Did Jesus Christ Actually Exist?

[1213]

Zechariah

1. Israel shall never again be oppressed. Another obviously false prophecy; Israel has been occupied many times since the time of Zechariah. 9:8

how do you make this:
And I will camp around My house because of an army, because of him who passed by, and because of him who returns. And no tyrant shall pass through them any more. For now I have seen with My eyes.
Zechariah. 9:8

into "Israel shall never again be oppressed".

Malachi

1. The gospel of Mark claims that John the Baptist fulfilled the prophecy given in Malachi. But the Malachi prophecy says that God will send Elijah before "the great and dreadful day of the LORD" in which the world will be consumed by fire. Yet John the Baptist flatly denied that he was Elijah (Elias) in John 1:21 and the earth was not destroyed after John's appearance. 3:1, 4:5

I get the feeling you have not read those scriptures, because I don't think they support your ideas.

1. The prophecy given in Isaiah 7:14 referred not to a virgin but to a young woman, living at the time of the prophecy. And Jesus, of course, was called Jesus -- and is not called Emmanuel in any verse in the New Testament. 1:23

I think Bible calls Jesus Emmanuel in Matt. 1:23.

"Behold! The virgin will conceive in her womb and will bear a son, and they will call His name Emmanuel"
Matt. 1:23

And about the virgin. I think it is obvious that young woman in that means virgin. However, if it doesn't mean virgin, what sign it would be that a woman becomes pregnant normally? That happens all the time, which is why it would be no sign.

 

[1213]

There is no Satan in Eden, it's a serpent.

Which by Bible is the same thing.

The much older African version

Older?

...He was the god of the Israelites, not the Persians.

Now in the first year of Cyrus king of Persia, that the word of Yahweh by the mouth of Jeremiah might be accomplished, Yahweh stirred up the spirit of Cyrus king of Persia, so that he made a proclamation throughout all his kingdom, and [put it] also in writing, saying, Thus says Cyrus king of Persia, All the kingdoms of the earth has Yahweh, the God of heaven, given me; and he has charged me to build him a house in Jerusalem, which is in Judah. Whoever there is among you of all his people, Yahweh his God be with him, and let him go up.
2 Chr. 36:22-23

Also, the Hebrews DID NOT HAVE ANY OF THOSE MYTHS before

Sorry, I have no good reason to believe that.

Noah - Also he sent forth a dove from him, to see if the waters were abated from off the face of the ground; But the dove found no rest for the sole of her foot, and she returned

Gilamesh - . When the seventh day dawned I loosed a dove and let her go. She flew away, but finding no resting- place she returned...

More likely Gilgamesh is copied. But, I think it is possible they both come from same source and are not necessary copied. If the Bible is true, all people are offspring of the people who were in the ark. Obviously from there the stories could travel to all nations that became from the people.

14:20 resurrection of dead in Ezekiel, incidentally resurrection of the dead is also attested in Zoroastrianism, the Persians had it before the Israelites. There was no precent for bodily resurrection in Israel before this time. No tradition of bodies getting up from the grave. The idea of borrowing can be suggested.


In Ezekiel this is metaphorical.


The only book that clearly refers to bodily resurrection is Daniel.


17:30 resurrection of individual and judgment in Daniel, 164 BC. Prior to this the afterlife was Sheol, now heaven/hell is introduced. Persian period. Resurrection and hell existed in the Persian religion.
Resurrection of spirit. Some people are raised up to heaven, some to hell. New to the OT.

The idea of eternal life (Heaven, or paradise) comes from the Genesis 3.

 

[Ben Dhyan]

Wow.

Wow, never heard of still mind meditation?

 

[Kelly of the Phoenix]

So you are saying these disciples, as well as others, spend three years with Jesus and just “thought” they saw Him do miracles like; feeding thousands of men, women and children with a few fish and loaves of bread, turn water to wine, heal lepers, the lame, the blind, and more, bring dead people back to life, then they thought they watched Him die by crucifixion, rise from the grave, and imagined they spent time talking, eating and interacting with Him afterwards.

Sure people can die and suffer for deeply held beliefs, but I highly doubt anyone would do so for fake beliefs, lies, and things that they know did not happen.

I’ve been living in a twilight zone since 2016 where a known mortal criminal can have statues of gold and people bowing before them. It’s abundantly apparent that people will gladly lose track of reality if it afforded them power and influence.

 

[joelr]

It is not possible to convey to you 'that' state of being represented by concepts such as God, Tao, Nirvana, Enlightenment, etc., for it is absolute reality itself, there is no other. So unless you take one or more of the many different paths, religious and/or non-religious, that bring about the realization of 'that' state, then you will remain in a state of confusion.
The conceptual teaching that conceptual teaching can never bring about enlightenment is the true teaching.

A "state" has nothing to do with any reality outside of your mind. It doesn't matter what your brain is thinking, it doesn't demonstrate anything outside of your brain. Also there are many people who practice daily meditation and there is no consensus on what it means. Neurologists have studies it and found it changes brain states. So of course you have different thoughts.
Sam Harris did go through this training and reported back that it's interesting but doesn't have anything to do with an external reality.

The only consensus about meditation is that it calms the mind down and had internal and emotional effects. There is nothing that suggests it gives evidence to God.

 

[joelr]

how do you make this:
And I will camp around My house because of an army, because of him who passed by, and because of him who returns. And no tyrant shall pass through them any more. For now I have seen with My eyes.
Zechariah. 9:8

into "Israel shall never again be oppressed".

I get the feeling you have not read those scriptures, because I don't think they support your ideas.

Zechariah 9:8 — King James Version (KJV 1900)​

8 And I will encamp about mine house because of the army,
Because of him that passeth by, and because of him that returneth:
And no oppressor shall pass through them any more:
For now have I seen with mine eyes.

Zechariah 9:8 — New Living Translation (NLT)​

8 I will guard my Temple
and protect it from invading armies.
I am watching closely to ensure
that no more foreign oppressors overrun my people’s land.

I think Bible calls Jesus Emmanuel in Matt. 1:23.

OMG. Matthew is a creative re-interpretation of Mark. Both writers were familiar with the OT. The Gospels use a ridiculoous amount of OT material, re-writes stories and so on. There is no doubt they re-worked OT stories. So of course they saw he was called Emmanuel in their interpretation?


Only a few verses later, we read about the rest of the crucifixion narrative and find a link (a literary source) with the Book of Psalms in the Old Testament (OT):

Mark 15.24: “They part his garments among them, casting lots upon them.”

Psalm 22:18: “They part my garments among them, and cast lots upon them.”

Mark 15.29-31: “And those who passed by blasphemed him, shaking their heads and saying, ‘…Save yourself…’ and mocked him, saying ‘He who saved others cannot save himself!’ ”

Psalm 22.7-8: “All those who see me mock me and give me lip, shaking their head, saying ‘He expected the lord to protect him, so let the lord save him if he likes.’ ”

Mark 15.34: “My God, my God, why have you forsaken me?”

Psalm 22.1: “My God, my God, why have you forsaken me?”


Earlier in Mark (chapter 5), we hear about another obviously fictional story about Jesus resurrecting a girl (the daughter of a man named Jairus) from the dead, this miracle serving as another obvious marker of myth, but adding to that implausibility is the fact that the tale is actually a rewrite of another mythical story, told of Elisha in 2 Kings 4.17-37 as found in the OT, and also the fact that there are a number of very improbable coincidences found within the story itself. In the story with Elisha, we hear of a woman from Shunem who seeks out the miracle-working Elisha, finds him, falls to his feet and begs him to help her son who had recently fallen gravely ill. Someone checks on her son and confirms that he is now dead, but Elisha doesn’t fret about this, and he goes into her house, works his miraculous magic, and raises him from the dead. In Mark’s version of the story (Mark 5.22-43), the same things occur. We hear about Jairus coming to look for Jesus, finds him, falls to his feet and begs him to help him with his daughter. Someone then comes to confirm that she is now dead, but Jesus (as Elisha) doesn’t fret, and he goes into his house, works his miraculous magic, and raises her from the dead.

As for some other notable coincidences, we see Mark reversing a few details in his version of the story. Instead of a woman begging for her son, it is a man begging for his daughter. While in 2 Kings, an unnamed woman comes from a named town (Shunem) which means “rest”, in Mark we have a named man coming from an unnamed town, and the man’s name (Jairus) means “awaken”. In Mark’s conclusion to this story (5.42), he mentions that “immediately they were amazed with great amazement”, and he appears to have borrowed this line from 2 Kings as well (4.13 as found in the Greek Septuagint version of 2 Kings), which says “You have been amazed by all this amazement for us”. It’s important to note that this verse from 2 Kings (as found in the Greek Septuagint), refers to an earlier encounter between the unnamed woman and Elisha where he was previously a guest in her home and this verse was what the woman had said to Elisha on that occasion. Then Elisha blesses her with a miraculous conception (as she was said to be a barren woman in 2 Kings). In fact, this miraculous conception was of the very son that Elisha would later resurrect from the dead. So to add to this use of 2 Kings we also have another reversal from Mark, reversing the placement of this reaction (double amazement) from the child’s miraculous conception (in 2 Kings) to the child’s miraculous resurrection (in Mark 5.42).

Another hint that Mark is writing historical fiction in his Gospel is the way he structures his narrative such that he can successfully accomplish certain literary goals rather than historical plausibility. One primary example of this is the ceaseless incomprehension of the disciples to what Jesus is saying and doing, where they are quite honestly dumber than can be reasonably believed. This archetype of the “dense lackeys” appears to be adapted either from Homer’s similarly unrealistic portrayal of Odysseus’ fickle and clueless crew, or the portrayal of the Jews in Exodus. Mark’s use of this type of literary device, requiring the invention of narrative material to make the structure work, thus allows him to accomplish a certain literary theme that wouldn’t have been possible otherwise.

"Behold! The virgin will conceive in her womb and will bear a son, and they will call His name Emmanuel"
Matt. 1:23

And about the virgin. I think it is obvious that young woman in that means virgin. However, if it doesn't mean virgin, what sign it would be that a woman becomes pregnant normally? That happens all the time, which is why it would be no sign.

During the 2nd Temple Period they were occupied by the Persians. They had a myth about a coming world savior who would be born of a virgin. These are borrowed myths.


The three world Saviours
Another development which can be assigned to the Achaemenian period concerned the belief in the world Saviour, the Saoshyant. This belief became elaborated into an expectation of three Saviours, ea£:h to be born of the prophet's seed by a virgin mother - an elaboration which appears to have been connected with a newly evolved scheme of world history, according to which 'limited time' (that is, the three periods of Creation, Mixture and Separation) was regarded as a vast 'world year', divided into segments of IOOO years each. This scheme, it is generally held, derived from Babylonian speculations about the recurrent 'great years', those spans of time which perpetually repeated themselves with all the events that had taken place in them. The texts vary as to how many millennia made up the Zoroastrian world year. Some give the figure as nine (three times three being a favoured number), others as twelve (corresponding to the months of the natural year). There are, however, grounds for thinking that the original figure was 6000 years, which was increased as priestly scholars developed the scheme. Of these 6000 years, the first 3000, it appears, were assigned to creation, the process of mixture, and the early history of mankind. Zoroaster himself was held to have been born towards the end of the third millennium, and to have received his revelation in the year 3000. A time of goodness follows, and of progress towards the ultimate goal of creation, but thereafter men will begin to forget his teachings. In the year 4000 the first Saviour, named Ukhshyat-ereta, 'He who makes righteousness grow', will renew the prophet's gospel. History will then repeat itself, with his brother, Ukhshyat-nemah, 'He who makes reverence grow', appearing towards the year 5000; and finally, towards the end of the last millennium, the greatest of the Saoshyants, Astvat-ereta himself, will appear and usher in Frasho-kereti. This doctrine of the three Saviours further allowed priestly scholastics to fuse Zoroaster's message of hope with ancient Iranian traditions of humanity'S descent from a gold age - that ofYima - to the sorry present (assigned to the period of degeneracy before the coming of the first Saoshyant) ; and it gave them scope for elaborating patterns of recurring events. The whole scheme, of world chronology and the three Saoshyants, seems to have remained, however, a matter for the learned, while the people in general (to judge from later times) continued to look and long simply for the coming of the one Saviour foretold by Zoroaster.

 

[Ben Dhyan]

A "state" has nothing to do with any reality outside of your mind. It doesn't matter what your brain is thinking, it doesn't demonstrate anything outside of your brain. Also there are many people who practice daily meditation and there is no consensus on what it means. Neurologists have studies it and found it changes brain states. So of course you have different thoughts.
Sam Harris did go through this training and reported back that it's interesting but doesn't have anything to do with an external reality.

The only consensus about meditation is that it calms the mind down and had internal and emotional effects. There is nothing that suggests it gives evidence to God.

Religion is not about the mind, it is about reality. It is not about the concept of reality, it is reality itself. It is that simple. Religious meditative practice is not about thinking, it is about the cessation of thinking.

 

[joelr]

Which by Bible is the same thing.

It isn't at all. Satan is called the Angel of Yahweh, a Son of Yahweh and they work together.

However the Eden myth in many older cultures has a serpent tell the woman because the snake represents new life, shedding of skin, becoming a new person. As such it was a giver of knowledge. It isn't Satan. Yahweh and Satan work together in the OT. It's a borrowed. story


The belief in Satan as an evil enemy of God didn't start until after the 2nd Temple Period, where they clearly took influence from. An evil being opposing God was one of the key ideas they took.



Good vs evil


Harsh experience had evidently convinced the prophet that wisdom, justice and goodness were utterly separate by nature from wickedness and cruelty; and in vision he beheld, co-existing with Ahura Mazda, an Adversary, the 'Hostile Spirit', Angra Mainyu, equally uncreated, but ignorant and wholly malign. These two great Beings Zoroaster beheld with prophetic eye at their original, far-off encountering: 'Truly there are two primal Spirits, twins, renowned to be in conflict. In thought and word and act they are two, the good and the bad .... And when these two Spirits first encountered, they created life and not-life, and that at the end the worst existence shall be for the followers of falsehood (drug), but the best dwelling for those who possess righteousness (asha). Of the two Spirits, the one who follows falsehood chose doing the worst things, the Holiest Spirit, who is clad in the hardest stone [i.e. the sky] chose righteousness, and (so shall they all) who will satisfy Ahura Mazda continually '----1\n with just actions' (Y 30.3-5).


'----1\n with just actions' (Y 30.3-5). essential element in this revelation is that the two primal Beings each made a deliberate choice (although each, it seems, according to his own proper nature) between good and evil, an act which prefigures the identical choice which every man must make for himself in this life . The exercise of choice changed the inherent antagonism between the two Spirits into an active one, which expressed itself, at a decision taken by Ahura Mazda, in creation and counter-creation, or, as the prophet put it, in the making of 'life' and 'not-life' (that is,death); for Ahura Mazda knew in his wisdom that if he became Creator and fashioned this world, then the Hostile Spirit would attack it, because it was good, and it would become a battleground for their two forces, and in the end he, God, would win the great struggle there and be able to destroy evil, and so achieve a universe which would be wholly good forever.


God


t Zoroaster went much further, and in a startling departure from accepted beliefs proclaimed Ahura Mazda to be the one uncreated God, existing eternally, and Creator of all else that is good, including all other beneficent divinities.


Mary Boyce

Older?

Enuma Elish - The Babylonian Epic of Creation - Full Text

The Enuma Elish (also known as The Seven Tablets of Creation) is the Babylonian creation myth whose title is derived from the opening lines of the piece,

www.worldhistory.org

The Enuma Elish would later be the inspiration for the Hebrew scribes who created the text now known as the biblical Book of Genesis. Prior to the 19th century CE, the Bible was considered the oldest book in the world and its narratives were thought to be completely original. In the mid-19th century CE, however, European museums, as well as academic and religious institutions, sponsored excavations in Mesopotamia to find physical evidence for historical corroboration of the stories in the Bible. These excavations found quite the opposite, however, in that, once cuneiform was translated, it was understood that a number of biblical narratives were Mesopotamian in origin.



Famous stories such as the Fall of Man and the Great Flood were originally conceived and written down in Sumer, translated and modified later in Babylon, and reworked by the Assyrians before they were used by the Hebrew scribes for the versions which appear in the Bible.

Both Genesis and Enuma Elsih are religious texts which detail and celebrate cultural origins: Genesis describes the origin and founding of the Jewish people under the guidance of the Lord; Enuma Elish recounts the origin and founding of Babylon under the leadership of the god Marduk. Contained in each work is a story of how the cosmos and man were created. Each work begins by describing the watery chaos and primeval darkness that once filled the universe. Then light is created to replace the darkness. Afterward, the heavens are made and in them heavenly bodies are placed. Finally, man is created.

Now in the first year of Cyrus king of Persia, that the word of Yahweh by the mouth of Jeremiah might be accomplished, Yahweh stirred up the spirit of Cyrus king of Persia, so that he made a proclamation throughout all his kingdom, and [put it] also in writing, saying, Thus says Cyrus king of Persia, All the kingdoms of the earth has Yahweh, the God of heaven, given me; and he has charged me to build him a house in Jerusalem, which is in Judah. Whoever there is among you of all his people, Yahweh his God be with him, and let him go up.
2 Chr. 36:22-23

Cyrus was well liked, allowed the return of the Kings from exile. Which is further proof that the Hebrew writers were open to slowly adding their mythology to Judaism.
And that is exactly what we see. Because they write in a myth Yahweh blessed him or whatever, doesn't provide evidence except that the Israelites were definitely exposed to Persian myths and were not adverse to their culture.



1st Persian influence on Judaism


Cyrus' actions were, moreover, those of a loyal Mazda-worshipper, in that he sought to govern his vast new empire justly and well, in accordance with asha. He made no attempt, however, to impose the Iranian religion on his alien subjects - indeed it would have been wholly impractical to attempt it, in view of their numbers, and the antiquity of their own faiths - but rather encouraged them to live orderly and devout lives according to their own tenets. Among the many anarya who experienced his statesmanlike kindness were the Jews, whom he permitted to return from exile in Babylon and to rebuild the temple in Jerusalem. This was only one of many liberal acts recorded of Cyrus, but it was of particular moment for the religious history of mankind; for the Jews entertained warm feelings thereafter for the Persians, and


this made them the more receptive to Zoroastrian influences. Cyrus • himself is hailed by 'Second Isaiah' (a nameless prophet of the Exilic period) as a messiah, that is, one who acted in Yahweh's name and with his authority. 'Behold my servant whom I uphold' (Yahweh himself is represented as saying). '(Cyrus) will bring forth justice to the nations. . . . He will not fail . . . till he has established justice in the earth' (Isaiah 42. I, 4). The same prophet celebrates Yahweh for the first time in Jewish literature as Creator, as Ahura Mazda had been celebrated by Zoroaster: 'I, Yahweh, who created all things ... I made the earth, and created man on it .... Let the skies rain down justice ... I, Yahweh, have created it' (Isaiah 44.24, 45. 8, 12). The parallels with Zoroastrian doctrine and scripture are so striking that these verses have been taken to represent the first imprint of that influence which Zoroastrianism was to exert so powerfully on postExilic Judaism.


Like all other 10,000 religions, they borrowed stuff from nearby myths. They too wanted a messianic figure and an enemy of God and a big end war and resurrection. They are all man made stories.

Sorry, I have no good reason to believe that.

How does that make any difference? You clearly don't study historical scholarship and seem to just insist your beliefs are true having zero interest in evidence, proof, understanding why historical scholarship says it's not real. Mormons do that. Muslims do that. I don't care about delusions. That seems to be all you have. Mormons and Jehova's Witness hand wave off scholarship also. Doesn't make them correct. scientology also says things like that. How do you get to a point where you just don't care about testing your beliefs?

But again, here is an expert providing some evidence, so please tell me why he is wrong, with evidence.


Old Testament Interpretation


Professor John J. Collins

12:10 a possible inspiration for Ezekiel treatment of dead (valley of bones) was Persian myth

14:20 resurrection of dead in Ezekiel, incidentally resurrection of the dead is also attested in Zoroastrianism, the Persians had it before the Israelites. There was no precent for bodily resurrection in Israel before this time. No tradition of bodies getting up from the grave. The idea of borrowing can be suggested.

In Ezekiel this is metaphorical.


The only book that clearly refers to bodily resurrection is Daniel.


17:30 resurrection of individual and judgment in Daniel, 164 BC. Prior to this the afterlife was Sheol, now heaven/hell is introduced. Persian period. Resurrection and hell existed in the Persian religion.
Resurrection of spirit. Some people are raised up to heaven, some to hell. New to the OT.

More likely Gilgamesh is copied. But, I think it is possible they both come from same source and are not necessary copied. If the Bible is true, all people are offspring of the people who were in the ark. Obviously from there the stories could travel to all nations that became from the people.

A world flood didn't happen. It's impossible and ruled out by modern geology.

The idea of eternal life (Heaven, or paradise) comes from the Genesis 3.

You are proposing that a magic fruit that gives one eternal life isn't as mythical as Lord of the Rings and also was a super common mhth at the time, immortality from the tree of life.


The Hellenistic borrowings about eternal life are not around until the NT when they took Hellensim and made a Jewish version.



Your version of eternal life you are sourcing - "eat magic fruit"

The actual differences between OT views and Greek views later adopted by the NT -

"Hellenistic Greek view of cosmology


Material world/body is a prison of the soul


Humans are immortal souls, fallen into the darkness of the lower world


Death sets the soul free


No human history, just a cycle of birth, death, rebirth


Immortality is inherent for all humans


Salvation is escape to Heaven, the true home of the immortal soul


Humans are fallen and misplaced


Death is a stripping of the body so the soul can be free


Death is a liberating friend to be welcomed


Asceticism is the moral idea for the soul





Genesis view


Creation/body very good, procreation good


Humans are “living breathers”, akin to animals, mortal, dust of the earth


Death is dark silent “sleeping in the dust”


Human history moves toward a perfected new age/creation


Salvation is eternal life in the perfected world of the new creation


Humans belong on earth


Resurrection brings a new transformed glorious spiritual body


Death is an enemy


Physical life and sensory pleasures are good"

 

[1213]

Zechariah 9:8 — King James Version (KJV 1900)
8 And I will encamp about mine house because of the army,
Because of him that passeth by, and because of him that returneth:
And no oppressor shall pass through them any more:
For now have I seen with mine eyes.

Zechariah 9:8 — New Living Translation (NLT)​

8 I will guard my Temple
and protect it from invading armies.
I am watching closely to ensure
that no more foreign oppressors overrun my people’s land.

"no more foreign oppressors overrun my people’s land" is not the same as "Israel shall never again be oppressed".

...another obviously fictional story ...

You could just say that you don't believe, instead of making lot of claims without any good reason to believe them.

 

[joelr]

Religion is not about the mind, it is about reality. It is not about the concept of reality, it is reality itself. It is that simple. Religious meditative practice is not about thinking, it is about the cessation of thinking.

Hindu meditate and say Brahman is the ultimate reality. Other religions have a different story. Mind is not reality, it's a part of reality. Some have a secular view from meditation. Its an assumption to insert mind as the fundamental reality.

 

[joelr]

"no more foreign oppressors overrun my people’s land" is not the same as "Israel shall never again be oppressed".

Uh, yeah, it's the same. There are many others as well. Yahweh clearly made many statements that didn't happen.

You could just say that you don't believe, instead of making lot of claims without any good reason to believe them.

I have evidence. You are probably not reading it but your lack of care about what is true doesn't mean I also don't care.

I have been posting small amounts of reasons how we know these things. You haven't mentioned any of it or explained why you disagree. Now you are pretending it doesn't exist and saying I don't have "good reason". Getting a bit odd. There is no way you had time to listen to John Collins explain how we know the Persian influence and where it first shows up. So you are not even responding to me at all.


" actually a rewrite of another mythical story, told of Elisha in 2 Kings 4.17-37 as found in the OT, "



When you talk about Zeus and Romulus do you say "I don't believe those stories" or do you call them fiction. The evidence is overwhelming that Zeus and Romulus are fiction. The same goes for the Bible. Again, even after I mentioned it, you continue to make these weird delusional posts about "no good reason" ???/ There is endless evidence. Some I have even posted. Read it. Explain why it's wrong if you don't agree.

when you just go "I have no reason to ....." that says nothing. You could tell me Lord of the Rings is fiction and I could say "I have no reason to think that.." So what? Doesn't mean it isn't fiction. I don't believe fiction. There is more than enough evidence in academia to demonstrate the supernatural narratives in the Bible are fiction.


And we have evidence from 400 years of historical scholarship.

Some is covered here by current scholar Joel Baden.

Exodus was a myth. You don't believe it, please explain to me why and why this Harvard grad Professor at Yale Divinity is wrong. Provide sources.

 

[1213]

It isn't at all. Satan is called the Angel of Yahweh, a Son of Yahweh and they work together.

Satan is also called the serpent who deceived people.

The belief in Satan as an evil enemy of God didn't start until after the 2nd Temple Period, where they clearly took influence from. An evil being opposing God was one of the key ideas they took.

Sorry, I don't believe that, for example because I have read the Genesis 1.

Famous stories such as the Fall of Man and the Great Flood were originally conceived and written down in Sumer, translated and modified later in Babylon, and reworked by the Assyrians before they were used by the Hebrew scribes for the versions which appear in the Bible.

The problem with this claims is, it could have been the other way around, the other copied from Jews.

Like all other 10,000 religions, they borrowed stuff from nearby myths...

Sorry, I don't believe that, for example because no good reason to do so. All you have is claims, without no good evidence or proof.

A world flood didn't happen. It's impossible and ruled out by modern geology.

No good reason to say it is impossible. Modern geology is wrong, if it makes the claim it is impossible.

Humans are fallen and misplaced

That is basically what the Genesis tells.

 

[Ben Dhyan]

Hindu meditate and say Brahman is the ultimate reality. Other religions have a different story. Mind is not reality, it's a part of reality. Some have a secular view from meditation. Its an assumption to insert mind as the fundamental reality.

I don't understand why you do not understand what is being said to you? The real* in the context I am using it, is not a concept, Brahman is a concept, God is a concept, they both are meant my mere mortals to represent the real that is not a concept.

* Please do understand that I understand that my use of 'real' actually is a concept, but I am using it in this context to be interpreted as the non-conceptual real. There is no other way that I am aware of that it can be conveyed in order for you to learn it to be true, unless of course you still your mind so it is free from any and all conceptualizations.

Do you understand?

 

[Spice]

Zechariah 9:8 — King James Version (KJV 1900)​

8 And I will encamp about mine house because of the army,
Because of him that passeth by, and because of him that returneth:
And no oppressor shall pass through them any more:
For now have I seen with mine eyes.

Zechariah 9:8 — New Living Translation (NLT)​

8 I will guard my Temple
and protect it from invading armies.
I am watching closely to ensure
that no more foreign oppressors overrun my people’s land.







OMG. Matthew is a creative re-interpretation of Mark. Both writers were familiar with the OT. The Gospels use a ridiculoous amount of OT material, re-writes stories and so on. There is no doubt they re-worked OT stories. So of course they saw he was called Emmanuel in their interpretation?


Only a few verses later, we read about the rest of the crucifixion narrative and find a link (a literary source) with the Book of Psalms in the Old Testament (OT):

Mark 15.24: “They part his garments among them, casting lots upon them.”

Psalm 22:18: “They part my garments among them, and cast lots upon them.”

Mark 15.29-31: “And those who passed by blasphemed him, shaking their heads and saying, ‘…Save yourself…’ and mocked him, saying ‘He who saved others cannot save himself!’ ”

Psalm 22.7-8: “All those who see me mock me and give me lip, shaking their head, saying ‘He expected the lord to protect him, so let the lord save him if he likes.’ ”

Mark 15.34: “My God, my God, why have you forsaken me?”

Psalm 22.1: “My God, my God, why have you forsaken me?”


Earlier in Mark (chapter 5), we hear about another obviously fictional story about Jesus resurrecting a girl (the daughter of a man named Jairus) from the dead, this miracle serving as another obvious marker of myth, but adding to that implausibility is the fact that the tale is actually a rewrite of another mythical story, told of Elisha in 2 Kings 4.17-37 as found in the OT, and also the fact that there are a number of very improbable coincidences found within the story itself. In the story with Elisha, we hear of a woman from Shunem who seeks out the miracle-working Elisha, finds him, falls to his feet and begs him to help her son who had recently fallen gravely ill. Someone checks on her son and confirms that he is now dead, but Elisha doesn’t fret about this, and he goes into her house, works his miraculous magic, and raises him from the dead. In Mark’s version of the story (Mark 5.22-43), the same things occur. We hear about Jairus coming to look for Jesus, finds him, falls to his feet and begs him to help him with his daughter. Someone then comes to confirm that she is now dead, but Jesus (as Elisha) doesn’t fret, and he goes into his house, works his miraculous magic, and raises her from the dead.

As for some other notable coincidences, we see Mark reversing a few details in his version of the story. Instead of a woman begging for her son, it is a man begging for his daughter. While in 2 Kings, an unnamed woman comes from a named town (Shunem) which means “rest”, in Mark we have a named man coming from an unnamed town, and the man’s name (Jairus) means “awaken”. In Mark’s conclusion to this story (5.42), he mentions that “immediately they were amazed with great amazement”, and he appears to have borrowed this line from 2 Kings as well (4.13 as found in the Greek Septuagint version of 2 Kings), which says “You have been amazed by all this amazement for us”. It’s important to note that this verse from 2 Kings (as found in the Greek Septuagint), refers to an earlier encounter between the unnamed woman and Elisha where he was previously a guest in her home and this verse was what the woman had said to Elisha on that occasion. Then Elisha blesses her with a miraculous conception (as she was said to be a barren woman in 2 Kings). In fact, this miraculous conception was of the very son that Elisha would later resurrect from the dead. So to add to this use of 2 Kings we also have another reversal from Mark, reversing the placement of this reaction (double amazement) from the child’s miraculous conception (in 2 Kings) to the child’s miraculous resurrection (in Mark 5.42).

Another hint that Mark is writing historical fiction in his Gospel is the way he structures his narrative such that he can successfully accomplish certain literary goals rather than historical plausibility. One primary example of this is the ceaseless incomprehension of the disciples to what Jesus is saying and doing, where they are quite honestly dumber than can be reasonably believed. This archetype of the “dense lackeys” appears to be adapted either from Homer’s similarly unrealistic portrayal of Odysseus’ fickle and clueless crew, or the portrayal of the Jews in Exodus. Mark’s use of this type of literary device, requiring the invention of narrative material to make the structure work, thus allows him to accomplish a certain literary theme that wouldn’t have been possible otherwise.





During the 2nd Temple Period they were occupied by the Persians. They had a myth about a coming world savior who would be born of a virgin. These are borrowed myths.


The three world Saviours
Another development which can be assigned to the Achaemenian period concerned the belief in the world Saviour, the Saoshyant. This belief became elaborated into an expectation of three Saviours, ea£:h to be born of the prophet's seed by a virgin mother - an elaboration which appears to have been connected with a newly evolved scheme of world history, according to which 'limited time' (that is, the three periods of Creation, Mixture and Separation) was regarded as a vast 'world year', divided into segments of IOOO years each. This scheme, it is generally held, derived from Babylonian speculations about the recurrent 'great years', those spans of time which perpetually repeated themselves with all the events that had taken place in them. The texts vary as to how many millennia made up the Zoroastrian world year. Some give the figure as nine (three times three being a favoured number), others as twelve (corresponding to the months of the natural year). There are, however, grounds for thinking that the original figure was 6000 years, which was increased as priestly scholars developed the scheme. Of these 6000 years, the first 3000, it appears, were assigned to creation, the process of mixture, and the early history of mankind. Zoroaster himself was held to have been born towards the end of the third millennium, and to have received his revelation in the year 3000. A time of goodness follows, and of progress towards the ultimate goal of creation, but thereafter men will begin to forget his teachings. In the year 4000 the first Saviour, named Ukhshyat-ereta, 'He who makes righteousness grow', will renew the prophet's gospel. History will then repeat itself, with his brother, Ukhshyat-nemah, 'He who makes reverence grow', appearing towards the year 5000; and finally, towards the end of the last millennium, the greatest of the Saoshyants, Astvat-ereta himself, will appear and usher in Frasho-kereti. This doctrine of the three Saviours further allowed priestly scholastics to fuse Zoroaster's message of hope with ancient Iranian traditions of humanity'S descent from a gold age - that ofYima - to the sorry present (assigned to the period of degeneracy before the coming of the first Saoshyant) ; and it gave them scope for elaborating patterns of recurring events. The whole scheme, of world chronology and the three Saoshyants, seems to have remained, however, a matter for the learned, while the people in general (to judge from later times) continued to look and long simply for the coming of the one Saviour foretold by Zoroaster.

Very interesting concept of the Gospels repeating Tanaka stories. It certainly makes since that the late 1st century/2nd century Christians would have liked to have a "complete" narrative of their own without losing the Jewish foundation that Jesus relied upon.
I also appreciate the literary vision. But then I find spiritual substance from many literary sources. I thought "God is Change" quite remarkable in the Parable of the Sower, by Olivia Butler.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

did-jesus-christ-actually-exist

How much of the story has to be correct to say that a historical Jesus existed? Does he have to be born of a virgin and resurrected from the dead to qualify as a real Jesus? I think most skeptics would be satisfied with the claim that a historical Jesus existed if the magical claims were removed (walked on water, water into wine, raising Lazarus) and the rest actually happened.

But what if we modify the story a little more. Let's say that the story of Jesus was based on the life of a man named Jesus who was an itinerant fundamentalist Jew with a following, but there never was a Sermon on the Mount or a Last Supper. Is that guy a historical Jesus?

My point is that it's difficult to define what it is that we asking.

A more salient point to the skeptic is that if he wasn't a demigod, then the answer doesn't matter. I can't say what parts of the gospels are myth and which are history, but that information wouldn't be useful to me if the magical parts were legend.

 

[Spice]

But what if we modify the story a little more. Let's say that the story of Jesus was based on the life of a man named Jesus who was an itinerant fundamentalist Jew with a following, but there never was a Sermon on the Mount or a Last Supper. Is that guy a historical Jesus?

But, for me, the point lies in what the stories are capable of doing for humankind. Yes, it's gone a bit amuck, however, in large part scenes like the Sermon on the Mount are as needed as the Parables.

I often refer back to the story of Little Red Ridinghood, although other childhood fairytales are important to my personal make-up, too. LRRH taught me to be polite and respectful to strangers, but do not tell them your business, for some will take advantage of your open trust. Would I have gotten this lesson had I not seen that very wisdom acted on in reality by my parents? Probably not.

This is how I see the majority of scriptures, especially the life of Jesus. And just like the childhood fairytale, as an adult, if I see others living as the Jesus story goes, I also see that there are positive lessons to learn, because people who live by his story are generally happier people and more pleasant people to be around. And I do not mean the bastardized version of some great reward in the afterlife that the right club membership can provide, but the simple message of humility, kindness, etc. that can make now, today a little touch of heaven.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

My point is that it's difficult to define what it is that we asking.

That doesn't seem to inhibit threads such as this.

A more salient point to the skeptic is that if he wasn't a demigod, then the answer doesn't matter. I can't say what parts of the gospels are myth and which are history, but that information wouldn't be useful to me if the magical parts were legend.

Assuming, of course, that you have zero interest in theology, ethics, sociology, or history, and choose to assume that the millions upon millions of folks who find value in their scripture are simply less bright and less discerning than you.

 

[wellwisher]

I think we all know about the controversial writings of The Antiquities of the Jews by Flavius Josephus and The Annals of Tacitus for example. Some say the parts about Jesus in their writings were forgeries and others think they were authentic. But these men were not even born at the time of the supposed crucifixion of Jesus that happened in 30-33AD. They were born after his death.

The only reason I might believe that Jesus existed 'possibly' is through the Pilate stone finding by archaeologists in 1961 which was dated between AD 26-37. And this is the correct time frame for the events described in the Gospels. But this is not evidence for Jesus but for Pontius Pilate.

The translation from Latin to English for the inscription reads:

To the Divine Augusti [this] Tiberieum...Pontius Pilate...prefect of Judea...has dedicated [this]...


Confirming this biblical figure's existence was crucial insofar that he played an important role in the execution of Jesus. This makes me think it's more plausible now that Pontius Pilate probably knew of a man named Jesus at the time and maybe even had a man named Jesus executed. But this is me just imagining such a scenario now. I can't ask Pilate what really happened then because he's been dead for about 2,000 years.

So, what is the evidence for Jesus?

Jesus was executed for blasphemy and his close followers gathered and executed. John was isolated in exile. Many others were used for spectator sports in the Coliseum. My guess is all the first hand the traces of Jesus were officially removed, as a way to stop the spread of his message, and to prevent a possible slave rebellion against Rome. Do you think the Pharisees would keep records of Jesus, or would they prefer his name never be mentioned or on record? This is how criminals hide evidence. It easier to recruit if they can get rid of the competition.

A good modern analogy were the methods of early Communism, which involved book and cultural burning and executing or imprisoning religious, political, royal and cultural leaders, and anyone who represented the old way or was seen as a threat. They never existed. The new way is easier to push forward, if there is no competition and no trace of the past to ask questions. However, many people quietly remembered the past, but learned they had to stay quiet and under the radar, until there was room to breath. It appears it took two centuries until the Christians could come out of hiding and then new records appear.

When the Soviet Union was about to collapse, Poland started to come out of the closet and practice religion in public. This had been a taboo set by the Atheist Communists, who thought they had religion under control and therefore no competition. President Ronald Reagan had loosened the Communist hold; tear down that wall in the 1980's, and people sensed it was time to make a stand and move outside again. However, many artifacts were gone or destroyed by the Atheist Communist, who claimed these never existed.

Hitler did that to the Jews, Christians, Gypsies and homosexuals in that order. Records and possessions were taken or destroyed. Hiding evidence of crimes makes crime easier to get away with.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

if I see others living as the Jesus story goes, I also see that there are positive lessons to learn, because people who live by his story are generally happier people and more pleasant people to be around.

You see the character depicted in the Gospels as exemplary, but going back to the OP's question, how much of that story is history? For the believer, it's all history, which is what makes him a Christian. But for the unbeliever, there remains the unanswered and largely irrelevant question of just which events described in the Gospels actually occurred.

Assuming, of course, that you have zero interest in theology, ethics, sociology, or history ...

That was in response to, "A more salient point to the skeptic is that if [Jesus] wasn't a demigod, then the answer doesn't matter. I can't say what parts of the gospels are myth and which are history, but that information wouldn't be useful to me if the magical parts were legend."

I don't see how your comment pertains to mine. How does my being uninterested in what the details of Jesus' life were or were not make you think that I have no interest in ethics, sociology, or history.

I'm not interested in theology at all, by which I mean the nonacademic aspects of religious study that are of interest only to believers (cf. comparative religion, the Bible as literature). That shouldn't surprise you. Religion has no value to the atheist. He's content without it.

... and choose to assume that the millions upon millions of folks who find value in their scripture are simply less bright and less discerning than you.

You seem offended that I'm uninterested in which aspects of Jesus' story are historical and which are legend. It's remarkable that you would even have an opinion there. Perhaps you think that I should be more deferential to or more respectful of religion or the religious than I am.

But yes to my thinking that much of what is called wisdom in the Bible is actually foolishness and what the Bible calls the foolishness of the world contains much wisdom. I guess you could say that each of us - both the believer and unbeliever - considers the other less bright and discerning.

 

[Spice]

You see the character depicted in the Gospels as exemplary, but going back to the OP's question, how much of that story is history?

For that, we have very little to go on. But it really shouldn't matter, for the story is a good one worth sharing for 2,000 years +.

For the believer, it's all history, which is what makes him a Christian.

Not true. What makes a Christian is the belief that the story of Jesus's wisdom of the Father is real. "Christian" means quite simply "a follower of Christ." "Christ" means annointed as a Messiah. (Old English Crīst, from Latin Christus, from Greek Khristos, noun use of an adjective meaning ‘anointed’, from khriein ‘anoint’, translating Hebrew māšīaḥ ‘Messiah’.)

All this stuff added in creeds and church dogmisand so forth is decoration that usually takes attention away from the nuts and bolts of the matter.

But for the unbeliever, there remains the unanswered and largely irrelevant question of just which events described in the Gospels actually occurred.

Many believers have the same unanswered questions, sometimes with much more of an investment.

Just how much has the truth been altered or completely made up? This is where FAITH comes in far over and beyond Belief. And for this, there's only experimentations such as: If one truly commits to The Way, is the burden lightened? If you love your neighbor, enemies included, does the world get a little better? And so forth.