Was Jesus real?

[Caino]

You do not understand YHWH at all. The Hebrews created their words from their alphabet. Each letter had a meaning and together created the meaning of the word. The Hebrews didn't even come up with the name, but God gave it to them, and they have forgotten or never really understood the meaning. But the letters mean Behold the Hand, Behold the nail, and has nothing to do with nature.


Psalms 22:16 For dogs have compassed me: the assembly of the wicked have inclosed me: they pierced my hands and my feet.

Perhaps the Jews should ask themselves why El Elyon has this name.

Zechariah 12:8 In that day shall the Lord defend the inhabitants of Jerusalem; and he that is feeble among them at that day shall be as David; and the house of David shall be as God, as the angel of the Lord before them.
9 ¶And it shall come to pass in that day, that I will seek to destroy all the nations that come against Jerusalem.
10 And I will pour upon the house of David, and upon the inhabitants of Jerusalem, the spirit of grace and of supplications: and they shall look upon me whom they have pierced, and they shall mourn for him, as one mourneth for his only son, and shall be in bitterness for him, as one that is in bitterness for his firstborn.

Well that's a nice religious story but it's not accurate, Moses predates the Hebrew alphabet by at least 500 years and the Hebrew used by the Babylonian redactors by 1,000 years.

"Yahweh (/ˈjɑːhweɪ/, or often /ˈjɑːweɪ/ in English; Hebrew: יהוה‎) was the national god of the ancient kingdoms of Israel and Judah.[2] His name may have begun as an epithet of El, head of the Bronze Age Canaanite pantheon,[3] but the earliest plausible mentions are in Egyptian texts that place him among the nomads of the southern Transjordan.[4] In the oldest biblical literature he is a typical ancient Near Eastern "divine warrior" who leads the heavenly army against Israel's enemies;[5] he later became the main god of the Kingdom of Israel (Samaria) and of Judah,[6] and over time the royal court and temple promoted Yahweh as the god of the entire cosmos, possessing all the positive qualities previously attributed to the other gods and goddesses.[7][8] By the end of the Babylonian exile (6th century BC), the very existence of foreign gods was denied, and Yahweh was proclaimed as the creator of the cosmos and the true god of all the world.[8]"​

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yahweh


Bronze Age origins

Yahweh was the national god of the kingdoms of Israel and Judah,[2] and appears to have been worshiped only in these two kingdoms.[9] This was unusual in the Ancient Near East but not unknown–the god Ashur, for example, was worshiped only by the Assyrians.[10] His name may have originated as a title for El, the head of the Canaanite pantheon (el dū yahwī ṣaba’ôt, "El who creates the hosts", meaning the heavenly army accompanying El as he marched beside the earthly armies of Israel), but although El and Yahweh have much in common they also have many differences.[11]

The earliest possible occurrence of the name Yahu is as a place-name ("land of Shasu-yhw) in an Egyptian inscription from the time of Amenhotep III (1402–1363 BCE),[12] the Shasu being nomads from Midian and Edom.[13] There is considerable support—though not universal—for the view that the Egyptian inscriptions do refer to Yahweh.[14] The question that arises is how he made his way to the north.[15] A widely accepted hypothesis is that traders brought Yahweh to Israel along the caravan routes between Egypt and Canaan (this is called the Kenite hypothesis, after one of the groups involved).[16] The strength of the Kenite hypothesis is the way it ties together various points of data, such as the absence of Yahweh from Canaan, his links with Edom and Midian in the biblical stories, and the Kenite or Midianite ties of Moses; but while it is highly plausible that the Kenites, Midianites and others may have introduced Israel to Yahweh, it is highly unlikely that they did so outside the borders of Israel or under the aegis of Moses, as the Exodus story has it.[17]

 

[RevTestament]

Well that's a nice religious story but it's not accurate, Moses predates the Hebrew alphabet by at least 500 years

There is actually no way of knowing that. It is possible but unknown.

and the Hebrew used by the Babylonian redactors by 1,000 years.

By that time the Hebrew language was well established and their words from their alphabet formed. You are doing nothing of import to refute what I have said. The Jews simple began to use Aramaic characters for their Hebrew letters, but they retained their individual meanings.

"Yahweh (/ˈjɑːhweɪ/, or often /ˈjɑːweɪ/ in English; Hebrew: יהוה‎) was the national god of the ancient kingdoms of Israel and Judah.[2] His name may have begun as an epithet of El, head of the Bronze Age Canaanite pantheon,[3] but the earliest plausible mentions are in Egyptian texts that place him among the nomads of the southern Transjordan.[4] In the oldest biblical literature he is a typical ancient Near Eastern "divine warrior" who leads the heavenly army against Israel's enemies;[5] he later became the main god of the Kingdom of Israel (Samaria) and of Judah,[6] and over time the royal court and temple promoted Yahweh as the god of the entire cosmos, possessing all the positive qualities previously attributed to the other gods and goddesses.[7][8] By the end of the Babylonian exile (6th century BC), the very existence of foreign gods was denied, and Yahweh was proclaimed as the creator of the cosmos and the true god of all the world.[8]"

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yahweh

Anyone can write what they want in Wikipedia. It is hardly authoritative in unknown matters(outside the Tanakh) such as the origin of YHWH.

Bronze Age origins

Yahweh was the national god of the kingdoms of Israel and Judah,[2] and appears to have been worshiped only in these two kingdoms.[9] This was unusual in the Ancient Near East but not unknown–the god Ashur, for example, was worshiped only by the Assyrians.[10] His name may have originated as a title for El, the head of the Canaanite pantheon (el dū yahwī ṣaba’ôt, "El who creates the hosts", meaning the heavenly army accompanying El as he marched beside the earthly armies of Israel), but although El and Yahweh have much in common they also have many differences.[11]

The earliest possible occurrence of the name Yahu is as a place-name ("land of Shasu-yhw) in an Egyptian inscription from the time of Amenhotep III (1402–1363 BCE),[12] the Shasu being nomads from Midian and Edom.[13]

This would have been a little after the time of Joseph. It is noteworthy that Amenhotep dispensed with the other gods of Egypt in favor of the one true Amen, god of the sun, so was probably highly influenced by Joseph as receiving revelation from one true God, and was probably friendly to the Israelites. His line died out tho with Tutankhamun, and the priests went back to their traditional gods, and everything doing with the original Amenhotep was rebelled against. Nevertheless Midian was a son of Abraham by his 3rd wife Keturah, and so would have known of YHWH.

There is considerable support—though not universal—for the view that the Egyptian inscriptions do refer to Yahweh.[14]

Probably not. They do refer to Israel tho, which appears on the Stele of Merneptah around 1208 B.C. Placing the exodus before that date.

The question that arises is how he made his way to the north.[15] A widely accepted hypothesis is that traders brought Yahweh to Israel along the caravan routes between Egypt and Canaan (this is called the Kenite hypothesis, after one of the groups involved).[16] The strength of the Kenite hypothesis is the way it ties together various points of data, such as the absence of Yahweh from Canaan, his links with Edom and Midian in the biblical stories, and the Kenite or Midianite ties of Moses; but while it is highly plausible that the Kenites, Midianites and others may have introduced Israel to Yahweh, it is highly unlikely that they did so outside the borders of Israel or under the aegis of Moses, as the Exodus story has it.[17]

This is all based upon the theories of modern archaeologists who discount the exodus story told by Moses.

 

[aikido7]

The massive consensus of historians falls squarely on the side of Jesus of Nazareth being a real person--and the exalted titles like Messiah, Son of God, God, Lord, born of a virgin, died for sin on the cross were all affixed to him after he died.

 

[Aimiel]

The real question isn't whether He existed or not, the real question is: "Whom do you say that He is?" I believe He is The I Am.

I said therefore unto you, that ye shall die in your sins: for if ye believe not that I am, ye shall die in your sins.

 

[PureX]

The massive consensus of historians falls squarely on the side of Jesus of Nazareth being a real person--and the exalted titles like Messiah, Son of God, God, Lord, born of a virgin, died for sin on the cross were all affixed to him after he died.

I would tend to agree with them. And as with all legends, the stories get altered and embellished to better convey the meaning of the matter, from the teller's perspective.

 

[Zeke]

The massive consensus of historians falls squarely on the side of Jesus of Nazareth being a real person--and the exalted titles like Messiah, Son of God, God, Lord, born of a virgin, died for sin on the cross were all affixed to him after he died.

Yet the same type of story is found in prior cultures, the massive consensus of exoterix christian scholarship would naturally fall in that category of pushing the historic version.

Many prior to the third century never believed in the historical Jesus, some could be considered as possible candidates yet the timing and names are different than the Bibles assertion.

The inward or Gnostic Christ was the teaching of the mystery schools that where mimicked in Paul's letter which teach a Christ inwardly, the tampering with those epistles and later introduction of the gospels through Romes watchful eye did make the literal version square to the uneducated masses that are firmly under that mind controlled programming.

Alvin Boyd Kuhn for one exposes the fraud, as did Gerald Massey, Robert Taylor with many quotes from the time period that show those in the Religious Ruling class never believed in a historical Jesus either.

 

[Spectrox War]

The assertion that the gospels are reliable documents does not satisfy the historical method devised by Gilbert J Garraghan. The standard sets out minimum criteria which should be met if a document can be considered reliable and may be an accurate account of what transpired.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historical_method

Garraghan divides source criticism into six inquiries:

1. When was the source, written or unwritten, produced (date)?
2. Where was it produced (localization)?
3. By whom was it produced (authorship)?
4. From what pre-existing material was it produced (analysis)?
5. In what original form was it produced (integrity)?
6. What is the evidential value of its contents (credibility)?

The New Testament arguably fails on all these measures.

The mythicist position is a reasonable position to take because the evidence for a historical Jesus is very poor. I didn’t realise how poor that evidence was until I looked into it.

The first century CE was supposed to be a well documented period in history. What reliable evidence for a historical Jesus do we find in contemporary Roman records – precisely nothing. Prolific Jewish historian Philo of Alexandria (20BCE to 50CE) was ideally placed in Judea at the time Jesus allegedly walked the earth to write about what he did or at least write down what others were saying about him. What did he write down about Jesus? Nothing. Zilch. A big fat zero. The same is true for a number of other contemporary historians living in or around Judea.

The earliest surviving Christian writings (around 50CE) were by Paul of Tarsus (who never said he met Jesus in the flesh but instead the claim is that he saw a spirit of Jesus on the Road to Damascus). Paul does not write about Jesus as a real geographical-historical figure but talks about him as if he is a spirit in the sky. Reading Paul’s epistles (or the 7 that most scholars think are authentic) we discover that there was no virgin birth, no miracles, no sermon on the mount, no parables. Or at least if these events did occur, then no one seemed to have told Paul. However, a Lord’s Supper (not a Last Supper), a crucifiction and a resurrection are mentioned but are not clearly physical in nature. A valid interpretation is that they are symbolic. I find the above extraordinary!

The first gospel to place Jesus firmly on earth is Mark’s gospel (70CE?) which can be interpreted as a meta-parable and may have been a political response to the sacking of Jerusalem by the Romans around that time. Then a decade or two later (?) the authors of Matthew and Luke copy large chunks from Mark, in some respects improving the content for the audiences they wanted to reach. John’s gospel comes a bit later (towards the end of the first century perhaps or even later?). The first time all 4 gospels are mentioned as canon is 180CE by Iraneus. The Bible as we know it wasn’t put together formally until 325CE at the Council of Nicea.

There may well have been an anti-establishment figure called Jesus who said and did some of what was written in the gospels. However, if we consider extraordinary claims made about this character such as gravity-defying walking on the water or bringing himself and others back from the dead, the Jesus character as written can be considered to be firmly in the realm of fiction.

Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. The claims that are made by Christians are that the creator of the whole universe has an extremely important message for mankind. How does he choose to convey this ultimate message? He materialises in Iron Age Palestine which was pretty backward (the Chinese were already writing at this time). He does unbelievable things that a select few witnesses are privy to. They write it down decades after the event. Then we have to rely on copies of copies of translations of copies with no originals and questionable authorship information in languages that die out and this is supposed to reach everyone on the planet and be convincing? What sort of a cosmic plan is that? Any semi-intelligent God who understands the nature of evidence would find this laughable.

 

[Caino]

The assertion that the gospels are reliable documents does not satisfy the historical method devised by Gilbert J Garraghan. The standard sets out minimum criteria which should be met if a document can be considered reliable and may be an accurate account of what transpired.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historical_method

Garraghan divides source criticism into six inquiries:

1. When was the source, written or unwritten, produced (date)?
2. Where was it produced (localization)?
3. By whom was it produced (authorship)?
4. From what pre-existing material was it produced (analysis)?
5. In what original form was it produced (integrity)?
6. What is the evidential value of its contents (credibility)?

The New Testament arguably fails on all these measures.

The mythicist position is a reasonable position to take because the evidence for a historical Jesus is very poor. I didn’t realise how poor that evidence was until I looked into it.

The first century CE was supposed to be a well documented period in history. What reliable evidence for a historical Jesus do we find in contemporary Roman records – precisely nothing. Prolific Jewish historian Philo of Alexandria (20BCE to 50CE) was ideally placed in Judea at the time Jesus allegedly walked the earth to write about what he did or at least write down what others were saying about him. What did he write down about Jesus? Nothing. Zilch. A big fat zero. The same is true for a number of other contemporary historians living in or around Judea.

The earliest surviving Christian writings (around 50CE) were by Paul of Tarsus (who never said he met Jesus in the flesh but instead the claim is that he saw a spirit of Jesus on the Road to Damascus). Paul does not write about Jesus as a real geographical-historical figure but talks about him as if he is a spirit in the sky. Reading Paul’s epistles (or the 7 that most scholars think are authentic) we discover that there was no virgin birth, no miracles, no sermon on the mount, no parables. Or at least if these events did occur, then no one seemed to have told Paul. However, a Lord’s Supper (not a Last Supper), a crucifiction and a resurrection are mentioned but are not clearly physical in nature. A valid interpretation is that they are symbolic. I find the above extraordinary!

The first gospel to place Jesus firmly on earth is Mark’s gospel (70CE?) which can be interpreted as a meta-parable and may have been a political response to the sacking of Jerusalem by the Romans around that time. Then a decade or two later (?) the authors of Matthew and Luke copy large chunks from Mark, in some respects improving the content for the audiences they wanted to reach. John’s gospel comes a bit later (towards the end of the first century perhaps or even later?). The first time all 4 gospels are mentioned as canon is 180CE by Iraneus. The Bible as we know it wasn’t put together formally until 325CE at the Council of Nicea.

There may well have been an anti-establishment figure called Jesus who said and did some of what was written in the gospels. However, if we consider extraordinary claims made about this character such as gravity-defying walking on the water or bringing himself and others back from the dead, the Jesus character as written can be considered to be firmly in the realm of fiction.

Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. The claims that are made by Christians are that the creator of the whole universe has an extremely important message for mankind. How does he choose to convey this ultimate message? He materialises in Iron Age Palestine which was pretty backward (the Chinese were already writing at this time). He does unbelievable things that a select few witnesses are privy to. They write it down decades after the event. Then we have to rely on copies of copies of translations of copies with no originals and questionable authorship information in languages that die out and this is supposed to reach everyone on the planet and be convincing? What sort of a cosmic plan is that? Any semi-intelligent God who understands the nature of evidence would find this laughable.

Your thesis doesn't make sense in light of the dedication of his 11 followers and their converts to the cause.

Jesus is still alive and among us here now.

 

[aikido7]

The real question isn't whether He existed or not, the real question is: "Whom do you say that He is?" I believe He is The I Am.

I said therefore unto you, that ye shall die in your sins: for if ye believe not that I am, ye shall die in your sins.

The verses you are using are expressions of theology, not of history. Jesus (besides the ahistorical later theology of John's gospel) never said he was divine. In fact, the historical figure is reported to have said: "Why call ME good? Only God alone is good."

 

[Aimiel]

The verses you are using are expressions of theology, not of history. Jesus (besides the ahistorical later theology of John's gospel) never said he was divine. In fact, the historical figure is reported to have said: "Why call ME good? Only God alone is good."

The 'historical figure' whom is actually Jesus, Who is Christ, is also reported to have said nothing to Thomas, who was the biggest doubter in the group: nothing, when he called Jesus, "Lord," and, "God." Were he not such, Jesus would have rebuked him for saying so and the rebuke would have been reported. Do you think that such things were omitted or redacted, so that Jesus might 'appear' to be deity? I don't believe that God's Word has anything God didn't inspire and I don't believe anything was omitted that He wanted in It. You can play with your beliefs all you want, I'll stick with what is evident from what God inspired. It's clear to me and to millions of believers all over this earth Who Jesus is: God, in The Flesh.

 

[Spectrox War]

Your thesis doesn't make sense in light of the dedication of his 11 followers and their converts to the cause.

The reliable evidence for the existence of the 11 followers is exactly the same as that for Jesus of Nazareth i.e. nothing.

I don't think any Christian scholars would accept that all of the gospels were written by the 11 - certainly not 2 of them (Mark and Luke). They were probably written by Greek scholars decades after the supposed events, maybe as much as a century afterwards.

In terms of attracting dedicated followers, mormonism sprang up very quickly attracting legions of devotees but presumably you don't consider their claims true? And this happened comparatively recently when people were less gullible than they were 2000 years ago.

Jesus is still alive and among us here now.

Demonstrate this by providing reliable evidence. This is an extraordinary claim.

I could say that Santa Claus is alive and visits us once a year at Xmas time. Why should you believe me?

P.S. Your status says you are "Other". I'm just wondering why it doesn't say "Christian"?

 

[aikido7]

"Jesus" refers to the historical, authentic figure who taught in first-century Palestine.

"Christ" refers to the Jesus of faith and the church. This is the Jesus that was defined after his death as Son of God, Lord, divine, born of a virgin, etc.

 

[aikido7]

The real question isn't whether He existed or not, the real question is: "Whom do you say that He is?" I believe He is The I Am.

I said therefore unto you, that ye shall die in your sins: for if ye believe not that I am, ye shall die in your sins.

My Jesus discloses the character of God on earth.

Dying for humankind's sins is a later framework placed over the historical, authentic figure.

In fact, its clearest theology is to be found some 900 years later as outlined by the Christian theologian St. Anselm of Canterbury.

The Greek word for "ransom" has nothing to do with a payment for sin. The word is translated as lutron which is known as a payment for release from captivity.

Since Jesus saved many before he even went to the cross, the notion of a bloody sacrifice for sin can be discounted today. It is a leftover theology from ancient times.

 

[Interplanner]

My Jesus discloses the character of God on earth.

Dying for humankind's sins is a later framework placed over the historical, authentic figure.

In fact, its clearest theology is to be found some 900 years later as outlined by the Christian theologian St. Anselm of Canterbury.

The Greek word for "ransom" has nothing to do with a payment for sin. The word is translated as lutron which is known as a payment for release from captivity.

Since Jesus saved many before he even went to the cross, the notion of a bloody sacrifice for sin can be discounted today. It is a leftover theology from ancient times.

and there we have it. Yes there is some obstacle to overcome, but a propitiation was needed. This is clearly found in Christ himself, and in Paul in Rom 3. The 10th century material you are referring to was about an appeasing payment to the devil and is way off target.

When Jesus claimed divine authority to forgive sins in his earliest explained double miracle, it was in anticipation of the same Gospel that he preached and that Peter and Paul would preach.

One group of passages you have not even begun to wrestle with, Aik, is the dumbfounded response to his suffering, death and resurrection. The closest disciples didn't realize, didn't put 2 and 2 together, and see that that event was the same redemption or ransom or propitiation or salvation that he was talking about all along. He was after fulfilling the list from Daniel 9:24 right on time. the earliest of the stumped and silent passages is Mk 9:32. It seems to happen every time he mentions his purpose after the Transfiguration, which was also a space-time event.

Not exactly the 10th century. A bit earlier, huh?

 

[Caino]

The reliable evidence for the existence of the 11 followers is exactly the same as that for Jesus of Nazareth i.e. nothing.

I don't think any Christian scholars would accept that all of the gospels were written by the 11 - certainly not 2 of them (Mark and Luke). They were probably written by Greek scholars decades after the supposed events, maybe as much as a century afterwards.

In terms of attracting dedicated followers, mormonism sprang up very quickly attracting legions of devotees but presumably you don't consider their claims true? And this happened comparatively recently when people were less gullible than they were 2000 years ago.



Demonstrate this by providing reliable evidence. This is an extraordinary claim.

I could say that Santa Claus is alive and visits us once a year at Xmas time. Why should you believe me?

P.S. Your status says you are "Other". I'm just wondering why it doesn't say "Christian"?

The spirit of truth is the conviction of truth for spirit born believers. I have no proof of the resurrected Jesus that would satisfy a dedicated skeptic. Even the apostles doubted.

I'm a disciple of the original gospel of Jesus, Christianity is an overly complicated shadow of the original gospel. Everything began to change as soon as Jesus left for his headquarter planet.

So you claim the apostles didn't exist either? It's like one long conspiracy theory.

 

[Zeke]

The 'historical figure' whom is actually Jesus, Who is Christ, is also reported to have said nothing to Thomas, who was the biggest doubter in the group: nothing, when he called Jesus, "Lord," and, "God." Were he not such, Jesus would have rebuked him for saying so and the rebuke would have been reported. Do you think that such things were omitted or redacted, so that Jesus might 'appear' to be deity? I don't believe that God's Word has anything God didn't inspire and I don't believe anything was omitted that He wanted in It. You can play with your beliefs all you want, I'll stick with what is evident from what God inspired. It's clear to me and to millions of believers all over this earth Who Jesus is: God, in The Flesh.

Institutionalized programming of religious rulers of the time period who never believed in the historical version they pushed to the masses. The same type of stories superseded the Jesus incarnation in Ancient times and were seen as being hidden in allegorical stories about the Divine part of man that is dormant until awakened.

The emotional servitude of million by political and religious leaders in no proof, other than the sad history of voluntary servitude to liars and con artist who have the job of keeping the truth concealed about the truth of Mans own Divine nature that doesn't need a outward hero or saved from themselves.

 

[chair]

... Moses predates the Hebrew alphabet by at least 500 years ...

This is simply not true. Where did you get it from?

 

[Caino]

This is simply not true. Where did you get it from?

Moses dates to about 1500+/- BC and the earliest Hebrew dates to around 900-1,000 BC. The Palaeo-Hebrew alphabet, is a variant of the Phoenician alphabet.

 

[chair]

Moses dates to about 1500+/- BC and the earliest Hebrew dates to around 900-1,000 BC. The Palaeo-Hebrew alphabet, is a variant of the Phoenician alphabet.

It depends on what you consider to be a "Hebrew Alphabet".
Also, we can only say what the earliest known example of Hebrew writing is. There is no way to know if it had been used earlier.

Edit: Where do you get a date of 1500 BCE for Moses from?

 

[Caino]

It depends on what you consider to be a "Hebrew Alphabet".
Also, we can only say what the earliest known example of Hebrew writing is. There is no way to know if it had been used earlier.

Edit: Where do you get a date of 1500 BCE for Moses from?