8ball
Decolonise colons!
The Chalcedonian angle seems to be the closest to making any sense imo.
Jesus Myth Theory
- Thread starter N_igma
- Start date
The Chalcedonian angle seems to be the closest to making any sense imo.
Even more interesting is what gets agreed to be “real” in the first place, and how that agreement takes place.
DotCommunist
So many particulars. So many questions.
and which don't. Nobody questions if there was a julius caeser
JimW
支那暗杀团
I only know they were one of the parties rather than what their particular standpoint was, tbh.
JimW
支那暗杀团
Desisted in his prime.
belboid
Exasperated, not angry.
still at least 100 years after JC had supposedly been crucified
8ball
Decolonise colons!
Dyophysitism - one person but two distinct natures.
It’s the only one that doesn’t make it blatantly silly that Jesus prays while in the garden of Gethsemane imo.
Jimmy Don't
Well-Known Member
Fakespeare! (All written in the 90's by JK Rowling, before she created the George Eliot/Mary Ann Evan's author character)
i know - i believe i referred to them. They paint a very different picture of what Jesus represented.
Humberto
minor kerfuffles ensue
Ok cool, wasn't sure what you meant as you say in (my) bolded bit:
That's not a 'Roman fabrication', it was in the earlier gospels before they stopped the persecution of Christians.
Paulian fabrication then. For sure, it didn't happen. Who faked it is kind of academic.
ohmyliver
poppin' like a cork
cheese is Christ
It will save time if everyone just reposts what they said in 2016.
Raheem
Well-Known Member
What, "Trump's got no chance and maybe we should think about joining the Euro after the referendum"?
BUMP
Excellent lecture here, fact filled, peer-reviewed....includes some early christian and pre-chrisitan history which makes the case the jesus didnt exist at all very convincingly. the fact that there was already a Jesus that existed in Jewish angelography, and an angel in direct opposition to Satan at that, I found particularly interesting. Too much here to summarise at this time of the morning
tldw theres a sort of summary here, but its not a very good read, whilst the lecture is crystal clear
Richard Carrier - Wikipedia
en.wikipedia.org
Less controversially than Richard Carrier's mythicism here's his review of Robyn Faith Walsh's book on what kind of literature the synoptic gospels actually are:
Robyn Faith Walsh and the Gospels as Literature • Richard Carrier Blogs
Robyn Faith Walsh, a professor of New Testament studies at the University of Miami with a Ph.D. in religious studies from Brown University, has recently hit the circuit promoting her “controversial” thesis (building on her dissertation at Brown) that the Gospels are deliberate literary...
www.richardcarrier.info
And an interview with Robyn Faith Walsh on Bart Ehrman's podcast:
CH1
"Red Guard"(NLYL)
That video is 6 years old. Nothing there contradicts RG Price, maybe not even SP Laurie.
Richard Carrier is however plugging his books. Quite a few answers to questions at the end were essentially - it's all in the book!
Not sure I agree this lecture was crystal clear - but certainly his explanation of the Parable of the Fig tree was.
I thought his statements about the Nag Hammadi codices were either sloppy or ill-informed - or both.
Serge Forward
Just enjoyin' my coffee.
On the subject of multiple Jesuses, in 2020, the name Joshua (the anglicised version of Jesus) was apparently the 25th most popular baby name in the UK. I suspect the Hebrew/Aramaic name Yeshua was also pretty common two thousand years ago in bible land. In other words, preachers who were called a variation of Josh and who had a few conjuring skills were probably ten a penny back then. So basically, the Jesus character was a Yeshua composite of antiquity of... David Copperfield, Darren Brown, David Blane and Paul Daniels all rolled up with Billy Graham, Ravi Shankar, Pope Francis and Rabbi Charley Baginsky (hmm... the last is female so doesn't count 
).
).
CH1
"Red Guard"(NLYL)
Less controversially than Richard Carrier's mythicism here's his review of Robyn Faith Walsh's book on what kind of literature the synoptic gospels actually are:
Robyn Faith Walsh and the Gospels as Literature • Richard Carrier Blogs
Robyn Faith Walsh, a professor of New Testament studies at the University of Miami with a Ph.D. in religious studies from Brown University, has recently hit the circuit promoting her “controversial” thesis (building on her dissertation at Brown) that the Gospels are deliberate literary...
And an interview with Robyn Faith Walsh on Bart Ehrman's podcast:
Seen her before on History Valley - another Youtube channel devoted to undermining the authority of scripture!
I am very concerned about Bart Ehrman. He seems to be churning out paid courses on atheism these days.
Maybe his tenure at Chapel Hill has finally come to an end? He is 68 so maybe the Uni have emeritised him?
This guy did the sort of this Robyn Faith is talking about starting in 1983 Dennis MacDonald - Wikipedia
and Richard Carrier PH D thinks he's marvelous Review of The Homeric Epics and the Gospel of Mark » Internet Infidels
Last edited:
nogojones
spelling is overrated
Humberto
minor kerfuffles ensue
I think you are right that Paul must have greatly influenced the writing of the gospels, and was a massive influence in the early church. You would have to assume that Paul was dishonest to 'fabricate' somehow that community's belief in the resurrection of Jesus. He's a very lucid and deep writer within the parameters of early church development and spread. And is an impressive writer. I guess his ability (for argument) to impress his own agenda and set out an orthodoxy according to his weighty influence is somewhat shrouded by time. As belboid mentioned earlier, the earliest surviving New Testament texts come some decades later.
So, although I'm a Christian and hold Paul in esteem, I think your enquiries are interesting and food for thought.
ouirdeaux
Caring, Understanding, Non-judgemental Type
I agree that Paul turned the religion from the basically Jewish sect into something that would have mass appeal -- don't bother about circumcision, which puts a lot of people off, and you don't have to stop eating all those things which the scriptures say are an abomination, because that's not important now. All you have to do is believe in Jesus, and you're saved. Doesn't that sound nice?
But he also says in 1 Timothy that a bishop should be the husband of one wife, and furthermore that there will be false prophets who talk against marriage, but you shouldn't listen to them. I've never worked out how the Roman Catholic Church explains that away, but they probably have something. They usually do.
Also, priestly celibacy in the RCC came about quite late, and most scholars don't think Paul actually wrote 1 Timothy, but never mind, eh?
Humberto
minor kerfuffles ensue
I'm struggling to remember but it was a hefty debate on circumcision? It was Simon Peter who is said to have resolved it, rather than Paul, and here we are!
ouirdeaux
Caring, Understanding, Non-judgemental Type
No, Paul told Peter off, and that was that. It's all in Galatians 2, if you care.
Obviously it's one person's account, and if you aren't buying into the religion and treating it as one would any piece of testimony where we only have one account, there's no reason to believe it happened exactly that way. But it isn't surprising that the adherents of what started off as a Jewish cult would consider circumcision to be important, and we know that this view was abandoned. So it's likely to be more or less correct.
