Did Jesus Christ Actually Exist?

[YoursTrue]

No. There is no evidence for consciousness without the brain.

Maybe you should try telling that to those here who believe they can communicate with the dead. Who they think are not really dead. You can show them how wrong they are from "Persian" belief systems. Anyway, have a nice day.

 

[firedragon]

No. There is no evidence for consciousness without the brain.

Where do you think Qualia comes from?

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

I would require substantial evidence.

Evidence has no impact on a faith-based confirmation bias.

rain clouds are not boiling

They're beyond that. Clouds are water vapor. Boiling is raising a liquid to the temperature at which it evaporates. Liquid nitrogen has a boiling point of -195.8 °C (-320.5 °F).

clouds cool planet

Can we assume that you know little about Venus?

the foolish idea that there is some kind of climate crisis.

I guess you don't watch the news. Evidence doesn't impact you like you claim it does.

Bible tells the water came from the "fountains of the great deep". Under the dry land (=earth), there was wast water resource. Most of the water came from there, not by rain.

That didn't happen. There is no known reserve of subsurface water capable of submerging all dry land, and no known mechanism for pumping that water to the surface and it accumulating there.

 

[1213]

...Clouds are water vapor. ...

So, you think they are over 100 °F?

That didn't happen. There is no known reserve of subsurface water capable of submerging all dry land, and no known mechanism for pumping that water to the surface and it accumulating there.

Not anymore, because the original continent got broken and sunk to the place where most of the water previously was. The mechanism to pump the water is that the land is heavier than water, which is why when the original continent was broken, it sunk and replaced the water that was below it. These images show the idea how it happened.

 

[1213]

All new to Judaism after the Persian occupation. We know the Hebrew were open to Persian influence and it's almost 100%. You are refusing to see things in a non-bias way and do not care about what is likely true.

Sorry, you sound too biased.

You can go into your Bible and seeSatan was not an evil power opposed to god and not under his control. Satan asks permission in Job.

Not evil to torture Job? Even if Satan can't do anything without God allowing it, it does not mean he could not be evil.

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

I think one of the first ideas of resurrection comes from Genesis 5.

Enoch walked with God, and he was not, for God took him.
Gen 5:21–24

Yahweh can't even get the afterlife theology correct

Don't see any good reason to think so.

and the Persians had it correct? That is absurd. It can not be more obvious they are borrowing from the Persians. Because none of this is revelations from any god, It's man-made stories.

Sorry, I don't think you are right.

 

[1213]

What does "not uniform" mean and provide evidence this was the case. Again, you are making stuff up.

"Not uniform" means that before the flood there could have been many different layers of earth (=dry land). And the end results shows it was so.

No, it's based on radio dating which is accurate.

It is basically circular reasoning, based on assumption of the composition of the sample when it was formed.

It doesn't matter how it happened.

What you think has no bearing on what an expert knows. It doesn't matter where the flood comes from, it's the water vapor that would rise and create greenhouse effects. All life would have been destroyed.

So, you disagree that clouds cool planet?

Erosion should be evenly distributed, yet the levels of erosion in, for example, the Appalachians and the Rocky Mountains differ significantly

They differ because of their location. In this case one reason could be that the ice age, that was the result of the flood, had different influence in different areas.

 

[1213]

I've already posted plenty of evidence from several scholars.

The problem is, even if there is similarity, it is not a proof for copying, because people could easily have the similar ideas by other ways also.

Again, I don't care what Genesis says. In the actual real world a demigod is - " the offspring of a god and a mortal,"

Which is exactly what Genesis is speaking of.

...the Sumerians had written stories concerning a fall of man and a great flood before the narratives of Genesis were ever set down.

There is 4 problems with that:
1) Earliest found it not necessary the earliest that ever was.
2) If the story is true, all ancient people would have had knowledge about it, and could have written about it independently, without copying others.
3) It is possible people had the story orally long before they wrote it down.
4) The texts can be wrongly dated.

 

[YoursTrue]

What I see here among so many is just fighting against what the Bible says...but from my experience, no matter what, one cannot understand the Bible unless he asks God for help. That is how I see it.

 

[TLK Valentine]

What I see here among so many is just fighting against what the Bible says...but from my experience, no matter what, one cannot understand the Bible unless he asks God for help. That is how I see it.

Sounds like magic to me.

 

[YoursTrue]

Sounds like magic to me.

Because of the circumstances and because I was searching, I do not ascribe what happened to me as magic. But rather that God reached out for me when He saw I was looking for Him. He knew who I was, and I am thankful to Him for that. Peace.

 

[Aupmanyav]

Because of the circumstances and because I was searching, I do not ascribe what happened to me as magic. But rather that God reached out for me when He saw I was looking for Him. He knew who I was, and I am thankful to Him for that. Peace.

Perfectly OK or you, not for many others.

Again, I don't care what Genesis says. In the actual real world a demigod is - " the offspring of a god and a mortal,"

You have not proved existence of God.

 

[YoursTrue]

Perfectly OK or you, not for many others.

I can't speak for others. I had been looking for a long time. Finally I prayed. I didn't even realize it at the time that He answered me.

 

[Hockeycowboy]

What I see here among so many is just fighting against what the Bible says...but from my experience, no matter what, one cannot understand the Bible unless he asks God for help. That is how I see it.

Yes. And that is not Jesus. Jesus said it was his Father who reveals what He means (Luke 10:21)….. it’s His Word. He is the “only true God” that Jesus referred to. — John 17:3; see John 4:23,24.

Have a good night.

 

[TLK Valentine]

Because of the circumstances and because I was searching, I do not ascribe what happened to me as magic. But rather that God reached out for me when He saw I was looking for Him. He knew who I was, and I am thankful to Him for that. Peace.

You were searching: You said the right words, performed the right rituals, and the right spirit came to you and made the arcane book clear to you.

You call it "searching"; I call it "spellcasting."

 

[blü 2]

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

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

The translation from Latin to English for the inscription reads:

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


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

So, what is the evidence for Jesus?

Some years ago I explored this question in some depth. At the time, I thought it was 50-50 ─ in particular there was no need for an HJ in order to account either for the cult or the gospels (&c), none of the authors ever met an HJ, contemporary historical records are totally silent, and so on.

These days I'm more inclined to think there was an HJ than that there wasn't. I was influenced in that direction by Ehrman's point that none of the early opponents of Christianity ever used the argument that the hero of the stories never existed; and by the 'criterion of embarrassment' quality of the portrayal in all four gospels of Jesus fighting with and snarling at his mother, and in places his family (Mark 3:31-35, Mark 6:4-5, Matthew 10:35-37, Luke 11:27. John 2:3, contrast John 19:26).

But Mark, the template of the other three gospels, has the earmarks of a composed story by someone with a Greek-influenced education (though, so I've read, he wrote the roughest Greek of the four), and so gives his tale a beginning, a development, and a climax, is familiar with the Tanakh and continually exploits it for his hero's benefit, and is unambiguously tendentious in selling its hero. It certainly implies support for Paul's claim that there was a Jesus cult in Galilee and Judea at the time.

So if there was indeed an HJ, as I suspect but do not strenuously assert, I seriously doubt we'll ever know much about him. It seens reasonable to guess that he was born, grew up, and first came to notice in the sticks, that he was a player in the Jewish religion industry, that he was a supporter of the apocalyptic strain of Judaism flourishing at the time, (and all three synoptics have him promising that the Kingdom would be established on earth within the lifetime of some of his audience) and that he was likely crucified by the Romans, and if so for being a political stirrer.

 

[YoursTrue]

You were searching: You said the right words, performed the right rituals, and the right spirit came to you and made the arcane book clear to you.

You call it "searching"; I call it "spellcasting."

Before I found the true God I would have thought like you do.

 

[Spice]

Some years ago I explored this question in some depth. At the time, I thought it was 50-50 ─ in particular there was no need for an HJ in order to account either for the cult or the gospels (&c), none of the authors ever met an HJ, contemporary historical records are totally silent, and so on.

These days I'm more inclined to think there was an HJ than that there wasn't. I was influenced in that direction by Ehrman's point that none of the early opponents of Christianity every used the argument that the hero of the stories never existed; and by the 'criterion of embarrassment' quality of the portrayal in all four gospels of Jesus fighting with and snarling at his mother, and in places his family (Mark 3:31-35, Mark 6:4-5, Matthew 10:35-37, Luke 11:27. John 2:3, contrast John 19:26).

But Mark, the template of the other three gospels, has the earmarks of a composed story by someone with a Greek-influenced education (though, so I've read, he wrote the roughest Greek of the four), and so gives his tale a beginning, a development, and a climax, is familiar with the Tanakh and continually exploits it for his hero's benefit, and is unambiguously tendentious in selling its hero. It certainly implies support for Paul's claim that there was a Jesus cult in Galilee and Judea at the time.

So if there was indeed an HJ, as I suspect but do not strenuously assert, I seriously doubt we'll ever know much about him. It seens reasonable to guess that he was born, grew up, and first came to notice in the sticks, that he was a player in the Jewish religion industry, that he was a supporter of the apocalyptic strain of Judaism flourishing at the time, (and all three synoptics have him promising that the Kingdom would be established on earth within the lifetime of some of his audience) and that he was likely crucified by the Romans, and if so for being a political stirrer.

I envision the historic Jesus as a MLK Jr, for his people, for his time. The unrest against Roman occupation was growing. He was preaching "give to Ceasar what is Ceasar's," to remain humble, meek, strong in faith, and strong in love of each other. To live for today, not worry about the needs or the troubles of tomorrow, for eventually the World to Come, the utopia dream of his people, would be.

I believe he chose not to fight against his arrest because he felt he had no choice. He was labeled, so he needed to make the most of that label to go down peacefully as a symbol of the impossibility of standing against Rome, but to instill hope for days to come.

A mere 40 years or so later, his truth was proven in the total destruction of the 2nd temple and the city of Jerusalem. And then, the majority of his new followers, with Paul at the lead, turned his message by mixing in the politically safer Hellenist's tales. As the disporia grew, so did this new Christanity. Jesus clearly stated he had come for the lost tribes of Israel.

During his time, only two tribes remained in the close boundaries of his mission. The others had remained on the outskirts, or had thoroughly mixed into the gentile communities since the Babylonian release.

It is my view that Jesus was attempting to quietly, and peacefully unite all tribes once again before trying to declare any kind of independence. This would account for his label of Messiah, although he did indeed fail in the task of unity and peaceful patience.

 

[paarsurrey]

Did Jesus Christ Actually Exist?

The mythical "Jesus", as I understand, a fictional/fake Pauline product- made in Rome, never existed, one could say for sure, right, please?

Regards

 

[TLK Valentine]

Before I found the true God I would have thought like you do.

You still do, whether you realize it or not under the new terminology.

New packaging; same product.

 

[YoursTrue]

You still do, whether you realize it or not under the new terminology.

New packaging; same product.

I don't think so. But anyway, you go along with your ideas and have a nice day.