don't need the support of an historical authority. As a buddhist I have read before that there is more independent historical verification for Shakyamuni than for Jesu ...[text shortened]... "Most of the trouble in the world is caused by people trying to be important" - T. S. Eliot
Mmm...
2 edits
Originally posted by Palynka?
It's hilarious how you say historicity is for dweebs, but then go on to cite historical sources of other religious texts to support your argument.
Mmm...
Did you read what he typed or just stopped at Shakyamuni?
By the way, well put Jack. Basically what I wanted to say but actually worded 😛
Originally posted by ZahlanziWe can demonstrate, for example, that the claims for Jesus' divinity grew over time and that the first Jesus communities did not think of him this way. Maybe they were wrong. It doesn't 'prove' anything, but it's a compelling bit of evidence.
[b]It seems beyond dispute that many of the mythological attributes (like Jesus' divinity) are wrong
how do you prove someone isn't god? i have a problem with your use of "beyond dispute"[/b]
Originally posted by PalynkaPerhaps. But always remember that it was Jesus himself who threw the money changers out of the temple. The way to the kingdom is through defiance of the money changers and not through the observance of their craft.
🙂
I see socialism a method, not as an end in itself. I doubt I'd disagree much with you about the goals, just on how we can best achieve them (which is still a very large difference, mind). In that sense, a lot of the socialist message also appeals to me.
Originally posted by PalynkaThanks for the midrash link! I'll take a look at it. Jacob Neusner some years ago, in a book on midrash, identified the Gospel of Matthew as a particular midrashic type.
Despite wikipedia claiming that there is no controversy (and locking the page because of controversy), the Jesus Myth hypothesis is still very much alive.
The Jesus project is a project that seeks to investigate and determine the historical evidence for the existence of Jesus.
Here's an interesting article from a skeptic:
http://www.centerforinquiry. ...[text shortened]... ew Testament as Old Testament midrash:
http://www.robertmprice.mindvendor.com/art_midrash1.htm
Again, thanks.
Originally posted by TerrierJackThat's a good point. That one should 'love thy neighbor as oneself' is no less relevant if Jesus didn't actually exist. And Jesus is not the only path to that goal. He is merely one that most in the western world recognize and would respond to. If Buddha should lead one to do the same, then I see no conflict there.
Historicity is for dweebs. It just demonstrates out how weak someone's principles are when they can only derive them from particular events. Real principles are an affirmation of life that don't need the support of an historical authority. As a buddhist I have read before that there is more independent historical verification for Shakyamuni than for Jesu ...[text shortened]... "Most of the trouble in the world is caused by people trying to be important" - T. S. Eliot
Originally posted by vistesdI posted that thinking of you. I was hoping you could comment on it, although I still have to read it myself...
Thanks for the midrash link! I'll take a look at it. Jacob Neusner some years ago, in a book on midrash, identified the Gospel of Matthew as a particular midrashic type.
Again, thanks.
Originally posted by rwingettDoes history "matter"? Does it "matter" if the Sumerians existed or not? Does it "matter" if Aristotle's writings are a forgery from the Renaissance?
That's a good point. That one should 'love thy neighbor as oneself' is no less relevant if Jesus didn't actually exist. And Jesus is not the only path to that goal. He is merely one that most in the western world recognize and would respond to. If Buddha should lead one to do the same, then I see no conflict there.
Seems like a very reductive view of history.
- Joined
- 07 Mar 09
- Moves
- 32471
1 edit
Originally posted by PalynkaFirst off, the Sumerian text is not history - you can read it now. Second, what argument was I making that depended on the historicity of the Sumerian text? (I wasn't proselytizing for Enlil.) I never said history didn't exist I said drawing conclusions about principles based on history was silly (basically.) If I am wrong about what my post contained - please explain. (I am always willing to discover my errors.)
Err... One of his last points was about a Sumerian text. Please try again.