Why is that relevant? — T Clark

Why is not relevant?
who do you believe was the true Jewish Messiah, prophesied in the old testament from the list available? I choose none of them, including the fabled Jesus Christ.

Yeshua is Hebrew. Translated through Greek to English it became Jesus — T Clark

This makes your original point meaningless as the gospels were written in Greek so the character's name in Hebrew is not relevant to the gospels. Barabbas on the other hand is not a Greek name but it does have meaning in Hebrew.

According to the web, Jesus would have been known in as Yeshua Ben Yussuf; Jesus - son of Joseph; which was a common name when he lived — T Clark

Another point you should consider is that Ben Yussuf goes against the immaculate conception claim.
If the virgin birth is true then calling the character 'son of Joseph.' would be incorrect.

I don't understand your need to vehemently attack all angles of the Christian myth. It's seems to be an unbalanced position; a weird obsession. Of course, I've seen it a thousand times; nothing new.

I don't understand your need to vehemently attack all angles of the Christian myth. It's seems to be an unbalanced position; a weird obsession. Of course, I've seen it a thousand times; nothing new. — Noble Dust

Well, I disagree with your analysis of me and I am sure if I knew more about you, I would find some of your positions 'unbalanced' and 'weird' and 'obsessive,' and others would agree with me and others would agree with you and.......who would prove correct in the end, would depend on consequence.
It has been ever thus. We all have our dissenters, who cares?

Why is that relevant?
— T Clark

Why is not relevant?
who do you believe was the true Jewish Messiah, prophesied in the old testament from the list available? I choose none of them, including the fabled Jesus Christ. — universeness

According to the web, Jesus would have been known in as Yeshua Ben Yussuf; Jesus - son of Joseph; which was a common name when he lived. Christ was not his name, it was the designation he gave himself
— T Clark

Maybe true, but there were many others who also claimed such titles: — universeness

I don't see why the fact that others had claimed to be the Messiah is relevant. Also, my post was a response to this from you:

In Greek, even his name literally translates to Jesus(Saviour) Christ(Messiah), so his name is Saviour messiah.
— universeness — T Clark

I'm not Christian and I don't have strong feelings either way. But the statement from your post is not correct. That says nothing about the divinity or historicity of Jesus Christ.

This makes your original point meaningless as the gospels were written in Greek so the character's name in Hebrew is not relevant to the gospels. — universeness

Information I found on the web indicates the King James version of the Bible was a translation from Hebrew and Greek sources.

Another point you should consider is that Ben Yussuf goes against the immaculate conception claim.
If the virgin birth is true then calling the character 'son of Joseph.' would be incorrect. — universeness

We're not talking about immaculate conception, we're talking about the historicity of Jesus.

I don't understand your need to vehemently attack all angles of the Christian myth. It's seems to be an unbalanced position; a weird obsession. Of course, I've seen it a thousand times; nothing new. — Noble Dust

I'm not a theist, but the level of hatred for religion I see here on the forum bothers me. I think it calls into question the forum's claim of support for human rights and freedom of expression.

I don't see why the fact that others had claimed to be the Messiah is relevant. — T Clark

Ok, You don't, I do.

But the statement from your post is not correct. That says nothing about the divinity or historicity of Jesus Christ. — T Clark

Yes it is and yes it does. If you want a panto exchange then I can provide one for you until I get bored doing so. You just make statements you offer no reasoning worth rebuttle.

Information I found on the web indicates the King James version of the Bible was a translation from Hebrew and Greek sources — T Clark

I have already told you that the oldest manuscripts of the gospels are in Greek.

I am sure if I knew more about you, I would find some of your positions 'unbalanced' and 'weird' and 'obsessive,' — universeness

[joke] @Noble Dust's positions aren't unbalanced, weird, or obsessive, but he himself is.[/joke]

seems like you know him better than I.

Yes it is and yes it does. If you want a panto exchange then I can provide one for you until I get bored doing so. You just make statements you offer no reasoning worth rebuttle. — universeness

I agree with @Noble Dust's evaluation:

I don't understand your need to vehemently attack all angles of the Christian myth. It's seems to be an unbalanced position; a weird obsession. Of course, I've seen it a thousand times; nothing new. — Noble Dust

I'm not a theist, but the level of hatred for religion I see here on the forum bothers me. I think it calls into question the forum's claim of support for human rights and freedom of expression. — T Clark

I agree with you and largely abstain from jumping in the ring.

[joke] Noble Dust's positions aren't unbalanced, weird, or obsessive, but he himself is.[/joke] — T Clark

I feel seen... :yikes:

I'm not a theist, but the level of hatred for religion I see here on the forum bothers me. I think it calls into question the forum's claim of support for human rights and freedom of expression — T Clark

I have debated many theists. I cannot speak for others but I have never been accused by any of them as having a 'hatred for religion.' I argue against the 'lack of evidence,' for the claims preached in religious doctrine. I also suggest that it is a pernicious act to use such unreliable data as the basis of a moral code or for informing political or social policy. I understand the comfort some individuals get from the idea of god but I will protest vehemently against those who manipulate such human fear to line their own pockets. It may be fair to accuse me of hating those who abuse people by stealth using religion as their main tool but accusing me of hating religion or theists would be wrong. As I said I am only speaking for myself.

The Babylonians contributed their stories to a section of early people who they enslaved — universeness

Beyond doubt, Genesis borrows heavily from Summerian myths. The books of the OT are human inventions mixed with plagiarism. The whole monotheist thing could therefore be called a pagan hoax right from the start, if you judge by its history.

I agree with Noble Dust's evaluation: — T Clark

:rofl: Please try not to be so infantile. Put your big boy trousers on and then you will perhaps understand that not everyone on this forum cares very much about who you agree with. I for one, certainly don't.

Yes, I agree!

I have debated many theists. I cannot speak for others but I have never been accused by any of them as having a 'hatred for religion.' — universeness

I can only judge by what I've seen here on the forum.

not everyone on this forum cares very much about who you agree with. I for one, certainly don't. — universeness

You sure seem to care.

You sure seem to care — T Clark

Oh, I try my best not to give up on anyone, including you. Unless I am sure there is no space left to move within.

Just trying to help.

Ditto!

Why then focus on Jesus only? You might as well deconstruct Jeremy, Moses or Abraham... Way to go! :-)

To me, the guy Jesus seems one of the best to come out of that tradition. He was certainly not the worst Jewish prophet ever. And to my mind, the Greco-Roman world did need a little injection of Semitic wisdom, which they got through him...

This little injection almost destroyed the Roman empire, as per Gibbon.

I saw that debate and its an old one. Bart has become far more anti-theist since then, check out some of his latest YouTube offerings. — universeness

Bart being anti-theist has no bearing on my point. We were talking about how he views Jesus the man and I have seen most of Dr Ehrman's recent interviews (January 2022) wherein he maintains exactly the same position.

The most current views on Jesus (even from secular sources) is that he was a teacher of some kind who inspired some big myths. In fact over the past 50 years until now there has been a gradual consensus emerging that the mythicist view is very hard to justify.

It is unfortunate that a discussion of the historical sources and influences that shaped the writings of the Bible and its various interpretations is regarded by some as an attack motivated by hatred. There is an extensive scholarly literature on these matters. While there is disagreement, which sometimes gets heated, many of the scholars, on all sides of an issue, consider themselves religious. That they agree with those who consider themselves agnostic or atheist should give us pause.

I think this is what annoys me; the irony of a sort of fundamentalist proselytizing against the Christian myth.

regarded by some as an attack motivated by hatred — Fooloso4

I agreed with T Clark but this isn’t my position. I’ve read and continue to explore the literature myself. There’s a difference between a balanced, measured scholarship, and a mania resembling fundamentalism.

I’m not quite at the same point as you, but I know what you’re saying. None of the big three feel right, but I’m the closest to theism, without getting off track and going into detail. There’s a lot of malleability to these terms anyway.

Why then focus on Jesus only? You might as well deconstruct Jeremy, Moses or Abraham... :-)
To me, the guy Jesus seems one of the best to come out of that tradition. He was certainly not the worst Jewish prophet ever. And to my mind, the Greco-Roman world did need a little injection of Semitic wisdom, which they got through him...
This little injection almost destroyed the Roman empire, as per Gibbons — Olivier5

Well this thread is titled 'Jesus Freaks,' not 'Please fill in your chosen Messianic character freaks.'
So my main focus for this thread has been Jesus.

As to your second point, I can only disagree and say that I think the influence of Christianity on Western Culture and the actions it performed 'in the name of' has been devastating.

Like all other corruptions, the Roman Empire was doomed as all such manifestations are for a myriad of reasons but they don't really fully die as long as their main tenets survive. The legacy of the Roman Empire is alive and doing well, in the guise of the Vatican.
The Roman empire was soon replaced by variants. Today we have the American empire, The Russian empire, The Chinese empire and various other smaller empire's within Europe etc. Some or all of these will probably object to the name empire but I don't see enough difference to call them something less emotive.

It is unfortunate that a discussion of the historical sources and influences that shaped the writings of the Bible and its various interpretations is regarded by some as an attack motivated by hatred. — Fooloso4

It is certainly possible to have a reasonable and civil discussion about the historical accuracy of the Bible, but you generally won't find that here on the forum. I agree with Noble Dust:

There’s a difference between a balanced, measured scholarship, and a mania resembling fundamentalism. — Noble Dust

I think this is what annoys me; the irony of a sort of fundamentalist proselytizing against the Christian myth. — Noble Dust

Fire is fought with fire.

Fire is fought with fire. — baker

Good point