Welcome to City-Data.com Forum!
U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Religion and Spirituality
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
 
Old 02-11-2024, 08:04 PM
 
Location: Northeastern US
20,065 posts, read 13,524,028 times
Reputation: 9969

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by Derek41 View Post
The argument that a historical Jesus didn’t exist is a weak one.
Both historicists and mythicists are reading tea leaves and have no "strong" evidence.

I lean mythicist because I'm a skeptic, but it's really just an interesting side question. Historical Jesus and Biblical Jesus are two different things. A historical Jesus is possible; but that's a super low bar compared to Bible Jesus.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Derek41 View Post
Jesus as a historical figure I don’t think can be disputed.
Of course it can. Nothing is exempt from being questioned.

In this case we have extremely thin, one might almost say non-existent evidence and historians concerning ancient times tend to go with what is least likely to be untrue in the light of whatever evidence is known. In this case, it's all grasping at straws. We know Pilate was historical from a stele; we have Tacitus telling us Pilate crucified some guy name Chrestus, but we can't definitively determine that this wasn't spliced in by someone later. We have a pretty obviously doctored passage in Josephus. Beyond that we have literally no evidence, and considering the fabulist gospel accounts you would think we'd find secular accounts about darkness at noon, earthquakes, and resurrected zombies.

All that said ... the bottom line is that Jesus was an historical discrete person because it's a necessary (if insufficient) ingredient for the evangel to work or have any credibility. An ahistorical Jesus undermines Bible Jesus, at least as far as modern orthodoxy is concerned. And Christians have insisted for about 1,700 years that Jesus is historical. Maybe (or maybe not) longer. And they pay most of the people who are credentialed in the relevant fields. That's all pretty weak sauce, IMO.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 02-11-2024, 09:06 PM
 
Location: Sun City West, Arizona
50,923 posts, read 24,424,171 times
Reputation: 33007
Quote:
Originally Posted by Heavenese View Post
According to the picture painted by the Gospels about Jesus' life, He had brothers and sisters (actual siblings). We also know there was a lot of construction around the area of Nazareth. (Such as the Hellenistic city of Sepphoris) So in terms of craftsmanship, its most likely Jesus was a builder of stone. Plus it would explain why a lot of Jesus' teachings included things like building your house on the rock vs sand, teachings about the chief cornerstone the builders rejected, etc.


As for Jesus coming from a poor family, again the Gospels paints a picture for us. In Luke's account when Jesus was presented as a baby, Mary offered a pair of doves for her offering. This is something poor families present as offerings. (Leviticus 12 - A mother is instructed to offer a one year old lamb and turtledove to complete purification. Yet if they cannot afford a lamb, then two turtledoves, which Mary offered) Now in Matthew's account, we see the family receiving gifts from wise men coming from the East. Yet according to Matthew, that occurred up to two years after Jesus' birth. The gifts they gave would have funded their trip to Egypt. However, the story dealing with the wise men and the gifts, all of that is outside the scope of the Historical Jesus.


In families, we know the firstborn son receives the blessings and so forth from the father. The firstborn plays a significant role in the family. They inherit what the father has. So if Joseph died, the duties of carrying on the name of the father fall on the firstborn son. That's the general rule.


So when it comes to the message Jesus preached, we're talking from the Historical Jesus perspective. Looking at things from this view, all the mentions surrounding Jesus as being from God are viewed as claims. In this topic we are only using the Gospels to paint the picture on aspects of Jesus' life, not what His followers believed Him to be. Historians consider the Gospel writers as being biased in that way. That these Gospels were written in a way to convince others. So they look at mentions of His life that are least likely to be biased. Jesus having brothers and sisters, no bias angle there. Jesus being the son of a craftsman, his hometown, nothing too biased there. Him being baptized by John, not biased. So stuff like that is accepted concerning the Historical approached to Jesus.


As to links, sources, and all that, I'll just say anyone can look into these things for themselves. I honestly don't believe anything mentioned in this thread is worth all the commotion. This is just a simple thread speaking on some aspects of the Historical Jesus. Of course I get wanting sources and such. Yet if you ask me, nothing I've stated in this thread is all that remarkable to demand sources for. If someone posted a thread speaking to the historicity of any other religious figure, I wouldn't be demanding sources for this or that. I would just say "cool beans" and go on about my day. (If I didn't have much to add to the thread concerning the figure's historicity) To those who asked me, is it really that big of a deal if Jesus existed as a person? To others, is it really that big of a deal if Jesus had brothers and sisters? I have brothers and sisters, and I seriously doubt now knowing this, it changes the lives of anyone here. I don't know, I just find this weird. I thought the idea of Jesus leaving His family behind would be a cool thing to discuss, as it is not pointed out by many concerning Jesus, the tension and conflict He had with His family. (Among other topics) Yet I find too many of you perhaps just want to contend and argue.
You may be the most naive poster we have here. By what I bolded you clearly think you get to preach your littler sermons and everyone else is going to just sit here nodding our heads. Grow up. It's going to be point-counterpoint.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-11-2024, 11:51 PM
 
63,898 posts, read 40,172,494 times
Reputation: 7884
Quote:
Originally Posted by mordant View Post
Both historicists and mythicists are reading tea leaves and have no "strong" evidence.

I lean mythicist because I'm a skeptic, but it's really just an interesting side question. Historical Jesus and Biblical Jesus are two different things. A historical Jesus is possible; but that's a super low bar compared to Bible Jesus.

Of course it can. Nothing is exempt from being questioned.

In this case we have extremely thin, one might almost say non-existent evidence and historians concerning ancient times tend to go with what is least likely to be untrue in the light of whatever evidence is known. In this case, it's all grasping at straws. We know Pilate was historical from a stele; we have Tacitus telling us Pilate crucified some guy name Chrestus, but we can't definitively determine that this wasn't spliced in by someone later. We have a pretty obviously doctored passage in Josephus. Beyond that we have literally no evidence, and considering the fabulist gospel accounts you would think we'd find secular accounts about darkness at noon, earthquakes, and resurrected zombies.

All that said ... the bottom line is that Jesus was an historical discrete person because it's a necessary (if insufficient) ingredient for the evangel to work or have any credibility. An ahistorical Jesus undermines Bible Jesus, at least as far as modern orthodoxy is concerned. And Christians have insisted for about 1,700 years that Jesus is historical. Maybe (or maybe not) longer. And they pay most of the people who are credentialed in the relevant fields. That's all pretty weak sauce, IMO.
The problem with this focus on the "fabulist" nature of the Gospels is that it is misplaced. As religious writers, they would be expected to employ such embellishments to be "indicative and worthy" of a God. That does not undermine the historicity of the man Jesus whose inexplicable impact on the world has been so wide-ranging and enduring DESPITE the "fabulist" nature of the supporting narratives (not to mention His complete rejection by His own religion).
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-12-2024, 07:16 AM
 
18,250 posts, read 16,949,336 times
Reputation: 7556
Quote:
Originally Posted by ukrkoz View Post
Originally Posted by Derek41 View Post
The argument that a historical Jesus didn’t exist is a weak one.
One can argue more about the question of his divinity, and the evidence for his resurrection.
The fact he was crucified is not such a big deal , it was a fairly common form of public execution at the time.
The bodily resurrection is the cornerstone of his claims of being the Messiah and the chosen one, and hence Christianity.
I’ve often questioned the validity of some of the OT stories, as you may have read.
There are often no historical or scientific records to support them.
Jesus as a historical figure I don’t think can be disputed.


That's deep. Like, Marian deep. There is not historical documents hence, existence of a person can not be disputed.
Deep.

PS. Again, I know teacher by the name Yeshua existed. Not the fiction character Jesus. Those are two absolutely different figures.

Christians are ignorant of, or they choose to conveniently ignore the fact that historians speak of TWO different Yeshuas--the "historic" one for which there's not the slightest bit of corroborative evidence, who might have been an itinerant apocalyptic preacher who was likely crucified by the Romans for sedition, and the mythic one which ended up in the gospels who was this made-up son of God who existed in heaven before being incarnated as a human by the Holy Spirit and died for our sins and ascended into heaven, bla bla--all the typical supernatural stuff attributed to dozens of mystery religion man-gods like Dionysus, Mithra, Hercules, Attis, Romulus and on and on.


Derek can believe no evidence is needed to believe in this supernatural Jesus of Nazareth but the truth is the way this Jesus figure came into prominence and was adopted by the early Christian leaders was simply because they needed an avatar man-god for their fledgling faith's figurehead and this itinerant preacher seemed to fill the bill because so many people were repeating stories they'd heard about him for decades and decades. That's all there was: legends, tales, stories which the authors of Mark finally gathered together into a gospel and put flesh onto the mythical figure. The church adopts Jesus as their god and over a course of centuries Jesus seems to come to live and people begin to believe he was a real person. And the rest is church history.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-12-2024, 11:41 AM
 
10,047 posts, read 4,981,850 times
Reputation: 757
Quote:
Originally Posted by thrillobyte View Post
.............................. The church adopts Jesus as their god and over a course of centuries Jesus seems to come to live and people begin to believe he was a real person. And the rest is church history.
The 'church' may have adopted Jesus as their god but in Scripture the Bible's Jesus has his own God.
Even the resurrected ascended-to-heaven Jesus still thinks he has a God over him as per Revelation 3:12.
Jesus instructed worship to his God at John 4:23-24.
The Tetragrammaton YHWH name is never applied to Lord Jesus but to LORD God - Psalm 83:18 B - KJV.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-12-2024, 12:43 PM
 
Location: Northeastern US
20,065 posts, read 13,524,028 times
Reputation: 9969
Quote:
Originally Posted by MysticPhD View Post
The problem with this focus on the "fabulist" nature of the Gospels is that it is misplaced. As religious writers, they would be expected to employ such embellishments to be "indicative and worthy" of a God. That does not undermine the historicity of the man Jesus whose inexplicable impact on the world has been so wide-ranging and enduring DESPITE the "fabulist" nature of the supporting narratives (not to mention His complete rejection by His own religion).
I'm not sure I entirely agree. Yes the lurid magic narratives in the gospels don't rule out an historical Jesus, but, I would say that if I wrote an account of, say, Mark Twain, claiming that he was god incarnate and had a secret private ministry preparing the world for his return in 2052, in which he raised the dead and so forth ... somehow I think people would think I am crazy, that it WOULD impact my credibility.

So how are the gospels somehow different? The gospel Protagonist is safely in ancient history, 2,000 years ago, and unlike the inimitable Mr Clemens, never wrote anything and was not written about by modern journalists, nor photographed ... a giant belief-system has grown up around it since ... so there's a patina of greater deniability around any objections to the Jesus mythos vs my Twain mythos ... but other than that ... yeah I think when you make wild claims it speaks to your credibility.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-12-2024, 01:03 PM
 
10,047 posts, read 4,981,850 times
Reputation: 757
Quote:
Originally Posted by mordant View Post
I'm not sure I entirely agree. Yes the lurid magic narratives in the gospels don't rule out an historical Jesus, but, I would say that if I wrote an account of, say, Mark Twain, claiming that he was god incarnate and had a secret private ministry preparing the world for his return in 2052, in which he raised the dead and so forth ... somehow I think people would think I am crazy, that it WOULD impact my credibility.
So how are the gospels somehow different? The gospel Protagonist is safely in ancient history, 2,000 years ago, and unlike the inimitable Mr Clemens, never wrote anything and was not written about by modern journalists, nor photographed ... a giant belief-system has grown up around it since ... so there's a patina of greater deniability around any objections to the Jesus mythos vs my Twain mythos ... but other than that ... yeah I think when you make wild claims it speaks to your credibility.
Jesus did Not have to write anything because ALL Scripture is inspired by God - 2nd Timothy 3:16-17
God inspired the Bible writers to be His secretaries, so to speak, writing down His words for Him.
God nor Jesus ever claimed that Jesus was God incarnate. That is a teaching outside of Scripture taught as Scripture.
God never had a beginning - Psalm 90:2
Pre-human heavenly Jesus had a beginning - John 1.
So, only God was 'before' the beginning of anything. Pre-human Jesus was "in" the beginning but Not 'before' the beginning.
God being 'from everlasting to everlasting' means: God can Not die. - Psalm 90:2 - Jesus did die.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-12-2024, 01:12 PM
 
Location: NMB, SC
43,208 posts, read 18,363,097 times
Reputation: 35057
Quote:
Originally Posted by mordant View Post
I'm not sure I entirely agree. Yes the lurid magic narratives in the gospels don't rule out an historical Jesus, but, I would say that if I wrote an account of, say, Mark Twain, claiming that he was god incarnate and had a secret private ministry preparing the world for his return in 2052, in which he raised the dead and so forth ... somehow I think people would think I am crazy, that it WOULD impact my credibility.

So how are the gospels somehow different? The gospel Protagonist is safely in ancient history, 2,000 years ago, and unlike the inimitable Mr Clemens, never wrote anything and was not written about by modern journalists, nor photographed ... a giant belief-system has grown up around it since ... so there's a patina of greater deniability around any objections to the Jesus mythos vs my Twain mythos ... but other than that ... yeah I think when you make wild claims it speaks to your credibility.
Back then less than 2% of the population could read/write.
They relied on oral communication so of course stories change over time.

And then archeologists found cannabis in the Jewish temples.
That might account for the embellishment of stories.


https://www.smithsonianmag.com/smart...ine-180975016/

The new research applied modern chemical analysis techniques to the residues on each of the two altars. The smaller of the two altars was found to have a mixture of animal dung and cannabis that contained sufficient THC (the psychoactive compound in cannabis) to get those breathing in its fumes high, per Science News.

The residue on the larger altar was composed of animal fats and frankincense, the dried sap of trees in the Boswellia genus, according to the paper. The researchers write that the dung and animal fats were used to burn the cannabis and frankincense at temperatures that would release their respective mind-altering and fragrant smoke.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-12-2024, 01:15 PM
 
Location: Forests of Maine
37,496 posts, read 61,477,136 times
Reputation: 30466
Quote:
Originally Posted by Heavenese View Post
According to the picture painted by the Gospels about Jesus' life, He had brothers and sisters (actual siblings). We also know there was a lot of construction around the area of Nazareth. (Such as the Hellenistic city of Sepphoris) So in terms of craftsmanship, its most likely Jesus was a builder of stone. Plus it would explain why a lot of Jesus' teachings included things like building your house on the rock vs sand, teachings about the chief cornerstone the builders rejected, etc.
I have been fortunate to have had the opportunity to tour some archeological sites in Israel. In that era, plastering and terrazzo tile was a big thing.

Stonework was only for the extremely wealthy.

'Daub and Wattle' was much more commonplace. Along with sun-dried manure & straw bricks with plaster over them.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-12-2024, 06:49 PM
 
18,250 posts, read 16,949,336 times
Reputation: 7556
Quote:
Originally Posted by Submariner View Post
I have been fortunate to have had the opportunity to tour some archeological sites in Israel. In that era, plastering and terrazzo tile was a big thing.

Stonework was only for the extremely wealthy.

'Daub and Wattle' was much more commonplace. Along with sun-dried manure & straw bricks with plaster over them.

Very fortunate.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:

Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Religion and Spirituality

All times are GMT -6.

© 2005-2024, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Contact Us - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37 - Top