Jesus was the first socialist....Mikhail Gorbachev

[CheFighter777]

“Jesus was the first socialist, the first to seek a better life for mankind.” - Mikhail Gorbachev

Seems Russia understands Christianity way better than the USA!!!!!!!!!!

[Pogue]

lol wut

[F9]

lol..?
Jesus wasnt the first to seek a better life for mankind.Jesus was "the first" to talk about an "ideology" -religion which says to people to sacrifice their current life for the better one after death=going to paradise.
He wasnt seeking for a better life now as we live, he wanted people to be quiet dont quest authority, dont demand their rights etc etc.
Sorry destroying to you but jesus(if he existed) was not the first to seek a better life for mankind...

Fuserg9:star:

[CheFighter777]

lol..?
Jesus wasnt the first to seek a better life for mankind.Jesus was "the first" to talk about an "ideology" -religion which says to people to sacrifice their current life for the better one after death=going to paradise.
He wasnt seeking for a better life now as we live, he wanted people to be quiet dont quest authority, dont demand their rights etc etc.
Sorry destroying to you but jesus(if he existed) was not the first to seek a better life for mankind...

Fuserg9:star:

Wrong....

Jesus taught us to help the poor and oppressed!!!!

[Decolonize The Left]

1. Socialism did not exist when Jesus was supposedly alive.
2. Christianity is not the first religion/theory/philosophy to discuss bettering human beings.
3. Neither Russia nor the USA 'understand' Christianity for several reasons - namely, they are nation-states, not people; individual representatives to not speak for national populations; individual representatives do not reflect the wishes/values of national populations; most people do not 'understand' Christianity as this, in itself, is a highly subjective and relative claim.

- August

[Pogue]

Wrong....

Jesus taught us to help the poor and oppressed!!!!

1. He didn't exist.

2. Loads more people have said it better than him.

3. He didn't exist.

[CheFighter777]

1. He didn't exist.

2. Loads more people have said it better than him.

3. He didn't exist.

Ok, then Julius Caesar didn't exist either.

Regardless, whats written about him in what he said does speak for a better humanity.

[F9]

Wrong....

Jesus taught us to help the poor and oppressed!!!!

Yeah i know that....But all his other "orders" dispute that, and contradict that, he said to help the poor, though he says that the poor cant steal from a rich one to eat, he says what he suffers is the "gods will", and gods test to test him if he deserves a place next to him in paradise.People cant free themselves when your jesus told you not to question to authoritys, dont act violently, and accept anything that goes on with the idea that its what god wants.
So most take it that its the god will for those people to be poor so they dont help.Do you know how many christians exist nowadays?Do you know that if all of them helped the poor poverty could be non existant?
But those writen down the words "jesus said" taken care to leave some small "windows" to keep their power and dont go against what they say to believing doing.

Fuserg9:star:

[Pogue]

Ok, then Julius Caesar didn't exist either.

Regardless, whats written about him in what he said does speak for a better humanity.

It speaks for a load of random shit. Why fetisihise and worship one fictional character over anyone else? Becuase he was supposedly around 2000 years ago? Because alot of people do it?

Its just funny, why you nutters worship Jesus but not say, Harry Potter, who has alot of good stuff to say, or Robin Hood. Baseless shit.

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

“Jesus was the first socialist, the first to seek a better life for mankind.” - Mikhail Gorbachev

Seems Russia understands Christianity way better than the USA!!!!!!!!!!

Others have pretty much covered it, but if you think the Russian Orthodox Church is any better than the Catholic Church or the various Protestant denominations most popular (or at least the most vocal) in the US, you're off your fucking rocker.

[CheFighter777]

Others have pretty much covered it, but if you think the Russian Orthodox Church is any better than the Catholic Church or the various Protestant denominations most popular (or at least the most vocal) in the US, you're off your fucking rocker.

Actually the Eastern Orthodox Church, which was one with the Catholic Church up until around 1100AD, is more true to that which the Apostles practiced, and didn't get corrupted as the others did.

[Decolonize The Left]

Actually the Eastern Orthodox Church, which was one with the Catholic Church up until around 1100AD, is more true to that which the Apostles practiced, and didn't get corrupted as the others did.

The apostles weren't Jesus... were they? So why do you follow anything they say? And who corrupts the church? How? When was the church ever clean?

- August

[CheFighter777]

The apostles weren't Jesus... were they? So why do you follow anything they say? And who corrupts the church? How? When was the church ever clean?

- August

Good questions. Nobody has to follow Jesus, or what the apostles said. We each choose our own path.

[F9]

Actually the Eastern Orthodox Church, which was one with the Catholic Church up until around 1100AD, is more true to that which the Apostles practiced, and didn't get corrupted as the others did.

What?:laugh: Where are you from? Because you obviously have no idea what you are talking about.The "Easter Orthodox Church" happens to be really corrupted, down here this church owns more than half of the land, and is considered one of the biggest if not the biggest company in the country, in greece scandals are an every day happening, this holy church is involved in stealing millions from the states money, for other smaller scandals and the story keeps going and going.
Happened to be part of that religion for many years, and may be closest to what apostles etc preached but that dont takes away the fact that its complete shit.

Fuserg9:star:

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

Actually the Eastern Orthodox Church, which was one with the Catholic Church up until around 1100AD, is more true to that which the Apostles practiced, and didn't get corrupted as the others did.

Centuries-old religious institution + "didn't get corrupted" = ERROR [does not compute]. The only possible reason the Orthodox Church could not be as corrupt and venal as the Catholic Church is because they haven't been around as long and have fewer numbers.

[F9]

Good questions. Nobody has to follow Jesus, or what the apostles said. We each choose our own path.

True true, jesus gaved us that "right"?But wait!If we dont follow his words we will be condemned to be send to hell aka he will punish us in the end for not following him, and our soul will never find its peace to quote what christians say.
So then how we dont have to follow it?
And then again it "borns" another question.God knows what we think, what we do, what we are going to do, and basically knows everything, right?So if he knows if we follow his words before we even think of it, and he knows it before we can even understand what all this about, this means that our "right" to choose is not existed as is always known by god who as god he made this choice.
So no, even if we take your god as a fact and what he says, he dont leaves us choose our own path.

Fuserg9:star:

[Jack]

Considering Gorby didn't beleive in socialism....

[CheFighter777]

So no, even if we take your god as a fact and what he says, he dont leaves us choose our own path.

Fuserg9:star:

Yea, guess were pretty much F'd then huh!!!! :) :D

[Pogue]

Yea, guess were pretty much F'd then huh!!!! :) :D

nah, religion is shit though

[Rosa Provokateur]

Bollocks to these other guys CheFighter, I support you. Your a bit too eager for my taste but I respect the energy. Kudos.

[SocialPhilosophy]

1. He didn't exist.

2. Loads more people have said it better than him.

3. He didn't exist.


Jesus didnt exist? Iirc, his feats, both "divine" or not, have been traced pretty clearly throughout history, both in the bible, the apocrypha, and a few other select texts that the church doesnt like to talk about, for obvious reasons. did he believe in equality among men?


Acts of the Apostles, chapter 3 42They devoted themselves to the apostles' teaching and to the fellowship, to the breaking of bread and to prayer. 43Everyone was filled with awe, and many wonders and miraculous signs were done by the apostles. 44All the believers were together and had everything in common. 45Selling their possessions and goods, they gave to anyone as he had need. 46Every day they continued to meet together in the temple courts. They broke bread in their homes and ate together with glad and sincere hearts, 47praising God and enjoying the favor of all the people. And the Lord added to their number daily those who were being saved.

It looks like that damn jesus and his jewish capitalist equality is at it again telling people to pit themselves against their community. :rolleyes:

[SocialismOrBarbarism]

Jesus was "the first" to talk about an "ideology" -religion which says to people to sacrifice their current life for the better one after death=going to paradise.

Jesus was the first person to make a religion? lolwut


He wasnt seeking for a better life now as we live, he wanted people to be quiet dont quest authority, dont demand their rights etc etc.
Sorry destroying to you but jesus(if he existed) was not the first to seek a better life for mankind...


The Spirit of the Lord GOD is upon me; because the LORD hath anointed me to preach good tidings unto the meek; he hath sent me to bind up the brokenhearted, to proclaim liberty to the captives, and the opening of the prison to them that are bound;


Think not that I am come to send peace on earth: I came not to send peace, but a sword.


He hath scattered the proud in the imagination of their hearts. He hath put down the mighty from their seats, and exalted them of low degree. He hath filled the hungry with good things; and the rich He hath sent away empty


The Spirit of the Lord is on me, because he has anointed me to preach good news to the poor.He has sent me to proclaim freedom for the prisoners and recovery of sight for the blind, to release the oppressed, to proclaim the year of the Lord's favor.

And no, I'm not a Christian. I just don't like being a condescending ignorant doofus.

[F9]

Bollocks to these other guys CheFighter, I support you. Your a bit too eager for my taste but I respect the energy. Kudos.

Then mr.bollocks you can try argue against my points if you want as your pal seem to understood his lost.;) But it seems you are doing it too, those "bollocks" you dont argue against because you know its true.
Religion its reactionary whatever all you people will say, and you just all contradict yourselfs, maybe beside Tomk, who accepts it..All those christian-"communists" etc etc are just a contradiction to both of their "ideas".

Fuserg9:star:

[Bandito]

Wrong....

Jesus taught us to help the poor and oppressed!!!!

Funny word game here:
He taught us to help the poor and the opressed.
:)

[F9]

Jesus was the first person to make a religion? lolwut

Wait.What?:confused:Where did i said such thing?:confused:


And no, I'm not a Christian. I just don't like being a condescending ignorant doofus.[/QUOTE]

But anw i cant see where those quotes, mr smartass, contradict what i say, that all the things that "jesus said" contradict each other.You put away the other phrases that he said and you try to make a point..
When someone hits you turn the other chick, the 10 orders etc etc, all those contradict what you quote..
Does or doesnt christianism talks about "sacrifice" of some things in this life and people get rewarder in the next life?It does!

Fuserg9:star:

[Rosa Provokateur]

Then mr.bollocks you can try argue against my points if you want as your pal seem to understood his lost.;) But it seems you are doing it too, those "bollocks" you dont argue against because you know its true.
Religion its reactionary whatever all you people will say, and you just all contradict yourselfs, maybe beside Tomk, who accepts it..All those christian-"communists" etc etc are just a contradiction to both of their "ideas".

Fuserg9:star:

Which arguments? Clarify and I'll do my best.

Agreed, religion is reactionary.

Good thing I'm not a communist.

P.S. My father was Mr. Bollocks, dont make me feel old :tt2:

[Rosa Provokateur]

Personally I wanted to see Akhromeyev order the army to disintegrate that fucker.

During the August Coup of 1991 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/August_Coup_of_1991), Akhromeyev returned from a vacation in Sochi (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sochi) to offer his assistance to the coup leaders. Although he was never implicated in the coup, after its failure Akhromeyev committed suicide (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Suicide) in his Kremlin (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kremlin) office, hanging himself with a length of curtain cord. --http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sergey_Akhromeyev

GREAT JOB :thumbup1:

[SocialismOrBarbarism]

But anw i cant see where those quotes, mr smartass, contradict what i say, that all the things that "jesus said" contradict each other.

Because your post said, in it's entirety:


lol..?
Jesus wasnt the first to seek a better life for mankind.Jesus was "the first" to talk about an "ideology" -religion which says to people to sacrifice their current life for the better one after death=going to paradise.
He wasnt seeking for a better life now as we live, he wanted people to be quiet dont quest authority, dont demand their rights etc etc.
Sorry destroying to you but jesus(if he existed) was not the first to seek a better life for mankind...

Fuserg9:star:So yes, all those things I posted obviously contradicted your assertion, and your post included nothing along the lines of "all the things that "jesus said" contradict each other."


You put away the other phrases that he said and you try to make a point..
When someone hits you turn the other chick, the 10 orders etc etc, all those contradict what you quote..
The "10 orders" are from the Old Testament.

"Turn the other cheek":


If the persecuted person "turned the other cheek," the discipliner was faced with a dilemma. The left hand was used for unclean purposes, so a back-hand strike on the opposite cheek would not be performed. The other alternative would be a slap with the open hand as a challenge or to punch the person, but this was seen as a statement of equality. Thus, by turning the other cheek the persecuted was in effect demanding equality.Now honestly, I might not know too much about Christianity, but I think it's pretty obvious that you are not treating the subject fairly.

Considering the hostile/condescending attitudes towards religion displayed in this thread and that, at least where I come from, the majority of the working class is religious, it's not entirely surprising that we have such little support.

[SocialPhilosophy]

Because your post said, in it's entirety:



So yes, all those things I posted obviously contradicted your assertion, and your post included nothing along the lines of "all the things that "jesus said" contradict each other."



The "10 orders" are from the Old Testament.



Now honestly, I might not know too much about Christianity, but I think it's pretty obvious that you are not treating the subject fairly.

Considering the hostile/condescending attitudes towards religion displayed in this thread and that, at least where I come from, the majority of the working class is religious, it's not entirely surprising that we have such little support.

If i were you, i would let them be condescending. the most harm they could do is alienate the entire class of people they are trying to "save." no biggy. :closedeyes:

[Misanthrope]

Gorbachev was anti-communist and anti-socialist. I wouldn't expect him to have a clue of what socialism is.

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

If i were you, i would let them be condescending. the most harm they could do is alienate the entire class of people they are trying to "save." no biggy. :closedeyes:

History hasn't finished yet. Stubborn types like you are a dying breed.

[Kwisatz Haderach]

Since Mikhail Gorbachev is either a devious and malevolent liar or the most astoundingly naive idiot of the 20th century, I don't see why his words should carry any weight at all.

For the record, Jesus was not a socialist, because socialism did not and could not exist in the first century. However, the teachings of Jesus about the way humans should treat each other are a perfect fit with socialism. And historically, radical Christianity was one of the sources of the early socialist movement.

[Decolonize The Left]

Purged this thread of off-topic banter.

- August

[F9]

Because your post said, in it's entirety:

So yes, all those things I posted obviously contradicted your assertion, and your post included nothing along the lines of "all the things that "jesus said" contradict each other."

Not all..Its indeed a bad wording by myself i admit it, as is impossible that all contradict everything, as some are of one category and other of another that contradict, anw the contradiction its still there, and if you cant see it, your problem.Its quite obvious.You say you dont know much about christianity, you make yourself showing otherwise though, so if you really dont know, try to find out and you will see..



The "10 orders" are from the Old Testament.Though are carried down as today as one of the most important things, amongst the first they teach to kids are this 10 orders.


"Turn the other cheek":lol, what a bullshit quote.. which says what basically?nothing.if you just demand and you never try get, you are a fail from the start.


Now honestly, I might not know too much about Christianity, but I think it's pretty obvious that you are not treating the subject fairly.

Considering the hostile/condescending attitudes towards religion displayed in this thread and that, at least where I come from, the majority of the working class is religious, it's not entirely surprising that we have such little support.You say you arent a christian, you dont know much about it, but i can see that you could drew quotes from 4 different evangelists, that even most christianists never read, and you defending it passionately like its yours ideas...
Ohh im treating the subject more fair than you.For a man raised listenning those things, for someone that was "brainwashed" with those things and believed those for many years, i learned lots of it, and learn all of its faces, unlike some of you.

Yes we do have a hostile attitude but thats because damn religion is reactionary, religion is one of those things "destroying" the working class, and as like all the other reactionary ideas it finds us against it, and hostile!What you are going to whine when we are going to be "hostile" against fascism too?No, because you probably think that religion isnt reactionary or something.Wrong

The fact that unfortunately most of the working class supports it, dont makes it and correct.The fact that most of the working class support a reactionary idea, dont means we have to support those ideas.For one more time i will bring fascism example, what if most workers are fascists?We shouldnt criticize fascism either?




Agreed, religion is reactionary.

Good thing I'm not a communist.Oh i need to hear nothing more GA.At last you got it.


If i were you, i would let them be condescending. the most harm they could do is alienate the entire class of people they are trying to "save." no biggy. :closedeyes: Im trying to save no one, im not supermar or something:rolleyes:.Im trying to convince people save themselves...
And unlike here who is a discussion board there is a different approach irl..
But as religion is a reactionary shit, no i wont shut up until people realize it and get out of the damn brainwash they are into.


Fuserg9:star:

[SocialPhilosophy]

Not all..Its indeed a bad wording by myself i admit it, as is impossible that all contradict everything, as some are of one category and other of another that contradict, anw the contradiction its still there, and if you cant see it, your problem.Its quite obvious.You say you dont know much about christianity, you make yourself showing otherwise though, so if you really dont know, try to find out and you will see..

Though are carried down as today as one of the most important things, amongst the first they teach to kids are this 10 orders.

lol, what a bullshit quote.. which says what basically?nothing.if you just demand and you never try get, you are a fail from the start.

You say you arent a christian, you dont know much about it, but i can see that you could drew quotes from 4 different evangelists, that even most christianists never read, and you defending it passionately like its yours ideas...
Ohh im treating the subject more fair than you.For a man raised listenning those things, for someone that was "brainwashed" with those things and believed those for many years, i learned lots of it, and learn all of its faces, unlike some of you.

Yes we do have a hostile attitude but thats because damn religion is reactionary, religion is one of those things "destroying" the working class, and as like all the other reactionary ideas it finds us against it, and hostile!What you are going to whine when we are going to be "hostile" against fascism too?No, because you probably think that religion isnt reactionary or something.Wrong

The fact that unfortunately most of the working class supports it, dont makes it and correct.The fact that most of the working class support a reactionary idea, dont means we have to support those ideas.For one more time i will bring fascism example, what if most workers are fascists?We shouldnt criticize fascism either?

Oh i need to hear nothing more GA.At last you got it.Im trying to save no one, im not supermar or something:rolleyes:.Im trying to convince people save themselves...
And unlike here who is a discussion board there is a different approach irl..
But as religion is a reactionary shit, no i wont shut up until people realize it and get out of the damn brainwash they are into.


Fuserg9:star:

Nobody ever said it was right. you're better off focusing on other things than your anti religious stance. christian radicals that will defend the current establishment will be the kryptonite of our movment. if you atleast showed them some leanience tward religion, they might take a more leaniant stance tward that "noble idea" as the conervatives call it.

[SocialismOrBarbarism]

Not all..Its indeed a bad wording by myself i admit it, as is impossible that all contradict everything, as some are of one category and other of another that contradict, anw the contradiction its still there, and if you cant see it, your problem.Its quite obvious.You say you dont know much about christianity, you make yourself showing otherwise though, so if you really dont know, try to find out and you will see..

It wasn't a bad wording, you didn't say it in what I was responding to. I'm not going to read the whole bible just to look for contradictions in Jesus' teachings. If they exist and it's "quite obvious" you should be able to demonstrate this. If you are not able to demonstrate this you should have never asserted it in the first place.


lol, what a bullshit quote.. which says what basically?nothing.

It says basically that it was figurative, contrary to what you were saying.


You say you arent a christian, you dont know much about it, but i can see that you could drew quotes from 4 different evangelists, that even most christianists never read, and you defending it passionately like its yours ideas...

These quotes are not from "4 different evangelists," they are from the bible.

Two, my best friend is a Christian Communist so I am somewhat acquainted with the more radical, collectivist quotes from it and I get angry when I see unwarranted attacks on something that can and has been used to reach socialistic conclusions and lead to revolutionary movements:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Liberation_Army_(Colombia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Liberation_Army_%28Colombia))

Three, your attempts to discredit me as some sort of "closet Christian" are rather stupid. I'm not "defending it passionately," I'm attacking your baseless accusations, which go entirely unchecked around here, because your hostile attitude does nothing but alienate the people you claim to be fighting for. It's not exactly hard to find Christians on this site who were interested in leftist ideals but left after the way they were treated.


Ohh im treating the subject more fair than you.For a man raised listenning those things, for someone that was "brainwashed" with those things and believed those for many years, i learned lots of it, and learn all of its faces, unlike some of you.I was a Christian for most of my youth too. Whoopty Doo.


Yes we do have a hostile attitude but thats because damn religion is reactionary, religion is one of those things "destroying" the working class, and as like all the other reactionary ideas it finds us against it, and hostile!

Like everything religion is affected by the balance of class forces in society, and the capitalist class is the dominant class so this is obviously going to be the case at this period in time. What makes you think it has to be the same for everyone in times of social upheaval, revolutionary situations, and after workers take control? Does history actually verify these assertions? Well, maybe sometimes, but not in all cases: eg. the ELN, Sandinistas, and many other organizations in Latin America, the East German CDU, IWW etc. There have been plenty of radical Christian socialist and progressive movements and a simple wiki search would provide you with tons of examples. A pretty good post on this was made by gravedigger:


Yes, some people believe that religion can't exist in a communist society and I agree that religion as we know it now probably won't. Religion is used as a tool of oppression in class societies, but it also attempts to answer questions that are not immediately solvable by science. So religion in agricultural societies teneded to focus on why crops fail or unexpected weather occours but didn't really care about other social concerns like what makes someone saved or not. Later, as towns developed, religion had a lot more to say about social interations and what makes someone "good" or "moral".

Communism will mean that religion will probably not be used to answer questions about science or social interation since there will be no need of a ruling class morality to make sure the population is kept in line. However, freedom and equality will not answer question people have about what happens after we die or where a "soul" comes from, so I think some kind of spiritual beliefs will remain.
What you are going to whine when we are going to be "hostile" against fascism too?No, because you probably think that religion isnt reactionary or something.Wrong

I didn't realize that most of the working class was fascist or that fascism could be and has been used to conclude the need for socialism. Don't be ridiculous.


The fact that unfortunately most of the working class supports it, dont makes it and correct.The fact that most of the working class support a reactionary idea, dont means we have to support those ideas.

I didn't say we had to support those ideas because they working class supports them, but it's safe to say that your hostile attitude does nothing to bring people to your position. You can make far more progress if you try to be understanding and slowly and civily attempt to convince people of your ideas. I don't assume you go up to social democrats and say "your ideas are stupid reactionary shit! fuck yeah anarchy!" and then expect them to become anarchists.


Oh i need to hear nothing more GA.At last you got it.Im trying to save no one, im not supermar or something.Im trying to convince people save themselves...
And unlike here who is a discussion board there is a different approach irl..
But as religion is a reactionary shit, no i wont shut up until people realize it and get out of the damn brainwash they are into.Ahh yes, calling people stupid, reactionary, and brainwashed is obviously the best way to get people "out of the damn brainwash they are into." That's sounds almost as effective as Stalinist "re-education."

[Rucking Fetard]

LOL LMAO wow... Jesus was obviously a right winger.. really stupid wow I don't know where you get your information but he's obviously rightwinger. I mean Rightwingers are all about family values just like christianity.. So it all works hand in hand. Please read up on your info, or atleast watch TV.

[Kwisatz Haderach]

Funny... I don't recall Jesus ever speaking in favour of "family values."

[mel]

LOL LMAO wow... Jesus was obviously a right winger.. really stupid wow I don't know where you get your information but he's obviously rightwinger. I mean Rightwingers are all about family values just like christianity.. So it all works hand in hand. Please read up on your info, or atleast watch TV.

There is very little Jesus Christ said (according to the bible) that could support what you just said. Jesus christ was about pacifism (at least interpersonally, he didn't really weigh in on it on a national or international scale, and according to some interpretations the suggestion to "turn the other cheek" was more or less a now-obsolete instruction based on the social circumstances of the time), equality, freedom, respect for yourself and your neighbors, and even separation of church and state (throwing the money-changes out of the temple).

Quite frankly, the more you look at many "christians" in comparison with the things christ believed, you wonder how their minds were so corrupted that they cannot even attempt to practice their own ideology. The traditional interpretations of christian texts are honestly an abomination and if Jesus were alive today, I think he'd be quite disappointed with most of his "followers".

I'm not a christian, but I know a lot about it because I used to be, and you and others in this thread have been pushing a lot of bullshit.

[PRC-UTE]

LOL LMAO wow... Jesus was obviously a right winger.. really stupid wow I don't know where you get your information but he's obviously rightwinger. I mean Rightwingers are all about family values just like christianity.. So it all works hand in hand. Please read up on your info, or atleast watch TV.

Jesus was an anti-imperialist worker who associated with prostitutes and other underclass elements, while denouncing the wealthy collaborators, all the while preaching about revolution in code...yeah, sounds really reich wing.

what a warped and ridiculous world you brainwashed Yankees live in.

[narcomprom]

Christianity was pretty much en vogue in the non-conformist circles of USSR. Their hippies were christian and putting Jesus in one sentence with socialism was well received by the young.

Funny... I don't recall Jesus ever speaking in favour of "family values."
Not looking at other women could, actually, pass as a family value. But, indeed, a really unpstanding petit bourgeois family woud have stoned that prostitute to death without twitching an eye.

[chimx]

1. He didn't exist.

2. Loads more people have said it better than him.

3. He didn't exist.

To suggest that Jesus the person didn't exist is naive, and ignores the historical record. While we do not have the remains of Jesus, we do probably have those of the apostle Peter, whose memoirs are in the bible as the Gospel of Mark.


To suggest that Jesus the person didn't exist is naive, and ignores the historical record. While we do not have the remains of Jesus, we do probably have those of the apostle Peter, whose memoirs are in the bible as the Gospel of Mark.
Nobody suggest that the was no pacifist carpenter by the name of Yeshua Nazrani ben Yosep, the point, the scientific truth accepted even by clerics today, is that the myth, the gospel about Jesus, is a mere mishmash of myths that existed earlier in the Roman and Persian empires. Jesus is a fictional character, like Alexander the Great, Mohammed and Genghis Khan are in various folk cultures of Asia.

That, of course, does not deprive these myths of poetic, historical and, as Kwiasatz Haderach points out, philosophic merit. Just as is the case with the sayings of Confucious and Laotse the greatest value of the aphorisms ascribed to this 子,"master", lies their worldwide renown. It is something you can always discuss with strangers while drunk.

As Pogue pointed you also discuss the thought of Robin Hood or Harry Potter, who, as well, are cultural figures of great renown. But they aren't as popular. I, for one, haven't read Joanne K. Rowling so you can't discuss Harry Potter with me.


Nobody suggest that the was no pacifist carpenter by the name of Yeshua Nazrani ben Yosep, the point, the scientific truth accepted even by clerics today, is that the myth, the gospel about Jesus, is a mere mishmash of myths that existed earlier in the Roman and Persian empires. Jesus is a fictional character, like Alexander the Great, Mohammed and Genghis Khan are in various folk cultures of Asia.And I'm saying that this idea that Jesus was fictitious ignores the historical documents we have and don't have: especially the Gospel of Mark, the Q Source, and the subsequent gospels. Now, I'll agree that certain things are obviously fictitious, such as the resurrection (which by the way was never a part of the original gospel of mark), but there most likely was a Jesus who had disciples, became popular, and was crucified.


And I'm saying that this idea that Jesus was fictitious ignores the historical documents we have and don't have: especially the Gospel of Mark, the Q Source, and the subsequent gospels. Now, I'll agree that certain things are obviously fictitious, such as the resurrection (which by the way was never a part of the original gospel of mark),
The rescurrection is the only thing that strikes you as implausible?

but there most likely was a Jesus who had disciples, became popular, and was crucified.The likeliness and all the details are a matter of speculation. Josephus mentions an insurrection under Pilates, but one rather related to Jewish iconoclasm than to the repressed reformist rabbi praised in your sources. If Jesus was worth mentioning, it is reasanble to assume the historians would have done it before Christianity spread.
But why would that matter anyway? Was there a historical Hercules, a historical Osiris, a historical Gilgamesh? And what would the historical Socrates say of all that? We can only speculate with our dubious, limited and contradictory sources. The truth is they are there in our fiction causing psychosis (http://religiousfreaks.com/2006/04/12/man-crucifies-himself-every-good-friday/) unrelated to whatever was going on under Pilates' rule.

The accounts of Josephus have been forged many times, but there is a passage written by Josephus which mentions Jesus, who is called "christ", and is a brother of James. This passage is considered original and is mentioned later by Origen, as is John the Baptist.

And to compare the memoirs of Peter to the oral stories of Hercules is totally ridiculous. Peter's memoirs were written sometime between year 50-70.

Why would it matter wether Gilgamesh, The Grinch or Robin Hood did or didn't exist? Don't you see that's childish? I'm all for discussing Jesus, Kant, Laozi and Gandhi as philosophers but the kneejerk reaction on totally irrelevant topics rob you christians of all credibility.

If you, like Tolstoi, are to claim that the christianity as a philosophy has some merit you have no choice but to lay off it's superstitions content supported by, by all scientific standards, laughable arguments.

References to mythical peter's memoirs, a hypothetical original Quelle "reconstructed" by German theologists of the 1820s and absurd medieval insertions to Josephus to prove a point irrevant to any claimed ends only harms your cause. It deprives you guys of all credibility.



References to mythical peter's memoirs, a hypothetical original Quelle "reconstructed" by German theologists of the 1820s and absurd medieval insertions to Josephus to prove a point irrevant to any claimed ends only harms your cause.I'm not sure why you are referring to Peter's memoirs as mythical, nor do I know why you think monks of the medieval ages inserted the reference to Jesus when it was referenced in the 3rd century by Origen (here I am not referring to the Testimonium Flavianum which was probably a forgery, either fully or partially). If anything this hurts your credibility.

As to why it matters, it is of historical significance and interest, and probably adds to the significance of the New Testament for some people, myself not included, because I am not a Christian.


I'm not sure why you are referring to Peter's memoirs as mythical, nor do I know why you think monks of the medieval ages inserted the reference to Jesus when it was referenced in the 3rd century by Origen (here I am not referring to the Testimonium Flavianum which was probably a forgery, either fully or partially). If anything this hurts your credibility.
And this Origen was who? An impartial observer? New religions were supringing up like mushrooms after rain in Rome. And none was more virtuous than another.

As to why it matters, it is of historical significance and interest, and probably adds to the significance of the New Testament for some people, myself not included, because I am not a Christian.Which is important, because.... ??? Why would you propagate that particular book?

Regardless of the actual economic beliefs of Jesus, we should NOT raise him to the platform of a God on that basis alone.

I want actual evidence. Not just a book of Jewish fairy tales telling me that he wa compassionate and generous and anti-rich and pro-charity.


Ok, then Julius Caesar didn't exist either.
We have mountains of evidence that Julius Caesar existed from documents he wrote to things that were written about him. Plus we have statues, coins and that whole way that he conquered the known world and was leader of a humungous empire.
Jesus, we have a single reference more than half a century after his death that was inserted by medieval monks.
Aside from that, nothing.


We have mountains of evidence that Julius Caesar existed from documents he wrote to things that were written about him. Plus we have statues, coins and that whole way that he conquered the known world and was leader of a humungous empire.
Jesus, we have a single reference more than half a century after his death that was inserted by medieval monks.
Aside from that, nothing.

A single reference? What fantasy world do you live in? You could potentially provide a legitimate case that Jesus didn't exist, or that he wasn't a specific person, but your exaggeration on the lack of secular historical sources doesn't help you, it just makes you look like an idiot.

How can I exagerrate zero?
I note how you haven't provided a contemperaneous reference to old JC?


How can I exagerrate zero?
I note how you haven't provided a contemperaneous reference to old JC?

A dude named Jesus Christ existed. The stories in the bible aren't all about him though. The Biblical Jesus is an amalgam of a bunch of crazy prophets from that time period.


A dude named Jesus Christ existed.
Please can you point me towards a historical source. Even a single contemperaneous reference to the guy. A Roman record, something he wrote, something of his time that was written about him, a birthday card, anything. One single piece.


Please can you point me towards a historical source. Even a single contemperaneous reference to the guy. A Roman record, something he wrote, something of his time that was written about him, a birthday card, anything. One single piece.

You already have it in your head what "contemporaneous" references will count, and how contemporaneous they must be. Considering that, I feel no particularly strong inclination to dig through my research on the subject again in order to justify a generally accepted position to you. I know you will respond to this by saying that this merely means that I have no proof to show you, but I don't particularly care at this point, because nothing will change your mind. Perhaps chimx will give this a go, chimx seems better at retaining specific facts than I am.


Please can you point me towards a historical source. Even a single contemperaneous reference to the guy. A Roman record, something he wrote, something of his time that was written about him, a birthday card, anything. One single piece.
There is more historical proof of his alias:
http://www.sprengmeister.org/nsfw/jesusishitler/


You already have it in your head what "contemporaneous" references will count, and how contemporaneous they must be. Considering that, I feel no particularly strong inclination to dig through my research on the subject again in order to justify a generally accepted position to you. I know you will respond to this by saying that this merely means that I have no proof to show you, but I don't particularly care at this point, because nothing will change your mind. Perhaps chimx will give this a go, chimx seems better at retaining specific facts than I am.

Well yeah of course I'm going to assume you have no evidence or you would have produced it. Surely proof of a historical Jesus is a bit of a biggy and so you should kinda know where you keep it.
Contemporaneous sources are contemporaneous sources. Things written at the time and not decades or more than a century later. Why do you put contemporaneous in commas? And if it's such a generally accepted position, general acceptance not being a good measure of verisimilitude by the way - flat earth much, why can't I find any respected historian who will argue that there was an historical JC? I can find plenty who will say that there may have been or that it's possible but not a single one that can produce any evidence.
My mind is easily changed, by evidence. There is none that I have seen. If this Jesus character caused as much of a stir as claimed then it is inconceivable that the Romans would have kept no record of him. That his name would not crop up in the record anywhere. No record of execution, no letters sent back to Rome reporting on rabble rousers in the empire. Nothing.


A single reference? What fantasy world do you live in? You could potentially provide a legitimate case that Jesus didn't exist, or that he wasn't a specific person, but your exaggeration on the lack of secular historical sources doesn't help you, it just makes you look like an idiot.
LOL, I just re-read this. I think you will find that the burden of proof is on you in this matter. You can't ask someone to prove a negative like this. You have to provide evidence to back up your claim and support you argument for the existence of an historical JC.
Could you please provide a legitimate case that yon purple unicorn doesn't exist or that it isn't a specific person, but your exageration of the lack of secular historical sources doesn't help you, it just makes you lok like an idiot.
:D:D:D:D:D:D
Buffoon.


Well yeah of course I'm going to assume you have no evidence or you would have produced it. Surely proof of a historical Jesus is a bit of a biggy and so you should kinda know where you keep it.
Contemporaneous sources are contemporaneous sources. Things written at the time and not decades or more than a century later. Why do you put contemporaneous in commas? And if it's such a generally accepted position, general acceptance not being a good measure of verisimilitude by the way - flat earth much, why can't I find any respected historian who will argue that there was an historical JC? I can find plenty who will say that there may have been or that it's possible but not a single one that can produce any evidence.
My mind is easily changed, by evidence. There is none that I have seen. If this Jesus character caused as much of a stir as claimed then it is inconceivable that the Romans would have kept no record of him. That his name would not crop up in the record anywhere. No record of execution, no letters sent back to Rome reporting on rabble rousers in the empire. Nothing.

For ancient records, "contemporaneous" is usually more lenient given the relative instability of paper as a means of long-term record-keeping, but far be it from me to pull you from your fantasy world where every historical figure from almost two millenia ago have surviving documents and references to their existence from a multitude of sources written while they were still alive and kicking around. Your standard of proof for the existence of JC is higher than the standard of proof needed to claim that a given two-millenia-old figure probably existed, even if they did not do all that was attributed to them, which shows your bias. That you are also unwilling to accept the possibility that any scriptural reference contains even a grain of truth or at all supports the existence of such a person as they describe is unreasonable, but I suppose you would prefer to believe that they are a work of pure, unadulterated fiction and that the character of jesus was made up out of whole cloth.

You may have a point if a ton of documents survived about who the romans executed, when, and why. Hundreds or thousands of records of execution, but curiously no surviving records of the execution of Jesus of Nazareth, but the fact is that there aren't many surviving records of most people from that time. There are multiple ancient historians (whose testimony you have already decided not to accept, because they are some two to five decades after the theoretical death of jesus) who make reference to jesus, and it's probable that at least some of the scriptural record (or the jewish talmud) is referencing some extant person, but because of your unreasonably high standard of proof for a case like this, you're willing to dismiss a great deal of evidence that isn't good enough for you. If I particularly cared about the existence of a historical jesus, perhaps I would have retained more documentation about things I had read which suggested his existence, but ultimately when I was first researching it, it was a passing fancy, and I don't retain specific names, dates, or factoids well, just generalized conclusions and certain vague details, which I've communicated here.


LOL, I just re-read this. I think you will find that the burden of proof is on you in this matter. You can't ask someone to prove a negative like this. You have to provide evidence to back up your claim and support you argument for the existence of an historical JC.
Could you please provide a legitimate case that yon purple unicorn doesn't exist or that it isn't a specific person, but your exageration of the lack of secular historical sources doesn't help you, it just makes you lok like an idiot.
:D:D:D:D:D:D
Buffoon.

I wasn't shifting the burden of proof here, simply pointing out that your unreasonable dismissal of all sources that aren't "contemporaneous" enough for you, and your insistence that there is no evidence for a historical JC (which is an outright lie) make you look like an idiot. I understand the burden of proof, I just can't be arsed to re-do all of my research just to have you dismiss every source because you've chosen what you want to believe beforehand.

Um... scripture is NOT a valid historical source. Never has been. You go ask any historian of that era whether scripture is considered as a source.
I'm also not asking for mountains of references, you're building a straw man there. I have asked for one, uno, un, ein reference. That's hardly a lot to ask considering the last 1500 years or so of History has been dominated in the west by the supposed existence of this character. I'm not being unreasonable I'm simply asking for a bit of evidence.
Who are these multiple ancient scholars? Josephus by any chance? Please just give me a couple of names. It's hardly much to expect there to be some historical record where in fact none exists.
Oh and I repeat scripture is NOT valid as a historical source. I am putting no higher a standard of prrof than I would for the existence of Socrates. There are far more contemperaneous references to him though evidence for his existence is flimsy. The thing is whether or not he existed outwith Plato's imagination doesn't matter it's his thought that matters.
Christianity only exists based upon the belief that Jesus was an actual historical character. If he wasn't then it's a philosophy and not a religion surely and has no special access to divine truth, whatever the hell that may be. And a pretty vile philosophy it would be indeed with its promise of eternal torment for disobedience - some socialist eh?
(/pretence at keeping on topic)
On another aside Nazareth was naught but a cave settlement until two centuries or so after the 'death of christ' so it's hardly likely that he would have been raised there.
There was no census called by Herod either and certainly no census that would require a person to go tot heir home town for it. That's as ridiculous a notion as most everything else in the book.


I wasn't shifting the burden of proof here, simply pointing out that your unreasonable dismissal of all sources that aren't "contemporaneous" enough for you, and your insistence that there is no evidence for a historical JC (which is an outright lie) make you look like an idiot. I understand the burden of proof, I just can't be arsed to re-do all of my research just to have you dismiss every source because you've chosen what you want to believe beforehand.
You wre so trying to shift the burden of proof! :D
You say that I am lying yet have produced no evidence whatsoever to abck up your claim.
Out of interest, how old is the Earth? Talking to you is very similar to talking to a fundy.


You wre so trying to shift the burden of proof! :D
You say that I am lying yet have produced no evidence whatsoever to abck up your claim.
Out of interest, how old is the Earth? Talking to you is very similar to talking to a fundy.

Several billion years old. I'm not even religious, but do you have a reason for dismissing the account of Josephus, at the least? I can't remember the names of others, I told you that I'm poor with retaining specific details, and that I did this research quite some time ago. There was another that started with a T, and a couple of letters that mention him, though I don't know how long after the fact they were written..

I realize that one of the records of josephus had been altered at some point, but I was under the impression that it hadn't been added out of whole cloth, but just modified to be praising rather than neutral with respect to Jesus. Maybe my research is outdated, and I don't think it's particularly important if jesus was or was not a historical figure (and Christianity doesn't honestly hinge too much on that either, unless you're particularly attached to fundamentalism)

Josephus never actually mentions JC. There is a passage in his History of the Jews that talks of the followers of the christ. The passage however contains some grave errors such as giving Pilate the wrong title, a mistake Josephus makes nowhere else in his voluminous writings, and it is not mentioned once by any other scholar until the middle ages. Josephus is the most repected historian of the Jewish peoples of the time and had there been even a hint of a mention of the christ in his work someone would have mentioned it in the intervening millenia or so.
The other historian you're thinking of is Tacitus and the passage in his Annals that talks of the 'Christians' as being responsible for the great fire of Rome, you know when Nero did his best fiddling (allegedly ;) ). Tacitus again was writing around about a century after the fact as well. Even if his passage isn't misread then it only talks of the existence of Christians, not the existence of a Christ. The existence of Christians does not imply the existence of a Christ merely the existence of those who believed that there had been one. Many early Christians also believed that Jesus had lived many centuries before, not within the last century.
There is doubt thrown upon this passage as well as when the document, we have very early copies of the original, as the one time it mentions Christianos there is a strange gap between the 'i' and the 's'. Chri stianos, like so. When the document is read under UV light the 'i' turns into an 'e' making the word Chrestianos.
That said there are some early texts, second century AD I think, that refer to Christ as 'Chrest'. Something to do with a more familiar sounding Greek word.
Not that this lends much credence to the passage as, just like Josephus, no early Christian scholars refer to this passage even when discussing the early days of Christianity in Rome.


Josephus never actually mentions JC. There is a passage in his History of the Jews that talks of the followers of the christ. The passage however contains some grave errors such as giving Pilate the wrong title, a mistake Josephus makes nowhere else in his voluminous writings, and it is not mentioned once by any other scholar until the middle ages. Josephus is the most repected historian of the Jewish peoples of the time and had there been even a hint of a mention of the christ in his work someone would have mentioned it in the intervening millenia or so.
The other historian you're thinking of is Tacitus and the passage in his Annals that talks of the 'Christians' as being responsible for the great fire of Rome, you know when Nero did his best fiddling (allegedly ;) ). Tacitus again was writing around about a century after the fact as well. Even if his passage isn't misread then it only talks of the existence of Christians, not the existence of a Christ. The existence of Christians does not imply the existence of a Christ merely the existence of those who believed that there had been one. Many early Christians also believed that Jesus had lived many centuries before, not within the last century.
There is doubt thrown upon this passage as well as when the document, we have very early copies of the original, as the one time it mentions Christianos there is a strange gap between the 'i' and the 's'. Chri stianos, like so. When the document is read under UV light the 'i' turns into an 'e' making the word Chrestianos.
That said there are some early texts, second century AD I think, that refer to Christ as 'Chrest'. Something to do with a more familiar sounding Greek word.
Not that this lends much credence to the passage as, just like Josephus, no early Christian scholars refer to this passage even when discussing the early days of Christianity in Rome.

It wasn't Tacitus I was thinking of, there was another one, but I am not sure who it was. I'm not too worried about it. I have just been reading this thread, only on the "no" side, and the objections to the arguments on the "no" side, and since none of the authors on there have been able to provide a response to those objections, I wonder if you would be able to take a look and potentially respond to the points they raise.

It seems that they, at least, are taking the biblical evidence seriously enough to deem that it warrants dismissal with a reason, but if you insist on counting out all of the scriptural record without a thought, I suppose I can't change your mind and we can probably consider the conversation over. The site I've been reading is here:

http://www.opposingviews.com/questions/was-jesus-an-historical-figure

Why would scripture be taken as a serious historical source? Even modern theologians say it's allegorical.


Why would scripture be taken as a serious historical source? Even modern theologians say it's allegorical.

All of it? There are definitely portions of scripture which purport to be descriptions of historical events, though I would argue that much scripture could be understood as allegorical, I don't understand what allegorical purpose a genealogy or a one-sentence mention of a journey between two places could possibly serve. There's a certain element of "why would somebody bother to make this up?" for a lot of the mundane details of the new testament, and the gospels in particular, that do give some credence to the idea that there was a historical "Jesus" figure who traveled, gave sermons, and garnered a following...even if he did not perform miraculous feats or do all of the things traditionally attributed to him. I think it's silly to ignore the new testament record just because parts contain supernatural depictions of events.

You are aware that te gospels wre written a looong time after the fact.


You are aware that te gospels wre written a looong time after the fact.

Just because the earliest surviving manuscripts we have are from "long after the fact" does not mean that is when they were written. I was under the impression that they were generally accepted as being written (with John the latest) before about 120CE...making it at least plausible that they were written (if not as eyewitness accounts) with some eyewitness testimony and other documentation that would still have existed at the time.

They weren't written by the disciples they were written AFTER Sauls conversion on the road to Damascus by people far removed from the supposed event. If you read through the writings of S/Paul you will find that nowhere does he talk as if JC was a real person. Placing JC in an historical context didn't happen until much later still.
If you're interested there's an ok film about this, well it's ok from what I remember, called the God Who Wasn't There. It's quite short from what I recall and everything it mentions is fairly easily checked up on. There's considerable bias as the maker is a recovering fundy but the historical stuff at the begining is kosher.
I'll have a butchers at that opposing views thing but I'm going to be working for the next couple of days before getting twatted all weekend as it's my birthday. :D


They weren't written by the disciples they were written AFTER Sauls conversion on the road to Damascus by people far removed from the supposed event.

Is there consensus on this? Because this is the first I've heard of this, and I HAVE read up on the subject before. I'm not saying you're wrong, I just wonder to what extent you can claim this with certainty.


If you read through the writings of S/Paul you will find that nowhere does he talk as if JC was a real person. Placing JC in an historical context didn't happen until much later still.
If you're interested there's an ok film about this, well it's ok from what I remember, called the God Who Wasn't There. It's quite short from what I recall and everything it mentions is fairly easily checked up on. There's considerable bias as the maker is a recovering fundy but the historical stuff at the begining is kosher.
I'll have a butchers at that opposing views thing but I'm going to be working for the next couple of days before getting twatted all weekend as it's my birthday. :D

I'll consider looking into the film, I'm preparing for classes which start next week. On an unrelated note, I wonder if we can have this discussion on the historicity of Jesus split off into another thread. I think we've diverged from the topic of discussion quite enough at this point, and I think the issue would have more visibility in its own thread.

Aye there is consensus on this, I'm pretty certain of that. Christianity was found by Saul, who changed his name to Paul, after his conversion. His converion was in thirty something AD. He had no contact with Jesus and claimed that it was by 'revelation' that he gained his knowledge.
Aye, this should probably be another thread.

[narcomprom]

Jews are hated because jewish persons hapend to be in leading positions in too many situations and too many organizations that are not popular and that are commonly hated by wide mass of people. that includes early communist leadership and theories, capitalist elites and banking assosiations that exploited the workers.

these are modern reasons, the other reason, the one much older than that is the religious one, because of which people presecuted and hate them because they betrayed Jesus and because they regarded themseleves as the divinely "chosen" people and always had more children than most people.

The modern reasons for hate just merged on top of the old ones, the latest reason for hating them is their "racialy" incompatible nature as thought by nazis...

I have met and know several Jews myself and all of them except one and his family are rich.
ALthough I would not say they individually differ from other people, I would agree that you can see some differences when you look at collective image.
That was posted by a newly registered user in the AntiSemitism thread in OI.

The Jews have betrayed Jesus, as a matter of fact. :(

[bosgek]

None of them claimed that their possessions were their own, and they shared everything they had with each other... ...and no one went in need of anything.



2. Loads more people have said it better than him.


You mean like: "from each according to his ability, to each according to his need."?

The difference is: this part of the bible is made up of descriptions of acts (imagined or historically correct). Communist writers have the option of nice rhetorics and making slight abstractions to make sure the arguments will always apply.

The world does progress in 2000 years, but the question remains that if we look through the rhetorics, if the logic is the same.

[bosgek]

Regardless of the actual economic beliefs of Jesus, we should NOT raise him to the platform of a God on that basis alone.

I want actual evidence. Not just a book of Jewish fairy tales telling me that he wa compassionate and generous and anti-rich and pro-charity.

I thought the discussion wasn't about if he existed or not. That would make for a very short discussion: there is no scientific evidence. The answer is: maybe.

The economic beliefs of early Christians were more that money shouldn't rule ones life. So it's better to share everything you have and take only what you need. That's not really pro-charity, more pro-us.

[brigadista]

gorbachev would not recognise socialism even if he was hit by a bloody hammer and sickle...