The Christ Myth Theory

[steve_bank]

No one questions that Christians existed. No one is questioning Nero may have used Christians as scapegoats.

Personally as an atheist I have never read Carrier or any other 'atheist' authors. I read histories of Christianity and Islam forom different authors. I read the Oxford Bible Commentary. A fairly academic analysis of the bible old and new testaments. It covers authorship issues, translation issues, dating, and inconsistencies in the documents.

I always said on the forum organized atheism and organized religion share common traits. I also say in general all human social organizations share common characteristics.

Christmas modifying Tacitus? The point is often made as to the existence of Jesus there are no source documents. The oldest NT docents are in 2nd-4th centuries. Undoubtedly things were added by translators. Culture was different from today. Historical and verbatim accuracy were not all that important.

Interesting, Tacitus and Josephus were born at around the sane time, well after Jesus. They woud have grown up hearing a lot of oral stories,.

Swami in he past said something about breakeven in Jesus in some way I think.

Swami, you argue like a theist, and ridicule atheists, what exactly do you believe or derive from Jesus? And why,.

 

[Jarhyn]

I'll point out, nobody at the time even objects to the existence of at least one temple tantrum, namely one directly recorded in the Talmud, and it was executed by someone we can all here agree probably wasn't Jesus.

As I said before, in presenting "amalgam theory", a theory I don't actually believe is true OR false, but for which I lack the axiomatic priors to determine truth or falseness, I hope to cast a reasonable doubt, not an absolute one.

Brute facts are here "axiomatic" in their self-insistence and testable existence... but the brute facts do not allow us to say "this is true" or even "this is probably true". At best we can say "this may or may not be true".

As I have pointed out, I have no faith either way. I don't have much use for the stuff and never did. In fact, I've made it quite a point to point out how he could have been a real person... But I think believing he definitely was real is as unhealthy as believing he definitely was not, and it's doubly so or triply so for me.

Swami, you argue like a theist, and ridicule atheists, what exactly do you believe or derive from Jesus? And why,.

I would personally like to know, too.

Then, for me, part of it comes down to the fact that I'm the child of a liar and a carpenter born on Jan1, and that I was raised in a hypocritical church, and formed a philosophy of ethics and of the mind which calls for building heaven here, today, for everyone, and states that it's possible for the same or similar actions around the same or similar humans to result in the same or similar discoveries about the world being made.

To put it simply, we have MANY people claiming to be Jesus by dint of circumstantial similarities, delusions of grandeur, and all other manner of reasons, but gosh darn it, I have never ONCE met someone claiming to be Luke Skywalker reborn, far fewer people claiming seriously to be Odin, NONE claiming to be Gilgamesh, and so on.

It's almost like accepting that a story is a MYTH, or that it may be, can insulate people from believing they are that character from said myth "reborn", or even insulate others who accept this from believing some other party is such a rebirth.

 

[Swammerdami]

I apologize if I appear to be "picking on Jarhyn." It's just the opposite -- I address him because he appears to be interested in actual evidence.
The other "fanatical atheists"^* here are disdainful of historical evidence -- Their FAITH is all they need.

More than a few of you have refused to mention the writings of the non-Christian historians Josephus and Tacitus

No, that comes up REGULARLY in discussions like this, and it always gets flushed right down the toilet as the historical equivalent of gray water because between the two of them the only likely un-modifed text says the equivalent of "Christians are people that exist", not "Christ was a person who existed".

Here is an excerpt (translated) from Tacitus' book:

But all human efforts, all the lavish gifts of the emperor, and the propitiations of the gods, did not banish the sinister belief that the conflagration was the result of an order. Consequently, to get rid of the report, Nero fastened the guilt and inflicted the most exquisite tortures on a class hated for their abominations, called Chrestians by the populace. Christus, from whom the name had its origin, suffered the extreme penalty during the reign of Tiberius at the hands of one of our procurators, Pontius Pilatus, and a most mischievous superstition, thus checked for the moment, again broke out not only in Judæa, the first source of the evil, but even in Rome, where all things hideous and shameful from every part of the world find their centre and become popular. Accordingly, an arrest was first made of all who pleaded guilty; then, upon their information, an immense multitude was convicted, not so much of the crime of firing the city, as of hatred against mankind.

So, that passage in Tacitus was modified by Christians? Read it again, and see if it really looks like what Christians would write.

@Jarhyn -- Are you debating in good faith? Can you address this specific (purpled) question?

And do you think Josephus' mention of James "the Just" and his brother Jesus was modified?

Are you aware that these opinions of yours are NOT the consensus opinions of competent atheist historians?

Please answer that question also. We're talking past each other if we don't focus on details.

And, are you aware that The Prophet Dr. Richard Carrier, PhD accepts that the Josephus mention of James and his brother Jesus is genuine Josephus?

Your Prophet claims that only the phrase "called Christ" was added to that passage? Do you even know Carrier's solution to who that Jesus was? If so, will you comment on that "solution"?

Answer?

As I said before, in presenting "amalgam theory", a theory I don't actually believe is true OR false,...

But I think believing he definitely was real is as unhealthy as believing he definitely was not, and it's doubly so or triply so for me.

I assume we are debating what Carrier calls the "minimalist historical Jesus" hypothesis. It is that hypothesis,and that hypothesis only which I defend in these fora. I've repeated over and over that debating stronger hypotheses is off-topic. This is at the direction of the Mythicist school itself (i.e. Carrier and his ilk); it isn't a cherry-picking stance by me.

Jesus is famous for certain preachings which scholars regard as unique. Perhaps the best known is "Turn the other cheek." This teaching has few if any precedents before Jesus. Was it Jesus the Nazarene who delivered such sermons circa 29 AD? I think it probably was, but it's certainly possible that a different preacher's ideas were grafted into the Gospel accounts. It's irrelevant to this thread because we are debating the "minimalist historical Jesus" hypothesis. This hypothesis -- defined by the Prophet of Fanatical Atheism himself, Richard Carrier -- says NOTHING about Jesus' teachings.

Swami, you argue like a theist, and ridicule atheists, what exactly do you believe or derive from Jesus? And why,.

I would personally like to know, too.

I've also answered this over and over. I've said that I've always been an atheist -- Do you believe me, or think I'm lying?

I do believe that Jesus of Nazareth was a specially remarkable person who deserves his historical status. But I think the same of Joan of Arc, Martin Luther King Jr., Albert Einstein, the Buddha and John Brown of Osawatomie.
Jarhyn, Do you think Joan of Arc existed or is mythical? Mine is a serious question: I want to plumb the depths of the Rejection of History by fanatical atheists.

Then, for me, part of it comes down to the fact that I'm the child of a liar and a carpenter born on Jan1, and that I was raised in a hypocritical church, and formed a philosophy of ethics and of the mind which calls for building heaven here, today, for everyone, and states that it's possible for the same or similar actions around the same or similar humans to result in the same or similar discoveries about the world being made.

If I understand correctly, you reject the historical Jesus as a corollary of rejecting the religious Jesus you feel was almost foisted on you. I, on the other hand, seek objective truth without regard to its spiritual or emotional effect. I do NOT claim that my approach to reality is correct -- it may in fact be LESS healthy! -- but it may lead to us debating at cross-purposes on topics like this.

My upbringing may have been quite different from yours. My father and I were rivals but he was never religious (despite attending church and making weekly tithes), so it was my embracing socialism, rather than rejection of religion, that offended him.

I enjoy puzzles. A wide variety of puzzles. Largely due to writings on THIS very message-board I became intrigued by questions of the historic basis, if any, for tales in the Bible. But my interest has morphed from Jesus' historicity -- (a SOLVED problem) -- to wonderment at why the very INTELLIGENT people on this message-board hold fanciful opinions about Jesus' historicity and REFUSE to answer simple questions like those I've posed above.

@Jarhyn -- Can you show me that I'm wrong? Please address the specific questions above. In particular Carrier's solution to the identity of James the Just is laughably absurd and should disillusion all but the most fanatical Carrierist. I've presented this specific more than once here at IIDB and received zero responses. ZERO. With a Z. (If ANYONE has a clue what I'm talking about, raise your hand please. Or send me a DM if afraid of flames from the fanatical Carrierists here.)

* I suppose calling some of you "fanatical atheists" is an insult. But it is my honest impression that some in this thread are driven by what they NEED to believe rather than the factual history as discerned by professional historians.

 

[steve_bank]

Based on analysis from History for Atheists, the "minimalist historical Jesus" refers to a reduced, skeptical view of Jesus as merely an apocalyptic, itinerant preacher with a small following, who may have believed he was a messiah. This stripped-down model aims to represent the absolute minimum plausible, non-mythical figure.

Regardless of how you spin it there are no answers.

To me years back when I first started debating religion not believing in gods and supernatural, Jesus was one of a number of wandering prophets for lack of a better word.

From philosophy of religion class in the 70s there were multiple claimants to the messiah prophes , some bandits. Given the geopolitics and Rome Jews were looking for the returnee of a war king, not somebody babbling about peace and love.

Look at Israel today, hyper nationalism mixed with race and region.

We know the bogus origins of Scientology and Mormonism, both quickly spread around the world.

Unless you believe the supernatural gospel tales what would Jesus have been other than a wondering itinerant doomsayer what ould Jesus have been?

In the day Jesus orn to a handyman would have been literate.

When Jesus was talking about the end of the world it would have meant the fall of Israel to Rome. Jews knew they were facing extinction as a state.

Any interpretation of Jesus and speculation on an HJ has to be in context of the times, unless you believe the driven supernatural stories.

Look at today. There are Evangelicals who believe god sent Trump to help them. They are are literate people with a basic high school education. Imagine what is was like when it was all oral compunction ad retelling of stories.

Whoever an HJ was he did not seem to get the attention of Rome. There was the ammed Jewish rebellion and its leaders, the Roman assault on Masada. oday an Israeli shrine.

We know about leaders of the 'barbarians' that Rome battled for years.

We don't know much about Jesus other tan the gospels and NT writings. None of it is a consistent work

Competing interpretations of Jesus were suppressed and writings destroyed by the dominate
Catholics.

 

[Jarhyn]

@Jarhyn -- Are you debating in good faith? Can you address this specific (purpled) question?

I have seen Christians lie subtly and I have seen them lie blatantly. I have seen skilled forgeries and unskilled ones.

Are YOU debating on good faith?

Please answer that question also. We're talking past each other if we don't focus on details.

It's not that I think they are modified or not. As I said, the possibility is too great to ignore or hand-wave away regardless of what you claim "atheist" historians think or don't think. There's disagreement and your no-true-scotsman about "competent" historians is problematic.

I think you are on the VERY edge of good faith with me here, and blind to see when you flutter over said edge.

If I understand correctly, you reject the historical Jesus as a corollary of rejecting the religious Jesus you feel was almost foisted on you

No, I reject it because...

So, this is going to be a very hard and abstract thing to explain if you haven't watched a very specific piece of media. I want you to watch Pantheon, assuming you can. It is bloody and violent and all kinds of weird, but I promise you it is an excellent forray into philosophy.

When you watch it, of you watch it (and if you don't, at least just Google "Pantheon Project Caspian") and you will at least hopefully get a cliffs-notes.

Now, some time before watching that show, I wondered that someone, if they knew enough about Jesus, could possibly replicate the whole-ass person, the way of thinking, the special interests, all of it either on accident or on purpose. I wondered through my late 20's and 30's if it had ever happened before.

Statistically Jesus was one person in a society of a few million at most, and so it strikes me that the phenomena comes down to a set of mental traits and opportunities/situations across their lives. Jesus was far from the first thought to be a "prophet", too, so we know this is not merely a one-off phenomena, assuming he was a real, singular person.

Looking back through time we can even ascertain that one of these happened every few hundred or thousand years even in antiquity and that population rate.

In the intervening years there was little education or opportunity and the sorts of people and behaviors Jesus engaged in were heavily populated and controlled by those of the same cloth that killed him and would deny opportunities for a new instance.

Since the development of the US and the rest of the world into a collection of quasi-Roman states, however (with varying degrees of slide towards imperialism), and the dawning of easily available education, these barriers have disappeared and as expected, several new cults have shot up over the last 100 years.

Logically speaking, this means today, more than ever, it would be at least possible that someone could accidentally execute project Caspian in the real world but with Jesus himself. Where I myself fit into this problem is that it looks possible, to a problematic extent that this happened to me.

To keep this from eroding my own sanity and ability to function as a normal non-cult-starting member of humanity that does not bother others with (at least they are secular) claims of how they are Jesus, I take a simple (if fragile) position: I'm not because he might never have existed in the first place and I can't possibly ever know so I just don't worry about it as much.

I need to reject the absolute faith you have in a biblical historical Christ, myself, because of pure coincidence and little more, It's just way healthier to have more doubts about that than fewer.

Even beyond the historical coincidences, though, I have both "behavioral" and "philosophical" coincidences and they chip away daily at my sanity.

I have, myself, the means to thoroughly mock those claiming to be Jesus and I have used it and those means are "I can do this act better than you can and have more reasons than you to believe it and yet I don't", and the reason that I don't believe it of myself is that I can admit "how can it be true if the original may have never existed at all".

I reiterate, Swammi, that my reasons for rejecting the faith you have in the historicity of Christ are very different from the reasons most have, and while I have some interest in the subject because my worldview on Memetic replication/repetition/cycling implies that it could happen and it's not good for people's mental well-being to consider they might be the fact of such an instance with regards to certain very famous people.

 

[Swammerdami]

Hi Jarhyn. It's become obvious that your approach to reality and truth is VERY different from mine. I doubt that we will be able to communicate with each other on a topic like this.

@Jarhyn -- Are you debating in good faith? Can you address this specific (purpled) question?

I have seen Christians lie subtly and I have seen them lie blatantly. I have seen skilled forgeries and unskilled ones.

Are YOU debating on good faith?

Why would you think I'm not?

Please answer that question also. We're talking past each other if we don't focus on details.

It's not that I think they are modified or not.

Did you actually READ the Tacitus excerpt and think about commenting on it as I asked?

As I said, the possibility is too great to ignore or hand-wave away regardless of what you claim "atheist" historians think or don't think.

My mathematical bent leads me to think in terms of probabilities. Nobody thinks that Jesus historicity is certain to a degree of 100.0000%, anymore than that an ancient Celtic warrior named Arthur was revered has probability only 0.0000000%. Historians think in terms of likelihood. Some people have a "NEED" to believe or disbelieve in a historical Jesus. "But that ain't me, babe."

I need to reject the absolute faith you have in a biblical historical Christ, myself,

I don't have "Faith." Haven't you even skimmed my posts?

because of pure coincidence and little more, It's just way healthier to have more doubts about that than fewer.

You suggest that it may be "healthy" to believe some things without worrying too much about their truth. That may be quite true! Perhaps my preference for objective truth is a symptom of my (mild?) autism, and my life would have been happier with a different outlook. I doubt it applies in this case -- My interest in Puzzles of History is completely divorced from my emotional life, or moral choices.

 

[steve_bank]

As I understand it the Arthurian legend began with a monk who wrote a book History Of Britain adding the tale of Arthur from old folk stories. His book was a 'best seller' of the day.

There is no archeological evidence. The evidence points to the opposite. The alleged Waring sides appear to have been peaceful agrarian cultures and modern DNA analysis shows intermarriage.

We can see how the original fictional tale grew and morphed over time. As has the Jesus legend.

I read the bio of Tolkien. He was steeped in European legend and myths. He liked to travel off the beaten path drinking in taverns loosening to stories.,

Does anyone think Lord Of The Rings is in any way based in fact?

Back a ways when the big Indian Ocean tsunami occurred I listened to an intervene with an island
native.

He said there was an old cutrual story about god periodically washing the world clean with a flood. There was a caution to the story. When water on the shoire begins to recede run for high ground, which he did.

A cultural legend based in ancient experience with catastrophe earthquake caused tsunamis.

 

[No Robots]

As I recall No Robots is/was a Trump supporter, as the majority of conspiracy theorists are.

Fuck you, clown.

I have repeatedly and consistently identified as a Marxist, and I have consistently and repeatedly called out the atheist Right and its atheofascism. Trump is just a symptom of the sickness that permeates the US. Death to America!

The mythicists are unable to admit the obvious, to wit, that Jesus was a Jew and preached pure Judaism. This denial is part and parcel of the American sickness that makes of him also a far-Right racist thug.

Oh, yes, and Swami, I suggest you re-examine your own position on the historical Shakespeare. It is true that we know far less of the historical Shakespeare than we do of the historical Jesus. However, that there is a single, burning intelligence behind the words of both men is self-evident. You might be well advised to look at Harry Waton's work, The True Shakespeare Revealed. The upshot: Shakespeare, like Jesus, was a Jew.

 

[steve_bank]

As I recall No Robots is/was a Trump supporter, as the majority of conspiracy theorists are.

Fuck you, clown.

I have repeatedly and consistently identified as a Marxist, and I have consistently and repeatedly called out the atheist Right and its atheofascism. Trump is just a symptom of the sickness that permeates the US. Death to America!

The mythicists are unable to admit the obvious, to wit, that Jesus was a Jew and preached pure Judaism. This denial is part and parcel of the American sickness that makes of him also a far-Right racist thug.

Oh, yes, and Swami, I suggest you re-examine your own position on the historical Shakespeare. It is true that we know far less of the historical Shakespeare than we do of the historical Jesus. However, that there is a single, burning intelligence behind the words of both men is self-evident. You might be well advised to look at Harry Waton's work, The True Shakespeare Revealed. The upshot: Shakespeare, like Jesus, was a Jew.

It took a long time for you to explicitly say you are Marxist.

Whoever Shakespeare may have been, his work remains pop[ur because there is insight into us humans.

I ghet nothng for Jerus oer tan scted allged quotes,.

My favorite Shakespeare character is Hamlet. He finds out how his father was killed and who did it.

He is faced with a moral dilemma. Keep silent and enjoy a life as a prince, or do something. He slowly goes mad destroying people around him.

Shakespeare makes use of the supernatural for effect. Much like the gospel writers.

Supernatural Shakespeare refers to the prevalent ghosts, witches, fairies, magic, and omens in Shakespeare's plays, deeply rooted in Elizabethan beliefs and used for dramatic effect, exploring themes of fate, ambition, and the unknown, as seen in Macbeth, Hamlet, and A Midsummer Night's Dream, often reflecting King James I's interest in witchcraft and adding spectacle for audiences. These elements, from Banquo's ghost to Puck's mischief, served to heighten intrigue, challenge morality, and reveal inner conflicts, making the supernatural integral to character development and plot, not just decoration.

 

[No Robots]

It took a long time for you to explicitly say you are Marxist.

Maybe so. I started as a run-of-the-mill social democrat. But I came to see that there is a sickness in the movement for which there is only a spiritual cure. Marx, when read properly, provides the key to that cure.

Whoever Shakespeare may have been, his work remains pop[ur because there is insight into us humans.

I ghet nothng for Jerus oer tan scted allged quotes,

Jesus is popular for the same reason as Shakespeare, to wit, in their words there is insight into us humans.

My favorite Shakespeare character is Hamlet. He finds out how his father was killed and who did it.

He is faced with a moral dilemma. Keep silent and enjoy a life as a prince, or do something. He slowly goes mad destroying people around him.

Similar to Jesus, when you think about it.

Shakespeare makes use of the supernatural for effect. Much like the gospel writers.

Exactly

 

[Jarhyn]

because of pure coincidence and little more, It's just way healthier to have more doubts about that than fewer.

You suggest that it may be "healthy" to believe some things without worrying too much

Quite the inverse: I suggest it may be healthy to DOUBT some things without worrying too much about their truth, SPECIFICALLY when that truth cannot be confirmed or denied to any reasonable measure of likelihood or not.

Perhaps my preference for objective truth...

Objective truths and whatever comes of poring records of human history are not compatible concepts.

At best you get the objective truth "once upon a time someone made a claim of something happening".

I doubt it applies in this case -- My interest in Puzzles of History is completely divorced from my emotional life, or moral choices.

History puzzles are "tail-chasing wank" in my experience, unless the business is disproof of categorical beliefs about some manner of dubious declaration of "impossibility".

If I want to explore objective truth, history isn't where I go to do it?

And to be fair, when I made my first posts about amalgam, it was entirely divorced from what I needed or wanted to be uncertain at the time.

Either way, doubt, and more rather than less, seems to be a healthy course in most things and especially with "history".

 

[WAB]

As I recall No Robots is/was a Trump supporter, as the majority of conspiracy theorists are.

Fuck you, clown.

I have repeatedly and consistently identified as a Marxist, and I have consistently and repeatedly called out the atheist Right and its atheofascism. Trump is just a symptom of the sickness that permeates the US. Death to America!

The mythicists are unable to admit the obvious, to wit, that Jesus was a Jew and preached pure Judaism. This denial is part and parcel of the American sickness that makes of him also a far-Right racist thug.

Oh, yes, and Swami, I suggest you re-examine your own position on the historical Shakespeare. It is true that we know far less of the historical Shakespeare than we do of the historical Jesus. However, that there is a single, burning intelligence behind the words of both men is self-evident. You might be well advised to look at Harry Waton's work, The True Shakespeare Revealed. The upshot: Shakespeare, like Jesus, was a Jew.

As much as I disagree with your theories, you have never given any indication that you are a Trump supporter. Jahryn must not remember your posting history, or didn't pay too much attention to them.

Poor Shakespeare. Everyone wants him in their corner. Snobs, classists, lawyers, feminists...

 

[steve_bank]

As I recall No Robots is/was a Trump supporter, as the majority of conspiracy theorists are.

Fuck you, clown.

I have repeatedly and consistently identified as a Marxist, and I have consistently and repeatedly called out the atheist Right and its atheofascism. Trump is just a symptom of the sickness that permeates the US. Death to America!

The mythicists are unable to admit the obvious, to wit, that Jesus was a Jew and preached pure Judaism. This denial is part and parcel of the American sickness that makes of him also a far-Right racist thug.

Oh, yes, and Swami, I suggest you re-examine your own position on the historical Shakespeare. It is true that we know far less of the historical Shakespeare than we do of the historical Jesus. However, that there is a single, burning intelligence behind the words of both men is self-evident. You might be well advised to look at Harry Waton's work, The True Shakespeare Revealed. The upshot: Shakespeare, like Jesus, was a Jew.

As much as I disagree with your theories, you have never given any indication that you are a Trump supporter. Jahryn must not remember your posting history, or didn't pay too much attention to them.

Poor Shakespeare. Everyone wants him in their corner. Snobs, classists, lawyers, feminists...

I see, extracting your pound of flesh?

 

[WAB]

As I recall No Robots is/was a Trump supporter, as the majority of conspiracy theorists are.

Fuck you, clown.

I have repeatedly and consistently identified as a Marxist, and I have consistently and repeatedly called out the atheist Right and its atheofascism. Trump is just a symptom of the sickness that permeates the US. Death to America!

The mythicists are unable to admit the obvious, to wit, that Jesus was a Jew and preached pure Judaism. This denial is part and parcel of the American sickness that makes of him also a far-Right racist thug.

Oh, yes, and Swami, I suggest you re-examine your own position on the historical Shakespeare. It is true that we know far less of the historical Shakespeare than we do of the historical Jesus. However, that there is a single, burning intelligence behind the words of both men is self-evident. You might be well advised to look at Harry Waton's work, The True Shakespeare Revealed. The upshot: Shakespeare, like Jesus, was a Jew.

As much as I disagree with your theories, you have never given any indication that you are a Trump supporter. Jahryn must not remember your posting history, or didn't pay too much attention to them.

Poor Shakespeare. Everyone wants him in their corner. Snobs, classists, lawyers, feminists...

I see, extracting your pound of flesh?

And what am I supposed to make of that? Shylock reference...hmmm...

 

[steve_bank]

It took a long time for you to explicitly say you are Marxist.

Maybe so. I started as a run-of-the-mill social democrat. But I came to see that there is a sickness in the movement for which there is only a spiritual cure. Marx, when read properly, provides the key to that cure.

Whoever Shakespeare may have been, his work remains pop[ur because there is insight into us humans.

I ghet nothng for Jerus oer tan scted allged quotes,

Jesus is popular for the same reason as Shakespeare, to wit, in their words there is insight into us humans.

My favorite Shakespeare character is Hamlet. He finds out how his father was killed and who did it.

He is faced with a moral dilemma. Keep silent and enjoy a life as a prince, or do something. He slowly goes mad destroying people around him.

Similar to Jesus, when you think about it.

Shakespeare makes use of the supernatural for effect. Much like the gospel writers.

Exactly

'fuck you clown', is that something the prince of peace said?

Hardly similar to Jesus. 'Jesus' in the gospels is a series of unconnected sound bites witoiut rhyme or reason. The ultimate Rorschach Test.

Let's see, Jesus says

Meditate and pray in private and don't wear region on your sleeves for show. Christians should pay attention..

Turn the other cheek.

Meek shall inherit the Earth.

Believe in ME and never die,.

Poor you will always have ME only for a while.

More like insights into a delusional mind.

 

[steve_bank]

Colombo's wife on the old TV show comes to mind. She is never seen or heard on the shows, but Column quotes her sayings.

'Ya know, about this kind of thing my wife she says .... and she is very wise'

 

[No Robots]

'fuck you clown', is that something the prince of peace said?

Prince of Peace?! That's what they call him when they don't like what he actually said. For example:

But woe to you scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites; because you shut the kingdom of heaven against men, for you yourselves do not enter in; and those that are going in, you suffer not to enter.

You claim to find value in Shakespeare but not in Jesus. Woe to you, hypocrite!

Meditate and pray in private and don't wear region on your sleeves for show. Christians should pay attention..

No argument from me.

Turn the other cheek.

Meek shall inherit the Earth.

Believe in ME and never die,.

Poor you will always have ME only for a while.

More like insights into a delusional mind.

If you can't understand what he says, that's fine. Just stop trying to make everyone else as blind as you are.

 

[steve_bank]

NR

You are welcome to your fantasy of the world becoming Jewish and Marxist. I think I started a thread for you so you wouldn't derail other threads.

The general discussion is who a flesh and blood Jesus may have been. Such as a 'minimalist Jesus'.

Not interested in your ideas about world domination.

Considering what we know of the tines to me a wondering itinerant Jew was likely. To me the gospel Jesus is a conflation of multiple events and people.

I s don't see a consistent single personality in the gospels. No way to authenticate who said what when.

 

[No Robots]

You are welcome to your fantasy of the world becoming Jewish and Marxist. I think I started a thread for you so you wouldn't derail other threads.

Some dickweed called me a Trump supporter. That's the only reason I stepped into this cesspool of which you seem to have appointed yourself lifeguard.

Not a fantasy. Every day billions of people around the globe pay homage and live in the world created by these two Jews. Eventually, it will be the whole of mankind.

 

[steve_bank]

Like I said you have a thread to promote your ideas.

I can see how traumatic it can be ti be called a Trump supporter.

So now that we got the Trump issue sorted out, bye bye? Come again when you can;'t stay so long.