Did Jesus Exist?

[psyche101]

4 hours ago, Mr Walker said:

Jesus is a variant of joshua and a form of joseph. This was one of the most popular jewish names in ancient israel.  There are 71 known tombs of men called Yeshau in the holy lands from  this period  There are historical reasons for this, but also the range of names was quite limited at the time  The name appears 30 times in the old testament   for  4 separate men and the longer version of the name Yehoshua appears over 100 times .

Thus there WERE many men in israel called joshua, or jesus, or similar. But only one was the jewish preacher /teacher whose teachings formed the basis of christianity.  

That's got nothing to do with the fact that several Jesuses who do have records for exist but there are none for a Jesus of Nazareth. And those Jesuses all played roles that the one is supposed to have.

Crikey Moses. What is do hard to understand about that? 

Who cares if many had that name. What had that got to do with the records I'm discussing?

[psyche101]

4 hours ago, Mr Walker said:

Of course i can"know it", in the same way we "know" everything else (ie from science)  

No you can't by your own rules. If you have not experienced it, your not Inca position to make judgements, or do is your mantra when relaying your personal fantasies ad if real.

4 hours ago, Mr Walker said:

 Oh there is nothing suspect about drugs, "opening the  mind" Pharmacological effects are well documented . It is just that t such experiences cannot be relied upon, to represent physical reality ,  BECAUSE they are the result of altering a human mind .

Do you think any posters actually rely on your experiences? 

4 hours ago, Mr Walker said:

Our minds are well adapted and evolved to recognise and understand reality  Altering that  evolution and adaptation via drugs is only likely to lessen the accuracy of perception.

It depends on what one wishes to perceive doesn't it.

4 hours ago, Mr Walker said:

  I wouldn't trust a bloke who claimed to have encountered god while on any form of drug, including alcohol, but then i wouldn't believe he had seen a pink elephant either.    Of course there is still a chance both encounters were real, but the use of minds altering drugs greatly reduces that chance. 

I don't trust anyone outside and f a very select few who have earned it.

I would say past posters we have seen like illy aren't any more rational or sensible than one on heavy drugs. Religion really had a bad effect on that fellow. 

4 hours ago, Mr Walker said:

Plus of course, it takes time discipline and training, but you can open your mind without touching any form of drug. That is just the nature of mind. We can control, direct, and open or close it, at will. 

Save me this nonsense. Really, I'm not interested.

[psyche101]

3 hours ago, Mr Walker said:

How does the existence of 1000 other " Pauls " disprove my existence, or that of 8 bits? Like, joshua and Jack, Paul is a very popular name.

In 1990, Paul was the 13th. most popular male name in America between 1916 and 1930 it was always in the top dozen or so male names in America. Sadly its declined since then 

On the other hand my father's name, "Jack," has been the most common boys name in Australia  England and Ireland, and often Scotland,  and high on the list in America  for a number of years now 

You and 8 bits have birth records. Like the real Jesuses.

It's not rocket science.

[psyche101]

3 hours ago, Mr Walker said:

lol Just pointing out that many humans get their values from fictional characters. (or more accurately from  the values imbued into those characters by their writers, which is a lot like the bible characters. ) 

I grew up on the classics, and Dickens, Tolstoy,  Tolkein,  RL stevenson, and RM Ballantyne informed my views and values.

  Later, all those other characters from fiction  whom i mentioned,  helped shape my values and character, including chivalry, honesty, courage, duty, honour, hard work, discipline   and sacrifice.

  I wanted to be LIKE william tell,robin hood, king arthur, biggles, hornblower and the marshals and sheriffs of the  american west  

you asked if hab followed the code of superman

 

 ............................................................................................................................

Follow Superman then?

A good beginning You could do a lot worse 

or follow king arthur or william tell or biggles or jack reacher or even Tasselhoff Burfoot  

............................................................................................................................................

I dont know about him but Superman  informed my code of living as a child,  teenager, and even an adult, as did the values of hundreds of fictional men and women  including from the classics and the then brand new Marvel Comics 

Hence my current avatar;  the human aspect of my greatest longest living fictional hero.  Mr walker /the phantom /the ghost who walks . I have every copy of his comics since the 1960s and some going back even further .

On the other hand, i also view, and sometimes play, life like Calvinball   

 

quote

Calvinball is a game invented by Calvin and Hobbes. Calvinball has no rules; the players make up their own rules as they go along, making it so that no Calvinball game is like another.

 

Sorry but i couldn't cut and paste the site for this successfully.  If you just google calvinball images  you will find many more 

In the eighties/nineties  as a thirty/forty year old, I gained a lot of wisdom from the Dragonlance characters.

https://www.bookseriesinorder.com/dragonlance/

Tas was one of my favourites, with real wisdom  (for a Kender)   

We all can choose our own heroes I guess 

Put on a happy face

 

[psyche101]

7 hours ago, Crikey said:

Haha that notion reminds me of the young rabbit about to leave the burrow for the first time. "Watch out for the fox" says his mum.

"I'll be okay"  he replies, "I don't believe in foxes"..

Later- "AARRGGH, mum!"

That's a because you want to believe in a vengeful god. 

I find that distasteful.

[Herbert Sanders]

16 minutes ago, psyche101 said:

Basically what I said?

Prayer is self serving. Nothing more .

That is taking it a step too far. Scripture speaks about praying for someone else's benefit. I am not big on prayer myself, tbh i have a hard time with it. But it is what it says.

17 minutes ago, psyche101 said:

What do you mean you can switch? Do you swapped gods with mood, accessories, what? 

I'm trying to discuss the rationality of the biblical figure regarding actual historical records. 

That is the problem you want to go by earthly facts not the presented logic within the structure. Apples/oranges

18 minutes ago, psyche101 said:

God is as likely as the tooth fairy so he can be what anyone wants. That's what I said. I don't make him into a cloud man, anyone can as they please, that's the nature of God. God must rely on man's imagination to exist at all. Nothing in the universe outside of human literature indicates a god exists. That's the only place god gets a mention. 

Correction: Our imagination of God relies on our understanding of the universe.

19 minutes ago, psyche101 said:

Atheism are keys to freedom. There is no higher order, just observation. 

Religion helped develop society and social order. It is now redundant.

You are mixing things up. Atheism is quite blindfolded as it has rejected the structure that it lives under, yet he still does. Call it the matrix if you will. Religion indeed helped develop society and indeed the religions of old have now become redundant, but the truth presented in them will be rediscovered, like a rescued baby from a burning house. Truth is truth.

22 minutes ago, psyche101 said:

Those observations illustrate a natural universe. Like I said earlier, what indicates a god exists? What do so there outside of human literature that indicates such?

You cant see behind the next curve because you lack a roadmap. Not because it isnt there, you simply rejected it. Why do you keep saying 'a' god as if we are talking about a deity or cloud man?

[psyche101]

7 hours ago, Mark Sanders said:

Judge by the fruit, look into the process of life more instead of these still frame meta-level rebukings.

We can observe lives, trends, societies, history. We can mine data. We simply need the right angle and the political will to do it. To spend resources. Then it is done.

So that's a no then?

You cannot support that statement so you offer a word salad instead?

7 hours ago, Mark Sanders said:

Truth holds a monopoly on faith based understanding as well, it has to align itself to it. (Those in power, aka religion, are simply sluggish or have ulterior motives).

Religion has nothing to do with truth. It's about what people want to believe.

7 hours ago, Mark Sanders said:

Actually within 30m from the front door I have the opportunity to greet cows. They go wild on the apples hanging from our tree, great sinners 

You're not picking mushrooms from there by any chance ate you? Considering your reply to your claim of proof I refer to of course.

[Herbert Sanders]

1 minute ago, psyche101 said:

So that's a no then?

You cannot support that statement so you offer a word salad instead?

Science is simply a lagging body of works it is not equal to truth.

1 minute ago, psyche101 said:

Religion has nothing to do with truth. It's about what people want to believe.

Opinion

[psyche101]

6 hours ago, Crikey said:

Some scientists might not agree with you mate-

"When I began my career as a cosmologist some twenty years ago, I was a convinced atheist, I never in my wildest dreams imagined that one day I would be writing a book purporting to show that the central claims of Judeo-Christian theology are in fact true, that these claims are straightforward deductions of the laws of physics as we now understand them. I have been forced into these conclusions by the inexorable logic of my own special branch of physics."- Frank Tipler (Professor of Mathematical Physics), 1994 The Physics of Immortality. New York, Doubleday, preface.

Tipler

Retirees and nutjobs often go this path. Heard of Jonothan Wells? He says god sent him here to destroy Darwinism. Having served science doesn't ensure against dementia.

Did you read what he wrote above? Not writing a paper is he? Not submitting his oh so important information for peer review.

He is putting it in a paperback. That's the only place he can publish his irrational opinion. Why do you reckon that might be? 

[psyche101]

6 hours ago, Crikey said:

Here's a useful little tip to help them-

ALL the front men of other religions are corpses in graves somewhere, but Jesus is not.

 Spot the difference?..

Here's another one. Superman came back from the dead.

Spot the similarities?

[psyche101]

6 hours ago, Habitat said:

There is no "creation picture " to be found anywhere. All testing, rigorous or otherwise, finds that all "explanations" have rigor mortis.

That's your brain bruv. That's why you can't comprehend physics 

[psyche101]

6 hours ago, Mark Sanders said:

Thanks for that link. Reads a bit like 'I am Spartacus!'. But without Spartacus. Mass hypnosis best put to the cross!

I think the Romans did right from their pov by removing evil from their side.

I guess the story of Jesus as messiah must have encouraged many jews into a savior complex. Jewish mysticism is hard to put into practice even for jews. In order to incarnate the word you need to stand above the material OT/NT/Quran.

Explain the similarities with Spartacus.

How is it all those Jesuses have records but the alleged most important one does not.

Roman FBI coverup perhaps. How's your tinfoil hat?

[psyche101]

6 hours ago, Crikey said:

Jesus said prayer works, so who should we believe, him or you?..Hmm tricky one..

How about results, evidence?

Got any?

6 hours ago, Crikey said:

True story- a military history website owner said he was having to wind up the site in order to care for his sick wife who was awaiting a heart/lung transplant, so I asked him if he'd like me and a few Christian pals to say a prayer for her, but he said- "No thanks, she's got people around her" (whatever that was supposed to mean). So we went our separate ways and I never knew if she pulled through.

6 hours ago, Crikey said:

Question for UM atheists- if you had a sick relative and somebody offered to pray for her, what would you say to them?

Do what you want. I don't give a ****.

[eight bits]

1 hour ago, Mark Sanders said:

Women can be both very bold and very fearful, both sexes have their traits. One can be trustworthy in one context and less so in another, I find this hardly a case of misogyny.

There are certain places where the bible creates paradoxes verse 8 brings forth such a problem...

Well, I am delighted to stand corrected in my fear that @Davros of Skaro and I would be the only two members interested in the question of how Mark really ends.

Let me marry it to the topic. It is definitely relevant to whether Jesus existed that the canonical gospels are so resolutely mythological, and we know this in part because the story changes from one gospel to the next, in an ever more pious and more magical rising arc. Part of mythology in general is that even the "secondary" characters have mythological and legendary aspects. Mark's Twelve can do magic, for example, not only Jesus.

In John, the youngest canonical Gospel, Mary Magdalene has magic. She is the first to see the risen Jesus, the first to touch him, she sees angels before that ... a mythological character - and a legend: she's the first apostle, the apostle to the apostles. Gnostics (as "John" seems to have been) had less problem with women than the apostolic church.

Is her acqusition of mythical status a late development in the story compared with Mark, or does she already have mythical status in the very earliest literature where she appears?

The answer depends enitrely on whether 16:9 is authentic. Only there in Mark is she the recovered multiple demoniac, only there does she have a personal vision of the risen Jesus, only there is she the apostle to the apostles, themselves already the stuff of legend. There is development in the character from Mark  to John - she's not the first apostle  in Mark (another recovered multiple-demon victim, the Gersasene demoniac, is the first to receive a preaching commision from Jesus, 5:18-19, and then the Twelve in the next chapter), but is it a difference in kind (from mere mortal woman in Mark, finally a pivotal mythical agent in John) or just in detail (finer brushwork, more canvas, maybe a small boost in status)?

OK, so that's what's at stake. How mythological is the story in which we first hear about Jesus' earthly career? Just him and the rest of the coven he appoints around him (plus one guy who can do exorcisms using his name), or even down the line to somebody who cast her lot in with his, and doesn't even show up in the story until he's dying (even if she'd been there all along).

You know where I stand on the myth question, and my position on the ending is consistent with that.

on a point arising, from @Will Due

Quote

How long ago did this become irrebuttable? In other words, in what year did it become consensus among Bible scholars that the ending of Mark was lost?

The statement is irrebuttable: it explains why, if it is true, then there is no evidence of this supposed ending. If the statement is false, then there'll be no evidence of that, either. The one and only ending is right there on the page. (And so I believe of the canonical Mark: its original ending is hidden in plain sight.)

That which is irrebuttable is not necessarily true ... this statement is false is also irrebuttable.

The current consensus is that Mark ends at 16:8; it has been advocated since at least Eusebius. I know of no time when the "lost" ending hypothesis was consensus. The possibility has long been recognized. If you'd read any of my posting this morning on the subject, then you'd know that I do not advocate the hypothesis, nor do I join in consensus beyond agreeing that 16:15-20 is inauthentic.

Edited February 2, 2020 by eight bits

[psyche101]

6 hours ago, Crikey said:

I wish you'd say exactly which religion you're talking about mate, because there are lots of crocks out there..

As for Christianity, nah, it don't do "control"..

"Unlike so many, we do not peddle the word of God for profit....not pursuing dishonest gain, but eager to serve; not lording it over those entrusted to you.." (2 Cor 2:17,1 Peter 5:2-3)

 

Whatever one you want to talk about. But predominately in this thread, Christianity. 

You mean the religion that doesn't allow birth control but covers up pedophilia? 

 

[Herbert Sanders]

5 minutes ago, psyche101 said:

Explain the similarities with Spartacus.

How is it all those Jesuses have records but the alleged most important one does not.

Roman FBI coverup perhaps. How's your tinfoil hat?

Never seen the movie with Kirk Douglas? It was a joke...

Why well i think the answer is quite obvious as do you lol.

Edited February 2, 2020 by Mark Sanders

[psyche101]

6 hours ago, Habitat said:

Where is the evidence for this supposed atrocity ?

The Canaanites. 

[Crikey]

53 minutes ago, psyche101 said:

In short it lists several Jesuses from historical record....the legend of Jesus seems more likely to be based on several men.

 

Ah, Jesus impersonators, a bit like Elvis impersonators, that's a hilarious new consp-theory I hadn't heard before..

High Priest- "Jesus of Nazareth alias the Christ, the Messiah and the Son of God, you stand accused of upsetting people, how do you plead?"

Jesus- "You ain't nothing but a hound dawg"

[Crikey]

25 minutes ago, psyche101 said:

you want to believe in a vengeful god...I find that distasteful.

Chill mate, if you like JC you'll have zilch to fear, it's only Jesus-rejecters who are going to get payback..

"How much more severely do you think a man deserves to be punished who has trampled the Son of God under foot,....it is a dreadful thing to fall into the hands of the living God" (Hebrews 10:29-31)

[Crikey]

25 minutes ago, psyche101 said:

Heard of Jonothan Wells? He says god sent him here to destroy Darwinism..

Never heard of him mate, anyway most Christians fully accept Evolution as fact because it makes simple logical sense for better evolved creatures to have a better chance of staying alive, 'survival of the fittest' and all that.

However at the same time most Christians believe that God had a hand in it, tweaking things along the way to keep them on track..

"Sorry kiddo, you're on the way out"

[Crikey]

27 minutes ago, psyche101 said:

Christianity..the religion that doesn't allow birth control but covers up pedophilia? 

 

Huh? You're thinking of catholicism mate, it's got satans fingerprints all over it..:)

[Herbert Sanders]

1 hour ago, eight bits said:

Well, I am delighted to stand corrected in my fear that @Davros of Skaro and I would be the only two members interested in the question of how Mark really ends.

Let me marry it to the topic. It is definitely relevant to whether Jesus existed that the canonical gospels are so resolutely mythological, and we know this in part because the story changes from one gospel to the next, in an ever more pious and more magical rising arc. Part of mythology in general is that even the "secondary" characters have mythological and legendary aspects. Mark's Twelve can do magic, for example, not only Jesus.

In John, the youngest canonical Gospel, Mary Magdalene has magic. She is the first to see the risen Jesus, the first to touch him, she sees angels before that ... a mythological character - and a legend: she's the first apostle, the apostle to the apostles. Gnostics (as "John" seems to have been) had no problem with women, unlike the apostolic church.

Is her acqusition of mythical status a late development in the story compared with Mark, or does she already have mythical status in the very earliest literature where she appears?

The answer depends enitrely on whether 16:9 is authentic. Only there in Mark is she the recovered multiple demoniac, only there does she have a personal vision of the risen Jesus, only there is she the apostle to the apostles, themselves already the stuff of legend. There is development in the character from Mark  to John - she's not the first apostle  in Mark (another recovered multiple-demon victim, the Gersasene demoniac, is the first to receive a preaching commision from Jesus, 5:18-19, and then the Twelve in the next chapter), but is it a difference in kind (from mere mortal woman in Mark, finally a pivotal mythical agent in John) or just in detail (finer brushwork, more canvas, maybe a small boost in status)?

OK, so that's what's at stake. How mythological is the story in which we first hear about Jesus' earthly career? Just him and the rest of the coven he appoints around him (plus one guy who can do exorcisms using his name), or even down the line to somebody who cast her lot in with his, and doesn't even show up in the story until he's dying (even if she'd been there all along).

You know where I stand on the myth question, and my position on the ending is consistent with that.

I can be very short on where I stand. I believe it to be a true myth. That is basically all there is to it. This allows for all the freedom to docter or conjure up the narrative, patch it later, miss out on paradoxes or perhaps leave them purposefully. The work is an inspired work, meaning 'God' inspired men to study him and write it down using poetry. The source of their inspiration is their understanding of the universe, same as for any other mythology.

So what is different here? That is more a matter of detail and the way it was presented. Remember the bible warns to not make idols and all stories are allegories that point to a way of reasoning that can be understood. So Jesus himself is an idol and Christianity has idolized him. But it was also a necessary idol as a children's book allows children to get acquainted with turning pages. For me the historicity or the contradictions themselves have become far less interesting, trivial matters that you can easily stumble over.

When it comes to divine traits I think the gospels should not be seen as account but interpretations through a tetramorphic lens(of which I have my own order based on their names) independent of the actual author. To me 'John' could have been multiple writers over different periods same as that many could work on a Rembrandt. Basically I think this is jewish mysticism at practice. So if you want to track down the author, try to stick with the painting.

 

Edited February 2, 2020 by Mark Sanders

[Crikey]

52 minutes ago, Mark Sanders said:

Spartacus..the movie with Kirk Douglas ..It was a joke...

But great entertainment.. who can forget that memorable scene where the Roman big shot says- "Which one of you is Spartacus? We're going to bust your ass!"

Edited February 2, 2020 by Crikey

[Will Due]

 

*

Edited February 2, 2020 by Will Due

[Will Due]

4 hours ago, eight bits said:

I have an interest in a stage adaptation of Mark in development (a reprise of my misspent youth hanging around theaters). It's difficult to mount a play unless you know where the play ends.

Obviously not at 16:20. Those last six verses are absurd (e.g. the snake handling, poison drinking stuff - give me a frackin' break).

Equally obviously not at 16:8. Mark  is notorious among the patristic authors for not making any ideological points, but there is the signature ideology of the apostolic church, ancient and modern: women are unreliable. Even if Mark continues only through 16:9, that ideological point would no longer be made. An ideological point has been imposed on Mark with an exacto knife.

One give-away is that 16:7 is a "natural curtain." As you say, the audience already knows the plan, and the young man in white reminds everybody that that is the plan. There would no issue of dumbing down or anything like that; all the loose ends are neatly tied off.

Verse 16:8 instantly unties the neat knot. In the playwriting trade, that's called a forward. The point of a forward is to alert the audeince that there's something interesting still to come.

And then supposedly, the performance just stops.

No. That just isn't the way it works.

 

 

Thanks for this explanation. I figured it was something as you said, obvious.