Was Jesus real?

[Abramelin]

5 hours ago, third_eye said:

" In the summit Elohiym shaped the skies and the land, "

Before skies and land, what summit is this? 

~

It's a LITERAL and 'mechanical' translation.

You tell me what it means.

Funny, eh, those religious, 'god-inspired' books?

 

[SHaYap]

6 hours ago, eight bits said:

The main channel for many of the major plot points is the Jewish scriptures (not yet assembled into a canon at that point).

You mean Fair Use Open Source and hope God won't mind? The Torah - Talmud debate didn't go too well either... 

~

6 hours ago, eight bits said:

There's no way the original audience would miss that. What is it doing there?

When in Rome...? 

~

[+Sherapy]

6 hours ago, eight bits said:

Actually, it's less obscure than all that. Matthew and Luke contain big chunks of Mark verbatim or in "close paraphrase" (change a word or two here or there and maybe the professor won't notice).  Beyond that, Matthew and Luke share many sayings of Jesus (in Greek) verbatim, so either Luke copied from Matthew or they both copied from "Q," a Greek language source which, if it ever existed, has gone missing.

Of course, it's not called plagiarism ... it's um, paying tribute to an earlier author. Yes, that's the ticket, payimg tribute.

The main channel for many of the major plot points is the Jewish scriptures (not yet assembled into a canon at that point). The Jewish scriptures draw on neighboring cultures and the cultures that conquered Israelite and Jewish territory. That might account for some of the family resemblances of gopel stories to Assyrian, Egyptian, Persian and Greek models.

Apart from Jewish material, or indirect influence from other cultures via Jewish scripture, we had a thread not too long about Dennis MacDonald's debate with Richard Carrier. MacDonald's thing is that Homer appears to have been a direct influence on the gospels. My personal jaw dropper is John, whose opening miracle (the magical winemaking at Cana) re-enacts an annual rite of Dionysus-Bacchus. Jesus does in that story just what a priest of Dionysus would do in the pagan ritual.

There's no way the original audience would miss that. What is it doing there?

 

I am just astonished how well versed you are on this topic. Thank you, for such enjoyable posts. I have learned so much from you. Double thanks. It really helps in my line of work with some clients who want to discuss outgrowing god. I share a lot of what I have learned from you.  Religion is an interesting topic. 

Edited September 15, 2021 by Sherapy

[Mr Walker]

17 hours ago, eight bits said:

"Churches" are a later development in Christianity. What evidence there is for very early practices points to meeting in already existing Jewish synagogues and in private homes, and where the weather was suitable, some may have also met outdoors (as pagans sometimes did, too).

It would be odd for a cult that seriously believed that their world was about to end, within their own lifetimes at the latest, to invest in buildings dedicated to their meetings. Also, compared with other cults, there wasn't much need in the early years to store dedicated material culture (statues and other art work, scriptural libraries, sacred vessels, costumes, ...). That Christianity was an inexpensive religion to practice no doubt helped its spread.

There is no reason to think that these far-flung assemblies all believed the same things about Jesus. Even within one assembly, Corinth, Paul writes about factions (1 Corinthians 1:10-13). There is no reason based on the letters that the most faithful follower of Paul would need to believe that Jesus was a real man who actually lived. Maybe some understood Paul's Christ Jesus that way and others did not. So far as we can tell, that difference of opinion would not prevent the group from worshipping together.

What mattered was that Jesus was coming, soon. Whether that would be his first or second visit earthside, Paul doesn't say. Actually, Paul never says that Jesus will be on earth even then. According to 1 Thessalonians 4:16-17, Jesus appears in the air, and the faithful fly up to meet him - he doesn't land to meet them.

If there were any earlier visit, then why couldn't it have been similar? Believing so would not place the believer in opposition to anything we read in Paul.

 I used the word church to designate a place of worship 

yes it also means any group of followers.

 So a house could be a church, and the people who met their regularly could be a church

and yes most early Christians were jews and initially met in synagogues where this was not prevented by the   leading faction of Judaism at the time  .

i included synagogues as churches

 

 

I am going by a couple of sources I have seen or read over the years including  a BBC  documentary on ealry Christianity which said that there were numerous "shrines"    in early Christianity which originated in the first century  and were visited over succeeding centuries as the earliest sites of christian worship 

 

No iti s not odd that people would build churches when the y believed the world was about to end.  similar  groups  still do it today. I think it is simply a part of human nature 

Absolutely not all early Christians believed the dame things  (a bit like today) 

There were at least 6 different variants and possibly more 

The biggest division became  gentile /Jewish christian but there  were others 

gnostic Christians were also divided into those who saw Christ as playing different roles within the gnostic framework (  man /demi god/god)

Centralised imposed orthodoxy took several centuries to establish, and even then was never totally successful

The last section you write  can be understood in many ways but should be read in context to all of christ's  "history"   as god man and angel

ie once transformed back from  man to god/angel, he had a different form In some ways so different that he was hard to recognise by those who had known him well on earth.

and so his flying above the earth does not mean that he had not lived as a human on earth. After all, humans now flew up to  meet him and were to be transformed into new beings 

This IMO is one of the myths which grew up after his death. It doesn't really have a bearing on his physical existence as a human being 

It seems an attempt to mythologise  the very existence of Christ (unless you were saying that he was a real physical alien  being, and not human)

We get back to the fact that "Christ mythers" are poorly regarded by historians, due to their failure to accept the evidences,  and their construction of ideas/theories  to justify their need to disbelieve , or to gain notoriety.  

 

[Mr Walker]

9 hours ago, eight bits said:

Actually, it's less obscure than all that. Matthew and Luke contain big chunks of Mark verbatim or in "close paraphrase" (change a word or two here or there and maybe the professor won't notice).  Beyond that, Matthew and Luke share many sayings of Jesus (in Greek) verbatim, so either Luke copied from Matthew or they both copied from "Q," a Greek language source which, if it ever existed, has gone missing.

Of course, it's not called plagiarism ... it's um, paying tribute to an earlier author. Yes, that's the ticket, payimg tribute.

The main channel for many of the major plot points is the Jewish scriptures (not yet assembled into a canon at that point). The Jewish scriptures draw on neighboring cultures and the cultures that conquered Israelite and Jewish territory. That might account for some of the family resemblances of gopel stories to Assyrian, Egyptian, Persian and Greek models.

Apart from Jewish material, or indirect influence from other cultures via Jewish scripture, we had a thread not too long about Dennis MacDonald's debate with Richard Carrier. MacDonald's thing is that Homer appears to have been a direct influence on the gospels. My personal jaw dropper is John, whose opening miracle (the magical winemaking at Cana) re-enacts an annual rite of Dionysus-Bacchus. Jesus does in that story just what a priest of Dionysus would do in the pagan ritual.

There's no way the original audience would miss that. What is it doing there?

 

People of power perform miracles 

What greater miracle for most humans than changing water into wine ?   )oh yes, of course, Raising the dead) 

I believe you are right about the assimilation of  many beliefs into Judaism (probably during periods of Jewish captivity ) and of Judaism into Christianity  Christianity also adopted many pagan beliefs over the first few centuries.  It is easier for people to adapt and evolve their beliefs than abandon them for new ones 

However, cultures separated by geography spawn similar creation myths, similar legendary heroes and similar miracles.   Maybe because of human wish fulfillment and constructing beliefs to explain their environments.    

[eight bits]

7 hours ago, Mr Walker said:

What greater miracle for most humans than changing water into wine ?

I'm not ungrateful. What mystifies me is that John was written for a sophisticated audience, Jesus talks like a Greek philosopher. I can't see how there could be many people in the original audience who both (1) could follow what John's Jesus is talking about, but (2) never have heard about, or seen for themselves, a priest of Dionysus-Bacchus "change" water into wine.

And it was a trick, not a miracle. A great show would be made of pouring water into some container and then pouring wine out of that same container. This presentation can be done with better or worse showmanship, but does anybody doubt that the wine was there all along?

Not much of a question. Apparently Christians came to believe that this time was different, that it really happened. Only pagan gods had priests who play-acted.

Meh. No reason not to enjoy the wine, though.

[+Hammerclaw]

9 minutes ago, eight bits said:

I'm not ungrateful. What mystifies me is that John was written for a sophisticated audience, Jesus talks like a Greek philosopher. I can't see how there could be many people in the original audience who both (1) could follow what John's Jesus is talking about, but (2) never have heard about, or seen for themselves, a priest of Dionysus-Bacchus "change" water into wine.

And it was a trick, not a miracle. A great show would be made of pouring water into some container and then pouring wine out of that same container. This presentation can be done with better or worse showmanship, but does anybody doubt that the wine was there all along?

Not much of a question. Apparently Christians came to believe that this time was different, that it really happened. Only pagan gods had priests who play-acted.

Meh. No reason not to enjoy the wine, though.

So Jesus just made Kool-Aid? Well, since the best wine was served first at the start of a feast and the crap wine was served after everyone was so soused they didn't give a damn, I suppose it would work. 

[+Hammerclaw]

11 minutes ago, Hammerclaw said:

And it was a trick, not a miracle. A great show would be made of pouring water into some container and then pouring wine out of that same container. This presentation can be done with better or worse showmanship, but does anybody doubt that the wine was there all along?

What you have to remember is the ancients didn't know how to stop the fermentation process. That's why you couldn't put new wine into old skins. The skins would already be stretched from the fermentation gases from the previous batch and would be over-filled with the new batch. When it continued fermenting the the skins would burst. When you drank wine, back then, half of what you were drinking were the spices and flavours and juices and even powdered lead, the first artificial sweetener, to kill the vinegar taste. What Jesus whipped up probably didn't have any wine in it at all. It tasted sweet and the people chastised him for saving the best tasting wine for last.

[Mr Walker]

19 hours ago, eight bits said:

I'm not ungrateful. What mystifies me is that John was written for a sophisticated audience, Jesus talks like a Greek philosopher. I can't see how there could be many people in the original audience who both (1) could follow what John's Jesus is talking about, but (2) never have heard about, or seen for themselves, a priest of Dionysus-Bacchus "change" water into wine.

And it was a trick, not a miracle. A great show would be made of pouring water into some container and then pouring wine out of that same container. This presentation can be done with better or worse showmanship, but does anybody doubt that the wine was there all along?

Not much of a question. Apparently Christians came to believe that this time was different, that it really happened. Only pagan gods had priests who play-acted.

Meh. No reason not to enjoy the wine, though.

Did the audience of the time realise or believe that ANY of the magic was not a miracle 

I suspect the followers of most faiths believe their miracles to be real 

It i s possible that you are looking back with a 21st century mindset (and scientific knowledge   rather than  with a 1st  century (or earlier ) one. 

There are highly educated people including brain surgeons who today still believe in actual miracles Heck their are people who continue to experience them   

That  said water to wine and resurrection are significant events and thus attributed to several forms of deity and belief They represent power  over two important things in many people's lives . 

Believers certainly believe the water changed into wine  Both then and now.

Did it really ?

I don't know.

I wasn't there, but Ive experienced miracles just as real and powerful,  so I know it's not physically impossible that it did  

It takes a sceptical non believer to be certain  that it is fakery or  stage magic.

Perhaps it requires  a person who has never encountered true power, or a  "miracle",  in their life  

[Mr Walker]

19 hours ago, Hammerclaw said:

So Jesus just made Kool-Aid? Well, since the best wine was served first at the start of a feast and the crap wine was served after everyone was so soused they didn't give a damn, I suppose it would work. 

There are a lot of interesting questions around this event 

First the wine made by jesus was apparently superior to the earlier wine, which amazed the guests, for the very reason you quote. Ie usually the best wine was served first, and the worst saved for when people were less discriminating 

Secondly ( and I am open minded on this) there is some argument that Christ would not have made alcoholic wine a t all, and some of the language used suggests it was the new seasons wine ie unfermented and non alcoholic. 

Third, as 8 bits points out, it reads a bit like a well known  Greek miracle, which suggests it might have been inserted into the narrative, later  especially as   it doesn't really fit Christ's aesthetic /non material values and priorities. 

[+Hammerclaw]

1 hour ago, Mr Walker said:

There are a lot of interesting questions around this event 

First the wine made by jesus was apparently superior to the earlier wine, which amazed the guests, for the very reason you quote. Ie usually the best wine was served first, and the worst saved for when people were less discriminating 

Secondly ( and I am open minded on this) there is some argument that Christ would not have made alcoholic wine a t all, and some of the language used suggests it was the new seasons wine ie unfermented and non alcoholic. 

Third, as 8 bits points out, it reads a bit like a well known  Greek miracle, which suggests it might have been inserted into the narrative, later  especially as   it doesn't really fit Christ's aesthetic /non material values and priorities. 

Yeah, a lot of the Jesus mythos falls into "who chopped down the cherry tree" variety.

 

[eight bits]

1 hour ago, Mr Walker said:

It i s possible that you are looking back with a 21st century mindset (and scientific knowledge   rather than  with a 1st  century (or earlier ) one. 

Actually, there was quite a bit of skepticism about miracle workers in the First Century. Against which, there's plenty of credulity still in evidence in the Twenty-first (as you mentioned). Human nature changes glacially.

We were discussing the specific pagan festival ritual where water is poured into a vessel and wine is poured out of the vessel. The allegorical significance of this performance as a tribute to the wine god and his supposed tangible gift to humanity, the grape vine, lies close to the surface, and the performers (the priests of Dinysus-Bacchus) were not otherwise noted for their miracle working.

I think the "mindset" for festival participants may well have been similar to attending a theatrical performance (another Dionysan festival activity). The point is not that natural regularities have been violated, but rather that one regularity of nature, that grape vines literally turn water into wine, is being celebrated by its symbolic enactment. Plus, you get to sample the bounty. Where it came from is make-believe, but the product is delicious. Good deal.

2 hours ago, Mr Walker said:

It takes a sceptical non believer to be certain  that it is fakery or  stage magic.

When I attend a perfomance of the musical Cats, I am certain that those onstage are people wearing cat costumes. What transpires onstage is the depiction of what would be a miracle, cats singing and dancing. The depiction conveys an idea of great power whose contemplation is rewarding. It is 100% beside the point that cats IRL don't sing and dance in English.

[SHaYap]

Back in those days, trying to pull a trick in front of the wrong crowd or pulling the wrong trick in front of the right crowd will get you pounded to the ground with rocks or losing you your head in a bloody mess. Especially if you are from the wrong side of the neighborhood. 

~

[Mr Walker]

1 hour ago, eight bits said:

Actually, there was quite a bit of skepticism about miracle workers in the First Century. Against which, there's plenty of credulity still in evidence in the Twenty-first (as you mentioned). Human nature changes glacially.

We were discussing the specific pagan festival ritual where water is poured into a vessel and wine is poured out of the vessel. The allegorical significance of this performance as a tribute to the wine god and his supposed tangible gift to humanity, the grape vine, lies close to the surface, and the performers (the priests of Dinysus-Bacchus) were not otherwise noted for their miracle working.

I think the "mindset" for festival participants may well have been similar to attending a theatrical performance (another Dionysan festival activity). The point is not that natural regularities have been violated, but rather that one regularity of nature, that grape vines literally turn water into wine, is being celebrated by its symbolic enactment. Plus, you get to sample the bounty. Where it came from is make-believe, but the product is delicious. Good deal.

When I attend a perfomance of the musical Cats, I am certain that those onstage are people wearing cat costumes. What transpires onstage is the depiction of what would be a miracle, cats singing and dancing. The depiction conveys an idea of great power whose contemplation is rewarding. It is 100% beside the point that cats IRL don't sing and dance in English.

You are still thinking with a modern mindset but at least i have a clearer idea of what youare arguing 

Ie That the   "miracles" of the Dionysus Bacchus festivals were  magical trick of which all the observers were aware  It was actually an allegorical statement rather than a  literal transformation

I dont know enough about the understanding  of the observers to know if that i s true or not .

However given that many people today, in an educated and knowledgeable populace,  still believe in literal transformations and physical miracles it would surprise me if many/most of the observers didn't believe the miracle was real. Yes you distinguish between performance /performers and reality But that has not always been the case with human thought/understanding    Until a few thousand years ago humans didn't separate the physical from  the mystical/supernatural  and that continued  less universally until quite modern times when science began to explain things.

Until then, everything from  birth to death; from  wine and beer,  to bricks, had a spiritual element which was just as significant as the material one,   and explained the nature of those things as much as  any limited scientific knowledge could do . 

People still "top out"  a building with a tree or launch a ship with wine.

These are remnants of beliefs that, without those ceremonies, the spirits might be angry and cause problems for the house /ship or those within them 

10000 years ago people watching something like cats would have perceived it very differently  to you, with aspects of mysticism and belief inextricably intertwined into their perception.

Eg the y might have seen the performer as channeling the spirits of the animals they  represented or even, for a time, becoming one with their animal  The y would have seen it not just as entertainment, but as a religious and spiritual action with a specific purpose.

Rather than suspend disbelief to enjoy it, they would have used their belief to empower their understanding and enhance the experience.   

 

 

Edited September 17, 2021 by Mr Walker

[eight bits]

1 hour ago, Mr Walker said:

Until a few thousand years ago

That's the time period we're discussing, about two thousand years ago. And not just anybody living two thousand years ago, but participants in the culture that gave rise to a widespread living culture today, the one both you and I grew up in. That ancient culture left works behind whose authors discussed their mindsets, including their understanding of the natural world.

Reading their work today is mind-expanding. Knowledge and technology have come so far (the ancient authors didn't know the places where you and I were born existed). but the attitudes expressed? There are passages that could have been written yesterday and posted verbatim here at UM.

1 hour ago, Mr Walker said:

These are remnants of beliefs that, without those ceremonies, the spirits might be angry and cause problems for the house /ship or those within them 

Yes, then and now people did things because their ancestors did those things, while the reason why the rituals began was long-lost, or in some cases replaced by newer rationalizations for symbolic acts. Fascinating as all that is, two thousand years ago is recent enough and in places well documented enough that we can have a pretty reliable notion of some of the attitudes that prevailed back then and there, at least among the literate.

1 hour ago, Mr Walker said:

10000 years ago people watching something like cats would have perceived it very differently  to you, with aspects of mysticism and belief inextricably intertwined into their perception.

They would still see people in costume. Even today, "method" actors "become" their characters in some psychological sense, sometimes there's even a physical dimension to the "transformation.". That people can take on the personality of another species is not without its own portion of wonder, even if no human ever really becomes a cat (charming though Nastassja Kinsky was in portraying the idea).

In any case, 10,000 years is 8,000 years too far back for understanding the first audiences' reactions to the Christian gospel stories.

 

Edited September 17, 2021 by eight bits

[Guyver]

If Jesus is real, why are all these pastors and other Christians dying from COVID?

[+Desertrat56]

17 minutes ago, Guyver said:

If Jesus is real, why are all these pastors and other Christians dying from COVID?

Probably because they represent themselves or "the devil" instead of Jesus.  People who proclaim loudly what good christians they are are lying. If they were good christians they would not insist on everyone knowing it.

[Guyver]

2 hours ago, Desertrat56 said:

Probably because they represent themselves or "the devil" instead of Jesus.  People who proclaim loudly what good christians they are are lying. If they were good christians they would not insist on everyone knowing it.

Do you think Jesus would heal good Christians from COVID, or protect them from being infected in the first place?

[+Desertrat56]

2 minutes ago, Guyver said:

Do you think Jesus would heal good Christians from COVID, or protect them from being infected in the first place?

No because I don't think that Jesus is real (there are plenty of people named Jesus through out milinia, but none of them were born to save humans from anything)  It's just that those evangelists and fundamentalists who claim Jesus will save them from what ever foolish choices they make are not following what we were taught that The Jesus taught.

Edited September 17, 2021 by Desertrat56

[XenoFish]

2 hours ago, Guyver said:

If Jesus is real, why are all these pastors and other Christians dying from COVID?

Why do people think they are important enough to be given miracles?

Plus, if god or jesus (any deity or demi-god will do) solved all our problems what exactly would be the point of living. Life wouldn't be challenging, there would be no growth.

Edited September 17, 2021 by XenoFish

[+Desertrat56]

1 hour ago, XenoFish said:

Why do people think they are important enough to be given miracles?

Plus, if god or jesus (any deity or demi-god will do) solved all our problems what exactly would be the point of living. Life wouldn't be challenging, there would be no growth.

Not to mention boring, and who can stand boring for very long? 

[docyabut2]

Jesus was a real person.:) he taught love and forgiveness

Edited September 17, 2021 by docyabut2

[docyabut2]

 Lazarus was Mary Magdalene`s brother  that Jesus saved  Lazarus that was put into a cave to lower his fever   from thyroid .

The Family of Mary Magdalene Mary Magdalene is the sister of Lazarus, the man whom Jesus raised from the dead, and Martha of Bethany. Their Father Theophilus, a Syrian proselyte (convert), was a powerful man who had connections to Rome. Magdalene’s brother, Lazarus, is likewise powerful by birth.

Edited September 17, 2021 by docyabut2

[XenoFish]

2 hours ago, Desertrat56 said:

Not to mention boring, and who can stand boring for very long? 

Not I. Don't get me wrong. I can fully understand prayer as a means of 'externalizing' our thoughts and feelings. Even as a means of shifting subconscious thought patterns. I just think that in some cases expectations are too high. 

[Guyver]

6 hours ago, XenoFish said:

Why do people think they are important enough to be given miracles?

Plus, if god or jesus (any deity or demi-god will do) solved all our problems what exactly would be the point of living. Life wouldn't be challenging, there would be no growth.

Well, that is certainly an interesting twist aside from what the Bible teaches, and if not for the Bible no one would even think about Jesus.