Argh! Will not post...will not post...

[onager]

Damn, it's getting weird in those other groups.

I just wrote two lengthy posts in different threads, then thought better of it and killed them.

The first was that "Jesus Was A Liberal" love-fest. I'm still biting my fingers to keep from opening fire on that one. They'll be chattering over that same nonsense when their Right-Wing Xian brethren are politely herding them onto the trains for Camp Falwell. (Cheerful Thought: Us, the gays, and the unconverted Jews will already be long gone by then.)

The other was in response to Mr. Atheist Commie Genocide, who opined in his usual high-handed manner that "the majority of historians agree Jesus was a real historical figure."

Well, the majority of XIAN historians, maybe. I was feeling so mean, I wanted to ask him for some contemporary historical evidence.

But unlike the theists, I know I have a finite life span. ;-)

Sorry for the complaining, I'm just a little irked and thought I would blow off some stem here.

[Jamastiene]

1. I've done that a lot of times as well.

My fingers actually itch to fire away and point out the flaws in the absolute belief that Jesus existed and was a liberal and that "anything is possible through the Lord Jesus Christ." blah blah blah. After a while, it just makes me cringe. I wonder how much good fortune blesses people like Bush and how much bad fortune befalls liberal Christians before they realize what I have come to believe. Either there is no God, or the sob hates my guts. It makes me think of that movie, "Bruce Almighty".

[YankeyMCC]

2. my DU life

has become much more pleasant since I've discovered the "ignore" feature.

And there's only one person on it, I think you mentioned that person in your post. ;)

[trotsky]

3. Hehehe

"Mr. Atheist Commie Genocide" - yup, that would pretty much sum that one up.

You've seen what I post - well, imagine the stuff that *I* delete! :evilgrin:

[immoderate]

7. Re: Mr. ACG

I was prepared to accept the fact that religion was not a psychopathology. But after some of that verbal diarrhea, :shrug:

BTW, on self censorship, I just ditched a paragraph that included a definition of superstition.

--IMM

[RevolutionaryActs]

4. I do that too

It's so hard not to post things at times, but I don't like causing flamewars.

I think it's a double standard though, because you know they never think of censoring themselves.

[Jamastiene]

19. They see themselves as persecuted

same as their repug counterparts. It's hard to tell the 2 apart sometimes.

[uberotto]

5. I've said it before and I'll say it again, Jesus was Real...

His life is very well documented. Some of the surviving documentation that exists was written by the man himself.

Even though he's been dead for over 2000 years, he is still one of the most studied figures in History.

Don't believe me? Think there is some detail that I've yet to mention? Of course there is. Most people who study him today don't call him by the name Jesus Christ, they refer to him by the name he went by at the time he was alive, Julius Caesar.

Here are some excerpts from a recent book on the subject
http://www.carotta.de/eindex.html

Here's a good review of the book
http://www.smallkidtime.com/was_jesus_caesar.htm

I haven't read the book yet, it is next on my reading list after The Elegant Universe. There is, however a great deal of information on the authors website. The theory isn't new. I first came across it about three or four years ago and became fascinated by it. I've seen the topic come up on various Religious message boards and so far no one has given any sort of semi-factual rebuttal to show that the theory might be wrong. The three most common arguments against it so far are:

1. Julius died before Jesus was born, so the two could not be the same person.

This might be a good argument if it weren't for the fact that the only thing theologians can agree on when it comes to the birth of Jesus is that the Bible gives conflicting information. I've heard dates for the birth of Jesus quoted anywhere from 50 B.C. to 50 A.D., with the most common being around 7 B.C. Secondly, if the Cult of Divus Julius was transformed into the Cult of Jesus Christ, the timing fits extremely well, about two Generations.

2. The Bible was written before Julius Caesar was born.

I've seen this one several times which just goes to show that most so called Christians don't know much about Christianity, or History. Julius Caesar Born 100 B.C. died 44 B.C. Jesus Christ born approx. 7 B.C. died approx 28 B.C. New Testament to the Bible written after Jesus' death.

3. (This one is my favorite) Nuh-Uh. You're a stinky poopy-head, go away.


I've read a number of theories about the historical basis of Jesus and this one, to me, is by far the most compelling. There are just too many parallels between the two characters, both big and small. The timing of it all is perfect. And while the Jesus of the Bible might have been a simple carpenter from Palenstine, no one can deny that the heart and soul of the early days of Christianity was the Roman Empire.

Oh, and as for whether or not Jesus was a liberal, the truth, as I believe it to be, is that Jesus was neither liberal or conservative, but instead one hell of a Politician.

[muriel_volestrangler]

6. Here's an argument against the theory: the two men are totallly different

Caesar was born into a powerful family, was a soldier, married, adopted a child, and took control of the entire Roman Empire. Completely unlike Jesus. There are no significant parallels (well, both were male ...).

Anyone trying to say they are the same person is probably satirising the conspiracy theory industry.

[Synnical]

8. I dunno, sounds kind of intriguing to me

I'll buy the book, maybe. I see no compelling evidence that the historical "Jesus" ever existed, I tend to think it's a compilation of historical figures. Why not read the book? I don't mind spending a small amount of time trying to understand why xians believe what they do. Did you read the book review? I admit there could be collusion, but a linguist is probably necessary if the review is accurate. And I happen to know one - Frank Zindler.

[muriel_volestrangler]

12. I'd save your money, if I were you

I looked at the 'excerpts', and they seemed to be based on likening crossing the Rubicon to crossing the Jordan. Not very convincing - one was the climax of Caesar's rise to power, done with an entire army, after he'd been one of the most powerful people in Rome for years, and the other was a personal start to being a rebel.

Caesar was not someone trying to overthrow the establishment. He was born into a powerful family, and was part of the state. He made alliances with some politicians, and fought others. Being the pontifex maximus was a small part of his power - martial success was what counted in republican Rome (see Marius, Sulla, Pompey etc.).

I haven't heard of the idea that Julius Caesar invented the codex before - but the reference to wikipedia, where one person (we don't know who) claims he invented it by folding up scrolls is unconvincing - codices started as thin sheets of wood - the word is derived from the Latin caudex, meaning wood.

Really, if you're trying to draw parallels between people, you have to look at the major features of their life. Julius Caesar (married multiple times, a politician and soldier, eventual ruler of his whole world) is completely different to Jesus.

[Synnical]

13. Well, here's another book, with a different take

That comes highly recommended from another atheist, and it looks interesting, too. I'm a hard/positive atheist, but I never have a problem exploring anything . .

http://tinyurl.com/59yuu

The Roman Origins of Christianity
by Joe Atwill

I don't mind spending the money - I'll find a used book online and buy it there. I won't buy it new. I adore used books - especially when there are hand written notes inside. I have a fabulous copy of "Paradise Lost" with comments from a believer regurgitating theist nonsense. It makes for entertaining reading.

[muriel_volestrangler]

16. Looks much more reasonable

I'm quite able to believe that the gospels were written with an eye on the political climate of the time, with convenient 'prophecies' built into them; and that they have Greek and Roman religious and philosophical influences. It was just the mismatch of Jesus and Julius Caesar that looked absurd to me.

[onager]

9. I find the Caesar-Jesus thing

...a long stretch, too. Their initials are very similar, though...uh, depending on the translation!

It wouldn't surprise me if events/myths/stories about Emperors were later transferred to Famous Xian Leaders...at least, after Constantine allowed Xianity to fix its clammy grip on the neck of humanity.

I know one example of this kind of transference: who comes to mind if I mention a leader who, as an infant, was hidden by his mother in a boat made of bulrushes, floated down a river, and miraculously rescued?

That's right...Charlton Heston!

The exact same story is also told about the Egyptian pharoah Sneferu, and the Persian ruler Cyrus The Great (580-529 BCE). As near as I can tell, Sneferu lived about a thousand years before Moses (c.2613 - c.2589 BCE).

But looking at religious websites for historical timelines is an exercise in futility. And humor. You're lucky if any two of them match dates within a millenium of each other.

e.g., they go through all sorts of gyrations to match the Exodus with this or that Pharoah.

As I learned at the Egyptian Museum, in all of Egypt's copious recorded history, there is exactly ONE mention of Israel. That's on a large stone tablet dating from the reign of Meneptah (son of Ramses II, circa 1212 - 1202 BC).

And the Hebrews didn't have to come to Egypt, the Pharoah went to them. The tablet describes a successful military expedition to Libya, Syria and Palestine by Meneptah: "Israel is no more. It is laid waste. Its seed is desolate."

That's pretty funny, too, since the Seed Of Israel is in the very same neighborhood today and still annoying the Egyptians. ;-)

(Again, religious sites often say this single mention "proves" the Exodus took place. It does no such thing. The rest of the inscription makes clear that it is describing a military expedition. But as usual, the religiosos jump through all sorts of historical and logical hoops to try and make it fit.)

[0rganism]

10. "Jesus" is whatever Jesus' followers and skeptics imagine Jesus to be

among other things.

Jesus is the Son of God.
Jesus is God.
Jesus is a rabbi.
Jesus is a hoax.
Jesus is a historical figure.
Jesus is a myth taken purely on faith.
Jesus is a peacemaker.
Jesus is a warmaker.
Jesus is a redeemer.
Jesus is a damner.
Jesus is the Only Way.
Jesus is one of Many Ways.
Jesus is a Dead End.
Jesus is the King of the Jews.
Jesus is Caesar.
Jesus is Mithra.
Jesus is Gilgamesh.
Jesus is a storyteller.
Jesus is the story.
Jesus is a liberal.
Jesus is a conservative.
Jesus is a capitalist.
Jesus is a communist.
Jesus is an authoritarian.
Jesus is a revolutionary.
Jesus is a crusader.
Jesus is a pacifist.
Jesus is in Heaven.
Jesus is in Special Church-Approved Wafers.
Jesus is the ultimate Keebler Elf.

Pick five, any five. Doesn't matter which. Tomorrow you can pick a new batch. Make a few up in your spare time. The historical figure has long since become irrelevent; it is the Idea of Jesus that we are dealing with on a day-to-day basis.

[onager]

11. True, that!

A good summary, too. Maybe I'll pick 5 and post them in 5 different threads over on "Religion & Theology."

[FM Arouet666]

14. Jesus was a liberal and Jesus was an historical figure.

I am glad I missed the threads, I would have launched into a tirade. I am sorry, liberal christians are an enigma, kind of like log cabin republicans. :evilfrown:

[onager]

15. Heh! I just dodged another bullet...

That thread with the subject: "Say something you LIKE about an opposing religion."

Atheists should say nice stuff about religion, and vice versa. I guess.

I was REALLY tempted to say I liked the sign, in several languages, hanging on the door of Notre Dame Cathedral in Paris:

Beware Of Pickpockets

...but I wasn't quite sure which set of pickpockets it was warning me about: the hard-working criminals trying to earn a living, or those guys in black dresses.

I did shell out some francs to burn a candle at the shrine dedicated to...Joan Of Arc.

That really tickled my sense of irony. :evilgrin:

[Commie Pinko Dirtbag]

17. I missed that thread, but it's an easy one:

Just off the top of my head:

- Catholics have good charities that don't force its beneficiaries to convert.
- Jews don't proselytize.
- Buddhists are pacifists.
- Muslims, at one moment in history, were the only TOLERANT religion in the world.
- Wiccans strive to conserve Nature.

I'm feeling all Kumbaya now. :loveya:

[FM Arouet666]

18. I like the pope's hat

It would look better with a prophylactic, but it is hard to be fashionable when your the pontiff. :evilgrin: