Do you think Moses existed as a historical figure?

[Desert Snake]

I do not believe Jesus was a messiah, in that, you are correct. But what you are incorrect about is that I base that on other writings when in fact, I base that on the lack of credible evidence. And why not compare Buddha to Christ? Both were excellent spiritual teachers, assuming here they lived at all. I do not know what "manified' even means so I cannot comment on that. I will say that ' the Jesus figure' may have been deified by humankind but I fail to see how that makes him 'deific'. Just my thoughts.

The problem is that Jesus was Deific from the get go, the 'other' interpretations are not traditional. That is what makes the 'other' aspects like Jesus not being the messiah in your opinion sort of a moot point. He, ie Jesus, is the Messiah in the narrative/belief.

 

[Kenny]

Good luck with the PhD! Is there a possibility a man like Jesus lived? Sure. I admit that. What I cannot find rational is that he is all that history has led us to try to believe. He cannot be the messiah because, as you know, he does not live up to the standards of Jewish dogma. My view is that he, if he lived, was more like the Buddha or any of the great Hindu teachers. No one states that The Buddha was of God, so why is Christ the only one elevated to such incredulous heights? IMO, they needed a figure elevated to such a level for control measures. However, it clearly backfired, obviously. Just my thoughts.

Thanks.

You are right when you say "What I cannot find rational is that he is all that history has led us to try to believe". If we define "rational" as that which deals with the mind, indeed faith is not rational. Faith deals with the spirit and, though it can be understood rationally, it is still abides in the realm of the irrational.

If I can give you some of my background because, for me, it gives understanding. It might be called bias or it can also be called illumination.

I dealt with the "rational" for 28 years of my life. Had gone to church less than a dozen times and by parents even less. The rational may work for some but it wasn't working for me. I remember staring into a Tom Collins, (it may date me some ), and wondering, "Where are all the miracles that I have heard about". Hadn't read about them, just heard about them.

After giving my life to Jesus Christ, the supernatural began to happen on a continual basis and still does.

Does it make me bias? Probably, in the eyes of those who haven't experienced what I have. For others, it isn't bias but rather a confirmation. Depends on which life-paradigm one is viewing it from. As Paul penned it, for some it is foolishness but for others it is life transforming power.

Thinking at it rationally, we know something happened creating a paradigm shift in the times of Jesus. At one moment there is 12 and 3 years later it is basically worldwide. At one moment it is insignificant and years later, as one person put it, "it has turned the world upside down" without killing one person.

We know by Pliny's letters, that believers were committed even to death. We know by Cornelius Tacitus and Lucian that Jesus suffered the supreme death of the crucifixion. Certainly it is a belief in something that made it happen. Can other people die because they believe in something? Absolutely. The question is what did those believers believe in.

IMO, to discount what was written by the believers a scant 30 to 40 years after the death of Jesus, is to throw out all of archaeological discoveries as irrelevant. To say that those who lived in the second generation after the eyewitnesses died on the basis for of not knowing what happened and just creating a myth, IMO, is to throw out all of WWII after the first generation dies and that anything recounted by their children is a myth. One can say "we have proof of WWII, which would be true. But two thousand years ago we have lost a lot of evidence even as ISIS is now destroying evidence of its past as it bulldozes down the evidence. Can you imagine two thousand years from now someone saying "We have no evidence of Iraq's history"--which would be a true statement yet not because there wasn't a history.

So, viewing the supernatural in my life gives me the support I need to validate the possibilities of what happened in the time of Jesus. Unless there is irrevocable evidence to the contrary (taking into account the difficulty of 2000 years of natural and human destruction), I will continue to look at it through the eyes of possibilities (using rational and logical viewpoints and not the irrational "Well, you just have to accept it by faith". There is a difference between rational thinking that brings you into the foolishness of faith vs irrational faith.

(I haven't listed the sites that confirm the history understanding that you have probably studied it already through your education)/

Again, there is a difference between faith that brings you into the irrational supernatural vs irrational faith.

I hope I haven't made this clear as mud. I trust you to advise me where I did.

Edit PS

He cannot be the messiah because, as you know, he does not live up to the standards of Jewish dogma.

I would contend that the issue of the Messiah was always a point of contention from the beginning. We do know that the belief that Jesus was the Messiah started with the Jews and even those of the cloth with other Jews saying that he did not live up to the standard including those of the cloth. I don't expect that to ever change.

However, I believe that he did and certainly both Jews and Jews Rabbi's of the time of Jesus did. I realize that after the destruction of Jerusalem there was an irreversible divide between those who believed and those who didn't. Today we still have a contingency of Jews that believe and those who don't. At the same time we have the vast majority of the Jews that believe in everything and in between, from atheism to Hinduism, from Buddhism to Secularism.

PPS:

We may differ in the interpretations of what we read and I'm find with that. Either one of us may end up being proved that we are wrong or maybe we both are wrong. It is the nature of intelligent discussion.

 

[Kenny]

From the way he quote mine's, and post material he has no idea what is even being stated, I highly doubt it.

I don't even see a masters, or any college courses on these topics after debating him for a week.

Your Academia and flat-earth irrationality has made you irrelevant.

 

[JoStories]

The problem is that Jesus was Deific from the get go, the 'other' interpretations are not traditional. It's like saying that Krishna is a deified person. So, yeah, that might be, however, it isn't the narrative, it's not another viable way of viewing the religious beliefs, it's just non-belief. That is what makes the 'other' aspects like Jesus not being the messiah in your opinion sort of a moot point. He, ie Jesus, is the Messiah in the narrative/belief.

Actually, I would say that Christ being a deity from the outset of your faith is not even remotely the case. The bible, your bible I should, was not codified until the two councils, Trent and nicea. And btw, for hundreds of thousands of Hindu people, Krishna is a deity. Segue aside, Christ is the messiah only if you choose to believe that. I do not. There is not one ounce of credible evidence that Christ was the son of God. That is pure belief, pure speculation. You are certainly welcome to your belief and I respect that. However, do not expect me to accept that Christ is a messiah simply because you said so. That is childish in the extreme sir. If the bible truly is 'divinely inspired' why the exclusion of so many excellent texts? Why the acceptance of Enoch when other gospels continue to considered heretical? Seems a lot like cherry picking to me.

 

[JoStories]

Thanks.

You are right when you say "What I cannot find rational is that he is all that history has led us to try to believe". If we define "rational" as that which deals with the mind, indeed faith is not rational. Faith deals with the spirit and, though it can be understood rationally, it is still abides in the realm of the irrational.

If I can give you some of my background because, for me, it gives understanding. It might be called bias or it can also be called illumination.

I dealt with the "rational" for 28 years of my life. Had gone to church less than a dozen times and by parents even less. The rational may work for some but it wasn't working for me. I remember staring into a Tom Collins, (it may date me some ), and wondering, "Where are all the miracles that I have heard about". Hadn't read about them, just heard about them.

After giving my life to Jesus Christ, the supernatural began to happen on a continual basis and still does.

Does it make me bias? Probably, in the eyes of those who haven't experienced what I have. For others, it isn't bias but rather a confirmation. Depends on which life-paradigm one is viewing it from. As Paul penned it, for some it is foolishness but for others it is life transforming power.

Thinking at it rationally, we know something happened creating a paradigm shift in the times of Jesus. At one moment there is 12 and 3 years later it is basically worldwide. At one moment it is insignificant and years later, as one person put it, "it has turned the world upside down" without killing one person.

We know by Pliny's letters, that believers were committed even to death. We know by Cornelius Tacitus and Lucian that Jesus suffered the supreme death of the crucifixion. Certainly it is a belief in something that made it happen. Can other people die because they believe in something? Absolutely. The question is what did those believers believe in.

IMO, to discount what was written by the believers a scant 30 to 40 years after the death of Jesus, is to throw out all of archaeological discoveries as irrelevant. To say that those who lived in the second generation after the eyewitnesses died on the basis for of not knowing what happened and just creating a myth, IMO, is to throw out all of WWII after the first generation dies and that anything recounted by their children is a myth. One can say "we have proof of WWII, which would be true. But two thousand years ago we have lost a lot of evidence even as ISIS is now destroying evidence of its past as it bulldozes down the evidence. Can you imagine two thousand years from now someone saying "We have no evidence of Iraq's history"--which would be a true statement yet not because there wasn't a history.

So, viewing the supernatural in my life gives me the support I need to validate the possibilities of what happened in the time of Jesus. Unless there is irrevocable evidence to the contrary (taking into account the difficulty of 2000 years of natural and human destruction), I will continue to look at it through the eyes of possibilities (using rational and logical viewpoints and not the irrational "Well, you just have to accept it by faith". There is a difference between rational thinking that brings you into the foolishness of faith vs irrational faith.

(I haven't listed the sites that confirm the history understanding that you have probably studied it already through your education)/

Again, there is a difference between faith that brings you into the irrational supernatural vs irrational faith.

I hope I haven't made this clear as mud. I trust you to advise me where I did.

Edit PS



I would contend that the issue of the Messiah was always a point of contention from the beginning. We do know that the belief that Jesus was the Messiah started with the Jews and even those of the cloth with other Jews saying that he did not live up to the standard including those of the cloth. I don't expect that to ever change.

However, I believe that he did and certainly both Jews and Jews Rabbi's of the time of Jesus did. I realize that after the destruction of Jerusalem there was an irreversible divide between those who believed and those who didn't. Today we still have a contingency of Jews that believe and those who don't. At the same time we have the vast majority of the Jews that believe in everything and in between, from atheism to Hinduism, from Buddhism to Secularism.

PPS:

We may differ in the interpretations of what we read and I'm find with that. Either one of us may end up being proved that we are wrong or maybe we both are wrong. It is the nature of intelligent discussion.

Ken, let me consider this post and get back to it later to give my full attention. There is much to discuss in there! Thanks and bright blessings! Jo

 

[outhouse]

, to discount what was written by the believers a scant 30 to 40 years after the death of Jesus

Not exactly accurate, where did you get your masters from?


Pauls work is dated roughly 20 years later, and he never knew or heard the man speak a single word.

Marks unknown authors compiled their traditions roughly 37 ish years after, far removed from any actual events.

Lukes unknown authors plagiarized marks work 50 ish years later at the earliest. Some want to date it later or propose a Marcion origin for part. I don't

Matthews unknown authors also plagiarized mark and wrote 60 ish years later being far removed from any actual events

Johns unknown authors wrote in at least 3 parts and was not finished being compiled until 70 ish years later.


Its not that we discount them. Its that their work only reflects the later movement in the Diaspora. Fleshing out the historical Jesus is tough to do.

Yes he did exist and most scholars do find him historical. But he is the most over attributed character that has ever walked the earth.

Most of what you know about him really originated in Johns movement, including most of the parables John taught him. Jesus took over Johns movement when John was killed. Jesus was Johns student.

 

[Kenny]

Ken, let me consider this post and get back to it later to give my full attention. There is much to discuss in there! Thanks and bright blessings! Jo

And bright blessings to you, Jo

 

[Kenny]

Not exactly accurate, where did you get your masters from?


Pauls work is dated roughly 20 years later, and he never knew or heard the man speak a single word.

Marks unknown authors compiled their traditions roughly 37 ish years after, far removed from any actual events.

Lukes unknown authors plagiarized marks work 50 ish years later at the earliest. Some want to date it later or propose a Marcion origin for part. I don't

Matthews unknown authors also plagiarized mark and wrote 60 ish years later being far removed from any actual events

Johns unknown authors wrote in at least 3 parts and was not finished being compiled until 70 ish years later.


Its not that we discount them. Its that their work only reflects the later movement in the Diaspora. Fleshing out the historical Jesus is tough to do.

Yes he did exist and most scholars do find him historical. But he is the most over attributed character that has ever walked the earth.

Most of what you know about him really originated in Johns movement, including most of the parables John taught him. Jesus took over Johns movement when John was killed. Jesus was Johns student.

Please site your reference

 

[outhouse]

we know something happened creating a paradigm shift in the times of Jesus. At one moment there is 12 and 3 years later it is basically worldwide

Far from true. the 12 is probably mythical, to mirror the mythical 12 tribes of Israel. His inner circle of illiterate fishermen brothers, maybe even his own flesh and blood brothers, are more likely his only Galilean followers.

But to look at this realistically, he probably had more then 12 people by the time he was crucified. But he was not widely know before his death, had he been, Antipas would have killed him like John. Aramaic Jews in Galilee were viewed as Zealots and large crowds would be seen as a threat.

The 3 years later is absurd. First we don't know if he taught for 1 year or 3 years. We know he was so unimportant while alive during his ministry, not one person wrote about him while alive.

Most Aramaic Galileans were illiterate peasants exploited by Antipas, Jesus trained under Johns mission, and took Johns message to the road so he would not be killed teaching in one place gather large crowds like John. Jesus did the opposite taking his message to the road with just a few followers to touch more people that way, without being noticed as a threat.

Jesus fame came long after his death in the Diaspora as the movement evolved in Hellenistic Judaism that long wanted to divorce cultural Judaism. The mythology grew In the diaspora over hundreds of years. His movement did spread quickly as Hellenist leaving Passover every year did take home the mythology and theology back to the different corners of the empire.

But that was not worldwide, in the beginning the movement was very small but did grow quickly in the Diaspora.

Even after Nicea 325 CE it was not worldwide.

 

[outhouse]

Please site your reference

Yale, Harvard and Princeton. Its not about my references, generally no one with an education really argues my position. There is a few that date late, and early, but what I stated is the majority opinion.


Its your references that are the vast minority, surprise, surprise!

 

[Kenny]

Yale, Harvard and Princeton. Its not about my references, generally no one with an education really argues my position. There is a few that date late, and early, but what I stated is the majority opinion.


Its your references that are the vast minority, surprise, surprise!

Yes... patting yourself on the back by those who you pat, that's a great reference. When do they think Acts was written and why, lest your irrelevance goes further into making yourself small.

Which is the earliest Gospel written and what are the parameters of dates possible and why.

We can go from there.

 

[outhouse]

Which is the earliest thought Gospel written and what are the parameters of dates possible and why.

Mark at roughly 70CE based on text with ties to the fall of the temple.

But you probably wont understand it is a compilation with some pre existing written and oral traditions compiled and finished around 70CE.

We can go from there.

No we cannot. You do not have the capability to debate on any scholarly level.

Yes... patting yourself on the back by those who you pat, that's a great reference.

I did not go to Princeton. It was a source.


Here is some basic info for beginners.

Gospels, dating through the combined external and internal evidence

 

[outhouse]

Do you understand what mythology even is?

The Exodus - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Most histories of ancient Israel no longer consider information about the Exodus recoverable or even relevant to the story of Israel's emergence

The consensus among biblical scholars today is that there was never any exodus of the proportions described in the Bible


The Exodus (from Greek ἔξοδος exodos, "going out") is the founding myth of Israel

 

[Kenny]

Mark at roughly 70CE based on text with ties to the fall of the temple.

But you probably wont understand it is a compilation with some pre existing written and oral traditions compiled and finished around 70CE.




No we cannot. You do not have the capability to debate on any scholarly level.




I did not go to Princeton. It was a source.


Here is some basic info for beginners.

Gospels, dating through the combined external and internal evidence

 

[Kenny]

Mark at roughly 70CE based on text with ties to the fall of the temple.

But you probably wont understand it is a compilation with some pre existing written and oral traditions compiled and finished around 70CE.

I noticed you omitted Acts.

Mark fits in the parameters that I mentioned for which you said I was wrong in.

You have become irrelevant because in your effort to find anything in error, you trip over yourself.

 

[outhouse]

which you said I was wrong in.

Im sorry you are intellectually dishonest. Either that or you have no comprehensive skills what so ever.

I never stated you were wrong. Do I need to post the definition of my statement so you can now understand what I had wrote?

Not exactly accurate

And wrong are factually very different.

How come you stated I said something I did not?

 

[Shad]

From the way he quote mine's, and post material he has no idea what is even being stated, I highly doubt it.

I don't even see a masters, or any college courses on these topics after debating him for a week.

Too be fair he is taking theology not archaeology. He is limited in his research by this very fact. Just as those of us that are not studying theology are probably oblivious to ideas which would be common among theologian. No one can be an expert in every field especially two fields which are very different. There are a number of professors and colleagues I know which rely on other authorities as sources for subjects they have no education in. This comes with the risk that the authority could be wrong or the data is outdated. Think of the exchange as a sort of rough review. This is why I mentioned Bietak regarding the Hyksos as a source to read; reports, articles and books. Redford is also a good source regardless of his conclusions. Both provide a wealth of data.

 

[outhouse]

Too be fair he is taking theology not archaeology.

Im not sure he is actively taking any classes. He refuses academia.

I see no intellect that would dictate the associate or bachelor's, was obtained. Maybe Answer in Genesis has an online program now.

There is a severe comprehensive issue on his part for any material read or discussed.

I don't focus on archeology either. Its not what all this is about. Its a combination of history and theology tied into cultural and social anthropology.


What I see is YEC mentality, and poor skill in avoiding credible research in many people who refuse academia.

Redford is also a good source regardless of his conclusions.

Redford is fine for Egypt related material. He has been refuted for Israelite knowledge and has no business discussion their ethnogenesis.

 

[outhouse]

As one who is working on my Doctorate in theology

Where did you get graduate your fourth tier?

 

[JoStories]

Thanks.

You are right when you say "What I cannot find rational is that he is all that history has led us to try to believe". If we define "rational" as that which deals with the mind, indeed faith is not rational. Faith deals with the spirit and, though it can be understood rationally, it is still abides in the realm of the irrational.

If I can give you some of my background because, for me, it gives understanding. It might be called bias or it can also be called illumination.

I dealt with the "rational" for 28 years of my life. Had gone to church less than a dozen times and by parents even less. The rational may work for some but it wasn't working for me. I remember staring into a Tom Collins, (it may date me some ), and wondering, "Where are all the miracles that I have heard about". Hadn't read about them, just heard about them.

After giving my life to Jesus Christ, the supernatural began to happen on a continual basis and still does.

Does it make me bias? Probably, in the eyes of those who haven't experienced what I have. For others, it isn't bias but rather a confirmation. Depends on which life-paradigm one is viewing it from. As Paul penned it, for some it is foolishness but for others it is life transforming power.

Thinking at it rationally, we know something happened creating a paradigm shift in the times of Jesus. At one moment there is 12 and 3 years later it is basically worldwide. At one moment it is insignificant and years later, as one person put it, "it has turned the world upside down" without killing one person.

We know by Pliny's letters, that believers were committed even to death. We know by Cornelius Tacitus and Lucian that Jesus suffered the supreme death of the crucifixion. Certainly it is a belief in something that made it happen. Can other people die because they believe in something? Absolutely. The question is what did those believers believe in.

IMO, to discount what was written by the believers a scant 30 to 40 years after the death of Jesus, is to throw out all of archaeological discoveries as irrelevant. To say that those who lived in the second generation after the eyewitnesses died on the basis for of not knowing what happened and just creating a myth, IMO, is to throw out all of WWII after the first generation dies and that anything recounted by their children is a myth. One can say "we have proof of WWII, which would be true. But two thousand years ago we have lost a lot of evidence even as ISIS is now destroying evidence of its past as it bulldozes down the evidence. Can you imagine two thousand years from now someone saying "We have no evidence of Iraq's history"--which would be a true statement yet not because there wasn't a history.

So, viewing the supernatural in my life gives me the support I need to validate the possibilities of what happened in the time of Jesus. Unless there is irrevocable evidence to the contrary (taking into account the difficulty of 2000 years of natural and human destruction), I will continue to look at it through the eyes of possibilities (using rational and logical viewpoints and not the irrational "Well, you just have to accept it by faith". There is a difference between rational thinking that brings you into the foolishness of faith vs irrational faith.

(I haven't listed the sites that confirm the history understanding that you have probably studied it already through your education)/

Again, there is a difference between faith that brings you into the irrational supernatural vs irrational faith.

I hope I haven't made this clear as mud. I trust you to advise me where I did.

Edit PS



I would contend that the issue of the Messiah was always a point of contention from the beginning. We do know that the belief that Jesus was the Messiah started with the Jews and even those of the cloth with other Jews saying that he did not live up to the standard including those of the cloth. I don't expect that to ever change.

However, I believe that he did and certainly both Jews and Jews Rabbi's of the time of Jesus did. I realize that after the destruction of Jerusalem there was an irreversible divide between those who believed and those who didn't. Today we still have a contingency of Jews that believe and those who don't. At the same time we have the vast majority of the Jews that believe in everything and in between, from atheism to Hinduism, from Buddhism to Secularism.

PPS:

We may differ in the interpretations of what we read and I'm find with that. Either one of us may end up being proved that we are wrong or maybe we both are wrong. It is the nature of intelligent discussion.

Ken, first of all, I would never be here trying to convince anyone that my position is the correct one. Your path is your path and I would not want to EVER take you from that. Just so we are clear at the outset.

As for being biased, we all are Ken. If someone were to come here and try to convince me they are not biased, I would be immediately suspect. We cannot understand or view our world in any other way than through our own lenses of understanding. Its impossible. All one can try to do is to be open to other people's views. I was very fortunate. I was raised Native American and taught that faith by my grandmother, my mother is a devout Baptist, my father was an atheist, my cousin (who had severe polio and was very disabled) not only taught me to fly his Cesna but also the way of the Quakers. My parents both encouraged me to participate in the Jewish holidays with our next door neighbors. So my curiousity about faith stems from that. I do not believe that any one faith is right or wrong. I believe they all have kernels of the truth. I do believe in God but I only use the word God because it is recognizable.

I believe you are over simplifying the paradigmatic shift that occurred 2000 years ago. Keep in mind the times then. The end of the height of the Egyptians and all those Pharoahs, not to mention a VERY important faith in and of itself. The crashing of the Greek, Roman and Persian empires, among much more. To think it simply morphed into being in a span of 15 years is really far too simple. Keep in mind it was Constantine who is largely credited for the actual start of Christianity. And there is much debate even about that. You state that Jesus' crucifixtion was proven by Lucian and Tacitus. That is also belief, IMO, as there is much debate still about whether or not Christ even died or was married and had children, which IMO, is more logical to the times. I think I will stop there for now as it is a lot to consume and talk about. Small posts are better for me.

Bright blessings.
Jo