Historicity of Jesus

[Doug1029]

15 hours ago, CJ1983 said:

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.

Thiering's hypothesis is at least plausible, which is more than can be said for most versions of Jesus' life.

I am always suspicious of "Christian" and "Jewish" scholars, fearing that they are putting their religion ahead of their scholarship.  It is EXTREMELY difficult to give up one's childhood beliefs, even in the face of overwhelming evidence to the contrary.

Thiering also has an advantage in that her sources are first-century documents, eye-witness accounts, even if coded.

Doug

P.S.:  If Thiering is right, I'm going to have to rethink a lot of my Bible history ideas.  If course, if I was right about the gospels being second-century constructs, then Thiering is wrong.  As she is a far better scholar than I in that area...

Doug

 

Edited September 5, 2017 by Doug1029

[Aquila King]

16 hours 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.

Not to veer too far off topic, but I find it strange that so many skeptics are quick to point this out in order to disprove the existence of Jesus. But when it comes to Astro-Theology they try to 'debunk' those same claims. Sounds rather contradictory to me.

[Will Due]

19 minutes ago, Doug1o29 said:

I am always suspicious of "Christian" and "Jewish" scholars, fearing that they are putting their religion ahead of their scholarship.  It is EXTREMELY difficult to give up one's childhood beliefs, even in the face of overwhelming evidence to the contrary.

"Neither do men put new wine into old wine skins, lest the new wine burst the skins so that both the wine and the skins perish. The wise man puts the new wine into fresh wine skins."

 

 

[Aquila King]

33 minutes ago, Will Due said:

 

56 minutes ago, Doug1o29 said:

I am always suspicious of "Christian" and "Jewish" scholars, fearing that they are putting their religion ahead of their scholarship.  It is EXTREMELY difficult to give up one's childhood beliefs, even in the face of overwhelming evidence to the contrary.

"Neither do men put new wine into old wine skins, lest the new wine burst the skins so that both the wine and the skins perish. The wise man puts the new wine into fresh wine skins."

To give up one's most cherished beliefs that they've had since childhood is to (in a sense) give up one's childhood. They'd have to essentially admit that their whole life up to that point has been one great big lie...

It's a very serious paradigm shift, one that should never be taken lightly. That's why I think there is so much hostility towards the atheist and 'skeptic' community (particularly those that engage others in debate in an attempt to deconvert). While certainly not true for all, many can be rather direct, assertive, and sometimes downright abrasive, when confronting others about their beliefs. It's easy for many of them to forget the extreme gravity of it all.

[Will Due]

5 minutes ago, Aquila King said:

To give up one's most cherished beliefs that they've had since childhood is to (in a sense) give up one's childhood. They'd have to essentially admit that their whole life up to that point has been one great big lie...

It's a very serious paradigm shift, one that should never be taken lightly. That's why I think there is so much hostility towards the atheist and 'skeptic' community (particularly those that engage others in debate in an attempt to deconvert). While certainly not true for all, many can be rather direct, assertive, and sometimes downright abrasive, when confronting others about their beliefs. It's easy for many of them to forget the extreme gravity of it all.

Quite the understatement AK.

"But whosoever causes one of these little ones to stumble, it would be better for him if a millstone were hanged about his neck and he were cast into the sea."

 

 

[Aquila King]

Just now, Will Due said:

Quite the understatement AK.

"But whosoever causes one of these little ones to stumble, it would be better for him if a millstone were hanged about his neck and he were cast into the sea."

Yeah, I can't believe I forgot about the whole 'atheists and skeptics are doing the devil's work and leading people to Hell' belief.  Now that I think about it, just scrap my original statement. That is probably the greatest source of contention.

[Stubbly_Dooright]

6 hours ago, eight bits said:

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.

If there was any poster who I thought would positively contribute to this particular thread, it's this guy! ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

8bits, my man!!!   

 

[Will Due]

34 minutes ago, Aquila King said:

Yeah, I can't believe I forgot about the whole 'atheists and skeptics are doing the devil's work and leading people to Hell' belief.  Now that I think about it, just scrap my original statement. That is probably the greatest source of contention.

It's also works in the other direction. 

Believers need to be sensitive with someone who's an atheist. They also have had childhood experiences that are held deep. 

Care needs to be given to protect against causing them to stumble as well.

 

 

[+Sherapy]

7 hours ago, eight bits said:

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.

This seems a great moment to say: I would be very surprised if Jesus was not a myth, but one can hope if it works for them. 

[Will Due]

18 minutes ago, Sherapy said:

This seems a great moment to say: I would be very surprised if Jesus was not a myth, but one can hope if it works for them. 

It will work for you too Sheri. Because he really does exist.

The universe provides for leadership and that's who he is. But he's much more. Think of him as a great friend. He's not less than that.

 

 

Edited September 5, 2017 by Will Due

[Will Due]

Think of Jesus as the leader of a great country who's also a member of your family who you know very well, accessible, familiar and accommodating, who's stayed overnight at your house many times.

 

 

Edited September 5, 2017 by Will Due

[Doug1029]

3 hours ago, Aquila King said:

To give up one's most cherished beliefs that they've had since childhood is to (in a sense) give up one's childhood. They'd have to essentially admit that their whole life up to that point has been one great big lie...

It's a very serious paradigm shift, one that should never be taken lightly. That's why I think there is so much hostility towards the atheist and 'skeptic' community (particularly those that engage others in debate in an attempt to deconvert). While certainly not true for all, many can be rather direct, assertive, and sometimes downright abrasive, when confronting others about their beliefs. It's easy for many of them to forget the extreme gravity of it all.

I am one of those who had to confront childhood religious training after finding it untenable in the face of physical reality.

Because it is a challenge is not an excuse for not doing it.

Doug

[Doug1029]

1 hour ago, Sherapy said:

This seems a great moment to say: I would be very surprised if Jesus was not a myth, but one can hope if it works for them. 

Whether true or false, or (more likely) somewhere in between, those stories came from someplace.  It's that someplace we seek.

Doug

[Aquila King]

26 minutes ago, Doug1o29 said:

Because it is a challenge is not an excuse for not doing it.

[I'mConvinced]

This topic always seemed irrelevant to me. It doesn't matter if he actually existed or not because:

1) It's completely unprovable. The best we can hope for are historical references to a person known as Jesus.

2) Even if it were possible to be proven true it doesn't corroborate anything that follows. King Midas couldn't turn objects to gold at a touch.

3) If proven false those who believe will shift the goalposts (Jesus was actually Hubbabubba Rami or whatever) and carry on whilst those that don't will be just as ardent as they are now.

4) He exists now regardless of physical reality. A story woven as truth, turned unquestionable by the passage of time.

Reading the thread was fascinating though and shows there is value in researching stuff you can't conclusively prove.

 

[Aquila King]

47 minutes ago, I'mConvinced said:

This topic always seemed irrelevant to me. It doesn't matter if he actually existed or not because:

1) It's completely unprovable. The best we can hope for are historical references to a person known as Jesus.

2) Even if it were possible to be proven true it doesn't corroborate anything that follows. King Midas couldn't turn objects to gold at a touch.

3) If proven false those who believe will shift the goalposts (Jesus was actually Hubbabubba Rami or whatever) and carry on whilst those that don't will be just as ardent as they are now.

4) He exists now regardless of physical reality. A story woven as truth, turned unquestionable by the passage of time.

Reading the thread was fascinating though and shows there is value in researching stuff you can't conclusively prove.

 

Absolutely true.

The only thing I would disagree with is in it being completely irrelevant. Only for the mere sake that knowing the truth is always better than not knowing, and so even if it's futile, I think it like every topic is worth exploring.

[Doug1029]

1 hour ago, Aquila King said:

Am I seeing things, or is that an Englishman in your picture?

Doug

[Aquila King]

Just now, Doug1o29 said:

Am I seeing things, or is that an Englishman in your picture?

Doug

 ...That's supposed to be Jesus...

[Aquila King]

Boy, nothin' better than explainin' ur own jokes. Yay.

[I'mConvinced]

1 minute ago, Aquila King said:

Absolutely true.

The only thing I would disagree with is in it being completely irrelevant. Only for the mere sake that knowing the truth is always better than not knowing, and so even if it's futile, I think it like every topic is worth exploring.

Indeed. It only seemed irrelevant to me at the time I considered the issue (a long time ago). As I've matured (41) I've come to understand the value of all information, not just information that seems important or interesting to me.

I don't have much of a formal education (beyond highschool level) and so it has taken interest rather than requirement to learn things. One of the things being an autodidact taught me is how often I am pleasantly surprised when I force myself to read around a subject that doesn't initially sound interesting. Mostly it turns out to be incredibly so.

[CJ1983]

6 hours ago, Aquila King said:

Not to veer too far off topic, but I find it strange that so many skeptics are quick to point this out in order to disprove the existence of Jesus. But when it comes to Astro-Theology they try to 'debunk' those same claims. Sounds rather contradictory to me.

How is it contradictory to anything?  Not many people worships the stars anymore.

[freetoroam]

 I do not doubt someone like a jesus figure existed. he was not the only man to preach for good and was not the only person claiming to be the messiah.

As it happens, the Jesus figure was originally Jewish, and the Jews have not named their messiah, so the obvious thing to do for those who had formed their own religion, named Christianity, would be to have their own messiah, so hence Jesus.

Remember the name jesus  is the Greek term, I do believe if jesus was an actual individual, then he would be surprised today that those calling him their messiah are not even using his given name.

But I believe the Jesus being followed is a mixture of many years of stories, and it is far easier to use one name than hundreds of individuals - all preaching the same thing and claiming the same status of being the messiah. 

[Aquila King]

9 minutes ago, CJ1983 said:

How is it contradictory to anything?  Not many people worships the stars anymore.

Because many will point out the similarities between Jesus and other religious figures to debunk Christianity, then turn around and claim there are no similarities between Jesus and other religious figures to debunk Astrotheology. That's a contradiction.

[CJ1983]

12 hours ago, eight bits said:

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.

Any good story teller can come up with a very plausible scenario for anything.  

What if I said Jesus did in fact live, however he never performed any sort of miracle whatsoever, but rather preached a peaceful and enlightening gospel for the masses to stop their evil ways.  Then people went high and right with all kinds of embellished stories to one up all of these pagan believers.  Basically, my guru is better than yours, kind of thing.  There was never a crucifixion or resurrection, but he did live to an old age and had a family.  But to find a blood relative today would prove nothing special about them, since Jesus was just another man, just like everyone else.  I'll even throw this out there, he was an amazing carpenter, gaining even more fans, he had the best sales on his goods, he invented the buy one get one half off sale.

I strongly believe the fear people have of death is what scares them into believing this religious nonsense.  Even Jesus was anti church, he didn't want the church to profit off of the poor.

Edited September 5, 2017 by CJ1983
spelling

[CJ1983]

1 minute ago, Aquila King said:

Because many will point out the similarities between Jesus and other religious figures to debunk Christianity, then turn around and claim there are no similarities between Jesus and other religious figures to debunk Astrotheology. That's a contradiction.

Are you suggesting that people actually believe in Osiris and all the others?