Did Jesus Christ Actually Exist?

[1213]

...thinking archaeology and critical-historical studies are wrong, not because they have better evidence but because ...

...there is no good and intelligent reason to believe the professional opinions in all cases.

 

[1213]

...But you are correct, we cannot know. ...

Thank you. That is enough for me.

 

[1213]

...There is no hell in the OT and

Claims like that ruin your credibility.

Bible tells there is a fire lake, and it is also called hell.

The devil who deceived them was thrown into the lake of fire and sulfur, where the beast and the false prophet are also. They will be tormented day and night forever and ever.
Rev. 20:10
If your hand causes you to stumble, cut it off. It is better for you to enter into life maimed, rather than having your two hands to go into Gehenna [hell], into the unquenchable fire,
Mark 9:43
I saw the dead, the great and the small, standing before the throne, and they opened books. Another book was opened, which is the book of life. The dead were judged out of the things which were written in the books, according to their works. The sea gave up the dead who were in it. Death and Hades gave up the dead who were in them. They were judged, each one ac-cording to his works. Death and Hades were thrown into the lake of fire. This is the second death, the lake of fire. If anyone was not found written in the book of life, he was cast into the lake of fire.
Rev. 20:12-15

a firery hell is a Persian myth they borrowed.

First you say there is no hell and then you say it was borrowed. Don't you think that is too contradictory?

Yes, again, more Persian influence, originally Eden was east. The Persian influence, once again. It became paradise because the Persians associated it with that. And they had a myth about a final battle and a bodily resurrection where earth would become a paradise. Borrowed by Jewish myth.

The word paradise is irrelevant in this. The crucial point is, there was a garden and the idea of a paradise fits to it. The important thing is the matter itself, not the name of it.

 

[1213]

There was no hypothetical question. You only had unsupported claims. Perhaps you mean to ask one.

Yes, the hypothetical question is, if it is true that people saw the healing miracles, would it not be a sign for them?

...We know when the first census was held in ...

Sorry, I don't believe that.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Yes, the hypothetical question is, if it is true that people saw the healing miracles, would it not be a sign for them?

That was never asked and it is a silly question. It is not hypothetical. You used a logical fallacy.

Sorry, I don't believe that.

That is only because you cannot reason rationally in this matter. You have to be inconsistent to maintain a flawed belief.

 

[Subduction Zone]

...there is no good and intelligent reason to believe the professional opinions in all cases.

Wrong again. You do not get to cherry pick what science you believe.

 

[oldbadger]

...there is no good and intelligent reason to believe the professional opinions in all cases.

I agree.
Select any group of professionals all together and wait for the arguments.
Which is right?......you might as well listen to all and then research for yourself.

 

[oldbadger]

FWIW, I rather enjoyed Crossan,

A member of the peasant classes shuffling from village to the next, offering Crosson's 'magic for meal'....with a few hangers on going ahead to sell him up.

And half a book devoted to Roman patronage .......amongst the Northern peasants?

Meh!

Vermes,

Yes. The raising of Jesus the man up in to 'Lord' and thence in to Deity as the gospels advanced.
I liked that.

and Maccoby, although the latter is somewhat of a peripheral figure.

I read about him but not direct from him.

But it's best if we present our own ideas rather than parrot those of others.

 

[oldbadger]

How many of the people you think spend time with Jesus did write the Gospels and suffered for their beliefs? Yep, none. There is exactly one person who is said to have known Jesus and has written something at all, Simon. Everything else is hearsay.

I think that the author of G-Mark was a partial witness.
The account of the young man who tore out of his clothing and ran....the officers who lost him in that chase very probably kept their mouths shut tight. Any people who might have had a chance to witness that event we're extremely distracted with their own problems, and the only one left to ever remember the event was the runner, the survivor.

Oh, and all the clever ideas of this account being clever anecdote or metaphor are junk. I've caught hold of tens of thieves when I was a thief catcher, and some of them pulled out of their clothing to run and get clear.... They'll never forget the occasion for sure.

 

[jimb]

There can be controversy about anything written two thousand years ago, but the writings of Josephus can help to show that the man called Jesus did exist, not from the words seen there now but within the spaces where they were written! Just look at where he is mentioned. The space is surrounded by people who were not particularly good, which gives me a fair idea about what Josephus actually thought about him. The mention of John the Baptist (whose memory was respected by Josephus) is far away.

But let's see what Jesus's enemies thought. Fortunately the claims of Celcus (Celsus) survived because a respected Christian copied some of his works in order to refute them. Celcus not only told some very interesting anecdotes about Jesus but he clearly believed in his existence.

Thirdly, the gospel of Mark (less the Christian edits and insertions) tells the story of a very real man and most of the Miracles described have possible explanations. That includes the walking on water stuff, by the way.

Later gospels turn Jesus in to a Lord, and then a God, so I just tend to look at G-Mark for most of the real story, but it's a story about an amazing man whose mission sadly failed.

Jesus' mission failed??? There are roughly 2,500,000,000 Christians in the world today. That's my definition of success, not failure.

 

[jimb]

Two separate persons.
Even on the last week there were two separate persons.
Two men came to Jerusalem and were welcomed by the common people. Both were loved. Both of them caused mayhem at that time. Both were tried and convicted of crimes. Both were called Jesus, and one was a son of man, the other was a son of God.

And I notice that there were two different persons right through the synoptic gospel accounts.

Yep.... Two persons called Jesus.

There is one Jesus Christ, and only one.

One Jewish man named Yeshua (a.k.a. Jesus) came to Jerusalem riding on a donkey, and he was ecstatically welcomed by hordes of people. One man -- Yeshua -- was tried, convicted, and crucified. He is referred to as "the son of man" in Scripture, but He is/was the Son of God.

I hope that you take off your blinders and read the Bible more carefully! There was/is only one man who is the Savior: Yeshua haMashiach (Jesus Christ).

 

[jimb]

I think that the author of G-Mark was a partial witness.
The account of the young man who tore out of his clothing and ran....the officers who lost him in that chase very probably kept their mouths shut tight. Any people who might have had a chance to witness that event we're extremely distracted with their own problems, and the only one left to ever remember the event was the runner, the survivor.

Oh, and all the clever ideas of this account being clever anecdote or metaphor are junk. I've caught hold of tens of thieves when I was a thief catcher, and some of them pulled out of their clothing to run and get clear.... They'll never forget the occasion for sure.

Nonsensical supposition, created (unfortunately) in your own imagination.

 

[oldbadger]

Jesus' mission failed??? There are roughly 2,500,000,000 Christians in the world today. That's my definition of success, not failure.

Yes........Christianity built up, sure.

The church reversed itself in to so many other religions and grew.

But Jesus the man wanted something else, I think.

 

[oldbadger]

Nonsensical supposition, created (unfortunately) in your own imagination.

Not at all. I've offered my reasoning for believing that the author of G-Mark was a witness at the arrest.

Why don't you offer something 'sensical' to refute that?
Nothing? OK.

 

[oldbadger]

There is one Jesus Christ, and only one.

One Jewish man named Yeshua (a.k.a. Jesus) came to Jerusalem riding on a donkey, and he was ecstatically welcomed by hordes of people. One man -- Yeshua -- was tried, convicted, and crucified. He is referred to as "the son of man" in Scripture, but He is/was the Son of God.

I hope that you take off your blinders and read the Bible more carefully! There was/is only one man who is the Savior: Yeshua haMashiach (Jesus Christ).

No.
There were two men reported to have been adored by the people.

Both are mentioned in the gospels. The Jesus that you cannot seem to see is Barabbas, called Jesus Barabbas in some earlier bibles.
Bar = Son of (Eastern Aramaic)
Abba= Father (Eastern Aramaic)

The Jesus that you mention was Yeshua BarYosef, he didn't speak Greek, never heard the word haMashiach and the Church built up that title afterwards.

Do you accept that the people loved BarAbbas, that caused mayhem in Jerusalem, that they insisted on his freedom?

 

[1213]

Wrong again. You do not get to cherry pick what science you believe.

Why not? I think everyone has right to choose what they believe. I don't believe things that are not well reasoned.

 

[joelr]

The Synoptic Problem | Bible.org

Uh, yes that is the link. When Christians do actual scholarship they accept the evidence most fundamentalists say isn't true.
Mark is the source of the Synoptic Gospels. But in historical studies, so is John. I gave a small bit of Carrier's chapter on John.





The Synoptic Problem | Bible.org

Talking about a diarrhetic flood of a response.

What you mean is "talk about a lot of good evidence for the Markan Priority". But your ad-hom to my response shows insecurity and poor sportsmanship when I make my case.
Not to mention your subtle putting down of actual evidence, facts and scholarship. Because you probably know it demonstrates your beliefs are fictional syncretic folk tales.

It would take me a day to pluck out the weeds and 50 posts to answer

Its' funny how you frame it as "weeds" when it's actually highly trained scholars who spend their lives studying this material. Its great when people just assume it's really words from a god and studythis material all day, but when it's actually put to the test and fails it becomes "weeds".
That isn't the problem of the scholarship, it's because you believe a story that doesn't have reasonable evidence to any of the many claims made .
This is one area, the Synoptic Problem.

You would think you would be interested in learning, very suspicious. As if you are going to correct Biblical scholars in the first place.

So, I realize that you are definitely firm on your position

I don't have a position. I follow the evidence. I don't have a "position" on germs. They exist. I don't have a "position" on Osirus, it's a myth.
All of the historical evidence shows this is borrowed and made up.
I'm not firm on anything. You show me a historian who has counter evidence, would be interesting to see their work.

There are many many scholars who went into critical-historical studies as fundamentalists, all of them have difficult stories and went through a difficult period because their beliefs are just not supported at all.
The evidence points the other direction.

and the voluminous post means no pearls are needed to be offered.

Please stop with this dishonest line of implication. First that isn't what a large post means. Second, you don't have "pearls" to offer historical studies. Because they would already know them. You have tired old apologetics that doesn't hold up to scrutiny. You are just taught not to question. Apparently learning and knowledge are also forbidden.

Another problem with this response. YOU ASKED for something to be presented to Christian scholars. Well these are Christian scholars. This is a learned persons work, who is Christian. Yet when it doesn't support beliefs you have, it's called human waste and "voluminous"
Wow, talk about hypocritical.

I am totally fine with you having your position of which I totally don’t agree with.

I do not care what you are fine with.

I do not care what you don't agree with unless you can provide evidence it's wrong. But what is super-sus here is that if you didn't read it, how would you even know you don't agree?
Is it because you have reached a conclusion BEFORE any evidence is presented? You "totally" don't agree, yet have no idea of the work, even on this one issue, the Synoptic Problem. Never studied the issue, probably don't even read the Greek and likely don't even know the 8 arguments given briefly in the conclusion.
But you "totally don't believe".

Sure, and millions of Mormons totally don't believe Joseph Smith made up his additions to the Bible and added eyewitnesses like every religious tale does. Who cares what people believe if they cannot provide sound justifiable evidence.

For that matter, Jesus had those type of responses too.

No, Jesus did not have any such thing. There were no Gospels to study, to see that Mark was used by the other 3, to see the Greek-school literary fictive language used, the reliance on OT narratives like Elijah, the Romulus and Jesus Ben Annias stories, the obvious changes authors made (like John reversing the "no signs" and making Lazurus a real story rather than a parable) and especially the comparison to all other Mystery cults, before Christianity, who also were occupied by Greek colonists and also changed their local religion in the exact same ways the NT did.
The followers of Jesus didn't know the Mesopotamian origins of Genesis or the Persian period borrowings. He did not have the Yale Divinity lectures giving examples of all these things or courses on the Mystery cults to show exactly how much Greek theology was used.

He basically just talked to the everyday person who had ears to hear.

Is the story Mark wrote about him, which doesn't make it true whatsoever. Especially when the miracles and eyewitnesses were common with these claims going back centuries, Rabbi Hillel was saying the same things a generation before, so it was a school of Jewish thought mixed with Greek personal salvation cults.

And now, you are passive-aggressively trying to say I don't listen, yet you have given nothing.

Taking His example will be the best thing I can do.

What example? Listening? You don't do that. Oh, you only want people who you can preach to? So when people with religious claims like Islam and Mormonism come to talk to you do you just listen? Or do you question the historicity? Or do you just sit in a circle and say "No I'm right".
Yeah that isn't how truth is found.
But of course, you don't want people who care about learning, knowledge, evidence, just those who will buy into a claim. You don't want reality and facts, you want people to buy into a claim, but just the one you want.


I have ears, I don't hear anything? You said you didn't read anything (but don't agree??) complete nonsense. That is also dishonest, which isn't a teaching of Jesus. We don't live in the superstitious times where historical truth of a story didn't matter. We already passed through the enlightenment. Now it matters. Not to everyone. But there are 1 billion in Islam, millions of Mormons, millions in Scientology, Bahai, if we can't ask questions and get good evidence besides claims and anecdotal reasons for your religion then they also don't need it. So there are endless versions of the truth. Yet, historians generally all agree, because they look at all the evidence and ask what does it show.

You are trying to downplay the same critical thinking you also use for every thing else in the world.

 

[joelr]

Anyone can "prove" a false premise.

I don't know what you are talking about.

The Gospels -- a small part of the Bible (which clearly testifies to Jesus' divinity)

And the Quran testifies Muhammad had new revelations about the religion. The Mormon Bible clearly testifies to the updates Joseph Smith got from the angel Moroni. The Hindu text clearly testifies Krishna visited Prince Arjuna and that Brahman is the ultimate God.

The Gospels are stories. Using a Jewish version of Greek Hellenism, something the mystery religions were using centuries before.
Every nation occupied by the Greek colonists went through this change.

The Gospels use Mystery terminology, the Hellenized version of baptism which meant into the death and resurrection of the savior figure. The savior figure is generic, you can plug anyone in there, any deity. Hellenism and it's influence on the NT is a field of study.


Also, "it's true because the book says ", is the absolute worst logic in the history of bad logic.

-- are NOT Western-type journalism. God will "open the eyes" of anyone who seeks to understand His truth.

The Gospels are Greco-Roman biography. For centuries this type of literature was commonly combining fiction with real places and people.

C. Hanson did a documentary on this practice, some examples are:


"The Greco-Roman literary world is full of authors who didn’t think twice about inventing eyewitnesses to spice up their stories. This was so common we should not trust claims about anonymous witnesses in the Gospels, Pauls Creed or Papias’ work. The art of fabricating sources was well-practiced making the supposedly eyewitness-backed miracles in these text highly questionable.

Emperor Vespasian, reportedly did many miracles. Tacitus claims 2 men approached the emperor with serious ailments. One was blind and the other had a useless hand. Vespasian cured both. Tacitus writes: The hand was instantly restored to use, and the day again shone for the blind man. Both facts are told by eye-witnesses even now when falsehood brings no reward. Tacitus, Histories 4.81.


Emperor Vespasian, reportedly did many miracles. Tacitus claims 2 men approached the emperor with serious ailments. One was blind and the other had a useless hand. Vespasian cured both. Tacitus writes: The hand was instantly restored to use, and the day again shone for the blind man. Both facts are told by eye-witnesses even now when falsehood brings no reward. Tacitus, Histories 4.81.



Account of people rising from the grave similar to Matthew 27:52 when a revered figure passed away.





Accounts by Tertullian of kings being received in heaven and Jupiter and witnesses groaning in hell. Eyewitnesses were very common in reports of supernatural events.



Examples of claims that included “eyewitnesses” to back them up.


Asclepius performing miracles


Alexander the Great parting the sea


Caesar being whisked up to heaven and the dead rising en masse after


Hadrian’s death to chat with their families?"


Guess what?. In the Mormon Bible it says if you ask the Holy Spirit with true intent in your heart, if it's all true, the Holy Spirit will tell you it is true. SO by your logic and reasoning, if the book says so, it's true.


And when ye shall receive these things, I would exhort you that ye would ask God, the Eternal Father, in the name of Christ, if these things are not true; and if ye shall ask with a sincere heart, with real intent, having faith in Christ, he will manifest the truth of it unto you, by the power of the Holy Ghost.

5 And by the power of the Holy Ghost ye may know the truth of all things.
And whatsoever thing is good is just and true; wherefore, nothing that is good denieth the Christ, but acknowledgeth that he is.

7 And ye may know that he is, by the power of the Holy Ghost; wherefore I would exhort you that ye deny not the power of God; for he worketh by power, according to the faith of the children of men, the same today and tomorrow, and forever.

8 And again, I exhort you, my brethren, that ye deny not the gifts of God, for they are many; and they come from the same God. And there are different ways that these gifts are administered; but it is the same God who worketh all in all; and they are given by the manifestations of the Spirit of God unto men, to profit them.

9 For behold, to one is given by the Spirit of God, that he may teach the word of wisdom;

Moroni 4-9

 

[joelr]

...there is no good and intelligent reason to believe the professional opinions in all cases.

1) You haven't demonstrated one single instance where this is true.


2) We don't go on "opinions" it's called evidence. You base your knowledge on facts, evidence, ancient text, ancient historians, archaeological sites, scripture in it's original language.

3) In an irony of all ironies you are basing beliefs on claims, and English translations of something we don't know what was originally said and has massive evidence it's borrowed from older cultures. Syncretic myth, which all mythology is.

4) You would never make these absurd claims against scholarship on other religious material or other ancient myths.

5) If caring about what is true by logic and a sound empirical method is not something you care about, than you can say this. But I care about truth, so if you like fantasy worlds then you are all set.

 

[joelr]

Thank you. That is enough for me.

We cannot know 100%. But it's very high probability so its' considered an absolute.
Interestingly, we cannot know 100% if the Mormon updates are not true or Islam is true and Christians are going to meet a "horrible doom".

Yet it's still enough in that case. So special pleading, confirmation bias.


But this is just about borrowing. Evidence for god, demigods, magic, miracles is zero. 100% these type things were all fabricated in this era and style of writing. Same miracles, ascension to heaven by all sorts of Emperors, false eyewitnesses, it's very obvious it's all fiction.

But if you have that low of standards (for just one thing you want to be true) then you are just special pleading and using confirmation bias.
The odds of arriving at any truth this way is equal for Islam, Mormonism and any cult.

So you don't really care about truth. You care about insisting a story is true. If it's enough for you to be on par with Mormonism, Islam, Bahai, Scientology, great. I have different standards for belief.