If Jesus wasn’t a real historical figure, where did Christian theology come from?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I haven’t read the whole thread, but what I have heard makes sense. His geographic location was in the crossroads of east and west. He most likely was exposed to eastern philosophy, think India at the time.
If he had lived in a different time perhaps he would have become a philosopher like Karl Marx or Kiergegaard.
He certainly upset the status quo by becoming a reformist like Martin Luther.
His death was not that unusual, plenty of people were crucified and continued to be for a long time

Jesus was also exposed to Greco-Roman philosophy because they ruled the Middle East in his time.

No, only the most wealthy Jews were exposed to Greco Roman scholarship. It’s possible that Paul and Matthew had been exposed to such teaching, but Jesus would have received only traditional Jewish teaching. Exposure to Greco Roman mythology would explain why Matthew, and only Matthew, described a Virgin Birth. The idea of God impregnating a human woman was common in Greco Roman mythology. Such an idea would be repulsive to Jews.

Isaiah 7:14 (Jewish) prophesied a virgin birth. “Behold, the virgin shall conceive and bear a son, and shall call his name Immanuel.” If she was a virgin, the impregnation must have been supernatural. No need to fall back in Greco-Roman mythology.

Virgin birth is open to all kinds of interpretation, not just how we interpret it now in modern times, but how it was understood at the time

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Is the skinhead poster a troll?

He just copy & pastes the same thing over and over again.

I think it's the same person who called some of us Christian-hating bigots

No - that person throws tantrums, he doesn’t post random, irrelevant quotes from evangelical nutjobs.

but both are evasive and engage in some very nasty name-calling.

Evangelical nut jobs? And you are complaining about name-calling?

That pastor calls people who disagree with him “skinheads”. So, yeah, a nut job.

He’s a professor, author, scholar and historian.

He is not calling people who disagree with him “skinheads.”

He’s comparing people who are in denial that Jesus was a real historical person and disagree with the entirety of academia, disagree with phd level scholars of antiquity, that Jesus was a real person, and comparing their level of delusion and ignorance with people who deny the earth is round (flat earthers) and Nazi skinheads who go against all respectable historians and claim the holocaust was a hoax.

You are just focusing on the skinhead word to feign outrage, and ignore the fact that he is comparing people who deny the historical certainty of Jesus to flat- earthers, too.

Maybe the comparison offends you because it’s so very accurate? It’s not a thing to be proud of. It’s embarrassing to be so wrong yet steadfast in your ignorance. If you don’t want to be grouped with idiots, don’t be an idiot. It’s simple as.

There’s absolutely zero evidence the man who is being quoted is a bigot or hateful.

Yes, he is calling people “skinheads” because he disagrees with them. He uses inflammatory language in a lame attempt to shame people instead of making a valid argument. Sounds hateful to me.

Again, NONE of those posts from this thread denied historical Jesus. No one said he didn’t exist.

I guess you still don’t have a valid argument to make so you continue to throw out insults. Lame.

Are you insulted because you deny Jesus was a man who walked the earth, and are in the same class as a holocaust denier, a climate denier, or believe the earth is flat?

People throw the insult “Nazi” around very easily in today’s political climate. People who deny the holocaust actually happened are rightly disparaged for doing so; and their denial stems from hate and bigotry and ignorance. Likewise, historians believe that the denial of the historicity of Jesus stems from the same ignorance and hatred. If no respected scholar or historian in the western world denies the historicity of Jesus, no respected historian denies the holocaust, no respected scientist denies the earth is round…yet you feel totally confident that Jesus didn’t exist, he was a myth, he was multiple people vaguely wandering through time as a charismatic cult like figure, he was an invention of a schizophrenic man, etc, you are a bigot and an ignorant liar who will not accept the truth.

You belong in the bin of weirdos who deny climate change, deny the holocaust, get in the RV with the flat earther and adjust your tinfoil hats together. Then you can drive to a local vaccination site and protest the vaccine, that’s who you are.

I haven’t denied that Jesus lived so…

Maybe you’re just trolling at this point?

Why are you defending people here who have? I am not defending Nazi holocaust deniers, kooky flat earthers, frankly dangerous covid conspiracy theory proponents, and climate change skeptics. No reputable or respected historian or scholar denies the historicity of Jesus. Why would you even concern yourself complaining about liars being called out? A post a few pages back stated : “Should we just agree Jesus “most likely existed?”

No. We don’t agree on anything here like that. He existed. Periodt. Dcum anon posters don’t even know basic history. This has zero to do with the divinity of Jesus. If someone is so very ignorant and wrong about basic history, they are probably wrong about a host of other issues.

Nobody on this thread has denied he lived so…

So what? -- nothing. People "on this thread" are irrelevant.

The PP has repeatedly accused people on this thread of denying historical Jesus. And made repeated ad hominem attacks based on that.

It’s not clear if PP is trolling or just has poor reading comprehension.

DP. Good grief. On the very last page somebody, I assumed pp, posted multiple examples of people denying Jesus existed. Did you lose your reading glasses?

Go back and reread - none of the posts from this thread deny that historical Jesus existed.

“There is no convincing evidence that Jesus as a historical person - one whose life closely resembled that of the Biblical Jesus - ever existed at all. Which doesn't mean he didn't, just that there is no evidence of it. However, for most scholars who study early Christianity, it just isn't relevant at all if he existed or not, anymore than say, if you are studying a people who believe the world rests on a giant turtle, it is relevant or not if the turtle exists. The study of religion is the study of belief, and people have never needed actual evidence to believe in religious mythology. They did it fine before Christianity, and do it fine without Christianity in other parts of the world. Christianity is not an exception - the one religion where the stories are actually true - unless you are Christian. Anyone who studies religion from the point of view of a member of the religion is no longer engaged in an objective academic study of that religion, although there is plenty of fine scholarship of that sort from within the academic world of Christian theology. But don't confuse that with scholars proving Christ existed - it's scholars who believe he existed arguing various issues surrounding the internal workings of the religion.“

12/24 9:23 from this thread

Along with multiple posts that state that “Jesus may or may not have existed, but people love a good story.” Several of those types of posts.

Along with the Mithras story (only exists in crude paintings, born of a “virgin” rock, was not crucified, no resurrection) was actually copied by early Christians, that was feebly attempted by several posters.

DP. Bumping this post which identifies some on this thread who denied that Jesus existed.

Another post pointed out the Jesus denier at 12/19 15:35.

Nope. Re-read it.

"Which doesn't mean he didn't, just that there is no evidence of it."

Do you split hairs for a living? Is your reading comprehension poor? Or are you just trolling?

Tell us, what does “there is no evidence” mean in your little troll world.

To me it depends on what you call evidence. Speculation and hearsay wouldn't be allowed in a court of law. It does depend on circumstantial evidence and a leap of faith - and I'm not a denier btw.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I haven’t read the whole thread, but what I have heard makes sense. His geographic location was in the crossroads of east and west. He most likely was exposed to eastern philosophy, think India at the time.
If he had lived in a different time perhaps he would have become a philosopher like Karl Marx or Kiergegaard.
He certainly upset the status quo by becoming a reformist like Martin Luther.
His death was not that unusual, plenty of people were crucified and continued to be for a long time

Jesus was also exposed to Greco-Roman philosophy because they ruled the Middle East in his time.

No, only the most wealthy Jews were exposed to Greco Roman scholarship. It’s possible that Paul and Matthew had been exposed to such teaching, but Jesus would have received only traditional Jewish teaching. Exposure to Greco Roman mythology would explain why Matthew, and only Matthew, described a Virgin Birth. The idea of God impregnating a human woman was common in Greco Roman mythology. Such an idea would be repulsive to Jews.

Isaiah 7:14 (Jewish) prophesied a virgin birth. “Behold, the virgin shall conceive and bear a son, and shall call his name Immanuel.” If she was a virgin, the impregnation must have been supernatural. No need to fall back in Greco-Roman mythology.

Wrong. Isaiah never said that. That’s a Christian mistranslation. The Hebrew word is “alma.” “Alma” means young woman,” not “virgin.”

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I haven’t read the whole thread, but what I have heard makes sense. His geographic location was in the crossroads of east and west. He most likely was exposed to eastern philosophy, think India at the time.
If he had lived in a different time perhaps he would have become a philosopher like Karl Marx or Kiergegaard.
He certainly upset the status quo by becoming a reformist like Martin Luther.
His death was not that unusual, plenty of people were crucified and continued to be for a long time

Jesus was also exposed to Greco-Roman philosophy because they ruled the Middle East in his time.

No, only the most wealthy Jews were exposed to Greco Roman scholarship. It’s possible that Paul and Matthew had been exposed to such teaching, but Jesus would have received only traditional Jewish teaching. Exposure to Greco Roman mythology would explain why Matthew, and only Matthew, described a Virgin Birth. The idea of God impregnating a human woman was common in Greco Roman mythology. Such an idea would be repulsive to Jews.

Isaiah 7:14 (Jewish) prophesied a virgin birth. “Behold, the virgin shall conceive and bear a son, and shall call his name Immanuel.” If she was a virgin, the impregnation must have been supernatural. No need to fall back in Greco-Roman mythology.

Wrong. Isaiah never said that. That’s a Christian mistranslation. The Hebrew word is “alma.” “Alma” means young woman,” not “virgin.”

she was unmarried. You're suggesting she wasn't a virgin?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I haven’t read the whole thread, but what I have heard makes sense. His geographic location was in the crossroads of east and west. He most likely was exposed to eastern philosophy, think India at the time.
If he had lived in a different time perhaps he would have become a philosopher like Karl Marx or Kiergegaard.
He certainly upset the status quo by becoming a reformist like Martin Luther.
His death was not that unusual, plenty of people were crucified and continued to be for a long time

Jesus was also exposed to Greco-Roman philosophy because they ruled the Middle East in his time.

No, only the most wealthy Jews were exposed to Greco Roman scholarship. It’s possible that Paul and Matthew had been exposed to such teaching, but Jesus would have received only traditional Jewish teaching. Exposure to Greco Roman mythology would explain why Matthew, and only Matthew, described a Virgin Birth. The idea of God impregnating a human woman was common in Greco Roman mythology. Such an idea would be repulsive to Jews.

Isaiah 7:14 (Jewish) prophesied a virgin birth. “Behold, the virgin shall conceive and bear a son, and shall call his name Immanuel.” If she was a virgin, the impregnation must have been supernatural. No need to fall back in Greco-Roman mythology.

Wrong. Isaiah never said that. That’s a Christian mistranslation. The Hebrew word is “alma.” “Alma” means young woman,” not “virgin.”

It's actually a Jewish translation (mis or otherwise), the Greek of the Septuagint was produced by Jews, before there were Christians.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I haven’t read the whole thread, but what I have heard makes sense. His geographic location was in the crossroads of east and west. He most likely was exposed to eastern philosophy, think India at the time.
If he had lived in a different time perhaps he would have become a philosopher like Karl Marx or Kiergegaard.
He certainly upset the status quo by becoming a reformist like Martin Luther.
His death was not that unusual, plenty of people were crucified and continued to be for a long time

Jesus was also exposed to Greco-Roman philosophy because they ruled the Middle East in his time.

No, only the most wealthy Jews were exposed to Greco Roman scholarship. It’s possible that Paul and Matthew had been exposed to such teaching, but Jesus would have received only traditional Jewish teaching. Exposure to Greco Roman mythology would explain why Matthew, and only Matthew, described a Virgin Birth. The idea of God impregnating a human woman was common in Greco Roman mythology. Such an idea would be repulsive to Jews.

Isaiah 7:14 (Jewish) prophesied a virgin birth. “Behold, the virgin shall conceive and bear a son, and shall call his name Immanuel.” If she was a virgin, the impregnation must have been supernatural. No need to fall back in Greco-Roman mythology.

Wrong. Isaiah never said that. That’s a Christian mistranslation. The Hebrew word is “alma.” “Alma” means young woman,” not “virgin.”

she was unmarried. You're suggesting she wasn't a virgin?

Isaiah never said that the child would be born to an unmarried woman.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I haven’t read the whole thread, but what I have heard makes sense. His geographic location was in the crossroads of east and west. He most likely was exposed to eastern philosophy, think India at the time.
If he had lived in a different time perhaps he would have become a philosopher like Karl Marx or Kiergegaard.
He certainly upset the status quo by becoming a reformist like Martin Luther.
His death was not that unusual, plenty of people were crucified and continued to be for a long time

Jesus was also exposed to Greco-Roman philosophy because they ruled the Middle East in his time.

No, only the most wealthy Jews were exposed to Greco Roman scholarship. It’s possible that Paul and Matthew had been exposed to such teaching, but Jesus would have received only traditional Jewish teaching. Exposure to Greco Roman mythology would explain why Matthew, and only Matthew, described a Virgin Birth. The idea of God impregnating a human woman was common in Greco Roman mythology. Such an idea would be repulsive to Jews.

Isaiah 7:14 (Jewish) prophesied a virgin birth. “Behold, the virgin shall conceive and bear a son, and shall call his name Immanuel.” If she was a virgin, the impregnation must have been supernatural. No need to fall back in Greco-Roman mythology.

Wrong. Isaiah never said that. That’s a Christian mistranslation. The Hebrew word is “alma.” “Alma” means young woman,” not “virgin.”

she was unmarried. You're suggesting she wasn't a virgin?

Isaiah never said that the child would be born to an unmarried woman.

ok, got it. So Isaiah can't be used as a prophesy supporting the story.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I haven’t read the whole thread, but what I have heard makes sense. His geographic location was in the crossroads of east and west. He most likely was exposed to eastern philosophy, think India at the time.
If he had lived in a different time perhaps he would have become a philosopher like Karl Marx or Kiergegaard.
He certainly upset the status quo by becoming a reformist like Martin Luther.
His death was not that unusual, plenty of people were crucified and continued to be for a long time

Jesus was also exposed to Greco-Roman philosophy because they ruled the Middle East in his time.

No, only the most wealthy Jews were exposed to Greco Roman scholarship. It’s possible that Paul and Matthew had been exposed to such teaching, but Jesus would have received only traditional Jewish teaching. Exposure to Greco Roman mythology would explain why Matthew, and only Matthew, described a Virgin Birth. The idea of God impregnating a human woman was common in Greco Roman mythology. Such an idea would be repulsive to Jews.

Isaiah 7:14 (Jewish) prophesied a virgin birth. “Behold, the virgin shall conceive and bear a son, and shall call his name Immanuel.” If she was a virgin, the impregnation must have been supernatural. No need to fall back in Greco-Roman mythology.

Wrong. Isaiah never said that. That’s a Christian mistranslation. The Hebrew word is “alma.” “Alma” means young woman,” not “virgin.”

It's actually a Jewish translation (mis or otherwise), the Greek of the Septuagint was produced by Jews, before there were Christians.

Wrong. The Septuagint translates “alma” into “neanis” which means “ young woman,” not “virgin.” Jews have never said that the yet to come Messiah will be born of a virgin.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I haven’t read the whole thread, but what I have heard makes sense. His geographic location was in the crossroads of east and west. He most likely was exposed to eastern philosophy, think India at the time.
If he had lived in a different time perhaps he would have become a philosopher like Karl Marx or Kiergegaard.
He certainly upset the status quo by becoming a reformist like Martin Luther.
His death was not that unusual, plenty of people were crucified and continued to be for a long time

Jesus was also exposed to Greco-Roman philosophy because they ruled the Middle East in his time.

No, only the most wealthy Jews were exposed to Greco Roman scholarship. It’s possible that Paul and Matthew had been exposed to such teaching, but Jesus would have received only traditional Jewish teaching. Exposure to Greco Roman mythology would explain why Matthew, and only Matthew, described a Virgin Birth. The idea of God impregnating a human woman was common in Greco Roman mythology. Such an idea would be repulsive to Jews.

Isaiah 7:14 (Jewish) prophesied a virgin birth. “Behold, the virgin shall conceive and bear a son, and shall call his name Immanuel.” If she was a virgin, the impregnation must have been supernatural. No need to fall back in Greco-Roman mythology.

Wrong. Isaiah never said that. That’s a Christian mistranslation. The Hebrew word is “alma.” “Alma” means young woman,” not “virgin.”

It's actually a Jewish translation (mis or otherwise), the Greek of the Septuagint was produced by Jews, before there were Christians.

Wrong. The Septuagint translates “alma” into “neanis” which means “ young woman,” not “virgin.” Jews have never said that the yet to come Messiah will be born of a virgin.

The word in Septuagint is παρθένος. Here's the Greek: https://www.septuagint.bible/-/hesaias-kephalaio-7

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I haven’t read the whole thread, but what I have heard makes sense. His geographic location was in the crossroads of east and west. He most likely was exposed to eastern philosophy, think India at the time.
If he had lived in a different time perhaps he would have become a philosopher like Karl Marx or Kiergegaard.
He certainly upset the status quo by becoming a reformist like Martin Luther.
His death was not that unusual, plenty of people were crucified and continued to be for a long time

Jesus was also exposed to Greco-Roman philosophy because they ruled the Middle East in his time.

No, only the most wealthy Jews were exposed to Greco Roman scholarship. It’s possible that Paul and Matthew had been exposed to such teaching, but Jesus would have received only traditional Jewish teaching. Exposure to Greco Roman mythology would explain why Matthew, and only Matthew, described a Virgin Birth. The idea of God impregnating a human woman was common in Greco Roman mythology. Such an idea would be repulsive to Jews.

Isaiah 7:14 (Jewish) prophesied a virgin birth. “Behold, the virgin shall conceive and bear a son, and shall call his name Immanuel.” If she was a virgin, the impregnation must have been supernatural. No need to fall back in Greco-Roman mythology.

Wrong. Isaiah never said that. That’s a Christian mistranslation. The Hebrew word is “alma.” “Alma” means young woman,” not “virgin.”

she was unmarried. You're suggesting she wasn't a virgin?

Isaiah never said that the child would be born to an unmarried woman.

ok, got it. So Isaiah can't be used as a prophesy supporting the story.

The idea that Isaiah was predicting the coming of a Messiah is a silly late Second Temple corruption. Before that, Isaiah was read to be saying exactly what he said, that the birth of a child named Immanuel would be a sign that the Assyrian campaign to conquer the southern kingdom of Judah and the seemingly inevitable fall of Jerusalem would in fact not take place and that the kingdom of Judah would prevail without help from Egypt.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Is the skinhead poster a troll?

He just copy & pastes the same thing over and over again.

I think it's the same person who called some of us Christian-hating bigots

No - that person throws tantrums, he doesn’t post random, irrelevant quotes from evangelical nutjobs.

but both are evasive and engage in some very nasty name-calling.

Evangelical nut jobs? And you are complaining about name-calling?

That pastor calls people who disagree with him “skinheads”. So, yeah, a nut job.

He’s a professor, author, scholar and historian.

He is not calling people who disagree with him “skinheads.”

He’s comparing people who are in denial that Jesus was a real historical person and disagree with the entirety of academia, disagree with phd level scholars of antiquity, that Jesus was a real person, and comparing their level of delusion and ignorance with people who deny the earth is round (flat earthers) and Nazi skinheads who go against all respectable historians and claim the holocaust was a hoax.

You are just focusing on the skinhead word to feign outrage, and ignore the fact that he is comparing people who deny the historical certainty of Jesus to flat- earthers, too.

Maybe the comparison offends you because it’s so very accurate? It’s not a thing to be proud of. It’s embarrassing to be so wrong yet steadfast in your ignorance. If you don’t want to be grouped with idiots, don’t be an idiot. It’s simple as.

There’s absolutely zero evidence the man who is being quoted is a bigot or hateful.

Yes, he is calling people “skinheads” because he disagrees with them. He uses inflammatory language in a lame attempt to shame people instead of making a valid argument. Sounds hateful to me.

Again, NONE of those posts from this thread denied historical Jesus. No one said he didn’t exist.

I guess you still don’t have a valid argument to make so you continue to throw out insults. Lame.

Are you insulted because you deny Jesus was a man who walked the earth, and are in the same class as a holocaust denier, a climate denier, or believe the earth is flat?

People throw the insult “Nazi” around very easily in today’s political climate. People who deny the holocaust actually happened are rightly disparaged for doing so; and their denial stems from hate and bigotry and ignorance. Likewise, historians believe that the denial of the historicity of Jesus stems from the same ignorance and hatred. If no respected scholar or historian in the western world denies the historicity of Jesus, no respected historian denies the holocaust, no respected scientist denies the earth is round…yet you feel totally confident that Jesus didn’t exist, he was a myth, he was multiple people vaguely wandering through time as a charismatic cult like figure, he was an invention of a schizophrenic man, etc, you are a bigot and an ignorant liar who will not accept the truth.

You belong in the bin of weirdos who deny climate change, deny the holocaust, get in the RV with the flat earther and adjust your tinfoil hats together. Then you can drive to a local vaccination site and protest the vaccine, that’s who you are.

I haven’t denied that Jesus lived so…

Maybe you’re just trolling at this point?

Why are you defending people here who have? I am not defending Nazi holocaust deniers, kooky flat earthers, frankly dangerous covid conspiracy theory proponents, and climate change skeptics. No reputable or respected historian or scholar denies the historicity of Jesus. Why would you even concern yourself complaining about liars being called out? A post a few pages back stated : “Should we just agree Jesus “most likely existed?”

No. We don’t agree on anything here like that. He existed. Periodt. Dcum anon posters don’t even know basic history. This has zero to do with the divinity of Jesus. If someone is so very ignorant and wrong about basic history, they are probably wrong about a host of other issues.

Nobody on this thread has denied he lived so…

So what? -- nothing. People "on this thread" are irrelevant.

The PP has repeatedly accused people on this thread of denying historical Jesus. And made repeated ad hominem attacks based on that.

It’s not clear if PP is trolling or just has poor reading comprehension.

DP. Good grief. On the very last page somebody, I assumed pp, posted multiple examples of people denying Jesus existed. Did you lose your reading glasses?

Go back and reread - none of the posts from this thread deny that historical Jesus existed.

“There is no convincing evidence that Jesus as a historical person - one whose life closely resembled that of the Biblical Jesus - ever existed at all. Which doesn't mean he didn't, just that there is no evidence of it. However, for most scholars who study early Christianity, it just isn't relevant at all if he existed or not, anymore than say, if you are studying a people who believe the world rests on a giant turtle, it is relevant or not if the turtle exists. The study of religion is the study of belief, and people have never needed actual evidence to believe in religious mythology. They did it fine before Christianity, and do it fine without Christianity in other parts of the world. Christianity is not an exception - the one religion where the stories are actually true - unless you are Christian. Anyone who studies religion from the point of view of a member of the religion is no longer engaged in an objective academic study of that religion, although there is plenty of fine scholarship of that sort from within the academic world of Christian theology. But don't confuse that with scholars proving Christ existed - it's scholars who believe he existed arguing various issues surrounding the internal workings of the religion.“

12/24 9:23 from this thread

Along with multiple posts that state that “Jesus may or may not have existed, but people love a good story.” Several of those types of posts.

Along with the Mithras story (only exists in crude paintings, born of a “virgin” rock, was not crucified, no resurrection) was actually copied by early Christians, that was feebly attempted by several posters.

DP. Bumping this post which identifies some on this thread who denied that Jesus existed.

Another post pointed out the Jesus denier at 12/19 15:35.

Nope. Re-read it.

"Which doesn't mean he didn't, just that there is no evidence of it."

Do you split hairs for a living? Is your reading comprehension poor? Or are you just trolling?

Tell us, what does “there is no evidence” mean in your little troll world.

You’re either misreading it or being obtuse. Are you the “denier” troll from earlier?

No evidence means there is no evidence. He may have existed or may not. Seems likely but not ”proven”.

It’s also impossible to prove that he didn’t exist which is why no one is claiming that.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I haven’t read the whole thread, but what I have heard makes sense. His geographic location was in the crossroads of east and west. He most likely was exposed to eastern philosophy, think India at the time.
If he had lived in a different time perhaps he would have become a philosopher like Karl Marx or Kiergegaard.
He certainly upset the status quo by becoming a reformist like Martin Luther.
His death was not that unusual, plenty of people were crucified and continued to be for a long time

Jesus was also exposed to Greco-Roman philosophy because they ruled the Middle East in his time.

No, only the most wealthy Jews were exposed to Greco Roman scholarship. It’s possible that Paul and Matthew had been exposed to such teaching, but Jesus would have received only traditional Jewish teaching. Exposure to Greco Roman mythology would explain why Matthew, and only Matthew, described a Virgin Birth. The idea of God impregnating a human woman was common in Greco Roman mythology. Such an idea would be repulsive to Jews.

Isaiah 7:14 (Jewish) prophesied a virgin birth. “Behold, the virgin shall conceive and bear a son, and shall call his name Immanuel.” If she was a virgin, the impregnation must have been supernatural. No need to fall back in Greco-Roman mythology.

Wrong. Isaiah never said that. That’s a Christian mistranslation. The Hebrew word is “alma.” “Alma” means young woman,” not “virgin.”

What other words are mistranslated by Christians, in your view?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I haven’t read the whole thread, but what I have heard makes sense. His geographic location was in the crossroads of east and west. He most likely was exposed to eastern philosophy, think India at the time.
If he had lived in a different time perhaps he would have become a philosopher like Karl Marx or Kiergegaard.
He certainly upset the status quo by becoming a reformist like Martin Luther.
His death was not that unusual, plenty of people were crucified and continued to be for a long time

Jesus was also exposed to Greco-Roman philosophy because they ruled the Middle East in his time.

No, only the most wealthy Jews were exposed to Greco Roman scholarship. It’s possible that Paul and Matthew had been exposed to such teaching, but Jesus would have received only traditional Jewish teaching. Exposure to Greco Roman mythology would explain why Matthew, and only Matthew, described a Virgin Birth. The idea of God impregnating a human woman was common in Greco Roman mythology. Such an idea would be repulsive to Jews.

Isaiah 7:14 (Jewish) prophesied a virgin birth. “Behold, the virgin shall conceive and bear a son, and shall call his name Immanuel.” If she was a virgin, the impregnation must have been supernatural. No need to fall back in Greco-Roman mythology.

How much time have you got? There’s a reason why Jews teach their children to read the Bible in the original and Christians don’t.

Wrong. Isaiah never said that. That’s a Christian mistranslation. The Hebrew word is “alma.” “Alma” means young woman,” not “virgin.”

What other words are mistranslated by Christians, in your view?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I haven’t read the whole thread, but what I have heard makes sense. His geographic location was in the crossroads of east and west. He most likely was exposed to eastern philosophy, think India at the time.
If he had lived in a different time perhaps he would have become a philosopher like Karl Marx or Kiergegaard.
He certainly upset the status quo by becoming a reformist like Martin Luther.
His death was not that unusual, plenty of people were crucified and continued to be for a long time

Jesus was also exposed to Greco-Roman philosophy because they ruled the Middle East in his time.

No, only the most wealthy Jews were exposed to Greco Roman scholarship. It’s possible that Paul and Matthew had been exposed to such teaching, but Jesus would have received only traditional Jewish teaching. Exposure to Greco Roman mythology would explain why Matthew, and only Matthew, described a Virgin Birth. The idea of God impregnating a human woman was common in Greco Roman mythology. Such an idea would be repulsive to Jews.

Isaiah 7:14 (Jewish) prophesied a virgin birth. “Behold, the virgin shall conceive and bear a son, and shall call his name Immanuel.” If she was a virgin, the impregnation must have been supernatural. No need to fall back in Greco-Roman mythology.

Wrong. Isaiah never said that. That’s a Christian mistranslation. The Hebrew word is “alma.” “Alma” means young woman,” not “virgin.”

What other words are mistranslated by Christians, in your view?

How much time have you got? There’s a reason that Jews teach their children to read the Bible in the original and Christians do not.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I haven’t read the whole thread, but what I have heard makes sense. His geographic location was in the crossroads of east and west. He most likely was exposed to eastern philosophy, think India at the time.
If he had lived in a different time perhaps he would have become a philosopher like Karl Marx or Kiergegaard.
He certainly upset the status quo by becoming a reformist like Martin Luther.
His death was not that unusual, plenty of people were crucified and continued to be for a long time

Jesus was also exposed to Greco-Roman philosophy because they ruled the Middle East in his time.

No, only the most wealthy Jews were exposed to Greco Roman scholarship. It’s possible that Paul and Matthew had been exposed to such teaching, but Jesus would have received only traditional Jewish teaching. Exposure to Greco Roman mythology would explain why Matthew, and only Matthew, described a Virgin Birth. The idea of God impregnating a human woman was common in Greco Roman mythology. Such an idea would be repulsive to Jews.

Isaiah 7:14 (Jewish) prophesied a virgin birth. “Behold, the virgin shall conceive and bear a son, and shall call his name Immanuel.” If she was a virgin, the impregnation must have been supernatural. No need to fall back in Greco-Roman mythology.

Wrong. Isaiah never said that. That’s a Christian mistranslation. The Hebrew word is “alma.” “Alma” means young woman,” not “virgin.”

It's actually a Jewish translation (mis or otherwise), the Greek of the Septuagint was produced by Jews, before there were Christians.

Wrong. The Septuagint translates “alma” into “neanis” which means “ young woman,” not “virgin.” Jews have never said that the yet to come Messiah will be born of a virgin.

Young, unmarried women were generally virgins. Also, Matthew was writing for an audience in Antioch that was still part of the Jewish community, even if the relationship was deteriorating—yet the “virgin” language was apparently accepted.

In any case, whether or not the translation works is irrelevant. Matthew’s text relies on the fact that Isaiah was talking about a virgin, not on a Greek god that was popular in the 2nd and 3rd centuries CE, i.e well after the gospel of Matthew was put together towards the end of the first century.