Did Jesus Christ Actually Exist?

[joelr]

Yes, that’s what I just said.

The question isn’t whether or not Greek speakers were influenced by Greek culture as it would be inane to think otherwise, the question is the nature of the influence and what can be derived from a story containing common cultural tropes.

If there was a human who was deified in such a culture would you:

A) expect the mythological narratives that developed around him to contain common cultural tropes surrounding deification

B) Not contain common cultural tropes surrounding deification

The fact that the myths contain common cultural tropes around deification say absolutely nothing regarding the likelihood of his existence or otherwise.

I don't care about mythicism. Carrier's reasons are none of the above.

The idea they reflect direct imitation is certainly debated, as claiming a similarity reflects direct imitation requires far more than saying both things have common features.

It's a start. Mark would have known this story.

Romulus


1- The hero son of god


2 - His death is accompanied by prodigies


3 - The land is covered in darkness


4- The heroes corpse goes missing


5 - The hero receives a new immortal body, superior to the one he had


6 - His resurrection body has on occasion a bright shining appearance


7 - After his resurrection he meets with a follower on the road to the city


8 - A speech is given from a summit or high place prior to ascending


9 - An inspired message of resurrection or “translation to heaven” is delivered to witnesses


10 - There is a great commission )an instruction to future followers)


11- The hero physically ascends to heaven in his divine new body


12 - He is taken up into a cloud


13 - There is an explicit role given to eyewitness testimony (even naming the witnesses)


14 - Witnesses are frightened by his appearance and or disappearance


15 - Some witnesses flee


16 - Claims are made of dubious alternative accounts


17 - All of this occurs outside of a nearby but central city


18 - His followers are initially in sorrow over his death


19 - But his post-resurrection story leads to eventual belief, homage and rejoicing


20 - The hero is deified and cult subsequently paid to him (in the same manner as a God)

Christianity was influenced by its cultural environment in some way. So? What does this matter to anyone who isn't a hardline Christian?

Yes, it took the basic Mystery religion package of ideas and used them, like all the mysteries did.

"Unless you respond to every assumption in an 800 page book you can't disagree with it" is a particularly vapid argument.

I've already explained why I don't accept many of his arguments as making his non-existence more probable, given his exosytence is easily explained by what we know of human psychology around apocalyptic cults (when their premise is destoyed, they find new ways to keep it going), Why mythic similarities would be equally expected if he was a real person. How he would be absolutely unique in being a whole cloth mythic god invented by those whose lives overlapped with his purported life (all 'gods' deified in this time frame were real people and you have failed to produce a single counter example), etc.

Uh, which mystery religion has a savior demigod based on a real person?

You can certainly question the validity of Bayes' theorem as actually relating to any meaningful probability

Historical events are unique and non-repeatable, assigning probabilities is by definition massively subjective. It is simply a means of formally documenting your own assumptions and beliefs. It says nothing about actual probabilities, just your personal reason for believing as you do.

Who said anything about Bayes. Carrier uses it but it's his argument.

Using Rank-Raglan, a literary theory regarding the development of narratives, as being evidence for or against historicity

That is one small piece. Let me know when you read OHJ and understand what you are talking about.

The maths has been critiqued by multiple people more familiar with Bayes than you, me or Carrier:

By apologists. How is a mathematician better qualified at history? Carrier has answered critiques. People like to attack him, they feel smart. Doesn't seem to work out when they directly attack him.

I don't follow the Bayes stuff, if you want to challenge Carrier go ahead, a lot of the criticism has been dealt with.

How Not to Be a Doofus about Bayes’ Theorem​

How Not to Be a Doofus about Bayes' Theorem • Richard Carrier Blogs

I’ve been dealing with a bunch of doofuses lately. And I can’t tell if they are alone in their quackery, or if their disease is afflicting anyone else. So here’s a primer on how not to be a total doofus about Bayes’ Theorem. I define a doofus here as someone who not only reasons illogically, […]

www.richardcarrier.info

So each term in our Bayes’s formula acquires errors from all of these three factors. And each factor compounds the errors in the others. As a result, for questions that are potentially vague, with a range of possible reference classes, each with poor quality or incomplete data, we should expect to have large errors.

for example,

Not only is Bayes’ Theorem frequently used with ranges of numbers (representing margins of error, degrees of uncertainty, and sensitivity tests), in every field of science, commerce, and industry that it is used in (thus refuting the doofus). But it can also be used with no numbers at all.

Bias Error​

So far I’ve assumed that errors are just random. We are as likely to be higher than lower in our estimates. But this isn’t true.

Carrier, for example, seems to recognize this, and decides to use ‘a fortiori’ reasoning. Which is a way of saying “I’m going to bias the error in a way that doesn’t support my case, so I avoid the criticism that I may have accidentally biased it towards my conclusions.” This is admirable, and (barring the caveats around small values above) reasonable. But that only looks at bias from one source: bias from the available data. In reality Carrier (and anyone else doing this) will also be choosing the definitions, and choosing the reference classes, and there is no similar a fortiori process for determining which are the least favourable definitions to ones cause, and which reference classes are the most troubling, and adopting those[3].

Conclusion​

So, what can we learn?

Well, for one, the inputs to Bayes’s Theorem matter. Particularly small inputs. When we’re dealing with rare evidence for rare events, then small errors in the inputs can end up giving a huge range of outputs, enough of a range that there is no usable information to be had.

And those errors come from many sources, and are difficult to quantify. It is tempting to think of errors only in terms of the data acquisition error, and to ignore errors of choice and errors of reference class.

These issues combine to make it very difficult to make any sensible conclusions from Bayes’s Theorem in areas where probabilities are small, data is low quality, possible reference classes abound, and statements are vague. In areas like history, for example....

Carrier joins that latter debate too, in what he describes as a “cheeky” unification of Bayesian and Frequentist interpretations, but what reads as a misunderstanding of what the differences between Bayesian and Frequentist statistics are... But given the lack of mathematical care demonstrated in the rest of the book, to me it came off as indicative of a Dunning-Kruger effect around mathematics.

I had many other problems with the mathematics presented in the book, I felt there were severe errors with his arguments a fortiori (i.e. a kind of reasoning from inequalities — the probability is no greater than X); and his set-theoretic treatment of reference classes was likewise muddled (though in the latter case it coincidentally did not seem to result in incorrect conclusions)...

But ultimately I think the book is disingenuous. It doesn’t read as a mathematical treatment of the subject, and I can’t help but think that Carrier is using Bayes’s Theorem in much the same way that apologists such as William Lane Craig use it: to give their arguments a veneer of scientific rigour that they hope cannot be challenged by their generally more math-phobic peers. To enter an argument against the overwhelming scholarly consensus with “but I have math on my side, math that has been proven, proven!” seems transparent to me, more so when the quality of the math provided in no way matches the bombast.

I suspect this book was always designed to preach to the choir, and will not make much impact in scholarly circles. I hope it doesn’t become a blueprint for other similar scholarship, despite agreeing with many of its conclusions.

Source 1 and 2

Carrier addressed those arguments here:

Understanding Bayesian History

So far I know of only two critiques of my argument in Proving History that actually exhibit signs of having read the book (all other critiques can be rebutted with three words: read the book; altho...

web.archive.org

As I stated, it's different in math than in historical sciences

"When Ian isn’t ignoring the refutations of his own arguments in the very book he’s critiquing, he is ignoring how applications of Bayes’ Theorem in the humanities must necessarily differ from applications in science (again for reasons I explain in the book), or he is being pointlessly pedantic and ignoring the fact that humanities majors need a more colloquial instruction and much simpler techniques than, for instance, a mathematical evolutionist employs."


This math person "Ian" wrote this BEFORE OHJ CAME OUT?????? I mean, people love to attack Carrier and usually fall flat when doing it because they don't actually read his work or they make weird assumptions and imagine he must be wrong.
Lataster, who did read his book, wrote another monograph on the same subject, and agrees with the conclusion.

But again, I don't care about mythicism enough. The argument is good but no one ever argues against it, just random pieces of it they find online.
Rank Ragalin is like a side note?

 

[joelr]

By what I see, all the Gospels indicate that the Passover and Feast of unleavened bread went like this, the year Jesus was murdered.
View attachment 94908

The Resurrection Narratives

Nowhere are the differences among the Gospels more clear than in the accounts of Jesus’ resurrection. I often have my first-year stu¬ dents do a simple comparison exercise in which they list everything said in each of the four Gospels about the events between the time Jesus was buried and the end of the Gospels. There can be no better introduction to the idea of horizontal reading. There are scads of dif¬ ferences among the four accounts, and some of these differences are discrepancies that cannot be readily (or ever) reconciled. Students find this a valuable exercise because I’m not simply telling them there are differences between the accounts: they discover the differ¬ ences themselves and try to make sense of them.

Here let me stress the point that I made in my book Misquoting Jesus-, we don’t have the originals of any of these Gospels, only copies
made later, in most instances many centuries later. These copies all differ from one another, very often in the accounts of Jesus’ resurrec¬ tion. Scholars have to determine what the originals said on the basis of these later manuscripts. In some places the decisions are quite straightforward; in others there is a lot of debate.

In one aspect of the resurrection narratives there is little debate: it appears that the final twelve verses of Mark’s Gospel are not original to Mark’s Gospel but were added by a scribe in a later generation. Mark ended his Gospel at what is now 16:8, with the women fleeing the tomb and not telling anyone what they had seen. In my discus¬ sion I accept the scholarly consensus that verses 16:9—21 were a later addition to the Gospel. 12

With that detail out of the way, what can we say about the resur¬ rection narratives in the four canonical accounts? All four Gospels agree that on the third day after Jesus’ crucifixion and burial, Mary Magdalene went to the tomb and found it empty. But on virtually every detail they disagree.

Who actually went to the tomb? Was it Mary alone (John 20:1)? Mary and another Mary (Matthew 28:1)? Mary Magdalene, Mary the mother of James, and Salome (Mark 16:1)? Or women who had accompanied Jesus from Galilee to Jerusalem—possibly Mary Magdalene, Joanna, Mary the mother of James, and “other women” (Luke 24:1; see 23:55)? Had the stone already been rolled away from the tomb (as in Mark 16:4) or was it rolled away by an angel while the women were there (Matthew 28:2)? Whom or what did they see there? An angel (Matthew 28:5)? A young man (Mark 16:5)? Two men (Luke 24:4)? Or nothing and no one (John)? And what were they told? To tell the disciples to “go to Galilee,” where Jesus will meet them (Mark 16:7)? Or to remember what Jesus had told them “while he was in Galilee,” that he had to die and rise again (Luke 24:7)? Then, do the women tell the disciples what they saw and heard (Matthew 28:8), or do they not tell anyone (Mark 16:8)? If they tell someone, whom do they tell? The eleven disciples (Matthew 28:8)? The eleven disciples and other people (Luke 24:8)? Simon
Peter and another unnamed disciple (John 20:2)? What do the disci¬ ples do in response? Do they have no response because Jesus himself immediately appears to them (Matthew 20:9)? Do they not believe the women because it seems to be “an idle tale” (Luke 24:11)? Or do they go to the tomb to see for themselves (John 20:3)?

The questions multiply. You can read horizontally to do a crossGospel comparison yourself of what happens next: to whom Jesus ap¬ pears (if anyone) and when, what he says to them, and what they say in response. On virtually every issue at least one Gospel is out of step.

One point in particular seems to be irreconcilable. In Mark’s ac¬ count the women are instructed to tell the disciples to go meet Jesus in Galilee, but out of fear they don’t say a word to anyone about it. In Matthew’s version the disciples are told to go to Galilee to meet Jesus, and they immediately do so. He appears to them there and gives them their final instruction. But in Luke the disciples are not told to go to Galilee. They are told that Jesus had foretold his resur¬ rection while he was in Galilee (during his public ministry). And they never leave Jerusalem—in the southern part of the Israel, a different region from Galilee, in the north. On the day of the res¬ urrection Jesus appears to two disciples on the “road to Emmaus” (24:13—35); later that day these disciples tell the others what they have seen, and Jesus appears to all of them (24:36—49); and then Jesus takes them to Bethany on the outskirts of Jerusalem and gives them their instructions and ascends to heaven. In Luke’s next volume, Acts, we’re told that the disciples are in fact explicitly told by Jesus after his resurrection not to leave Jerusalem (Acts 1:4), but to stay there until they receive the Holy Spirit on the Day of Pen¬ tecost, fifty days after Passover. After giving his instructions, Jesus then ascends to heaven. The disciples do stay in Jerusalem until the Holy Spirit comes (Acts 2). And so the discrepancy: If Matthew is right, that the disciples immediately go to Galilee and see Jesus ascend from there, how can Luke be right that the disciples stay in Jerusalem the whole time, see Jesus ascend from there, and stay on until the day of Pentecost?


Next is a few pages on other differences in the Passion Narratives. Like when did the temple curtain rip?

 

[1213]

Yahweh taught his theology. Then, Persians occupied and Yahweh suddenly starts changing, using Persian theology.
Then Greeks occupy, and suddenly, like all nations that were occupied, the same ideas copied by them were copied by the new Jewish Mystery religion.
Excellent evidence it was a trend and they also wanted in on it.

Sorry, I don't think we have any good evidence for that something changed.

Clear proof this was done.

At least it can't be said that you would not believe easily anything said to you.

 

[1213]

The Mormon teachings are good, does that make it true?
Hinduism is good, does that make it true?

Why do you think they are good?

Hell is not in the Bible until after the Persian period introduced Hell to them.

Doesn't mean Jews could not have had that idea long before written. I think it is not necessary to speak about hell, in Biblical point of view. There are more important matters that are sufficient on their own, without a word about hell.

 

[1213]

... some of these differences are discrepancies that cannot be readily (or ever) reconciled. ..

I disagree with that.

In one aspect of the resurrection narratives there is little debate: it appears that the final twelve verses of Mark’s Gospel are not original to Mark’s Gospel but were added by a scribe in a later generation. Mark ended his Gospel at what is now 16:8, with the women fleeing the tomb and not telling anyone what they had seen. In my discus¬ sion I accept the scholarly consensus that verses 16:9—21 were a later addition to the Gospel. 12

I think that is funny. If they did not tell anything to anyone, how do you think we go the story? It would be extremely illogical to say they never did not tell anyone what they saw.

With that detail out of the way, what can we say about the resur¬ rection narratives in the four canonical accounts? All four Gospels agree that on the third day after Jesus’ crucifixion and burial, Mary Magdalene went to the tomb and found it empty. But on virtually every detail they disagree.

No, they don't disagree, they all small part of bigger picture.

Here is how you can connect them without any problems:

Mark. 16:1 And the sabbath passing, Mary Magdalene and Mary the mother of James and Salome, bought spices, so that coming they might anoint Him.
Note! There was two Shabbat days. The Shabbat day of feast of unleavened bread and weekly Shabbat. Apparently after first Shabbat, Friday, spices were prepared and after second Shabbat they were brought to the tomb.
Mark. 16:2 And very early on the first of the week, the sun having risen, they came upon the tomb.
Matt.28:1 But after the sabbaths, at the dawning of the first of the sabbaths, Mary Magdalene and the other Mary came to see the grave.
(Mark. 16:3 And they said to themselves, Who will roll away the stone from the door of the tomb for us?)
(Luke 24:1 But on the first of the sabbaths, while still very early, they came on the tomb, carrying spices which they prepared; and some were with them.)
Matt.28:2 And, behold! A great earthquake occurred! For descending from Heaven and coming near, an angel of the Lord rolled away the stone from the door and was sitting on it.
Matt.28:3 And his face was as lightning and his clothing white as snow.
Matt.28:4 And those keeping guard were shaken from the fear of him, and they became as dead.
Note! Apparently, the earthquake and rolling of the stone was seen only by the guards, not the women that vent to the tomb.
Mark. 16:4 And looking up, they saw that the stone had been rolled back; for it was very large.
Luke 24:2 And they found the stone having been rolled away from the tomb.
John:20:1 But on the first of the week, Mary Magdalene came early to the tomb, darkness yet being on it . And she saw the stone had been removed from the tomb.
Luke 24:3 And going in, they did not find the body of the Lord Jesus.
John:20:2 Then she ran and came to Simon Peter, and to the other disciple whom Jesus loved, and said to them, They took away the Lord out of the tomb, and we do not know where they laid Him.
Note! Apparently, Mary left the tomb, while other women stayed at the tomb.
Mark. 16:5 And entering into the tomb, they saw a young man sitting on the right, having been clothed in a white robe. And they were much amazed.
Luke 24:4 And it happened, as they were perplexed about this, even behold, two men in shining clothing stood by them.
Luke 24:5 And they becoming terrified, and bowing their faces to the earth, they said to them, Why do you seek the living with the dead?
Matt.28:5 But answering, the angel said to the women, You must not fear, for I know that you seek Jesus who has been crucified.
Matt.28:6 He is not here, for He was raised, as He said. Come, see the place where the Lord was lying.
(Mark. 16:6 But He said to them, Do not be amazed. You seek Jesus the Nazarene who has been crucified. He was raised. He is not here. See the place where they put Him?)
(Luke 24:6 He is not here, but was raised. Remember how He spoke to you, yet being in Galilee,)
Luke 24:7 saying, The Son of man must be delivered into the hands of sinful men, and to be crucified, and the third day to rise again.
Luke 24:8 And they remembered His words.
7 And going quickly say to His disciples that He was raised from the dead. And behold! He goes before you into Galilee. You will see Him there. Behold! I told you.
Mark. 16:7 But go, say to the disciples and to Peter, He goes before you into Galilee. You will see Him there, even as He told you.
Matt.28:8 And going away from the tomb quickly, with fear and great joy, they ran to report to His disciples.
Mark. 16:8 And going out quickly, they fled from the tomb. And trembling and ecstasy took hold of them. And they told no one, not a thing, for they were afraid.
Note!, some think that this means they never told about the matter to anyone ever. If that would be the case, we would not have this story. That is why it is reasonable to think they only didn’t tell on their way about it.
John:20:3 Then Peter and the other disciple went out and came to the tomb.
John:20:4 And the two ran together, and the other disciple ran in front more quickly than Peter and came first to the tomb.
John:20:5 And stooping down, he saw the linens lying; however, he did not go in.
John:20:6 Then Simon Peter came following him, and went into the tomb and saw the linens lying.
John:20:7 And the grave cloth which was on His head was not lying with the linens, but was wrapped up in one place by itself.
John:20:8 Therefore, then the other disciple also entered, he having come first to the tomb, even he saw and believed.
John:20:9 For they did not yet know the Scripture, that it was necessary for Him to rise from the dead.
John:20:10 Then the disciples went away again to themselves.
John:20:11 But Mary stood outside at the tomb, weeping. Then as she wept, she stooped down into the tomb.
John:20:12 And she saw two angels in white, sitting one at the head, and one at the feet, where the body of Jesus had lain.
John:20:13 And they said to her, Woman, why do you weep? She said to them, Because they took away my Lord, and I do not know where they put Him.
John:20:14 And saying these things, she turned backward and saw Jesus standing, and did not know that it was Jesus.
Note! Apparently, the other women had left some other route from the tomb, because didn’t see Peter and May on their way. Also, the disciples that came with Mary, left and Mary stayed alone there for a while.
(Mark. 16:9 And rising early on the first of the week, He first appeared to Mary Magdalene, from whom He had cast out seven demons.)
John:20:15 Jesus said to her, Woman, why do you weep? Whom do you seek? Thinking that it was the gardener, she said to Him, Sir, if you carried Him away, tell me where you put Him, and I will take Him away.
John:20:16 Jesus said to her, Mary! Turning around, she said to Him, Rabboni! (that is to say, Teacher).
John:20:17 Jesus said to her, Do not touch Me, for I have not yet ascended to My Father. But go to My brothers and say to them, I am ascending to My Father and your Father, and My God, and your God.
John:20:18 Mary Magdalene came bringing word to the disciples that she had seen the Lord, and that He told her these things.
(Mark. 16:10 That one had gone and reported to those who had been with Him, who were mourning and weeping.)
Mark. 16:11 And those hearing that He lives, and was seen by her, they did not believe.
Mark. 16:12 And after these things, He was revealed in a different form to two of them walking and going into the country.
Matt.28:9 But as they were going to report to His disciples, behold, Jesus also met them, saying, Hail! And coming near, they seized His feet and worshiped Him.
Note! Worship = to kiss the hand, or to kneel and show homage to superior rank, for example high priest.
Matt.28:10 Then Jesus said to them, Do not fear. Go tell your brothers that they may go into Galilee, and there they will see Me.
Luke 24:9 And returning from the tomb, they reported all these things to the Eleven, and to all the rest.
Mark. 16:13 And going, those reported to the rest. Neither did they believe those.
Luke 24:10 And they were Mary Magdalene, and Joanna, and Mary mother of James, and the rest with them, who told these things to the apostles.
Luke 24:11 And their words seemed like foolishness to them, and they did not believe them.
Luke 24:12 But rising up, Peter ran to the tomb, and stooping down he saw the linen lying alone. And he went away wondering to himself at what had happened.
Matt.28:11 And they, having gone, behold, some of the guard coming into the city reported to the chief priests all things that occurred.
Matt.28:12 And being assembled with the elders, and taking counsel, they gave enough silver to the soldiers,
Matt.28:13 saying, Say that his disciples came and stole him by night, we being asleep.
Matt.28:14 And if this is heard by the governor, we will persuade him and will make you free from anxiety.
Matt.28:15 And taking the silver, they did as they were taught. And this report was spread by the Jews until today.
Note! Matt. 28:11-15 is a separate story line that seems to have happened as the same time with other events. Apparently guards told what they had witnessed in the city, while many disciples did other things.
Luke 24:13 And, behold, two of them were going on the same day to a village being sixty stadia distant from Jerusalem, which was named Emmaus.
Luke 24:14 And they talked to each other about all these things taking place.
Luke 24:15 And it happened, as they talked and reasoned, coming near, Jesus Himself traveled with them.
Luke 24:16 But their eyes were held so as not to recognize Him.
Luke 24:17 And He said to them, What words are these which you exchange with each other while walking, and are sad of face?
Luke 24:18 And answering, one of them whose name was Cleopas, said to Him, Are you only one who resides in Jerusalem and do not know the things happening in it in these days?
Luke 24:19 And He said to them, What things? And they said to Him, The things concerning Jesus the Nazarene, who was a man, a prophet mighty in deed and word before God and all the people;
Luke 24:20 and how the chief priests and our rulers delivered Him to the judgment of death, and crucified Him .
Luke 24:21 But we were hoping that He is the One going to redeem Israel. But then with all these things, this third day comes today since these things happened.
Luke 24:22 And also some of our women astounded us, having been early at the tomb,
Luke 24:23 and not finding His body, they came saying to have seen a vision of angels also, who say Him to be alive.
Luke 24:24 And some of those with us went to the tomb, and found it so , even as the women also said; but they did not see Him.
Luke 24:25 And He said to them, O foolish ones, and slow of heart to believe on all things which the prophets spoke!
Luke 24:26 Was it not necessary for the Christ to suffer these things, and to enter into His glory?
Luke 24:27 And beginning from Moses, and from all the prophets, He explained to them the things about Himself in all the Scriptures.
Luke 24:28 And they drew near to the village where they were going, and He seemed to be going further.
.... continues in next post

 

[1213]

....
Luke 24:28 And they drew near to the village where they were going, and He seemed to be going further.
.... continues in next post

...Luke 24:29 And they constrained Him, saying, Stay with us, for it is toward evening, and the day has declined. And He went in to stay with them.
Luke 24:30 And it happened as He reclined with them, taking the loaf, He blessed, and breaking He gave to them.
Luke 24:31 And their eyes were opened, and they knew Him. And He became invisible from them.
Luke 24:32 And they said to one another, Was not our heart burning in us as He spoke to us in the highway, and as He opened up to us the Scriptures?
Luke 24:33 And rising up in the same hour, they went back to Jerusalem, and they found the Eleven, and those with them, having been gathered,
Luke 24:34 saying, The Lord really was raised and appeared to Simon.
Luke 24:35 And they related the things in the highway, and how He was known to them in the breaking of the loaf.
Matt.28:16 But the eleven disciples went into Galilee, to the mount where Jesus appointed them.
Mark. 16:14 Afterward, as they reclined, He was revealed to the Eleven. And He reproached their unbelief and hardness of heart, because they did not believe those who had seen Him, having been raised.
(Luke 24:36 And as they were telling these things, Jesus Himself stood in their midst, and said to them, Peace to you!)
(John:20:19 Then it being evening on that day, the first of the sabbaths, and the doors having been locked where the disciples were assembled, because of fear of the Jews, Jesus came and stood in the midst and said to them, Peace to you.)
Luke 24:37 But being terrified and filled with fear, they thought they saw a spirit.
Matt.28:17 And seeing Him, they worshiped Him. But they doubted.
Luke 24:38 And He said to them, Why are you troubled? And why do reasonings come up in your hearts.
Luke 24:39 See My hands and My feet, that I am He? Feel Me and see, because a spirit does not have flesh and bones, as you see Me having.
Luke 24:40 And saying this, He showed them His hands and feet
(John:20:20 And saying this, He showed them His hands and side. Then seeing the Lord, the disciples rejoiced.)
Luke 24:41 But yet they not believing from the joy, and marveling, He said to them, Have you any food here?
Luke 24:42 And they handed a broiled part of a fish to Him, and from a honeycomb.
Luke 24:43 And taking these before them, He ate.
Luke 24:44 And He said to them, These are the words which I spoke to you yet being with you, that must be fulfilled all the things having been written in the Law of Moses, and the Prophets, and the Psalms, concerning Me.
Luke 24:45 Then He opened up their mind to understand the Scriptures,
Luke 24:46 and said to them, So it is written, and so the Christ must suffer, and to rise from the dead the third day. No OT passage
Luke 24:47 And repentance and remission of sins must be preached on His name to all the nations, beginning from Jerusalem.
Luke 24:48 And you are witnesses of th48 And you are witnesses of these things.
Matt.28:18 And coming up Jesus talked with them, saying, All authority in Heaven and on earth was given to Me.
Mark. 16:15 And He said to them, Going into all the world, preach the gospel to all the creation.
Matt.28:19 Going, then, disciple all nations, baptizing them into the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit,
Matt.28:20 teaching them to observe all things, whatever I commanded you. And, behold, I am with you all the days until the completion of the age. Amen.
Mark. 16:16 The one believing and being baptized will be saved. And the one not believing will be condemned.
Mark. 16:17 And signs will follow to those believing these things: they will cast out demons in My name; they will speak new languages;
Mark. 16:18 they will take up snakes; and if they drink anything deadly, it will in no way hurt them; they will lay hands on the sick, and they will be well.
Luke 24:49 And, behold, I send forth the promise of My Father on you. But you sit in the city of Jerusalem until you are clothed with power from on high.
Luke 24:50 He led them out as far as to Bethany. And lifting up His hands, He blessed them.
John:20:21 Then Jesus said to them again, Peace to you. As the Father has sent Me, I also send you.
John:20:22 And saying this, He breathed on them and said to them, Receive the Holy Spirit.
John:20:23 Of whomever you forgive the sins, they are forgiven to them. Or whomever you may retain, they are retained.
Luke 24:51 And it happened as He blessed them, He withdrew from them and was carried into Heaven.
Mark. 16:19 Then indeed, after speaking to them, the Lord was taken up into Heaven, and sat off the right of God. Psa. 110:1
Luke 24:52 And worshiping Him, they returned to Jerusalem with great joy,
Mark. 16:20 And going out, they preached everywhere, the Lord working with them and confirming the word by the signs following. Amen.
Luke 24:53 and were continually in the temple, praising and blessing God. Amen.
John:20:24 But Thomas, one of the Twelve, the one called Twin, was not with them when Jesus came.
John:20:25 Then the other disciples said to him, We have seen the Lord. But he said to them, Unless I see the mark of the nails in His hands, and thrust my finger into the mark of the nails, and thrust my hand into His side, in no way will I believe.
John:20:26 And after eight days, His disciples were inside again, and Thomas was with them. The door having been locked, Jesus came and stood in the midst, and said, Peace to you.
John:20:27 Then He said to Thomas, Bring your finger here and see My hands, and bring your hand and thrust into My side, and be not unbelieving, but believing.
John:20:28 And Thomas answered and said to Him, My Lord and my God!
John:20:29 Jesus said to him, Because you have seen Me, Thomas, you have believed. Blessed are the ones not seeing and believing.
John:20:30 Then truly Jesus did many other miracles in the presence of His disciples, which are not written in this book.
John:20:31 But these have been written that you may believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God, and that believing you may have life in His name.

 

[Bharat Jhunjhunwala]

I don't believe in magic. I believe what is said in the Bible, because I see things going as told in the Bible. And also because I understand its teachings are good.

I agree with you that we should believe in a text because the teachings are good but the difficulty is that what is good is different, as for the texts of Judaism, Christianity, Islam and Hinduism. So, I think the better way is to say that I believe in a text because it has provided relief and happiness to large numbers of people. Nevertheless, the difficulty still remains that two texts that have provided happiness to large numbers of people can be in opposition to each other. That is why I am trying to reinterpret the original text in a manner that they become consistent and concordant with each other. That is the way forward for future.

 

[paarsurrey]

Did Jesus Christ Actually Exist?

The mythical Jesus of Pauline-Christianity people (of dying/rising/ascending god/son of god, god in the flesh) never existed; but the real (Jesus)Yeshua son of Mary (Maryam)- the truthful Israelite Messiah who did not die on the Cross/Pole but died a natural death afterwards at the age of about 120 years, did exist , please, right?
No, reasonable person can deny existence of Yeshua/Isa son of Maryam aka Mary, please, right?
Is there somebody having list of all the human persons from inception to date with there antecedents to check/verify if a certain person existed or not, right, please??

Regards

 

[Jimmy]

He exists now

 

[1213]

I agree with you that we should believe in a text because the teachings are good but the difficulty is that what is good is different, as for the texts of Judaism, Christianity, Islam and Hinduism. So, I think the better way is to say that I believe in a text because it has provided relief and happiness to large numbers of people. Nevertheless, the difficulty still remains that two texts that have provided happiness to large numbers of people can be in opposition to each other. That is why I am trying to reinterpret the original text in a manner that they become consistent and concordant with each other. That is the way forward for future.

Sounds nice, but, I think it would be best not to interpret, but let for example Bible explain what it means, without trying to make it something else. Although I understand it may not make everyone happy. I don't think happiness is necessary a good goal, for example because some people are not happy about the truth and I think truth is more important than happiness.

 

[Bharat Jhunjhunwala]

Sounds nice, but, I think it would be best not to interpret, but let for example Bible explain what it means, without trying to make it something else. Although I understand it may not make everyone happy. I don't think happiness is necessary a good goal, for example because some people are not happy about the truth and I think truth is more important than happiness.

Since you give the example of Bible. It seems that you are assuming that the Bible is correct. But the difficulty arises that when others do not accept the Bible, such as the Muslims and Hindus. Then it eliminates any point of mutual understanding and all we have left is violence and conflict. Therefore, it is necessary not to start with one text, but to keep all the text on a common pedestal and then see what concordance we can build.

 

[1213]

Since you give the example of Bible. It seems that you are assuming that the Bible is correct. ...

My point is only to say, if one wants to understand Bible correctly, it is best to let it explain what it means, instead of making own interpretations. This does not mean that person must believe what is said, only what is the best way to understand what it says. I think the same is with all books. Best way is to let them explain what they mean. Doesn't mean one has to accept the message also.

 

[Bharat Jhunjhunwala]

My point is only to say, if one wants to understand Bible correctly, it is best to let it explain what it means, instead of making own interpretations. This does not mean that person must believe what is said, only what is the best way to understand what it says. I think the same is with all books. Best way is to let them explain what they mean. Doesn't mean one has to accept the message also.

Brevar childs proposed that the Bible must be read in itself but in my view that is good but inadequate. It is inadequate because it does not take into account the historical context in which something has been said. So, if, for example, Exodus is placed in the historical context of Egypt, then there was no slavery and the whole reality of Exodus is questioned. So, we need to combine the text in itself with the historical critical method.

 

[IndigoChild5559]

My point is only to say, if one wants to understand Bible correctly, it is best to let it explain what it means, instead of making own interpretations. This does not mean that person must believe what is said, only what is the best way to understand what it says. I think the same is with all books. Best way is to let them explain what they mean. Doesn't mean one has to accept the message also.

There is no such thing as a written text that doesn't have to be interpreted. Some interpretations are better than others. In fact sometimes a person just has terrible reading comprehension. But even a very good reader still reaches their own interpretation. Ideally, a good quality interpretation will be backed up by examples in the text. That is what English teachers look for when a student submits an essay.

 

[IndigoChild5559]

Did Jesus Christ Actually Exist?

The mythical Jesus of Pauline-Christianity people (of dying/rising/ascending god/son of god, god in the flesh) never existed; but the real (Jesus)Yeshua son of Mary (Maryam)- the truthful Israelite Messiah who did not die on the Cross/Pole but died a natural death afterwards at the age of about 120 years, did exist , please, right?
No, reasonable person can deny existence of Yeshua/Isa son of Maryam aka Mary, please, right?
Is there somebody having list of all the human persons from inception to date with there antecedents to check/verify if a certain person existed or not, right, please??

Regards

Did a historical Jesus exist? Yes. Are the gospels reliable accounts? No. Is the Quran a reliable account? No.

 

[IndigoChild5559]

I think that is funny. If they did not tell anything to anyone, how do you think we go the story? It would be extremely illogical to say they never did not tell anyone what they saw.

Same way ANY legend begins and develops.

For example, there was a sufi mystic named Al Hallaj. He is well known for his claim, "Ana al-Haqq" (أنا الحق), which translates to "I am the Truth" or "I am the Reality." This phrase was interpreted by many as a claim to divinity, as "al-Haqq" is one of the names of God in Islam. For this blasphemy, he was put to death by the religious leaders. After his death, many of his followers claimed to see him alive. Sound familiar?

 

[IndigoChild5559]

Why do you think they are good?

They are very moral people, well known for their devotion to family. Do I think their beliefs are a bit nutty? Yeap. But I admire them very much for their virtues.

 

[IndigoChild5559]

Doesn't mean Jews could not have had that idea long before written. I think it is not necessary to speak about hell, in Biblical point of view. There are more important matters that are sufficient on their own, without a word about hell.

I agree with you that the afterlife is not terribly significant. If I love and serve God every day, whatever afterlife exists will take care of itself.

There is a progression of understanding of the afterlife in the Bible. In Genesis, there is no concept of any afterlife. A person simply went to be with their forefathers, meaning the grave. Later, the concept of Sheol evolved, sometimes translated as the netherworld. This was the domain of the dead, believed to be located deep beneath us. The closest idea to Sheol would be the Greek concept of Hades. Later, during the time when the prophets wrote, the idea of the resurrection and World to Come evolved, where we would bodily rise from the dead and physically live on a new world. During the babylonian captivity, Jews were exposed to other ideas, and developed a concept of Gehinnom, a temporary hell where we are purified. The closest thing to this teaching is Catholic purgatory. The Christian concept of hell, where people suffer for all eternity, does not exist in Judaism.

 

[IndigoChild5559]

Yahweh taught his theology. Then, Persians occupied and Yahweh suddenly starts changing, using Persian theology.

During the Persian era of the Babylonian captivity, Jews were exposed to Zoroastrianism. Zoroastrianism is a dualistic religion where the good god and bad god are engaged in a cosmic battle. Judaism did not adopt this idea, although it was influenced in lesser ways.

Rather, in Babylon, Jews responded in a novel way to being conquered. Typically when a people were conquered, they thought "Wow, their god must be mightier than mine. I will no worship their god." The Jews didn't do this. For reasons no one understands, instead they said to themselves, "YHWH isn't just the God of Israel, he is the God of the whole world, and is in control. We are not captives because the Babylonian god is more powerful, but because God is disciplining us for our sin." We have been monotheists ever since.

Jesus teaches the same Rabbi Hillel was teaching. Krishna teaches similar wisdom. It isn't unique in any way.

Yes. The golden rule, sometimes called the law of reciprocity, in some form is taught in every major religion.

The Thomas Gospel is just sayings put to Jesus' name.

Correct. It is similar to a pseudepigraphal text called the Testament of Solomon, which claims to have the sayings of Solomon, but of course they are simply just made up.

Again, great teachings don't make the story true.

Quite true. In fact, I would say fiction is a far better way to teach morals than actual history.

 

[IsraelMoses]

When the Ark, that was rediscovered 25 feet down, by Ronald Wyatt, underneath Jeremiah's Grotto in Israel, is revealed to the public, in His time, the Truth will be known by many more, with some still denying. More than a few have died trying to reveal it, before it's time.