Welcome to Atheist Discussion, a new community created by former members of The Thinking Atheist forum.

Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Historical Jesus, Biblical Jesus

Historical Jesus, Biblical Jesus
Quote:I think it's in Mark, written around 70 AD?



Fundie idiots aside the date of 70 is seized upon by xtians as the date of the Little Apocalypse when Titus' army sacked Jerusalem and burned the temple ( best thing that could have been done with it, IMHO!)  In their eternal desire to push this shit as early as possible they insist that "Mark" was written in 70 because it suits their need.  But the simple fact is that Jerusalem remained a burned out shell until 130 or so when Hadrian got the bright idea to re-build the city as a Roman colonia.  This resulted in the Bar Kokhba revolt which devastated the region for 3 years or so and resulted in the jews being kicked out of Judaea.  But the point is that the conditions which the jesus freaks insist give them the time frame for "Mark" existed for 60 odd years.  There is nothing particularly compelling for 70 or 84 or 123 AD.  The city was a burned out shell the whole time with the exception of the camp of the 10th Legion which was moved there from Syria to control the area.

The problem which the jesus freaks insist upon overlooking is that "Mark" did not say that Jerusalem would be a burned out shell.  What we are told that he wrote is:

Quote: Mark 13 King James Version (KJV)

13 And as he went out of the temple, one of his disciples saith unto him, Master, see what manner of stones and what buildings are here!
2 And Jesus answering said unto him, Seest thou these great buildings? there shall not be left one stone upon another, that shall not be thrown down.

One might try to say poetic license or literary creativity or any other excuse that the apologist types come up with but the simple fact of the matter is that after 135 the Romans DID level the site in order to build Aelia Capitolina on top of the rubble.  So the so-called prophecy in Mark actually did happen.... but in the mid 2d century and the xhristards would rather amputate their own balls with a broken bottle than admit that!
Robert G. Ingersoll : “No man with a sense of humor ever founded a religion.”
The following 1 user Likes Minimalist's post:
  • Dānu
Reply

Historical Jesus, Biblical Jesus
(06-11-2020, 02:23 AM)Minimalist Wrote:
Quote:I think it's in Mark, written around 70 AD?



Fundie idiots aside the date of 70 is seized upon by xtians as the date of the Little Apocalypse when Titus' army sacked Jerusalem and burned the temple ( best thing that could have been done with it, IMHO!)  In their eternal desire to push this shit as early as possible they insist that "Mark" was written in 70 because it suits their need.  But the simple fact is that Jerusalem remained a burned out shell until 130 or so when Hadrian got the bright idea to re-build the city as a Roman colonia.  This resulted in the Bar Kokhba revolt which devastated the region for 3 years or so and resulted in the jews being kicked out of Judaea.  But the point is that the conditions which the jesus freaks insist give them the time frame for "Mark" existed for 60 odd years.  There is nothing particularly compelling for 70 or 84 or 123 AD.  The city was a burned out shell the whole time with the exception of the camp of the 10th Legion which was moved there from Syria to control the area.

The problem which the jesus freaks insist upon overlooking is that "Mark" did not say that Jerusalem would be a burned out shell.  What we are told that he wrote is:

Quote: Mark 13 King James Version (KJV)

13 And as he went out of the temple, one of his disciples saith unto him, Master, see what manner of stones and what buildings are here!
2 And Jesus answering said unto him, Seest thou these great buildings? there shall not be left one stone upon another, that shall not be thrown down.

One might try to say poetic license or literary creativity or any other excuse that the apologist types come up with but the simple fact of the matter is that after 135 the Romans DID level the site in order to build Aelia Capitolina on top of the rubble.  So the so-called prophecy in Mark actually did happen.... but in the mid 2d century and the xhristards would rather amputate their own balls with a broken bottle than admit that!

The vast majority of scholars date Mark around 70-75 AD though.  They figure it was based on oral stories handed down for couple of generations and written for a gentile audience.  Whoever wrote Mark never set foot in Palestine because of the geographical problems in the text so it was written anonymously by someone in Rome or beyond.

I don't know what Fucking Fundi Idiots you've been talking to but the Fucking Fundi Idiots I've talked to claim Mark was written during Jesus' life and it's an eyewitness account.  Fundis I've argued with say Mark witnessed Jebus' life and wrote it down while he was alive so the 70-75 AD date throws them into a fit of panty twisting and bible clutching.   When you toss in a much later date of "John" their heads explode.   They claim whoever wrote John was an eyewitness too.

Personally, I don't have a problem with the 70-75 date because I know how quickly rumors spread especially among poor uneducated superstitious people.   But then I think Jebus was probably a real guy, some local yokle the stories are built around who was shoehorned into the messiah role. The Paul Bunyon of his day.   

But Min, I don't have a problem with the Jesus myth either. It's not a big deal to me. 

The thing about Jerusalem is that it's smack dab in the middle of the crossroads of several competing empires over thousands of years so it's been distroyed twice, beseiged 22 times, attacked 52 times and recaptured 44 times. There's always something going on in Jerusalem.  Your quote from Mark is used by Christians as proof that Jesus was a prophet but when you look at the history of Jerusalem it's like prophecizing that gambling will happen in Las Vegas when it opens from Covid 19.
                                                         T4618
The following 2 users Like Dancefortwo's post:
  • Mr Greene, Gwaithmir
Reply

Historical Jesus, Biblical Jesus
Quote:The vast majority of scholars date Mark around 70-75 AD though.

The vast majority of those scholars are xtians, too.  They have an inherent bias to insist that their bullshit is right.  That's the biggest problem with them.
Robert G. Ingersoll : “No man with a sense of humor ever founded a religion.”
Reply

Historical Jesus, Biblical Jesus
Fundies claim a lot of stupid shit. Usually without support. They hear something they like but don't bother to read what it is based on. Then when pressed, they ad lib an argument ex culo.
[Image: giant%20meteor%202020.jpg]
Reply

Historical Jesus, Biblical Jesus
(06-11-2020, 04:54 AM)Minimalist Wrote:
Quote:The vast majority of scholars date Mark around 70-75 AD though.

The vast majority of those scholars are xtians, too.  They have an inherent bias to insist that their bullshit is right.  That's the biggest problem with them.

When you start with your conclusion and work backwards, the results are usually going to be severely tainted. We all do this to an extent, but most of us aren't as invested in any specific theory or conclusion. It's the importance of reaching specific conclusions which themselves are highly specific which warps their thinking beyond all reason.
[Image: giant%20meteor%202020.jpg]
Reply

Historical Jesus, Biblical Jesus
In one of his books, Archaeologist William Dever told the story of a religious scholar named Calloway who, after participating in a dig found evidence that the bible was full of shit.  He did not ignore the findings but as he worked for a conservative xtian college he resigned his post telling them that he could no longer support their positions.

So that's integrity in a scholar.

I suspect in a lot of cases they simply try to interpret evidence in the best possible case they can find because they are already believers.  That's a bit different than conspiracy types who just make shit up and swear it is true.

I saved that Dever reference somewhere.  I'll have to see if I can find it for you.  Calloway acted properly, as did the Israeli archaeologists  who spread out over Sinai and the West Bank in the aftermath of the 1967 war.  They were looking for evidence that the whole bible story was true and when they failed to find anything they did not ignore it.  Instead they drew up an entirely new theory of Israelite origins.... one which has nothing to do with the fucking OT.
Robert G. Ingersoll : “No man with a sense of humor ever founded a religion.”
The following 2 users Like Minimalist's post:
  • Alan V, Gwaithmir
Reply

Historical Jesus, Biblical Jesus
So there were any number of wandering apocalyptic preachers running around at that time.
We know a number of their names. There were a number of Jesuses.
Scholars know that Mark is based on at least one preceding source, ("Q") and is unique in a number of ways.
The theme of Mark is the "Messianic secret". https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Messianic_...am%20Wrede.
The pretense in Mark of knowing about the destruction of Jerusalem mandates that the earliest it was written, was 72 AD.
The "books" of sayings, (which actually could have come from anywhere, and anyone) *possibly* could have been earlier.
But even that's a big stretch. How do we know that ?

The most damning and ultimately determining fact for me, (and one which virtually no one talks about, .. because virtually EVERY Jesus scholar is INCOMPETENT and unschooled in the Jewish literature of the 1st Century, is that the content and themes of the gospels are the SAME themes and content the Jewish rabbis (and for John, the Gnostics and Philo), talked and wrote about LATE in the First Century, NOT early First Century, when they were trying to deal with how Judaism would continue, (and in what form) AFTER the temple was destroyed. Even (notably) the prominent mythicists of today are not equipped to deal with this. They were never trained in the subject, they (for the most part), can't even read or write the language. It's utterly damning for proponents of the Jesus myth to read those rabbis and what they said, and what they were concerned with. Why .... it's as if this Jebus person were speaking and doing his parables, but 70 years after he was supposedly crucified. A person referenced as "Yeshua bar Joseph" may or may not have existed, but NO ONE gave two shits about the intellectual content of what's in the gospels until far later. They slapped late First Century concepts and ideas (when they made up "Jesus Christ"), onto a name that they possibly might have "remembered" culturally for some reason or other.
The following 1 user Likes Bucky Ball's post:
  • Gwaithmir
Reply

Historical Jesus, Biblical Jesus
Of course Q is to bible studies what the tachyon is to physics.  The tachyon is a hypothetical particle and Q is a hypothetical source which was invented in Germany in the 1830's.  No one has ever seen it and a lot of people think it is total horseshit.
Robert G. Ingersoll : “No man with a sense of humor ever founded a religion.”
Reply

Historical Jesus, Biblical Jesus
Quote:talked and wrote about LATE in the First Century, NOT early First Century, when they were trying to deal with how Judaism would continue,

Did you ever notice, Buck the obsession that the gospel bullshitters had with the Pharisees?  The Sadducees are rarely mentioned in the NT while the Pharisees are sort of like the Klingons to these early xtians.

The problem is that the Pharisees were far more similar to what the godboy was allegedly talking about.  They believed in an afterlife, the Sadducees did not.

https://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/pha...nd-essenes

Moreover, the Sadducees were the ones running the temple and controlling the religious life of the region while the Pharisees were the representatives of the common people.

The Sadducees disappear from history when the temple was destroyed as they had no raison d'etre without it and, as you note, it was the Pharisees who got together at Yavne to figure out how to proceed sans Temple.  Rabbinic Judaism was the result but it dates from the late First Century as you surmise.

Still, by the time that this jesus crap was cobbled together the writers had largely forgotten the earlier distinctions and blamed the Pharisees for everything - in spite of the fact that Caiaphas and his trial judges would have been Sadducees.

Just curious shit.

Somehow those same authors forgot that in the early first century Bethlehem and "Nazareth" ( if it even existed!) would have been in different countries.  Another minor fuck up!
Robert G. Ingersoll : “No man with a sense of humor ever founded a religion.”
The following 1 user Likes Minimalist's post:
  • Dānu
Reply

Historical Jesus, Biblical Jesus
Bacchae, by Euripedes.

Any resemblance to the Gospel of John is just a coincidence, I'm sure.

Don't mistake me for those nice folks from Give-A-Shit county.
The following 1 user Likes Old Man Marsh's post:
  • Cavebear
Reply

Historical Jesus, Biblical Jesus
(06-14-2020, 03:21 AM)Old Man Marsh Wrote: Bacchae, by Euripedes.

Any resemblance to the Gospel of John is just a coincidence, I'm sure.


They do sure dress like Greek Sybils...
Theists disbelieve in all deities but one.  I just disbelieve in one less.
Reply

Historical Jesus, Biblical Jesus
(06-14-2020, 03:21 AM)Old Man Marsh Wrote: Bacchae, by Euripedes.

Any resemblance to the Gospel of John is just a coincidence, I'm sure.

I've posted this before but it's always fun for a re-post.  This is Philo Judaeus' story of flogging of Carabbas.  It was written several decades before the gospels.  Philo's influence on Christianity is well known and they borrowed his idea of Logos in the Jesus story as that of an ambassador sent by god to speak to humanity.   The name "Maris" is the god Mars in this piece.

Quote:There was a certain madman named Carabbas ... this man spent all this days and nights naked in the roads, minding neither cold nor heat, the sport of idle children and wanton youths;


And they, driving the poor wretch as far as the public gymnasium, and setting him up there on high that he might be seen by everybody, flattened out a leaf of papyrus and put it on his head instead of a diadem, and clothed the rest of his body with a common door mat instead of a cloak and instead of a sceptre they put in his hand a small stick of the native papyrus which they found lying by the way side and gave to him.

And when, like actors in theatrical spectacles, he had received all the insignia of royal authority, and had been dressed and adorned like a king, the young men bearing sticks on their shoulders stood on each side of him instead of spear-bearers, in imitation of the bodyguards of the king, and then others came up, some as if to salute him, and others making as though they wished to plead their causes before him, and others pretending to wish to consult with him about the affairs of the state.

Then from the multitude of those who were standing around there arose a wonderful shout of men calling out Maris!; and this is the name by which it is said that they call the kings among the Syrians; for they knew that Agrippa was by birth a Syrian, and also that he was possessed of a great district of Syria of which he was the sovereign

Resemblance to the bible is just coink-ee-dink.    Chuckle
                                                         T4618
The following 2 users Like Dancefortwo's post:
  • Gwaithmir, Old Man Marsh
Reply

Historical Jesus, Biblical Jesus
Tell me - does this sound at all familiar?  Particularly the actions of the Roman Procurator?


https://penelope.uchicago.edu/josephus/war-6.html

Quote: But what is still more terrible; there was one Jesus, the son of Ananus, a plebeian, and an husbandman, who, four years before the war began; and at a time when the city was in very great peace and prosperity; came to that feast whereon it is our custom for every one to make tabernacles to God in the temple, (17) began on a sudden to cry aloud, “A voice from the east; a voice from the west; a voice from the four winds; a voice against Jerusalem, and the holy house; a voice against the bridegrooms, and the brides; and a voice against this whole people.” This was his cry, as he went about by day and by night, in all the lanes of the city. However certain of the most eminent among the populace had great indignation at this dire cry of his; and took up the man, and gave him a great number of severe stripes. Yet did not he either say any thing for himself, or any thing peculiar to those that chastised him: but still went on with the same words which he cried before. Hereupon our rulers, supposing, as the case proved to be, that this was a sort of divine fury in the man; brought him to the Roman procurator. Where he was whipped till his bones were laid bare. Yet he did not make any supplication for himself, nor shed any tears: but turning his voice to the most lamentable tone possible, at every stroke of the whip his answer was, “Woe, woe to Jerusalem.” And when Albinus, (for he was then our procuratorWink asked him, “Who he was? and whence he came? and why he uttered such words?” he made no manner of reply to what he said: but still did not leave off his melancholy ditty: till Albinus took him to be a mad-man, and dismissed him.


Josephus    The Jewish War  Book VI,  Chapter 5,  Part III
Robert G. Ingersoll : “No man with a sense of humor ever founded a religion.”
The following 2 users Like Minimalist's post:
  • Dānu, Gwaithmir
Reply

Historical Jesus, Biblical Jesus
Don't mistake me for those nice folks from Give-A-Shit county.
Reply

Historical Jesus, Biblical Jesus
This is the kind of shit about Bart Ehrman that pisses me off.

From "Jesus Before The Gospels."

Quote:The issues I cover in the book are obviously of enormous importance for all those who claim a personal attachment and allegiance to Jesus. But not only for those. Whatever you personally think and believe about Jesus, whether you consider yourself to be one of his followers or are simply an interested “outsider,” you can’t deny that Jesus has been and continues to be massively important to our world and our way of life. He is worshipped as God by more than two billion people today, and the church founded on his name has for many, many centuries been the single most powerful religious, cultural, social, political, and economic institution in the Western world. Both faith in Jesus and the church institution established in his name are rooted in stories told about him in the New Testament Gospels. How can we use the later memories of Jesus to the establish facts of his life, the things that he actually said and did? Were details changed here and there when they were being circulated by word of mouth? Were stories changed drastically? Were some invented? In short, were some early Christian memories of Jesus frail? Or faulty? Or even false?

pg 18

Ehrman fully understands that this horseshit was written down long after the events they claim to describe.  He fully admits that the authors - whoever the fuck they may have been - never met the godboy and given life spans it is unlikely that they ever met anyone who did.  He is willing to consider the possibilities that this shit is based on hearsay, error, or fraud.  But then he still thinks that they have some fucking value in a historical sense.  He has made a whole career out of trashing the gospels but won't take the extra step of dismissing them as fiction.

I submit that he is not willing to apply that allowance to any other religion... which ultimately makes him a bullshit artist.
Robert G. Ingersoll : “No man with a sense of humor ever founded a religion.”
Reply




Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)