Habitat 8,594 #2226 Posted January 25, 2020 3 minutes ago, Dejarma said: no, i don't get that Matey, my point was that if Jesus was the 'intergalactic emissary', then he wasn't very well briefed, because he expresses amazement at how, as I interpret it, the human constitution contains a portal to access the "beyond" and its mysteries. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Sherapy 31,576 #2227 Posted January 25, 2020 (edited) 5 hours ago, Crikey said: Apart from the 27 separate books of the New T, there's also a truckload of historical accounts that never made it into the bible, how many more do you need?.. Check 'em- Gospel of Thomas Gospel of Marcion Gospel of Basilides Gospel of Truth (Valentinian) Gospel of the Four Heavenly Realms Gospel of Mary Gospel of Judas Greek Gospel of the Egyptians Gospel of Philip Pseudo-Gospel of the Twelve Gospel of Perfection Jewish-Christian gospels Gospel of the Hebrews Gospel of the Nazarenes Gospel of the Ebionites Gospel of the Twelve Infancy gospels[edit] Armenian Infancy Gospel[citation needed] Protoevangelium of James Libellus de Nativitate Sanctae Mariae (Gospel of the Nativity of Mary) Gospel of Pseudo-Matthew History of Joseph the Carpenter Infancy Gospel of Thomas Latin Infancy Gospel Syriac Infancy Gospel Gospel of the Lots of Mary (Coptic collection of 37 oracles; ca. A.D. 500) Partially preserved gospels Gospel of Peter Gospel of Eve Gospel of Mani Gospel of the Saviour (also known as the Unknown Berlin gospel) Coptic Gospel of the Twelve Reconstructed gospels Secret Gospel of Mark Gospel of Matthias Gospel of Cerinthus Gospel of Apelles Gospel of Valentinus Gospel of the Encratites Gospel of Andrew Gospel of Barnabas – not to be confused with the 16th century pro-Moslem work of the same name Gospel of Bartholomew Gospel of Hesychius Gospel of Lucius Gospel of Merinthus Gospel of the Adversary of the Law and the Prophets Memoirs of the Apostles Papyrus Egerton 2 Fayyum Fragment Oxyrhynchus Papyri Gospel of Jesus' Wife Papyrus Berolinensis 11710 Papyrus Cairensis 10735 Papyrus Merton 51 Strasbourg Fragment Gospel of the Seventy Gospel of Nicodemus Gospel of Barnabas https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Gospels Unfortunately, these do nothing more than attest to the fictionalized invented character of the NT. I don’t find anything malicious about fictionalizing a character to have to “ love” though for some Jesus seems to be an exalted attachment figure, the protective caring parental figure ( archetype) there are studies that for some these relationships are more than analogies they reflect a genuine attachment. Religious devotion, bible reading, prayer keeps one in close proximity to their beloved Jesus, it in a sense nurtures the relationship for some this meets a lot of needs. While it doesn’t serve me, I see where for some it fulfills a lot of needs and this is where I see the value in religion for those that need it, Jesus doesn’t need to be real what a person is seeking is feeling protected, feeling secure, feeling loved, I think this applies to you based on your posts. I see no issue with this it seems like a coping system. Edited January 25, 2020 by Sherapy 5 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Habitat 8,594 #2228 Posted January 25, 2020 43 minutes ago, Sherapy said: Jesus doesn’t need to be real what a person is seeking is feeling protected, feeling secure, feeling loved, I think this applies to you based on your posts. In what circumstance would Jesus need to be real ? Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Sherapy 31,576 #2229 Posted January 25, 2020 (edited) 7 minutes ago, Habitat said: In what circumstance would Jesus need to be real ? I can’t answer that, you have to ask Will, or Walker they think their attachment figures are real, and routinely defend their existence. I don’t get the same sense with Crikey, but I don’t know him that well. Edited January 25, 2020 by Sherapy 1 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Mr Walker 6,726 #2230 Posted January 25, 2020 14 hours ago, eight bits said: In which case, it is off-topic in this thread. Did Jesus Exist? Focus. Christopher Hitchens famously argued in favor of a historical Jesus, despite his many and vigorous commitments against Christian pretensions to "truth." This story was his lynchpin in favor of HJ. Because the story was historically unlikely to be true, it would be reasonable to ask why somebody would fabricate it. That in turn supported his thesis that "Luke" wished to salvage "Matthew's" claim that Jesus' birth in and of itself fulfilled a vague prophecy in Jewish scripture, but had to square that with common knowledge of a real Galilean Jesus. I am not persuaded, but there it is: on-topic discussion of the story. In contrast, if Joseph had property in the area, for which there is no evidence, and if he couldn't have registered it without dragging his at-term pregnant wife along, for which there is no evidence, and the couple couldn't have stayed with Mary's cousins, which would need an explanation, then "Luke" would merely have misstated the reasons for Joseph's trip. Everything else would be fine. Well, except that Herod the Great isn't king anymore, contrary to Matthew, but hey, if we can make up property for Joseph then we can make up another census for Quirinius, too. No, that's simply BS. If what's on the page doesn't constrain our inquiry, then it's irrelevant to the topic. And that's why I am not going to discuss your version of the story. You, or anybody, can rewrite any story. If you want to discuss what "Luke" wrote, then sweet. If you want to discuss yet another one of your fantasies, then you're not doing it with me. It does indeed, if jesus was born in Bethlehem because his father was required to go there to fulfil the requirements of roman law and he was born sometime in , or close to, the years that census was conducted over The idea that the birth in Bethlehem was constructed to validate a prophecy has no evidential basis, although a birth there may have contributed to the later mythology of christ It is quite likely luke got some of it wrong. The most likely error is the year of christs birth, which may be out by many years. You keep assuming that people lied, constructed false histories etc. all within the lifetime of people living through the events. That assumption, and attribution of deceit, comes from within you and colours yout interpretation of all this. eg given the lack of evidence you believe the whole tale was false More likely the lack of evidence just means there is no longer any evidence. One writer did claim that the records of joseph's attendance at the census still existed (some time after the story was told) and could be checked by those who believed the whole tale was false Adding in a fake census as a reason for the journey to Bethlehem is unlikely in such a narrative (Oh i guess your argument is that the christ who never existed, was not actually born in bethlehem) The real point here, is that none of these points disprove the historical existence of jesus, and indeed don't even cast enough doubt on it, to convince people far more educated, informed, and expert in the field than you or I. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Mr Walker 6,726 #2231 Posted January 25, 2020 16 hours ago, Habitat said: It did run second. ah well, i should have had an "win or place " bet Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Sherapy 31,576 #2232 Posted January 25, 2020 (edited) 27 minutes ago, Mr Walker said: It does indeed, if jesus was born in Bethlehem because his father was required to go there to fulfil the requirements of roman law and he was born sometime in , or close to, the years that census was conducted over The idea that the birth in Bethlehem was constructed to validate a prophecy has no evidential basis, although a birth there may have contributed to the later mythology of christ It is quite likely luke got some of it wrong. The most likely error is the year of christs birth, which may be out by many years. You keep assuming that people lied, constructed false histories etc. all within the lifetime of people living through the events. That assumption, and attribution of deceit, comes from within you and colours yout interpretation of all this. eg given the lack of evidence you believe the whole tale was false More likely the lack of evidence just means there is no longer any evidence. One writer did claim that the records of joseph's attendance at the census still existed (some time after the story was told) and could be checked by those who believed the whole tale was false Adding in a fake census as a reason for the journey to Bethlehem is unlikely in such a narrative (Oh i guess your argument is that the christ who never existed, was not actually born in bethlehem) The real point here, is that none of these points disprove the historical existence of jesus, and indeed don't even cast enough doubt on it, to convince people far more educated, informed, and expert in the field than you or I. I think he is pointing out that the fantasy is coming from you. He prefers to stick to the script, explore the actual history not confabulate and speculate about nonsense. We have bonafide experts on here and the consensus is you are perpetuating bs. Just my two cents. Edited January 25, 2020 by Sherapy 2 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Mr Walker 6,726 #2233 Posted January 25, 2020 4 minutes ago, Sherapy said: I think he is pointing out that the fantasy is coming from you. He prefers to stick to the script, explore the actual history not confabulate and speculate about nonsense. We have bonafide experts on here and the consensus is you are perpetuating bs. Just my two cents. lol I kept my mouth shut about the fantasy comment. I am the one sticking to accepted historical understanding. He is promoting a theory only put forward by fringe academics (some of whom have only made their reputation from such unevidenced radical theories) and rejected by almost every professional historian If he were right, 99% plus of historical experts would not accept christ as a real historical person, and his birth as one verified part of that history. Bonafide experts in biblical history ? Where? 8 bits, for one, claims that historians who accept christ as real (99% plus of all historians) only do so because of professional bias/indoctrination and social expectations He believes in a general and persistent bias among historians, even though a majority are not Christian, and not even religious Now, who is living in a fantasy world? . 1 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Dejarma 5,327 #2234 Posted January 25, 2020 1 hour ago, Habitat said: Matey, my point was that if Jesus was the 'intergalactic emissary', then he wasn't very well briefed, because he expresses amazement at how, as I interpret it, the human constitution contains a portal to access the "beyond" and its mysteries. matey, i've no idea what you're talking about Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Mr Walker 6,726 #2235 Posted January 25, 2020 43 minutes ago, Habitat said: In what circumstance would Jesus need to be real ? To me, any figure you KNOW to exist, must be real and evidenced (to you) A person can rightly believe or disbelieve in any figure for whom they have insufficient evidences to know. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Habitat 8,594 #2236 Posted January 25, 2020 34 minutes ago, Sherapy said: I can’t answer that, you have to ask Will, or Walker they think their attachment figures are real, and routinely defend their existence. I don’t get the same sense with Crikey, but I don’t know him that well. The only thing that needs to be real, is the meaning and content of the words spoken by the "character" in the piece. And blessed it be, that it is experientially confirmable, at least in theory. A marked improvement on atheism, whose central tenet is definitely not demonstrable , even in theory. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Habitat 8,594 #2237 Posted January 25, 2020 2 minutes ago, Dejarma said: matey, i've no idea what you're talking about Well guv, if you got to sleep at night, instead of being up all night doing God knows what, your old noggin would work better ! Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Dejarma 5,327 #2238 Posted January 25, 2020 2 minutes ago, Mr Walker said: lol I kept my mouth shut yeah- I feel you need to look up the definitions of <mouth> & <shut> Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Mr Walker 6,726 #2239 Posted January 25, 2020 1 hour ago, Sherapy said: Unfortunately, these do nothing more than attest to the fictionalized invented character of the NT. I don’t find anything malicious about fictionalizing a character to have to “ love” though for some Jesus seems to be an exalted attachment figure, the protective caring parental figure ( archetype) there are studies that for some these relationships are more than analogies they reflect a genuine attachment. Religious devotion, bible reading, prayer keeps one in close proximity to their beloved Jesus, it in a sense nurtures the relationship for some this meets a lot of needs. While it doesn’t serve me, I see where for some it fulfills a lot of needs and this is where I see the value in religion for those that need it, Jesus doesn’t need to be real what a person is seeking is feeling protected, feeling secure, feeling loved, I think this applies to you based on your posts. I see no issue with this it seems like a coping system. You are factually wrong, Christ was a real person However, how you perceive him is a matter of belief or faith He might be seen as only a man, as a god, or as something in between You can believe that some stories about him are pure fiction Others may believe differently and some may have good reasons to believe his miracles were real eg they have experienced similar things in their own lives. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Mr Walker 6,726 #2240 Posted January 25, 2020 1 minute ago, Dejarma said: yeah- I feel you need to look up the definitions of <mouth> & <shut> I was going to point out to 8 bits that, officially, it is not me in historical fantasy land but his own opinions. However i decided not to. He already knows my opinion, and i know his. The overwhelming historical consensus is that christ was a real historical figure and that those who do'nt accept this are not applying historical evidences and methodologies, but being influenced by other things, into a belief which is actually a fantasy Ps i dont open my mouth while posting. I breathe through my nose 2 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Dejarma 5,327 #2241 Posted January 25, 2020 9 minutes ago, Habitat said: Well guv, if you got to sleep at night, instead of being up all night doing God knows what, your old noggin would work better ! Why do you go on about why I'm typing at this hour? I'm up at this time (UK time) earning tons of cash mate!!!! I sleep when I feel the need to! Do you have anything else to say? Or are you going to carry on boring me? All due respect Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Dejarma 5,327 #2242 Posted January 25, 2020 4 minutes ago, Mr Walker said: Ps i dont open my mouth while posting. or your brain.... but that's just my opinion 1 2 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Sherapy 31,576 #2243 Posted January 25, 2020 17 minutes ago, Mr Walker said: lol I kept my mouth shut about the fantasy comment. I am the one sticking to accepted historical understanding. He is promoting a theory only put forward by fringe academics (some of whom have only made their reputation from such unevidenced radical theories) and rejected by almost every professional historian If he were right, 99% plus of historical experts would not accept christ as a real historical person, and his birth as one verified part of that history. Bonafide experts in biblical history ? Where? 8 bits, for one, claims that historians who accept christ as real (99% plus of all historians) only do so because of professional bias/indoctrination and social expectations He believes in a general and persistent bias among historians, even though a majority are not Christian, and not even religious Now, who is living in a fantasy world? . You are confused. The historical Jesus was a man named Jesus who was crucified by the Romans and was a Jewish preacher. This is what is meant by most historians accept a historical Jesus. Eighty does too. In fact, all of us accept a historical Jesus. Jesus “Christ” of the Bible is a mythical character. 3 1 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Dejarma 5,327 #2244 Posted January 25, 2020 (edited) 6 minutes ago, Sherapy said: Jesus “Christ” of the Bible is a mythical character. yep that is actually a FACT--- logical/ rational thinking individuals love facts= don't we Edited January 25, 2020 by Dejarma 2 1 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Mr Walker 6,726 #2245 Posted January 25, 2020 Just now, Sherapy said: You are confused. The historical Jesus was a man named Jesus who was crucified by the Romans and was a Jewish preacher. This is what is meant by most historians accept a historical Jesus. Eighty does too. In fact, all of us accept a historical Jesus. Jesus “Christ” of the Bible is a mythical character. Not sure that 8bits does, given his arguments so you accept that the character, jesus, was not fictional, but you believe that some of the stories about his life are fiction? Your words implied strongly that the actual character/ person was a fictional one but i accept your point here Its a problem with the word character. it can mean the individual or it can mean the nature of that individual The character of jesus was real but you argue the character, or nature, attributed to him was not always real Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Mr Walker 6,726 #2246 Posted January 25, 2020 2 minutes ago, Dejarma said: yep see my post above It depends how you use "character." Christ was a real person/character. That is a matter of accepted historical record and consensus His nature/character is disputable and a matter of belief /disbelief. You can believe it to be fictional, or real . Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Mr Walker 6,726 #2247 Posted January 25, 2020 5 hours ago, Piney said: ........and half the Church Father's just exploded in their tombs....... lol The problem is that half the church fathers never read or studied the bible They followed established doctrine They just wanted to construct a god who was omniscient and all powerful to impressed and scare their followers One thorough read of the bible shows that. despite wht some writers in the bible thought, god was never all knowing or all powerful He cant be, because the future is not set and thus not knowable, and humans have many options due to free will, each of which can shape a different future and any of which could be chosen 1 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Sherapy 31,576 #2248 Posted January 25, 2020 8 minutes ago, Mr Walker said: Not sure that 8bits does, given his arguments so you accept that the character, jesus, was not fictional, but you believe that some of the stories about his life are fiction? Your words implied strongly that the actual character/ person was a fictional one but i accept your point here Its a problem with the word character. it can mean the individual or it can mean the nature of that individual The character of jesus was real but you argue the character, or nature, attributed to him was not always real No, I accept that there was a guy named Jesus, who was a Jewish preacher and was crucified by the Romans, The biblical Jesus was a fictional character, I accept this character as a literary creation, a myth. That is it. 4 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Sherapy 31,576 #2249 Posted January 25, 2020 9 minutes ago, Mr Walker said: see my post above It depends how you use "character." Christ was a real person/character. That is a matter of accepted historical record and consensus His nature/character is disputable and a matter of belief /disbelief. You can believe it to be fictional, or real . Christ is a fictional character. And you believe this too. 1 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
cormac mac airt 15,150 #2250 Posted January 25, 2020 7 minutes ago, Mr Walker said: see my post above It depends how you use "character." Christ was a real person/character. That is a matter of accepted historical record and consensus His nature/character is disputable and a matter of belief /disbelief. You can believe it to be fictional, or real . And therein lies your problem. Jesus the man was likely a real person whereas Jesus Christ/the Annointed is unevidenced. Using the title “Christ” unnecessarily conflates the two. cormac 3 3 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites