Would Jesus Cringe seeing what Christmas has turned into?

[D_Fiona_Farvel]

Below I quoted you as saying Jesus was a mythical figure and continued to say that I take that to mean you believed he did not exist. From what you posted above, you agree with my interpretation. Great! Something we agree on.

But a few posts ago when I said the very same thing you said --
No, Hilaire is correct (in saying that "mythical" didn't necessarily mean Jesus didn't exist.)

Hence the contradiction.

Quote:
Originally Posted by BigDallasDick8x6

I was responding to LadyShady who said Jesus was a "mythical" figure. I take that to mean he did not exist. I and apparently most historians disagree.

No, Hilaire is correct. I likened the mythical, water waking Jesus to Santa Claus and the Easter Bunny.

Hilaire was correct, I was discussing Jesus the myth, that some people, obviously not me, believe performed miracles and was the son of God.

You asked, "What's your source for saying he didn't exist? From Wikipedia: A great majority of biblical scholars and historians accept the historical existence of Jesus.", and I responded with "to be clear about my feelings - as stated above and obvious from my other post in this thread - I do not believe the person most regard as Jesus, the one that miracles are attributed, ever existed."

To clarify again: I believe that Jesus, the Messiah or Prophet, what have you, never existed.

Which means, I find the notion of a miracle maker to be fake. :smile: The real man may have existed, who knows, but, is irrelevant to my post as I was discussing the mythologized being.

 

[D_Tim McGnaw]

You keep repeating that last paragraph over and over. If I had all the time in the world I'd re-read all nearly 200 posts and count how many times you voice that same argument. But it takes much more than constant repetition for me to believe something. I'm not a Rush Limbaugh listener.

You're free to believe whatever you wish, I'm not especially interested in whether you believe me or not. I have had to repeat my position, in part because you haven't seemed to grasp the subtleties of this discussion, and because others have asked me to clarify it for them also.

What specifically about the Wikipedia article is not reliable or not clear. The sources are footnoted. Are you claiming those sources do not exist? Are you claiming the footnotes do not support the thesis sentence? Are you claiming the footnotes misquote the sources? If so, give examples. If not, the "Wikipedia is not reliable" mantra will not save your argument.

Well if you look for meaningful materials on issues surrounding topics such as the early history of Christianity, or more generally the history of Religion, or frankly any serious topic from Wikipedia and claim that to suggest that Wikipedia is innately unreliable as a source is not an argument then it seems we have nothing more to discuss regarding that particular topic.

It's also interesting that you don't seem to quote many (any??) sources. Again I don't have the time to plow again through almost 200 posts, but certain the last several pages have had no sources. So it's a little intellectually dishonest to complain about my sources when you don't seem to provide any. At least I attempt to provide some sources rather than just spouting off as so many other post-ers have done.

Clearly this is not a scholarly debate, or we would not be discussing the reliability of a Wikipedia article, this is a discussion, and since it is of no great importance to me that you agree with me or not, it would be needlessly intellectually aggressive of me to provide endless links to whatever sources I may be basing my opinion on. I do not provide links to sources because I do not feel some over riding need to be considered right, something I fear you may be suffering with.

So you can continue to believe a discussion on this topic, needs one person (i.e. YOU) to ultimately be considered incontrovertibly right on the basis of having quoted and linked to source materials from a Wikipedia article or we can all presume that none of us is an idiot and that we may all have read few books over the years and carry on like civilised individuals and not as though we had the insistent desire to be right which provokes teenagers to show themselves up at dinner parties.

 

[BigDallasDick8x6]

Hilaire was correct, I was discussing Jesus the myth, that some people, obviously not me, believe performed miracles and was the son of God.

You asked, "What's your source for saying he didn't exist? From Wikipedia: A great majority of biblical scholars and historians accept the historical existence of Jesus.", and I responded with "to be clear about my feelings - as stated above and obvious from my other post in this thread - I do not believe the person most regard as Jesus, the one that miracles are attributed, ever existed."

To clarify again: I believe that Jesus, the Messiah or Prophet, what have you, never existed.

Which means, I find the notion of a miracle maker to be fake. :smile: The real man may have existed, who knows, but, is irrelevant to my post as I was discussing the mythologized being.

Ok sounds like I read too much into your "Hilaire is correct" (or else you didn't read what he was saying) but whatever our past misunderstanding, at least we have clarified that you believe Jesus didn't exist, which is exactly what I thought you meant in the first place by the word "mythical" although Hilaire thought it could mean a real person who evolved to a myth (and indeed that IS what happened with St. Nicolas, now known as Santa Claus).

Regardless if that's what COULD have been meant, it isn't what you meant so now we have come to an understanding. Whew!

 

[BigDallasDick8x6]

You're free to believe whatever you wish, I'm not especially interested in whether you believe me or not. I have had to repeat my position, in part because you haven't seemed to grasp the subtleties of this discussion, and because others have asked me to clarify it for them also.

Well if you look for meaningful materials on issues surrounding topics such as the early history of Christianity, or more generally the history of Religion, or frankly any serious topic from Wikipedia and claim that to suggest that Wikipedia is innately unreliable as a source is not an argument then it seems we have nothing more to discuss regarding that particular topic.

Clearly this is not a scholarly debate, or we would not be discussing the reliability of a Wikipedia article, this is a discussion, and since it is of no great importance to me that you agree with me or not, it would be needlessly intellectually aggressive of me to provide endless links to whatever sources I may be basing my opinion on. I do not provide links to sources because I do not feel some over riding need to be considered right, something I fear you may be suffering with.

So you can continue to believe a discussion on this topic, needs one person (i.e. YOU) to ultimately be considered incontrovertibly right on the basis of having quoted and linked to source materials from a Wikipedia article or we can all presume that none of us is an idiot and that we may all have read few books over the years and carry on like civilised individuals and not as though we had the insistent desire to be right which provokes teenagers to show themselves up at dinner parties.

In other words you're going to continue to denigrate my choice of sources, and yet hypocritically not provide any of your own.

Ok, that's cool. As long as you're honest about it.

 

[D_Tim McGnaw]

In other words you're going to continue to denigrate my choice of sources, and yet hypocritically not provide any of your own.

Ok, that's cool. As long as your honest about it.

No, I was being polite, but if you want to get nasty about it I'd say that the fact that you quoted Wikipedia as a useful source of reliable information completely undermined your intellectual credibility in my eyes.

The important thing to remember is that if you hadn't demonstrated that you rely upon a deeply inferior source I would have been perfectly able to respect your opinion, since I would have done you the decency of presuming you are a well read and intelligent person, and would have had no reason to question your position's basis.

We could have politely disagreed and left it at that. Unfortunately, your need to be right and the unpleasantness that need drove you to has shattered that possibility.

I regret that sincerely.

 

[D_Fiona_Farvel]

Ok sounds like I read too much into your "Hilaire is correct" (or else you didn't read what he was saying) but whatever our past misunderstanding, at least we have clarified that you believe Jesus didn't exist, which is exactly what I thought you meant in the first place by the word "mythical" although Hilaire thought it could mean a real person who evolved to a myth (and indeed that IS what happened with St. Nicolas, now known as Santa Claus).

Regardless if that's what COULD have been meant, it isn't what you meant so now we have come to an understanding. Whew!

Accepting that someone called Jesus, who came from Nazareth, who may have been a Jewish Holy man may have existed is not controversial. But the Jesus depicted in the Gospels did not exist.

^This point is the one in which I am in agreement with Hilaire. If my first post regarding the "mythical" person wasn't clear enough, Hilaire's offered more on the subject.

whatever our past misunderstanding, at least we have clarified that you believe Jesus didn't exist, which is exactly what I thought you meant in the first place by the word "mythical"
*Snip*
Regardless if that's what COULD have been meant, it isn't what you meant so now we have come to an understanding. Whew!

Jesus.

 

[Drifterwood]

The Gospel of Thomas Collection -- Translations and Resources

Of course it doesn't exist in the canon.

 

[D_Tim McGnaw]

The Gospel of Thomas Collection -- Translations and Resources

Of course it doesn't exist in the canon.

Oh that is such a fascinating Gospel, it's one of the most interesting of all the apocrypha. I'm always captivated by the story that Thomas was the saint who Christianised Goa, and Kerala in India, it's probably a myth but it's such an exotic one.

 

[BigDallasDick8x6]

No, I was being polite, but if you want to get nasty about it I'd say that the fact that you quoted Wikipedia as a useful source of reliable information completely undermined your intellectual credibility in my eyes.

The important thing to remember is that if you hadn't demonstrated that you rely upon a deeply inferior source I would have been perfectly able to respect your opinion, since I would have done you the decency of presuming you are a well read and intelligent person, and would have had no reason to question your position's basis.

We could have politely disagreed and left it at that. Unfortunately, your need to be right and the unpleasantness that need drove you to has shattered that possibility.

I regret that sincerely.

You introduced nastiness by saying I had an overiding need to be right, like a teenager at a dinner party when all I did was disagree with you -- apparently an unpardonable sin.

You say A and I say B. You say I have an overiding need to be right. Why couldn't I say the same about you?

"Wikipedia is bad" is a mantra. If that's the best you've got, don't embarass yourself by getting high and mighty about intellectual credibility.

Wikipedia quoted its sources for the article in question. So again your position apparently has to be -- either it quoted sources that don't exist, it quoted sources that don't support the thesis, or it misquoted sources. Which is it and which sources?

 

[D_Tim McGnaw]

You introduced nastiness by saying I had an overiding need to be right, like a teenager at a dinner party when all I did was disagree with you -- apparently an unpardonable sin.

You say A and I say B. You say I have an overiding need to be right. Why couldn't I say the same about you?

"Wikipedia is bad" is a mantra. If that's the best you've got, don't embarass yourself by getting high and mighty about intellectual credibility.

Wikipedia quoted its sources for the article in question. So again your position apparently has to be -- either it quoted sources that don't exist, it quoted sources that don't support the thesis, or it misquoted sources. Which is it and which sources?

OK so now you need to be right about who got nasty first Fine lets save ourselves the trouble shall we ? It was me, I got nasty first not you. It was me who decided that because we disagreed with one another it was my duty to prove you wrong.

You are right, I am wrong. OK?

 

[BigDallasDick8x6]

OK so now you need to be right about who got nasty first Fine lets save ourselves the trouble shall we ? It was me, I got nasty first not you. It was me who decided that because we disagreed with one another it was my duty to prove you wrong.

You are right, I am wrong. OK?

Wait, is this a trick like that "Everything I say is a lie" paradox??

 

[BobLeeSwagger]

There are a few problems with the question, even without considering capitalism at all:

1) His name probably wasn't Jesus, as this wasn't a Jewish name and is a translation of a translation. Most likely he was known as "Joshua" at the time.

2) He wouldn't recognize the word "Christmas", as the term "Christ" is an English translation of a Greek translation of "Messiah". Jesus wouldn't have known Greek, so the word "Christ" wouldn't have meant anything to him.

3) No one celebrated birthdays 2,000 years ago, so the idea of commemorating anyone's birth (much less his) would have seemed completely foreign to him.

4) Even going by Biblical accounts, there was little emphasis on Jesus' birth, and much more on his resurrection. If Jesus were to observe our Christmas today, I'm sure he would conclude that we missed the point.

 

[2322]

There are a few problems with the question, even without considering capitalism at all:

1) His name probably wasn't Jesus, as this wasn't a Jewish name and is a translation of a translation. Most likely he was known as "Joshua" at the time.

2) He wouldn't recognize the word "Christmas", as the term "Christ" is an English translation of a Greek translation of "Messiah". Jesus wouldn't have known Greek, so the word "Christ" wouldn't have meant anything to him.

3) No one celebrated birthdays 2,000 years ago, so the idea of commemorating anyone's birth (much less his) would have seemed completely foreign to him.

4) Even going by Biblical accounts, there was little emphasis on Jesus' birth, and much more on his resurrection. If Jesus were to observe our Christmas today, I'm sure he would conclude that we missed the point.

I take a bit of issue with the Greek thing. Greek was the most common language in the area during the time of Jesus. At the time, Greek was spoken all over the Mediterranean even as far as India. It was the lingua Franca of the ancient world during that period.

 

[luka82]

You guys are just full of crap!!!
most of you really have no idea what you are talking about, and you represent yourselves as big religious knowitalls!!!
you are all wonnabes!
I think for now on i will only read the crap you write, get some popcorn, and laugh!!!
Sorry for the bad language, but let`s call it a language barrier!

 

[HUNGHUGE11X7]

You guys are just full of crap!!!
most of you really have no idea what you are talking about, and you represent yourselves as big religious knowitalls!!!
you are all wonnabes!
I think for now on i will only read the crap you write, get some popcorn, and laugh!!!
Sorry for the bad language, but let`s call it a language barrier!

Most of my life I attended Private schools and in many of them there was a class devoted to learning , studying and being tested on the BIBLE . I have read the Bible cover to cover.
It was a source of a great deal of guilt and fear growing up. The WORST thing one can do to an impressionable young mind is fill it with the Bible !
When I speak of Religion I do so from an ACCURATE HISTORICAL perspective, something that frightens fanatical Christians . Nothing scares them more than truth.
I have studied many religions and see the commonality in ALL of them. Religion can be a good thing but when it reaches fanatical limits like here in the US and in the Middle East, nothing is more dangerous.
I do not claim to know it all but in matters of Religion I know far more than most and most importantly what I DO NOT know I educate myself in if I have questions .


VERITAS VOS LIBERABIT !!!


HH

 

[BobLeeSwagger]

I take a bit of issue with the Greek thing. Greek was the most common language in the area during the time of Jesus. At the time, Greek was spoken all over the Mediterranean even as far as India. It was the lingua Franca of the ancient world during that period.

It was a common language that was spoken by many educated people in the Levant at the time. But by all indications, neither Jesus nor the apostles were educated more than the average person living there, and Greek was far more likely to be spoken by government officials and travelers than the mostly-illiterate laboring class that Jesus and the disciples came from.

Even if he did know Greek, no one called him "Christ" (or even the Greek "Khristos") at the time. It's a title that wasn't attached to Jesus until the gospel authors translated it from Hebrew decades or centuries later.