Jesus never existed?

[jammindude]

Actually....yes I did.

[Scheavo]

No, you merely stated that it's false, and gave no reason why, other than trust me. Considering its a very specific claim, and something relevant to your claim that all the prophecies were fulfilled. It's a simple question, what other evidence is there for him being called Immanuel. Point me towards the literature.

[yeshaberto]

I would point someone to the book of Isaiah.  This is the book that the original promise of a child born to a virgin whose name would be "god with us."  In addition to this specific promise, the entire book is full of prophecies that Jesus fulfilled.  Chapters 49-60 are full of messianic allusions.  Some of these chapters describe events that no one understood in the first place in order to fictionally fulfill.

[BlobVanDam]

I would point someone to the book of Isaiah.  This is the book that the original promise of a child born to a virgin whose name would be "god with us."  In addition to this specific promise, the entire book is full of prophecies that Jesus fulfilled.  Chapters 49-60 are full of messianic allusions.  Some of these chapters describe events that no one understood in the first place in order to fictionally fulfill.

Sorry if this is an entirely ignorant question, but how did people know they were fulfilled if they didn't understand them in the first place?
(that's a legit question btw, not an argument in any way)

[yeshaberto]

that's an awesome question, actually.
it is conceivable that a false messiah could come along and fictionally fulfill some of the prophecies of the messiah in the jewish writings, and I would imagine some did try.
there are many prophecies that did not make sense to the reader, but once they were fulfilled by Jesus they made perfect sense. 
there really is dozens that I could highlight, but one simple one is Isaiah 53.  the jewish targums (paraphrases of the jewish bible) rendered the chapter to be speaking of the gentiles (they would suffer for the sake of the jews, bear their sin, etc).  one of the statements that challenged this interpretation is that the chapter speaks of the sufferer being killed, but then later speaks of them being alive and victorious.  though the jewish interpreters tried to explain this passage as referring to the gentiles being their scapegoat, they couldn't fit in how they would be killed and then come back to life victoriously. 
the primary message of Jesus is that he came to be the scapegoat (for Jews and Gentiles) and suffer on behalf of us, resulting in being killed and that he was raised back to life, thus gaining victory.
no one had ever previously understood what this text was talking about in order to scheme the story of Jesus to fulfill it.
this is just one of many examples.

[BlobVanDam]

Thanks.
As a follow up, if these prophecies were difficult to understand, what would have stopped a false prophet from inventing an interpretation that works, and then fulfilling that? I would think a more cryptic prophecy would be easier to argue you fulfilled in hindsight, than a much clearer prophecy that left less wiggle room for interpretation.

Obviously being killed and coming back to life would have been pretty good proof, regardless of whether it was prophecized, but I'm speaking generally here.

[yeshaberto]

Thanks.
As a follow up, if these prophecies were difficult to understand, what would have stopped a false prophet from inventing an interpretation that works, and then fulfilling that? I would think a more cryptic prophecy would be easier to argue you fulfilled in hindsight, than a much clearer prophecy that left less wiggle room for interpretation.

Obviously being killed and coming back to life would have been pretty good proof, regardless of whether it was prophecized, but I'm speaking generally here.

   oh, c'mon...it happens practically everyday
your point is well taken, though.  I chose Isaiah 53 since it is one of the simpler examples.
more complex ones would be several in the book of Zechariah (I want to say ch 3, 6 and 12).  these prophecies are extremely complex and even prophecy Jesus' actual name.

[hefdaddy42]

My personal conclusion was that the arguments against divine inspiration of the scriptures did not hold water.

That's interesting, because my conclusion was the exact opposite.

Of course, I remain a faithful Christian, albeit a somewhat unorthodox one.

[wolfandwolfandwolf]

Nothing is impossible, but it certainly was highly unlikely.  Rationality kicks in at a certain point.

[jammindude]

My personal conclusion was that the arguments against divine inspiration of the scriptures did not hold water.

That's interesting, because my conclusion was the exact opposite.

Of course, I remain a faithful Christian, albeit a somewhat unorthodox one.

The key (for me) was to completely chuck all modern theology and tradition out the window.   Let the Bible speak for itself without the twisted interpretations of modern religious men.   I figured that if Jesus had to straighten out the holy hierarchy of his time, then the modern clergy was equal if not more guilty of the same crime.    At that time, God's Law (the Mosaic law) was inspired...but even the top schools that were teaching it were all of them teaching falsehoods and oral traditions and additions that God had never intended.  Which is exactly why they missed the Messiah altogether.  Preconceptions and twisted interpretation of prophecy (taught by the scribes, Pharisees and Sadducees)  made them look for the Messiah in a way that prophecy never intended.   I absolutely believe there is a modern day parallel.   

[bosk1]

^Absolutely correct.  Could not have said it much better.

[GuineaPig]

Unfortunately, the Bible cannot speak for itself.

[wolfandwolfandwolf]

Unfortunately, the Bible cannot speak for itself.

Why do you think so?

[jammindude]

Unfortunately, the Bible cannot speak for itself.

I disagree.  I believe it's the *only* way to get to the heart of the matter.  If I want to know what God says, I'll skip the middle man...

[GuineaPig]

Unfortunately, the Bible cannot speak for itself.

I disagree.  I believe it's the *only* way to get to the heart of the matter.  If I want to know what God says, I'll skip the middle man...

OK, then what does God say, for example, in Genesis?  Is he presenting a literal history?  A spiritual history?  Metaphors?  Two separate stories?  One story?

[jammindude]

Unfortunately, the Bible cannot speak for itself.

I disagree.  I believe it's the *only* way to get to the heart of the matter.  If I want to know what God says, I'll skip the middle man...

OK, then what does God say, for example, in Genesis?  Is he presenting a literal history?  A spiritual history?  Metaphors?  Two separate stories?  One story?

It's not that simple....it's simpler.   

Not sure how to answer that, because I'm not coming from that angle at all.   You can't take *ONE PIECE* of a jigsaw puzzle and ask me to describe the picture.

Now...the general outline of The Bible is wrapped around one central theme.   Creating things perfect, how things got imperfect, how God is going to solve this problem.   Everything from Genesis to Revelation is all wrapped around that central theme.   By the end of chapter 3 of Genesis, some of the most important questions in our lives are answered.   How we got here, how things got completely screwed up, and how God was going to save us.    That's the focus.  All other issues, if not addressed implicitly, will be answered at a later time.   The most important things are there.    If God were to write down a detailed account of how he created everything...where the dinosaurs went...blah blah blah...he could have written *literally thousands* of books bigger than the Bible JUST to explain the first 2 chapters of Genesis.    But that's not the focus.  There are more important issues, and that is what the Bible addresses.   "This is how you got here, this is how evil came into existence, this is my plan for ridding the universe of evil forever."   Period.     

Now, you can get alot more detail with this theme and ask a thousand questions.   Sometimes the Bible answers them with laws, sometimes with principles.  But the Bible does have answers to any question involving this central theme.    If you look for things outside of that scheme that the Bible is not specific on... well, I don't have the answers.    But I believe that I will get them someday after the important stuff is sorted out. 

[GuineaPig]

But that's all your interpretation.  That's not the Bible speaking for itself.

And what about things that the Bible gets wrong?  Or where it contradicts itself?  Obviously the Bible could not speak for itself in those situations.

[jammindude]

But that's all your interpretation.  That's not the Bible speaking for itself.

And what about things that the Bible gets wrong?  Or where it contradicts itself?  Obviously the Bible could not speak for itself in those situations.

Never seen a contradiction that held water.    And yes...I've seen all the supposed examples.   Some of them laughable. 

One in particular struck me as funny.    One video I saw tried to ask the question "Does God get tired?"....then used two scriptures to point out a "contradiction".   One said that God never tires out.   The other one said that God was tired of superficial sacrifices.      Even my agnostic step-son had to laugh and say, "That's STUPID!  That's not the same kind of 'tired'!"     I have to agree.   Most of the "contradictions" that critics try to point out are along the very same lines.

I've studied the Bible thoroughly...and I have *never* seen a contradiction.     

[jammindude]

I will add that the idea of any personal interpretation on *my* part goes against every fiber of my being.   

The Bible does speak for itself.     In other words, if I *want* a scripture to mean 1 thing, but then another scripture contradicts MY interpretation of the first scripture...then *I* am wrong.   I have to adjust my viewpoint.   Only in that way can the Bible speak for itself.   If I find something new in scripture that contradicts my POV or my interpretation...then *I* am the one that has to change.   Because this is God's POV....not mine. 

For instance, I might want to believe that God will save *everyone*...as some scriptures seem to insinuate.  But others scriptures make it clear that not everyone will be.   You do a little digging into all scriptures on the subject....*everything* that the Bible has to say on the matter...and a bigger picture becomes clear.  The *offer* to be saved is open to everyone.   But not everyone will accept it.     This is not what I wanted to hear...but it is what it says.    I've had friends spin some of these scriptures in a way that would suit more to some of my personal viewpoints...but that personal viewpoint contradicts other parts of God's word.   The only interpretation, is the one that harmonizes all parts.

I heard someone once say, "The truth will set you free....but it will piss you off first."   That was my experience. 

[GuineaPig]

But that's all your interpretation.  That's not the Bible speaking for itself.

And what about things that the Bible gets wrong?  Or where it contradicts itself?  Obviously the Bible could not speak for itself in those situations.

Never seen a contradiction that held water.    And yes...I've seen all the supposed examples.   Some of them laughable. 

I've studied the Bible thoroughly...and I have *never* seen a contradiction.     

Well, a reasonably well known one, that isn't even an issue of interpretation/meaning of language, is the year of Jesus' birth.  Matthew puts it during the reign of Herod the Great, who died in 4 BCE.  Luke puts it during the Roman census of 6 CE.  So there's at least a ten year gap in between the dates offered by the two accounts.  Historians lean towards Matthew's account.  It's thought that Luke's inclusion of the census was to provide a reason for Mary and Joseph to have been in Bethlehem for Jesus' birth rather than Nazareth.

Another rather cut-and-dry example would be the conquest of Israel, which is almost entirely ahistorical, yet is presented as a literal history. 

[rumborak]

I've studied the Bible thoroughly...and I have *never* seen a contradiction.     

A LOT of people disagree with you on that one though, including (I would argue) the majority of Christians.

rumborak

[yeshaberto]

My personal conclusion was that the arguments against divine inspiration of the scriptures did not hold water.

That's interesting, because my conclusion was the exact opposite.

Of course, I remain a faithful Christian, albeit a somewhat unorthodox one.

The key (for me) was to completely chuck all modern theology and tradition out the window.   Let the Bible speak for itself without the twisted interpretations of modern religious men.   I figured that if Jesus had to straighten out the holy hierarchy of his time, then the modern clergy was equal if not more guilty of the same crime.    At that time, God's Law (the Mosaic law) was inspired...but even the top schools that were teaching it were all of them teaching falsehoods and oral traditions and additions that God had never intended.  Which is exactly why they missed the Messiah altogether.  Preconceptions and twisted interpretation of prophecy (taught by the scribes, Pharisees and Sadducees)  made them look for the Messiah in a way that prophecy never intended.   I absolutely believe there is a modern day parallel.

well said

[jammindude]

But that's all your interpretation.  That's not the Bible speaking for itself.

And what about things that the Bible gets wrong?  Or where it contradicts itself?  Obviously the Bible could not speak for itself in those situations.

Never seen a contradiction that held water.    And yes...I've seen all the supposed examples.   Some of them laughable. 

I've studied the Bible thoroughly...and I have *never* seen a contradiction.     

Well, a reasonably well known one, that isn't even an issue of interpretation/meaning of language, is the year of Jesus' birth.  Matthew puts it during the reign of Herod the Great, who died in 4 BCE.  Luke puts it during the Roman census of 6 CE.  So there's at least a ten year gap in between the dates offered by the two accounts.  Historians lean towards Matthew's account.  It's thought that Luke's inclusion of the census was to provide a reason for Mary and Joseph to have been in Bethlehem for Jesus' birth rather than Nazareth.

Another rather cut-and-dry example would be the conquest of Israel, which is almost entirely ahistorical, yet is presented as a literal history.

Actually there is evidence...and I can cite references...that Quirinius was *twice* governor of Syria, the first reign being between 4 BCE and 1BCE...and that another registration did take place.  The first registration would coincide with Matthew's account.  Luke even insinuates knowledge of this fact by referring to "this first registration" implying there was another one...which did take place in 6CE and is referenced in Acts. 

[GuineaPig]

But that's all your interpretation.  That's not the Bible speaking for itself.

And what about things that the Bible gets wrong?  Or where it contradicts itself?  Obviously the Bible could not speak for itself in those situations.

Never seen a contradiction that held water.    And yes...I've seen all the supposed examples.   Some of them laughable. 

I've studied the Bible thoroughly...and I have *never* seen a contradiction.     

Well, a reasonably well known one, that isn't even an issue of interpretation/meaning of language, is the year of Jesus' birth.  Matthew puts it during the reign of Herod the Great, who died in 4 BCE.  Luke puts it during the Roman census of 6 CE.  So there's at least a ten year gap in between the dates offered by the two accounts.  Historians lean towards Matthew's account.  It's thought that Luke's inclusion of the census was to provide a reason for Mary and Joseph to have been in Bethlehem for Jesus' birth rather than Nazareth.

Another rather cut-and-dry example would be the conquest of Israel, which is almost entirely ahistorical, yet is presented as a literal history.

Actually there is evidence...and I can cite references...that Quirinius was *twice* governor of Syria, the first reign being between 4 BCE and 1BCE...and that another registration did take place.  The first registration would coincide with Matthew's account.  Luke even insinuates knowledge of this fact by referring to "this first registration" implying there was another one...which did take place in 6CE and is referenced in Acts.

I'd like to see these references.  I'm anticipating that they would be from "scholars" who claim the Bible is inerrant, and thus attempt to create a historical narrative that fits their world-view, because what you've described goes entirely against mainstream opinion.

[rumborak]

It's not too difficult to find "sources" online who please the pious reader's desire for a perfectly coherent Bible. But, I would hope that you at least admit out of intellectual honesty that, without the gospel's claims otherwise, there is almost no reason to assume that Quirinius was governor more than once.

rumborak

[jammindude]

So *anyone* that believes the Bible to be inerrant can only ever be "scholars"??  (with the quotes)   Seems like prejudging to me.   

But we will probably just have to respectfully agree to disagree.   As I said, I delved deeply into both sides of the argument...and I went with the argument that had the strongest and most compelling evidence.   Your mileage may vary. 

[William Wallace]

But that's all your interpretation.  That's not the Bible speaking for itself.

And what about things that the Bible gets wrong?  Or where it contradicts itself?  Obviously the Bible could not speak for itself in those situations.

Never seen a contradiction that held water.    And yes...I've seen all the supposed examples.   Some of them laughable. 

I've studied the Bible thoroughly...and I have *never* seen a contradiction.     

Well, a reasonably well known one, that isn't even an issue of interpretation/meaning of language, is the year of Jesus' birth.  Matthew puts it during the reign of Herod the Great, who died in 4 BCE.  Luke puts it during the Roman census of 6 CE.  So there's at least a ten year gap in between the dates offered by the two accounts.  Historians lean towards Matthew's account.  It's thought that Luke's inclusion of the census was to provide a reason for Mary and Joseph to have been in Bethlehem for Jesus' birth rather than Nazareth.

Are you familiar with any of the attempts to Harmonize the birth narratives? If so, what do you think of them?

[rumborak]

As I said, I delved deeply into both sides of the argument...and I went with the argument that had the strongest and most compelling evidence.   Your mileage may vary.

What's your view on modern biblical scholarship? I mean, to my knowledge the general consensus is that the Bible has numerous mistakes and errors, and later editing too.
It would seem to me you would have to wholesale disregard modern scholarship.

rumborak

[GuineaPig]

But that's all your interpretation.  That's not the Bible speaking for itself.

And what about things that the Bible gets wrong?  Or where it contradicts itself?  Obviously the Bible could not speak for itself in those situations.

Never seen a contradiction that held water.    And yes...I've seen all the supposed examples.   Some of them laughable. 

I've studied the Bible thoroughly...and I have *never* seen a contradiction.     

Well, a reasonably well known one, that isn't even an issue of interpretation/meaning of language, is the year of Jesus' birth.  Matthew puts it during the reign of Herod the Great, who died in 4 BCE.  Luke puts it during the Roman census of 6 CE.  So there's at least a ten year gap in between the dates offered by the two accounts.  Historians lean towards Matthew's account.  It's thought that Luke's inclusion of the census was to provide a reason for Mary and Joseph to have been in Bethlehem for Jesus' birth rather than Nazareth.

Are you familiar with any of the attempts to Harmonize the birth narratives? If so, what do you think of them?

Yes.  I think it's a load of crap.  The two separate gospels were written by two sets of people not present at the actual events, and were probably just filling in backstory based on prophecy and of truths or half-truths.  There's nothing to harmonize.  It's as pointless as trying to harmonize the two genealogies of Jesus. 

[William Wallace]

It's not too difficult to find "sources" online who please the pious reader's desire for a perfectly coherent Bible. But, I would hope that you at least admit out of intellectual honesty that, without the gospel's claims otherwise, there is almost no reason to assume that Quirinius was governor more than once.

rumborak

You can be such a dick sometimes -- and you're wrong. If Quirinius actually served twice, we should want to know, right? Whether people are trying to defend the Gospels or attack them, their arguments should always be considered. And are you even familiar with any historian who defends the harmonization of the birth narratives? If you aren't, I don't think you should dismiss their work out of hand.

[yeshaberto]

watch it WW!

[jammindude]

As I said, I delved deeply into both sides of the argument...and I went with the argument that had the strongest and most compelling evidence.   Your mileage may vary.

What's your view on modern biblical scholarship? I mean, to my knowledge the general consensus is that the Bible has numerous mistakes and errors, and later editing too.
It would seem to me you would have to wholesale disregard modern scholarship.

rumborak

I object to "wholesale disregard"...   I operate on a case by case basis.   But, based on my experiences, observance of both sides of the issue, and historical track record of both lines of thought...it is very safe to say that I view the Bible as being above any human viewpoint. 

Anything I hear from any human whatsoever, I'm generally going to view as slanted one way or another.  And I don't think *anyone* is immune.  Not even the references I've mentioned.   

I used to work at a bank.   During robbery training, they taught us that after a robbery, NO ONE was to speak to each other or exchange stories.   Why?  Because stories get mixed up.   This is different than the "grapevine" theory...that the more something gets passed down, the more screwed up it will get.    It's even worse.  It means that 10 people can witness the *exact same event FIRST HAND* and still give you ten different stories.    That doesn't mean the bank robbery didn't happen. 

Any writing of men, I view with that attitude.   I view the Bible as the ONLY thing that gives us God's POV.   The only person in the universe who has *absolute* POV.     None of us has the ability to know *the whole* of any given situation.   God does.   

Actually....the best way that I can describe my viewpoint of all of man's "scholars" put together...can be summed up in this *hilarious* 3 minute video called "The Beatles 3000".    It's a humorous look at "experts" trying to piece together the history of The Beatles 1000 years from now....after all the evidence has passed long into history.    It's light hearted and funny (and might take some of the "weight" out of this thread) but to me it's also very poignant and intelligent.   This is *exactly* what experts have to struggle with when trying to piece together something that no one alive was there to witness.    It's an insurmountable battle...and is only guesswork at best. 

 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3Z2vU8M6CYI


To me, the Bible is testimony of the only living eyewitness to all the events.  God himself.

[William Wallace]

watch it WW!

K. But tell me it's not true.

[yeshaberto]

that video was awesome!

[yeshaberto]

watch it WW!

K. But tell me it's not true.

are u trying to get me banned!!!!