Did Jesus of Nazareth actually exist?

[Deephaven]

3 minutes ago, Highmark said:

Honestly I don't think Palestinian is a race no more than Jewish is.  I'd generally say they are Arab.   

I wasn't claiming they were a race.  Palestinian is like Minnesotan.  ie, it's a regional comment and being Bethlehem and said mythical birth was there it was a logical marker to use as a representative of the natural skin color of the people.  Arab's are brown, so are Palestinians.  Jesus was not fair skinned, blue eyed and blond...of course, nor was he born of a virgin.

[Deephaven]

1 minute ago, DriftBusta said:

Ah look, woolie is trying to pretend he has a cock again.

[ArcticCrusher]

Here's Queen Rania, a Palestinian.  She's dark skinned, this is typical.

 

[DriftBusta]

11 minutes ago, Deephaven said:

Ah look, woolie is trying to pretend he has a cock again.

Actually it is you prancing around the forum arguing with a half dozen people at the same time lol

[ArcticCrusher]

16 minutes ago, Deephaven said:

I wasn't claiming they were a race.  Palestinian is like Minnesotan.  ie, it's a regional comment and being Bethlehem and said mythical birth was there it was a logical marker to use as a representative of the natural skin color of the people.  Arab's are brown, so are Palestinians.  Jesus was not fair skinned, blue eyed and blond...of course, nor was he born of a virgin.

Was that on a 60 minutes special?

[Highmark]

22 minutes ago, Deephaven said:

I wasn't claiming they were a race.  Palestinian is like Minnesotan.  ie, it's a regional comment and being Bethlehem and said mythical birth was there it was a logical marker to use as a representative of the natural skin color of the people.  Arab's are brown, so are Palestinians.  Jesus was not fair skinned, blue eyed and blond...of course, nor was he born of a virgin.

Jesus looked like the people of the time.   Of course the typical depictions of him are likely off but when most of those were done genealogy was not a big thing.

I do agree out of many of the stories of the life of Jesus I don't totally agree with is the idea of being born to the virgin Mary because after all he had other siblings who were born after.  

Edited May 31, 2023 by Highmark

[Highmark]

Interesting response to the "darkness" of the people of the region.   Jesus could have looked a bunch of different ways. 

 

Basil Keilani

 · 

Follow

Studied Political Science (college major) (Graduated 2000)3y

Well, the term Arab means you identify as an Arab and speak Arabic. The closer you are to the northern areas, the more you are likely to be lighter skinned. It’s not simply because of the weather. It is to a large extent because the northern parts like the Fertile Crescent and the Levant are close to where ancient Indo-European invaders came through like the ancient Iranians, Kurds, and Hittites. Then, after that, you had ancient Greek settlements in the Greater Syria region. There were actually people with red hair, blue eyes, and freckles in the northern parts of the Middle East long before Alexander the Great conquered anywhere in that region. We’re talking about thousands of years ago. Reddish hair is not very unusual in parts of the Levant. Then after that, you had some Crusaders from France and Southern Europe who mixed in. Then when the Ottoman Empire came around, you had Turks who were mixed with Albanians, Slavs, Circassians, and Georgians mix with people in Lebanon, Syria, Palestine, and Iraq. You also did have white slavery that included enslaved Greeks, Circassian Christians and Georgians. Most Circassians are Muslims, though there are some Christians, and some Christians were enslaved. They tend to have dark hair and pale skin, but many have reddish brown hair, blonde hair in many cases.

Many poor Circassian Christian girls were sold by Tatars to people in the Ottoman Empire, unfortunately for those poor souls. Places like Jordan, Syria, and Lebanon and Palestine do have Circassian Muslim populations. In Egypt, some people are of Circassian ancestry due to the fact that some of the Mamlukes were of Circassian and also Turkish ancestry. In the early part of the century until the 1950’s, many Egyptian actors were of Circassian ancestry. A famous actor of that type is Husein Fahmi who had blondish hair and light eyes. Some Mamlukes were also mixed with light skinned Turks. Some Egyptians in the North have some Greek and Jewish ancestry to differing degrees.

To be an Arab, you have to call yourself an Arab. Whether you have certain features isn’t relevant. It’s how you identify and call yourself. A lot of people in Syria or Lebanon or northern Palestine are light, but they are Arabs. Also, if you are an Afro-Iraqi and black, you are still an Arab. You speak Arabic and you identify as an Arab. That’s what counts.

It is mostly down to ancient and more modern mixing and what DNA you inherited from all that, I suppose and where you’re located on the map of the Middle East. The more north you are, the more you have certain mixtures. Arabs are not a race. Whether you’re light or dark, the other person is your compatriot, your brother or sister.

 

12.4K views

View 16 upvotes

Edited May 31, 2023 by Highmark

[spin_dry]

6 hours ago, Highmark said:

Can you prove any of those things didn't occur?  Honestly I don't think it’s the idea that Jesus did those things but a deity acting thru him that may or may not have made those things happen.  

There’s proof that it didn’t happen. The fact that it doesn’t happen today is adequate proof. It’s utter nonsense. 

Edited May 31, 2023 by spin_dry

[Highmark]

10 minutes ago, spin_dry said:

There’s proof that it didn’t happen. The fact it that it doesn’t happen today is adequate proof. It’s utter nonsense. 

Like? 

As stated above I'm skeptical of the virgin Mary story but can't completely discount it.  It is most likely that some original text was misinterpreted "almah" for virgin instead of young woman of a marriageable age.   

Edited May 31, 2023 by Highmark

[spin_dry]

11 minutes ago, Highmark said:

Like? 

As stated above I'm skeptical of the virgin Mary story but can't completely discount it.  It is most likely that some original text was misinterpreted "almah" for virgin instead of young woman of a marriageable age.   

Whatever.  

[spin_dry]

2 hours ago, Deephaven said:

And it's even more amusing because the history of all those stories came from other religions and it wasn't Jesus that did them....ok, except the virgin part but that shit is Uber ridiculous.  Lying whore is WAY more likely 

I heard a well educated theologian explain all the “unusual” occurrences by the hand of Jesus. He said god allowed it to happen just once. So don’t expect anymore miracles for awhile. 

[NaturallyAspirated]

3 hours ago, ArcticCrusher said:

Go get another booster.

No.

Neal

[NaturallyAspirated]

3 hours ago, ArcticCrusher said:

No they witnessed him dying on the cross and thats it.  2000 years later.

We don’t have any first hand accounts of eyewitnesses who saw him on the cross dying.

Neal

[NaturallyAspirated]

3 hours ago, ArcticCrusher said:

From a fool who took 12 boosters for a cold.

You are your own cult. 

And yet still schools you on religion!  

Neal

[NaturallyAspirated]

4 hours ago, Highmark said:

Then why did the Jewish leaders claim he was taken from a known Tomb?  

Third, the first response by the Jewish leaders clearly admits to Jesus’ body missing from the known tomb.  In Matthew 28:11-15, Matthew reports that the Jews claimed from the beginning that the disciples stole the body of Jesus out of the tomb. More than that, Matthew states that the Jews were still claiming this decades later (at the time when Matthew wrote his Gospel). It would not help him to say that the Jews are circulating this false story if they weren’t actually doing so. If those who rejected Christianity (the Jewish leaders) accept the empty tomb, then historians have excellent reason to believe it is historical. The Jewish leaders were not reporting that Jesus was disposed of in some unknown way; rather, they admitted that he was buried in the tomb and that the body was missing. They just tried to explain away the resurrection.

This is all reported via the gospel of Matthew, decades later and not corroborated via Jewish history.

Decades later… decades later a gospel story is written by an unknown author with nearly 50% copied from another gospel story.

Neal

[Highmark]

56 minutes ago, NaturallyAspirated said:

This is all reported via the gospel of Matthew, decades later and not corroborated via Jewish history.

Decades later… decades later a gospel story is written by an unknown author with nearly 50% copied from another gospel story.

Neal

Again doesn't mean it doesn't contain truthful content of the account.

There are things we believe from a historical perspective from 200-500+ years earlier that have less recorded writings.  Take the history of Alexander the Great for example.   We believe it because the Greeks were know for the desire for accurate recordkeeping of history.   Well there are over 5800 Greek manuscripts of the Bible.   How many you think they've found on Alexander the Great or others from his general time period?  The volume and accuracy of these from one to the next indicate things.     

Edited May 31, 2023 by Highmark

[NaturallyAspirated]

9 minutes ago, Highmark said:

Again doesn't mean it doesn't contain truthful content of the account.

There are things we believe from a historical perspective from 200-500+ years earlier that have less recorded writings.

It doesn’t mean it’s true either.   It’s a story, to believe it’s truth requires faith.

Those earlier things don’t require an all knowing all loving deity to believe.

Neal

[Guest]

10 minutes ago, NaturallyAspirated said:

It doesn’t mean it’s true either.   It’s a story, to believe it’s truth requires faith.

Those earlier things don’t require an all knowing all loving deity to believe.

Neal

[Highmark]

1 minute ago, NaturallyAspirated said:

It doesn’t mean it’s true either.   It’s a story, to believe it’s truth requires faith.

Those earlier things don’t require an all knowing all loving deity to believe.

Neal

Valid point however...

https://www.forbes.com/sites/quora/2017/12/14/theres-no-such-thing-as-proof-in-the-scientific-world-theres-only-evidence/?sh=403345795392

What do you think is the most counterintuitive yet relevant result in physics?

This isn’t a “result”, as it is not an output of a physical experiment, but it is a fundamental tenet of science that every student eventually has to come to terms with when they study the field.

That is: there is no such thing as proof.

In our day to day lives, we often talk about things with utmost certainty.

I can tell you that right this second, I am sitting in my parents’ house, talking to my brother. If anyone walked into the room, they would see the two of us, and go away knowing that we were in the room.

The proof that we were in the room was the fact that they saw us!

There are all sorts of things that we bandy around as facts — for instance, that England won the football world cup in 1966.

Prove it, you say?

Well, there are recordings (the famous “they think it’s all over… it is now!”), there are photos, you can go and talk to people who were present at the event (I myself have met Geoff Hurst, the man who scored three of the goals in that match). You’d have to be a special kind of obstinate to reject the idea that England won the FIFA world cup in 1966.

Nobody doubts that Henry VIII was King of England back in 1536, or that Genghis Khan was generally making life pretty miserable for his enemies back in the 13th century.

But in the scientific realm? Doubt abounds.

None of the things listed above as “proof” would be accepted as such in science — even the simple observation of two people sat in a room with your own eyes!

“Proof” implies that there is no room for error — that you can be 100% sure that what you have written down on the piece of paper is 100% representative of what you are talking about.

And quite simply, that doesn’t exist in the real world.

I cannot prove to you that electrons exist.

No number of scientists in the world can ever prove that the stars are far away, or that the Higg’s Boson exists — or even that the Earth is round (but shh, don’t tell the Flat Earthers that!)

Nobody can prove that things will always fall down when you drop them.

Nobody can prove that energy is conserved.

Nobody can prove that dark matter exists.

Nobody can prove that quantum physics is real.

Because that’s not what science is about.

Proof can only exist when there is no doubt, and there is always doubt. You could be a brain in a vat, living in a crazy simulation. You could be hallucinating everything.

You cannot prove anything.

---

So, what is to be done?

Well, either you can sit down and just accept that the world is a chaotic insane place, and that since you cannot prove anything about reality, there’s really no point trying.

Or...

You can gather evidence.

That evidence will never be 100% — there’s always the chance that everything you think you know turns out to be false — but the evidence allows you to make current-best-evidence-guesses (for want of a better term) about the behavior of the universe.

We can build up piles and piles of evidence for ideas.

When the pile reaches a certain height, it behoves us to begin to take it rather seriously.

That is, until someone removes a critical piece from the bottom of the pile, and the entire edifice comes crashing down.

Then what?

Well, you start a new pile. And you have another go. And another. And another.

---

So what’s the lesson?

• All science is merely the current best model. Science is impermanent. It is, by definition, in constant flux.
• You can never have 100% proof of anything. There will always be doubt.

---

This comes as a bit of a shock to many people.

At school we’re taught science in terms of absolute facts— and this attitude persists rather a long time, into university education as well.

It takes a surprisingly long time for the new information you are being taught to finally be bookended with the phrase “of course, this is all based on the validity of model XYZ, which may turn out to be false.”

In a perfectly rigorous world, every single science lesson you are taught should begin and end with a reminder about the assumptions that underlie the "facts" that were just taught.

Obviously, that’s impractical (you try explaining to thirteen year olds that their mechanics class is predicated on the decoherence of quantum effects at a macroscale, and the low energy limit of the Einstein Field Equations), but it still surprised me at how much the impermanence of science comes as a surprise.

You see this a lot with people who dismiss evolution as “only a theory.”

They can’t quite understand why scientists get up in arms about it.

The fact that we even have arms for us to ‘get up in arms’ about is only a theory, because I can’t even prove that we have arms.

The fact that humans have arms is a “only a theory.”

Admittedly, it’s not a theory that’s likely to have its edifice of evidence collapse any time soon, but it’s still a theory, because I can’t prove it, since I can’t, for example, prove that we’re not all octopodes plugged into the matrix, dreaming that we have arms.

---

To a point, therefore, the distinction between “not being able to prove it” and “humans really do have arms, guys” becomes somewhat pedantic.

But the point is that these aren’t two distinct categories of information.

We don’t have “humans have arms” in one pile that we like, and “dark matter” in another pile.

It’s a sliding scale, a spectrum, supported by varying amounts of evidence. You can’t simply discard one “because it’s just a theory”, and not discard the others.

You can say that, for you, the provided evidence is insufficient to accept the conclusion — that’s perfectly allowed, of course. But the distinction between these two (seemingly so different) classes of knowledge isn’t as clear-cut as you might think.

---

So yeah, for me, this screams in the face of my common sense.

I know that things will fall when I drop them. That’s gravity.

Duh, right?

Well, the past 3000 years of human written human history seem to support that argument, yes.

But that’s just a theory, right?

[Deephaven]

And the evidence states that the stories nearly all come from different religions about different people which clearly proves the fallacy of Jesus.

[NaturallyAspirated]

12 minutes ago, Highmark said:

Valid point however...

https://www.forbes.com/sites/quora/2017/12/14/theres-no-such-thing-as-proof-in-the-scientific-world-theres-only-evidence/?sh=403345795392

What do you think is the most counterintuitive yet relevant result in physics?

This isn’t a “result”, as it is not an output of a physical experiment, but it is a fundamental tenet of science that every student eventually has to come to terms with when they study the field.

That is: there is no such thing as proof.

In our day to day lives, we often talk about things with utmost certainty.

I can tell you that right this second, I am sitting in my parents’ house, talking to my brother. If anyone walked into the room, they would see the two of us, and go away knowing that we were in the room.

The proof that we were in the room was the fact that they saw us!

There are all sorts of things that we bandy around as facts — for instance, that England won the football world cup in 1966.

Prove it, you say?

Well, there are recordings (the famous “they think it’s all over… it is now!”), there are photos, you can go and talk to people who were present at the event (I myself have met Geoff Hurst, the man who scored three of the goals in that match). You’d have to be a special kind of obstinate to reject the idea that England won the FIFA world cup in 1966.

Nobody doubts that Henry VIII was King of England back in 1536, or that Genghis Khan was generally making life pretty miserable for his enemies back in the 13th century.

But in the scientific realm? Doubt abounds.

None of the things listed above as “proof” would be accepted as such in science — even the simple observation of two people sat in a room with your own eyes!

“Proof” implies that there is no room for error — that you can be 100% sure that what you have written down on the piece of paper is 100% representative of what you are talking about.

And quite simply, that doesn’t exist in the real world.

I cannot prove to you that electrons exist.

No number of scientists in the world can ever prove that the stars are far away, or that the Higg’s Boson exists — or even that the Earth is round (but shh, don’t tell the Flat Earthers that!)

Nobody can prove that things will always fall down when you drop them.

Nobody can prove that energy is conserved.

Nobody can prove that dark matter exists.

Nobody can prove that quantum physics is real.

Because that’s not what science is about.

Proof can only exist when there is no doubt, and there is always doubt. You could be a brain in a vat, living in a crazy simulation. You could be hallucinating everything.

You cannot prove anything.

---

So, what is to be done?

Well, either you can sit down and just accept that the world is a chaotic insane place, and that since you cannot prove anything about reality, there’s really no point trying.

Or...

You can gather evidence.

That evidence will never be 100% — there’s always the chance that everything you think you know turns out to be false — but the evidence allows you to make current-best-evidence-guesses (for want of a better term) about the behavior of the universe.

We can build up piles and piles of evidence for ideas.

When the pile reaches a certain height, it behoves us to begin to take it rather seriously.

That is, until someone removes a critical piece from the bottom of the pile, and the entire edifice comes crashing down.

Then what?

Well, you start a new pile. And you have another go. And another. And another.

---

So what’s the lesson?

• All science is merely the current best model. Science is impermanent. It is, by definition, in constant flux.
• You can never have 100% proof of anything. There will always be doubt.

---

This comes as a bit of a shock to many people.

At school we’re taught science in terms of absolute facts— and this attitude persists rather a long time, into university education as well.

It takes a surprisingly long time for the new information you are being taught to finally be bookended with the phrase “of course, this is all based on the validity of model XYZ, which may turn out to be false.”

In a perfectly rigorous world, every single science lesson you are taught should begin and end with a reminder about the assumptions that underlie the "facts" that were just taught.

Obviously, that’s impractical (you try explaining to thirteen year olds that their mechanics class is predicated on the decoherence of quantum effects at a macroscale, and the low energy limit of the Einstein Field Equations), but it still surprised me at how much the impermanence of science comes as a surprise.

You see this a lot with people who dismiss evolution as “only a theory.”

They can’t quite understand why scientists get up in arms about it.

The fact that we even have arms for us to ‘get up in arms’ about is only a theory, because I can’t even prove that we have arms.

The fact that humans have arms is a “only a theory.”

Admittedly, it’s not a theory that’s likely to have its edifice of evidence collapse any time soon, but it’s still a theory, because I can’t prove it, since I can’t, for example, prove that we’re not all octopodes plugged into the matrix, dreaming that we have arms.

---

To a point, therefore, the distinction between “not being able to prove it” and “humans really do have arms, guys” becomes somewhat pedantic.

But the point is that these aren’t two distinct categories of information.

We don’t have “humans have arms” in one pile that we like, and “dark matter” in another pile.

It’s a sliding scale, a spectrum, supported by varying amounts of evidence. You can’t simply discard one “because it’s just a theory”, and not discard the others.

You can say that, for you, the provided evidence is insufficient to accept the conclusion — that’s perfectly allowed, of course. But the distinction between these two (seemingly so different) classes of knowledge isn’t as clear-cut as you might think.

---

So yeah, for me, this screams in the face of my common sense.

I know that things will fall when I drop them. That’s gravity.

Duh, right?

Well, the past 3000 years of human written human history seem to support that argument, yes.

But that’s just a theory, right?

That’s a lot of bloviation.  In the end there isn’t a fixed solution to hard solipsism.  We must realize that however we are stuck believing the reality around us and work within the framework of that agreed upon reality.

Neal

[Highmark]

2 minutes ago, NaturallyAspirated said:

That’s a lot of bloviation.  In the end there isn’t a fixed solution to hard solipsism.  We must realize that however we are stuck believing the reality around us and work within the framework of that agreed upon reality.

Neal

Which in the scientific world there is a lot pushed as true with very little proof.

The idea of a deity does come with reality that as far as we know haven't been put forth much clear evidence since probably around the time of Christ.(If true)   Which brings in faith and no doubt the idea of faith can be used by the cynic's as proof that Christ and God didn't or don't exist as the Bible professes.  Faith is a double edged sword used by both sides and maybe why its so powerful in the grand scheme of things regarding God. 

Look no further than the part on Thomas...were the writers using this as a means to get followers to believe without personal experience as they knew there would be doubters and nonbelievers use that same story to say see we now require faith of something so unusual to what we know and because of that its not true.   

[Highmark]

Creation demands a Creator

Life demands a Life-Giver

Design demands a Designer

Laws demand a Law Giver (Physical laws of the Universe)

What are the implications if Earth is the only planet with life in all the universe?

Personally I find it just as feasible there there is a deity than the entire universe's mass and energy was once stored in something the size of an atom and that itself came from nothing. 

Edited May 31, 2023 by Highmark

[Jimmy Snacks]

 

[spin_dry]

31 minutes ago, Highmark said:

Creation demands a Creator

Life demands a Life-Giver

Design demands a Designer

Laws demand a Law Giver (Physical laws of the Universe)

What are the implications if Earth is the only planet with life in all the universe?

Personally I find it just as feasible there there is a deity than the entire universe's mass and energy was once stored in something the size of an atom and that itself came from nothing. 

You have no actual proof of any of that. Everything you wrote is nothing more than constructs of something someone told you.