Jump to content
Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -

Did the Romans invent Jesus?


zep73

Recommended Posts

11 hours ago, Guyver said:

I have ridden motorcycles all my life.  I’m just telling this for the….what’s it worth. Ni was never the best, someone else was always better than me, including my little brother. But I did and do ride.  Anyway, one time when I was on fire for Jesus I was getting on the freeway on my Yamaha Seca 650, which was a wonderful machine, and I got stuck on this tight freeway on-ramp behind this effed up truck with pallets like twelve high and wobbling, and before I could catch an opening to pass because of all the traffic, right in front of me those pallets came loose.  I called Jesus and then everything went into slow motion, and it was like a bubble came around me and all that material just exploded around me, and I came through without a scratch. It’s a fact, I just can’t explain it except for pure luck.

Thanks for the story, as you saw you experienced the power of Jesus.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, zep73 said:

That's a lame argument. Do you know what pain is? It's an electrical signal to the brain, amplified by fear.
If you analyze the world and the human experience deep enough, it's actually quite piddly.

Well then, drop a hammer on your foot, then describe how piddling it is. Of course, you won't do it, because it would freakin' hurt.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Did the Romans invent Jesus?

 

Yes!

  • Like 2
  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

20 minutes ago, Hammerclaw said:

Well then, drop a hammer on your foot, then describe how piddling it is. Of course, you won't do it, because it would freakin' hurt.

If you're distracted enough, like when you're in a panic and fleeing, being hit by a bullet is something you barely notice at first. It's because the brain is already flooded with adrenaline and totally focussed on escaping. So I ask you, if a powerful distraction can make the brain almost ignore a bullet, what does that tell about pain?

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, zep73 said:

I assume you didn't watch the presentation/documentary? There are a handful of experts in it, besides Atwill, and they do present a strong case.

You would be correct. After reading what other posters I respect, and their links, have to say, I'm not sure I want to spend an hour and a half watching something that's similar in scope to proving President Bush created 9-11 to start a war. Sure, there might be some links between Jesus and Titus, but the level of long term planning needed would be Lex Luthor in scope. I'm not buying it.

Edited by DieChecker
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, DieChecker said:

You would be correct. After reading what other posters I respect, and their links, have to say, I'm not sure I want to spend an hour and a half watching something that's similar in scope to proving President Bush created 9-11 to start a war. Sure, there might be some links between Jesus and Titus, but the level of long term planning needed would be Lex Luthor in scope. I'm not buying it.

That reminds me of Einstein refusing to accept 'spooky action at a distance'. You are rejecting other scholars without hearing them out. But okay, that's up to you. Peace bro.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, zep73 said:

If you're distracted enough, like when you're in a panic and fleeing, being hit by a bullet is something you barely notice at first. It's because the brain is already flooded with adrenaline and totally focussed on escaping. So I ask you, if a powerful distraction can make the brain almost ignore a bullet, what does that tell about pain?

That it can be overridden by natural endorphins produced by stress. If you get anywhere near an existential point, make it. If your only argument is deriding mine without producing a counter-argument of your own, all you're going to end up looking is stupid.

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

31 minutes ago, Hammerclaw said:

That it can be overridden by natural endorphins produced by stress. If you get anywhere near an existential point, make it. If your only argument is deriding mine without producing a counter-argument of your own, all you're going to end up looking is stupid.

You used the hammer and the toe as an argument yourself.
So if you do it, it's smart, but when I do it, it's stupid?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 7/26/2021 at 10:37 PM, third_eye said:

The Romans knows their stuff... 

Evidently, proof that dragons are real... 

~

 

At least one dragon WAS real.  King Richard the Lionheart brought a Nile crocodile home to England when he returned from the Crusades.  It escaped and for a few moths terrorized the English countryside.  Strange that dragon stories usually come from places that were familiar with crocodiles.

 

After some serious searching, I cannot decide whether there was a "historical Jesus" or not.  While nobody in the Bible ever says, "I had breakfast with Jesus," or anything else that would indicate an actual encounter, there are some details, like Jesus' brothers, that make one think there had to be somebody on whom the legends are based.  Josephus in "Antiquities of the Jews" mentions several people named Jesus who could serve as a source for one or more characteristics of the biblical Jesus.

 

And I am told that the Dead Sea Scrolls provide an entire alternate history of Jesus.  Including that he survived crucifixion and in later years traveled to Rome where he had several sons and lived out the rest of his life.  There are alternate versions of many ancient stories, including that Moses was the hero of the tale of Alababa and the Forty Thieves.  The "Admonitions of Ipuwer" provide an alternate description of the Ten Plagues of Egypt - well, at least two of them.

 

Apparently, Jesus' seven miracles derived frpm ceremonies used at Qumran.

 

For Eight Bits:  I'm going to give Carrier another try.

Doug.

Edited by Doug1066
  • Like 5
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, zep73 said:

You used the hammer and the toe as an argument yourself.
So if you do it, it's smart, but when I do it, it's stupid?

Pretty much, since my point was made regarding how real reality is subjectively. Then you come along with the "pain is chemicals" argument which takes nothing away from my point made. Hell, gun powder is just chemicals, but it will sure the hell put a bullet right through you. So, whatever the mechanics of pain, particularly, sudden, unexpected or deliberately self-inflicted, it hurts like hell. So, yes, so far you've come across looking pretty damned ignorant.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Hammerclaw said:

Pretty much, since my point was made regarding how real reality is subjectively. Then you come along with the "pain is chemicals" argument which takes nothing away from my point made. Hell, gun powder is just chemicals, but it will sure the hell put a bullet right through you. So, whatever the mechanics of pain, particularly, sudden, unexpected or deliberately self-inflicted, it hurts like hell. So, yes, so far you've come across looking pretty damned ignorant.

My point was that pain is relative and circumstantial. As I see it, you come off looking pretty arrogant. Not to forget that you go for the man, not the 'ball', by calling me stupid and ignorant.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, zep73 said:

My point was that pain is relative and circumstantial. As I see it, you come off looking pretty arrogant. Not to forget that you go for the man, not the 'ball', by calling me stupid and ignorant.

My point is you took a deep dive into something meant as light and flippant and never came up for air. As for the rest; if the shoe fits, wear it.:P

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Hammerclaw said:

My point is you took a deep dive into something meant as light and flippant and never came up for air. As for the rest; if the shoe fits, wear it.:P

There you go again. The man, not the subject. You are hopeless. (And of course, I disagree with your analysis of my responses.)

I'm out of this mud throwing. We can talk again when you learn how to.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 minutes ago, zep73 said:

There you go again. The man, not the subject. You are hopeless. (And of course, I disagree with your analysis of my responses.)

I'm out of this mud throwing. We can talk again when you learn how to.

I'll say one last thing; this all started with you trying undermine my example by posting lists of exceptions, missing my simple point of how real, most of the time, reality is perceived by us. 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

37 minutes ago, Hammerclaw said:

I'll say one last thing; this all started with you trying undermine my example by posting lists of exceptions, missing my simple point of how real, most of the time, reality is perceived by us. 

First of all, thank you for getting back on track. I appreciate it.
Second of all, I did call your argument lame, which was a bit below standard on my part. Sorry.

I was trying to counter argue your position, that pain was proof of a real basic reality. I don't think it is.
We are easily fooled, even by each other. Millions of people are fooled by religion and charlatans. When we sleep, we believe whatever crazy scenario we are presented with in our dreams.

My point is that you can't trust your mind. No matter how convincing your experience is. It's just an experience.

Edited by zep73
  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, zep73 said:

First of all, thank you for getting back on track. I appreciate it.
Second of all, I did call your argument lame, which was a bit below standard on my part. Sorry.

I was trying to counter argue your position, that pain was proof of a real basic reality. I don't think it is.
We are easily fooled, even by each other. Millions of people are fooled by religion and charlatans. When we sleep, we believe whatever crazy scenario we are presented with in our dreams.

My point is that you can't trust your mind. No matter how convincing your experience is. It's just an experience.

Understood. My point concerned real perceptual reality. What we experience with our senses is all we have to go on. Everything underlying it is no more substantial or perceptable than strings of symbols on an internet forum page. that is, only conceptual.

Edited by Hammerclaw
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Doug1066 said:

For Eight Bits:  I'm going to give Carrier another try.

Hey, Doug. Good to see you around again. I hope all is well.

You might be happier trying Carrier's source, rather than Carrier himself. (And not just Doug, but anybody who's interested in this sort of thing.)

Earl Dohery gives an extended introduction to his view for free on his website, starting here:

https://www.jesuspuzzle.com/jesuspuzzle/preamble.htm

Or, if you prefer the All England Summarized Proust version, there's Doherty's article from 1997, also free on his website:

https://www.jesuspuzzle.com/jesuspuzzle/jhcjp.htm

Carrier offers some tweaks, and a lot of probabilistic language, but this is the essential version of the affirmative argument.

Either way, Carrier or Doherty, it's heavy going compared with the Atwill approach, but by all means, dive in.

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

@eight bits can you shortly tell which of Atwill's arguments are questioned, and why? I really want to know, but have limited time.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

37 minutes ago, eight bits said:

Hey, Doug. Good to see you around again. I hope all is well.

I survived a bout with covid.  Still having exhaustion and "brain fog" issues, but seem to have recovered otherwise.

My younger daughter defends her Masters thesis on Friday and my 50th anniversary is coming up in August, so I would say that all is well.

Thanks for asking.

Doug

  • Like 4
  • Thanks 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Hammerclaw said:

Understood. My point concerned real perceptual reality. What we experience with our senses is all we have to go on. Everything underlying it is no more substantial or perceptable than strings of symbols on an internet forum page. that is, only conceptual.

Yes I agree to a certain point. The problem arises when a sensation is so "loud" that you perceive it is as an axiom, and it becomes a truth in your ontology. You cannot claim that.
Has a sensation ever been deemed an axiom?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, zep73 said:

 can you shortly tell which of Atwill's arguments are questioned, and why? I really want to know, but have limited time.

Point-by-point is at the Carrier link I posted, and it is long, but then there are a lot of points.

If you want a short critique, then I think you have to break out of point-by-point mode and try for broad brush strokes.

The problem in a nutshell is that everybody's working from the same, small body of evidence. Without new evidence, relying only on arguments, anybody with a new theory has to perform better at explaining the existing evidence than other already known theories.

For example, Occam's Razor has a big following in the "guild" (accredited Bible scholars of the New Testament and related subjects). So, is thiis theory "simpler" than other serious theories? Not really. One cruelly murdered guy haunts the dreams of his surviving buddies, then one of their enemies has a vision, and joins them. Actually, the newbie has a lot of visions, and at the outset promises converts literal physical immortality. Say what you will about that theory, but it's simple.

Compare that with a theory that requires an investment of time, resources and attention at the highest levels of the Roman Empire, which aims to convert Jews but so far as we can tell only catches on with Gentiles, and not too many of them in the early decades. There's no particular reason to think there were more than a few thousand Christians when the Flavian dynasty ended in 96 CE. And the very likely far more numerous Jews? They're dispersed and paying taxes and won't have worked out a systematic rabbinical (non-Temple) form of their religion for another generation or so. Only then will some Jews based in Palestine bother Rome militarily again, and then not much and not on the Flavians' watch.

Obviously, that's not comprehensive, but it points to a slew of hard problems.

This is Dan Brown stuff - entertaining as hell, but difficult to take seriously as a contender. I think part of the appeal is how embarrassing it would be for Christians if this was what really happened. Yeah, it would be. So, too, with the Da Vinci Code. But Mary Magdalene has about as much chance of having been a pagan fertility cult priestess as Greek-challenged Josephus has of authoring the Sermon on the Mount.

There are real reasons to doubt the existence of a historical Jesus, and even if he lived, we have no useful evidence about his life story.There's a reason for that: nobody we know of cared about Jesus's life story for a generation or so until Mark wrote down a story, but whether that story has anything to with a real Jesus Mark doesn't say. That neglect really did happen, and (1) it should embarrass Christians, but (2) it pretty much places many questions about how Chrisitanity began beyond confident answers.

All in my opinion, of course.

Edited by eight bits
  • Like 3
  • Thanks 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 7/26/2021 at 8:52 PM, and then said:

Doesn't seem a likely effort for a civilization that wasn't bothered to create new deities, does it?  Didn't they just sort of rename Greek gods?  If they did go out of their way to create a new one, it sure blew up in their faces, huh?

Hell no. They just re-centered around a Roman Pope. The Holy Roman Empire and all that. There was no backlash.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 7/27/2021 at 2:45 PM, Brandy333 said:

I don't agree with Jesus was a shape-shifting lizard, where does that come from?  What I do know though is that Jesus was, and is, the Son Of God.   He is God in the flesh.

Never mind them, that was a farcical aside.

But to quote Gahndi, "I like your Christ, but not your Christianity."

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.