The Historical Jesus.
- Thread starter arnisador
- Start date
- Status
Paul,
Excellent information. I'd like to comment on a few points you've made.
This isn't about Tom Brown. However...many feel that his Native American Grandfather stories are rather hokey....even still, the man has exceptional skills. Tom Brown is alive now. His Grandfather was a generation above.
What we are speaking of is someone that may or may not have lived 2000 years ago. This is not based on, "So-and-so once wrote of someone who once knew his uncle' friend who once shared a beer with Christ". That isn't evidence.
The written documentation that most focus on regarding Jesus is the Bible. Written across the span of how many hundreds of years and through how many voices?
So let me clarify my original post. Looking back, I was pretty vague in defining what I'd meant.
In the Christian community, there cannot, without a shadow of doubt prove that Jesus existed, beyond faith. This isn't about the Christian faith, when it was created, by whom or why. This is concerning the man that is considered the focal point of the Christian religions.
Why does this card get played so often?
I'm not trying to drag anyone down "with me". I'd have to be down for that to happen. I think it's silly whenever someone attempts to have such a conversation that the Xtian Card is as though non-believers are heathens and are just ignorant to the reality of it all. Don't be smug about this. If anything I'm explaining that belief and faith don't always equate to fact.
Am I anti-Christian? No...not really. As you said, if Christianity is used in a positive light, I've seen it help many people in life, especially during hardships. Unfortunately, in my personal experiances, this is a rarity. On the other side, it leads to segregation, un-educated and ill-filled hate amoung other things.
Asking people to "prove it" isn't such a bad thing. It's not a challenge...it's not a claim that Christians are ignorant, weak-minded people with no direction. It's simply a request for someone to back up their claims.
You mentioned how Christian evidence seems to be more potent then other followings. What belief system are the masses of western society based on?
Hrm.
Excellent information. I'd like to comment on a few points you've made.
This isn't about Tom Brown. However...many feel that his Native American Grandfather stories are rather hokey....even still, the man has exceptional skills. Tom Brown is alive now. His Grandfather was a generation above.
What we are speaking of is someone that may or may not have lived 2000 years ago. This is not based on, "So-and-so once wrote of someone who once knew his uncle' friend who once shared a beer with Christ". That isn't evidence.
The written documentation that most focus on regarding Jesus is the Bible. Written across the span of how many hundreds of years and through how many voices?
So let me clarify my original post. Looking back, I was pretty vague in defining what I'd meant.
In the Christian community, there cannot, without a shadow of doubt prove that Jesus existed, beyond faith. This isn't about the Christian faith, when it was created, by whom or why. This is concerning the man that is considered the focal point of the Christian religions.
Why does this card get played so often?
I'm not trying to drag anyone down "with me". I'd have to be down for that to happen. I think it's silly whenever someone attempts to have such a conversation that the Xtian Card is as though non-believers are heathens and are just ignorant to the reality of it all. Don't be smug about this. If anything I'm explaining that belief and faith don't always equate to fact. Am I anti-Christian? No...not really. As you said, if Christianity is used in a positive light, I've seen it help many people in life, especially during hardships. Unfortunately, in my personal experiances, this is a rarity. On the other side, it leads to segregation, un-educated and ill-filled hate amoung other things.
Asking people to "prove it" isn't such a bad thing. It's not a challenge...it's not a claim that Christians are ignorant, weak-minded people with no direction. It's simply a request for someone to back up their claims.
You mentioned how Christian evidence seems to be more potent then other followings. What belief system are the masses of western society based on?
Hrm.
Okay, I'm going to throw something out there and see how it lands; First off, you guys are much more informed in ancient history than I am and so please take my statments as from a neophyte at best; Second I am a practicing Catholic but my belief is much more faith based, that being said, I pride myself on my ability to remove my religious bias from arguement and discussion. I don't believe in or have much taste for evangalism.
Now to my point. It may be better to look at things in a realistic fashion as much as a scholastic fashion, much like it is important to know the context of a statment as much as the actual statment. I would imagine that the society we are talking about, Roman ruled Hebrew culture, was probably pretty rife with cults and "prophets". I would imagine that the general population were pretty sceptical about preachers, and saw Jesus and his students as cooks or extremists, disregarding his words and followers until they began to make a bigger impression by gaining a larger following. The timing of the rise of this group would most likely be the same as when christianity started to appear in the records of history, the first fifty to one hundred years after the death of Christ. I would then say that these records are by "contemporaries" of Christ or at least Christianity.
Now to my point. It may be better to look at things in a realistic fashion as much as a scholastic fashion, much like it is important to know the context of a statment as much as the actual statment. I would imagine that the society we are talking about, Roman ruled Hebrew culture, was probably pretty rife with cults and "prophets". I would imagine that the general population were pretty sceptical about preachers, and saw Jesus and his students as cooks or extremists, disregarding his words and followers until they began to make a bigger impression by gaining a larger following. The timing of the rise of this group would most likely be the same as when christianity started to appear in the records of history, the first fifty to one hundred years after the death of Christ. I would then say that these records are by "contemporaries" of Christ or at least Christianity.
I think the distinction between contemporaries of Jesus and contemporaries of early Christianity is a good one.
We know a lot about ancient cultures. There's no reason this issue can't be addressed historically. Yes, there are many explanations for the lack of records--but it'd be nice to have some!
We know a lot about ancient cultures. There's no reason this issue can't be addressed historically. Yes, there are many explanations for the lack of records--but it'd be nice to have some!
Just my two cents but...
Having them isnt proof of anything either.
We have "Written" documentation and witnesses to Back Scientology.
The Same goes for Joseph Smith finding the Magic Glasses that only he could use... Witnesses and Written Records...
The Hailbop Comet suicide group...
Lots of Written Records and Witnesses every day for nutcases all over the world... But it doesnt prove that they are true either.
ALMOST EVERYTHING WE BELIEVE has to be taken on faith at some point...
Paul wrote: <snip>
I achknowledge the problem with these sources as well. Basically we don't have a Biographer who followed around Jesus and wrote down these accounts while he was alive. This is unfortunate, but this is also the case with many accepted historical happenings that people are more ready to accept.
Ah but there was. The book of Matthew is probably the most detailed of the four gospels (Matt, Mark, Luke & John). Argumentors would also say that all four aforementioned gospels are a biography.
<snip> Now, A Christian would explain this as perhaps there wasn't any biographical writings by design. Now, people are required to have a much higher degree of faith to believe the Jesus story; as opposed to having it easily handed to them, they are now required to dig deep within themselves to decide if the religion is true for them or not.
And that is the basis of the whole concept of ANY religion. Faith, and the freedom to choose whether or not to believe in what you read/hear. The news comes to us daily by the media... and we
believe it?
OULobo wrote: <snip> Roman ruled Hebrew culture...
Anyone heard of the phrase: "History is written by the winners..."? (or something like that). Jesus was an embarassment to the Romans which ruled Judea at the time. Likewise they "cut the head off the snake" but the body still lived and flourished right in their home town (Rome). Is it any wonder that the (Roman) historians might've purposefully omitted any facts about Jesus' existence?
The jesuits that translated the scrolls held by the church for King James I'm sure omitted many useful details that would've helped later historians verify the existence. They were going on the faith-based assumption that there can be no question thus why add it in?
Too pat and too simplistic of an explaination but History records and shows time and time again how facts can and have been altered to suit the narrative.
I achknowledge the problem with these sources as well. Basically we don't have a Biographer who followed around Jesus and wrote down these accounts while he was alive. This is unfortunate, but this is also the case with many accepted historical happenings that people are more ready to accept.
Ah but there was. The book of Matthew is probably the most detailed of the four gospels (Matt, Mark, Luke & John). Argumentors would also say that all four aforementioned gospels are a biography.
<snip> Now, A Christian would explain this as perhaps there wasn't any biographical writings by design. Now, people are required to have a much higher degree of faith to believe the Jesus story; as opposed to having it easily handed to them, they are now required to dig deep within themselves to decide if the religion is true for them or not.
And that is the basis of the whole concept of ANY religion. Faith, and the freedom to choose whether or not to believe in what you read/hear. The news comes to us daily by the media... and we
believe it?
OULobo wrote: <snip> Roman ruled Hebrew culture...
Anyone heard of the phrase: "History is written by the winners..."? (or something like that). Jesus was an embarassment to the Romans which ruled Judea at the time. Likewise they "cut the head off the snake" but the body still lived and flourished right in their home town (Rome). Is it any wonder that the (Roman) historians might've purposefully omitted any facts about Jesus' existence?
The jesuits that translated the scrolls held by the church for King James I'm sure omitted many useful details that would've helped later historians verify the existence. They were going on the faith-based assumption that there can be no question thus why add it in?
Too pat and too simplistic of an explaination but History records and shows time and time again how facts can and have been altered to suit the narrative.
A theory I read somewhere? Sheesh. I wasn't very specific in my brief post as I felt enough long-winded diatribe had already been contributed
. But, alas...My reference to the history and powers attributed to Jesus coming about b/c of Nicea is specifically in regards to the historical persona of Jesus being melded with Mithras and Aestoras(sp?), primarily to make the new roman religion more familiar to the pagans/peasants/commoners/military(i.e. the same rituals and symbols, albeit with different names).
Of course, some of the original text of the gospels were compiled before Nicea(I think Mark is believed to have been compiled around 70 c.e.), but a surprising number of them are probably closer to the time of the Council of Nicea than the time of Jesus--or at least equidistant(I can give the dates if you'd like
). I will say though, if you have read any of the fragmentary Infancy gospels you will see all manner of ridiculous powers attributed to Christ, not all good, btw. However, unless the divine connection you are referencing is along the lines of Isis/Osiris symbolism between Jesus and Mary Magdeline and the possible connection to traditions based around egyptian mystery schools, the overall emphasis of the gospels was not Jesus' supernatural powers. Look into the reconstrusted 'Q'(Quelle), or the Gospel of Thomas, the Gospel of the Ebionites, the Egerton Gospel, The Gospel of Mary...etc. Things like Jesus' self-reference as 'Son of Man' have been so misconstrued it's laughable(akin to Mary's purity of spirit being mistranslated as meaning a vigrin conception). What is most interesting is that the older 'copies' of many of the gospels don't always contain the same information as 'newer' texts used commonly for translation(many of the nag hammadi scrolls come to mind).As a matter of fact, many of the miracles you may be refering to are most probably symbolic and figuritive in nature. For example, how many stories of cured leprosy are in the Gospels? Yet, the greek word Lepra(the term used in the Gospels) is not leprosy(that was called elephas), but a term(also called sara'at) descirbing skin conditions such as eczema and psoriasis. These skin disorders had a huge stigma attached to them, and the shame attached to these conditions was quite literally refered to as illness.
Medical anthropology and comparitive ethnomedicine have found a distinct demarcation between curing a disease and 'healing' an illness in ancient cultures. His healing of the lepers was a rejection of society's standard between clean and unclean, acceptance and social ostracization. Jesus' Kingdom movement and message of empowerment based on egalitarianism and manifested thru communal healing and eating was a radical social program that subverted the established boundries of society, there was little of it dealing with the supernatural.
If I had the time(which I don't) or the inclination(not currently) there is even more myriad symoblism in the exorcism of demons, or the resuscitation of Lazarus(bringing life out of death) that could be extrapolated as social processes being incarnated as events.
Contrary to what you say, there is more than ample evidence to 'backup' my theory(and probably 20 more), just because I didn't footnote my post doesn't mean it isn't there
All authorities, secular and nonsecular, agree that the four synoptic gospels were written roughly from 70-110 CE. They are not contemporary accounts, thoiugh they are biographies. As PAUL mentioned, these did not come from biographer(s) who knew Jesus.
They are also not believed to be independent accounts. Some of them drew from others, for example, and one theory posits a pair of books--a biography and a book of sayings/teaching (Q)--that were the sources but are now lost. Those might have been contemporary accounts.
heretic888
Senior Master
It's simple. Josephus was born about a decade after Jesus was supposed to have died. Josephus cites no records or sources for any of his claims about 'Jesus'. In this regard, he is a secondary source.... at best.
And, no, it is only unusual to question the reference to James because media coverage of this subject has made it out to be unusual. If you do some research as to when these 'James reference' was cited by others, we trace the first reference to Origen in the 3rd century. That seems a very LONG time (200 year gap) for no Christian apologetic to ever quote such a damning point against Pagan claims that Christianity was invented (a rather common argument against at the time, actually). Justin Martyr, Irenaeus, and Tertullian (among others) are all curiously ignorant of Josephus in their debates against Pagan critics.
In addition, even when Origen does quote Josephus.... the 'James quotation' he uses is actually different than the one we have now!! Granted, they are similar in message.... but the actual content of the text is decidedly different than the 'James reference' now bandied about. This seems to indicate Christian interpolators have simply been forging such things as this for a long, long time.
Also, it is curious that Philo Judeaus is silent on Jesus. Very curious indeed, considering the first couple of verses from the Gospel of John were basically plagiarisms of his work.
Well... then perhaps you should investigate some more readings.
An equally possible, and much more plausible, theory is that Christianity grew from the teachings of the Therapeutae of Alexandria, Egypt.
heretic888
Senior Master
Hmmm..... there are quite a few actually. As something of a media ploy, however, major booksellers usually put the 'Jesus was a myth' books in conspiracy or New Age sections rather than in the comparative religion sections.
"The Jesus Mysteries: Was the 'Original Jesus' A Pagan God?" by Tim Freke and Pete Gandy is good. I have a somewhat old book called "Pagan Christs" by a J.M. Robinson. An interesting read is "The Christ Conspiracy: The Greatest Story Ever Sold" by Acharya S. "The World's Sixteen Crucified Saviors" by Kersy Graves. "The Jesus Myth" by G. A. Wells is one of the most well-known books of these types. I would also recommend many of the writings by Sir Wallis Budge and Albert Churchward.
A really good take on the Jesus Myth theory is found online: http://human.st/jesuspuzzle/
Now, mind you, I'm not saying I'm agreeing with all (or even most) of the claims of these various authors, but it is there nonetheless.
R
rmcrobertson
Guest
I recommend two oldies: Frazier's chapter, "Dying and Reviving Gods," in "The Golden Bough;" Freud, "The Future of An Illusion." And three newies: Frank Kermode, "The genesis of secrecy," on Biblical interpretation; Mieke Bal's feminist interpretations of the Bible.
And for fun, Philip K. Dick, "Valis."
And for fun, Philip K. Dick, "Valis."
Cruentus
Grandmaster
Here is a parable…call it “The parable of PAUL of MT” cause I just made it up on the spot. You guys can take it to mean anything you like, because that’s what you’re going to do regardless, but I am trying to illustrate a point or two. It doesn’t all fit together, but hopefully you’ll see my point. Many of you will miss the point regardless of what way, shape, or form I illustrate it, but I am hoping that at least one of you will get it:
Little CaesarÂ’s
There once was a man who’s name was Caesar. He was very small in stature, so people called him “little,” hence his nickname “Little Caesar.”
Caesar was a carpenter, blue-collar, who loved to cook, and experiment with different kinds of food. One day in one of his many experiments, he decided to take some dough and flatten it out. He then took a sauce from crushed tomatoes and put it on the flattened dough. He then sprinkled cheese on the dough, and put it in his wood-burning oven to cook. When the cheese was melted he took it out and tasted his new creation. This had never been done before. He tasted, and he decided that it was good!
From that day forth, Little Caesar loved his new creation, and experimented with it. He would put all different kinds of meats and cheeses on it. He even tried vegetables and fruit. Sometimes he wouldn’t even use tomato sauce, or cheese. It didn’t matter what he did or how he did it, just as long as the basic premises of his creation was in tact, and so long as it was good. He decided to give it a name, so he called it “Pizza.” He loved it so much, that he decided to go on tour with his wonderful creation.
So he toured the countryside doing live cooking shows with his Pizza. Along the way he picked up a bunch of followers who were very busy trying to learn how to make Pizza as wonderfully as little Caesar, and who admired and loved Caesar for all his works.
Everyone was having a great time, except some of the other traditional pasta chefÂ’s. The traditional pasta ChefÂ’s spend years and cooking school, and only believed you should cook pasta, and only in specific ways. In fact, the ways to cook pasta are so specific that you should only go to the traditional pasta chefÂ’s restaurants and give them a large portion of your $$, so they can cook the pasta for you. In fact, if you were to try to cook it yourself without the years of schooling and dedication, the people of the land would be so appalled that they would stone you to death. Now, there is this carefree Little Caesar guy cooking pizza everywhere. He cooks it for anyone and everyone who wants a taste, and he uses many different ingredients. As long as the basic premise of the pizza remains in tact, people have such freedom to eat what they want with this pizza. And even worseÂ…he showed people how to cook Pizza for themselves! HeÂ’ll show anyone, even tax collectors and prostitutes! We cannot have this, some blue-collar guy with no culinary schooling taking $$ out from our pockets! The people love him too much for us to be able to have him stoned. SoÂ…lets go tell the queen!
So, the traditional Pasta Chefs went out and told queen Martha Stuart at K-Mart Palace what this little Caesar Guy had been up to. Queen Stuart did not care who did what really, just as long as people followed her blindly and gave her $$, and didnÂ’t question here methods or insider trading violations. When she heard of this, she got worried. The Traditional Chefs paid taxes, gave her $$ from the people, and never questioned her authority. The people thought that she knew the most out of anyone in terms of cooking and housekeeping. That was because the people relied on her K-mart stores and government for necessities, and the Traditional Chefs for pasta; so they feared to much to question authority. This Little Caesar character is having the people cook for themselves, provide for themselves, and think for themselves. Because of this, they are no longer afraid. Since fear is a necessity to run K-mart land, Queen Stuart decided that Little Caesar must be put to death!
So, they hoax one of Caesars 12 pizza chef students to rat him out. Then, they crucify little Caesar. And they tell everyone that whoever is caught making PizzaÂ’s could be put to death. You might be forced to acknowledge queen Martha as the ultimate authority, allowing you to escape alive after being tortured some (by being forced to watch the queens show), but chances are, youÂ’ll be put to death!
This naturally scared the crap out of Ceases followers. They all hid up in a building, and tried to figure out what the hell they were to do. Plus, this happened so suddenly. Little Caesar was only 33 years old. They all figured he would live much longer. It seemed that Caesar knew all along about this, but he didn’t inform his students ‘til about a day or so ahead of time that Queen Martha was comin’ after him. With all their traveling and cooking seminars, they hadn’t had the time to write down all of Ceases Recipe’s, or anything about Ceases life for that matter! “How could we have overlooked this?” they thought. So many unanswered questions…
So, they decided that there was no stopping Martha and her tyranny and insider trading violations. She is untouchable, and they are doomed to die. So, they figured, through divine inspiration, that they would all go off and teach cooking seminars themselves. They might not be as good as Little Caesar, and they might not know all the recipes, but they each had the same basic Premise and truths that made Pizza what it is. They also figured that they hadnÂ’t taken the time to write down anything yet, so they had better not stop to do this now. If they stop to write, they will be killed before they get half way through, and the records will be destroyed anyways by Martha and the gang. So they all split up and went in different directions, teaching cooking seminars on making pizza. Each one was a little different then the other, but the basic Premise of Pizza was taught. AndÂ…it was good!
They all eventually were killed, except Hungary Howey who was banished to Sicily. They all wrote a bunch of stuff, but much of it was destroyed. Some letters that they had wrote in their travels are the only remnants left. Later on, some of the students of the 12 original pizza cooks wrote stories on Little Caesers life based off what they were taught, and some very few writings that were available. These students succeeded in the long run though; their cooking seminars have spread the good ways of enjoying pizza to thousands. It could not stop now, because Pizza is so good and so yummy, so more and more people were discovering how to enjoy it every day. The momentum would continue until this day.
Now, while the original 11 Ceasians (one of the 12 sold Caesar out and committed suicide, if you remember), as they were called, other things were occurring. The people at K-Mart and the headquarters were doing everything to try to erase the history of Caesar and his Pizza creation. They tried to get rid of records, burn records if they found them, or change records all together. TheyÂ’re were also people who were Traditional Pastaians who still followed the pasta chefs who were writing many false things about Caesar because they did not understand how to make pizza. You also had people who were neither Pastians or Ceasians, who didnÂ’t understand either culinary school. They would often write things that made absolutely no sense, or werenÂ’t true. You also had other schools of Pizza sprouting about everywhere. Pizza Paul tried to fight against this by writing many letters on recipes, cooking temperatures, etc. You see, all though there are many ways to make a pizza, there are certain foundations that must be there, or else it wonÂ’t be pizza. Some culinary schools tried to make pizza without the dough, for instance, which is impossible. Some would make pizza with weird stuff on it, like donkey dung instead of tomato sauce, which is gross. Pizza is supposed to be good, not gross! Pizza Paul would write letters to these schools to try to steer them in the right direction.
Well, as things always do, the Pizza culture, and Ceasianity grew, and people’s perceptions of good Pizza has drastically changed. Many of the writings on Little Caeser and Caeseanity were compiled into a great cook book. Some people forget that these are a compilation of recipes and stories from different authors and era’s, forgetting what the whole point of Little Caesars Pizza was in the first place, and interpreting things beyond how these recipes were supposed to be interpreted. Some people insist that you can only make pizza with pepperoni. Others insist on using sausage. Some are adamantly against sticking your dough in the oven before marriage, and some are against two ovens or two doughs banging together. Some don’t even know about Ceaseanity, and they are looking to stick doughs in ovens every chance they get, regardless of who gets burned. Some only eat, make, and talk about pizza on Sundays. Others everyday. Some hold up signs on street corners like, “Pizza Saves!” and they bombard people with zealous cooking ideas, turning them off. Many have used Ceasianity in the name of evil, saying that Pizza making is the only way, and if you don’t eat pizza you should be killed off. Caesar never said you couldn’t try pasta or Ice Cream, he only promoted the greatness of Pizza, and he just didn’t want his people to eat something that would harm them, or stop them from enjoying pizza.
It is very sad because the simple and wonderful teachings of Little Caesar are today confused and confounded 2000 years later. It seems that many people don’t think logically anymore, and don’t realize simply that pizza is good, and should be shared with friends. They try to reason everything out with false logic, and information based on false histories. In fact, there are many educated culinary specialists who write about Pizza and Little Caesar in such ridicules ways, only to make a name for themselves. And of course, people now a days, 2000 years later, are so skeptical of every little thing that they can’t separate what is true from what is false anymore! And many are so busy trying to be smarter and more special then the other people in the resteraunts, that they can’t just sit back and enjoy their own pizza! Some of these “pizza history specialists” have even conjected, despite all the evidence, that Little Caesar never even existed at all! As if the early Ceasians just made up some story because they LIKED to run from the government, and to eventually be tortured and murdered for their beliefs! Ridicules, I know, but also true. It is ridicules how human beings continue to fabricate reality instead of simply looking at the facts that are available to come up with logical solutions. It seems that the more we think we are progressing, the more we are actually digressing in our taste buds. Soon, it seems, our society won’t be able to taste the difference between Pizza and pork rinds!
What to do? Well, I donÂ’t have all the answers, nor do I profess too. I can do very little about the idiocy of mankind. So, I guess IÂ’ll just sit back and enjoy my pizza, and offer pizza to whoever wants a taste, and talk about Little Ceaser to whoever will listen.
Little CaesarÂ’s
There once was a man who’s name was Caesar. He was very small in stature, so people called him “little,” hence his nickname “Little Caesar.”
Caesar was a carpenter, blue-collar, who loved to cook, and experiment with different kinds of food. One day in one of his many experiments, he decided to take some dough and flatten it out. He then took a sauce from crushed tomatoes and put it on the flattened dough. He then sprinkled cheese on the dough, and put it in his wood-burning oven to cook. When the cheese was melted he took it out and tasted his new creation. This had never been done before. He tasted, and he decided that it was good!
From that day forth, Little Caesar loved his new creation, and experimented with it. He would put all different kinds of meats and cheeses on it. He even tried vegetables and fruit. Sometimes he wouldn’t even use tomato sauce, or cheese. It didn’t matter what he did or how he did it, just as long as the basic premises of his creation was in tact, and so long as it was good. He decided to give it a name, so he called it “Pizza.” He loved it so much, that he decided to go on tour with his wonderful creation.
So he toured the countryside doing live cooking shows with his Pizza. Along the way he picked up a bunch of followers who were very busy trying to learn how to make Pizza as wonderfully as little Caesar, and who admired and loved Caesar for all his works.
Everyone was having a great time, except some of the other traditional pasta chefÂ’s. The traditional pasta ChefÂ’s spend years and cooking school, and only believed you should cook pasta, and only in specific ways. In fact, the ways to cook pasta are so specific that you should only go to the traditional pasta chefÂ’s restaurants and give them a large portion of your $$, so they can cook the pasta for you. In fact, if you were to try to cook it yourself without the years of schooling and dedication, the people of the land would be so appalled that they would stone you to death. Now, there is this carefree Little Caesar guy cooking pizza everywhere. He cooks it for anyone and everyone who wants a taste, and he uses many different ingredients. As long as the basic premise of the pizza remains in tact, people have such freedom to eat what they want with this pizza. And even worseÂ…he showed people how to cook Pizza for themselves! HeÂ’ll show anyone, even tax collectors and prostitutes! We cannot have this, some blue-collar guy with no culinary schooling taking $$ out from our pockets! The people love him too much for us to be able to have him stoned. SoÂ…lets go tell the queen!
So, the traditional Pasta Chefs went out and told queen Martha Stuart at K-Mart Palace what this little Caesar Guy had been up to. Queen Stuart did not care who did what really, just as long as people followed her blindly and gave her $$, and didnÂ’t question here methods or insider trading violations. When she heard of this, she got worried. The Traditional Chefs paid taxes, gave her $$ from the people, and never questioned her authority. The people thought that she knew the most out of anyone in terms of cooking and housekeeping. That was because the people relied on her K-mart stores and government for necessities, and the Traditional Chefs for pasta; so they feared to much to question authority. This Little Caesar character is having the people cook for themselves, provide for themselves, and think for themselves. Because of this, they are no longer afraid. Since fear is a necessity to run K-mart land, Queen Stuart decided that Little Caesar must be put to death!
So, they hoax one of Caesars 12 pizza chef students to rat him out. Then, they crucify little Caesar. And they tell everyone that whoever is caught making PizzaÂ’s could be put to death. You might be forced to acknowledge queen Martha as the ultimate authority, allowing you to escape alive after being tortured some (by being forced to watch the queens show), but chances are, youÂ’ll be put to death!
This naturally scared the crap out of Ceases followers. They all hid up in a building, and tried to figure out what the hell they were to do. Plus, this happened so suddenly. Little Caesar was only 33 years old. They all figured he would live much longer. It seemed that Caesar knew all along about this, but he didn’t inform his students ‘til about a day or so ahead of time that Queen Martha was comin’ after him. With all their traveling and cooking seminars, they hadn’t had the time to write down all of Ceases Recipe’s, or anything about Ceases life for that matter! “How could we have overlooked this?” they thought. So many unanswered questions…
So, they decided that there was no stopping Martha and her tyranny and insider trading violations. She is untouchable, and they are doomed to die. So, they figured, through divine inspiration, that they would all go off and teach cooking seminars themselves. They might not be as good as Little Caesar, and they might not know all the recipes, but they each had the same basic Premise and truths that made Pizza what it is. They also figured that they hadnÂ’t taken the time to write down anything yet, so they had better not stop to do this now. If they stop to write, they will be killed before they get half way through, and the records will be destroyed anyways by Martha and the gang. So they all split up and went in different directions, teaching cooking seminars on making pizza. Each one was a little different then the other, but the basic Premise of Pizza was taught. AndÂ…it was good!
They all eventually were killed, except Hungary Howey who was banished to Sicily. They all wrote a bunch of stuff, but much of it was destroyed. Some letters that they had wrote in their travels are the only remnants left. Later on, some of the students of the 12 original pizza cooks wrote stories on Little Caesers life based off what they were taught, and some very few writings that were available. These students succeeded in the long run though; their cooking seminars have spread the good ways of enjoying pizza to thousands. It could not stop now, because Pizza is so good and so yummy, so more and more people were discovering how to enjoy it every day. The momentum would continue until this day.
Now, while the original 11 Ceasians (one of the 12 sold Caesar out and committed suicide, if you remember), as they were called, other things were occurring. The people at K-Mart and the headquarters were doing everything to try to erase the history of Caesar and his Pizza creation. They tried to get rid of records, burn records if they found them, or change records all together. TheyÂ’re were also people who were Traditional Pastaians who still followed the pasta chefs who were writing many false things about Caesar because they did not understand how to make pizza. You also had people who were neither Pastians or Ceasians, who didnÂ’t understand either culinary school. They would often write things that made absolutely no sense, or werenÂ’t true. You also had other schools of Pizza sprouting about everywhere. Pizza Paul tried to fight against this by writing many letters on recipes, cooking temperatures, etc. You see, all though there are many ways to make a pizza, there are certain foundations that must be there, or else it wonÂ’t be pizza. Some culinary schools tried to make pizza without the dough, for instance, which is impossible. Some would make pizza with weird stuff on it, like donkey dung instead of tomato sauce, which is gross. Pizza is supposed to be good, not gross! Pizza Paul would write letters to these schools to try to steer them in the right direction.
Well, as things always do, the Pizza culture, and Ceasianity grew, and people’s perceptions of good Pizza has drastically changed. Many of the writings on Little Caeser and Caeseanity were compiled into a great cook book. Some people forget that these are a compilation of recipes and stories from different authors and era’s, forgetting what the whole point of Little Caesars Pizza was in the first place, and interpreting things beyond how these recipes were supposed to be interpreted. Some people insist that you can only make pizza with pepperoni. Others insist on using sausage. Some are adamantly against sticking your dough in the oven before marriage, and some are against two ovens or two doughs banging together. Some don’t even know about Ceaseanity, and they are looking to stick doughs in ovens every chance they get, regardless of who gets burned. Some only eat, make, and talk about pizza on Sundays. Others everyday. Some hold up signs on street corners like, “Pizza Saves!” and they bombard people with zealous cooking ideas, turning them off. Many have used Ceasianity in the name of evil, saying that Pizza making is the only way, and if you don’t eat pizza you should be killed off. Caesar never said you couldn’t try pasta or Ice Cream, he only promoted the greatness of Pizza, and he just didn’t want his people to eat something that would harm them, or stop them from enjoying pizza.
It is very sad because the simple and wonderful teachings of Little Caesar are today confused and confounded 2000 years later. It seems that many people don’t think logically anymore, and don’t realize simply that pizza is good, and should be shared with friends. They try to reason everything out with false logic, and information based on false histories. In fact, there are many educated culinary specialists who write about Pizza and Little Caesar in such ridicules ways, only to make a name for themselves. And of course, people now a days, 2000 years later, are so skeptical of every little thing that they can’t separate what is true from what is false anymore! And many are so busy trying to be smarter and more special then the other people in the resteraunts, that they can’t just sit back and enjoy their own pizza! Some of these “pizza history specialists” have even conjected, despite all the evidence, that Little Caesar never even existed at all! As if the early Ceasians just made up some story because they LIKED to run from the government, and to eventually be tortured and murdered for their beliefs! Ridicules, I know, but also true. It is ridicules how human beings continue to fabricate reality instead of simply looking at the facts that are available to come up with logical solutions. It seems that the more we think we are progressing, the more we are actually digressing in our taste buds. Soon, it seems, our society won’t be able to taste the difference between Pizza and pork rinds!
What to do? Well, I donÂ’t have all the answers, nor do I profess too. I can do very little about the idiocy of mankind. So, I guess IÂ’ll just sit back and enjoy my pizza, and offer pizza to whoever wants a taste, and talk about Little Ceaser to whoever will listen.
A
Andi
Guest
Absolute genius!!! :rofl: Great story!
:rofl: :rofl: :rofl:
That made my day. Thanks!
:rofl: Great story! :rofl: :rofl: :rofl:
That made my day. Thanks!
heretic888
Senior Master
Very amusing story.... but this part is the major flaw of your analogy.
There is not even a hint of any empirical or historical evidence to back up that there was ever any campaign to destroy the evidence that Jesus had ever lived. It remains little more than a fanciful conspiracy hypothesis (not a theory, which requires concrete proof of some kind to back it up) in the minds of a few modern desparates.
Ironically enough, however, the only major 'book-burning' known to the Greco-Roman world always occured under the reign of Christian emperors. A widesale decree of imperial religious discrimination was also virtually absent under "pagan" emperors but became common practice among the Christian emperors from the 300's onward.
I actually encountered a theory like this when I was part of the jesusmysteries discussion forum at yahoo. When the theorist brought forth the idea that the historical evidence of Jesus was possibly destroyed though a imperial conspiracy compaign, I brough my own rebuttal.
You see, the earliest Christian writings and documents (including the Gospel of Thomas, the writings of Paul, and the writings of Marcion) are all completely absent of any 'historical' information concerning Jesus. Paul has no idea who Joseph, Mary, Pontius Pilate, or Judas Iscariot are, nor can he give the names of the 12 apostles, nor does he seem to know anything about any Bethlehem. He also seems to have little knowledge about Jesus' reputed teachings in the Synoptics.
Of course, one also has to logically justify why all evidence of Jesus had to be destroyed but the evidence for all the dozens of other would-be 'messiahs' who were much more violent and pervasive among the Jewish public, seeking to rise up militarily against the Romans, was left untouched. A curious dilemma, no??
The only way to keep up this conspiracy theory of 'book burning' (which, again, has no empirical or archaeological evidence to support it) is with the following historical steps:
1) There was a historical Jesus who was a bit of a political rebel.
2) He was killed and all records of his existence subsequently destroyed (with no proof of either of these events, of course).
3) This was so successful that even the later 'Christian' disciples such as Paul and Marcion seem to believe that Jesus was some type of aeon or Platonic form rather than an actual human being.... in other words, a mythic archetype.
4) About a century later, somehow fairly ignorant followers of 'Christianity' magically came by Jesus' 'historical information' once again (with, again, no evidence or proof to support this 'information') and we all now know that he definitely lived.
I proposed a more logical sequence of historical steps:
1) Jesus never lived and existed only as a mythic archetype, a Jewish version of the perennial 'pagan' godman (Mithras, Dionysus, Osiris, Buddha, Krishna, etc etc) as known by individuals such as Paul and Marcion. This would be keeping in line with the lack of historical evidence concerning this man.
2) Over time, the more ignorant and less-informed of "Christian" followers mistakenly came to believe Jesus actually existed in the flesh as an actual divine human being (there is actually empirical proof for this, as all of the existent Synoptics seem to be based on the gnostic/docetic Marcion's Gospel of the Lord).
Gee.... 2 simplistic steps versus 4 rather convoluted steps. And, you don't have to draw back on some 'conspiracy hypothesis' to back it up. And, even better, it actually has historical and literary evidence to back it up!!
Well, its just a theory, anyways....
rmcrobertson; et al,
What do you mean,"shakey text", regarding the Bible? I for one am a believer that Jesus of Nazereth is The Son of The Living God, and that the Holy Bible is The Word of God. Why, you may ask. My answer simply put, is that I do. I agree that there are some things which are hard to understand in this life, and in The Word. There are also some preety amazing things written in there. (Thousands of years before Israel was reestablished as a nation, it was recorded in the Bible.) The only real criteria that can be used to accept, or reject the Biblical(Old&New Testament) record. Is the faith of the person considering the aforementioned. In the end thats what it all comes down to. You either listen to, and consider the evidence offered. Which basically boils down to accepting, or rejecting The Bible, but you can't accept, or refute what you don't know. Like any good martial art student. You must first examine a system before you can make an educated call regarding that system. You can't make a real decision based on some one elses opinion, can we? Then its up to the investigator to make the call.
Salute in Christ, :asian:
Donald(John14:6)
What do you mean,"shakey text", regarding the Bible? I for one am a believer that Jesus of Nazereth is The Son of The Living God, and that the Holy Bible is The Word of God. Why, you may ask. My answer simply put, is that I do. I agree that there are some things which are hard to understand in this life, and in The Word. There are also some preety amazing things written in there. (Thousands of years before Israel was reestablished as a nation, it was recorded in the Bible.) The only real criteria that can be used to accept, or reject the Biblical(Old&New Testament) record. Is the faith of the person considering the aforementioned. In the end thats what it all comes down to. You either listen to, and consider the evidence offered. Which basically boils down to accepting, or rejecting The Bible, but you can't accept, or refute what you don't know. Like any good martial art student. You must first examine a system before you can make an educated call regarding that system. You can't make a real decision based on some one elses opinion, can we? Then its up to the investigator to make the call.
Salute in Christ, :asian:
Donald(John14:6)
Cruentus
Grandmaster
Glad you enjoyed my story...
As I said, it doesn't apply in every sense of the world. I don't feel that there was a "book burning conspiricy," but I do conject that records were destroyed none-the-less. Example: It is understood that Peter was executed by an up-side-down crusifixion for being a traitor to the Roman Empire by propigating Christianity. Let's say, hypothetically speaking, that Peter had a diary. Do you think that the Roman Empire would have kept this, or anything else that belonged to him. No...he was some traitor, "insignificant" to the Empire. They would have discarded any records, along with any of his other belongings, upon his execution. No conspiricy, just a logical assumption of what would have happened.
The reality was that Christians were first viewed as a bunch of traitors who needed to be taught a lesson, but not as some major threat to Roman Society. When Christianity grew to a point where it might be a threat, the Empire made it the national religion, thus dispating the threat. My point here is, they wouldn't have made a major issue in detailing in writing how to erase the Christians from history. However, they would have just considered any information found as insignificant rebel propaganda, and it would have been discarded.
Now, some other flaws in YOUR ARGUEMENTS are as such:
You forget about Oral tradition. Our first Christians weren't writing texts, they were wandering into different communities and spreading the religion through an oral tradition. So, just because things weren't written down when Jesus was alive you can't assume that these were stories made up later on.
There isn't really a lack of historical evidence concerning the man, as you say. There is plenty of info available that implies that Jesus existed, considereing the time period, you just refuse to see it for what it is. I don't know why you feel you have to do this, but do what you want. I, and others have posted plenty here to give you more reading material, sources, and records. You, I am sure, will continue to argue, using sources written by who I believe are pseudo-historian's. I can't stop this, so do what you want. We all have to live with our decisions and beliefs. But the flaw here is this: you have less evidence supporting your conjecture, that Jesus doesn't exist, then I do mine, that he does. You say, "Prove it," forgeting that you can't prove that he didn't exist, and that all of the early "Christians" were living one big lie. You have less evidence supporting that the divinity of Christ was a fabrication of later Christians then Christians do supporting that Christians believed in his divinity all along. However, you choose to believe in less reliable evidence, and I cannot stop you.
You also, in your arguement make superfluous and exaggerated assumptions that you presume to be a logical refutation of Christian beliefs, when most Christians do not follow your assumptions. I don't know Christians who believe that early followers were 'fairly ignorant', or that anyone 'magically' found lost documents or stories. You are arguing false assumptions that only you created.
Early Christian writers ademently believed that Jesus was not some mythic character, but was a real person, the son of God, and the Messiah. You again create false evidence by implying that early Christians believed he was a "mythical archtype" when you (once again) have no evidence to support this conjecture. Again, we have a case where we have some evidence that Jesus was a real person, and this was always the Christian belief, but not a lot of evidence. Your arguement behind why there is not a lot of evidence supporting that Jesus was real is that he was a mythical creature, a conjecture which has even less reliable evidence to support it then the original arguement.
You twist the Christian belief into 4 "convoluted" steps, when there is really only one non-convoluted step. According to the Christian Belief, Jesus was a real person who was executed, so his followers who believed him to be the messiah went around spreading his teachings and what they believed. There...1 step, not your convoluted 2 step arguement with little evidence to support it. If you don't want to believe that there even is a God, then don't. But don't pretend that you have some less complex and more logical answer then where the evidence points. It points to my one step, that people who had such and such belief (based off a real person who TAUGHT the belief) went out and taught it to the masses.
The reasoning that the Gospels were based off the Marcion text is not "imperical proof" of anything. None of what you say so far "imperically proves" that Jesus was not a real person. But again, you are trying to sound like you have some evidence which really isn't evidence at all.
So, I cannot, for obvious reasons agree with your theories. The biggest problem with your conjectures that I have is that you fault people who believe Christ exists because of a lack of evidence, so their belief is "faith based" to a degree, when your conjectures is supported by even LESS evidence, so your beliefs are EVEN MORE faith based then those who you oppose. This makes me wonder if you ran out and tryed to find evidence to support you anti-christian beliefs, and jumped on the first few theories you ran into, rather then openly searching for truth. I wonder what your real hang up is with Christianity also. Hmmm....
Well, just theories, ya know?
As I said, it doesn't apply in every sense of the world. I don't feel that there was a "book burning conspiricy," but I do conject that records were destroyed none-the-less. Example: It is understood that Peter was executed by an up-side-down crusifixion for being a traitor to the Roman Empire by propigating Christianity. Let's say, hypothetically speaking, that Peter had a diary. Do you think that the Roman Empire would have kept this, or anything else that belonged to him. No...he was some traitor, "insignificant" to the Empire. They would have discarded any records, along with any of his other belongings, upon his execution. No conspiricy, just a logical assumption of what would have happened.
The reality was that Christians were first viewed as a bunch of traitors who needed to be taught a lesson, but not as some major threat to Roman Society. When Christianity grew to a point where it might be a threat, the Empire made it the national religion, thus dispating the threat. My point here is, they wouldn't have made a major issue in detailing in writing how to erase the Christians from history. However, they would have just considered any information found as insignificant rebel propaganda, and it would have been discarded.
Now, some other flaws in YOUR ARGUEMENTS are as such:
You forget about Oral tradition. Our first Christians weren't writing texts, they were wandering into different communities and spreading the religion through an oral tradition. So, just because things weren't written down when Jesus was alive you can't assume that these were stories made up later on.
There isn't really a lack of historical evidence concerning the man, as you say. There is plenty of info available that implies that Jesus existed, considereing the time period, you just refuse to see it for what it is. I don't know why you feel you have to do this, but do what you want. I, and others have posted plenty here to give you more reading material, sources, and records. You, I am sure, will continue to argue, using sources written by who I believe are pseudo-historian's. I can't stop this, so do what you want. We all have to live with our decisions and beliefs. But the flaw here is this: you have less evidence supporting your conjecture, that Jesus doesn't exist, then I do mine, that he does. You say, "Prove it," forgeting that you can't prove that he didn't exist, and that all of the early "Christians" were living one big lie. You have less evidence supporting that the divinity of Christ was a fabrication of later Christians then Christians do supporting that Christians believed in his divinity all along. However, you choose to believe in less reliable evidence, and I cannot stop you.
You also, in your arguement make superfluous and exaggerated assumptions that you presume to be a logical refutation of Christian beliefs, when most Christians do not follow your assumptions. I don't know Christians who believe that early followers were 'fairly ignorant', or that anyone 'magically' found lost documents or stories. You are arguing false assumptions that only you created.
Early Christian writers ademently believed that Jesus was not some mythic character, but was a real person, the son of God, and the Messiah. You again create false evidence by implying that early Christians believed he was a "mythical archtype" when you (once again) have no evidence to support this conjecture. Again, we have a case where we have some evidence that Jesus was a real person, and this was always the Christian belief, but not a lot of evidence. Your arguement behind why there is not a lot of evidence supporting that Jesus was real is that he was a mythical creature, a conjecture which has even less reliable evidence to support it then the original arguement.
You twist the Christian belief into 4 "convoluted" steps, when there is really only one non-convoluted step. According to the Christian Belief, Jesus was a real person who was executed, so his followers who believed him to be the messiah went around spreading his teachings and what they believed. There...1 step, not your convoluted 2 step arguement with little evidence to support it. If you don't want to believe that there even is a God, then don't. But don't pretend that you have some less complex and more logical answer then where the evidence points. It points to my one step, that people who had such and such belief (based off a real person who TAUGHT the belief) went out and taught it to the masses.
The reasoning that the Gospels were based off the Marcion text is not "imperical proof" of anything. None of what you say so far "imperically proves" that Jesus was not a real person. But again, you are trying to sound like you have some evidence which really isn't evidence at all.
So, I cannot, for obvious reasons agree with your theories. The biggest problem with your conjectures that I have is that you fault people who believe Christ exists because of a lack of evidence, so their belief is "faith based" to a degree, when your conjectures is supported by even LESS evidence, so your beliefs are EVEN MORE faith based then those who you oppose. This makes me wonder if you ran out and tryed to find evidence to support you anti-christian beliefs, and jumped on the first few theories you ran into, rather then openly searching for truth. I wonder what your real hang up is with Christianity also. Hmmm....
Well, just theories, ya know?
Cruentus
Grandmaster
The "hokeyness" of the stories is exactly why I used the example. They seem unbelievable, yet the concepts work in practical application. The Bible stories, I think, are similar in this sense.
I agree, but I don't think that the evidence is that Broad, however.
The problem with this arguement is that there are very few things that happend in history that we can prove happened with out a shadow of doubt. That is the problem; we can't prove much, and most of what we believe is faith based. What steers our "faith" or "belief" is the evidence available, and our logic based off of the evidence. I still maintain that there is more evidence pointing towards "a guy named Jesus taught, sparking the beginning of Christianity" then other evidence pointing otherwise.
Why does this card get played so often?
Sorry to play cards, here.
I am not trying to say you are a heathen or ignorant or whatever. But I believe you, and others here, are the ones being smug. You are trying to push the idea that faith and belief don't equate to fact, as if you have the facts and someone who opposses you doesn't. This seems arrogent, although I know your not trying to be. You say "equate to the facts" but who's fact? The ones you 'believe' are true? I think you see the problem where this leads.I am sorry that your personal experiences w/ Christianity hasn't been good. I often find that people base their opinions on what is "fact" on their bad experiences. Just because your experience of something is not good, that doesn't make that something "not good" in and of itself. And, our experiences will not change what is true and what isn't, regardless of what we want to "believe." I think you know this, though, but I am just stating it for good measure.
This is fine, and I agree. What I get annoyed with sometimes is when your asked to "prove" something, or to at least bring evidence to the table, when no matter what you say or what evidence you bring, the person who asked you to 'prove' it will only discredit your evidence because it violates "their beliefs." This is what I find with most people who are anti-christian (which is not you, I don't think), and this attitude is just as close minded then the "Christians" whom they oppose.
Not really other followings, but other historical occurances. If you go back 400 years or more, there are historical "facts" that exist that are rarely disputed, because the evidence points in that direction. However, the evidence is often less, and of a lessor quality then the evidence pointing towards Jesus' existance. However, people will more readily discredit "Christian" evidence, while they are willing to believe other less supported conjectures. What is my point? I think that many non-christians today make decisions based on emotional hang ups, and are looking to discredit Christianity rather then looking for actual answers in an unbiased fashion. This is not everyone here, obviosly, but I feel that there are many who do this. The evidence for this is that they are willing to accept other "truths" that are often supported by less evidence then the "truths" in Christianity that they dispise.
:asian:
- Status
Similar threads
