There is NO Historical Evidence for Jesus

[Subduction Zone]

No reason to think it wasn’t.

Says the person that has never studied the Bible.

 

[dybmh]

And I agree. That is probably the case. Luke's version has quite a few errors in it besides the dating of the census. He appears to want to have Jesus born in the "days of Herod". The story in Matthew is pretty far fetched too. But for the defenders of a literal interpretation of the Bible both cannot be right. But as you said, both can be wrong.

As to the ranking, that is not my argument. I know that is not the actual case, but for many, and this applies to all times, anyone that can claim to have some tie to royalty would be seen as being of "royal birth" in various myths. The fact that it does not go by real world standards does not mean that it does not meet mythological standards.

It's about the intention of the scale when it was developed. They were likely talking about a literal royal mother, and a literal king, and a literal battle with a beast/dragon that was literally defeated, and the hero was literally snatched up and whisked away somewhere. Once those standards are softened, everyone is a myth. I'm a myth because I conquered those beastly dishes in the sink.

 

[Colt]

Says the person that has never studied the Bible.

Another one of your lies.

 

[Subduction Zone]

It's about the intention of the scale when it was developed. They were likely talking about a literal royal mother, and a literal king, and a literal battle with a beast/dragon that was literally defeated, and the hero was literally snatched up and whisked away somewhere. Once those standards are softened, everyone is a myth. I'm a myth because I conquered those beastly dishes in the sink.

I will leave that argument to the two of you. I am not a mythicist. I do believe that there was a person named Jesus, though many of the stories about him do not appear to be true. My favorite analogy is Abraham Lincoln, Vampire Hunter.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Another one of your lies.

If you had studied the Bible you would have known of the reasons that it is thought by most scholars why Luke was not written by Luke. Were you just lying earlier when you said that there were no reasons to think that it was not Luke? A person that had studied the Bible would have known about those reasons.

 

[Colt]

If you had studied the Bible you would have known of the reasons that it is thought by most scholars why Luke was not written by Luke. Were you just lying earlier when you said that there were no reasons to think that it was not Luke? A person that had studied the Bible would have known about those reasons.

I’m aware of census problems, genealogical problems etc. in Luke.

Jesus was born on Aug 21 7 BC. Luke didn’t know. Jesus isn’t related to David, never claimed to be. According to the UB Joseph was a descendant of an adopted child, not of the Davidic line.

 

[Colt]

Concerning the celestial visitations to Mary and Elizabeth.

122:4.2 In all these visitations nothing was said about the house of David. Nothing was ever intimated about Jesus’ becoming a “deliverer of the Jews," not even that he was to be the long-expected Messiah. Jesus was not such a Messiah as the Jews had anticipated, but he was the world’s deliverer. His mission was to all races and peoples, not to any one group.

122:4.3 Joseph was not of the line of King David. Mary had more of the Davidic ancestry than Joseph. True, Joseph did go to the City of David, Bethlehem, to be registered for the Roman census, but that was because, six generations previously, Joseph’s paternal ancestor of that generation, being an orphan, was adopted by one Zadoc, who was a direct descendant of David; hence was Joseph also accounted as of the “house of David.”

122:4.4 Most of the so-called Messianic prophecies of the Old Testament were made to apply to Jesus long after his life had been lived on earth. For centuries the Hebrew prophets had proclaimed the coming of a deliverer, and these promises had been construed by successive generations as referring to a new Jewish ruler who would sit upon the throne of David and, by the reputed miraculous methods of Moses, proceed to establish the Jews in Palestine as a powerful nation, free from all foreign domination. Again, many figurative passages found throughout the Hebrew scriptures were subsequently misapplied to the life mission of Jesus. Many Old Testament sayings were so distorted as to appear to fit some episode of the Master’s earth life. Jesus himself onetime publicly denied any connection with the royal house of David. Even the passage, “a maiden shall bear a son,” was made to read, “a virgin shall bear a son.” This was also true of the many genealogies of both Joseph and Mary which were constructed subsequent to Michael’s career on earth. Many of these lineages contain much of the Master’s ancestry, but on the whole they are not genuine and may not be depended upon as factual. The early followers of Jesus all too often succumbed to the temptation to make all the olden prophetic utterances appear to find fulfillment in the life of their Lord and Master.“
UB 1955

 

[Thrillobyte]

And I already responded to this. Maybe it got wiped out during the server downtime.

If Luke is excluded for those reasons, Matthew should be excluded for those same reasons. That's why it's cherry picking.

Not sure where you're taking this: are you saying that if Luke made up the Jesus in the temple at 12 story then it just stands to reason that Matthew made up the zombies rising from their grave story? I can buy that proposition.

 

[lukethethird]

Concerning the celestial visitations to Mary and Elizabeth.

122:4.2 In all these visitations nothing was said about the house of David. Nothing was ever intimated about Jesus’ becoming a “deliverer of the Jews," not even that he was to be the long-expected Messiah. Jesus was not such a Messiah as the Jews had anticipated, but he was the world’s deliverer. His mission was to all races and peoples, not to any one group.

122:4.3 Joseph was not of the line of King David. Mary had more of the Davidic ancestry than Joseph. True, Joseph did go to the City of David, Bethlehem, to be registered for the Roman census, but that was because, six generations previously, Joseph’s paternal ancestor of that generation, being an orphan, was adopted by one Zadoc, who was a direct descendant of David; hence was Joseph also accounted as of the “house of David.”

122:4.4 Most of the so-called Messianic prophecies of the Old Testament were made to apply to Jesus long after his life had been lived on earth. For centuries the Hebrew prophets had proclaimed the coming of a deliverer, and these promises had been construed by successive generations as referring to a new Jewish ruler who would sit upon the throne of David and, by the reputed miraculous methods of Moses, proceed to establish the Jews in Palestine as a powerful nation, free from all foreign domination. Again, many figurative passages found throughout the Hebrew scriptures were subsequently misapplied to the life mission of Jesus. Many Old Testament sayings were so distorted as to appear to fit some episode of the Master’s earth life. Jesus himself onetime publicly denied any connection with the royal house of David. Even the passage, “a maiden shall bear a son,” was made to read, “a virgin shall bear a son.” This was also true of the many genealogies of both Joseph and Mary which were constructed subsequent to Michael’s career on earth. Many of these lineages contain much of the Master’s ancestry, but on the whole they are not genuine and may not be depended upon as factual. The early followers of Jesus all too often succumbed to the temptation to make all the olden prophetic utterances appear to find fulfillment in the life of their Lord and Master.“
UB 1955

I can copy and paste too, how about the following:

The UB claims to be authored by supermortal, celestial beings through an unnamed “human subject” who conveyed messages from them in his sleep.


https://www.equip.org/articles/urantia-the-great-cult-mystery/

 

[Colt]

I can copy and paste too, how about the following:

The UB claims to be authored by supermortal, celestial beings through an unnamed “human subject” who conveyed messages from them in his sleep.


https://www.equip.org/articles/urantia-the-great-cult-mystery/

Yes, that’s accurate.

 

[Subduction Zone]

I’m aware of census problems, genealogical problems etc. in Luke.

Jesus was born on Aug 21 7 BC. Luke didn’t know. Jesus isn’t related to David, never claimed to be. According to the UB Joseph was a descendant of an adopted child, not of the Davidic line.

And what is your source for that date? That appears to be as fictitious as any other. Oh wat. I see the probably answer in your next post. An even more unreliable source than that Bible was used. The Urantia Book appears to be just the writings of early 20th century Americans that would have had no clue at all as to what actually happened. At least the believers in the Bible can pretend that they are following people of that time:

The Urantia Book - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

 

[lukethethird]

Yes, that’s accurate.

You consider "celestial" beings to be a credible source for your information?

 

[dybmh]

Not sure where you're taking this: are you saying that if Luke made up the Jesus in the temple at 12 story then it just stands to reason that Matthew made up the zombies rising from their grave story? I can buy that proposition.

No, you were saying that Luke should be excluded because it was written 80 years after Jesus supposedly walked the earth. Matthew was also written somewhere between 60 and 130 years after Jesus supposedly walked the earth. So, if those standards excluded Luke, they would also exclude Matthew. That's why it's cherry picking. An arbitrary choice is being made to exclude the story that reduces the myth score.

 

[lukethethird]

No, you were saying that Luke should be excluded because it was written 80 years after Jesus supposedly walked the earth. Matthew was also written somewhere between 60 and 130 years after Jesus supposedly walked the earth. So, if those standards excluded Luke, they would also exclude Matthew. That's why it's cherry picking. An arbitrary choice is being made to exclude the story that reduces the myth score.

Are you suggesting that the dead did not rise from their broken tombs and did not wonder the streets of Jerusalem following Jesus's crucifixion where they were witnessed?

 

[Subduction Zone]

No, you were saying that Luke should be excluded because it was written 80 years after Jesus supposedly walked the earth. Matthew was also written somewhere between 60 and 130 years after Jesus supposedly walked the earth. So, if those standards excluded Luke, they would also exclude Matthew. That's why it's cherry picking. An arbitrary choice is being made to exclude the story that reduces the myth score.

I think that he rejects Matthew as well.

 

[lukethethird]

I think that he rejects Matthew as well.

Horrors.

 

[Subduction Zone]

It's about the intention of the scale when it was developed. They were likely talking about a literal royal mother, and a literal king, and a literal battle with a beast/dragon that was literally defeated, and the hero was literally snatched up and whisked away somewhere. Once those standards are softened, everyone is a myth. I'm a myth because I conquered those beastly dishes in the sink.

I have never seen anyone do that. So I am going to disagree. It is merely used to show how it has similarities to other myths. I think that you are taking many of these arguments too literally. I do not like to see either side described incorrectly. For example when people note many similarities between the starts of Christianity and that of Mithraism they are not claiming that it is the same. They do not say that was directly copied so differences do not sink the argument. Many myths borrow from older ones. They still have their own original claims, but one can quite often see shared elements. They may not have been copying others, but it does raise that question.

 

[dybmh]

Are you suggesting that the dead did not rise from their broken tombs and did not wonder the streets of Jerusalem following Jesus's crucifixion where they were witnessed?

I wasn't there. I don't know what happened. But if that part was exaggerated or completely false, that doesn't invalidate all of the story especially if the gospels are a collection of stories from different people all combined together.

 

[dybmh]

I think that he rejects Matthew as well.

But not from the myth score. Matthew is being chosen to be the example used for the myth ranking, and Luke is being excluded.

 

[lukethethird]

I wasn't there. I don't know what happened. But if that part was exaggerated or completely false, that doesn't invalidate all of the story especially if the gospels are a collection of stories from different people all combined together.

Why wouldn't it invalidate all the story, after all it is a narrative with a storied plot line, what other storied plotlines with obvious fictions are otherwise considered factual stories, I am not aware of any?