Historicity of Jesus

[Minimalists]

6 minutes ago, Aquila King said:

No, it has been proven by many to be a forgery.

http://www.truthbeknown.com/josephus.htm

Excerpt from the above article:

 

  Reveal hidden contents

 

A False Witness

Despite the best wishes of sincere believers and the erroneous claims of truculent apologists, the Testimonium Flavianum has been demonstrated continually over the centuries to be a forgery, likely interpolated by Catholic Church historian Eusebius in the fourth century. So thorough and universal has been this debunking that very few scholars of repute continued to cite the passage after the turn of the 19th century. Indeed, the TF was rarely mentioned, except to note that it was a forgery, and numerous books by a variety of authorities over a period of 200 or so years basically took it for granted that the Testimonium Flavianum in its entirety was spurious, an interpolation and a forgery. As Dr. Gordon Stein relates:

"...the vast majority of scholars since the early 1800s have said that this quotation is not by Josephus, but rather is a later Christian insertion in his works. In other words, it is a forgery, rejected by scholars."

So well understood was this fact of forgery that these numerous authorities did not spend their precious time and space rehashing the arguments against the TF's authenticity. Nevertheless, in the past few decades apologists of questionable integrity and credibility have glommed onto the TF, because this short and dubious passage represents the most "concrete" secular, non-biblical reference to a man who purportedly shook up the world. In spite of the past debunking, the debate is currently confined to those who think the TF was original to Josephus but was Christianized, and those who credulously and self-servingly accept it as "genuine" in its entirety.

Arguments Against Authenticity Further Elucidated

When the evidence is scientifically examined, it becomes clear that the entire Josephus passage regarding Jesus was forged, likely by Church historian Eusebius, during the fourth century. In "Who on Earth was Jesus Christ?" David Taylor details the reasons why the TF in toto must be deemed a forgery, most of which arguments, again, were put forth by Dr. Lardner:

• "It was not quoted or referred to by any Christian apologists prior to Eusebius, c. 316 ad.
• "Nowhere else in his voluminous works does Josephus use the word 'Christ,' except in the passage which refers to James 'the brother of Jesus who was called Christ' (Antiquities of the Jews, Book 20, Chapter 9, Paragraph 1), which is also considered to be a forgery.
• "Since Josephus was not a Christian but an orthodox Jew, it is impossible that he should have believed or written that Jesus was the Christ or used the words 'if it be lawful to call him a man,' which imply the Christian belief in Jesus' divinity.
• "The extraordinary character of the things related in the passage--of a man who is apparently more than a man, and who rose from the grave after being dead for three days--demanded a more extensive treatment by Josephus, which would undoubtedly have been forthcoming if he had been its author.
• "The passage interrupts the narrative, which would flow more naturally if the passage were left out entirely.
• "It is not quoted by Chrysostom (c. 354-407 ad) even though he often refers to Josephus in his voluminous writings.
• "It is not quoted by Photius, Patriarch of Constantinople (c. 858-886 ad) even though he wrote three articles concerning Josephus, which strongly implies that his copy of Josephus' Antiquities did not contain the passage.
• "Neither Justin Martyr (110-165 AD), nor Clement of Alexandria (153-217 ad), nor Origen (c.185-254 AD), who all made extensive reference to ancient authors in their defence of Christianity, has mentioned this supposed testimony of Josephus.
• "Origen, in his treatise Against Celsus, Book 1, Chapter 47, states categorically that Josephus did NOT believe that Jesus was the Christ.
• "This is the only reference to the Christians in the works of Josephus. If it were genuine, we would have expected him to have given us a fuller account of them somewhere."

 

 

Well according to Acharya S yes.....I agree that it is most likely a forgery.

[Guyver]

54 minutes ago, Aquila King said:

No, it has been proven by many to be a forgery.

http://www.truthbeknown.com/josephus.htm

Excerpt from the above article:

 

  Reveal hidden contents

 

A False Witness

Despite the best wishes of sincere believers and the erroneous claims of truculent apologists, the Testimonium Flavianum has been demonstrated continually over the centuries to be a forgery, likely interpolated by Catholic Church historian Eusebius in the fourth century. So thorough and universal has been this debunking that very few scholars of repute continued to cite the passage after the turn of the 19th century. Indeed, the TF was rarely mentioned, except to note that it was a forgery, and numerous books by a variety of authorities over a period of 200 or so years basically took it for granted that the Testimonium Flavianum in its entirety was spurious, an interpolation and a forgery. As Dr. Gordon Stein relates:

"...the vast majority of scholars since the early 1800s have said that this quotation is not by Josephus, but rather is a later Christian insertion in his works. In other words, it is a forgery, rejected by scholars."

So well understood was this fact of forgery that these numerous authorities did not spend their precious time and space rehashing the arguments against the TF's authenticity. Nevertheless, in the past few decades apologists of questionable integrity and credibility have glommed onto the TF, because this short and dubious passage represents the most "concrete" secular, non-biblical reference to a man who purportedly shook up the world. In spite of the past debunking, the debate is currently confined to those who think the TF was original to Josephus but was Christianized, and those who credulously and self-servingly accept it as "genuine" in its entirety.

Arguments Against Authenticity Further Elucidated

When the evidence is scientifically examined, it becomes clear that the entire Josephus passage regarding Jesus was forged, likely by Church historian Eusebius, during the fourth century. In "Who on Earth was Jesus Christ?" David Taylor details the reasons why the TF in toto must be deemed a forgery, most of which arguments, again, were put forth by Dr. Lardner:

• "It was not quoted or referred to by any Christian apologists prior to Eusebius, c. 316 ad.
• "Nowhere else in his voluminous works does Josephus use the word 'Christ,' except in the passage which refers to James 'the brother of Jesus who was called Christ' (Antiquities of the Jews, Book 20, Chapter 9, Paragraph 1), which is also considered to be a forgery.
• "Since Josephus was not a Christian but an orthodox Jew, it is impossible that he should have believed or written that Jesus was the Christ or used the words 'if it be lawful to call him a man,' which imply the Christian belief in Jesus' divinity.
• "The extraordinary character of the things related in the passage--of a man who is apparently more than a man, and who rose from the grave after being dead for three days--demanded a more extensive treatment by Josephus, which would undoubtedly have been forthcoming if he had been its author.
• "The passage interrupts the narrative, which would flow more naturally if the passage were left out entirely.
• "It is not quoted by Chrysostom (c. 354-407 ad) even though he often refers to Josephus in his voluminous writings.
• "It is not quoted by Photius, Patriarch of Constantinople (c. 858-886 ad) even though he wrote three articles concerning Josephus, which strongly implies that his copy of Josephus' Antiquities did not contain the passage.
• "Neither Justin Martyr (110-165 AD), nor Clement of Alexandria (153-217 ad), nor Origen (c.185-254 AD), who all made extensive reference to ancient authors in their defence of Christianity, has mentioned this supposed testimony of Josephus.
• "Origen, in his treatise Against Celsus, Book 1, Chapter 47, states categorically that Josephus did NOT believe that Jesus was the Christ.
• "This is the only reference to the Christians in the works of Josephus. If it were genuine, we would have expected him to have given us a fuller account of them somewhere."

 

 

As close to the "smoking gun" of proof is this part here.

""As I noted in The Jesus Legend, there is an ancient table of contents in the Antiquities which omits all mention of the Testimonium. Feldman (in Feldman and Hata, 1987, p. 57) says that this table is already mentioned in the fifth- or sixth-century Latin version of the Antiquities, and he finds it 'hard to believe that such a remarkable passage would be omitted by anyone, let alone by a Christian summarizing the work.'" (Wells, JM, 201)"

The only superior proof I can imagine is an actual ancient copy of the original FJ work for comparison to the modern versions.  Thanks to the Dead Sea Scrolls, an early version of Isaiah can be compared to our own modern bibles for analysis.  Such a find of FJ's work would settle this issue for good, I would think.  

[Minimalists]

Its claimed that Eusebius the great church father may have altered the passage...He was quite familiar with Josepheus' works.

[GlitterRose]

Zeitgeist has been debunked so much there's a site dedicated to every single line in every single film. 

https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=26&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=0ahUKEwjbnoWD1InWAhUD0iYKHZC2Cx44FBAWCEIwBQ&url=http%3A%2F%2Fskepticproject.com%2Farticles%2Fzeitgeist%2F&usg=AFQjCNGZJ1T0eypX33Tpp-s53oj1V5r9wA

Literally so much stupid in one single series that they needed an entire site just to sift through it all. 

Not to mention, it also gets very Anti-Semitic in the later films. 

Edited September 3, 2017 by ChaosRose

[Guyver]

2 hours ago, Aquila King said:

I've posted this before on other threads, but it pretty much sums up my view on the matter.

 

I see that ChaosRose has commented already regarding this....but as I watched this film and checked the facts, it is clear that it contains misinformation.  Specifically in comparing Jesus to Dionysus and Horus.  So, it's not a factually accurate  piece....though the general notion of common themes in various religions certainly is apparent from my studies. 

[Guyver]

38 minutes ago, Alien Prophet said:

Its claimed that Eusebius the great church father may have altered the passage...He was quite familiar with Josepheus' works.

And apparently, he is considered to have played a little "fast and loose" with the facts, and seems to think it OK to lie for God in order to serve a greater good.  From a quick internet search on Eusebius.  

[Mr Guitar]

To, me, all this talk of 'eternal life' and 'god' being our father is just pure foolishness. There is no evidence of eternal life and my father died in 1980 and is buried about 4 miles from here. Hard proof and facts are what's important to me, not faith and false expectations of some future golden city. I was brought up going to sunday school and church and questioned it from the very beginning. It just didn't make any kind of sense to, even my childhood mind, to place such importance on something that you couldn't hear, see, feel, or deduce by using rational, logical thinking. Personally, after going through a war in the late 60's, I am content in the knowledge that I will die at some point and there's nothing I or anyone else can do about it so it's, pretty much, a done deal - I may not like it - I'd like to stay around and see how all  this mess turns out but that's not in the cards and I've learned to live with it. Anymore, it's just become a non-issue to me.

[Will Due]

15 minutes ago, Mr Guitar said:

To, me, all this talk of 'eternal life' and 'god' being our father is just pure foolishness. There is no evidence of eternal life and my father died in 1980 and is buried about 4 miles from here. Hard proof and facts are what's important to me, not faith and false expectations of some future golden city. I was brought up going to sunday school and church and questioned it from the very beginning. It just didn't make any kind of sense to, even my childhood mind, to place such importance on something that you couldn't hear, see, feel, or deduce by using rational, logical thinking. Personally, after going through a war in the late 60's, I am content in the knowledge that I will die at some point and there's nothing I or anyone else can do about it so it's, pretty much, a done deal - I may not like it - I'd like to stay around and see how all  this mess turns out but that's not in the cards and I've learned to live with it. Anymore, it's just become a non-issue to me.

Sure it has. That's why your content to come here to see if anyone can convince you otherwise.

In case your wrong about it, that you're just in denial, and that you really are a son of God.

 

 

Edited September 4, 2017 by Will Due

[Stubbly_Dooright]

On 9/2/2017 at 6:25 PM, Guyver said:

I mean, I guess that pretty much sums up the question.  

You know, despite that I think I have seen a couple of threads here debating his existence, I think it's a bit on a positive note to see it as a simple, come right out and ask it type of question. Very thought provoking, I think.  

I wonder, if that is also left to how you believe. For me, a part of me would think, he did in a way, because how else did a religion, a belief, survived over two thousand years. *shrugs* I think, that his character, is something I respect and do hope he did go and teach others how to live rightly. In a sense. 

I have even watched and read shows and articles, that seem to find artifacts and such to point that maybe he did exist. 

Though, from my stand point, it seems nothing really pin points his existence in the objective, and it's all up to who believes it or not, the way I see it. 

On 9/2/2017 at 6:29 PM, ChaosRose said:

There were likely many dudes named Jesus. There certainly are now. 

I actually waited on a couple of them. One of them, when I was typing (spelling out) his name, I pronounced it (Hay-suess) (in which I remember the Spanish way it's pronounced, the guy got excited that I pronounced it correctly.  

On 9/2/2017 at 6:38 PM, Guyver said:

On 9/2/2017 at 6:37 PM, ChaosRose said:

Be awesome to each other. 

Even if other aholes are not always awesome to you!

Yeah, that's the hard part. ................... well, I feel that way!      Sorry. 

On 9/2/2017 at 6:40 PM, XenoFish said:

The sum of all religion at there most basic foundation is the golden rule. Do unto others as you'd have done to you. A simple rule to live by. 

I was waiting for those two to show up.   

On 9/2/2017 at 8:32 PM, Guyver said:

Didn't take much to flip that sucker off topic.  

Actually, I think it's still a bit on subject. Because I think your OP is on questioning whether Jesus was real, and I think it's kind of depends on he was thought and accepted to be real, while a lot of this, and the religion that was done from him, is based through belief. Am I correct on this? And this is all whether belief or objective facts is either depends on this. I think belief plays a big part in reflecting on the question of the OP, and I think it deals in how we believe. 

Well, I hope I could show how I look on this, as your thread staying on target. 

 

[Aquila King]

18 hours ago, Guyver said:

I watched this film and checked the facts, it is clear that it contains misinformation.  Specifically in comparing Jesus to Dionysus and Horus.  So, it's not a factually accurate  piece....though the general notion of common themes in various religions certainly is apparent from my studies. 

There are many skeptics that have claimed this (as always), and many who've come out supposedly writing long articles 'debunking' astro-theology, and yet they all make a number of false claims themselves.

http://stellarhousepublishing.com/zeitgeist-challenge.html

[Stubbly_Dooright]

On 9/2/2017 at 8:39 PM, XenoFish said:

At one time I'd fight tooth and nail against anyone on this topic. Now, I just don't care. I'm looking at the big picture. If the golden rule is all we need and trust that things might get better, what are we really arguing about? 

You know, Bingo!  That's how I have reflected on Jesus and what he was known for all of my life, (kind of) and I feel, or maybe totally wished, that he did exist and that what he did was help out making mankind more be more ............ kind!  

On 9/2/2017 at 10:49 PM, Mr Guitar said:

I'm of the opinion that humans, much like cows, butterflies, starfish, trees, or any other biological, living thing, function (live) until their systems wear out and they die, after which they break down into their molecular/atomic components. Some, like trees/plants and animal species who are not ceremoniously buried can then become nourishment for newer generations. Humans, OTOH, who are interred in caskets and vaults, just lay there and rot. Cremains also are wasted when locked inside urns - much better to be scattered where they have a chance of doing some good.

Oh, sorry - got away from the original question. Do I think Jesus actually existed? Nope!  Totally made up by shamans/priests who saw religion  as a way to profit from and control the population. Some people seem so afraid of dying and thinking for themselves that they tend to grab on to anything that gives them hope. If they would just accept that we all die at some point and get on with their lives, they would be a lot happier with fewer worries.

I can totally understand how you look at this. (I think your points on burials and cremations, I can agree on in a sense) but we are all different in thought, point of views, and such, that I think not everyone can accept and be comforted on just one particular point of view (whether it has been shown to be very true) There are some, who have their own evident shown reasons (yes subjective though) to why they may believe opposite that. I feel, that how logical what you pointed out it shows of life, and the environment, I have seen, it seems to be something that shows not to care anymore. I feel, there is more, and not just I'm wishing for that, but feelings some instinctual message from within me. I feel, that makes me happier that way. I know, that is not how it makes everyone happier, so everyone must be true to their inner reflections and the way they see their own world that is true to them. Whether it's through how you were raised or not, in the end, what one has truthfully gone down what ever ath, I think is the happiest. If indeed, they are grounded in the world, and it also has guided them to be kind and caring as well. 

Maybe that's why I see Jesus as a prominent person (or persona, or character, or such....) in this world. Whether he was divinely created, or really was naturally brought here, his path could be an inspiration through belief or non-belief. *shrugs*. I think, also, that maybe considering if he existed or not, can be a very thought provoking path to go down.  

On 9/3/2017 at 2:42 AM, Guyver said:

I don't see why a person needs that.  And no offense to you or your beliefs, but any "new age religion" that needs to bring Jesus into it is just off, IMHO.  The reason is that the notion of Jesus the way the Christians teach is based upon the doctrine of original sin, which came from Paul.  Jesus didn't believe that.  He said the little children already were saved, and had angels.  He also said that he didn't come to call the righteous but sinners, to repentance. 

So, original sin being the reason that someone needs a savior, is just off to begin with because it assumes that God cursed the very creation that he made, plus all the people in it.  

I can't accept God being like that at all, and further.....the bible itself is conflicted about his actual nature which makes the whole thing more dubious IMHO.  

 

I'm so glad to be reading this. And it is enlightening to read what I have been confused of, from someone who seems to be raised in religion, where as I was not. Growing up not really knowing about 'sin' and 'being saved from it', I often wonder why so many go through the energy of being saved by something that seems to not have something mixed in the natural world. (from my stand point, that is) 

If I have had any way of translating this to fit my journey of a secular raised child, a couple of years of no belief in my young adulthood, to my unique New Age path from then until now, I feel, that a more natural, (probably realistic way of looking at it) is finding that Jesus was actually real back then and was a person who went through life selflessly showing how others show behave to be true humanity. If anything, I like to believe he existed to be someone to be inspired by, like MLK, Mother Theresa, Ghandi, Princess Diana (yes! I put her in there!), and then others still alive today. (Yes, I'm going to put, in my personal feeling, ............... wait for it! ................................... Elon Musk! .................................... talk among yaselves!   ) 

On 9/3/2017 at 2:49 AM, Guyver said:

Anyway, I guess I just needed to say that.  So thank you all for listening, and talk about whatever.  

PS.  Please remember that i'm new here.  Even though I was here years ago, just coming back to it now means I don't know what's been going on for the last many years.  

Welcome back!

On 9/3/2017 at 3:19 AM, Will Due said:

On 9/2/2017 at 8:37 PM, XenoFish said:

Well consider this. Even if the biblical Jesus didn't exist. What was the real meaning behind "his" message? On UM we've had this particular debate for as long as I can remember. It's a reoccurring thing.

Jesus did and does exist. But he is not the biblical Jesus. Why is this true? Because Christianity is the religion about him, compromised, a distortion of his message. Christianity is not Jesus's religion.

Much like I like to feel, (as I have posted myself here) I like to think he existed naturally and undivinely, do we really have objective facts that he really did exist?  

On 9/3/2017 at 3:57 AM, Susanc241 said:

"2)Well. I found no personal subjective evidence for any type of God having any influence within my life. I figure that my brain just isn't wired to believe like a lot of people are. Maybe it's a pro or a con of evolution. Life is a random chaotic and in many regards futile."

From my perspective, couldn't have put it better.  As to Jesus, I have always believed he probably did exist but he was nothing more than a charismatic teacher, 100% human, certainly not the 'son of God'.  He may have been a composite of several people on which the bible Jesus's life was based.

I have noticed this throughout various posts and from various posters. The claiming and the talk about being wired to believe or not to believe. I'm a bit  about it, but feel how can one consider a god and a Jesus, if they think they need something biologically to do so? If something is real, everyone would believe in it. If something is not, but it depends on whether there is a gene in your body to do so? 

I get that some, (from my point of view, observations, and what I feel I may have.... my belief mind you) have a sensitivity toward things, like sensitive to various paranormal things, but it isn't saying it's sensitive to a particular thing, like saying you have the god gene or something. 

On 9/3/2017 at 5:45 AM, DieChecker said:

Did Jesus actually exist?

If we're giving opinions, then I'm going to say... Yes, he did live and breath and eat and teach and die on a cross.

If we're going to ask for proof.... I'm going to have to say that many scholars of middle eastern history think the probability is high that there was a teacher who claimed to be the Christ and was named Jesus. BUT... other then circumstantial evidence, there isn't much proof which hasn't had the chance of being tampered with. 

I do agree with ChaoRose that the teachings of Jesus are more important then a fight over if he was real, or imagined.

Makes me wonder, thousands of years from now, Dr. Martin Luthur King would be considered a myth by then? 

 

[Stubbly_Dooright]

11 hours ago, Mr Guitar said:

To, me, all this talk of 'eternal life' and 'god' being our father is just pure foolishness. There is no evidence of eternal life and my father died in 1980 and is buried about 4 miles from here. Hard proof and facts are what's important to me, not faith and false expectations of some future golden city. I was brought up going to sunday school and church and questioned it from the very beginning. It just didn't make any kind of sense to, even my childhood mind, to place such importance on something that you couldn't hear, see, feel, or deduce by using rational, logical thinking. Personally, after going through a war in the late 60's, I am content in the knowledge that I will die at some point and there's nothing I or anyone else can do about it so it's, pretty much, a done deal - I may not like it - I'd like to stay around and see how all  this mess turns out but that's not in the cards and I've learned to live with it. Anymore, it's just become a non-issue to me.

I'm kind of with you on this. My life, seems to be the opposite of your's. Grew up secular, not going to any religious activities, meetings, or such in a building, and not reading anything of religious nature in a book, (ie: the bible), so I have come to my conclusions from the beginning, that I can't see how the mainstream religions, like Christianity, can be true to my point of view. But, because of this, (for my thoughts and observations here) I have come to experience things, that have me going into my path of unique New Age beliefs, because I also can't see how what I have experienced be explained away by natural means. Plus, a lot of those experiences seem to resonance with me, like I'm being guided by it. (but yes, I feel that's only subjective, in which I accept it as such) 

I feel, that our experiences as children and what and how we are raised, can add into how we view things as adults, by what we see as true, and what see as not true in an adult lives, and going from there. 

11 hours ago, Will Due said:

11 hours ago, Mr Guitar said:

To, me, all this talk of 'eternal life' and 'god' being our father is just pure foolishness. There is no evidence of eternal life and my father died in 1980 and is buried about 4 miles from here. Hard proof and facts are what's important to me, not faith and false expectations of some future golden city. I was brought up going to sunday school and church and questioned it from the very beginning. It just didn't make any kind of sense to, even my childhood mind, to place such importance on something that you couldn't hear, see, feel, or deduce by using rational, logical thinking. Personally, after going through a war in the late 60's, I am content in the knowledge that I will die at some point and there's nothing I or anyone else can do about it so it's, pretty much, a done deal - I may not like it - I'd like to stay around and see how all  this mess turns out but that's not in the cards and I've learned to live with it. Anymore, it's just become a non-issue to me.

Sure it has. That's why your content to come here to see if anyone can convince you otherwise.

In case your wrong about it, that you're just in denial, and that you really are a son of God.

 

I don't understand this, Will. I feel Mr. Guitar is coming here to input his opinions of this. Like I feel, you do as well. I don't think there is a hidden agenda in his posts, as much as I don't feel you are doing that as well. 

Unless, I'm misunderstanding you, and yes please correct me.  

 

[AlienzTruth]

On 2017-09-03 at 0:25 AM, Guyver said:

I mean, I guess that pretty much sums up the question.  

Who really knows. We can only guess.

I believe he did exist. But I also believe the religions of the world have spun the whole thing to fit their own religion.

[Will Due]

54 minutes ago, Stubbly_Dooright said:

 

Much like I like to feel, (as I have posted myself here) I like to think he existed naturally and undivinely, do we really have objective facts that he really did exist?  

 

For me subjectively, that would be the Urantia Book Stubbly. It's hard to ignore.

 

 

[Stubbly_Dooright]

23 minutes ago, Will Due said:

1 hour ago, Stubbly_Dooright said:

 

Much like I like to feel, (as I have posted myself here) I like to think he existed naturally and undivinely, do we really have objective facts that he really did exist?  

 

For me subjectively, that would be the Urantia Book Stubbly. It's hard to ignore.

Are you including the phrase, "It's hard to ignore" as your subjective outlook? Or is this what you are telling me to see it as? 

Just asking, that's all. 

If this is considered an objective statement, I would say, it has been easier for me to ignore all of my life, to this point. And much I can 'glean' from your postings of the UB, I can't fully go through it, reading it and get something from it, all in one sitting. I guess, where my slight learning disability is concerned coupled with how I spirituality see things, it has been easy for me to ignore. 

   Sorry  

 

[Doug1029]

For a very interesting take on the question of "Did Jesus exist?" read "The Jesus Christ Pesher:"  http://www.peshertechnique.infinitesoulutions.com/

In brief:  the author, Barbara Thiering, answers "Yes, but..."  Jesus existed, but was a man, not a god.  The crucifixion actually happened, but at Qumran, not Jerusalem.  Jesus survived the crucifixion and eventually settled in Rome where he lived into his 70s.  She even names the house where he lived and the names of his children (He had four.).

This is based on pesher rules given in one of the Dead Sea Scrolls on how to interpret the books of Matthew, Mark, Luke, John and Revelation.  The pesher calls the version of the gospels we have "children's stories."

One question I have had, along with a lot of others, is why is there no contemporary historical mention of Jesus, particularly from writers like Philo of Alexandria.  That is easy to explain if the crucifixion took place at an obscure religious retreat in the desert.  This account explains so many of the question we have discussed at UM that it is well worth the effort needed to read and understand it.

Warning:  it is quite scholarly and will require a lot of effort.  It gives an account of Jesus' life that is quite different from the one portrayed in churches, so it takes a little getting used to.

After reading it, I consider the question of "Did Jesus exist?" answered.

Doug

[Will Due]

2 minutes ago, Stubbly_Dooright said:

Are you including the phrase, "It's hard to ignore" as your subjective outlook? Or is this what you are telling me to see it as? 

Just asking, that's all. 

If this is considered an objective statement, I would say, it has been easier for me to ignore all of my life, to this point. And much I can 'glean' from your postings of the UB, I can't fully go through it, reading it and get something from it, all in one sitting. I guess, where my slight learning disability is concerned coupled with how I spirituality see things, it has been easy for me to ignore. 

   Sorry  

 

There is nothing wrong with that Stubbly. 

I haven't been able to ignore God's indwelling me, us. That's wjy the UB came to me I'm certain. I've been reading it for 35 years and I still don't comprehend many things it reveals.

It's for the future really. Our descendants. 

 

 

[Stubbly_Dooright]

30 minutes ago, Will Due said:

There is nothing wrong with that Stubbly. 

I haven't been able to ignore God's indwelling me, us. That's wjy the UB came to me I'm certain. I've been reading it for 35 years and I still don't comprehend many things it reveals.

It's for the future really. Our descendants. 

Oh, ok, you're saying it was hard for you to ignore. I get it now. In which, cool   keep up your good work!   I have found other things that I couldn't ignore, and yes, some of it was brought on by different things, like autobiographical books by Carol Burnett.    

 

[eight bits]

Stubbly

You've pretty much got the state of the controversy right. A real focal teacher, even an underachieving hard-luck one, explains a lot. Then again, so does a vivid imagination, a Jewish Bible and a few visionary exercises. No way to tell now for sure, and it could have been a bit of both.

I laughed at the latest episode of "Stubbly's Adventures in Retailing:"

Quote

the guy got excited that I pronounced it correctly

Here in the States, it must be kinda like being a Boy Named Sue (but of course, no big deal wherever Spanish is spoken).

 

Edited September 4, 2017 by eight bits

[Stubbly_Dooright]

1 hour ago, eight bits said:

Stubbly

You've pretty much got the state of the controversy right. A real focal teacher, even an underachieving hard-luck one, explains a lot. Then again, so does a vivid imagination, a Jewish Bible and a few visionary exercises. No way to tell now for sure, and it could have been a bit of both.

I laughed at the latest episode of "Stubbly's Adventures in Retailing:"

Here in the States, it must be kinda like being a Boy Named Sue (but of course, no big deal wherever Spanish is spoken).

 

Sometimes, names and how they are said, means something to some. And I can understand, ...............     

Loved the song there, I thought it was funny.   

 

[Stubbly_Dooright]

2 hours ago, eight bits said:

I laughed at the latest episode of "Stubbly's Adventures in Retailing:"

I'm so glad I could could entertain!     

I like that! I like that title, "Stubbly's Adventures in Retailing" That sounds like a book in the making!    

[CJ1983]

Well "Jesus" has gone by many other names, just like gasp, "Satan".

Jesus has a lot of basis off of Ra, Dionysus, Horus, Osiris, and plenty of others.  The walking on water, water to wine, raising the dead, rising after sacrifice 3 days later, virgin birth, etc.  All of those miracles have been done over and over in prior religions.  nothing new about any christian bible story really.

[Doug1029]

4 minutes ago, CJ1983 said:

Well "Jesus" has gone by many other names, just like gasp, "Satan".

Jesus has a lot of basis off of Ra, Dionysus, Horus, Osiris, and plenty of others.  The walking on water, water to wine, raising the dead, rising after sacrifice 3 days later, virgin birth, etc.  All of those miracles have been done over and over in prior religions.  nothing new about any christian bible story really.

All those "miracles" have perfectly rational explanations that are given in the Jesus Christ Pesher (SDee Post 66).

Doug

[CJ1983]

2 minutes ago, Doug1o29 said:

All those "miracles" have perfectly rational explanations that are given in the Jesus Christ Pesher (SDee Post 66).

Doug

You should find better sources.  Her "findings" have been rejected by Christian scholars as well as Jewish scholars.  Not even the religious nuts want anything to do with her.

[eight bits]

The late Barbara Theiring was well trained and highly qualified to construct her hypothesis. I don't like it as much as Doug does, but it's seriously possible and a banquet for thought.

At the moment, "different but real Jesus" hypotheses are a hard sell. The "Guild" (the lock-step majority of New Testament scholars; it doesn't matter what religion any Guild member follows) rallies around a Jesus who can be identified from a literal reading of the unmiraculous parts of the canonical Gospels. Their Jesus is a First Century Jewish preacher, baptized by John,  crucified in Jerusalem by Pilate's Romans, whose surviving students founded Christianity. Arrayed against the Guild are "mythicists," whose Jesus is entirely built from pagan myths and Jewish scripture, with followers that included a faction who enriched the myths with a specific earthly setting. Later, that faction became the movement's mainstream.

Different-but-real Jesus hypotheses include Lena Einhorn's time shift hypothesis (a Jesus based on the rebels that Josephus wrote about, with names and dates changed to avoid provoking Roman law enforcement), and Thiering's  pesher-based reading, where the gospels are for the general public and the real meaning is known only to the "insiders." These ideas don't help the Guild (the "records" are coded and cannot be read literally), and don't help the mythicists, either (there is more than one way to "decode" the gospels which gives a coherent story). That is, the ideas have no "natural constituency," and so are roundly rejected.

That's not much of a reason to rule out a possibility, IMO. Plus, fashions change. Stay tuned.