Did Jesus Exist?

[+Sherapy]

17 minutes ago, Habitat said:

I think he was just saying that the early writers had nothing to gain by pumping up a Jesus "myth", and possibly a lot to lose by coming into conflict with the powers that were.

How can anyone speak on behalf of anonymous writers, they cannot. Which he didn’t even know by the way. 

 None the less, he stood corrected. 

 

Edited January 22, 2020 by Sherapy

[Rlyeh]

8 hours ago, Crikey said:

 

I have total faith that the thousands of people who saw and heard Jesus were not hallucinating or lying or drunk..

You mean some people said thousands saw Jesus.

 

[Habitat]

8 minutes ago, Sherapy said:

How can anyone speak on behalf of anonymous writers, they cannot. Which he didn’t even know by the way. 

 None the less, he stood corrected. 

 

I think you misunderstand, he was just indicating there was no apparent motive for the earliest writers about Jesus to fabricate the story. Can you think of one ?

[Rlyeh]

10 hours ago, Crikey said:

Ehrman is an atheist so OF COURSE he'd say the bible is "incredibly difficult" to understand, it's a standard Establishment trick to try to make people think they're too dumb to understand it, but at least least he admits Jesus existed..-

Well you're certainly confused, accusing others of distorting the Bible when you rely on their very translations.

You'd have us believe that Jesus himself wrote the Bible in English.

Edited January 22, 2020 by Rlyeh

[+Sherapy]

18 minutes ago, Habitat said:

I think you misunderstand, he was just indicating there was no apparent motive for the earliest writers about Jesus to fabricate the story. Can you think of one ?

I wouldn’t even try to. What a waste of time. 
 

 

Edited January 22, 2020 by Sherapy

[Habitat]

Just now, Sherapy said:

I wouldn’t even try to. 
 

 

It isn't irrelevant, whenever someone tells you an unlikely story, you mind does turn to possible motives for it being fabricated.

[eight bits]

59 minutes ago, Habitat said:

It isn't irrelevant, whenever someone tells you an unlikely story, you mind does turn to possible motives for it being fabricated.

You've skipped a step. First, I might wonder whether the speaker believed their own story. Only if I felt it worth exploring the possibility that they didn't believe it, would I consider fabrication. Even then, there are competing hypotheses, like wishful thinking.

Fabrication does come up in connection with Mark because it is so exquisitely crafted from Jewish Bible and other written antecedents. Fabrication also comes up with the other synoptics, since so much of them is lightly edited copypasta from Mark. John is also exquisitely crafted; its relationship to Mark is subtler than the two complementary synoptics.

Note further that Paul had promised rewards for faith (which is not belief, but rather persistence in a consistent credal stance) and specifically for espousing his teachings. It is entirely possible to keep faith with a proposition despite lacking confidence in its truth.

As to Paul himself, I can't find anything in his letters about Jesus that would be out of place on the dream board here at UM. I don't think the posters there are "fabricating" their dreams, and some of them do express various shades of confidence that their dreams reflect the future or a past life or in whatever way a different reality than the dreamer's waking situation.

Finally, the fruits of communication are on both parties. While evidence of fabrication is plentiful in Mark, there is not even a hint of an intention to deceive. I cannot infer whether or not "Mark" beieves the basic story is true, whether he ever believed it and perhaps doesn't any longer, or only finds it of human interest that Paul apparently believed things for which Mark is one possible backstory. Butch and Sundance, the Early Years.

We do know that some of the readers of Mark accepted it as a religious text. Two of those readers, "Matthew" and "Luke," improved the work to make it more religiously focused. "Luke" even describes his religious intentions in doing so. Some later readers expressed their own belief that Mark was chronologically rearranged notes on the teaching of Peter (who, in turn, is portrayed as an eyewitness and participant in many of the events in the story - no such role for Peter is found in Paul).

You're simply wasting your time trying to explain these readers' reaction based on any intentional behavior of "Mark." His intentions are completely lost to us, and equally important, unavailable to his early audiences so far as we know.

On a point arising, there was no particular danger in writing an entertaining story about Jesus. The earliest credible dates for Mark are at the very end of Second Temple Judaism; those authorities had other problems to occupy them, like being the target of assassins while surrounded by a Roman army, or weren't authorities anymore.  For their part, the Romans cared about secret closed meetings among unrelated individuals, swearing private oaths and refusal to participate constructively in public life. None of those things are even depicted, much less advocated in Mark.

Edited January 22, 2020 by eight bits

[+Sherapy]

21 minutes ago, eight bits said:

You've skipped a step. First, I might wonder whether the speaker believed their own story. Only if I felt it worth exploring the possibility that they didn't believe it, would I consider fabrication. Even then, there are competing hypotheses, like wishful thinking.

Fabrication does come up in connection with Mark because it is so exquisitely crafted from Jewish Bible and other written antecedents. Fabrication also comes up with the other synoptics, since so much of them is lightly edited copypasta from Mark. John is also exquisitely crafted; its relationship to Mark is subtler than the two complementary synoptics.

Note further that Paul had promised rewards for faith (which is not belief, but rather persistence in a consistent credal stance) and specifically for espousing his teachings. It is entirely possible to keep faith with a proposition despite lacking confidence in its truth.

As to Paul himself, I can't find anything in his letters about Jesus that would be out of place on the dream board here at UM. I don't think the posters there are "fabricating" their dreams, and some of them do express various shades of confidence that their dreams reflect the future or a past life or in whatever way a different reality than the dreamer's waking situation.

Finally, the fruits of communication are on both parties. While evidence of fabrication is plentiful in Mark, there is not even a hint of an intention to deceive. I cannot infer whether or not "Mark" beieves the basic story is true, whether he ever believed it and perhaps doesn't any longer, or only finds it of human interest that Paul apparently believed things for which Mark is one possible backstory. Butch and Sundance, the Early Years.

We do know that some of the readers of Mark accepted it as a religious text. Two of those readers, "Matthew" and "Luke," improved the work to make it more religiously focused. "Luke" even describes his religious intentions in doing so. Some later readers expressed their own belief that Mark was chronologically rearranged notes on the teaching of Peter (who, in turn, is portrayed as an eyewitness and participant in many of the events in the story - no such role for Peter is found in Paul).

You're simply wasting your time trying to explain these readers' reaction based on any intentional behavior of "Mark." His intentions are completely lost to us, and equally important, unavailable to his early audiences so far as we know.

On a point arising, there was no particular danger in writing an entertaining story about Jesus. The earliest credible dates for Mark are at the very end of Second Temple Judaism; those authorities had other problems to occupy them, like being the target of assassins while surrounded by a Roman army, or weren't authorities anymore.  For their part, the Romans cared about secret closed meetings among unrelated individuals, swearing private oaths and refusal to participate constructively in public life. None of those things are even depicted, much less advocated in Mark.

Great post. 
 

Interesting, I didn’t even consider the Gospel Mark as fabricated. 
 

 

Edited January 22, 2020 by Sherapy

[Habitat]

31 minutes ago, eight bits said:

You've skipped a step. First, I might wonder whether the speaker believed their own story. Only if I felt it worth exploring the possibility that they didn't believe it, would I consider fabrication. Even then, there are competing hypotheses, like wishful thinking.

Huh ? Of course if someone is telling me a story, and they don't believe it themselves, naturally they ought indicate that, but if they don't say, and they think it a fabrication, they might as well be the original fabricator.

[Habitat]

lol....of course any story is susceptible of being false, if it involves extraordinary happenings, but it is also more likely to be false if someone gains an advantage by others believing it.

[Alchopwn]

2 hours ago, Habitat said:

I think you misunderstand, he was just indicating there was no apparent motive for the earliest writers about Jesus to fabricate the story. Can you think of one ?

Yes I can.  If the writing in question is actually about an allegorical person who never existed but represents a divine metaphor or exemplar presented in a contemporary setting for spiritual/educational purposes for the benefit of the otherwise unenlightened, we have a perfect motive.

Alternatively, and less benignly, If you are a con-artist and want people to give you money, you can pull a religious schtick, and because you have written it down, you seem more credible to illiterate people who hold reading in superstitious awe, plus you can say "here read this" to other people in similar scams, and they can't do much to gainsay you, as their own scam is also paper thin.

More specifically, if you look at the gospels from an historical-critical perspective, each one represents a particular political agenda within the Christ movement, which is part of why there are so many contradictions between the Gospels.  People tend to add them up and average them out into a combined narrative, but this in fact creates a fresh and fake gospel that is every bit as wrong as the others.

[Habitat]

2 minutes ago, Alchopwn said:

Yes I can.  If the writing in question is actually about an allegorical person who never existed but represents a divine metaphor or exemplar presented in a contemporary setting for spiritual/educational purposes for the benefit of the otherwise unenlightened, we have a perfect motive.

Alternatively, and less benignly, If you are a con-artist and want people to give you money, you can pull a religious schtick, and because you have written it down, you seem more credible to illiterate people who hold reading in superstitious awe, plus you can say "here read this" to other people in similar scams, and they can't do much to gainsay you, as their own scam is also paper thin.

More specifically, if you look at the gospels from an historical-critical perspective, each one represents a particular political agenda within the Christ movement, which is part of why there are so many contradictions between the Gospels.  People tend to add them up and average them out into a combined narrative, but this in fact creates a fresh and fake gospel that is every bit as wrong as the others.

As Elvis said, we can't go on, with suspicious minds, and never more true, when going to heart of this matter. If you see fraud at every turn, you will defraud yourself.

[Alchopwn]

5 minutes ago, Habitat said:

As Elvis said, we can't go on, with suspicious minds, and never more true, when going to heart of this matter. If you see fraud at every turn, you will defraud yourself.

That only applies to relationships, not matters of public discourse.  One should keep an open mind, which means one should always listen to the evidence, but that is not the same as surrendering one's skepticism just because one has heard evidence; that is called credulity.  Given that the Church lies so often about so much, it is safer to assume they are lying again than to assume they are telling the truth.  Trust is a two-way street, and the Church has blown their obligation repeatedly and with great cruelty.

Edited January 22, 2020 by Alchopwn

[Habitat]

12 minutes ago, Alchopwn said:

That only applies to relationships, not matters of public discourse.  One should keep an open mind, which means one should always listen to the evidence, but that is not the same as surrendering one's skepticism just because one has heard evidence; that is called credulity.  Given that the Church lies so often about so much, it is safer to assume they are lying again than to assume they are telling the truth.  Trust is a two-way street, and the Church has blown their obligation repeatedly and with great cruelty.

You seem to be confusing the church, with what is at the heart of the "real" religious impulse.

[Mr Walker]

22 hours ago, Piney said:

 

I was looking at the whole twisting of the facts on the Census of Quirinius. I didn't feel like arguing. 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Census_of_Quirinius#In_the_New_Testament

The wikipedia quote is wrong

First there were local census at different times and places.

Second, if these census were connected to establishing  tax liabilities, then the people  WERE required to go to their ancestral property 

Third it appears that, like  several others, Quirinius  had two  periods as an official  While one was outside the biblical framework for christs birth the other was directly in line with it .

[Mr Walker]

On 1/21/2020 at 8:18 PM, eight bits said:

Perhaps in another thread. Although there are many interesting questions about the first apostles and their actvities, their historicity is relatively secure. Regrettably, even if Jesus existed, his entire contribution to the effort seems to have been running his jaw. A 20th century discussion (e.g. this part of the UB) based on what Jesus supposedly said is no help in deciding whether he existed to say those things back in the 1st century.

 

Still waiting for evidence of this. Evidence would also be welcome for this claim:

and also for

Special wishes for good luck with that one, it's a well-known apologetic improvisation trying to reconcile Luke with Matthew within the contraints set by Josephus. You'll be the first to pull it off. I can hardly wait.

Did the Romans also reflect that distinction in their tax laws?

 

Read with enjoyment. Thanks for the pointer.

The sources  I gave included the historical information. If you  choose to disbelieve it, that is not surprising.

Sometimes there is not direct evidence for something, but enough evidence to prove that a story is plausible, given past precedents,  and cannot simply be called impossible, wrong,  or implausible 

There were many forms of roman census Some were for all of the empire some regional, and some quite local. The y also served different purposes  Where a census was to establish property ownership and tax liabilities the people had to  return to where the property was located ( in this case Bethlehem) 

Plus it appears there were either two census or two parts to the same one 

quote

A surviving papyrus document from the Roman province of Egypt in AD104 illustrates a census situation in the time of Trajan analogous to the census of Quirinius. The papyrus contains a command in Greek from the Prefect Gaius Vibius Maximus for all those in his area of authority to return to their own homes for the purposes of a census (apogaphēs).^[7][8] Gaius Vibius Maximus (AD 104) uses the same word apographa that the Gospel of Luke (c. AD 90) does, while Josephus (AD 98) uses the term apotimesis. Potentially this refers to two distinct parts of a census: first the assessment, and then the payment of taxes.^[9]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Census_of_Quirinius

There are thus historical precedents, particularly in the egyptian province, for this requirement,  so it is untrue to say roman law  never  required people to go back to their home town  for a census 

 

 

 

Edited January 22, 2020 by Mr Walker

[eight bits]

1 hour ago, Mr Walker said:

The papyrus contains a command in Greek from the Prefect Gaius Vibius Maximus for all those in his area of authority to return to their own homes for the purposes of a census (apogaphēs)

The recommended destination for some rural transients housed in the city is to return to their own hearths in the countryside, both for registration and to attend to agricultural tasks.

You need a census where all people must leave their own hearths to go to the birthplace of one of their 40-times great grandparents (more or less: if David had been a real person, then he would have flourished around 1000 BCE; the census referred to by Luke was in 6 CE). You need to think about what 40-times great grandparent means, how many of those each of us has, how many of us share at least one of the same 40-times great grandparents ...

Then you will understand why no census has ever worked that way, because no census could ever work that way.

For transcription and annotated translation of the edict:

https://www.kchanson.com/ANCDOCS/greek/census.html

This is an apologetic site; cited against my interest for your benefit and without my endorsement of any other material onsite. The document itself has been known for more than a century and its contents are uncontroversial. It is literally too little and too late to help you in the slightest.

Bigger picture: Face it, Mr W, you know nothing about Imperial Roman administrative procedures, taxation or otherwise.

Edited January 22, 2020 by eight bits

[Piney]

2 hours ago, Mr Walker said:

The wikipedia quote is wrong

First there were local census at different times and places.

Second, if these census were connected to establishing  tax liabilities, then the people  WERE required to go to their ancestral property 

Third it appears that, like  several others, Quirinius  had two  periods as an official  While one was outside the biblical framework for christs birth the other was directly in line with it .

@eight bits  

Hey Paul!  You nailed that one. Quoted directly from John Oakes, famed "Liar for Jesus".  

[+Sherapy]

1 hour ago, eight bits said:

The recommended destination for some rural transients housed in the city is to return to their own hearths in the countryside, both for registration and to attend to agricultural tasks.

You need a census where all people must leave their own hearths to go to the birthplace of one of their 40-times great grandparents (more or less: if David had been a real person, then he would have flourished around 1000 BCE; the census referred to by Luke was in 6 CE). You need to think about what 40-times great grandparent means, how many of those each of us has, how many of us share at least one of the same 40-times great grandparents ...

Then you will understand why no census has ever worked that way, because no census could ever work that way.

For transcription and annotated translation of the edict:

https://www.kchanson.com/ANCDOCS/greek/census.html

This is an apologetic site; cited against my interest for your benefit and without my endorsement of any other material onsite. The document itself has been known for more than a century and its contents are uncontroversial. It is literally too little and too late to help you in the slightest.

Bigger picture: Face it, Mr W, you know nothing about Imperial Roman administrative procedures, taxation or otherwise.

Of course he doesn’t, well done.  

[+Noteverythingisaconspiracy]

12 hours ago, psyche101 said:

This time its gonna happen. Honestly. We are in the midst of the end times.

............ just like we have been for almost 2000 years.

In short we have waited for Jesus for a third of the time the Earth have existed. 

[+Sherapy]

1 hour ago, Piney said:

@eight bits  

Hey Paul!  You nailed that one. Quoted directly from John Oakes, famed "Liar for Jesus".  

When I saw the “Wikipedia quote is wrong” I thought oh no he did not just  say that.

Edited January 22, 2020 by Sherapy

[Piney]

18 hours ago, Crikey said:

 

Ehrman is an atheist so OF COURSE he'd say the bible is "incredibly difficult" to understand,

So that's why he is one of the top theology instructors and translator. 

18 hours ago, Crikey said:

it's a standard Establishment trick to try to make people think they're too dumb to understand it, but at least least he admits Jesus existed..-

WIKI- " Ehrman agrees with Albert Schweitzer's thesis that Jesus was a Jewish apocalyptic preacher and that his main message was that the end times was near"

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bart_D._Ehrman

This is the Jesus he's talking about. 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jesus_ben_Ananias

[Piney]

8 minutes ago, Sherapy said:

When I saw the “Wikipedia quote is wrong” I thought oh no he did not just  say that.

And then when on the quote one of the biggest apologetic liars in the U.S. 

Oakes is a complete jackass who is too cowardly to debate any of the "Big Guns" yet always trashes them with lies. He joined RationalWiki to debunk a article just to get his butt whooped. 

[Crikey]

Hey guys and gals, as this is the 'Unexplained Mysteries' forum can anybody solve the mystery of why some people don't like Jesus? 

What is it about him that upsets them? And it might help if they openly stated their own beliefs so we'd at least have a clue what their agenda is, for example some pagans might like putting the boot into him but I dunno why. Personally I've got no beef with pagans, as Edward Woodward fully deserved being put in a wicker man for his bad acting, and Nic Cage deserved it in the remake for crushing a bumblebee on the pub bar.

Some Pagan customs are interesting, like when Christopher Lee presents this young boy to the landlords daughter so she can instruct him about sex; the scene might offend some people but personally I think he's a lucky little b*****d..

[Piney]

58 minutes ago, Crikey said:

What is it about him that upsets them? And it might help if they openly stated their own beliefs so we'd at least have a clue what their agenda is,

The physical and cultural genocide committed against Native Americans. Indigenous Siberians, Australian Aboriginals as with others. The destruction of knowledge science and reason throughout history. The "crutch" and End Times" issues keeping people from helping to save this world from human destruction. 

I was raised in the Shaman Caste and sent to Buddhist Temple to study. I wasn't raised believing in Angels, Demons or Spirits. I was taught the psychology behind those beliefs and religious manipulation. I am a ordained Zen Buddhist "Keeper" (Warrior-Monk) but I refused to become a Shaman because it involves lying to, and manipulating people. 

Edited January 22, 2020 by Piney
Urantia is Dreck