Philosophy Discussion Forums | A Humans-Only Club for Open-Minded Discussion & Debate

[Jklint]

The story of Jesus as told in the New Testament. What else could I have meant!

There isn't much story there. Jesus comes across as argumentative and a complainer. The only thing one can say about Christianity that everyone will agree on is that it, right from the beginning, because of all the arguing, quickly broke up into a lot of different sects. In that it was/is no different from Hinduism and Buddhism and Islam. That's where I got my love of philosophical argument.

That wasn't the fault of Jesus, real or not, but those who came after him. His message as a Jew to other Jews was clear. Things got screwed up, as usual, when taken out of context and reordering it to suit the Gentiles, courtesy of another Jew. Nothing to do with whether Jesus - whom we really know nothing about - was argumentative or a complainer.

BTW, you rarely argue philosophically; you do so more in the manner of theists. Arguing with them is as useless as putting boots on a frog.

[Felix]

Earlier in this thread I took the position that there was credible evidence to suggest that Jesus Christ actually existed. I have since learned that the only known historians of the period in which he supposedly lived made absolutely no mention of such a person, nor is there any mention of this mythical figure until 70-80 years after his supposed death when stories about him began to be circulated by religious zealots.

The story of Jesus does check just about all of the mythological boxes.

For example:
> Of Virgin birth
> Has supernatural powers, can work miracles including redeeming the sins of mortals
> Resurrection from the dead
> Will return, there'll be a sequel, a.k.a., a Second Coming.

I may have missed a few plot variations....

[Sculptor1]

SO what parts have you discarded and what parts would you like to keep, to make it seem real to you?

There's hardly anything real about it. What's real are its consequences which when applied to the story or myth has no relation. If Christ had been alive when Christianity became transcendent he wouldn't have recognized any part of it. That much is for certain.

Do you think he might have remembered being nailed to a cross? That is to say in your hypothetical? Or turning the other cheek? Maybe eschewing the money lenders at the temple?
I agree that he'd probably scoff at walking on water, despite being a red sea pedestrian, or the loaves and the fish would be a laff.

[Jklint]

Earlier in this thread I took the position that there was credible evidence to suggest that Jesus Christ actually existed. I have since learned that the only known historians of the period in which he supposedly lived made absolutely no mention of such a person, nor is there any mention of this mythical figure until 70-80 years after his supposed death when stories about him began to be circulated by religious zealots.

He could very well have existed. His kind wasn't rare in those time. The reason no mention was made is because he was of no importance except to a small Jewish sect when suchlike existed all over the empire. To repeat the obvious, it was Paul and Paul only who forged Jesus into Christ centered in one event, the supposed Resurrection...a theme far older than the hypothetical existence of Jesus. Paul otherwise wasn't in the least concerned with what Jesus taught or any details of his life. To the Romans, Jesus was nothing more than a fly on the wall, an agitator ripe for elimination if he went too far.

Christianity was an accident caused by two individuals, Paul first and Constantine second. Without these two nothing of Christianity would have happened.

[Sculptor1]

I agree with most of what you say. But your argument fails due to hyperbole.

Paul otherwise wasn't in the least concerned with what Jesus taught or any details of his life.

Paul garnered stories from diverse sources, already exaggerated beyond reason. We do not know his full intention but was clearly immersed in Greek mythological culture in which "sons of god" were rather common place. But he was definitely concerned about getting all the detail.

To the Romans, Jesus was nothing more than a fly on the wall, an agitator ripe for elimination if he went too far.

Again, a bit overwrought in your condemnation. Constantine was actually one of those Romans, btw.

Christianity was an accident caused by two individuals, Paul first and Constantine second. Without these two nothing of Christianity would have happened.

There were a lot more between and besides those two: most of them Roman city slickers, who condemned the older religions as of the village idiots "pagans".

[Jklint]

Constantine was actually one of those Romans, btw.

Wow, I didn't known that before! Thanks so much for the info!

[GaryLouisSmith]

There isn't much story there. Jesus comes across as argumentative and a complainer. The only thing one can say about Christianity that everyone will agree on is that it, right from the beginning, because of all the arguing, quickly broke up into a lot of different sects. In that it was/is no different from Hinduism and Buddhism and Islam. That's where I got my love of philosophical argument.

That wasn't the fault of Jesus, real or not, but those who came after him. His message as a Jew to other Jews was clear. Things got screwed up, as usual, when taken out of context and reordering it to suit the Gentiles, courtesy of another Jew. Nothing to do with whether Jesus - whom we really know nothing about - was argumentative or a complainer.

BTW, you rarely argue philosophically; you do so more in the manner of theists. Arguing with them is as useless as putting boots on a frog.

What does it mean "to argue philosophically"?

[Sculptor1]

Constantine was actually one of those Romans, btw.

Well DUH
Then you are an idiot for saying "To the Romans, Jesus was nothing more than a fly on the wall".

[Sculptor1]

Constantine was actually one of those Romans, btw.

You said it.
"To the Romans, Jesus was nothing more than a fly on the wall"

[Jklint]

Well DUH
Then you are an idiot for saying "To the Romans, Jesus was nothing more than a fly on the wall".

...and you're a stupid jerk for not knowing the difference between 50 AD and 330 AD. Yes Constantine was Roman DUH but he was the one who forced conversion on the Romans by making it legal for the first time. Read the bloody history dumbo!

[Jklint]

That wasn't the fault of Jesus, real or not, but those who came after him. His message as a Jew to other Jews was clear. Things got screwed up, as usual, when taken out of context and reordering it to suit the Gentiles, courtesy of another Jew. Nothing to do with whether Jesus - whom we really know nothing about - was argumentative or a complainer.

BTW, you rarely argue philosophically; you do so more in the manner of theists. Arguing with them is as useless as putting boots on a frog.

What does it mean "to argue philosophically"?

Don't you know since you claim to do it?

[GaryLouisSmith]

What does it mean "to argue philosophically"?

Don't you know since you claim to do it?

Yes, I think I do know, but you obviously think I don't, so I want to know where you think I misunderstand.

[Jklint]

Don't you know since you claim to do it?

Yes, I think I do know, but you obviously think I don't, so I want to know where you think I misunderstand.

No way I'm getting into that kind of analysis. It's a forgone conclusion that anything I say - as determined by what I've already said in previous posts - amounts to a thoroughly useless endeavor. Believe as you like which is usually what people do anyways regardless of facts or logic standing in the way. As in military strategy one must know when to retreat. Closed loops most often are invulnerable to external influences.

[GaryLouisSmith]

Yes, I think I do know, but you obviously think I don't, so I want to know where you think I misunderstand.

No way I'm getting into that kind of analysis. It's a forgone conclusion that anything I say - as determined by what I've already said in previous posts - amounts to a thoroughly useless endeavor. Believe as you like which is usually what people do anyways regardless of facts or logic standing in the way. As in military strategy one must know when to retreat. Closed loops most often are invulnerable to external influences.

In other words, you are just blowing hot air, pretending to be a biblical scholar.

[Jklint]

No way I'm getting into that kind of analysis. It's a forgone conclusion that anything I say - as determined by what I've already said in previous posts - amounts to a thoroughly useless endeavor. Believe as you like which is usually what people do anyways regardless of facts or logic standing in the way. As in military strategy one must know when to retreat. Closed loops most often are invulnerable to external influences.

In other words, you are just blowing hot air, pretending to be a biblical scholar.

If anyone is blowing hot air it ain't me. Also, one doesn't have to be a biblical scholar to know the broad outlines of the story, commonly known, being very much in line and derived from what biblical scholars themselves say on the subject who treat the story as history. It's those like you who are full of it craving attention which frankly took too long to figure out but as they say, better late than never.

One thing you're well aware of as most of your kind and ever ready to capitalize on is that absurdities, like worms on a hook, catch the most fish...the only thing you're successful at but don't call it philosophy. I'll leave it to greater intelligences than mine to take whatever you have to say seriously.