Did Jesus exist? Parts 1 and 2 (copied from my Wire Club blog) (Page 4)

shadowline
shadowline: "…The messiah was to be a triumphant, glorious figure, who would bring back the great days of Saul, David, and Solomon, not an executed criminal…"

"That means that Jesus really failed miserably as a messiah candidate, along with literally dozens of others during his generation. Certain aspects of the crucifixion element may also have been interpolated from the biography of his namesake Jesus Bar-Pandira, who was executed a couple of generations earlier."

The point is that Jesus was considered to BE the messiah by his followers. That's how he was remembered. The myth (in the sense of meaningful interpretation) that gathered around him called him messiah from the start. From the Jewish point of view that is a strange choice. Ehrman suggests that what offended St Paul so much, at first, about the new movement was its grotesque claim that a crucified man was the messiah.

The Christian concept, that the messiah was to be killed for humanity (rather than, say, ascend the throne of David and govern on direct orders from the Mercy Seat) must have been a reaction to a real event. The imagination would never have come up with it.

As for Jesus Bar-Pandira, I think you have confused the fact that Jesus himself was sometimes said by pagan polemicists to have been fathered by a Roman soldier named Panthera, with a putative different person. The virgin birth inevitably provoked a host of satirical reactions.

"In 2006, James D Tabor published a book called "The Jesus Dynasty", where he argues that tomb findings in Jerusalem may indicate members of Jesus' family. Tabor doesn't conclude, however, that the bones in the coffin marked "Jesus, son of Joseph" really belongs to "our" Jesus, as there were many Jesus-es with fathers called Joseph during that time. But the thought of disproving one of the most diehard Christian myths is surely enticing."

Tabor's book is interesting but extremely speculative. His endorsement of the "James ossuary", which is almost certainly fake, doesn't inspire confidence. The tomb findings he reports, which "may" be those of Jesus' family, may be those of a hundred other families. There are many precedents for that kind of jumped-to-conclusion - "Peter's house", being one of the more embarrassing examples.



10 years ago Report
0
Heretix
(Post deleted by staff 10 years ago)
shadowline
shadowline: Could I have a reference for this? I'm a bit sceptical. I don't think there ever was any Jesus Bar-Pandira
10 years ago Report
0
orkanen
orkanen: DuckDuckGo is a much better friend than Google ever was. For Jesus Bar-Pandira, see
http://tworiversblog.com/2013/02/12/which-jesus-21213/
10 years ago Report
0
Heretix
(Post deleted by staff 10 years ago)
shadowline
shadowline: Not uninteresting stuff, guys, but, about as conclusive as gossip over a fence. I was thinking of something a little more scholarly. I still don't think there was any Jesus Bar-Pandira, although I am willing to see him genuinely proved. Perhaps a book? By an accredited academic?
10 years ago Report
0
Heretix
(Post deleted by staff 10 years ago)
Zanjan
Zanjan: Helix: " the bones in the coffin marked "Jesus, son of Joseph" really belongs to "our" Jesus, as there were many Jesus-es with fathers called Joseph during that time. "

If those were the only bones, one might be suspicious; however, the whole family was there - parents, brothers and Mary Magdalene. That's hardly a co-incidence one could match to any other tomb. Scientists took DNA samples to establish the next of kin, confirming the relationships.Jesus's family tomb wasn't in Jerusalem, it was found several miles south of there, in the city of Talpiot.

The Israeli Museum of Antiquities has the bone boxes of those priests mentioned as well. They're clearly marked. If you don't have DNA sampling, there's no base to question that further. This museum holds, in its warehouse, scores of bone boxes which have been rescued from the construction shovel.

James's bone box would be missing if He died outside of Israel or if his martyred body was unrecoverable. There were two James who were Apostles and there is nothing recorded in the NT about where and how either of them died - only tradition. There's still disagreement which James was the first bishop of Jerusalem. Reports from non-Christians claim James the Just, brother of Jesus, was arrested and stoned to death.

Another point to be made here is that High Prophets of two successive major religions of God confirmed who Jesus was and glorified Him. Since these are completely separate religions, there would be no reason for doing that if there hadn't been unbelievers in the Christ. God knows all, and He reveals the truths to those who believe in Him.

The greatness of a man is always attested to by other great men. The ancient Jews mistakenly looked for a political ruler because that's what they demanded, rather than a spiritual king. As it turned out, those who denied Jesus got neither. Had they accepted Him, they might have had both. Those were the alternatives; history recorded their choice.


(Edited by Zanjan)
10 years ago Report
0
Heretix
(Post deleted by staff 10 years ago)
moofy
moofy: Zanjen: Re; the Geneology of Jesus. Whatever Jewish law states as per inheritance is of no consequence because genes get passed on through both parents, one way or the other. A blood line, is "blood", period. This is scientific fact, the reality.

@Zanjen:
This is incorrect. If a religion claims to be the fulfillment of a prophecy of another religion, then the religion making the claim is tasked with substantiating proof.

If the religion making claims is using another religion's resources to justify claims, then it's absolutely imperative that those claims line up with the religion they're sourcing those claims from.

However, this isn't the case and since these claims can't be substantiated, the Jewish position on the matter is absolutely relevant.


Zanjen:"...Scientific fact/the reality..."


@Zanjen:

While Jews are endogymous (marrying within a specific group), there is no such thing as "magical Jew blood." This concept was born and invented by the Catholic Church in the mid 1500's in order to establish more segregation between Jews and Christians, thereby making the claim something of a rotten apple to begin with.

Scientifically: There is NO DNA sequence present in or absent from all Jews.

The distinctions used in such reports/claims are based on often misunderstood concepts. Any group of endogymous people would have similar traits: Like people on an island for example. That does not elevate the status of their blood in any way.
--------------------------------------------

Zanjen: "In ancient times, one introduced themselves as so and so, the son of so and so as far back as was legitimate - they knew their family trees, which wouldn't have happened without the inclusion of females. Jews often married their first cousins - not outside their religion since that was forbidden."

I'm going to have to ask you to provide citation for these claims.

While research shows it was common for PEOPLE in the Middle East to intermarry with cousins, I have yet to see a report claiming that solely Judaism did this. This statement seems to try to make revisionary implications.

Tribal affiliation went through the father, religion/group affiliation through the mother.
---------------------------------------

Zanjen: "ALL the Prophets would be descended from Abraham"
---------------------------------------
This is incorrect. Bilam was a non-Jewish prophet for example.


Zanjen: "Both Mary and Joseph were descendents of King David - that means that both Mary and Joesph had the same blood (genetic background), sharing common parents; so did their cousins, aunts and uncles. John the Baptist was Jesus's cousin and a lesser Prophet."

So, if Joseph wasn't Jesus's sire, his blood was still in Jesus through His mother, whose lineage merges with that of Joseph, going back in generations. Science has proven that under certain conditions, albeit rare, a mammalian female egg can become a zygote without fertilization. The ancient Jews were totally ignorant of that. In that case, Jesus was of purer blood via genetic dominance, than anybody else.
------------------------------------

I negated this possibility, so you're basically just making blind statements.
I also pointed out the discrepancies of the argument within the NT itself.

You're forgetting I mentioned the Messiah has to be from the bloodline of David
through Solomon. You can't establish this with the genealogical listings provided.

If Jesus was from the line of David through his mother as you suggest, it is in direct contradiction of the prophecy itself. So again, there is a loss here.

Genetic dominance has absolutely nothing to do with the subject. In fact, it's the same "spiritual inheritance" argument placed in my original post - which was also covered.

- Science has never proven the possibility in humans. Please research this again.
- In fact, science states that in humans the zygote would never come to term.

People in the Biblical period being ignorant of science doesn't change what research on the subject has provided.


------------------------------------
Zanjen: "The Holy Book primarily refers to divine inheritance. This stumped the common Jews but their scholars were well aware."
-----------------------------------

A nonsensical claim. Judaism is based on National Revelation: The Torah itself is considered Divine inheritance.

----------------------------------
Zanjen: "Jesus qualified for *divine* inheritance, for if He had not, He wouldn't have been given to the temple, as was the custom of ancient Jews - to offer up to God their first born male to exit the womb - that is, to give him to the temple, which would be his life of service. The Jews accepted this offering and Jesus became a Rabbi."

A) Technically, Jesus was never a Rabbi
B) Go ahead and cite this claim
C) Jews offering up first born males? Substantiate: Worded in a really weird way

In today's world, Rabbi's go to theological seminary to earn their smicha (certification).

In ancient times the title was bestowed in an ordination ceremony said to have begun in Moses’ time. There is no evidence any such bestowal of a title took place with Jesus.

If people used the word as a title of honor/synonym for teacher that wouldn't make him a Rabbi in the literal sense of the word. According to the Gospels he was called a Rabbi, but this was probably a respectful mode of address which merely meant “sir”.

------------------------------------------------
"The family tomb of Jesus has been discovered, including all the bone boxes of the relatives, which were named - that of Jesus as well. This type of burial was the tradition of all Jews at the time."
------------------------------------------------

- We don't negate Jesus was Jewish (an apostate) or whether he lived or not.
- We negate that Jesus was the Messiah/son of God/Demi-God/Deity period

You can find all the bones you like, but the fact that he died before fulfilling the prophecies is yet another nail in the coffin.

I'm not sure if you're confusing what I wrote with someone else?
(Edited by moofy)
10 years ago Report
2
shadowline
shadowline: "Shadowline: I have found the links to David Hughes' books for you:"

Okay. Is this supposed to have some relevance to the question of whether Jesus of Nazareth existed or not? This Hughes fellow appears to have nothing to say on that subject, unless I'm missing it.
10 years ago Report
0
Heretix
(Post deleted by staff 10 years ago)
Zanjan
Zanjan: Moofy: “If the religion making claims is using another religion's resources to justify claims, then it's absolutely imperative that those claims line up with the religion they're sourcing those claims from”.

No, it’s not. You’re making personal demands; this isn’t how it works. The truth is what God, Himself, has said via the High Prophets – in Judaism, Moses was the Jewish Authority on this particular matter – not people.

We’re well aware how clergy have been notorious for interpreting, twisting, even adding to scripture to suit their own agendas – the ancient Jewish clergy was wicked as all get out, lying to meet their own ends. A Holy Man would never persecute anyone for any reason.

No, not what the people say – it’s God’s Words that are correct. Moses, obviously, never said the Messiah’s lineage had to be through Solomon; so,who said it, and precisely what was said?

Perhaps you forget that the Prophet Jeremiah cursed the Solomic line, saying none of those descendants would ever again rule as Kings in Israel. That left only a *spiritual* king to be the Messiah of the Jews.

As for DNA testing, it can tell everything about you, your family, your forbearers, tribes and root stock back tens of thousands of years. Depending on how extensive the testing, it can even draw a picture of your physical visage, just from a lock of hair.

I have no idea what you mean by ‘Magical Jew Blood”; never heard of it. If you’re going to state a claim, please indicate that by prefacing who the claim is being made by. Furthermore, I’m not going to provide you with a citation where you, as a Jew, should know was a custom by heart. I’m beginning to think you’re not a religious Jew and that you’re googling everything.

On Prophets – God, Himself, states by name who they’ve been in the past. He doesn’t state the names of who will be the next one because that’s a test for the people. He only promises there will be a next one and gives a few clues. If your religion is 3000 years old, you wouldn’t have confirmation of any who came after your own.

“I negated this possibility, so you're basically just making blind statements.”

You’ve rejected this possibility without providing any evidence at all. I presented evidence for mine. If you had read any Christian scriptures, you’d know that Jesus went through the traditional ceremony you speak of; that’s where He was when Mary M washed and dried His feet with her hair.

I respect that Jews don't believe Jesus was the Messiah; however, that's irrelevant. Jews should respect recorded history of events, which is what this topic is about - 'Did Jesus exist?' By this, one is asking if Jesus, the son of Mary, was responsible for starting the religion of Christianity.





(Edited by Zanjan)
10 years ago Report
0
orkanen
orkanen: Zanjan wrote: The truth is what God, Himself, has said via the High Prophets -

The truth is that asserting a god still doesn't make it real.
10 years ago Report
1
moofy
moofy: Wow. Does Zanjan seriously just make up whatever the hell she wants and calls it valid?
10 years ago Report
3
Tamanisha
(Post deleted by staff 10 years ago)
orkanen
orkanen: Moofy, she usually does. It must be true because the voices in her head told her.
10 years ago Report
1
Zanjan
Zanjan: "The truth is that asserting a god still doesn't make it real. "

I wasn't asserting a God, I was asserting the truth. How wonderful you can't tell the difference!

Moofy: "Does Zanjan seriously just make up whatever the hell she wants and calls it valid? "

If you did your homework, you wouldn't have to ask that question.



10 years ago Report
0
moofy
moofy: I did do my homework, which is exactly why I said what I did. I can give plenty of citation and I daresay you can do the same.

You have still not addressed any concerns: Just tried to instill your own Baha'i beliefs as universally correct.

Here is the truth of the matter: Bahau'llah is just as incorrect.

The Baha'i faith is simply another attempt at installing a "segment" of religion that tries to combine all three Abrahamic faiths as attempted by both Christianity and Islam.

The reason you dislike such arguments is because if such religions, based on prior counterparts are incorrect: The whole tree falls, along with Bahau'llah's theories.

Yes: Universal peace but f*ck the gays right? How original.
It's about as silly as Joseph Smith.

You didn't understand my reference to Joseph Smith the last time I mentioned it. Instead, in another post, you chose to assume that I had defined you as Christian.

You are highly overestimating your own knowledge and underestimating others on this forum. I highly doubt such extremes would be of an approving nature in your belief.

Let me break it down:
Bahau'llah: Born November 12 1817
Joseph Smith: Born December 23, 1805

Both new installations/attempts at revolutionizing their religious beliefs.

Let's also bring another little factor into the picture:

- NONE of these SELF-proclaimed Prophets - NONE achieved world peace
- NONE of the SELF-proclaimed Prophets with "the answers" could solve our issues
- NONE of these SELF-proclaimed Prophets have done anything but wreak havoc

Yours will though!
Your religion will totally bring love and non-war/non-violence/unity and world peace!

Which again is just tantamount to the testimony of all such faiths.
(Edited by moofy)
10 years ago Report
2
CoIin
CoIin: Interesting thread, Doctor. I thought I might add to the confusion with a more philosophical take on the issue.

Let's say technology advances and we're able to conduct an exhaustive search of Loch Ness; anything and everything in the loch is documented. What's the best case scenario for Nessie fans?

Well, I suppose that would be the discovery of the quintessential "postcard" monster: the coils, the massive size, the tartan bonnet ; a creature unknown to science, or perhaps known to science but thought to be extinct.

Nessie lovers would doubtless be delighted and would identify the discovered creature with the monster. Even this best case scenario is still rather problematic though. Our knowledge (if you can call it that) of Nessie, in the absence of direct study, comprises a cornucopia of diverse, and in many cases logically incompatible, eye-witness accounts (coils or no coils? ). No matter what is unearthed in the loch search, it could not possibly match all the features attributed to the Nessie of folklore.

Conversely, under the worst case scenario where nothing remotely unusual is detected in the loch, the most ardently devoted Nessie believer can still maintain belief in any number of ways: by denying the validity of the study, by postulating a secret channel, and so forth.

And, of course, in between these two extremes of best and worst case there lies an indeterminate number of possibilities, a population of particularly large seals or tuna perhaps. The poignant question here, then, is how many, and which ones, of the features attributed to Nessie would have to be shared by any creature in the loch for an identification to be made?

In a parallel manner, a time machine wouldn't necessarily help much with the Jesus issue. If we flew back to observe happenings in first century Palestine would we find "a" Jesus? Without a doubt. Would we find "the" Jesus? Well, as with the Nessie scenario, inasmuch as our reports of Jesus are in many cases mutually contradictory, a "perfect match" is out of the question.

It's not clear at all that the devout would be dissuaded, or that the skeptics would be persuaded, NO MATTER WHAT WAS OBSERVED.

What kind of fit would it take? Are there any necessary conditions? i.e. any candidate failing to meet such a condition is ruled out. (e.g. any Jesus with a mother NOT named Mary is eliminated). Or are there any sufficient conditions? i.e. meet this condition and you're IT, so to speak.

What say you, Doctor?
(Edited by CoIin)
10 years ago Report
1
Zanjan
Zanjan: Moofy, what makes you think you know what Baha'i beliefs are? You're not even familiar with the Jewish ones.

Baha'is don't have religious 'beliefs' - they have teachings. They also have the Word of God, and none have an opinion on that.

"... another attempt at installing a "segment" of religion that tries to combine all three Abrahamic faiths "


The Faith of God is ONE Universal Faith - always has been. Sounds like that's a difficult concept for you to digest but I assure you, the Holy Spirit doesn't mix oil and water. Spiritual truths have always been the same - some are hidden to certain people but most are manifest in so much glory, no one can miss them.

Moofy, your opinions about different religions are off topic again. However, I'll respond to a few of your inaccuracies.

As for Joseph Smith, his Mormon sect never escaped the gravity of Christianity -it was just another sect. There's no comparison between him and Baha'u'llah, not in word, deed or rank - the Baha'i Faith is an independent religion, with it's own Revelation and dispensation - not a sect.

When you googled 'Baha'u'llah', I don't suppose you noticed there are no pictures of Him on the Internet. You'll find lots of Joseph Smith, even fake paintings of Christ and Moses. Well, there is a genuine painting and photograph of Baha'u'llah - only for viewing of those on Pilgrimage in Israel, where the Baha'i World Spiritual and Administrative Center is, on Mount Carmel.

A Prophet doesn't achieve world peace - wherever did you get that idea from? Now you're sounding like a Christian, particularly, a Jehovah's Witness. World peace comes when the people of the world are ready for it, and not a moment sooner. Clearly, the ancients weren't prepared for that. Baha'i's are because we have the blueprints for it.



(Edited by Zanjan)
10 years ago Report
0
Zanjan
Zanjan: Colin, science has sonar and underwater video of part of Nessie's body with a flipper - does look like a dinosaur. That creature would be smart to continue to steer clear of humans.

The worlds oceans have been mostly unexplored but when they do come up with photos of previously unknown species, there seems to be only two kinds of people - the naysayers, and those who want to kill it for a trophy. Personally, I think pollution would kill it first.

Yet people believe because we have the bones of dinosaurs, knowing creatures answering to this description did live on earth. What would it matter if we were wrong? If this is about a Prophet of God, yeah, that matters.

(Edited by Zanjan)
10 years ago Report
0
Zanjan
Zanjan: "If we flew back to first century Palestine would we find..... "the" Jesus?

Yes, one could be standing right in front of HIm and not know Him - this is a recorded fact at the actual time. Likewise, some will know Him instantly, even if they can't speak the language. Such a personage would have a very distinctive demeanor.

I sincerely doubt this event would change our understanding of religion though.

For those looking to prove history, one could put together a forensic study. The bone box of the Priest who was responsible for Jesus's arrest and sentence to death was found and positively identified by the craftsmanship and inscription. When the box was opened, they found with the bones an authentically dated, used crucifixion spike inside.

I think that sends a clear message that he had murdered a very extraordinary individual, and this token would always be visible to his soul's conscience.


(Edited by Zanjan)
10 years ago Report
0
orkanen
orkanen: Zanjan wrote: I wasn't asserting a God, I was asserting the truth. How wonderful you can't tell the difference!

Asserting a figment of ones imagination as truth isn't how it's done. One discovers truth, not assert it. How wonderful you can't tell the difference.
10 years ago Report
1
Zanjan
Zanjan: How very odd you haven't figured out that after discovering a truth, one declares it with certitude. Seems you either haven't discovered any truths yet, or you just don't understand them.
10 years ago Report
0