Jump to content
Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -

Did Jesus Exist?


zep73

Recommended Posts

I blame force-fed church dogma for most of what I see around here, in the way of "hostility" toward God. Hostility toward a dodgy representation of something, getting confused with that thing. You really should be able to think beyond that.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 minutes ago, Sherapy said:

John, it is a long standing Philosophical  debate one you might not be interested in and this is fine, but for those that are interested this is the place to discuss it. 
 

Interested in what, exactly? Philosophical arguments,  much like religious ones, sometimes don't age well. I see no merit in trivilizing the profound into the narrow, well-worn tracks of an argument that has gone on for so long and to nowhere. It's like theater, where everyone knows theirs lines and when and why to say them. Now, you chastise me for going off script. What I'm trying to do is breath fresh life into a stale discussion and broaden it's horizons.  

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

40 minutes ago, Crikey said:

PS- Personally I don't mind putting my personal details out there all around the internet forums, for example I've openly said I'm an ex-convict (3 months jail on a vigilante rap in 2001) and I've also openly posted pics of my place everywhere (below). People tell me I shouldn't do that in case some lust-crazed female stalker tracks me down and kidnaps me to keep me chained up in her cellar as her slave. I know, that's why I do it, I should be so lucky..:D

5 years in the gang max for defending myself because a "dirty Injun" cop had no right to pull a gun on white people. They even made a TV show about it. 

https://www.pressofatlanticcity.com/news/local/hopewell-township-man-gets-years-on-gun-charge-stemming-from/article_f646bb4d-9898-5f2b-a3f4-f7954840c516.html

My pics are also all over this forum. My mate Tommy just put up a my horse cop pic on another thread and my chainsaw carving pic is in another. 

 

court.jpg.e7a926067983491751303e3722ed6567.jpg

  • Like 4
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, Hammerclaw said:

Interested in what, exactly? Philosophical arguments,  much like religious ones, sometimes don't age well. I see no merit in trivilizing the profound into the narrow, well-worn tracks of an argument that has gone on for so long and to nowhere. It's like theater, where everyone knows theirs lines and when and why to say them. Now, you chastise me for going off script. What I'm trying to do is breath fresh life into a stale discussion and broaden it's horizons.  

Not chastising, just saying each to their own. 
It is all good.:wub:

 

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, Sherapy said:

I call it phony holy. :P

Phony holy phonics 

:yes:

~

  • Thanks 1
  • Haha 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Sherapy said:

Not chastising, just saying each to their own. 
It is all good.:wub:

 

You certainly are and don't ever read anything in my posts that makes you think I think otherwise.;)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

42 minutes ago, Habitat said:

You do realise that good and bad (or evil) are inextricably bound, and one in needed for the other to exist ?

No. Evil is descriptive and nothing more. People do good things and other people do really bad things and we describe them and what they do as evil. Evil is just a word with no life or independent existence of it's own.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Hammerclaw said:

No. Evil is descriptive and nothing more. People do good things and other people do really bad things and we describe them and what they do as evil. Evil is just a word with no life or independent existence of it's own.

Puhleeease...it is commonly an adjective as well as a noun.  

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 hours ago, eight bits said:

Why is that a problem? Paul doesn't call them Christians of course, but assemblies of God whose leaders have had the same type of visionary experience as he eventually had.

And where in Paul's letters may I find anything about an unusual happening on the road to Damascus? That's only in Acts which to my mind is often-overlooked evidence in the case surrounding the mythical-or-historical Jesus.

"Luke" is visibly doing for Paul in volume 2, Acts, what he did for Jesus in volume 1, the Gospel. He's inventing a backstory for the characters he found sketched in Paul's letters. It's a lot easier to make up travelogues and speeches for Paul, since the letters already include some of those, but miracle stories, trouncing of enemies in debate, trial scenes, a dispute with merchants about temple commerce, drawing big crowds - even being proclaimed a god... Yup: Acts : Paul as Luke : Jesus.

It's interesting evidence, too, because Acts doesn't just add to Paul's letters, it also removes other things, and "smooths over" still other things (e.g. how Paul and long-time companion Barnabas went their separate ways). That's what movie people do today when they make a "biopic." It sheds light on what the evangelists did when they invented Gospel Jesus.

And it is dead-mouse-on-the-kitchen-floor evidence that at least one evangelist did invent improvements on his primary sources.

The logic of this statement escapes me. I am morally certain that Joseph Smith existed in the 19th Century United States and its territories. I am equally certain that the angel Moroni did not exist, neither as the celestial being Smith envisioned, nor as the earlier human being Moroni revealed to Smith that he had been. Same deal for Mohammed and Gabriel (speaking of characters in Luke whom "Luke" added to what's in Paul's letters).

Why would a historical Paul and a celestial Jesus give anybody pause?

Yes, the first two chapters (if I spot you the differences among brother of Jesus and brother of Christ, which you have been repeatedly asked to respect here, and brother of the Lord, which is the religious title Paul used for the James in question).

And ...?

Caligula believed himself to be a brother of the gods, maybe he can answer your question.

In very brief compass, my personal view is that the phrase the brother of the Lord  is a distinction within the ranks of apostles, which by the time of the letters ranged from subsidized emissaries appointed by the assemblies all the way up to Peter and Paul themselves, personally appointed by the risen Christ Jesus to serve huge designated portions of humanity for life. (I'm happy to record my disagreement with Carrier on this point, that in his view, the James of Galatians' first Jerusalem meeting wasn't an apostle at all, and that Paul's phrase tboL meant "rank-and-file Christian" of no special interest to Paul or his reader, except that he happened to be onsite when nobody else was except Peter.)

 

You've made my point perfectly

Paul was working to  change judaic christianity to gentile christianity 

Anything else is pure supposition with no evidential base  It is out of historical context and doesn't make chronological sense. 
Yes we discussed the conversion before The "road to damascus" or "Damascene conversion"  has become the standard definition of such conversions.  Paul had (or claimed) a number of encounters with a god at different times 

Smith is a matter of history. Angels are a matter of belief or experience with them (if you had encountered one or more angels you would be less likely to disbelieve Moroni's existence.  but it would still be a matter of belief) 

Christ the man is a matter of history Christ the god is a matter of belief 

Your attribution of Paul's motives is entirely your own, and again has no evidential base More likely  he is just explaining himself as best he could,   telling a story as accurately as he could, and as best he understood it.  An historical paul and a celestial christ has too many flaws. It doesn't explain pre pauline  (judaic) christianity It does not allow for the historical references to christ and the followers of christ 

It simply doesn't make sense, even given the small amoun of knowledge we have about paul and his own life  How do you  meet the brother of a celestial being  Why try to alter the judaic theology of a celestial being ?  

Basically i think your real problem is that you cant  accept   that paul had a real encounter with a real god on earth as well as later contact with the celestial version

That's all too much for you, so you try to say Pauls contact was an internal lone of some celestial being That then allows you to argue that a physical christ was never necessary .

So whose teachings  did paul alter and adapt, and formalise into ealry  (mid to late  first century)  christianity, and why did it ever become christianity without a christ ? :)  Your view on the reference to christ's brother goes against linguistics.  The greek word used is specific to a blood/ fraternal brother, not a comrade or a brother " in christ " 

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 1/26/2020 at 2:45 PM, Piney said:

Fair Dinkum? 

Find any Zen Buddhist Crusades yet?

Daruma was a Greco-Bactrian who ran from the Muslim Crusade in Afghanistan. He was about "thinking for yourself" not "following"

Plenty of examples of  modern buddhist genocides in se asia Not sure what part of buddhism those who committed them were   

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Mr Walker said:

Plenty of examples of  modern buddhist genocides in se asia Not sure what part of buddhism those who committed them were   

It's wasn't just Buddhists. It was everybody else vs. Radical Islam because Asians don't take their ****.

If you talking about the Rohingya, they were hiding members of ISIS and even though Myanmar is a predominately Buddhist country it's people and soldiers are Taoist, Hindu and Folk Belief also.

So NO! It isn't a holy war or Buddhist genocide. It's a government one

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Piney said:

It's wasn't just Buddhists. It was everybody else vs. Radical Islam because Asians don't take their ****.

If you talking about the Rohingya, they were hiding members of ISIS and even though Myanmar is a predominately Buddhist country it's people and soldiers are Taoist, Hindu and Folk Belief also.

So NO! It isn't a holy war or Buddhist genocide. It's a government one

Phew, that's a relief, the Buddhists are off the hook !

Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 hours ago, Sherapy said:

I think you need a vacation, get out and see the world. It would be good for you. IMHO.

“Miracles are simply real events or occurrences for which we currently have no scientific explanation” ( Mr Walker).  

Do you have an example?
 

A common obstacle of most with any kind of mental is illness is to refuse to get help and argue  they don’t have anything wrong.



 

When a person with  terminal cancer is prayed for and is instantly healed (actually happened to friend of mine) When a person lays on hands and physically heals torn ligaments in a shoulder (happened to me )  When a man suffers a heart attack  so severe that all his medical colleagues say he will die or always be in a vegetative coma yet he makes a sudden and eventually complete recovery after prayers for him 

 There is no  scientific  explanation for  such things except luck or coincidence  There are two possible  other alternatives.

A "miracle of god "

A technological intervention using advanced technology. 

Take inoculation. Go back 1000 years and tell people you are immune from  the plague, because you have been vaccinated against it by a magic serum injected into your body   To them it will be a miracle   Cure a person with a hole in their heart, vaccinate against a cancer, use nanomachines to go inside a blood system and unblock arteries 

Do you have (scientific)  evidence for your last  opinion ? You know it does not apply to me.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

31 minutes ago, Habitat said:

Puhleeease...it is commonly an adjective as well as a noun.  

So is stupid.

  • Thanks 1
  • Haha 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 hours ago, XenoFish said:

As for the topic. The biblical Jesus didn't exist and I have no idea why anyone would believe or even worship this fictional character. 

Your first opinion explains your second :) 

A little research will show why billions still do, even if you still don't agree with them. 

Worship of even a fictional character creates significantly better outcomes for human beings. 

That's a product of our evolutionary history.  

   

  • Confused 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, Hammerclaw said:

So is stupid.

What's stupid, is imagining that there is any "evil" that has an existence outside of human value judgements.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 hours ago, cormac mac airt said:

A related question IMO would be "Why does God need an intercessor, whether Jesus or Jesus AND the Pope"? Is HE incapable of speaking solely for himself without outside help/interpretation? 

cormac

In my experience he does not .Humans all have the potential to open themselves to direct contact with"god"  Relatively few avail themselves of this in the modern age  

Mostly it is that few people have direct contact with a god, and yet humans are evolved to do better with belief,   and so most follow doctrines established by those who do have such contact experience.  . (or claim they do) 

Better not to  (religiously) follow a doctrine at all, IMO 

Of course, in trinitarian christianity, when you speak with jesus you ARE speaking with god.  Before he became man on earth, christ was the "word" of god  in "heaven" and thus the creative element of the godhood (in christian theology) 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, Habitat said:

What's stupid, is imagining that there is any "evil" that has an existence outside of human value judgements.

Excellent. Otherwise, claiming evil as some sort of malign entity or devil would imply the existence of it's counterpart. 

  • Like 3
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 hours ago, cormac mac airt said:

Spare me your useless platitudes. :yes:

cormac

not a platitude if it is true and important ie a platitude  is no longer useful, due to overuse

will' s is a true, and very relevant, piece of advice.

God exists, in part, inside of us, and is capable of connection to the rest of "god" which is external to us. Link the two and you will know "god"   and, in one sense, be god. 

This is true not just of god but of all reality. Link with the universe and you become one with it. 

 

  • Like 1
  • Confused 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 hours ago, Jodie.Lynne said:

I think Matt Dillahunty phrased it best when he asked: "How come the god of the bible can do things we can't, like create worlds, but cannot do anything we can, like build boats, tabernacles, and such?"

Who says it can't?  Maybe it can use matter transmission and energy constructs to build things at will, but maybe it has evolved beyond a purely material existence  At a certain stage in technical evolution material things like shelter become redundant eg you simply adapt your energy  form to suit any environment. :) 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 hours ago, Piney said:

You mean like the later addition you just quoted?  :rolleyes:

Matthew's bio of Jesus is completely pious fraud. Get over it

I am not sure that is actually a statement of fact, but rather one of opinion . All the gospels contain the mundane and the magical.  The audiences back then were not so informed or critical :)   

Your opinion  seems  to be mostly a modern google meme 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 hours ago, Jodie.Lynne said:

This individual's posting style reminds me of someone, but I cannot put my finger on who.

 

However, for myself, I'm not going to continue to respond to this one.

its a legitimate question and certainly i do not believe the statement has been proven true, even if it should happen to be .  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 hours ago, Piney said:

Another outright lie. Are we a "Liar for Jesus"? 

Maybe you should read up on the Fermi Paradox and the Rare Earth Hypothesis. There may be a lot of life, but technology needs a specific environment which is extremely rare in our galaxy. So rare we haven't found one yet. 

 

The two are not exclusive Given the number of solar systems and planets in our galaxy and the number of goldilock planets already discovered nearby,  statically  thousands of alien species is probably a low number.  Second Life is diverse. You don't need earth like conditions to allow for the evolution non earth like life 

Technology only requires one evolutionary trait although another can help.

First it requires some sophistication of language  (language of the mind or thought)

Second, it requires some way to manipulate simple tools.

After that, technological evolution is inevitable, and we have no idea yet how far it may progress.    

Carl sagan got it right. The rare earthers got it wrong as the increasing number of discovered goldilocks planets quite close to our solar system indicates (and that  is just planets suited to earth type life ) 

apart from the known the estimates are these.

quote

 In November 2013, astronomers reported, based on Kepler space mission data, that there could be as many as 40 billion Earth-sized planets orbiting in the habitable zones of Sun-like stars and red dwarfs in the Milky Way, 11 billion of which may be orbiting Sun-like stars.

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

The number of known habitable planets is controversial, ranging from a few of high certainty to over 50 possibles 

The transiting exoplanet survey satellite, (TESS)  has discovered   1500 candidates  since 2018  but most are too hot for liquid water  

Edited by Mr Walker
Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, Piney said:

He doesn't understand the difference between life and technology. 

Nit quite true. it is down to what we know of evolution and of probability 

Life evolved on earth and humans evolved under certain conditions.

if these conditions are common then life and technology WILL be common.

If not, then less common.

However given the billions of planets involved, and the percentage of possible terran like planets already discovered  There is a very high probability that advanced technologies are common However the huge distances between them means a very high level of technology would be required to move between them  200  years ago, it took over 8 months to get from australia to britain Today i can do it on a commercial airliner in 17hours  That is what a short period of technological advancement can do. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, Tuco's Gas said:

Actually it's a valid question, as it addresses the age-old and never answered satisfactorily question of "if God is omnipotent why can he not physically intervene in our world?" The theists can offer no evidence of that. It's their Achilles heel.

Or he does ,every day.

For some of us, "god" is with us all the time, and constantly teaching, mentoring, protecting, and empowering . 

Maybe he is bound by a covenant, like in star trek, of non intervention on a non personal scale   or maybe it is a matter of free will. He doesn't want  to come across like a christian missionary in the south sea islands Basically humans have to choose whether to believe, in faith, or not .

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • The topic was locked
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.