Can’t find any reputable source for the quote. Seems to come from a Jews-for Jesus type tract.
Oh, absolutely. No disagreement there at all. My only argument is how the prophets were traditionally interpreted by the large majority of Jews at the time. That you would have had sects with wildly divergent views is to be expected.
But even in the gospels you see the tension with Romans mount around Passover due to the expectation of religiously inspired revolt and violence. And all of the drama with Jesus being interrogated by the Sanhedrin wasn’t because they really gave a shit about his beliefs but because they were worried about the Romans (as I’m sure you realize). And they in turn were worried about pseudo-Messiahs trying to lead yet another uprising.
Like I said, could be Christian influence. 
On further checking, once I got the google result that was this very thread without having encountered anything legitimate, I gave up. You’re right about this one AFAICT.
I am unsure that many of the people arguing the existence of Jesus realize exactly how patchy our records are the further back you go. With all the fires, floods, earthquakes, wars, and other disruptive events that have occurred over the milennia, countless texts have been lost. Without Herodotus’ Histories, much of our knowledge of the contemporary Hellenic world is a black hole. We probably wouldn’t know about the Battle of Thermopylae, for just one example. Writing in the 9th century, Einhard couldn’t find any information on Charlemagne’s early life or even his birthday, and that was only a few years after the man had died. We’re talking one of the most influential men in Western history, the son of a powerful King, with many living people who’d known him personally, and still nothing could be found by his biographer. Compare that to Jesus Christ, a minor figure executed centuries earlier in a recently incorporated border province of the Roman Empire, which was experiencing civil unrest and attempts at rebellion every five minutes.
It’s a miracle we have any sources at all, and barring someone breaking into a buried library whilst expanding their cellar, most of what they recount can only be taken as a matter of faith.
I don’t believe Jesus really existed, as a secular man or otherwise. And I don’t buy into the argument that since people 50 years or so later thought he was real, then he must have been real. Supposed contemporaries of Prester John thought he was real. More likely, the Jesus myth was perpetuated by the ancient version of evangelist scammers who were simply creating a religion for their own nefarious purposes.
I would have to see some hard documentation to believe otherwise, and there just isn’t any.
Coming from you - Satan’s Spawn - I would expect no less
BWA-HAHAHAHA!
(This will all look odd next week after we revert back, as eventually there will be posters who know nothing of the Board’s Zombie Apocalypse.)
Personally, I don’t have a problem either way, but having studied this area a bit, I can’t be quite so cavalier. For those who haven’t though, I can’t expect you to understand. So look at it this way. If you were trying to create a religion in the 1st century, from a purely cynical point of view, wouldn’t you approach it basically as a marketing problem? And if you were doing that, wouldn’t it make sense to use familiar hooks and imagery? What purpose is served by a) coming up with some totally unbelievable and outlandish story that doesn’t in any way relate to the established mythos and b) use as the central figure someone who was known to have been executed as a criminal - and as you know crucifixion was reserved for the worst criminals as a general rule, so as to make an example of them. I really don’t think that would have been the best way to establish your brand. But maybe that’s just me.
So the story’s so outlandish it must be true? I’ve got some great swampland to sell you too.
A good con man can sell anything.
No, just the opposite, so you’ve hit the nail on the head. If you’re trying to sell something, whether it’s a religion or swampland, you try to come up with a plausible backstory. The Christian gospel ain’t it.
You’re not convincing me.
OK. It’s not like I get miles or reward points if I do you know. I’m just trying to give you a different perspective.
Until the middle of the 2nd century at least, with Marcion, there were Christians who believed that Jesus was spiritual in nature.Besides, there were similarly earlier beliefs in an “angel-messiah”.
So, the concept doesn’t seem implausible to me, even though the existence of a real preacher seems more likely.
The counter argument would be that contrarily to other more mainstreams beliefs, it worked. Out of probably dozens or maybe hundreds of other sects, this one survived. People might not have bet on it at the time, but it doesn’t seem absurd to believe that one out of a hundred prophets would have come up with some quite outlandish beliefs. Nowadays, Scientology is making some outlandish claims too, and they have a significant following.
Right, but it’s one thing when you have an established community to start from and another when you’re trying to launch something from scratch. When you have a base, people and resources, you have other things that will draw people in and that you can use to sell them. The ideology then becomes less important.
As for scientology, I’m pretty sure the really crazy shit like the stuff about Xenu wasn’t originally meant for public consumption and was meant to be reserved for people who had already progressed to the higher levels of the organizational structure. That’s typical of most secret societies and mystery cults. You always have levels with people who have just been initiated into the mysteries at the lowest levels and masters/priests/priestesses at the highest levels.
The fact that it worked shows that it was good marketing. Paul went around to cities all over the place telling people his story–and they bought it. This means whatever he was selling, people were buying.
Why would they believe him? Well, even if you take the biblical record at face value, the early apostles weren’t believed based on investigation and fact checking. They were believed based on the power of their message, their scriptural arguments, and apparent miracles they were able to do.
Jesus’s crucifixion would have been a plus, not a minus, to people who were dissatisfied with “the system” (as we’d put it today). People didn’t dismiss someone just because he got crucified. If they believed he’d been unjustly crucified, they were all the more incensed on his behalf.
But this observation is irrelevant to the discussion. What’s relevant (even assuming you’re right) is that once the stuff did get out in public, people bought it.
I have learned in teaching critical thinking, to my dismay, just how bad people are, even today, at filtering out obvious falsehoods. People will believe anything.
I’m not sure what you’re saying. Are you saying that since records are sketchy, but we have remarkable numbers of records of Jesus, Jesus probably existed? Or that since records are sketchy, and our record of Jesus is not particularly more sketchy than that for other famous figures, Jesus probably existed? Or are you saying that since records are sketchy, including records of Jesus, there’s no reason to think he existed?
Do we really know that for a fact? I mean shit, if you tell me they did I’ll believe you but as Will Smith would say - daaammmmnnnn . . .
And even then, you have to figure these people have already been subjected to some pretty serious indoctrination so, is that really all that surprising? I mean no matter how much anti-propaganda they try to pump out, it’s still a fucking cult after all.