Did Jesus Exist?

[Iacchus]

It is not clear that this was necessarily an act of benevolence. To bring a child into a cruel world, which it is for many, and abandon it there, which appears to be the case for all of those who lack the internal experience of God, is not benevolence it is negligent child abuse.

The sun shines on both the good and the bad, and is for the most part benevolent ... so long as we keep our distance that is.

Also, how do we account for the fact that man is not God, and is wholly evil unto himself (selfish) ... without God that is.

 

[Throg]

The sun shines on both the good and the bad, and is for the most part benevolent ... so long as we keep our distance that is

In some places it shines a lot more than others, of course.

Also, how do we account for the fact that man is not God,

In the same way that we account for the fact that man is not a tuna fish sandwich. Are these things you say no more than Zen Koans to you?

and is wholly evil unto himself (selfish) ... without God that is

I see no reason to believe he is wholly evil unto himself. Even if you just mean selfish, the concept of altruism is hardly unknown to we materialists and we have never seen a need for God in order to make the concept meaningful.

 

[Pahansiri]

Also, how do we account for the fact that man is not God, and is wholly evil unto himself (selfish) ... without God that is.

1-Man is a fact a proven reality. God is a Belief
2-This statment is without logic as many people "with God" are very"evil unto himself (selfish)"

 

[Meadmaker]

Bah!

To the extent that I contributed to the derailing of this thread into a question of God's existence, I most humbly apologize.

I, for one, am interested in the original topic of this thread, which was not the existence of God, but of an historical person known as Jesus. My interest was sparked by some recent readings of sources of which I was previously unaware.

Specifically, I recently became aware of the Hebrew Gospel of Matthew and the existence of the Mandaeans. Also, the Dead Sea Scrolls have some interesting stuff, but it's fragmentary and rather speculative. There's no mention of Jesus, but there are some people who are writing that the Teacher of Righteousness might be his brother, James, and one who is condemned as a spreader of lies might be St. Paul.

So, if anyone knows of some other sources that might be obscure, but could shed light on the early Christian church and/or the development of Judaism in the period just before the destruction of the Temple by the Romans, please post it.

Meanwhile, for those of you who have direct knowledge of the existence of Jesus and His divine nature, congratulations. I'm happy for you. That, too, is a worthwhile discussion.

 

[Meadmaker]

On a related note, I read in one source, which I cannot remember the title or author, sorry, that in the 1st century AD, there was no town named Nazareth in the place where one stands today, nor was there any record of such a town until much, much later.

The references to "Nazarene" could more accurately be rendered Nasorean, which apparently had something to do with the community at Qumran.

Can anyone say if any or all of this is accurate? The parts about the Nasoreans came from a suspect source, which I do have a bibliographical cite for. It was "The Hiram Key" a thoroughly woo-woo book which had all sorts of pseudofacts in it, relating Templars, Moses, Jesus, ancient Egyptian resurrection rituals and the Masons.

 

[LW]

On a related note, I read in one source, which I cannot remember the title or author, sorry, that in the 1st century AD, there was no town named Nazareth in the place where one stands today, nor was there any record of such a town until much, much later.

I have seen that same claim in various places but I don't know whether it is true or not. However, if it is true, then it implies that the authors of all gospels were quite ignorant of the geography of Palestine. Not that this is impossible, of course.

The references to "Nazarene" could more accurately be rendered Nasorean, which apparently had something to do with the community at Qumran.

Nazirites were Jews who promised to serve God for a set of time. For example, the OT hero Samson was one of them, though in his case the promise was made by his parents and it was for lifetime. I think that I've read from somewhere that this practice was practically died during the NT times but it is not impossible that some tradititionalists still held to it. And Esseans certainly were traditionalists. (Some modern researchers have lately questioned the connection between Qumran and Essenes but the general consensus is still that Qumran was Essean.)

 

[Skeptical Greg]

On a related note, I read in one source, which I cannot remember the title or author, sorry, that in the 1st century AD, there was no town named Nazareth in the place where one stands today, nor was there any record of such a town until much, much later.

The references to "Nazarene" could more accurately be rendered Nasorean, which apparently had something to do with the community at Qumran.

Can anyone say if any or all of this is accurate? The parts about the Nasoreans came from a suspect source, which I do have a bibliographical cite for. It was "The Hiram Key" a thoroughly woo-woo book which had all sorts of pseudofacts in it, relating Templars, Moses, Jesus, ancient Egyptian resurrection rituals and the Masons.

Here is some info that addresses the ' Nazareth ' question..

http://www.jesusneverexisted.com/nazareth.html

However when we look for historical confirmation of this hometown of a god – surprise, surprise! – no other source confirms that the place even existed in the 1st century AD.

It seems to be well documented and researched..

 

[Iacchus]

Bah!

To the extent that I contributed to the derailing of this thread into a question of God's existence, I most humbly apologize.

Yep, history without the mystery. It just furthers our purposes for arguing against each other.

 

[Iacchus]

1-Man is a fact a proven reality. God is a Belief
2-This statment is without logic as many people "with God" are very"evil unto himself (selfish)"

There is nothing about man that doesn't entail belief by the way. What does that mean? That man is religious by nature. So yes, there is a mystery to this thing we call "life." And thus far, Science has only been able to present its version as a theory. How so? Because it has no means by which to negate the fact that God exists or, prove otherwise. Therefore, we have to take it wholly upon faith that evolution is the only true answer.

 

[Pahansiri]

There is nothing about man that doesn't entail belief by the way. What does that mean? That man is religious by nature. So yes, there is a mystery to this thing we call "life." And thus far, Science has only been able to present its version as a theory. How so? Because it has no means by which to negate the fact that God exists or, prove otherwise. Therefore, we have to take it wholly upon faith that evolution is the only true answer.

There is nothing about man that doesn't entail belief by the way.

I agree to a point, but there does come a point when a believe is either disproved or proven as fact. One can believe water is not wet all they may wish and that is their right but such a belief will not make water not wet.’’

One may believe to pour gas on themselves and to light a match will not cause suffering and death but the fact is it will.

what does that mean? That man is religious by nature.

I believe man by nature is by a great % and or in great parts of their lives moved by emotions such as fear. This fear drove early man to seek explanations for events such as storms etc the fear belief leads to a “god” is mad etc. Fear becomes a ruling tool.

there is a mystery to this thing we call "life." And thus far, Science has only been able to present its version as a theory.

Not at all true. Science’s purpose is to seek out answers free from emotions or preconceived set in stone concepts or beliefs. Science has no emotional attachment to a belief, when more is learned by looking at what can be known, the available evidence what was believed to be fact is gladly replaced by what is fact.

Blind faith looks for a simple answer “God did it” regardless of the fact there is no proof of God they start with a belief, an assumption that is based in fear and demand it is fact and seek to make things fit into it.

How so? Because it has no means by which to negate the fact that God exists or, prove otherwise.

1-It is not a fact that God exists unless you are holding back some proof.
2- Science does not like I do not care if such a being or beings or invisible giant bunnies exist. What does it matter?

Therefore, we have to take it wholly upon faith that evolution is the only true answer.

Not at all. It does seem clearly that evolution is fact and the evidence supports it. This does not say that all the mechanisms are understood yet nor does it exclude that fact that a god may be behind it.

It unlike you has an open mind. It has no emotion or need to be right attached to it. You have decided what you want to believe and nothing is going to change it and that is your right.

 

[Iacchus]

I see no reason to believe he is wholly evil unto himself. Even if you just mean selfish, the concept of altruism is hardly unknown to we materialists and we have never seen a need for God in order to make the concept meaningful.

So, did altruism just magically appear with the development of man's brain? Or, is altruism something which has always been?

 

[Iacchus]

I agree to a point, but there does come a point when a believe is either disproved or proven as fact. One can believe water is not wet all they may wish and that is their right but such a belief will not make water not wet.’’

Okay, has it been proven for a fact that God doesn't exist? Absolutely not. So here we "stuck" with our beliefs. If you can't discount it, then you have to include it. Therefore, evolution must be considered a form of religion.

 

[Skeptical Greg]

.... Therefore, evolution must be considered a form of religion.

Now, if we can only get the IRS to agree..

 

[Pahansiri]

Okay, has it been proven for a fact that God doesn't exist? Absolutely not. So here we "stuck" with our beliefs. If you can't discount it, then you have to include it. Therefore, evolution must be considered a form of religion.

Okay, has it been proven for a fact that God doesn't exist?

1- which god?
2- There is no desire or reason to disprove god or the invisible 100” purple bunny .

If you can't discount it, then you have to include it.

So you include the invisible 100” purple bunny? Everyone of the thousands of gods believed in, how about all the things people believe in will you include them?

I know I know you will not answer you “ only are hare to ask questions”

Therefore, evolution must be considered a form of religion.

Illogical. As I have already pointed out it does seem clearly that evolution is fact and the evidence supports it. This does not say that all the mechanisms are understood yet nor does it exclude that fact that a god may be behind it.

Science’s purpose is to seek out answers free from emotions or preconceived set in stone concepts or beliefs. Science has no emotional attachment to a belief, when more is learned by looking at what can be known, the available evidence what was believed to be fact is gladly replaced by what is fact.

Blind faith looks for a simple answer “God did it” regardless of the fact there is no proof of God they start with a belief, an assumption that is based in fear and demand it is fact and seek to make things fit into it.

 

[Pahansiri]

Now, only if we can get the IRS to agree..

are you looking to make your house a house of worship?

 

[Iacchus]

Illogical. As I have already pointed out it does seem clearly that evolution is fact and the evidence supports it. This does not say that all the mechanisms are understood yet nor does it exclude that fact that a god may be behind it.

That's not what's in dispute here though. Does evolution extend itself to include that which is unknowable? If not or, if it is unable to (due to the fact that Science is not omniscient) then it surely must be a matter of belief. And, this is all we could possibly hope to do, is hold ourselves to our beliefs.

 

[Throg]

So, did altruism just magically appear with the development of man's brain? Or, is altruism something which has always been?

Neither. It is a trait with survival advantages in a social animal so evolution favoured development of the trait.

 

[Throg]

1- which god?
So you include the invisible 100” purple bunny? Everyone of the thousands of gods believed in, how about all the things people believe in will you include them?

I know I know you will not answer you “ only are hare to ask questions”

Just curious, was "only are hare to ask questions" a wilful pun or an accident?

 

[Pahansiri]

That's not what's in dispute here though. Does evolution extend itself to include that which is unknowable? If not or, if it is unable to (due to the fact that Science is not omniscient) then it surely must be a matter of belief. And, this is all we could possibly hope to do, is hold ourselves to our beliefs.

If not or, if it is unable to (due to the fact that Science is not omniscient) then it surely must be a matter of belief. And, this is all we could possibly hope to do, is hold ourselves to our beliefs.

Does evolution extend itself to include that which is unknowable?

1- I am not sure anything is “unknowable” as if it is a fact it is knowable but that is another topic.
2- Evolution or the looking into evolution is looking into life here, what is. I do not know if there is anything that is here that is unknowable. I do not believe Evolution or the study of Evolution looks for what is “unknowable” that is illogical.
3- If it is “unknowable” how can it ever be known and if known it was not unknowable..

If not or, if it is unable to (due to the fact that Science is not omniscient) then it surely must be a matter of belief.

Not at all, it is not acting on faith as I have said it has no personal or emotional attachment to a fixed belief it is always changing with new data.


Blind faith is just what it says, blind. Science is or always should be about seeking the truth no matter what it is.

Your belief in a God ( which I have said over and over and over I respect) is based on a set desire, a fixed emotional grasping need. You have chooses what you want to believe and it seems nothing is going to change that and that is your right.

 

[Iacchus]

Now, if we can only get the IRS to agree..

Science gets more than its share of funding from the federal government, I can assure you. Look at all the federal funding that goes into the public school systems for example. But then again, if we were to consider evolution a religion, that would be a breach of church and state now wouldn't it? And we all know that is now don't we? A no no! ...