The Secret of Jesus' Passion

Please provide us with some of this evidence that Jesus was real. I have not seen any of it. But since you are so sure of yourself, please tell us about it. PS. Please don't use the bible in an attempt to prove the bible.
Lois, I did not give you any proof for your question about Jesus. I will try and explain my thoughts on that. You would not ask the same question about, let’s say Greek philosophers for example. You don’t question if Zeno, Pythagoras, Socrates or Plato existed do you. What is their proof of existence? I would have to say their work. The same with the great Buddha’s of the past. Several of the great teachers of the past have continue to exist in history. The same can be said of Jesus. I can find no proof of Jesus the deity really living outside of the bible. But there are the teachings of Jesus the Gnostic (teacher) outside of the bible. The Gnostic gospels for example have a lot of Jesus’s teachings. Your question is a highly contested question from both sides of the issue and has been for some time. http://www.macleans.ca/society/life/did-jesus-really-exist-2/ Nobody is suggesting that Zeno, Pythagoras, Socrates or Plato were supernatural figures who rose bodily into heaven and had a special relationship with god or spoke for god. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. The existence of ancient Greek philosophers is not extraordinary. That there were human philosophers in the time and place these men are claimed to have lived is a rational claim. There is nothing extraordinary about it. No one is claiming they performed miracles. No one is claiming they were anything more than ordinary men who were great thinkers. No one is claiming they were gods. There was a lot more written about them in their lifetimes than was ever written about Jesus in his. There is no reason to doubt their existence.
Please provide us with some of this evidence that Jesus was real. I have not seen any of it. But since you are so sure of yourself, please tell us about it. PS. Please don't use the bible in an attempt to prove the bible.
Lois, I did not give you any proof for your question about Jesus. I will try and explain my thoughts on that. You would not ask the same question about, let’s say Greek philosophers for example. You don’t question if Zeno, Pythagoras, Socrates or Plato existed do you. What is their proof of existence? I would have to say their work. The same with the great Buddha’s of the past. Several of the great teachers of the past have continue to exist in history. The same can be said of Jesus. I can find no proof of Jesus the deity really living outside of the bible. But there are the teachings of Jesus the Gnostic (teacher) outside of the bible. The Gnostic gospels for example have a lot of Jesus’s teachings. Your question is a highly contested question from both sides of the issue and has been for some time. http://www.macleans.ca/society/life/did-jesus-really-exist-2/ Nobody is suggesting that Zeno, Pythagoras, Socrates or Plato were supernatural figures who rose bodily into heaven and had a special relationship with god or spoke for god. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. The existence of ancient Greek philosophers is not extraordinary. That there were human philosophers in the time and place these men are claimed to have lived is a rational claim. There is nothing extraordinary about it. No one is claiming they performed miracles. No one is claiming they were anything more than ordinary men who were great thinkers. No one is claiming they were gods. There was a lot more written about them in their lifetimes than was ever written about Jesus in his. There is no reason to doubt their existence. There is nothing that unusual about gods being born on the solstice from a virgin and having twelve disciples either. And if we studied religion like we study philosophy that would be better understood. The question then becomes were god teachers or judges at the time of Jesus? Egyptian gods did not teach but they controlled the knowledge. The colleges at the time were moving from the temples to regular universities but they still had a very religious curriculum. If you look at the teachers of John and Paul, this if from memory so I think I got the right disciples. Their religious background are connected to Gnostic teachers. And that was not Jesus. So, you have Jesus with Gnostic knowledge gathering others with some Gnostic background. To do what? What was Jesus’s goal? Get rid of that drummer boy thinking that he was poor and the son of god. Jesus never claimed any of that. I got to run right now and will have to continual when I get back, sorry.
What was world changing was the exaggerations and rewriting of Jesus" story by people who never saw him, most of whom were born after he died.
Okay Lois, that is a given Oh, but look at what people have done with it! Ridicule it, ignore it.; Still doesn't take away its power. The comments in this thread are an exact example of why we (the enlightened ones ) lost the election - too much circling the wagons. I've been to hell and back and I don't want to circle the wagons and hide from their dependence on religion any more damnit all - lets confront their crap head on - acknowledging what is real so far as the human spirit and experience is concerned, When will we focus on the fundamental reality of Earth as a real living entity in its own right and Evolution as how we got here, and how we fit into eternity. Of course, can't confront Christianity do that unless you've been on the inside and are willing to talk some of the lingo and appreciate some of the concepts. It ain't that hard, after all it's only human nature. Rationalism and self-skepticism makes us stronger and smarter. Just gotta learn how to use our smarts again our adversaries. I think what you're saying breaks down right about here. The "lingo" can't just be a particular theology, since there are so many. And no matter what, most people I talk to end up somewhere on the spectrum of "I know in my heart Jesus is real" to "It's about the community that I find in church". That spectrum is the common need for human connection, to share a worldview that supports a life that we all want. To me, that means, admitting that there is no intellectual solution, there isn't a set of rules somewhere that are workable and have been tested. The best we've come up with are guidelines. Religions create arguments by saying things like "Christianity is a philosophy, Sharia is a set of laws". Sharia is just as much guidelines that include ways to mediate disputes and incorporate modern data as any other philosophy is. Now, it doesn't help that you have people who say Sharia or the 10 commandments are unquestionable, but I believe that is a small enough group that it can be controlled. So, I do support the work of those uncovering the true history of the writings and a redefinition of the gospels as myths. I could be wrong, but I'm seeing a lot of evidence in that direction. But that's not what will bring atheists and theists together. Scholars have been questioning Bible openly for centuries, and that's not counting those who questioned it before you got burned at the stake for doing that. I think what will bring us together is finding agreement on what those myths express, the underlying values, and that story telling and singing together are viable and valuable ways to spend our time together. Here for example is a tale that encompasses the simple moral of appreciating the bounty of the sea, something we can all agree on. It also some deeper and darker meaning about father-daughter relationship and coming of age. Those are harder to put into words, but a tale helps bring them to the surface. ]
I think what will bring us together is finding agreement on what those myths express, the underlying values,
and to me it seems that's what I'm trying to do. But, it's another obvious fail.
You guys should really watch Zeitgeist, The Movie. The first part documents just how UN-unique the Christian religion is. Just about everything it considers sacred occurs in numerous other religions and belief systems. Virgin birth, 3 days in a cave, ressurection, and on and on. And mind you ZG is not anti-christianity. It's just saying that humans, faced with similar circumstances, especially when on the whole civilizations were ignorant, humans will come to very similar creation myths.
Zeitgeist is very dated. It has a lot of errors. Richard Carrier has put out the first peer reviewed scholarly work on the historicity of Jesus. He addresses the exact same issues, but in much more depth. It will take a couple years for the work to be absorbed and responded to, but I'm hopeful it will clear up a lot the questions. Hopefully it will leave Mike choking on its dust too.Dated? It points out how various religions have so many similarities. How is that dated? And it doesn't really address (as far as I can remember) the historicity of Jesus. Most scholars believe he was a real person, but as to the mythology that has grown up around him, for example his birthday being 25th of Dec, ZG addresses that well. That’s true, books have been written about Jesus’s sayings and matching them up with older religious saying. On the religious side, I don’t think Jesus was creating a new religion, he was just teaching what he most likely learned in Alexandria, some 30 miles and boat ride away. He didn't create a new religion. He was born, lived and died a Jew. It was other people--people who had an agenda--who created a religion and put it in his name. But they also deliberately misinterpreted his message to support their own preconceived--and ill conceived--ideas. If he could see how his message was corrupted he would be appalled. Lois
I think what will bring us together is finding agreement on what those myths express, the underlying values,
and to me it seems that's what I'm trying to do. But, it's another obvious fail. Just because I wrote three paragraphs, doesn't mean you're wrong. It took me a few years to shift from thinking Zeitgeist was a stupid documentary to seeing some merit to the mythicist argument. I'll probably continue to evolve on that, and hopefully the culture will too.
You guys should really watch Zeitgeist, The Movie. The first part documents just how UN-unique the Christian religion is. Just about everything it considers sacred occurs in numerous other religions and belief systems. Virgin birth, 3 days in a cave, ressurection, and on and on. And mind you ZG is not anti-christianity. It's just saying that humans, faced with similar circumstances, especially when on the whole civilizations were ignorant, humans will come to very similar creation myths.
Zeitgeist is very dated. It has a lot of errors. Richard Carrier has put out the first peer reviewed scholarly work on the historicity of Jesus. He addresses the exact same issues, but in much more depth. It will take a couple years for the work to be absorbed and responded to, but I'm hopeful it will clear up a lot the questions. Hopefully it will leave Mike choking on its dust too.Dated? It points out how various religions have so many similarities. How is that dated? And it doesn't really address (as far as I can remember) the historicity of Jesus. Most scholars believe he was a real person, but as to the mythology that has grown up around him, for example his birthday being 25th of Dec, ZG addresses that well. That’s true, books have been written about Jesus’s sayings and matching them up with older religious saying. On the religious side, I don’t think Jesus was creating a new religion, he was just teaching what he most likely learned in Alexandria, some 30 miles and boat ride away. He didn't create a new religion. He was born, lived and died a Jew. It was other people--people who had an agenda--who created a religion and put it in his name. But they also deliberately misinterpreted his message to support their own preconceived--and ill conceived--ideas. If he could see how his message was corrupted he would be appalled. Lois I don’t think Jesus created a new religion either. I think Jesus was a Gnostic Jew. Which would be the teachings according to Gnostic Gospels of his disciples, was his worship. And Roman on subjects like finance, government. On the Jewish side, Jesus followed the Torah but had disagreements with it. He was Jewish on items like family, feasts, dress and farming. He disagreed on the church on items like animal sacrifices and rituals that could only be performed by blood line of the church priests and only at the temples.
You guys should really watch Zeitgeist, The Movie. The first part documents just how UN-unique the Christian religion is. Just about everything it considers sacred occurs in numerous other religions and belief systems. Virgin birth, 3 days in a cave, ressurection, and on and on. And mind you ZG is not anti-christianity. It's just saying that humans, faced with similar circumstances, especially when on the whole civilizations were ignorant, humans will come to very similar creation myths.
Zeitgeist is very dated. It has a lot of errors. Richard Carrier has put out the first peer reviewed scholarly work on the historicity of Jesus. He addresses the exact same issues, but in much more depth. It will take a couple years for the work to be absorbed and responded to, but I'm hopeful it will clear up a lot the questions. Hopefully it will leave Mike choking on its dust too.Dated? It points out how various religions have so many similarities. How is that dated? And it doesn't really address (as far as I can remember) the historicity of Jesus. Most scholars believe he was a real person, but as to the mythology that has grown up around him, for example his birthday being 25th of Dec, ZG addresses that well. That’s true, books have been written about Jesus’s sayings and matching them up with older religious saying. On the religious side, I don’t think Jesus was creating a new religion, he was just teaching what he most likely learned in Alexandria, some 30 miles and boat ride away. He didn't create a new religion. He was born, lived and died a Jew. It was other people--people who had an agenda--who created a religion and put it in his name. But they also deliberately misinterpreted his message to support their own preconceived--and ill conceived--ideas. If he could see how his message was corrupted he would be appalled. Lois I don’t think Jesus created a new religion either. I think Jesus was a Gnostic Jew. Which would be the teachings according to Gnostic Gospels of his disciples, was his worship. And Roman on subjects like finance, government. On the Jewish side, Jesus followed the Torah but had disagreements with it. He was Jewish on items like family, feasts, dress and farming. He disagreed on the church on items like animal sacrifices and rituals that could only be performed by blood line of the church priests and only at the temples. Do you have any citations as to his disagreements with the Jewish religion as practiced in his time?
Do you have any citations as to his disagreements with the Jewish religion as practiced in his time?
Here is some of the thinking on the subject. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Split_of_early_Christianity_and_Judaism From PBS. But aside from these groups that we may call schools or parties - the Pharisees appear to us to be a school and the Sadducees appear to us to be a party, a social-political party - there will have been a whole wide variety of other groups in Jerusalem and perhaps in the countryside as a whole. Some of these are political movements..., the revolutionary groups, Sicarii and the Zealots and whatnot, who took their religious understanding of what Judaism was, took their religious interpretations and turned that into a political agenda. "We must destroy the Roman Empire or we must destroy Jews who cooperate with the Roman Empire. We will kill all collaborators, no King but God," and other such slogans emerge from these religious thinkers. http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/religion/portrait/judaism.html One needs to understand just what the Pharisees and Sadducees were. Pharisees and Sadducees were political interest groups http://www.bible.ca/d-jewish-sects-pharisees-sadducees-essenes-zealots.htm Pharisees - a group of influential Jews active in Palestine from 2nd century BCE through 1st century CE; they advocated and adhered to strict observance of the Sabbath rest, purity rituals, tithing, and food restrictions based on the Hebrew Scriptures and on later traditions. Long-time political and religious rivals of the Sadducees, vying for influence among the rulers and the people. Sadducees - another prominent group of Jews in Palestine from 2nd century BCE through 1st century CE; they were probably smaller "elite" group, but even more influential than the Pharisees; they followed the laws of the Hebrew Bible (the Torah), but rejected newer traditions. Long-time political and religious rivals of the Pharisees, although their influence was more with the wealthy ruling elites. http://catholic-resources.org/Bible/Jewish_Groups.htm The time of Jesus—a period variously called late Second Temple Judaism, early Judaism, and even middle Judaism—had no single leader or authorized group to tell Jews how to follow Torah or what to believe. https://www.bibleodyssey.org/en/people/related-articles/jewish-context-of-jesus.aspx In Jewish Palestine, for example, there were three small but important religious parties that differed from each other in several ways: the Pharisees (numbering about 6,000 at the time of Herod), Essenes (about 4,000), and Sadducees (“a few men," according to Flavius Josephus, in The Antiquities of the Jews 18.17). A largely lay group that had the reputation of being the most-precise interpreters of the law, the Pharisees believed in the resurrection of the dead. They also relied on the nonbiblical “traditions of the fathers," some of which made the law stricter while others relaxed it……. Many aristocratic priests, as well as some prominent laymen, were Sadducees. They rejected the Pharisaic “traditions of the fathers" and maintained some old-fashioned theological opinions. Most famously, they denied resurrection, which had recently entered Jewish thought from Persia and which was accepted by most Jews in the 1st century. https://www.britannica.com/biography/Jesus/The-Jewish-religion-in-the-1st-century https://www.britannica.com/biography/Jesus#toc222990 Many aristocratic priests, as well as some prominent laymen, were Sadducees. They rejected the Pharisaic “traditions of the fathers" and maintained some old-fashioned theological opinions. Most famously, they denied resurrection, which had recently entered Jewish thought from Persia and which was accepted by most Jews in the 1st century. https://www.britannica.com/biography/Jesus/The-Jewish-religion-in-the-1st-century Does the feeling that these groups were small in number and were very political at the time of Jesus begin to materialize? How could anything that Jesus did not be affected by political aspects? Jesus burial was that of the larger group, the Pharisees. Thus it must have been the Sadducees that went after Jesus. And they were a smaller group of the wealthy and political ruling elite. Israel was controlled by Rome and ruled by the local religious elite. The fact that Jesus was able to stay alive would mean that he need a very good Roman connection. Did he have that connection? That question is answered by the book - The Lost Gospel. The book follows Jesus’ marriage to Mary the Magdalene and their political life. The book follows a theory of Jesus’ marriage to Mary the Magdalene and their political life based upon the Syriac Christianity that was coded to hide the story in a the time from the church.

That was possibly the best reference Mike has ever provided. It doesn’t completely support his claim of “Jesus was a gnostic Jew”. I don’t think there is enough evidence to make such a claim. That the gospels were some sort of writing against the Jewish elite, the ones controlling the Temple, is not a very controversial statement.

That was possibly the best reference Mike has ever provided. It doesn't completely support his claim of "Jesus was a gnostic Jew". I don't think there is enough evidence to make such a claim. That the gospels were some sort of writing against the Jewish elite, the ones controlling the Temple, is not a very controversial statement.
Yes. There isn't even enough evidence that the biblical Jesus lived at all.
That was possibly the best reference Mike has ever provided. It doesn't completely support his claim of "Jesus was a gnostic Jew". I don't think there is enough evidence to make such a claim. That the gospels were some sort of writing against the Jewish elite, the ones controlling the Temple, is not a very controversial statement.
Yes. There isn't even enough evidence that the biblical Jesus lived at all. It is common for believers to say something to affect of "historians agree that Jesus was a real person". What they fail to mention is that they only agree on a very rough estimate of when he lived, and on 7 or 8 short passages in the Bible the that he said, and he died at the hands of the Romans. That's it. Nothing you could use to determine his beliefs or intents. Worse, it doesn't say anything about the bad scholarship that arrived at that conclusion or why historians would not want to risk the hassle of questioning the history of Jesus.
The fact that Jesus was able to stay alive would mean that he need a very good Roman connection.
Hmmm, seems he got nailed to the cross at a rather young age.
The fact that Jesus was able to stay alive would mean that he need a very good Roman connection.
Hmmm, seems he got nailed to the cross at a rather young age. Yea, what was his ministry? Something like between four to eight years? And some claim less than a year. Some think it was John the Baptist who had ministry going before Jesus. When Herod Antipas told John to work with him and sort of do thing Herod’s way. John disagreed and ended up losing his head. That creates the question, how was Jesus able to pick up where John left off and not lose his head? I’m not solid on the idea that the crucifixion took place. And if it did, I am not sure that it was Jesus on the cross. Think of it this way, if this was religious battle. Jesus would not have been allowed to teach against tradition. There were towns in that time that were known for assassins as trade. The only way Jesus could have existed doing what he was doing was with political backing. And if Jesus was political, and he was not in office, why kill him. You let him buy his way out and move to another country. If he went to another country and caused trouble you kill all of his relatives. Now are there pieces of the puzzle that have Mary (his wife) moving to another country? Yes, there are. It seems like a lot of Jesus acquaints left town at the time Rome got new leadership. Are there pieces of the puzzle that don’t have Jesus on the cross? Yes, there are. There are so many pieces that the Catholic Church had to make the rule that to be a priest you had to believe in the crucifixion. Which brings up the question, the priest were brought up believing in the crucifixion, what change their minds once they studied at the Vatican? What about Jesus’ family? Jesus is said to have four brothers. So why didn’t they take over John the Baptist’s ministry? After all was it not James, the oldest of the brothers that made the decision at the Jerusalem Council that Gentile Christians did not have to obey ancient Jewish laws? Maybe Jesus was put at the head of the ministry because of his political connections? It is said that only the Romans could kill by law. That’s why Pontius Pilate was brought into the picture as the judge. But wait, didn’t the Jewish leaders beat James to death after Jesus was out of the picture, according to Josephus?
Now are there pieces of the puzzle that have Mary (his wife) moving to another country? Yes, there are. It seems like a lot of Jesus acquaints left town at the time Rome got new leadership.
Who are you talking about here? What sources are there of this? Could it be that it "seems like" those people left town because they never existed in the first place? If the facts are; 1) There are stories about apostles around 30AD, 2) There is no additional information about what happened to them. I could conclude those are just stories.
Are there pieces of the puzzle that don’t have Jesus on the cross? Yes, there are. There are so many pieces that the Catholic Church had to make the rule that to be a priest you had to believe in the crucifixion. Which brings up the question, the priest were brought up believing in the crucifixion, what change their minds once they studied at the Vatican?
Typical Mike. Make up something. Introduce it in the middle of something else. Use it as it if is evidence for something. If I asked, "what priests are you talking about and when and how did they change their minds?", Mike will just introduce some other new made up something and talk about me and do anything but answer the question.
Now are there pieces of the puzzle that have Mary (his wife) moving to another country? Yes, there are. It seems like a lot of Jesus acquaints left town at the time Rome got new leadership.
Who are you talking about here? What sources are there of this? Could it be that it "seems like" those people left town because they never existed in the first place? If the facts are; 1) There are stories about apostles around 30AD, 2) There is no additional information about what happened to them. I could conclude those are just stories.
Are there pieces of the puzzle that don’t have Jesus on the cross? Yes, there are. There are so many pieces that the Catholic Church had to make the rule that to be a priest you had to believe in the crucifixion. Which brings up the question, the priest were brought up believing in the crucifixion, what change their minds once they studied at the Vatican?
Typical Mike. Make up something. Introduce it in the middle of something else. Use it as it if is evidence for something. If I asked, "what priests are you talking about and when and how did they change their minds?", Mike will just introduce some other new made up something and talk about me and do anything but answer the question. You're forgetting about those stacks of books he has stored somewhere. All is revealed in those books. We just need to take Mike's word for it.
Now are there pieces of the puzzle that have Mary (his wife) moving to another country? Yes, there are. It seems like a lot of Jesus acquaints left town at the time Rome got new leadership.
Who are you talking about here? What sources are there of this? Could it be that it "seems like" those people left town because they never existed in the first place? If the facts are; 1) There are stories about apostles around 30AD, 2) There is no additional information about what happened to them. I could conclude those are just stories. After the change in Roman leadership, did not the disciples spread out to other countries. Yes, one could say that they are made up stories. But what about the churches and graves that followed these disciples? Tomb of Jesus John the Baptist in the Umayyad Mosque Tomb of the Virgin Mary Saint Peter's tomb Saint Mark's Coptic Orthodox Cathedral (Alexandria) Matthew the Apostle in the Salerno Cathedral James, son of Zebedee in the Santiago de Compostela Cathedral Luke the Evangelist in Thebes, Greece Basilica of St. John
Are there pieces of the puzzle that don’t have Jesus on the cross? Yes, there are. There are so many pieces that the Catholic Church had to make the rule that to be a priest you had to believe in the crucifixion. Which brings up the question, the priest were brought up believing in the crucifixion, what change their minds once they studied at the Vatican?
Typical Mike. Make up something. Introduce it in the middle of something else. Use it as it if is evidence for something. If I asked, "what priests are you talking about and when and how did they change their minds?", Mike will just introduce some other new made up something and talk about me and do anything but answer the question.
Is it true that the Vatican now requires all priests to swear belief in the crucifixion to become priests? If so, then when and why did that become a requirement? You yourself just said that data of Jesus is almost none existent. So, instead of being a judge and making the rules. Just take a stance. Say that you don’t believe the Vatican requires priests to believe in the crucifixion instead of making it about me. I should not be the subject matter here. All that does is change direction of the subject thought. Just say that no the Vatican does not require all priests to believe in the crucifixion and we will understand your views on the subject and not your views on Mike. But on Mike’s viewpoints. Had you ask the question, my answer may have been something like this. I was talking about the priests of the Catholic Church, did you not get that. You know very well that decades ago the when the battle of evolution vs. creation started that the Catholic Church was leading the battle and crushing all who disagreed with creation. The church trained teams of priests who would crush any talk about evolution. What happened to those teams? When was the last time that you even seen the Catholic Church in one of those debates? I heard it was because the program backfired on the church. Some members of the teams after getting ready to battle by studying the data changed their views about some of the churches ideas. And the church did not want to battle the priests, so they required all priest to believe in the crucifixion. Now this all happened before the internet. You must have some views and were much more into religion than I was. What are your views on what was the reason the Catholic Church backed out of the debates and went to intelligent design? And required all the priests to believe in the crucifixion.

And there, as I said, it has come to pass. Now it’s creationism. Apparently we should have known that is what he was talking about, and now we are obliged to comment there upon thusly. Therefore, to wit, I decline any direct response and expect no better from any nearby wall.

And there, as I said, it has come to pass. Now it's creationism. Apparently we should have known that is what he was talking about, and now we are obliged to comment there upon thusly. Therefore, to wit, I decline any direct response and expect no better from any nearby wall.
You can please some of the people some of the time. And there are those who cannot be please at all. It is no wonder why it takes decades to reach logical conclusions on some subjects when the data doesn't change.