Jesus was a socialist???

Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you:

No adverts like this in the forums anymore.
Times and dates in your local timezone.
Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance.
Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely.
Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net.

If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

**Polonius**

I agree that nothing can be proven to 100%, beyond I'm not sure I'd say that the current evidence for Jesus goes beyond reasonable doubt.

That's actually part of my point. In the search for truth you look at all the evidence, weigh it based on it's credibility, and draw a conclusion based on reason.

In this issue, I think there's enough evidence for Jesus that, even though most of it is either vague or of questionable provenance, that it's likely there was a historical figure named Jesus.

What's sticking in my craw is that GG is stating that it is historical fact, which is an overstatement, and he's discussed several times, notably on evolution, an ability to reject evidence that doesn't conform to his beliefs. Here, he seems eager to accept evidence that supports his belief despite the questions that arise.

I know it looks like I'm piling on the poor guy, but even if he never understands that his beliefs are based more on faith than on reason, I think other people should.

**youngblood**

Ahtman wrote:In the case of Jesus it is far more reasonable to acknowledge that existed even though we don't have a birth certificate, Social Security number, and drivers license than it is to just outright deny it.

No joke, I mean we don't even have those things to prove that our PRESIDENT is a real person.

**generalgrog**

Polonius wrote:GG: there's a difference between evidence and proof.

I think there is some evidence for a historical figure, but none of it is exactly a smoking gun.

I think it's interesting that you consider this evidence iron clad to prove Jesus's existence, but that the standard for evolutionary theory is somehow completely different.

Sigh......not even going to go there.

edit.... all I will say is that comparing apples and oranges doesn't mak a good point.

GG

Automatically Appended Next Post:

Ahtman wrote:That could be applied to about any historical figure. I think the question, on just about any historical question is whether it is reasonable to believe or not. In the case of Jesus it is far more reasonable to acknowledge that existed even though we don't have a birth certificate, Social Security number, and drivers license than it is to just outright deny it. Having done a little legal work you should know that almost nothing can be proven to 100% certainty. Reason has to play a part as well. We may be starting to skirt solipsism I think.

Well said Ahtman...

GG

**JEB_Stuart**

Ahtman wrote:The translations I've read of Flavius didn't go that route with the "wise man" and "perhaps he was the Messiah" phrasing. It was more of a straight account. Either way it proves the point that there are non-biblical documents.

The best translations of Josephus, that I recommend to any, are those of the Loeb Classical Library. They are a major work library printed by Harvard University Press and it is a fairly extensive bit of work that has almost every work of every major Greek and Latin author of antiquity. The set is quite stunning and incredibly reliable.

**Squig_herder**

I'll digress for moment, in which no of thius is meant to cause offence, im just curious.

Lord-Loss wrote:
Da Boss wrote:When did socialism become such a dirty word anyway?

4 Letters "USSR"

What was actually wrong with the USSR? They were a superpower that rivalled America, is that why? because America would feel the biggest?

There was nothing wrong with them after the first 3 rulers of the USSR, the first 3 werent the best, after those 3 the USSR wasnt all that bad.

So why the hate for the USSR?

**Frazzled**

Three words:

Siberian Gulag system.

**JEB_Stuart**

Squig_herder wrote:What was actually wrong with the USSR? They were a superpower that rivaled America, is that why? because America would feel the biggest?

There was nothing wrong with them after the first 3 rulers of the USSR, the first 3 weren't the best, after those 3 the USSR wasnt all that bad.

So why the hate for the USSR?

Well I guess you are right...except for the gulags, the millions dead, suppression of human rights, starvation and the mass slaughter of foreign citizens...yeah you're right, it really wasn't that bad...

**Squig_herder**

JEB_Stuart wrote:Well I guess you are right...except for the gulags, the millions dead, suppression of human rights, starvation and the mass slaughter of foreign citizens...yeah you're right, it really wasn't that bad...

Again no offence is meant just curious.

America cannot point fingers, the culling of natives, lawful racism and violence against people of a different skin colour up until the 50's, Guantamo bay, instigation of 3 wars for thier own purpose. Where's the difference?

**Orkeosaurus**

The ability to count.

**Albatross**

Thought this may be of interest, feel free to shoot it down!

Josephus Flavius, the Jewish historian, lived as the earliest non-Christian who mentions a Jesus. Although many scholars think that Josephus' short accounts of Jesus (in Antiquities) came from interpolations perpetrated by a later Church father (most likely, Eusebius), Josephus' birth in 37 C.E., well after the alleged crucifixion of Jesus, puts him out of range of an eyewitness account. Moreover, he wrote Antiquities in 93 C.E., after the first gospels were written! Therefore, even if his accounts about Jesus came from his hand, his information could only serve as hearsay.

Pliny the Younger, a Roman official, was born in 62 C.E. His letter about the Christians only shows that he got his information from Christian believers themselves. Regardless, his birth date puts him out of the range of eyewitness accounts.

Tacitus, the Roman historian's birth year at 64 C.E., puts him well after the alleged life of Jesus. He gives a brief mention of a "Christus" in his Annals (Book XV, Sec. 44), which he wrote around 109 C.E. He gives no source for his material. Although many have disputed the authenticity of Tacitus' mention of Jesus, the very fact that his birth happened after the alleged crucifixion of Jesus and that he wrote the Annals during the formation of Christianity, shows that his writing can only provide us with hearsay accounts.

Suetonius, a Roman historian, born in 69 C.E. mentions a "Chrestus," a common name. Apologists assume that "Chrestus" means "Christ" (a disputable claim). But even if Seutonius had meant "Christ," it still says nothing about an earthly Jesus. Just like all the others, Suetonius' birth occurred well after the purported Jesus. Again, only hearsay.

Talmud: Amazingly some Christians use brief portions of the Talmud, (a collection of Jewish civil a religious law, including commentaries on the Torah), as evidence for Jesus. They claim that Yeshu (a common name in Jewish literature) in the Talmud refers to Jesus. However, this Jesus, according to Gerald Massey actually depicts a disciple of Jehoshua Ben-Perachia at least a century before the alleged Christian Jesus. [Massey] Regardless of how one interprets this, the Palestinian Talmud got written between the 3rd and 5th century C.E., and the Babylonian Talmud between the 3rd and 6th century C.E., at least two centuries after the alleged crucifixion! At best it can only serve as a controversial Christian and pagan legend; it cannot possibly serve as evidence for a historical Jesus.

Christian apologists mostly use the above sources for their "evidence" of Jesus because they believe they represent the best outside sources. All other sources (Christian and non-Christian) come from even less reliable sources, some of which include: Mara Bar-Serapion (circa 73 C.E.), Ignatius (50 - 98? C.E.), Polycarp (69 - 155 C.E.), Clement of Rome (? - circa 160 C.E.), Justin Martyr (100 - 165 C.E.), Lucian (circa 125 - 180 C.E.), Tertullian (160 - ? C.E.), Clement of Alexandria (? - 215 C.E.), Origen (185 - 232 C.E.), Hippolytus (? - 236 C.E.), and Cyprian (? - 254 C.E.). As you can see, all these people lived well after the alleged death of Jesus.

here is the URL of the site - www.nobeliefs.com/exist.htm (couldn't link for some reason... conspiracy? lol)

Sorry for the text wall! I'm not just trying to be a 'mean' atheist - I happen to the think the teachings of Jesus are important as far as human interaction is concerned. Whether or not he was the son of God is just irrelevant to me, as I don't believe in God. Not expecting to 'de-convert' anyone, or that such a thing would even be possible. I just got annoyed that someone called ME dumb, then proceded to cite The New Testament as a legitimate historical source. It's not - can we all at least agree on that?

**Crimson Devil**

America cannot point fingers, the culling of natives, lawful racism and violence against people of a different skin colour up until the 50's, Guantamo bay, instigation of 3 wars for thier own purpose. Where's the difference?

Yes we can. While we Americans have done some horrible and hypocritical things, we are held to a higher standard by ourselves and the world. The Idea of the United States is a powerful and heavy burden to bare. We expect to be the best, the brightest, and the just. Yes we sometimes fail, but we try.

To quote Winston Churchill: "You can always count on Americans to do the right thing - after they've tried everything else."

**Ahtman**

Comparing 69 years of a failed system (USSR) to the entire history of the USA isn't a very fair comparison. If you want to compare how each acted while both existed would be a more honest assessment.

**dogma**

Ahtman wrote:69

But seriously, its kind of amusing given the mutual stimulation provided by each superpower.

**JEB_Stuart**

Squig_herder wrote:
Again no offence is meant just curious.

America cannot point fingers, the culling of natives, lawful racism and violence against people of a different skin colour up until the 50's, Guantamo bay, instigation of 3 wars for thier own purpose. Where's the difference?

No offense taken, its just my way. I am naturally sarcastic, and the web kind of limits my dry, sarcastic humor to come through. I am gonna agree that America has done some less then admirable things throughout its history, but if you are gonna pull from its founding, then lets go all the way through Imperial Russia as well. Russia, being the main power behind the USSR and all, has a long and "glorious" history of atrocities. Not that I am trying to excuse America, but in the same time period as the existence of the USSR there is simply no comparison of the wrongs committed.

@Albatross: I have heard that criticism of these sources before, but they don't make much logical sense. If the Church, or even individual monasteries, was so concerned with "proving" the existence of Christ they would not have relied on one minor book. They would have made certain of its inclusion in as many of the great works of antiquity as possible. But the main problem with their criticism is their nearly unilateral dismissal of evidence simply because it isn't genuinely first hand. That is how nearly all the great books concerning history are in the Classical Age. Most of these historians did not see what happened, but relied on oral history and other sources that are now lost to us. Regardless of that fact though, we still regard authors such as Plutarch, Suetonius, Tacitus, Livy, Cicero, etc. as being the authority on the time period. To dismiss any points they make about Christ for that reason would almost require the disuse of any of their work if was not actually witnessed by them.

**Albatross**

@JEB_Stuart - yeah totally mate, I don't disagree! I also don't doubt the existence of Jesus, just making the 'no eyewitness accounts' point. I think it's extremely likely that Jesus of Nazareth existed, I just resent the sniffy tone of people who use Josephus et al. as a trump card in these discussions. It's not as cut and dried as these people make out, that's all I'm saying - in the interest of balance.

**Kilkrazy**

If Jesus didn't exist, someone did an astonishing job of ginning up the whole business out of nothing.

I find it hard to believe that such a widespread cult could be created around a vacuum.

**reds8n**

Kilkrazy wrote:If Jesus didn't exist, someone did an astonishing job of ginning up the whole business out of nothing.

....

.......well..it seemed a good idea at the time..."Where's the harm" I thought...that'll teach me anyway.

**Ketara**

Kilkrazy wrote:If Jesus didn't exist, someone did an astonishing job of ginning up the whole business out of nothing.

I find it hard to believe that such a widespread cult could be created around a vacuum.

Exactly! Scientology fully agrees with this standpoint!

**Norwulf**

Wikipedia wrote:Scientology is a body of beliefs and related practices created by American science fiction author L. Ron Hubbard in his book Dianetics: The Modern Science of Mental Health. While views on the origin/creation of the universe as a whole are unclear, the creation of the modern man is laid out in a highly secretive creation myth. 75 million years ago, Xenu was the leader of the Galactic Federation, a federation of 76 planets that had already existed for 20 million years. Many of the planets at the time suffered from massive overpopulation. As leader of the Galactic Federation, Xenu implemented a policy in which trillions of people were either frozen or killed and then sent to a planet known as Teegeeack (now Earth). Xenu placed the frozen souls near volcanoes and then bombed the volcanoes, destroying the remaining souls. These dead souls were later reactivated by electric forces from the Earth, in which they returned to life and entered the bodies of humans and remain there today.

Got this off of wikipedia, just thought you guys might find it interesting. Heres the link to the page. It's at the bottom.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Creation_myths

**Polonius**

Kilkrazy wrote:If Jesus didn't exist, someone did an astonishing job of ginning up the whole business out of nothing.

I find it hard to believe that such a widespread cult could be created around a vacuum.

Well, odds are somebody that fits the roughest description exists, to be sure. If the gospels were created out of whole cloth, than I'm guessing big chunks were influenced by certain historical traveling rabbis.

Christianity spread, not due to Jesus, but to his followers. If you treat Jesus the way you treat the Angel that revealed the Koran to Mohammad, it makes sense. They could have

**Albatross**

Now all we need to do is figure out whether or not Xenu is a socialist...

Probbers not, what with being a Galactic Emperor 'n' that.

**Norwulf**

It didn't say he was an emporer, just a leader. Just thought I'd point that out.

**efarrer**

Polonius wrote:
Kilkrazy wrote:If Jesus didn't exist, someone did an astonishing job of ginning up the whole business out of nothing.

I find it hard to believe that such a widespread cult could be created around a vacuum.

Well, odds are somebody that fits the roughest description exists, to be sure. If the gospels were created out of whole cloth, than I'm guessing big chunks were influenced by certain historical traveling rabbis.

Christianity spread, not due to Jesus, but to his followers. If you treat Jesus the way you treat the Angel that revealed the Koran to Mohammad, it makes sense. They could have

Which other historical figures are you willing to exclude on the basis of limited primary sources?

I just want to know.

To be be fair the vast majority of figures in the ancient world do not have more then a single primary source (if any), this was made worse depending on the disruptions in the area. The vast majority are secondary sources or further. Only in places like Rome were there more (and even there some of the greatest figures are known only by their secondary sources). The majority of scholars believe that two of the Gospels were written by his contemporaries. The revolution in approximately 65 ad means that the best sources (outside of the 1-2 primary sources) were probably destroyed.

**Polonius**

I'm not excluding anybody, I was just explaining how it would be possible to create a back story and legend about a guy that didn't exist back then.

**generalgrog**

Polonius wrote:I'm not excluding anybody, I was just explaining how it would be possible to create a back story and legend about a guy that didn't exist back then.

So in other words your just arguing a point just for the sake of arguing?

OK....I guess?

I'm not really sure why you think that's constructive.

GG

**dogma**

Possibility tends to diminish zeal.

**generalgrog**

dogma wrote:Possibility tends to diminish zeal.

Where are you going with that?

GG

**Polonius**

generalgrog wrote:
Polonius wrote:I'm not excluding anybody, I was just explaining how it would be possible to create a back story and legend about a guy that didn't exist back then.

So in other words your just arguing a point just for the sake of arguing?

OK....I guess?

I'm not really sure why you think that's constructive.

GG

Killkrazy posted that he found it hard to believe that a cult could be created around a vacuum. I was just showing him how it possibly could have done. I wasn't arguing a point or trying to non-constructive, but there was a question and I answered it.

I mean, the larger point is that I don't really have much interest in the historical existence of Jesus as a matter of my beliefs. I like my religious beliefs to be based on faith, not on evidence.

**Kilkrazy**

Polonius wrote:
generalgrog wrote:
Polonius wrote:I'm not excluding anybody, I was just explaining how it would be possible to create a back story and legend about a guy that didn't exist back then.

So in other words your just arguing a point just for the sake of arguing?

OK....I guess?

I'm not really sure why you think that's constructive.

GG

Killkrazy posted that he found it hard to believe that a cult could be created around a vacuum. I was just showing him how it possibly could have done. I wasn't arguing a point or trying to non-constructive, but there was a question and I answered it.

I mean, the larger point is that I don't really have much interest in the historical existence of Jesus as a matter of my beliefs. I like my religious beliefs to be based on faith, not on evidence.

I disagree. Creating a legend around an actual living person, known to many contemporaries, is exactly what happened with Jesus (IMO.) It's not a vaccuum at all.

It's like what I posted earlier on, that it matters now whether The Odyssey was written by Homer or by another man with the same name. What matters is that it was written.

**Polonius**

Wait, am I posting nonsense?

Killkrazy said he found it hard to believe that you could create a legend around a vacuum. I think it's possible, and explained how.

I'm not saying that's what happened with Jesus. If anything, it's far more likely they took a real person that sort of fit, and added extra stuff to the legend.