Did Jesus Christ Actually Exist?

[1213]

This question is beyond imaginable that it could be asked. Even taking aside Christianity we are left with about five thousand years of humans following fictive religions. Osirus, Zeus, Romulus, all the Egyptian gods, the Asian deities, all fiction. The Greel pantheon, the Roman pantheon?

And nowadays I don't think we have people following Osiris, Zeus, Romulus, all the Egyptian gods..., so is it true that people don't follow imaginary gods?

Islam, which you don't believe in, has billions of members.

Actually I think it could be perhaps possible that Allah is the same as Bible God. If Quran is understood correctly, I don't think it is in contradiction with the Bible and it says people should believe Jesus.

Now put Christianity back in. You don't believe in Mormonism, millions of Christians do. Same with Jehova's Witness.

Do they believe Jesus and the God of Jesus? If yes, I think we are on the same side.

.... It started with re-writing some older stories, then a national foundation myth, Exodus, to give a sense of identity. Then the laws were added, which is similar to other laws from other nations.

I think that is a myth.

You don't believe in any Hindu gods yet there are billions of followers.

It seems to me that Hindus can keep anything as their god. I think many of those can be real, I just wouldn't keep them as my God.

I never understood apologists who ask these types of questions? They are surrounded by billions of people in other religions they consider fiction and all throughout history we have made up pantheons, Greek, Egyptian, Roman, Asian, yet somehow they think it's a good point to say "why would people follow a religion if it was fiction?"


Even today people follow cults, one in AU has a man saying he's Jesus returned. With a big following. Sai Baba had millions of followers in the 1900's who swore he was some type of supernatural being. It's a question that answers itself when you step out of the bubble.

I think this is one way to separate the wrong from right:

Now I tell you, withdraw from these men, and leave them alone. For if this counsel or this work is of men, it will be overthrown.
Acts 5:38

 

[1213]

...You need evidence...

That is true. Unfortunately for you, you don't offer enough evidence for your claims.

 

[1213]

...In Christianity, Jesus is the messiah,[note 1] the savior, the redeemer, and God.....

How can that be, when in Bible it is said:

This is eternal life, that they should know you, the only true God, and him whom you sent, Jesus Christ.
John 17:3
… the Father is greater than I.
John 14:28
For there is one God, and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus,
1 Tim. 2:5

 

[Augustus]

I'm going by Litwa's words, I haven't yet read Lesous Deus but I've listened to all of his talks on Mythvision. He says the courses on the Mystery religions and Christianity are not "parallel mania" but the Graeco-Roman religions are a very distinct group and he covers them in great detail.

I never said the only meaningful category was savior deities but that is one part of what these religions developed.
I'm going by Litwa, James Tabor and J.Z. Smith, all experts in Hellenism and it's influence on Christianity.

His argument is what I’ve been saying: you would expect the common mythical tropes to be present in the narrative of a deified human. Of course people from similar cultures construct narratives that share commonalities.

Ancient biography was not about reporting objective facts but constructing a story with moral and cultural relevance.

Plutarch even makes Plato the son of Apollo.

We know all kinds of real people were connected to the divine by myth makers, it would be remarkable if a human Jesus deified by his followers had not acquired numerous mythical tropes to his narrative.

As such he warns against overstating similarities and underestimating differences between superficially similar narratives and assuming too based on these similarities.

An example would be to assume “dying and rising saviour gods” should be treated separately from other gods and insisting this makes it likely Jesus is an entirely mythical being.

 

[joelr]

And nowadays I don't think we have people following Osiris, Zeus, Romulus, all the Egyptian gods..., so is it true that people don't follow imaginary gods?

You don't believe in Islam, Hinduism, Bahai or any other current religions. Christianity is from the time when people easily bought into fictive mythology.
In fact, it's discussed by McDonald and Miller:

The ORIGINS of Christian Mythology | Drs Dennis MacDonald & Richard Miller

1:20 When folk tales and myths were originally presented (Jesus, Appolonias, Buddha…), they were happily presented without concern about historical truth. Being true was not even the point.


Why did this change in modern times?


2:10 We need to understand the enlightenment, science became more important than other considerations. In the ancient world what mattered most about their stories is not that they were true but were more satisfactory to the identity of these communities.


What makes the narrative work is the cohesiveness of the story, it gives the people an identity different than other groups. Your hero is more virtuous than your enemy.

The enlightenment gave a new way of thinking. Logic, truth, evidence. The ancient people did not think this way.


In The Bible Unearthed (the best summary of the scholarship on the OT), archaeologist Israel Finkelstein has the same conclusion:


For most of its life, the Bible has been what Finkelstein and Silberman reveal it once more to be: an eloquent expression of "the deeply rooted sense of shared origins, experiences, and destiny that every human community needs in order to survive," written in such a way as to encompass "the men, women, and children, the rich, the poor, and the destitute of an entire community


Dr McDonald and Israel Finkelstein are separate scholars in different fields. But the evidence in both has given the same conclusion.





Israel Finkelstein, director of Tel Aviv University's excavations at Megiddo (ancient Armageddon), and Silberman, author of a series of successful and intriguing books on the political and cultural dimensions of archeology, present for the first time to a general audience the results of recent research, which reveals more clearly that while the Bible may be the most important piece of Western literature--serving concrete political, cultural and religious purposes--many of the events recorded in the Old Testament are not historically accurate.
"the narrative of the Bible was uniquely suited to further the religious reform and territorial ambitions of Judah."

Actually I think it could be perhaps possible that Allah is the same as Bible God. If Quran is understood correctly, I don't think it is in contradiction with the Bible and it says people should believe Jesus.

I just gave you the Surah that says Jesus is a false messiah. And you are going to be tortured in Hell. That is what the same god is saying.

Surah 9: Repentance (Al-Tawbah)​

And the Jews say: Ezra is the son of Allah, and the Christians say: The Messiah is the son of Allah. That is their saying with their mouths. They imitate the saying of those who disbelieved of old. Allah (Himself) fighteth against them. How perverse are they!
They have taken as lords beside Allah their rabbis and their monks and the Messiah son of Mary, when they were bidden to worship only One God. There is no God save Him. Be He Glorified from all that they ascribe as partner (unto Him)!

Fain would they put out the light of Allah with their mouths, but Allah disdaineth (aught) save that He shall perfect His light, however much the disbelievers are averse.

He it is Who hath sent His messenger with the guidance and the Religion of Truth, that He may cause it to prevail over all religion, however much the idolaters may be averse.
Allah has sent his messenger (Muhammad) with the religion of truth. It (Islam) will prevail over all religion.

O ye who believe! Lo! many of the (Jewish) rabbis and the (Christian) monks devour the wealth of mankind wantonly and debar (men) from the way of Allah. They who hoard up gold and silver and spend it not in the way of Allah, unto them give tidings (O Muhammad) of a painful doom,

On the day when it will (all) be heated in the fire of hell, and their foreheads and their flanks and their backs will be branded therewith (and it will be said unto them): Here is that which ye hoarded for yourselves. Now taste of what ye used to hoard.

Do they believe Jesus and the God of Jesus? If yes, I think we are on the same side.

Sorry, you are not. Mormons had updates on Christianity and know the full truth. Unless you accept the full truth you are not a proper Christian.
Their Jesus is different as well, he is a god, and there are many other writings about him you don't have.

But Hinduism is completely different, their god is Brahman and the divine being who comes to earth is Krishna for one.

I think that is a myth.

I don't care, you need to support beliefs with evidence.
There is zero evidence for Exodus, excellent evidence Israelites are from Canaanite lands, archaeology, DNA, writings.
The consensus in historicity is Exodus is a foundation myth.

Again, as McDonald is saying, people didn't care about the historical truths of these stories at all. This thinking was from the Enlightenment.


Canaanites Were Israelites & There Was No Exodus

Prof. Joel Baden

It seems to me that Hindus can keep anything as their god. I think many of those can be real, I just wouldn't keep them as my God.

As usual, you seem to talk about things you know absolutely nothing about.

Brahman is the ultimate reality in Hinduism. I see why you believe, you just bought into a story and haven't learned anything about history, comparative religion or anything else except what the church wants you to know.

I think this is one way to separate the wrong from right:

Now I tell you, withdraw from these men, and leave them alone. For if this counsel or this work is of men, it will be overthrown.
Acts 5:38

HA! Once again, it's true because the book says so. HA! Your "method" to separate wrong from right is - if it's in your book it's "right", if it's another book it's "wrong", because your book (as they all do) says other scriptures are "of men".
Do you think they are trying to sell their religion and that's why it's written? You just buy into it and say "ok, sure, whatever you say, it must be true".
Wow. And Mormons do the same with their book. And Islam does the same. It's not a sound epistemology, it isn't a reliable path to what is actually true. As uncomfortable as it might be to face real truth.

And of course, this evidence is the same in all religions.
In Islam you are the heathen. There are hundreds of these. Anecdotal evidence. You all follow made-up stories.

"Allah has revealed "clear tokens." Only evil people are disbelievers."

1. Allah has sickened the hearts of disbelievers and increased their disease. He is a spiritual anti-doctor. 2:10
2. Allah has blinded the disbelievers. "Allah taketh away their light and leaveth them in darkness, where they cannot see, Deaf, dumb and blind." 2:17
3. They who disbelieve, and deny Our revelations, such are rightful Peoples of the Fire. They will abide therein." 2:39
4. Christians and Jews (who believe in only part of the Scripture), will suffer in this life and go to hell in the next. 2:85
5. The Jews and Christians know damn well that the Muslims are right, so they try to make Muslims disbelievers because they envy the truth that they know the Muslims have. 2:109
6. "But those who keep their duty to Allah will be above them [non-muslims] on the Day of Resurrection." 2:212
7. Non-muslims will be punished by Allah for their nonbelief. 3:19

 

[joelr]

That is true. Unfortunately for you, you don't offer enough evidence for your claims.

I have plenty more, there are hundreds of books on historicity and archaeology. Hundreds of scholars who will tell you endless evidence.

However, you haven't debunked one single thing. You haven't given counter evidence. Just saying "naw" knowing nothing about any part of historicity is saying nothing at all.
I care about what is true and I care about evidence to back up claims.
We can predict the entire NT theology and how it changed from the OT with Greek Hellenistic changes added on. You can't get better evidence.
Your denial isn't providing evidence or giving reasons. The fact that you cannot challenge any of this, even a little is all I need to know.

 

[joelr]

How can that be, when in Bible it is said:

This is eternal life, that they should know you, the only true God, and him whom you sent, Jesus Christ.
John 17:3
… the Father is greater than I.
John 14:28
For there is one God, and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus,
1 Tim. 2:5

That is meaningless that you disagree. Some Christians say he is god some say he is not. A theological debate about a fictional character is pointless to this discussion.

They say he is god for reasons like:

• What he said
  Jesus claimed to be God in many ways, including saying that he was "the way and the truth and the life". In John 8, Jesus also tells religious leaders, "Before Abraham was, I am" ("Ego eimi" in Greek), which has theological significance.
  
  
• What the Bible says
  The Bible says that Jesus is both God's Son and God Himself. The New Testament also includes eyewitness testimony to Jesus' deity, such as when the Apostle Peter called Jesus "our God and Savior"
  
  
  
  
  But I do not care, that is an interpretational debate. That he is not god is actually more in line with Hellenistic ideas. It wasn't until John where he became more like God, where they were clearly adding more and more divinity to their savior.
• The Greek model is that the supreme god has a son or daughter demigod (birthed from a mortal woman) who is the divine savior.
• John is just adding more to the story.
  
  
  
  
  
• -Other deities, who had previously been associated with national destiny (e.g., Zeus, Yahweh, and Isis), were raised to the status of transcendent, supreme
  
  
  
  -Hellenistic philosophy (Stoicism, Cynicism, Neo-Aristotelianism, Neo-Pythagoreanism, and Neoplatonism) provided key formulations for Jewish, Christian, and Muslim philosophy, theology, and mysticism through the 18th century

You can argue with other members about is he a demigod or actually god himself. It's all fiction anyways.


-During the period of the Second Temple (c.515 BC – 70 AD), the Hebrew people lived under the rule of first the Persian Achaemenid Empire, then the Greek kingdoms of the Diadochi, and finally the Roman Empire.[47] Their culture was profoundly influenced by those of the peoples who ruled them.[47] Consequently, their views on existence after death were profoundly shaped by the ideas of the Persians, Greeks, and Romans.[48][49] The idea of the immortality of the soul is derived from Greek philosophy[49] and the idea of the resurrection of the dead is derived from Persian cosmology.[49] By the early first century AD, these two seemingly incompatible ideas were often conflated by Hebrew thinkers.[49] The Hebrews also inherited from the Persians, Greeks, and Romans the idea that the human soul originates in the divine realm and seeks to return there.[47] The idea that a human soul belongs in Heaven and that Earth is merely a temporary abode in which the soul is tested to prove its worthiness became increasingly popular during the Hellenistic period (323 – 31 BC).[40] Gradually, some Hebrews began to adopt the idea of Heaven as the eternal home of the righteous dead.[40]

 

[joelr]

His argument is what I’ve been saying: you would expect the common mythical tropes to be present in the narrative of a deified human. Of course people from similar cultures construct narratives that share commonalities.

Ancient biography was not about reporting objective facts but constructing a story with moral and cultural relevance.

Plutarch even makes Plato the son of Apollo.

We know all kinds of real people were connected to the divine by myth makers, it would be remarkable if a human Jesus deified by his followers had not acquired numerous mythical tropes to his narrative.

As such he warns against overstating similarities and underestimating differences between superficially similar narratives and assuming too based on these similarities.

An example would be to assume “dying and rising saviour gods” should be treated separately from other gods and insisting this makes it likely Jesus is an entirely mythical being.

Litwa agrees that Christianity is influenced by and is a Mystery religion.

I think the savior god is a separate group, other scholars think that as well. There is enough information to consider it a distinct class of myth. Doesn't matter if there was a man the story was based on, he was still mythicized in the classic tradition and using the trending myths.

Richard Carrier/ Lataster

The Savior-God Mytheme

Not in ancient Asia. Or anywhere else. Only the West, from Mesopotamia to North Africa and Europe. There was a very common and popular mytheme that had arisen in the Hellenistic period—from at least the death of Alexander the Great in the 300s B.C. through the Roman period, until at least Constantine in the 300s A.D. Nearly every culture created and popularized one: the Egyptians had one, the Thracians had one, the Syrians had one, the Persians had one, and so on. The Jews were actually late to the party in building one of their own, in the form of Jesus Christ. It just didn’t become popular among the Jews, and thus ended up a Gentile religion. But if any erudite religious scholar in 1 B.C. had been asked “If the Jews invented one of these gods, what would it look like?” they would have described the entire Christian religion to a T. Before it even existed. That can’t be a coincidence.

The general features most often shared by all these cults are (when we eliminate all their differences and what remains is only what they share in common):

• They are personal salvation cults (often evolved from prior agricultural cults).
• They guarantee the individual a good place in the afterlife (a concern not present in most prior forms of religion).
• They are cults you join membership with (as opposed to just being open communal religions).
• They enact a fictive kin group (members are now all brothers and sisters).
• They are joined through baptism (the use of water-contact rituals to effect an initiation).
• They are maintained through communion (regular sacred meals enacting the presence of the god).
• They involved secret teachings reserved only to members (and some only to members of certain rank).
• They used a common vocabulary to identify all these concepts and their role.
• They are syncretistic (they modify this common package of ideas with concepts distinctive of the adopting culture).
• They are mono- or henotheistic (they preach a supreme god by whom and to whom all other divinities are created and subordinate).
• They are individualistic (they relate primarily to salvation of the individual, not the community).
• And they are cosmopolitan (they intentionally cross social borders of race, culture, nation, wealth, or even gender).

You might start to notice we’ve almost completely described Christianity already. It gets better. These cults all had a common central savior deity, who shared most or all these features (when, once again, we eliminate all their differences and what remains is only what they share in common):

• They are all “savior gods” (literally so-named and so-called).
• They are usually the “son” of a supreme God (or occasionally “daughter”).
• They all undergo a “passion” (a “suffering” or “struggle,” literally the same word in Greek, patheôn).
• That passion is often, but not always, a death (followed by a resurrection and triumph).
• By which “passion” (of whatever kind) they obtain victory over death.
• Which victory they then share with their followers (typically through baptism and communion).
• They also all have stories about them set in human history on earth.
• Yet so far as we can tell, none of them ever actually existed.

This is sounding even more like Christianity, isn’t it? Odd that. Just mix in the culturally distinct features of Judaism that it was syncretized with, such as messianism, apocalypticism, scripturalism, and the particularly Jewish ideas about resurrection—as well as Jewish soteriology, cosmology, and rituals, and other things peculiar to Judaism, such as an abhorrence of sexuality and an obsession with blood atonement and substitutionary sacrifice—and you literally have Christianity fully spelled out. Before it even existed.

You can find all the evidence and scholarship establishing these facts in Elements 11 and 31 of my book On the Historicity of Jesus (pp. 96-108; 168-73). This “common package” was indeed simply “syncretized” with Jewish elements, ideas, requirements, and sensitivities (e.g. Element 17, ibid., pp. 141-43). The mytheme was simply Judaized. And thence Christianity was born. The “differences” are the Jewish element. The similarities are what were adopted from the wid

 

[Augustus]

Litwa agrees that Christianity is influenced by and is a Mystery religion.

I think the savior god is a separate group, other scholars think that as well. There is enough information to consider it a distinct class of myth. Doesn't matter if there was a man the story was based on, he was still mythicized in the classic tradition and using the trending myths.

Again, grouping things as containing common mythical tropes and ascribing causality or direct imitation to these are very different things.

Also the idea of “saviour” gods has been very much influenced by Christianity, whereas in pre Christian cults it may have been more to do with worldly deliverance not eschatological salvation.

By contrast to the Christian, eschatological notion of ‘salvation’ which did not develop until much later, soteria to the Greeks was strikingly this-worldly in nature. ‘Saviour’ gods and soteria in ancient Greece were almost without exception always concerned with immediate help, protection, deliverance, and well-being in this life.8 From what we have seen, soteria normally involved well-defined and short-term goals; it lacked permanence and had to be secured from the gods time and again. The appeal of ‘saviour’ gods lies in fact not in any miraculous power on their part to transform life or death once and for all, but precisely in their ability to respond to the most basic and personal needs of worshippers in everyday situ- ations: good health, physical survival, economic security, safety on land and at sea, the well-being of crops and livestock, safe return home, and so on...

So deeply ingrained is the earthly character of Greek soteria that, even when the concept was adopted and adapted in early Christianity, well-being in the here-and-now remained part and parcel of the Christian notion of soteria.

Saviour Gods and Soteria in Ancient Greece - TSF Jim

The Savior-God Mytheme

Not in ancient Asia. Or anywhere else

Had them in Asia:

“a “Way of the Celestial Masters.” These movements had messianic elements, in that they looked to a supreme deliverer who would force the human race from the miseries of its current state, and end history as it had been known by instituting the period of Great Peace. “Come quickly, join with me!” ran one of these second-century texts. “My followers are numerous. . . . I will not suddenly abandon you. . . . I myself will change destiny. In this present age I will choose the good people. You must not select yourself; by [your] upright behavior and self control I will recognize you.”7
Between the third and sixth centuries these apocalyptic visions grew in sharpness and intensity, as different strands within Taoism and Chinese Buddhism complemented and reinforced each other. Now the coming period of destruction—marked by sickness, famine, the tyranny of cruel and arbitrary rulers, and often accompanied by a great and terrible deluge—was given a specific time in the near future. Only a handful of the human race, guided by a celestial savior and his representatives on earth, would survive this terrible period. When it was over, the faithful would draw together into their own ideal community”

God's Chinese Son
Jonathan D. Spence

This is sounding even more like Christianity, isn’t it? Odd that. Just mix in the culturally distinct features of Judaism that it was syncretized with, such as messianism, apocalypticism, scripturalism, and the particularly Jewish ideas about resurrection—as well as Jewish soteriology, cosmology, and rituals, and other things peculiar to Judaism, such as an abhorrence of sexuality and an obsession with blood atonement and substitutionary sacrifice—and you literally have Christianity fully spelled out. Before it even existed.

Themes and ideas from Lord of the Rings are so common in the fantasy genre, that they just become generic genre characteristics and people who utilise them may have no idea about their original source. They are even less influenced by Tolkien's personal and religious beliefs, even those these certainly influenced his world and character creation. Trying to link every story that contains orcs back to Tolkien's Catholicism and how LoTR was (to quote Tolkien) a "consciously Catholic work" would be misleading.

So of course the Christian mythos would borrow from Jewish/Roman/Hellenic mythoi in some form or another. It would be far more remarkable if it did not use common culturally resonant tropes of some form or another in their narratives. These are just genre characteristics. They aren't necessarily causative or analogous or imitational (although they may be of course, but that is not to be assumed).

What Carrier is doing is akin to a future historian looking at the surviving fragments of the fantasy genre and insisting they must have been consciously copying Tolkien’s Catholic themes for similar reasons.

 

[1213]

You don't believe in Islam, Hinduism, Bahai or any other current religions. Christianity is from the time when people easily bought into fictive mythology.
In fact, it's discussed by McDonald and Miller:

You don't think they just make up claims as they go? Sorry, I don't believe them.

"the narrative of the Bible was uniquely suited to further the religious reform and territorial ambitions of Judah."

And you believe that, because it fits to your biases?

They have taken as lords beside Allah their rabbis and their monks and the Messiah son of Mary, when they were bidden to worship only One God.

I think that is against the Christians who have misunderstood what is said in the Bible. Also Bible tells there is only one true God, who is greater than Jesus. Or, maybe Allah just is not very good, and doesn't even know what is said in the Bible.

I actually think Quran is in the line with the Bible, if correctly understood and that is why I think it may be originally from same God. I don't think itis necessary for a person who knows the Bible, but for others it may be useful, because it tells people should believe Jesus.

Sorry, you are not. Mormons had updates on Christianity and know the full truth.

If they are in contradiction with the Bible, I rather stay loyal to Bible.

But Hinduism is completely different, their god is Brahman and the divine being who comes to earth is Krishna for one.

What is the difference between Bible God and Brahman?

Again, as McDonald is saying, people didn't care about the historical truths of these stories at all.

It sounds to me that McDonald is no friend of truth, nor wisdom.

 

[1213]

However, you haven't debunked one single thing. You haven't given counter evidence.

Why should I? I have not make claims like you do. I just say that I don't think you have given any good evidence, or even a good argument, to support your claims.

We can predict the entire NT theology and how it changed from the OT with Greek Hellenistic changes added on.

Sorry, if you did already so, but please give one example of that Hellenistic idea was added that was not already known to Jews before them? And please also tell, how do you know surely that they didn't have that idea already?

 

[joelr]

tional (although they may be of course, but that is not to be assumed).

What Carrier is doing is akin to a future historian looking at the surviving fragments of the fantasy genre and insisting they must have been consciously copying Tolkien’s Catholic themes for similar reasons.

No, he's taking what the experts in Hellenistic religion and it's influence on Christianity say. James Tabor, J.Z. Smith, Klause

None of what you are talking about deals with that. All of the Mystery cults influenced by Greek colonists took the same basic package of ideas and blended it with their local religion.

Death & Afterlife: Do Christians Follow Plato rather than Jesus or Paul?

Dr James Tabor

5:40 1st Hebrew view of cosmology and afterlife. The dead are sleeping in Sheol, earth is above, the firmament is above that and divides the upper ocean from falling to earth,



7:50 A linear version emerged with time and an end times and final Judgment.

Genesis says you will return to dust.



9:00 Translation of Genesis 2:6 God breathes the breath of life into Adam (giving him a soul). The actual Hebrew translation is “living-breathing”, meaning all life is this.



10:40 Hellenistic period - the Hebrew religion adopts the Greek ideas.

Sources the Britannica article and explains it’s an excellent resource from an excellent scholar.



13:35 In the Hellenistic period the common perception is not the Hebrew view, it’s the idea that the soul belongs in Heaven.



14:15 The basic Hellenistic idea is taken into the Hebrew tradition. Salvation in the Hellenistic world is how do you save your soul and get to Heaven. How to transcend the physical body.



Greek tomb “I am a child of earth and starry heaven but heaven alone is my home”



15:46 Does this sound familiar, Christian hymns - “this world is not my home, I’m a pilgrim passing through, Jesus will come and take you home”.

Common theme that comes from the Hellenistic religions. Immortal souls trapped in a human body etc…



47:15 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



49:35 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 pleasure

 

[joelr]

You don't think they just make up claims as they go? Sorry, I don't believe them.

Again, I don't care what you believe. Show me evidence. McDonald and Miller have studied this material in the original language for decades.
You can watch the talk, read their work for more specific details, or pretend you know more than experts. Either way, it has no bearing on what is actually true.

wait, did you just suggest these scholars, with respected peer-reviewed work, "make up claims as they go"?????? SO, you are so far out in some fantasy world, the truth is long gone for you.

And you believe that, because it fits to your biases?

No, I believe it because the 2 archaeologists who wrote The Bible Unearthed are familiar with many types of evidence, explained in their book.

Interestingly, McDonald, in the clip I sourced comes to the same conclusion based on evidence.

Then we have basic probability, thousands of other nations did exactly the same, of course this is just more of the same.
The stories are not original.

Even worse, you buy into a book of mythology for the EXACT REASON you are claiming I'm using, and I'm not. I'm going by evidence. Yet your beliefs are 100% based on your bias to somehow make the Bible stories true, even if it means saying you know more than scholars without any evidence to present.

I think that is against the Christians who have misunderstood what is said in the Bible. Also Bible tells there is only one true God, who is greater than Jesus. Or, maybe Allah just is not very good, and doesn't even know what is said in the Bible.

Now way, again, "it's true because the book says so".

Also, you Christians will NEVER agree on this because the Bible says he is not and then says he is god. A complete mess of mythology.

the Gospel of John in the New Testament of the Bible emphasizes that Jesus is God incarnate. The Gospel's opening passages state that Jesus was with God at the beginning of creation and that Jesus is God. For example, John 1:1-3 says, "In the beginning was the word and the word was with God and the word was God". John also says that Jesus made everything, including the world, and that "in him was life, and that life was the light of mankind"

So you ignore John to make your version true and others use John to say they are correct.

Meanwhile it's all just a myth written to be a Jewish version of the Mystery religions. There are contradictions because it's all made up, each Gospel is a new interpretation on a fictional character. It's just Judaism plus Hellenism. Myth.

I actually think Quran is in the line with the Bible, if correctly understood and that is why I think it may be originally from same God. I don't think itis necessary for a person who knows the Bible, but for others it may be useful, because it tells people should believe Jesus.

As usual, you don't know what you are talking about. The Quran says Jesus is a human, not a demigod like the Gospels portray.
It says he was a human like Muhammad who was a prophet. No magic powers.

If they are in contradiction with the Bible, I rather stay loyal to Bible.

Neither have evidence, both are likely a made up mythology. The Bible is in contradiction with the Bible.

If you want to see how much get this:

Synopsis of the Four Gospels, Revised Standard Version​

Side-by -side comparison of the 4 Gospels.

"Customers find the book's content great and helpful for studying the differences between the four books."


Bart Ehrman has books on this.

Contradictions? What Contradictions? Harmonizing the Gospels. | The Bart Ehrman Blog

In my previous post I indicated that one of the quotations of the Gospel of the Ebionites, as preserved in the writings of Epiphanius, appears to represent some kind of harmonization of the Gospels, an attempt to explain how the three different versions of what the voice from heaven says…

ehrmanblog.org

You can read his book covering serious contradictions here:

Jesus Interrupted – Revealing The Hidden Contradictions In The Bible And Why We Don’t Know About Them Bart D. Ehrman : Free Download, Borrow, and Streaming : Internet Archive

Bart D. Ehrman

archive.org

What is the difference between Bible God and Brahman?

There is a difference. For one Yahweh was first a typical Near Eastern warrior deity then became a Graeco-Roman type deity.

With Persian myth mixed in between the two. Brahman is very different. Not important to this topic.

It sounds to me that McDonald is no friend of truth, nor wisdom.

Except that McDonald is going on evidence and the best scholarship. Israel Finklestein says the same, all historical scholarship says the same.
The only person here who doesn't care about truth is you. You have no evidence to back claims, you believe a story and all evidence against it you make up statements like the one above. Completely un-grounded in fact or any knowledge.
Anyone could use your terrible line of response.
"I believe Zeus was the true god"

"Sorry I don't believe you, you are no friend of truth and wisdom".

Evidence? None. You have yet to make an argument. Just baseless claims. Same as the story you believe.

 

[joelr]

Why should I?

It's called a debate. It's obvious you cannot.

I have not make claims like you do.

Not only is all you do is make unjustified claims, I think you just learned about claims and evidence in this thread.

Turning it around on me doesn't work because I am actually providing evidence. There is plenty more. I will even provide more scholarship here.

I just say that I don't think you have given any good evidence, or even a good argument, to support your claims.

Sure, and germ theory also has no good evidence. You can say that about anything. Except I have produced multiple scholars evidence. There are much deeper details to go into as well. But you haven't debunked, read or even acknowledged anything and then pretend like you know more than scholarship.
You can use denial all you want, I do not care. I'm interested in what is true and I will follow the best evidence. You can play whatever games you need to to continue fooling yourself.


If you can provide some peer-reviewed scholarship go ahead.

Sorry, if you did already so, but please give one example of that Hellenistic idea was added that was not already known to Jews before them? And please also tell, how do you know surely that they didn't have that idea already?

I already have. The ideas come from 300 BCE and even far older and are found in multiple Mystery cults.

But let's (not you, you are in denial mode) look at some more evidence.

• Mysteries of Isis– This was a rather present and more well-known cult. While most of the mystery cults revolved around Hellenistic culture and religion, the cults of Isis worshipped the Egyptian goddess of wisdom and magic. It emerged during the Hellenistic Era (323 BCE through 30 CE).

There are so many writers and historians from the 3/4/5th centuries BCE who mention these, there are many ways historians know when they are from. Cross-cultural references, writings from people outside the religions who describe them. There is no doubt they are several centuries older than Christianity which is from the Roman era.


Richard Carrier, Origins of Christianity.

Debate - Was Christianity stolen from Egypt? Carrier (historian)





10:04 I have done extensive research into the origins of Christianity. The appropriation of Isis and Horus statues as Mary and Jesus statues totally happened, but that was centuries later, this was not part of the origin.


Most of what we mean by Christianity is Jewish, it comes from Judaism. If we go back many centuries we can talk about the surrounding cultures that influenced Judaism and Egypt would be one of them, among several others. Christians probably were not even aware of this as it was centuries old by then.


Most of it is borrowing this package of ideas called the Mystery cults, which was a Hellenized version of local tribal cults. We have a Syrian version, we have a Persian version, an Egyptian version, it’s the same package that spreads from the Greek colonists. It’s very Greek but borrows from local cultures.


For example, Osirus Mysteries was different from the Osirus religion. It was a merger between Greek ideas and local native Egyptian ideas. We see the same in the other mysteries.


When Judaism did the same thing and created Christianity, it borrowed the same package, it’s borrowing a generic package that all the cultures bought. Not just Egypt.





There are other influences as well. The ending of Mark and the ending of Luke both borrow from the Romulus story in different ways, which is a Roman myth. So they are picking from various things, little pieces of different myth.


Primarily it’s Judaism, then Hellenism, then small pieces of different nations. Egypt, Persia, Syria and even European cults.





The Egyptians did the same thing, they took the same package of ideas and blended it with their local Egyptian religion, all the Mystery cults did the same.


This is what all the scholarship and evidence supports.



Mystery cults come from the era of Alexander the Great.



16:30 The Hellenized version of baptism meant into the death and resurrection of the savior figure. The savior figure is generic, you can plug anyone in there, any deity.


(Goes over examples)


More scholarship

Yes, mystery cults, or mystery religions, were older than Christianity, which originated during the Roman Empire when mystery religions were also popular:

• Mystery religions
  These secret cults originated in tribal ceremonies and were prevalent in the Greco-Roman world. They were characterized by secrecy, initiation rites, and often centered around a primary deity. Some examples of mystery religions include Mithraism, a monotheistic sect of Zoroastrianism that worshiped Mithra as the defender of truth, and the Eleusinian Mysteries, which were based on a myth from the Homeric Hymns. The Eleusinian Mysteries were the earliest and most famous mystery cult, lasting for over a millennium.

The Eleusinian Mysteries were the earliest and most famous of the mystery cults and lasted for over a millennium. Whenever they first originated, by the end of the 5th century BC, they had been heavily influenced by Orphism, and in Late Antiquity, they had become allegorized.

 

[Ebionite]

The historicity of Jesus' resurrection is unimpeachable.

Actually not, there's nothing from the Tanak to support it.

And said unto them, Thus it is written, and thus it behoved Christ to suffer, and to rise from the dead the third day:
Luke 24:46

The best match for this is
After two days will he revive us: in the third day he will raise us up, and we shall live in his sight.
Hosea 6:2

 

[Bharat Jhunjhunwala]

But Hinduism is completely different, their god is Brahman and the divine being who comes to earth is Krishna for one.

Brahman is not the divine being who comes to earth in Hinduism, Brahman first manifests as Brahma, Vishnu and Shiva. The three principal gods and among these three Vishnu reincarnate repeatedly in one of whose reincarnations is Krishna. In order to understand this concept, the one God, Elohim or Brahman, is all encompassing and he has no distinctions but once we come to the Father, son, and the Holy Ghost of the Christianity, or the Brahma, Vishnu and Shiva of Hinduism, then we have more personalized gods who are jealous, who are active, and who reincarnate.

 

[1213]

No, I believe it because the 2 archaeologists who wrote The Bible Unearthed are familiar with many types of evidence, explained in their book.

Why accept their explanation, when there can be many others?

Then we have basic probability, thousands of other nations did exactly the same, of course this is just more of the same.

I think it is not true that all of them have done exactly the same.

it means saying you know more than scholars without any evidence to present.

A scholar who sees things only in one way is not in my opinion worth to be called a scholar.

the Gospel of John in the New Testament of the Bible emphasizes that Jesus is God incarnate. The Gospel's opening passages state that Jesus was with God at the beginning of creation and that Jesus is God.
For example, John 1:1-3 says, "In the beginning was the word and the word was with God and the word was God". John also says that Jesus made everything, including the world, and that "in him was life, and that life was the light of mankind"

It says the word was God, not Jesus was the God.

And Bible says, things were created through Jesus. That means, he was a mediator.

There are contradictions because it's all made up, each Gospel is a new interpretation on a fictional character.

It is contradictory only if you don't understand it correctly.

The Quran says Jesus is a human

And that is also what the Bible says:

For there is one God, and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus,
1 Tim. 2:5

For one Yahweh was first a typical Near Eastern warrior deity then became a Graeco-Roman type deity.

What is Grego-Roman type deity?

With Persian myth mixed in between the two. Brahman is very different. Not important to this topic.

I think it is important to know what is the difference.

 

[1213]

I am actually providing evidence.

Sorry, you are not, you are providing claims that are based on faulty reasoning.

I already have. The ideas come from 300 BCE and even far older and are found in multiple Mystery cults.

But let's (not you, you are in denial mode) look at some more evidence.

• Mysteries of Isis– This was a rather present and more well-known cult. While most of the mystery cults revolved around Hellenistic culture and religion, the cults of Isis worshipped the Egyptian goddess of wisdom and magic. It emerged during the Hellenistic Era (323 BCE through 30 CE).

So, it is not actually Hellenistic, but Egyptian influence you meant?

The appropriation of Isis and Horus statues as Mary and Jesus statues totally happened, but that was centuries later, this was not part of the origin.

Actually, it maybe true that some Christians have adopted pagan ideas and even statues. I don't think it has anything to do with the real Christianity, which is the teachings of Jesus.

Most of what we mean by Christianity is Jewish, it comes from Judaism.

I can agree with that. The Christianity what Jesus taught is Jewish, I think 100 % pure Jewish.

If we go back many centuries we can talk about the surrounding cultures that influenced Judaism and Egypt would be one of them, among several others.

And by what they wrote and said, I don't believe Jews copied their ideas from others.

For example, Osirus Mysteries was different from the Osirus religion. It was a merger between Greek ideas and local native Egyptian ideas. We see the same in the other mysteries.

Can you give one example what do you mean with that?

The ending of Mark and the ending of Luke both borrow from the Romulus story in different ways, which is a Roman myth.

Please tell, what exactly is borrowed?

The Hellenized version of baptism meant into the death and resurrection of the savior figure. The savior figure is generic, you can plug anyone in there, any deity.

Even if people could make those claims about anyone, why would it make Jesus not true?

Also, i think one has greatly m misunderstood the Bible, if he thinks Christianity is about superficial matters.

 

[Augustus]

No, he's taking what the experts in Hellenistic religion and it's influence on Christianity say.

How many of them think this means Jesus never existed? Why not go with the experts there too?

The experts disagree on all kinds of things, yet are overwhelming in their consensus in this.

Tolkien influenced the fantasy genre and was a devout Catholic.

That doesn’t mean modern writers who use his tropes are necessarily imitating him let alone adopting his religious sensibilities.

Of course Christianity was influenced by Hellenism, it would be miraculous if it had not been.

This says nothing about Jesus’ likely existence.

You say carrier is just saying what experts say, yet basically none of these experts agree with his overall opinion that Jesus almost certainly never existed. But

 

[joelr]

Brahman is not the divine being who comes to earth in Hinduism, Brahman first manifests as Brahma, Vishnu and Shiva. The three principal gods and among these three Vishnu reincarnate repeatedly in one of whose reincarnations is Krishna. In order to understand this concept, the one God, Elohim or Brahman, is all encompassing and he has no distinctions but once we come to the Father, son, and the Holy Ghost of the Christianity, or the Brahma, Vishnu and Shiva of Hinduism, then we have more personalized gods who are jealous, who are active, and who reincarnate.

No I said Krishna is the deity who is on Earth. Brahman in Advaita Vedanta is more than just God, he is the ultimate reality and all consciousness.