Did Jesus Exist?

[Jodie.Lynne]

Just now, Crikey said:

 

When the Old T prophets foretold the coming of the Messiah centuries before he arrived, they didn't know whether his name was going to be Charlie, Harry, Chuck, Arnie or Leroy etc, so they gave him the abstract name "Emmanuel" which in context meant "God has got our backs".

how convenient.

So the prophecy isn't a prophecy then.

[Mr Walker]

17 hours ago, eight bits said:

Actually, I take Luke at his word, 1:1-4

Taken at face value, Luke did some research using the sources available to him, including  sources with which he expresses some dissatisfaction, and constructed his own narrative as best he could. Note also that he makes no mention of having consulted any non-religious source, which may help to account for his getting the details of the thoroughly secular census wrong.

I am a great believer in the heuristic Do not attribute to malice what can be fully explained by incompetence. I have not attributed deceit to Luke; how interesting that you should pretend that I had. Perhaps you should talk that over with Habbie, he's the local expert in why people do interesting things.

As to when Luke wrote, he places himself in the third generation of Christians (after eyewitnesses and servants), so about 50-60 years after the supposed events, or maybe 85-95 CE. That squares well with the typical early end of the range of dating for Luke, 80-130. The later end is so much later because of a specific minority-opinion theory about Marcion, to which I do not subscribe.

http://earlychristianwritings.com/

So, Luke is writing a lifetime after Pilate left office (ie, approximately the typical life expectancy in his time and place). Only a very few adults who had lived through the departure of Pilate from Judea would still be living, and they would all be elderly. As you and I have discussed earlier in the thread, it could hardly have mattered even if contrary witnesses were younger and more numerous, since they would have no remedy and  no way to correct the record.

On a point arising,

There are many definitions of "the" historical Jesus hypothesis, and there ought to be, since different aspects of history are more important in some discussions than in others. My own personal default defintiion (for general purpose use, trumped if I'm in a discussion where another definition has been agreed upon): the personage whom Paul refers to as the Lord Jesus Christ in his seven accepted letters was a real man whom Paul believed to be a deceased contemporary.

Given the broad target cross-section which Paul leaves open by saying so little about this hypothetical personage (Jewish, apparently a minister of some kind to other Jews, died violently and was gibbeted, maybe a few other things that could be interpreted as earthly), I do find it entirely credible that some such person really existed. Moreover, given the impoverished state of the available evidence, I find it effectively impossible to rule out such a figure having lived.

I estimate that there was no time after Pilate left Judea (36 or early 37 CE) when anybody could have ruled out the existence of some such figure.,Almost certainly not after the sack of Jerusalem in 70 CE, by an amazing coincidence, about when the gospels begin to spring up like weeds. Conversely, nobody except an eyewitness (if any) could say of their own knowledge that any specific person actually did fill Paul's specs, and nobody, full stop, could know that exactly one person filled those specs.

(In a recent post, Sherapy gave a slightly different definition of a historical Jesus. Close enough to mine for government work.)

 

Ok First post of yours for a while with which i entirely agree  

While i said lie(as in falsehood)  i was also thinking that there could be many reasons for luke to get it wrong .

However, some argue that the trip to bethlehem was a later fabrication  designed to show jesus  as fulfilling prophecy.

  I did say that i thought any error was genuine rather than a conspiracy. However i am not so sure that luke was actually wrong.

History isn't clear enough on the specific date of christs birth, or some of the surrounding events, to totally discredit it. 

[Mr Walker]

17 hours ago, Alchopwn said:

Again.  All the claims of the god believers is based on scripture.  Without these scriptures they are simply madmen howling at the tumbleweeds.  When you disprove the claims of the scripture, you disprove the whole damn thing.  I have repeatedly disproven the scripture, ergo, the claim is null and void.  There is no need for ambivalence or agnosticism, for there is no god of the Bible that cannot be explained by other means.  There is  also no "test" unless you mean a test for gullibility, in which case you are the one who failed.  

Untrue. Many humans claim direct personal experience or contact with god(s) or their avatars/angels etc

For me, scripture is just a  mix of (a little)  history, teaching stories, rules for good living, interwoven with the  presumed existence of a loving god 

Tell me, how can you"disprove" anything in scripture ?  Its relatively easy to"disprove " the creation myth, but even that relies on some beliefs (ps I am a strict evolutionist) 

However, most of the rest is impossible to disprove, especially given that many humans today have their own miracles and contact experiences.

Plus, of course, absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. 

It is logical to disbelieve, but impossible to disprove, scripture, because such proofs also rely on beliefs eg that miracles do not occur,  or that there are no such entities as "gods " or anything resembling them.

[Jodie.Lynne]

7 minutes ago, Mr Walker said:

History isn't clear enough on the specific date of christs birth, or some of the surrounding events, to totally discredit it.

You are aware, I hope, that "Christ" is not a name, but a title, yes?

[Crikey]

14 minutes ago, Jodie.Lynne said:

how convenient.So the prophecy isn't a prophecy then.

Alright Miss Cleverclogs, tell us who the donkey prophecy WAS about if not about Jesus?.. 

Here it is again- "See, your king comes to you riding on a donkey" (Zechariah 9:9)

Edited January 26, 2020 by Crikey

[Jodie.Lynne]

6 minutes ago, Crikey said:

Alright Miss Cleverclogs, tell us who the donkey prophecy WAS about if not about Jesus?.. 

Here it is again- "See, your king comes to you riding on a donkey" (Zechariah 9:9)

Just retrofitting events to match a 'prophecy', nothing more.

Since you love posting movie images to support your beliefs, try watching "The Man Who Would Be King", it illustrates beautifully, the act of 'making prophecy come true'

[Mr Walker]

13 hours ago, psyche101 said:

May I draw on your knowledge to ask if it's likely that Nazareth actually existed during the alleged lifetime of Jesus.

"Recently" shown to actually exist at that time,  and some archaeological digs have shown its size and scope. Some even think the y may have found the house where jesus lived  

https://www.livescience.com/49997-jesus-house-possibly-found-nazareth.html

https://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=121724812

quote

Consider the following:

Tombs with fragments of ossuaries have been excavated in Nazareth, indicating a Jewish presence there in the first century.3 

A first-century courtyard house discovered in Nazareth. Photo Credit: Israel Antiquities Authority

Hellenistic and early Roman artifacts, including pottery shards, a cooking jar, and lamps discovered in the 1969 Nazareth excavations led by Bellarmino Bagetti, come from a first-century context.4

In 1997 and 1998, excavations at Mary’s Well, an ancient spring in Nazareth, led by archaeologist Yardenna Alexandra revealed coins from the Hellenistic and early Roman periods – coins that would have been used in the time of Jesus.5

In 2009, a first-century dwelling was discovered  in which were found pottery and chalk stone vessel shards which date from the late Hellenic through Early Roman periods (100 BC to 100 AD)7

Another first-century courtyard house was excavated in Nazareth, which still had windows and doors intact. In 2015 Dr. Ken Dark, the lead archaeologist, noted evidence of early Christian veneration at the site, suggesting that it may have been the childhood home of Jesus.9

https://biblearchaeologyreport.com/2018/08/09/did-first-century-nazareth-exist/

 

Edited January 26, 2020 by Mr Walker

[Mr Walker]

9 hours ago, Sherapy said:

I am gonna write this off as Red Bull ramblings. 
 

Get some rest, all the best. 

lol typical arrogant dismissal rather than reading and understanding something which is  actually simple and clear.

Character has two meanings 

The existence of a person

the nature of a person

The existence of the person (jesus)  is a matter of historical fact 

The nature pf the person (jesus)  is a matter of belief

You believe the person was real but that the character/nature attributed to him, was not 

I believe the person was real, and keep an open mind on his nature. 

 

[Mr Walker]

9 hours ago, Crikey said:

 

Yes, biblical "miracles" are simply a   "Superscience" that we as yet know nothing about.

Well  some of us have personal experiences with its effects, but I agree, the science behind it is as yet unknown to humans.  

[Mr Walker]

6 hours ago, Alchopwn said:

Assuming the Lazarus story is even true, there are examples of people who have lain dead on battlefields for as long as 2 weeks, presumed dead and in a vegetative state who have spontaneously woken up.  This is before we get into issues like catalepsy, various forms of paralytic poisoning that can be mistaken for death, and all the other known ways that someone can be brought back from the dead.  If you want to impress me, show me an instance where a miracle has caused someone to regrow a severed limb.

mm !! science is getting there.  But then of course ,it won't be miraculous  

 

quote

 

Gardiner has studied salamander regeneration for decades, seeking the underlying mechanism of the superpower. Human regeneration, he said, is likely still in the future, but not too far off — it's possible one of his current graduate students or postdoctoral researchers will crack it, and limb regeneration will be a part of the medical toolkit. [11 Body Parts Grown in the Lab]

That's because, in theory, regrowing a human limb should be possible. In skin, for instance, if the cuts aren't deep, there will be no scarring due to the healing process that regenerates skin cells. It's also possible for humans to regenerate the very tips of the fingers if the cells under the fingernails are still intact. Bones will knit together if you rejoin the pieces, say, with a screw or a cast. Human livers can also grow to fill the space and rebuild some of the structure that was damaged.

https://www.livescience.com/59194-could-humans-ever-regenerate-limbs.html

Edited January 26, 2020 by Mr Walker

[Mr Walker]

6 hours ago, Alchopwn said:

Self delusion is not psychological maturity.  Doing magic tricks to please crowds is not psychological maturity.  Has it never occurred to you that perhaps the so-called ephemera of the world is the real stuff, and this other material is straight out nonsense and the product of a disordered mind?  I mean, I know the stigma that mental illness carries for many people, and it may be easier to claim psychic power than admit mental illness, and a lot less risk to the narcissist's self image, rather than admitting they might be wrong, and maybe there isn't some sort of magic dude in the sky who looks after them personally.  Altered states of consciousness aren't caused by magic, they're caused by alteration in neurochemistry.  You can study it and learn to control it.  Most genuine mystics are simply people who have trained their minds to give them hits of their brain's natural morphine without being injured.  They are literally addicted to their body's own painkillers.  It's quite a feat, and it also isn't a good look.   Time to put away childish things. 

Who says, and can prove, that it is ALL delusional? 

You are in error to believe that all such contact is unreal, non physical, and pure delusion or hallucination.

Such things cannot save a life, alter the physical environment, or physically heal a person   That takes something physical to achieve 

There is a lot of sense in your post but there are two  aspects to this. 

Internal mental experiences, and external physical experiences. Both occur to humans

ps cognitive control of your body is a good thing, compared to using external drugs etc You control and manipulate the chemicals, and the y are produced within your body This is safer than introducing external physical chemicals to alter brain states  Doctors are now using cognitive ability to reduce patient use of, and dependency on, addictive painkillers Perception of pain can be reduced by at least 50% by using cognitive discipline and control.  This can mean not having to prescribe physical opioids etc.

It can even be used to greatly reduce chronic pain,  which often becomes predominantly mental rather than physical .    

[+Sherapy]

56 minutes ago, Mr Walker said:

lol The ultimate materialist

Think on this.

Even today there are many things we do not know and do not have answers for. In  the past these were almost universal

Not all  such experiences are a product of the brain. some are real physical encounters.

It is right to be skeptical but wrong to be totally dismissive of such claims

I will agree tha t no one needs a priest or equivalent.

Experiences are personal and meant for an individual. It is the y which should guide a person, not doctrine dogma or theology 

Ha ha ha ha ha you know the drill you have to provide the evidence for not all experiences are brain generated.

 

[Piney]

30 minutes ago, Jodie.Lynne said:

Just retrofitting events to match a 'prophecy', nothing more.

Since you love posting movie images to support your beliefs, try watching "The Man Who Would Be King", it illustrates beautifully, the act of 'making prophecy come true'

Dune

Many things in the Gospels were added to retrofit the Hebrew prophecy. The NIV Bible then had a retrofitted OT so they jive even more. 

[Mr Walker]

4 hours ago, Crikey said:

 

Just to digress slightly, do UM members think Jesus WAS God?

It is complex

basically my closest belief is tha t we are ALL a part of "god" and "god" exists within ( and is a part) of all of us 

Learning to access this "god within us" is what separates some humans from others 

In my case there was a gnosis, aged about 13 , which opened my mind to  its potential, and allowed me to do other things by linking to the cosmic consciousness around me, and across the galaxy.

  IMO every human has this ability, but it might require many years of study and mental discipline to open up the pathways to access and control these abilities 

Sometimes it seems to come as a "gift." Ie it is given to people without all that work and study, but they have to be open to it, and capable of using it 

[Mr Walker]

1 minute ago, Sherapy said:

Ha ha ha ha ha you know the drill you have to provide the evidence for not all experiences are brain generated.

 

No I dont.

The evidences are real and physical but non transferable 

 This means that you have a choice to believe or disbelieve 

Maybe one day it might happen to you.

The experts I consulted said that my experiences were neither delusional nor hallucinations; but real, physical, inexplicable, events 

The y knew others with similar experiences.

The y could  differentiate the delusions from  the real experiences by application of professional testing, analysis and expertise.  but really, so can anyone with a little bit of training.   

[Mr Walker]

4 hours ago, Sherapy said:

You know habs I see words of wisdom. The true wonder is the conciousness. It is astonishing one can even believe they talk to dead people and really think it happened. 
 

 

Taking to dead people is easy.

Getting them to talk to you is trickier  

Deciphering their words can be even more problematic. (just ask Miracle Max ) 

[Mr Walker]

3 hours ago, Jodie.Lynne said:

Just to clarify... Christianity claims that Jesus WAS god, or the son of god, or the Earthly incarnation of god.

Or all 3. 

[Mr Walker]

1 hour ago, Jodie.Lynne said:

So what? 

Do you consider it a valid argument to hold someone accountable for the actions of ancestors, committed decades before that person was born?

Example: are YOU, Walker, accountable for the actions of your great-great-great-grandfather?

My comment was about others.

How is my own opinion relevant ?

Anyway, it is complex

You know i do not hold ancient people as evil because they practiced slavery 

I don't hold colonists as evil because they colonised other people's land BUT i recognise that the  present state of our indigenous peoples is a direct result of displacement from land,  destruction of culture including language and beliefs,  and even genocide.

   As a descendant of white settlers involved in the later stages of the wars with native people , I should recognise this, and do what i can to make amends.

  I have that responsibility a t least, even if not a personal responsibility for my ancestor's behaviours. They were fighting to stay alive in a new and harsh land.

I am not, and so can afford a greater empathy and generosity towards present native people  

Edited January 26, 2020 by Mr Walker

[Jodie.Lynne]

Just now, Mr Walker said:

My comment was bout others How is my opinion relevant 

Anyway it is complex

You know i do not hold ancient peole as evil because they practiced slavery 

I dont hold colonists as evil because they colonised other peoples land BUT i recognise that the state of our indigenous peoples is a direct result of displacement from land,  destruction of culture including language and beliefs  and even genocide.

   as a descendant of white settlers involved in the later stages of the wars with native people , I should recognise this and do what i can to make amends.

  I have that responsibility a t least, even if not a personal responsibility for my ancestor's behaviours. They were fighting to stay alive in a new and harsh land.

I am not, and so can afford a greater empathy and generosity towards present native people  

Point blank Sparky: Are YOU responsible for the actions of others?

[Mr Walker]

9 minutes ago, Jodie.Lynne said:

Point blank Sparky: Are YOU responsible for the actions of others?

Ican be. Depends on the circumstances.

I thought i gave a point blank  answer to a complex question.

  if i have the abilty to make amends for the actions of an ancestor then, yes, i believe i have a responsibility to do so ifI can. BUT I am not that ancestor and his/her behaviour is not mine. I am not morally accountable for how he behaved, only how i choose to behave  

eg suppose i found that my wealth had come from  my grandfather cheating a partner out of his share of an investment, and that, 50 years later, i was a billionaire and his grandchildren lived in poverty.

I would ( in theory  and in practice) make that right, by sharing my wealth so they could live as i did  . That might make us all just millionaires but it would be the right thing to do  

I would feel/recognise that responsibility, and act on it  (given my existing ethics, beliefs and morality )  

Edited January 26, 2020 by Mr Walker

[Piney]

20 minutes ago, Tuco's Gas said:

Indeed. That practice of writing even is admitted by Hebrew scholars and it has a real name: midrashic. Mark was the earliest written gospel but the bible cobblers placed Matthew first because he had the most tweaking-to-fit-prophecy in his epistle.

I pulled Matthew apart in my final paper at the Philadelphia Friends (Quaker) Seminary. It was obviously re-written or "tweaked" by a Zoroastrian convert which is why the Magi and adversary were added. 

You can find my suggestion that the Magi were added as a "Look a bigger religion than yours recognizes your messiah but you don't" dig mentioned by quite a few. 

Edited January 26, 2020 by Piney
Urantia is Dreck

[Will Due]

 

Jesus of Nazareth is impossible to ignore. 

 

 

[Jodie.Lynne]

5 minutes ago, Will Due said:

 

Jesus of Nazareth is impossible to ignore. 

 

 

why?

[Will Due]

9 minutes ago, Jodie.Lynne said:

why?

 

Well ask "yourself", why can't you ignore him? 

 

 

Edited January 26, 2020 by Will Due
Piney can't.

[Piney]

Just now, Will Due said:

Well ask "yourself", why can't you ignore him? 

Millions have been tortured and killed in his name? 

He was used to justify cultural genocide?