Jesus had a wife

[GannonFan]

No one knows on what day jesus was born or died. The dates we use now coincide with celestial events - pagans did the same **** and we should put as much faith and scrutiny into the birth of christ that we do Apollo.

Well, just to nitpick on one point there, why would we have reliable data on his date of birth? We don't know the exact date of birth of numerous Roman emperors, some that came hundreds of years after Jesus, so why would we know the date of birth of someone born into poverty centuries before the nobility we don't know the dates of?

[D1B]

No one knows on what day jesus was born or died. The dates we use now coincide with celestial events - pagans did the same **** and we should put as much faith and scrutiny into the birth of christ that we do Apollo.

Well, just to nitpick on one point there, why would we have reliable data on his date of birth?

Because he's the son of god and savior of the world.

Why then would you need to fix both on celestial events like the pagans did? Answer - because you had to to convert pagans. Christianity is Pepsi and Paganism was RC Cola. It's all bullshit.

[GannonFan]

Well, just to nitpick on one point there, why would we have reliable data on his date of birth?

Because he's the son of god and savior of the world.

Why then would you need to fix both on celestial events like the pagans did? Answer - because you had to to convert pagans. Christianity is Pepsi and Paganism was RC Cola. It's all bullshit.

That's not an answer. that's just an argument. Historical records of almost anyone's birth, a Ceasar in Rome or a poor carpenter in a third rate province far off in the empire, are all meager at best. People can't even agree on the year Constantine was born and he was a Roman Ceasar 300 years after Jesus is reported to have lived. So again, why would you expect to have verifiable birth records on a poor kid from Nazareth two millenium ago?

[D1B]

No one knows on what day jesus was born or died. The dates we use now coincide with celestial events - pagans did the same **** and we should put as much faith and scrutiny into the birth of christ that we do Apollo.

Well, just to nitpick on one point there, why would we have reliable data on his date of birth? We don't know the exact date of birth of numerous Roman emperors, some that came hundreds of years after Jesus, so why would we know the date of birth of someone born into poverty centuries before the nobility we don't know the dates of?

Don't you think a reasonable god would want to leave ample evidence of his life and message? Why would an intelligent god leave his legacy to an army of anonymous scribes writing in a foreign language? Why would he not leave this legacy chisseled in stone and not written on a dried goat scrotum? Why would he leave his legacy open to a myriad of interpretations (even among his 12 friends) that opened the door to countless sects, disbelief and religious wars?

Why? Because we invented him, humans do shit like that, not gods. We did it, and continue to do it (mormonisn) with countless other gods.

[LeadBolt]

Because he's the son of god and savior of the world.

Why then would you need to fix both on celestial events like the pagans did? Answer - because you had to to convert pagans. Christianity is Pepsi and Paganism was RC Cola. It's all bullshit.

That's not an answer. that's just an argument. Historical records of almost anyone's birth, a Ceasar in Rome or a poor carpenter in a third rate province far off in the empire, are all meager at best. People can't even agree on the year Constantine was born and he was a Roman Ceasar 300 years after Jesus is reported to have lived. So again, why would you expect to have verifiable birth records on a poor kid from Nazareth two millenium ago?

By modern standards, virtually all the records from ancient times are sketchy. As ancient records go, the Bible is very complete and accurate. By modern standards, not so much.

While not all events portrayed in the Bible can be proven through archeology or other scientific studies, quite a few have proven to be true that were earlier doubted through digs and study.

At this point no event given in the Bible that I am aware of can shown to be false through scientific study of the historical or archaeological record.

Given the character flaws of many of the heroes in the Bible, which it attributes to them, the weird things that are done that leave critics asking "Why would" and "don't you think" instead of giving evidence. Coupled with the atrocities committed by believers, I find it hard to believe that someone inventing a religion would have included those things.

[D1B]

Because he's the son of god and savior of the world.

Why then would you need to fix both on celestial events like the pagans did? Answer - because you had to to convert pagans. Christianity is Pepsi and Paganism was RC Cola. It's all bullshit.

That's not an answer. that's just an argument. Historical records of almost anyone's birth, a Ceasar in Rome or a poor carpenter in a third rate province far off in the empire, are all meager at best. People can't even agree on the year Constantine was born and he was a Roman Ceasar 300 years after Jesus is reported to have lived. So again, why would you expect to have verifiable birth records on a poor kid from Nazareth two millenium ago?

He was the son of god, savior of the world. Using your logic, surely then we would know the day of death? But we don't.

The point is you'd think we'd have a day and the day they ultimatly picked is a day humans. for eons, dedicated to the sun or Sun King. Same thing with his death, coinciding with the vernal equinox. Sounds like one of many Sun Myths, not the historical record of the most important person to ever live.

[JoltinJoe]

Yawn, Mr. Flat Earther.

As the scholarly piece I cited above establishes, historians reject the lie that the Jesus story was based on pagan myth. There was no pagan "god" who was executed and resurrected. The claim that Jesus's story derives from pagan stories about resurrected gods is a fabrication, spread by flat-earthers by way of the interest who wither didn't go to college, or didn't study too hard when they were there. But scholars place no credence on this claim by flat earthers.

And let me break this news to you too. Mikey didn't die from a stomach explosion caused by mixing Pop Rocks and Coca Cola.

Now now... Joe
Please don't act like there hasn't been centuries of misdirection, concealment and flat out cover-ups in regards to the actual facts surrounding Jesus. So for whatever reason the church consensus apologists scholars and "TEAM JESUS" put forth... it's still ALL UP FOR DEBATE

I'm sorry, but there have been far too much in the way of shenanigans and clouded maneuverings to act like you're acting - as though - you have the facts and everybody else is a dullard

If you want to discuss the Jesus life story and whether it was embellished, fine. Plenty of reasons to have that discussion.

If you want to claim that the Jesus life story was based on pagan myths (based on a studious review of internet sources ), sorry. The claim that resurrection story is based on similar pagan accounts is a fabrication.

If you want to claim Jesus never existed, sorry. That's a frivolous claim.

[houndawg]

True, one does wonder how such a preposterous story can get legs, but hey, with a population of 8 billion there are bound to be a lot of people in that > 3 sigma outlier range.

Well, 3 sigma out of 8 billion in a normal distribution would get you only 24 million people. Right now there are about 2.2 billion people who are Christians. That's hardly outlier range, statistically speaking of course.

All that means is that christians breed.

[houndawg]

No one knows on what day jesus was born or died. The dates we use now coincide with celestial events - pagans did the same **** and we should put as much faith and scrutiny into the birth of christ that we do Apollo.

Well, just to nitpick on one point there, why would we have reliable data on his date of birth? We don't know the exact date of birth of numerous Roman emperors, some that came hundreds of years after Jesus, so why would we know the date of birth of someone born into poverty centuries before the nobility we don't know the dates of?

We wouldn't because the guy was nobody during his own lifetime. Just one of hundreds of people claiming to fit the messiah prophecy. Christianity got legs because it was written down and dispersed. And also mistranslated in some way by every one of the thousands of scribes who ever copied the texts.

[D1B]

Now now... Joe
Please don't act like there hasn't been centuries of misdirection, concealment and flat out cover-ups in regards to the actual facts surrounding Jesus. So for whatever reason the church consensus apologists scholars and "TEAM JESUS" put forth... it's still ALL UP FOR DEBATE

I'm sorry, but there have been far too much in the way of shenanigans and clouded maneuverings to act like you're acting - as though - you have the facts and everybody else is a dullard

If you want to discuss the Jesus life story and whether it was embellished, fine. Plenty of reasons to have that discussion.

If you want to claim that the Jesus life story was based on pagan myths (based on a studious review of internet sources ), sorry. The claim that resurrection story is based on similar pagan accounts is a fabrication.

If you want to claim Jesus never existed, sorry. That's a frivolous claim.

Joe, you're in cult. You can't be objective. No one expects you to understand.

[houndawg]

Now now... Joe
Please don't act like there hasn't been centuries of misdirection, concealment and flat out cover-ups in regards to the actual facts surrounding Jesus. So for whatever reason the church consensus apologists scholars and "TEAM JESUS" put forth... it's still ALL UP FOR DEBATE

I'm sorry, but there have been far too much in the way of shenanigans and clouded maneuverings to act like you're acting - as though - you have the facts and everybody else is a dullard

If you want to discuss the Jesus life story and whether it was embellished, fine. Plenty of reasons to have that discussion.

If you want to claim that the Jesus life story was based on pagan myths (based on a studious review of internet sources ), sorry. The claim that resurrection story is based on similar pagan accounts is a fabrication.

If you want to claim Jesus never existed, sorry. That's a frivolous claim.

Gods that die and are resurrected have been a religious staple for millennia. Jesus is basically a recycled Egyptian sun god myth.

[D1B]

Well, just to nitpick on one point there, why would we have reliable data on his date of birth? We don't know the exact date of birth of numerous Roman emperors, some that came hundreds of years after Jesus, so why would we know the date of birth of someone born into poverty centuries before the nobility we don't know the dates of?

We wouldn't because the guy was nobody during his own lifetime. Just one of hundreds of people claiming to fit the messiah prophecy. Christianity got legs because it was written down and dispersed. And also mistranslated in some way by every one of the thousands of scribes who ever copied the texts.

Exactly. I would add that christianity got legs because it was tailor made for tyrants and their clergy handmaidens:

One mean motherfucking god who will reward you in the sky for suffering on earth. Perfect instrument to control the masses.

[houndawg]

We wouldn't because the guy was nobody during his own lifetime. Just one of hundreds of people claiming to fit the messiah prophecy. Christianity got legs because it was written down and dispersed. And also mistranslated in some way by every one of the thousands of scribes who ever copied the texts.

Exactly. I would add that christianity got legs because it was tailor made for tyrants and their clergy handmaidens:

One mean motherfucking god who will reward you in the sky for suffering on earth. Perfect instrument to control the masses.

All religions are about control. They are the counter-argument to the "It's my life way of thinking.

[LeadBolt]

Well, just to nitpick on one point there, why would we have reliable data on his date of birth? We don't know the exact date of birth of numerous Roman emperors, some that came hundreds of years after Jesus, so why would we know the date of birth of someone born into poverty centuries before the nobility we don't know the dates of?

We wouldn't because the guy was nobody during his own lifetime. Just one of hundreds of people claiming to fit the messiah prophecy. Christianity got legs because it was written down and dispersed. And also mistranslated in some way by every one of the thousands of scribes who ever copied the texts.

I'm confused, did you just say that the only reason that Christianity spread was because it was documented? I could have sworn that a part of the criticism earlier in this thread was because 1). there are no independent sources from the time (which was refuted with authors); 2). the Christian sources were inaccurate because of the time that had lapsed between the written documentation and the event; 3). that the translation of the texts were inaccurate and changed the meaning.

If the only reason it spread was because it was written down, how did it survive until it was written down if it wasn't written down at the time and wouldn't the adherents have noticed the change from translation errors?

[D1B]

We wouldn't because the guy was nobody during his own lifetime. Just one of hundreds of people claiming to fit the messiah prophecy. Christianity got legs because it was written down and dispersed. And also mistranslated in some way by every one of the thousands of scribes who ever copied the texts.

I'm confused, did you just say that the only reason that Christianity spread was because it was documented? I could have sworn that a part of the criticism earlier in this thread was because 1). there are no independent sources from the time (which was refuted with authors); 2). the Christian sources were inaccurate because of the time that had lapsed between the written documentation and the event; 3). that the translation of the texts were inaccurate and changed the meaning.

If the only reason it spread was because it was written down, how did it survive until it was written down if it wasn't written down at the time and wouldn't the adherents have noticed the change from translation errors?

The myth was written down and dispersed. Believe it or not, it was an early form of pop fiction. Scribes competed like best selling authors do now.

[D1B]

CID, back to you. What's your evidence for a historical Jesus?

[Pwns]

LoL at D1B. Jesus didn't exist cuz religion is silly and something about Catholic pedophiles.

[houndawg]

We wouldn't because the guy was nobody during his own lifetime. Just one of hundreds of people claiming to fit the messiah prophecy. Christianity got legs because it was written down and dispersed. And also mistranslated in some way by every one of the thousands of scribes who ever copied the texts.

I'm confused, did you just say that the only reason that Christianity spread was because it was documented? I could have sworn that a part of the criticism earlier in this thread was because 1). there are no independent sources from the time (which was refuted with authors); 2). the Christian sources were inaccurate because of the time that had lapsed between the written documentation and the event; 3). that the translation of the texts were inaccurate and changed the meaning.

If the only reason it spread was because it was written down, how did it survive until it was written down if it wasn't written down at the time and wouldn't the adherents have noticed the change from translation errors?

Seems to happen a lot. None of your points are mutually exclusive so I'm not sure what it is you're confused about..?
.

[JoltinJoe]

If you want to discuss the Jesus life story and whether it was embellished, fine. Plenty of reasons to have that discussion.

If you want to claim that the Jesus life story was based on pagan myths (based on a studious review of internet sources ), sorry. The claim that resurrection story is based on similar pagan accounts is a fabrication.

If you want to claim Jesus never existed, sorry. That's a frivolous claim.

Gods that die and are resurrected have been a religious staple for millennia. Jesus is basically a recycled Egyptian sun god myth.

Absolutely not true. Internet fabrication. Read the Huffington Post article by a genuine scholar.

Moreover, the claim that Jesus was simply made up falters on every ground. The alleged parallels between Jesus and the "pagan" savior-gods in most instances reside in the modern imagination: We do not have accounts of others who were born to virgin mothers and who died as an atonement for sin and then were raised from the dead (despite what the sensationalists claim ad nauseum in their propagandized versions).

[JoltinJoe]

cult.

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G2y8Sx4B2Sk[/youtube]

[Skjellyfetti]

And, Ehrman - a "genuine scholar" - also argues that the story of Jesus's resurrection is from the hallucinations of his disciples.

Thoughts, Joe?

http://www.bostonglobe.com/ideas/2014/0 ... story.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

[houndawg]

Gods that die and are resurrected have been a religious staple for millennia. Jesus is basically a recycled Egyptian sun god myth.

Absolutely not true. Internet fabrication. Read the Huffington Post article by a genuine scholar.

Moreover, the claim that Jesus was simply made up falters on every ground. The alleged parallels between Jesus and the "pagan" savior-gods in most instances reside in the modern imagination: We do not have accounts of others who were born to virgin mothers and who died as an atonement for sin and then were raised from the dead (despite what the sensationalists claim ad nauseum in their propagandized versions).

Tiny difference in details, Joe. Thought you were a student of the subject.

So you're saying that a god that dies and is resurrected is a christian thing and didn't exist for hundreds of years before christianity?

[JoltinJoe]

Absolutely not true. Internet fabrication. Read the Huffington Post article by a genuine scholar.

Moreover, the claim that Jesus was simply made up falters on every ground. The alleged parallels between Jesus and the "pagan" savior-gods in most instances reside in the modern imagination: We do not have accounts of others who were born to virgin mothers and who died as an atonement for sin and then were raised from the dead (despite what the sensationalists claim ad nauseum in their propagandized versions).

Tiny difference in details, Joe. Thought you were a student of the subject.

So you're saying that a god that dies and is resurrected is a christian thing and didn't exist for hundreds of years before christianity?

What I'm saying is that the claim that resurrection account of the Gospel was "stolen" from pagan myths is not true and is generally not taken seriously by scholars. In fact, these pagan stories do not pre-date Christ; the pagans "molded" their existing gods (like Mithra) to fit the Christ story when they saw how popular Christianity had become. There is NO account of Mithra being raised from the dead until after the advent of Christianity. While it is true that many of these gods pre-dated Christ, their resurrection stories were molded after Christ.

Claims that other gods, like Ishtar, were said to have been raised from the dead, are distorted. Some years, ago a credential historian, Richard Carrier, examined the 16 pagan gods claimed to be versions of the resurrection story, and concluded that only two of the texts cited in support of these claims pre-dated Christ: Zalmoxis and Ishtar. In other words, the vast majority of these resurrection stories were created after Christ and then applied to existing gods.

Moreover, other historians have criticized Carrier for misconstruing texts related to Zalmoxis and Ishtar, claiming there is no textual support that either was executed or crucified prior to "becoming immortal." The internet chatter about Zalmoxis and Ishtar be models for the resurrection is based on discredited translations of Carrier.

Jonathan Smith (a professor at the University of Chicago) has written: "...it is now held that the majority of the gods so denoted appear to have died but not returned; there is death but no rebirth or resurrection. What evidence was relied on by previous scholarship for the putative resurrection can be shown, it is claimed, to be based on a misinterpretation of the documents, or on late texts from the Christian era (frequently by Christians) which reveal an interpretatio Christiana of another religion's myths and rituals, or a borrowing of the Christian motif, at a late stage, by the religions themselves...." (J. Z. Smith, Drudgery Divine, page 101).

So I'll stand on the ground established by a brilliant scholar revered in this field of history.

[houndawg]

Tiny difference in details, Joe. Thought you were a student of the subject.

So you're saying that a god that dies and is resurrected is a christian thing and didn't exist for hundreds of years before christianity?

What I'm saying is that the claim that resurrection account of the Gospel was "stolen" from pagan myths is not true and is generally not taken seriously by scholars. In fact, these pagan stories do not pre-date Christ; the pagans "molded" their existing gods (like Mithra) to fit the Christ story when they saw how popular Christianity had become. There is NO account of Mithra being raised from the dead until after the advent of Christianity. While it is true that many of these gods pre-dated Christ, their resurrection stories were molded after Christ.

Claims that other gods, like Ishtar, were said to have been raised from the dead, are distorted. Some years, ago a credential historian, Richard Carrier, examined the 16 pagan gods claimed to be versions of the resurrection story, and concluded that only two of the texts cited in support of these claims pre-dated Christ: Zalmoxis and Ishtar. In other words, the vast majority of these resurrection stories were created after Christ and then applied to existing gods.

Moreover, other historians have criticized Carrier for misconstruing texts related to Zalmoxis and Ishtar, claiming there is no textual support that either was executed or crucified prior to "becoming immortal." The internet chatter about Zalmoxis and Ishtar be models for the resurrection is based on discredited translations of Carrier.

Jonathan Smith (a professor at the University of Chicago) has written: "...it is now held that the majority of the gods so denoted appear to have died but not returned; there is death but no rebirth or resurrection. What evidence was relied on by previous scholarship for the putative resurrection can be shown, it is claimed, to be based on a misinterpretation of the documents, or on late texts from the Christian era (frequently by Christians) which reveal an interpretatio Christiana of another religion's myths and rituals, or a borrowing of the Christian motif, at a late stage, by the religions themselves...." (J. Z. Smith, Drudgery Divine, page 101).

So I'll stand on the ground established by a brilliant scholar revered in this field of history.

Mettinger says at least three, maybe five predate Christ, and he's on your side. In other words, scholars don't agree. Except the jesus wasn't the first.

[D1B]

Tiny difference in details, Joe. Thought you were a student of the subject.

So you're saying that a god that dies and is resurrected is a christian thing and didn't exist for hundreds of years before christianity?

What I'm saying is that the claim that resurrection account of the Gospel was "stolen" from pagan myths is not true and is generally not taken seriously by scholars. In fact, these pagan stories do not pre-date Christ; the pagans "molded" their existing gods (like Mithra) to fit the Christ story when they saw how popular Christianity had become. There is NO account of Mithra being raised from the dead until after the advent of Christianity. While it is true that many of these gods pre-dated Christ, their resurrection stories were molded after Christ.

Claims that other gods, like Ishtar, were said to have been raised from the dead, are distorted. Some years, ago a credential historian, Richard Carrier, examined the 16 pagan gods claimed to be versions of the resurrection story, and concluded that only two of the texts cited in support of these claims pre-dated Christ: Zalmoxis and Ishtar. In other words, the vast majority of these resurrection stories were created after Christ and then applied to existing gods.

Moreover, other historians have criticized Carrier for misconstruing texts related to Zalmoxis and Ishtar, claiming there is no textual support that either was executed or crucified prior to "becoming immortal." The internet chatter about Zalmoxis and Ishtar be models for the resurrection is based on discredited translations of Carrier.

Jonathan Smith (a professor at the University of Chicago) has written: "...it is now held that the majority of the gods so denoted appear to have died but not returned; there is death but no rebirth or resurrection. What evidence was relied on by previous scholarship for the putative resurrection can be shown, it is claimed, to be based on a misinterpretation of the documents, or on late texts from the Christian era (frequently by Christians) which reveal an interpretatio Christiana of another religion's myths and rituals, or a borrowing of the Christian motif, at a late stage, by the religions themselves...." (J. Z. Smith, Drudgery Divine, page 101).

So I'll stand on the ground established by a brilliant scholar revered in this field of history.

Bullshit. Name/college dropping don't an argument make.

There are brilliant people who are full of shit and brainwashed, just like you.

Without reliable accounts and numerous parallels to other, preexisting, myths you have to add Jesus to the heaving shitpile of fabricated deities. There is just as much evidence supporting the existence of Apollo as there is for Jesus.

4 vastly dissimilar gospels is all you got. That's it and it ain't shit.