It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Did Jesus Exist -- The Probing Mind

page: 13
0
<< 10  11  12    14  15 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 26 2007 @ 01:15 PM
link   

Originally posted by melatonin

Originally posted by tylersch
However, I think thehumbleone is reading your words just fine.
Your last post you managed to not answer ANY of my questions that I posted AGAIN.



I don't think any of your questions are actually directed at me, if they were I'd answer them...


They are directed to everybody. I don't care who answers.



Sheesh, people are so cranky.


Haha I'm not cranky, I just have to stress the point a little bit to prevent people avoiding my questions.

[edit on 26-1-2007 by tylersch]




posted on Jan, 26 2007 @ 04:01 PM
link   
Well, as I have said numerous times, I have no issue with a historical Jesus - a man who traipsed around palestine saying a few good things - it doesn't matter whether the myths are based around a historical person or a fictional person.

There's lots of apologetics and criticism, no real consensus on anything, unlikely to ever reach a resolution, it's all rather boring and a waste of time


So, as you touched on earlier from a different point of view, ignoring authorship, dates, comparison with other stories - are a lot of the claims scientifically likely?

Nah....

But if you want somewhere that gives analysis of many early christian works, including the gospels,this website has some, all with references and rationale for datings.

[edit on 26-1-2007 by melatonin]



posted on Jan, 26 2007 @ 06:37 PM
link   
tylersch, first of all
i ignored kl's argument because that request would lead to a chain reaction that would end with a request for me to get the original documentation
and, in many ways you're asking me to do just that
essentially, i didn't bring the original article foward for any reason other than to spark discussion

secondly, i don't think i need to back up claims the dionysus was born of a virgin, fathered by a god, turned water into wine, and was seen by some as a redeemer of humanity
it's called common knowledge in the realm of mythology
just like the claim that the figure of osiris rose from the dead

also, side note
mel, you should point out the biggest similarity between buddha and jesus
they both faced 3 temptations when they were going through a period of spiritual purifications
my source?
joseph campbell and the power of myth

actually, campbell has a lot to say about the similarities jesus shares with other mythic characters
well
he has a lot to say about how all mythic characters share the same characteristics
i recomend his books



posted on Jan, 26 2007 @ 09:33 PM
link   
I have just two rebuttals. I think that's all we need:

www.revealed.org...

www.zordesign.co.nz...

Maybe you should use a more objective and learned source?



posted on Jan, 27 2007 @ 12:25 AM
link   

Originally posted by NowAmFound
Maybe you should use a more objective and learned source?


I suggest it is a good idea...


III. Extant Pictures of Jesus.
1. Portraits Ostensibly Authentic:
1. Portraits by Painters, Sculptors, etc.

.....


(3) A "true and only portrait of our Savior taken from an engraved emerald which Pope Innocent VIII. received from Sultan Bajazted II. for the ransom of his brother, who was a captive of the Christians," frequently reproduced in photograph is in reality the copy of a medal which may have been cut at the command of Mohammed II., and which is, at all events, of comparatively modern date.

www.ccel.org...



posted on Jan, 27 2007 @ 10:16 AM
link   
Mel: You didn't really read the information sited, did you? Also, "may have been" doesn't mean much.



posted on Jan, 27 2007 @ 11:26 AM
link   

Originally posted by NowAmFound
Mel: You didn't really read the information sited, did you? Also, "may have been" doesn't mean much.


Hmmm it seems you as well dont really read the information cited.

From your first link

The emerald with the portrait of Christ (similar to your foto) was given by the Sultan Bajazid II to the Pope Innocent VIII (+ 1492). The Emerald disappeared probably with the sack of Rome (1527). But the same profile-image of Christ appears on papal medals, as of the Pope Julius III.

The fact that the emerald no longer exists (lost?) and also the dating c 1492 it could be surmised that the emerald would be more than likely a fraud.

Augustine of Hippo, aware that different artistic representations of Jesus were circulating, claimed that such variations were unavoidable since individual imaginations construct unique fabrications. The problem of verisimilitude, or even consistency, did not trouble him. Since no way exists to judge which image is closest to reality he said, the only nonnegotiable fact is that Jesus had a human face. In his treatise On the Trinity Augustine states that it is not "in the least relevant to salvation what our imaginations picture him like, which is probably quite different from the reality." What really matters is that we think of Jesus as a human being.
Even Augustine - hardcore bishop of the church hadn't a clue what jesus looked like.

One response to this quandary is attributed to Eusebius of Caesarea in a famous (but possibly forged) letter to Constantine’s sister, Constantia. He rebuffed her request for a portrait of Jesus, saying: "What sort of image of Christ are you seeking? Is it the true and unalterable one which bears his essential characteristics, or the one which he took up for our sakes when he assumed the form of a servant?"
The same with Eusebius - didnt your site say that Eusebius had seen pictures???

Onto your 2nd site:
Publius Lentulus - a fictitious charcter
Pilates letters - not known as being authentic
The Archko Volume - known to be fraudulent and taken from the acts of Pilate written in 5th century.
Finally, Josephus is know thought to be a christian addition in later years.

So I have just rebutted your rebuttals and shown them to be spurious if not fraudulent.


G



posted on Jan, 27 2007 @ 11:36 AM
link   

Originally posted by NowAmFound
Mel: You didn't really read the information sited, did you? Also, "may have been" doesn't mean much.


Publius Lentulus is a fictional character, this is widely accepted. The stuff on those websites is of questionable authenticity (e.g. Archko volume). This is why serious scholars take Josephus as the first non-NT mention of Jesus.

www.answers.org...
answers.org...

Many forgeries and fictional writings exist.

For the emerald legend, it "may have been" relates to from who it came from (i.e. Mohammed II), it says clearly it was derived from a medal and is not biblical time period.

ABE:

heheh, you beat me to it shihulud


*note to self - must write posts quicker*

[edit on 27-1-2007 by melatonin]



posted on Jan, 29 2007 @ 10:52 AM
link   

Originally posted by madnessinmysoul
tylersch, first of all
i ignored kl's argument because that request would lead to a chain reaction that would end with a request for me to get the original documentation
and, in many ways you're asking me to do just that
essentially, i didn't bring the original article foward for any reason other than to spark discussion

What's wrong with original documentation? Do you have a problem with original documentation? Do you just rely on the lies people tell you to make you feel more at ease to believe Jesus never lived? I'm just saying if you're gonna spark a discussion and start making all kinds of claims, back it up. You should know this by now.


secondly, i don't think i need to back up claims the dionysus was born of a virgin, fathered by a god, turned water into wine, and was seen by some as a redeemer of humanity
it's called common knowledge in the realm of mythology
just like the claim that the figure of osiris rose from the dead

Oh, but I think you do. Why don't you? Because you know if you really look into it you'll find the truth, and if its common knowledge it should be reasonably easy to back up, don't you think?

You asked me to restate the questions, I did. I wait for reply.
and once again, not ONE question answered.


Originally posted by maddnessinmysoul
jesus shares 19 out of 22 of the core characteristics of oedipus, a pagan myth

At least admit that the stories oedipus and Jesus only have one similarity: they were male.



posted on Jan, 29 2007 @ 03:53 PM
link   
tylersch, i really wish i had time to respond to your post in full
i'm going to leave it to someone else for now

mel, you always seem to have just the right words



posted on Jan, 29 2007 @ 07:10 PM
link   
And once again Mel and madness can't answer tylersch's questions, so what's new around here?



posted on Jan, 29 2007 @ 08:03 PM
link   

Originally posted by thehumbleone
And once again Mel and madness can't answer tylersch's questions, so what's new around here?


And once again, the questions are not aimed at me. Madness might want me to answer but as they were not my assertions, and I don't know whether they be true or not, why should I answer them?

I have enough stuff to do than to read up on dionysus and oedipus supporting a claim I never made. I know the mere outline of oedipus, how can a psychologist not....

All I can say is what I pointed out earlier, even early christians noted that people were comparing Jesus to other myths (such as Bacchus/dionysus and perseus).

If anyone wants to bother, here's a good website with details on dionysus with supporting references from literature.

www.theoi.com...



posted on Jan, 29 2007 @ 09:33 PM
link   

Originally posted by thehumbleone
And once again Mel and madness can't answer tylersch's questions, so what's new around here?


well, most of today i've been battling a mild flu and doing 3 research papers
so, i haven't really had much time to respond
i only differed to mel because he's normally a good responder
however, i finished early than i thought i would
so here i go


Originally posted by tylersch
What's wrong with original documentation? Do you have a problem with original documentation? Do you just rely on the lies people tell you to make you feel more at ease to believe Jesus never lived? I'm just saying if you're gonna spark a discussion and start making all kinds of claims, back it up. You should know this by now.


no, i just don't want to have to go all the way back to a point where i'd have to hand-scan a papyrus jsut to prove a point

sure, asking for proof is good
but sometimes it can get ridiculous



Oh, but I think you do. Why don't you? Because you know if you really look into it you'll find the truth, and if its common knowledge it should be reasonably easy to back up, don't you think?


i did, with something from wikipedia
if you believe wikipedia is false in this situation, show me counterevidence

and mel provided a good source


At least admit that the stories oedipus and Jesus only have one similarity: they were male.


well, here's some similarites
taken from a book by Lord Raglan by the name of
The Hero
a study in tradition myth and drama

Mother is a royal virgin
check

father is a king (if your god isn't a king, who is?)
check

unusual conception
definite check

son of a god
check

an attempt to kill him is made directly after his birth
check

spirited away to avoid death from above attempt
check

we are told little or nothing of his childhood
check

returns at adulthood
check

becomes a king (not just any for "jesus" he gets to be king of kings)
check

loses favor with subjects (judas)
check

mysterious death (all the weird stuff occuring during the crucifixion)
check

death often at top of hill
check

no children to succeed him, or children refuse
check

that's not all 19
but i think i get my point across
no?

anyway
for more counter-points to the existence of "jesus" i recomend "The God Who Wasn't There"
fantastic documentary
it even has a special feature that shows all backing evidence for every claim it makes
and a commentary by richard dawkins



[edit on 1/29/07 by madnessinmysoul]



posted on Jan, 30 2007 @ 11:50 AM
link   

Originally posted by maddnessinmysoul

Originally posted by tylersch
What's wrong with original documentation? Do you have a problem with original documentation? Do you just rely on the lies people tell you to make you feel more at ease to believe Jesus never lived? I'm just saying if you're gonna spark a discussion and start making all kinds of claims, back it up. You should know this by now.

no, i just don't want to have to go all the way back to a point where i'd have to hand-scan a papyrus jsut to prove a point

sure, asking for proof is good
but sometimes it can get ridiculous

I think making claims that you can't back up is ridiculous.





Oh, but I think you do. Why don't you? Because you know if you really look into it you'll find the truth, and if its common knowledge it should be reasonably easy to back up, don't you think?

i did, with something from wikipedia
if you believe wikipedia is false in this situation, show me counterevidence

Wikipedia can be edited by anybody. My problem with the wikipedia page that you linked has no external evidence either. Every article i've read about oedipus has nothing about what your mentioning.





Originally posted by tylersch
At least admit that the stories oedipus and Jesus only have one similarity: they were male.




well, here's some similarites...


Like I said, I don't know where you are getting these "similarities" and "details" from, but from what i've read, sounds like your pulling them out of your


[edit on 30-1-2007 by tylersch]



posted on Jan, 30 2007 @ 03:37 PM
link   

Originally posted by madnessinmysoul
well, here's some similarites
taken from a book by Lord Raglan by the name of
The Hero:
a study in tradition myth and drama


was that not citation enough?

it's a book by Lord Raglan, renowned mythologist
here's a link where you can buy it
he compared other heroes to oedipus
putting jesus to the same test yields 19 out of 22 similarities
i listed off a few

anyway
my claims on dionysus came from wikipedia
if you have a source that refutes those claims they stand
sure, wikipedia can be edited by anyone
but the claims can still be valid
do you have counter-evidence?



posted on Jan, 30 2007 @ 04:37 PM
link   

Originally posted by madnessinmysoul

Originally posted by madnessinmysoul
well, here's some similarites
taken from a book by Lord Raglan by the name of
The Hero:
a study in tradition myth and drama


was that not citation enough?

it's a book by Lord Raglan, renowned mythologist
here's a link where you can buy it
he compared other heroes to oedipus
putting jesus to the same test yields 19 out of 22 similarities
i listed off a few

anyway
my claims on dionysus came from wikipedia
if you have a source that refutes those claims they stand
sure, wikipedia can be edited by anyone
but the claims can still be valid
do you have counter-evidence?


Since this book was written less than a hundred years ago, I have to ask, where did he get his information? Does it quote anything before 6 BC?
Mel posted a site earlier that I have yet to look at fully, but it seems to have the texts the stories originally came from.
www.theoi.com...
If you can find some evidence on that site of what you're claiming is true you might have some actual backing to your claims.

You asking me if I have counter-evidence doesn't make any sense. My "evidence" is that you haven't showed me any real evidence backing your claims. As I said earlier, If I told you I was a billionaire, would you believe me? Just because some one claims certain characteristics about an ancient myth thousands of years later doesn't mean its accurate. You have to go to the source to find out the truth.



posted on Jan, 30 2007 @ 04:46 PM
link   

Originally posted by tylersch
Since this book was written less than a hundred years ago, I have to ask, where did he get his information? Does it quote anything before 6 BC?


he got it directly from "oedipus rex"
the definitve source on all things oedipus (not oedipal for all you freudians)
i'd actually post individual quotes from the story
HOWEVER
that would be tedious and pointless
seeing as raglan got all of his information from it



You asking me if I have counter-evidence doesn't make any sense. My "evidence" is that you haven't showed me any real evidence backing your claims. As I said earlier, If I told you I was a billionaire, would you believe me? Just because some one claims certain characteristics about an ancient myth thousands of years later doesn't mean its accurate. You have to go to the source to find out the truth.


i gave you a source
the only way you refuted it's validity is by claiming that because it's open source it is wrong
you didn't bring up a valid counter-point
all you did is say that my source COULD be wrong
just like any source

i'm actually saying
"hey, this is how some people viewed dionysus"
then i proved it with a source
you then used the logical fallacy of claiming that some of wikipedia's information can be wrong to attack the validity of that entry

so, my wikipedia entry
where is your counter-evidence



posted on Jan, 30 2007 @ 05:10 PM
link   
I keep searching for stories of Oedipus, Oedipus Rex. All I keep getting is a story about a son having sex with his mom and then his mom killed herself when she found out that she had sex with her son.

Show me otherwise. PLEASE



posted on Jan, 30 2007 @ 05:30 PM
link   

Originally posted by tylersch
I keep searching for stories of Oedipus, Oedipus Rex. All I keep getting is a story about a son having sex with his mom and then his mom killed herself when she found out that she had sex with her son.

Show me otherwise. PLEASE


All the Sophocles oedipus-based plays are outlined here with links to texts.

There's three of them ('Oedipus Rex', 'Oedipus at Colunus', 'Antigone'), a bit like a greek star wars trilogy...

[edit on 30-1-2007 by melatonin]



posted on Jan, 30 2007 @ 08:01 PM
link   
Jesus Papyrus - what historical evidence of Jesus do we possess?

"By the way, Sherlock," said he, "I have had something quite after your own heart-a most singular problem-submitted to my judgement. I really had not the energy to follow it up, save in a very incomplete fashion, but it gave me a a basis for some pleasing speculations. If you would care to hear the facts-"

"My dear Mycroft, I should be delighted!"


Sir Arthur Conan Doyle, The Greek Interpreter (1894)

Papyrus scrolls were the most important medium for the transmission of recording information. Oldest Egyptian papyrus c 2700 BC; oldest Hebrew papyrus found in a cave at the Wad Murabba (near the Dead Sea Scrolls) dated c 750 BC.

The first 2 Gospels, St Mark and St Matthew, existed in both scroll and codex form by c 60 AD. What about the existence of the papyrus?

The Jesus Papyrus had text on both sides, it has been assumed that it was part of a codex (a precursor of the modern book) rather than a book. However, clues can be found in Revelation and in Ezekiel that question this assumption. Either way, the shift from scroll to codex is very important for validity of the papyrus but the credibility also. Ancient art work/paintings and sculptures also provide evidence.

The Gospel of Mark exists (in fragment form) in the papyrus scroll found in 7Q5 from Qumran Cave 7 which bears the text of Mark 6:52-3. It has been dated before AD 68 and could be as early as AD 50. It is not from one of the early collections of Jesus's sayings.

The Magdalen Papyrus contains direct quotes and due to the quantity of spoken text, it has been suggested that the Jesus Papyrus was not part of the completed Gospel but from a collection of Christ's sayings.

I think we all have to keep in mind the existence of the papyrus in scroll and codex form. It is also important to consider what the Essenes were up against. *Crucifiction....persecution et cetera.

The Jesus Papyrus was written forty years after the crucifiction or possibly earlier. It is futher suggested that it is the first material evidence that St Matthews gospel was written during the lifetime of eye witnesses; that is records history as experienced by those who where there when it happened.

In the early church, the Docetists denied that Christ ever had a real body or historical significance. They appointed a handful of scholars who presented the NT has unhistorical. It was argued that the Christ of history was an invention of the 2nd century AD. Until then, Christians only worshipped a mythical Messiah. (perhaps thats where Monty Python and Brian come in? lol) Of course, other scholars, historians responded and found that the hypothethis simply did not match the evidence.

What? Evidence!!? You mean there is evidence?



new topics

top topics



 
0
<< 10  11  12    14  15 >>

log in

join