New Series on SCI channel (US): Biblical Conspiracies

originally posted by: BuzzyWigs
a reply to: Boadicea

I would love to see them look at the migration of the Lost Tribes of Israel

Mmm. So would I!

And this is airing right when "Exodus: Gods and Kings" is coming out - looking JUST Like a Hobbit epic CGI tale. (Which it is. People don't realize how much the Hobbit, and Star Wars, and hell, even The Wizard of Oz are ALL the same story.)

Yes indeed! The Hobbit trilogy was required reading in my childhood home. As were the Oz stories. My Mom still has the original illustrated collection of Oz stories my dad had as a boy. It's fascinating how many levels all of these stories can be read at, depending on your age/maturity. Reading them as a child really sparks the imagination... reading as an adult brings up different images and concepts, while still working the mind and imagination.

Much like the Bible, eh?

a reply to: BuzzyWigs

Another intriguing twist that I haven't been able to pin down historically, but I'll share for the intrigue:

That Jesus' paternal grandmother was Cleopatra of Jerusalem, daughter of Julius Caesar and Cleopatra, conceived before the assassination of Caesar, and born after the assassination of Caesar, married off to an "obscure" foreign prince... and that prince would have been Jesus' paternal grandfather.

Just think of the political implications! Jesus would have been the natural heir to not just the kingdom of Israel, but the Roman and Egyptian empires as well! And if we throw in the legends that Jesus' maternal grandmother was a Celtic princess and/or Druid priestess, then we're adding a whole new "kingdom" to Jesus' royal/political inheritance.

If any of this is true, it changes everything... if all of this is true, wow! Just wow!

a reply to: BuzzyWigs
It makes sence, if Jesus was here to be human then sex and marrige are part of the whole experience. I just don't think it was fair that no mater what he did he was going to heaven. You want to know what it is like to be human then No powers. I know if I could heal people it would change how I looked at myself. Don't get me wrong I am extreemly greatful for the sacrifice to set us free, and open the portal to heaven. Thank you God and Jesus for caring and loving us when at times all we want to do is self destruct, Amen

Please excuse spelling as math is my strong suite.

a reply to: Tangerine

That contradicts everything I learned regarding the development of empathy.

Then I suggest you look further into it.
It would be off-topic here - but there are loads and loads of experiments talking about BABIES. Showing empathy. I'm not talking about toddlers, either.

Yes, I have read your posts. Even newborns - for example in a neonatal ward - if they hear another baby cry, will cry also - in hard-wired 'empathy.'

I don't mean to sound like a know-it-all, but I studied this stuff as a professional; I was a trainer regarding baby brains and early childhood development.

Babies do NOT need the Bible, neither does anyone else - to teach them morals.
Other than that, I agree with what you have said.

a reply to: Tangerine

Indeed. Did you know that it was Constantine's mother Helen who (reportedly) made a pilgrimage to the "holy land" and "found" the cross and nails used for this supposed crucifixion? She built the first 'church' that held these 'relics' - and pilgrims came from all over the place, and PAID to see them.

"Relics" became a huge source of money - believers came and the town prospered.

It's been a scam since the Bible itself was compiled.

originally posted by: Tangerine

originally posted by: ScientificRailgun
a reply to: Tangerine

Of course they'll avoid fundamental questions like the existence of jesus and god, those aren't questions that be empirically answered. They're discussing the BIBLE, it looks like. The book. The morals that can be derived from it, and the spiritual questions that someone may find answers to within it are irrelevant when discussing the text itself, and the conspiracies surrounding it.

The Bible claims that Jesus lived and God exists. They should address those claims. It can be empirically answered that there is no evidence proving those claims. Of course, it is impossible to prove a negative but most people don't even know there's no contemporaneous documentation proving that Jesus actually lived. I'll bet right now that they'll feature Bart Erhman glossing over that and making his evidence-less argument that Jesus did live.

As to the existence of god, that's the ultimate point of faith and I'm unsure if there will ever be a satisfactory resolution one way or the other.

As to Jesus, the vast weight of modern scholardom disagrees and considers it a resolved matter in the affirmative, with accepted contemporaneous sources and citations. Granted, plenty of debate as to the accuracy of the accounts of his life and actions, but the historicity of his existence is in my opinion beyond any reasonable doubt, and I'd be very surprised if any serious arguments to the contrary will long carry any sort of weight against their resulting refutations and consensus otherwise.

That aside, the absence of any contemporaneous argument against his existence nearest the first century when christianity was expanding effectively shutters the issue. The fact that any "widespread" doubt as to his mere existence only occurs after 18 centuries or so speaks volumes.

originally posted by: BuzzyWigs
a reply to: Tangerine

Indeed. Did you know that it was Constantine's mother Helen who (reportedly) made a pilgrimage to the "holy land" and "found" the cross and nails used for this supposed crucifixion? She built the first 'church' that held these 'relics' - and pilgrims came from all over the place, and PAID to see them.

"Relics" became a huge source of money - believers came and the town prospered.

It's been a scam since the Bible itself was compiled.

Yes, and what a scam it is! No wonder religion is the field of choice for con artists.

originally posted by: Praetorius

originally posted by: Tangerine

originally posted by: ScientificRailgun
a reply to: Tangerine

Of course they'll avoid fundamental questions like the existence of jesus and god, those aren't questions that be empirically answered. They're discussing the BIBLE, it looks like. The book. The morals that can be derived from it, and the spiritual questions that someone may find answers to within it are irrelevant when discussing the text itself, and the conspiracies surrounding it.

The Bible claims that Jesus lived and God exists. They should address those claims. It can be empirically answered that there is no evidence proving those claims. Of course, it is impossible to prove a negative but most people don't even know there's no contemporaneous documentation proving that Jesus actually lived. I'll bet right now that they'll feature Bart Erhman glossing over that and making his evidence-less argument that Jesus did live.

As to the existence of god, that's the ultimate point of faith and I'm unsure if there will ever be a satisfactory resolution one way or the other.

As to Jesus, the vast weight of modern scholardom disagrees and considers it a resolved matter in the affirmative, with accepted contemporaneous sources and citations. Granted, plenty of debate as to the accuracy of the accounts of his life and actions, but the historicity of his existence is in my opinion beyond any reasonable doubt, and I'd be very surprised if any serious arguments to the contrary will long carry any sort of weight against their resulting refutations and consensus otherwise.

That aside, the absence of any contemporaneous argument against his existence nearest the first century when christianity was expanding effectively shutters the issue. The fact tha
t any "widespread" doubt as to his mere existence only occurs after 18 centuries or so speaks volumes.

Name ONE person who lived when Jesus allegedly lived who wrote that s/he witnessed Jesus living. Just one. That would be contemporaneous documentation. "(A)ccepted contemporaneous sources and citations"? I think not.

a reply to: Tangerine

Name ONE person who lived when Jesus allegedly lived who wrote that s/he witnessed Jesus living. Just one. That would be contemporaneous documentation. "(A)ccepted contemporaneous sources and citations"? I think not.

The gospel of John claims to have been written by one such (along with a good many of the epistles), although you'll probably discount it as the author was obviously a believer and it's included in the bible...

Conversely and for fair comparison - do you believe Boudicca ever existed? No direct eyewitness accounts, etc., as is common with many historical people. Honestly, I wouldn't expect too much along these lines for the founder of a smallish and fairly local sect in a backwater of an empire. However, even some more famous historical folks suffer from a paucity of great documentation at the time, or extant copies (or such volume of copies) of recordings anywhere near as close to the time of their events as we have in the case of the story of Jesus and the church.

And as far as my referenced sources and citations (of the extra-biblical sort), I'm more than a little sure you're familiar with them, and have apparently discounted them out of hand despite the fact that most historical and biblical scholars and experts do not.

Regards.

originally posted by: Praetorius
a reply to: Tangerine

Name ONE person who lived when Jesus allegedly lived who wrote that s/he witnessed Jesus living. Just one. That would be contemporaneous documentation. "(A)ccepted contemporaneous sources and citations"? I think not.

The gospel of John claims to have been written by one such (along with a good many of the epistles), although you'll probably discount it as the author was obviously a believer and it's included in the bible...

Conversely and for fair comparison - do you believe Boudicca ever existed? No direct eyewitness accounts, etc., as is common with many historical people. Honestly, I wouldn't expect too much along these lines for the founder of a smallish and fairly local sect in a backwater of an empire. However, even some more famous historical folks suffer from a paucity of great documentation at the time, or extant copies (or such volume of copies) of recordings anywhere near as close to the time of their events as we have in the case of the story of Jesus and the church.

And as far as my referenced sources and citations (of the extra-biblical sort), I'm more than a little sure you're familiar with them, and have apparently discounted them out of hand despite the fact that most historical and biblical scholars and experts do not.

Regards.

Are we really to believe that the Romans, who were scrupulous record keepers and recorded every trial and execution, just happened to neglect to record the trial and crucifixion of Jesus and just happened to miss him and his family in their census. Are we really to believe that contemporaneous historians missed his existence? Josephus, Seutonius and Flavius were, of course, not contemporaries of Jesus. Are we really to believe that no one wrote a word about him for two generations after he allegedly lived?

Most of the historians and virtually all the Biblical scholars are Christians and those who aren't know where their bread is buttered. Like most people, almost all of them are sheep and go where the herd goes. But even Bart Ehrman admits that there's not an iota of contemporaneous documentation proving that Jesus actually lived. But he has made a pretty penny cobbling together an inane, convoluted argument claiming that it's likely that he did live. Then there is the historian (probably more than one) who argue that Jesus was a creation of the Flavian caesars who needed a Jewish messiah figure who supported Roman rule ('give unto Caesar...").

Probably a number of the ancients generally conceded to live did not live. They were likely compilation figures or stories.

Are we really to believe that the Romans, who were scrupulous record keepers and recorded every trial and execution, just happened to neglect to record the trial and crucifixion of Jesus and just happened to miss him and his family in their census.

Honest question, as I may just never have looked in the right location - are you telling me we have access to a database of all ancient roman records of all trials, executions, and censuses? If not, who's to say they didn't record all such, despite of how little import it would have been to the Empire at the time. History is generally not kind to all its records.

Are we really to believe that contemporaneous historians missed his existence? Josephus, Seutonius and Flavius were, of course, not contemporaries of Jesus. Are we really to believe that no one wrote a word about him for two generations after he allegedly lived?

Are we correspondingly to believe they missed the existence of Caiaphus the high priest, and many others also not disputed as Jesus himself is, as they apparently did since we likewise have no related accounts of them from such sources? Apparently so, or apparently the gaping maw of history bites our historical record once again.

And again, you're missing the accounts we DO have in the Bible itself, and other texts from the time that didn't make the cut, that purport to be either by witnesses directly or record the accounts of such. Suspect in your view, I know - but much closer to the time of their events than other undisputed histories.

Most of the historians and virtually all the Biblical scholars are Christians and those who aren't know where their bread is buttered. Like most people, almost all of them are sheep and go where the herd goes. But even Bart Ehrman admits that there's not an iota of contemporaneous documentation proving that Jesus actually lived. But he has made a pretty penny cobbling together an inane, convoluted argument claiming that it's likely that he did live. Then there is the historian (probably more than one) who argue that Jesus was a creation of the Flavian caesars who needed a Jewish messiah figure who supported Roman rule ('give unto Caesar...").

An effective way to shutter a debate and shield opposing viewpoints. "Just about all the experts are biased and lying!" I suppose the only option in that case is actual interrogation to get to the truth of the matter. Otherwise I see no satisfactory defense against such a claim other than to suggest it's fairly ridiculous on the face of it to suggest that we would have no sufficient number of them willing to stand up to a paradigm that were demonstrably false, as well as point the the few non-Christian in the group, but as you say, bread will be buttered...or at least it can be, effectively shattering debate again via mere supposition and implication of known fraud with no evidence to suggest it otherwise.

Probably a number of the ancients generally conceded to live did not live. They were likely compilation figures or stories.

We can certainly both agree on that, although I would consider them to generally be limited to much "smaller players" who don't have such large microscopes trained on them. As I mentioned before, just the sheer absence of any significant movements arguing AGAINST his existence when the whole story were getting started and more than easy to shut down is effectively a solid refutation of the view in my opinion. There were plenty of hostile eyes on this movement, and plenty of opportunities to nail it to the wall at the time were it all fabrication.

Thanks, and be well.

a reply to: Praetorius

That aside, the absence of any contemporaneous argument against his existence nearest the first century when christianity was expanding effectively shutters the issue.

Mmm. Sorry, no. All of those contemporaneous sources are subject to editing, redaction, burning, removal from view, etc.
So that's a really lame assertion. And makes no sense as a debating point.

No one wrote that he never existed? How do you know??

originally posted by: Tangerine

originally posted by: Praetorius

originally posted by: Tangerine

originally posted by: ScientificRailgun
a reply to: Tangerine

Of course they'll avoid fundamental questions like the existence of jesus and god, those aren't questions that be empirically answered. They're discussing the BIBLE, it looks like. The book. The morals that can be derived from it, and the spiritual questions that someone may find answers to within it are irrelevant when discussing the text itself, and the conspiracies surrounding it.

The Bible claims that Jesus lived and God exists. They should address those claims. It can be empirically answered that there is no evidence proving those claims. Of course, it is impossible to prove a negative but most people don't even know there's no contemporaneous documentation proving that Jesus actually lived. I'll bet right now that they'll feature Bart Erhman glossing over that and making his evidence-less argument that Jesus did live.

As to the existence of god, that's the ultimate point of faith and I'm unsure if there will ever be a satisfactory resolution one way or the other.

As to Jesus, the vast weight of modern scholardom disagrees and considers it a resolved matter in the affirmative, with accepted contemporaneous sources and citations. Granted, plenty of debate as to the accuracy of the accounts of his life and actions, but the historicity of his existence is in my opinion beyond any reasonable doubt, and I'd be very surprised if any serious arguments to the contrary will long carry any sort of weight against their resulting refutations and consensus otherwise.

That aside, the absence of any contemporaneous argument against his existence nearest the first century when christianity was expanding effectively shutters the issue. The fact tha
t any "widespread" doubt as to his mere existence only occurs after 18 centuries or so speaks volumes.

Name ONE person who lived when Jesus allegedly lived who wrote that s/he witnessed Jesus living. Just one. That would be contemporaneous documentation. "(A)ccepted contemporaneous sources and citations"? I think not.

did pontius pilate not keep records?

a reply to: sdubya

My thoughts exactly, but I've long since stopped arguing with people that follow that line of logic. The ones that really crack me up are the ones that want to obliterate any remnant of "Christianity" while at the same time denouncing any criticism of the "Religion of Peace". Its really all about emotion and there's no basis in any logic. You can't successfully argue with that.

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: BuzzyWigs

Yep, just like the Matrix, Superman, Robocop, and the New Testament are all the same stories.

begs the question of whether the biblical authors simply employed a precursor to the generic hero's journey methodology in their storytelling or maybe matrix and superman and hobbit and star wars are all real stories.

a reply to: TonyS

Saying you are the "Religion of Peace" doesn't make it so. Christianity has been a chief exporter of misery and war for a long time. It is only recently, now that most Christian nations have strict laws decoupling religion and government along with laws against many of the things that religions do in theocracies (look at Muslim ran countries for an idea of what I'm talking about; it wasn't too long ago that Christian countries did similar things), that Christians have become "peaceful". But even then, you can still see the undercurrents of destruction that the religion breeds from folks like WBC, the KKK, and other Christian hate groups. That's not to say that secularists are anymore peaceful, but a religion calling itself "Religion of Peace" is only lying about itself.

I'd like to re frame the argument, if possible.

If one does not accept the manuscript evidence that a person named Jesus of Nazareth existed, one shouldn't accept that Homer wrote the Illiad. Should we do so?

If no contemporary mentions of Jesus exist outside the New Testament, surely there are many figures such as Buddha that should be considered to be made up.

So, two questions -

What is the minimum level of evidence needed to determine if someone really existed?
What are the odds that a minor celebrity in Jerusalem would be written about by any of contemporaries and that such mention would survive to this time?

a reply to: TzarChasm

Wasn't the city of Jerusalem pretty much f'ed up in 70 A.D.? In what form would you expect such a record to last 2000 years?

originally posted by: BuzzyWigs
a reply to: Praetorius

That aside, the absence of any contemporaneous argument against his existence nearest the first century when christianity was expanding effectively shutters the issue.

Mmm. Sorry, no. All of those contemporaneous sources are subject to editing, redaction, burning, removal from view, etc.
So that's a really lame assertion. And makes no sense as a debating point.

No one wrote that he never existed? How do you know??

Now that's really very interesting. My joining this discussion was based on the claim that there's no contemporary evidence Jesus existed. Based on your input here, such documentation of his existence would also have been subject to editing, redaction, burning, removal from view, etc. (or just the cruelty of history itself to such records). So...thanks in advance for being willing to believe that there very well WERE contemporaneous historical and third party accounts of the life of Jesus, I suppose? Assuming, of course, that you're intellectually honest enough to apply your own logic impartially.

Also, by your own statement, it makes the claims I was addressing regarding the lack of contemporary citations of Jesus an equally "really lame assertion" that makes no sense as a debating point. I trust that will effectively end this discussion since the counterpoint to my view is apparently insensible as a point of debate...

Conversely, the surviving accounts of anti-christian hostility we DO have would likely also have been subject to such censorship (especially by a church/group so eager to keep the best face on things that it would destroy other applicable records), yet plenty of such accounts survive.

As well - a flegling faith stemming from a few hundred local believers would somehow have the resouces and ability to pull such off, while established and entrenched empires and religious institutions with an obvious interest in doing so would lack the ability to kill it at the outset by the relatively simple task of using such documentation at the time to kill the movement at its root by proving its fraudulent basis? Yet we have plenty of documentation and historical suggestion supporting my view that the existence of Jesus was commonly accepted as simple fact essentially not worthy of arguing otherwise.

Best regards.

originally posted by: sdubya
I'd like to re frame the argument, if possible.

If one does not accept the manuscript evidence that a person named Jesus of Nazareth existed, one shouldn't accept that Homer wrote the Illiad. Should we do so?

If no contemporary mentions of Jesus exist outside the New Testament, surely there are many figures such as Buddha that should be considered to be made up.

So, two questions -

What is the minimum level of evidence needed to determine if someone really existed?
What are the odds that a minor celebrity in Jerusalem would be written about by any of contemporaries and that such mention would survive to this time?

Good questions. The minimum level of evidence needed to determine if someone lived is contemporaneous documentation, period. The Romans were scrupulous record-keepers who recorded every trial and execution. No record of Jesus. They also conducted a census. No record of Jesus or his family.

Contemporary historians would likely have noted someone who created such a political uproar that he was executed and created a movement that continued to build. Non-official records in the form of correspondence also might have existed. Remember, the disciples and followers were alleged to have existed, too. That would have created a rather large network of "people who knew people".

Even though it would not have been contemporaneous and, technically, not evidence that he lived, the movement allegedly continued to build momentum yet, even a full generation after Jesus allegedly lived, there were no records of Jesus having existed.

This has all the hallmarks of a manufactured story. Remember, it's much easier to make fabulous claims about someone who is alleged to have existed several generations ago than to make fabulous claims about someone contemporaneous because there are people existing contemporaneously to contradict it.

Also consider that there was motivation to concoct such a story. Religion has always served political agendas. There was a movement under way for Jews to oppose Roman rule. It was mighty convenient (and extremely unlikely) that a Jew who supported Roman rule ("Render unto Caesar that which is Caesar's") would rise to prominence among Jews and if it had happened in reality, he would not have been executed. He would have been a godsend (pun intended) to the Roman government who would have had strong reason to promote him as the Jewish messiah. If no such person existed in reality, which was likely, it wouldn't have been beyond the Flavian Romans to create him out of whole-cloth as having lived several generations ago. Did this happen? Maybe, maybe not. But it's far more likely than the popular story we've been fed.

Then there's the matter of all those stories that are attributed to Jesus matching the stories told about much older deities. Pretty much only the names were changed. This is not insignificant. It further reinforces the likelihood that Jesus never existed. Either that or you have to give equal credibility to the existence of all those other, much older, deities. In any event, there is simply no contemporaneous documentation proving that Jesus lived. Period.

No, we shouldn't accept that Homer lived. Barring contemporaneous documentation, we shouldn't accept that anyone lived. Of course someone wrote the Illiad because it exists. Jesus didn't write anything. The Gospels were written multiple generations after Jesus allegedly lived by men who never witnessed Jesus living. They were certainly not written by Matthew, Mark, Luke or John, further enhancing the argument that Jesus likely never lived.