Talk a bit about symbolism in real life and the Biblical significance of woman eating "apples" to the "fall" of man. Discuss talking mules who appear to have apples stuck in their throats and it's connection to male hierarchies and the males who seek status withing these hierarchies.
Oh. You're the one who called me naive in that other comment thread. I'm not sure what you felt I was naive about. But just to repeat for the umpty-umpth time, I wasn't apologizing for anything I said about fakesagan; I was apologizing to Oshun for dragging her into a squabble that she never asked to be part of. No more, no less. Fakesagan is a snake. But I'm not the dating police.
i was surprised to see all this, from the questions video popping up to the marathon response ...but im much more surprised at having enjoyed listening up to this point, all in one sitting. ...hurry up and continue :P
Conspiracy theories and the case of Jesus Christ are two completely different things. There is tremendous amount of evidence proving conspiracy theories wrong, yet there is no solid evidence proving the existence of Jesus.
Personally I am agnostic about this, to say the least. I would say that historical Jesus is as real as historical Hercules.
The stories that we have of Jesus are obviously laced with fiction. But it's a silly conspiracy theory to think that the early followers of Jesus made up the person they were following.
Well, technically the first christians that we know of were following the teachings of Paul.
Paul mentioned Jesus few times, but didn't really portray him as someone living among us. He never wrote about life of Jesus. Those stories were created much later, so I don't know why we should give them any credibility.
Personally - I don't know, but reason as well as my gut feeling tells me that the dude is made up.
There is also the Gospel according to Thomas which is a lot different from the others and not as well known. It focuses entirely on what Jesus had to say and leaves out the pieces about his life. Describes him as a philosofer rather than someone who performed miracles. No super natural is mentioned. It's probably the closest to the truth.
As far as I know Thomas was composed around the year 175, after Matthew and Luke. Some fragments found in Egypt are typically dated around 200.
Version the events presented in the gospel of Thomas is slightly different, but some miracles are still there. It doesn't mention second coming or demons, but is it closer to the truth?
Actually this gospel was used by Earl Doherty, Timothy Freke and others as one of many proofs that Christianity did NOT originate with a historical Jesus.
But where is the line between "laced with fiction" and "fictional"?
Do we know that early followers were following a person?
Most likely they were following a story, just like believers today. Just like believers at any point in human history.
I honestly don't understand your position. Usually you are a reasonable guy, but here your argument boils down to: it's silly, it's ridiculous and there had to have been a real Jesus.
For most skeptics it's not that obvious. Can you blame us?
"For most skeptics it's not that obvious. Can you blame us?"
Actually, yes, I can blame you. You're dismissing the consensus of peer-reviewed experts in history and archeology, and swallowing a bunch of misunderstood "evidence" laced with doctored bullshit. So the atheist case against the ACCURACY of Christianity's VERSION of Jesus, which on its own merits is a slam-dunk, instead gets muddled up with a crackpot crypto-supernatural fantasy about a gang of evil first-century super-forgers.
To argue this would take a video -- which I don't want to waste time doing since I doubt that the people who are taken by this idea are able to see the difference between good and bad evidence.
But if you really care about the facts, read the following website in its entirety. I did, and also selectively double checked his claims. tinyurl(DOT)com/2kn2ho
First, don't confuse my position with the "Jesus myther" for I'm not one. Secondly, I don't care about "God who wasn't there". I know that the movie is full of crap and I do not base my viewpoint on it.
That's part of the reason why I jumped right to the sections 3 and 4 of the page that you provided. Didn't have time to double-check everything, but at the first glance the author seems to confuse "prima facie" evidence with actual proof.
"Prima facie" only means "it looks like it could be possible, we can't dismiss it right away and we should look for additional evidence". "Prima facie" is required element and it certainly doesn't mean "claim proven, case closed".
Supporters of historical Jesus are the party with the burden of proof. In the last paragraph the author admits that evidence for a historical Jesus isn't very strong. The current consensus is weak, so yes, I have the full right to doubt it.
First, if you're not a "Jesus myther" I'm not sure what we're arguing about.
Second, GakuseiDon's articles address ALL Jesus Myth arguments, not just "The God Who Wasn't There."
Third, I am not a "supporter" of the historical Jesus; I could easily accept that Jesus was made up -- IF the evidence was convincing. But in fact, the consensus among peer-reviewed historians is that a real Jesus is the BEST THEORY to explain the facts. That includes atheist historians, not just theists. [more]
1. The lack of hard evidence for the historical Jesus is what we would EXPECT concerning your average itinerant 1st-century preacher who ended up getting crucified as a criminal, leaving behind a handful of followers. (For comparison, see GakuseiDon's note about the lack of firsthand accounts of the destruction of Pompei -- a MAJOR 1st-century event.)
2. Since you, me and GakuseiDon ALL agree that the existence of Jesus cannot (yet) be conclusively proven OR disproven, the question becomes this: do the Gospel stories and the known history of the early Church sound more like (A) believers "spinning" the awkward facts of a real man's life to support their supernatural claims for him; or (B) the completely made-up story of a God, created solely to serve the purposes of believers without having to deal with any pesky remembered facts?
3. As Sam Harris and others have pointed out, even today there are PLENTY of examples of self-proclaimed messiahs who are fervently believed by their followers to have supernatural powers. Those are real-world models for an historical Jesus. Where's the real-world model for a cult that worships a wholly fictional person who was supposed to have lived in the real world only a few decades ago?
Why I'm arguing? Well, mostly because I disagree with you. Because you say that people who don't accept the existence of real Jesus are just like conspiracy theorists. I'm arguing because you criticize me for being skeptical. You denounce me for saying "well, I don't know, this case is weak and so I'm not convinced". That's why, basically.
1. We expect little of evidence for X. Therefore if we don't find the evidence for X it means that X is true. Yeah, stunning line of reasoning...
2. Let me rephrase (b): made up story created to serve the purposes of the people preaching it, not necessarily the people believing it.
3a. We are not talking about today. With no mass media people based their knowledge on what they were told. A story like this could spread quite nicely, especially if it contained ideals close to the people.
3b. Real-life model? Look at the believers in any religion. Ok, example: Christians in early Middle Ages. Did any of them saw his messiah? Or did they just believe what they were told? Why should we assume that first Christians were different? Were they special kind of people?
It looks like you don't want to accept skeptical approach. I'm fine with that, but stop calling people conspiracy theorist because they disagree with pretty weak "consensus". That's all.
"Christians in early Middle Ages. Did any of them saw his messiah? Or did they just believe what they were told?" Believing what you're told a thousand years after the fact is very different from believing it decades after the fact, when there's fresh access to alternative accounts. It's one thing to insist that a man who actually existed had powers that he didn't actually have; it's another thing to invent the man himself in the presence of living people who would have known him, or of him.
Re your point #1: you want to be seen as reasonable, yet you completely misstate my argument - deliberately or did you just misunderstand? See my 1 and 2 above.
Re your point #2: you highlight the axe you're grinding (devious leaders were lying to gullible dupes!) while evading the question: why would deliberate fakers make up such a contradictory, embarrassing and disreputable God -- IF THEY DIDN'T HAVE TO CONFORM TO ANY BIOGRAPHICAL FACTS?
"you say that people who don't accept the existence of real Jesus are just like conspiracy theorists." The consensus of PEER-REVIEWED historians and archeologists is that a real Jesus is the MOST LIKELY explanation for the Jesus cult. NOT a certainty: but the best default assumption for rational people with no axe to grind. Jesus mythers ARE conspiracy theorists; they propose a conspiracy to fake the existence of a man within the living memory of people who would have known or heard of him.
There are conspiracy theories that turn out to be true. But a conspiracy theory becomes a crackpot theory when it's based on faked, misstated and/or misunderstood evidence that fails to stand up to peer review. Crackpots dismiss peer-reviewed experts as "stupid," "in on it" or "afraid of the truth." But peer-reviewed evidence is all we have to prove that -- for instance -- the facts back up the theory of evolution. Or that the earth is more than 6,000 years old.
Bob, I know you are trying discredit my point of view, but no matter which theory you follow this remains true: preachers were lying to the people. If Jesus really existed probably he was also lying. The founders of Christianity knew Jewish myth about the coming of the savior. It is possible that they decided to make it true. We will never know.
Well, for the same reason people before them created bunch of others contradictory, embarrassing and disreputable deities, including Jahwe. Do you think they had to conform to biographical facts about Adam and Eve?
The question: what the rational people do about things that cannot be proved or disproved
My humble answer: rational people don't believe in such things.
Ironically, the director turned out to be a Psycho! So, no movie. (If I can keep my shit together, I won't turn into Don Rickles. It's probably too late. There's a horror movie...)
Maxi? anyways, I use Adobe Premier, however Avid is better!
~Damian
WARDOG1138 3 years ago
YOU SEXY BITCH YOU!
dicklicka1 3 years ago
well done, you pronounced beowulf correctly!
GirlyVoice 4 years ago
merry christmas and a happy new year!
continuousconcern 4 years ago
Was an interesting answer. I would probably like to meet him as well. I've enjoyed these series. Thank you.
squiggey 4 years ago
now bob...i would not want ye tae get shot now would I.....69 gets ye tazered!
just kidding.
hehehe
I admire your patience.
Peace
TyroneSandalphon 4 years ago
Talk a bit about symbolism in real life and the Biblical significance of woman eating "apples" to the "fall" of man. Discuss talking mules who appear to have apples stuck in their throats and it's connection to male hierarchies and the males who seek status withing these hierarchies.
xy11xy 4 years ago
I'm not sure what you're getting at, but I think I detect coded references to fakesagan and the girlfriend issue.
MetaBob 4 years ago
..not naive.
xy11xy 4 years ago
Oh. You're the one who called me naive in that other comment thread. I'm not sure what you felt I was naive about. But just to repeat for the umpty-umpth time, I wasn't apologizing for anything I said about fakesagan; I was apologizing to Oshun for dragging her into a squabble that she never asked to be part of. No more, no less. Fakesagan is a snake. But I'm not the dating police.
MetaBob 4 years ago
What's all this stuff about affording computer software? me no comprende
gratex 4 years ago
i was surprised to see all this, from the questions video popping up to the marathon response ...but im much more surprised at having enjoyed listening up to this point, all in one sitting. ...hurry up and continue :P
viddareff 4 years ago
Conspiracy theories and the case of Jesus Christ are two completely different things. There is tremendous amount of evidence proving conspiracy theories wrong, yet there is no solid evidence proving the existence of Jesus.
Personally I am agnostic about this, to say the least. I would say that historical Jesus is as real as historical Hercules.
Kuba022 4 years ago 2
The stories that we have of Jesus are obviously laced with fiction. But it's a silly conspiracy theory to think that the early followers of Jesus made up the person they were following.
MetaBob 4 years ago
Well, technically the first christians that we know of were following the teachings of Paul.
Paul mentioned Jesus few times, but didn't really portray him as someone living among us. He never wrote about life of Jesus. Those stories were created much later, so I don't know why we should give them any credibility.
Personally - I don't know, but reason as well as my gut feeling tells me that the dude is made up.
OneLazyGimp 4 years ago
There is also the Gospel according to Thomas which is a lot different from the others and not as well known. It focuses entirely on what Jesus had to say and leaves out the pieces about his life. Describes him as a philosofer rather than someone who performed miracles. No super natural is mentioned. It's probably the closest to the truth.
squiggey 4 years ago
As far as I know Thomas was composed around the year 175, after Matthew and Luke. Some fragments found in Egypt are typically dated around 200.
Version the events presented in the gospel of Thomas is slightly different, but some miracles are still there. It doesn't mention second coming or demons, but is it closer to the truth?
Actually this gospel was used by Earl Doherty, Timothy Freke and others as one of many proofs that Christianity did NOT originate with a historical Jesus.
OneLazyGimp 4 years ago
But where is the line between "laced with fiction" and "fictional"?
Do we know that early followers were following a person?
Most likely they were following a story, just like believers today. Just like believers at any point in human history.
I honestly don't understand your position. Usually you are a reasonable guy, but here your argument boils down to: it's silly, it's ridiculous and there had to have been a real Jesus.
For most skeptics it's not that obvious. Can you blame us?
Kuba022 4 years ago
"For most skeptics it's not that obvious. Can you blame us?"
Actually, yes, I can blame you. You're dismissing the consensus of peer-reviewed experts in history and archeology, and swallowing a bunch of misunderstood "evidence" laced with doctored bullshit. So the atheist case against the ACCURACY of Christianity's VERSION of Jesus, which on its own merits is a slam-dunk, instead gets muddled up with a crackpot crypto-supernatural fantasy about a gang of evil first-century super-forgers.
MetaBob 4 years ago
To argue this would take a video -- which I don't want to waste time doing since I doubt that the people who are taken by this idea are able to see the difference between good and bad evidence.
But if you really care about the facts, read the following website in its entirety. I did, and also selectively double checked his claims. tinyurl(DOT)com/2kn2ho
MetaBob 4 years ago
First, don't confuse my position with the "Jesus myther" for I'm not one. Secondly, I don't care about "God who wasn't there". I know that the movie is full of crap and I do not base my viewpoint on it.
That's part of the reason why I jumped right to the sections 3 and 4 of the page that you provided. Didn't have time to double-check everything, but at the first glance the author seems to confuse "prima facie" evidence with actual proof.
Kuba022 4 years ago
"Prima facie" only means "it looks like it could be possible, we can't dismiss it right away and we should look for additional evidence". "Prima facie" is required element and it certainly doesn't mean "claim proven, case closed".
Supporters of historical Jesus are the party with the burden of proof. In the last paragraph the author admits that evidence for a historical Jesus isn't very strong. The current consensus is weak, so yes, I have the full right to doubt it.
Kuba022 4 years ago
First, if you're not a "Jesus myther" I'm not sure what we're arguing about.
Second, GakuseiDon's articles address ALL Jesus Myth arguments, not just "The God Who Wasn't There."
Third, I am not a "supporter" of the historical Jesus; I could easily accept that Jesus was made up -- IF the evidence was convincing. But in fact, the consensus among peer-reviewed historians is that a real Jesus is the BEST THEORY to explain the facts. That includes atheist historians, not just theists. [more]
MetaBob 4 years ago
Here's the best case in three parts:
1. The lack of hard evidence for the historical Jesus is what we would EXPECT concerning your average itinerant 1st-century preacher who ended up getting crucified as a criminal, leaving behind a handful of followers. (For comparison, see GakuseiDon's note about the lack of firsthand accounts of the destruction of Pompei -- a MAJOR 1st-century event.)
MetaBob 4 years ago
2. Since you, me and GakuseiDon ALL agree that the existence of Jesus cannot (yet) be conclusively proven OR disproven, the question becomes this: do the Gospel stories and the known history of the early Church sound more like (A) believers "spinning" the awkward facts of a real man's life to support their supernatural claims for him; or (B) the completely made-up story of a God, created solely to serve the purposes of believers without having to deal with any pesky remembered facts?
MetaBob 4 years ago
3. As Sam Harris and others have pointed out, even today there are PLENTY of examples of self-proclaimed messiahs who are fervently believed by their followers to have supernatural powers. Those are real-world models for an historical Jesus. Where's the real-world model for a cult that worships a wholly fictional person who was supposed to have lived in the real world only a few decades ago?
MetaBob 4 years ago
Why I'm arguing? Well, mostly because I disagree with you. Because you say that people who don't accept the existence of real Jesus are just like conspiracy theorists. I'm arguing because you criticize me for being skeptical. You denounce me for saying "well, I don't know, this case is weak and so I'm not convinced". That's why, basically.
Kuba022 4 years ago
1. We expect little of evidence for X. Therefore if we don't find the evidence for X it means that X is true. Yeah, stunning line of reasoning...
2. Let me rephrase (b): made up story created to serve the purposes of the people preaching it, not necessarily the people believing it.
3a. We are not talking about today. With no mass media people based their knowledge on what they were told. A story like this could spread quite nicely, especially if it contained ideals close to the people.
Kuba022 4 years ago
3b. Real-life model? Look at the believers in any religion. Ok, example: Christians in early Middle Ages. Did any of them saw his messiah? Or did they just believe what they were told? Why should we assume that first Christians were different? Were they special kind of people?
It looks like you don't want to accept skeptical approach. I'm fine with that, but stop calling people conspiracy theorist because they disagree with pretty weak "consensus". That's all.
Cheers.
PS. Make that video ;)
Kuba022 4 years ago
"Christians in early Middle Ages. Did any of them saw his messiah? Or did they just believe what they were told?" Believing what you're told a thousand years after the fact is very different from believing it decades after the fact, when there's fresh access to alternative accounts. It's one thing to insist that a man who actually existed had powers that he didn't actually have; it's another thing to invent the man himself in the presence of living people who would have known him, or of him.
MetaBob 4 years ago
Re your point #1: you want to be seen as reasonable, yet you completely misstate my argument - deliberately or did you just misunderstand? See my 1 and 2 above.
Re your point #2: you highlight the axe you're grinding (devious leaders were lying to gullible dupes!) while evading the question: why would deliberate fakers make up such a contradictory, embarrassing and disreputable God -- IF THEY DIDN'T HAVE TO CONFORM TO ANY BIOGRAPHICAL FACTS?
MetaBob 4 years ago
"you say that people who don't accept the existence of real Jesus are just like conspiracy theorists." The consensus of PEER-REVIEWED historians and archeologists is that a real Jesus is the MOST LIKELY explanation for the Jesus cult. NOT a certainty: but the best default assumption for rational people with no axe to grind. Jesus mythers ARE conspiracy theorists; they propose a conspiracy to fake the existence of a man within the living memory of people who would have known or heard of him.
MetaBob 4 years ago
There are conspiracy theories that turn out to be true. But a conspiracy theory becomes a crackpot theory when it's based on faked, misstated and/or misunderstood evidence that fails to stand up to peer review. Crackpots dismiss peer-reviewed experts as "stupid," "in on it" or "afraid of the truth." But peer-reviewed evidence is all we have to prove that -- for instance -- the facts back up the theory of evolution. Or that the earth is more than 6,000 years old.
MetaBob 4 years ago
"Devious leaders were lying..."
Bob, I know you are trying discredit my point of view, but no matter which theory you follow this remains true: preachers were lying to the people. If Jesus really existed probably he was also lying. The founders of Christianity knew Jewish myth about the coming of the savior. It is possible that they decided to make it true. We will never know.
Kuba022 4 years ago
"Why would deliberate fakers..."
Well, for the same reason people before them created bunch of others contradictory, embarrassing and disreputable deities, including Jahwe. Do you think they had to conform to biographical facts about Adam and Eve?
The question: what the rational people do about things that cannot be proved or disproved
My humble answer: rational people don't believe in such things.
Kuba022 4 years ago
"Fresh access to alternative accounts..."
Do you really think that simple people were double checking the stories told by traveling evangelists?
PS.
Are you sure that the consensus among the peer-reviewed historians is that definite? "Jesus existed, end of the story".
Or maybe it's more like "based on what we know it is possible that historical Jesus existed". Because I happen to agree with the latter.
Kuba022 4 years ago
One last thing. Imagine that you are trying to start a new religion and you already have a bunch of people waiting for their savior.
Are you (A) trying to convince them that you are the son of god?
Or (B) trying to convince them that you met son of god and that you are giving them his teachings?
Hmm...
Kuba022 4 years ago
IS IT A CONCIDENCE THAT ALEXANDER THE GREAT HAD HOMOSEXUAL EXPERIENCES??? Just kidding...
Jihunn 4 years ago
Well, in fact Renault's trilogy is heavily laced with homosexual romance.
I'm just that broad-minded.
MetaBob 4 years ago
yo bob,
the airspeed velocity of an unladen European Swallow is roughly 11 meters per second, or 24 miles an hour.
chascoll 4 years ago
I'm really enjoying this series! :D Thanks MetaBob!
davius4321 4 years ago
Yw.
MetaBob 4 years ago
Ironically, the director turned out to be a Psycho! So, no movie. (If I can keep my shit together, I won't turn into Don Rickles. It's probably too late. There's a horror movie...)
seanbedlam 4 years ago
Well, you know, Don Rickles had his moment of horror film glory in "The Man with X-ray Eyes." So there's still hope for you! ; P
MetaBob 4 years ago
Watched all 7 part! Yes, I'm procrastinating as well from work like you said.
Castaa 4 years ago
GET BACK TO WORK!
MetaBob 4 years ago
Yeah, Bob, I wanted to meet you at Dark Delicacies! ...but some other things coincided, and I wasn't feeling well.
:( One day. :)
Re 300, "Suicide bomber envy," = Lol, true!
Yes, motion captured Gollum was great, whole movies like that, Beowulf, Polar Express, look like bad CGI; a Shrek has more facial expressions.
I recommend "Stardust" as an accomplished adult fantasy story. Thanks for the answers! ^_^
StevenErnest 4 years ago
Thanks for answering my question! PKD FTW!
I have read Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep- it is infact brilliant...I would go crazy if you read an extract from it...do it!
If you like...
LoveCraken 4 years ago