Origins of Jesus Christ

[Dream]

Interesting! I don't know if all prayer is ineffective. Maybe your prayers would come back with better results than mine. May be that those Scientific studies were made on ineffective prayers. I can definitely say that my prayer petitions usually are ineffective, but not always. What some people do is keep a journal of every prayer they make. That makes a lot of sense if you want to get scientific.

Since the idea of a god is so useful to the human psyche and allows us to lay some fears, some blame etc outside of our universe and obtain some consolation and peace from outside of our universe there are good reasons for us to perpetuate the myths. They allow us a degree of socially acceptable insanity as previously mentioned.

Myths should not be perpetuated without an appropriate cultural complement. When I was a kid I was taught Adam & Eve were the first two humans, but that understanding should not have carried over as-is into my adult life. It should have been expanded upon and opened up for learning. What was meant for good became a destructive force, because there was nothing to moderate its influence. I became like a child stuck in an eternal Disney movie. When little children become adolescents it is weird if they still think that Disney movies represent real life, even though it is nice if they can think that way as kids. That way as adults they know to strive towards that romantic, peaceful existance. Happy childhood = healthy minds! Childhood is the time to learn myths but then to learn about the big picture, and for both girls & boys too much myth + too little thought = difficult transition into life. By the time they are a teenager a person should be able to question, to discern true from false as much as possible. If by that time they are still relying on parents for discernment, then it is time for a little talk.

 

[Operacast]

Prayer has been scientifically researched and has been proved to be ineffective. I do think the idea of all-caring carries some weight in what would now be called the metaphysical though I believe all 'metaphysical' things will have an adequate scientific explanation in time. When I speak of god being definable I really do mean beyond our 'inner experience of 'something''. And I will never use a G for that word.

All candidates for the position god have been created by people. Anthropomorphic ideas of what 'god' might be. Since the idea of a god is so useful to the human psyche and allows us to lay some fears, some blame etc outside of our universe and obtain some consolation and peace from outside of our universe there are good reasons for us to perpetuate the myths. They allow us a degree of socially acceptable insanity as previously mentioned. BUT I would argue that they are still myths however useful and we will find all our inexplicable experiences here on earth to have reasonable scientific explanations in due course.

I also used to assume that anything metaphysical was strictly imaginary, having grown up an atheist in a family who were also nonbelievers. It wasn't until further reading up on history and on evolution (which still strikes me as entirely plausible and in fact now more or less proved by modern science, with which I have no quarrel) made me revisit my assumptions in my mid-'40s and decide that I was a theist (small t) with no special allegiance to any one creed. (Both my parents were gone by then.)

I've already provided the details on this in an exchange with BananaBrain at

http://www.interfaith.org/forum/query-to-bananabrain-9420.html

Best,

Operacast

 

[oldgordy]

Being new to the idea of posting my findings of the last 50 years onto a public forum, do I need to provide a personal background to establish credability or just plunge right in? For example:
If you substitute the phrase"the sky" for the word heaven(ancient Greek-hevn) does it change your perception of what was being said at that time?

If word substitution is the game then what happens if you translate begat as became? Does this rationalise previous existences?

 

[juantoo3]

Prayer has been scientifically researched and has been proved to be ineffective. I do think the idea of all-caring carries some weight in what would now be called the metaphysical though I believe all 'metaphysical' things will have an adequate scientific explanation in time.

For:

Prayer and Spirituality in Health [CAM at the NIH, Winter 2005] [NCCAM News and Events]

This is a NIH study regarding spirituality and illness, including but not limited to prayer.

Scientific Research on Prayer

“The analytical mind of the scientist calls for proof of the existence of a higher being. These scientists, both the faithful and nonbelievers alike, have produced studies into the affects of prayer on our physical as well as spiritual well being. Although most of us, who possess the belief that prayer can and does work, do not require physical, quantitative proof of the power of prayer, it is interesting to read the results of these studies.

One of the most quoted scientific studies of prayer was done between August of 1982 and May of 1983. 393 patients in the San Francisco General Hospital’s Coronary Care Unit participated in a double blind study to assess the therapeutic effects of intercessory prayer. Patients were randomly selected by computer to either receive or not receive intercessory prayer. All participants in the study, including patients, doctors, and the conductor of the study himself remained blind throughout the study, To guard against biasing the study, the patients were not contacted again after it was decided which group would be prayed for, and which group would not.

The results of the study are not surprising to those of us who believe in the power of prayer. The patients who had received prayer as a part of the study were healthier than those who had not. The prayed for group had less need of having CPR (cardiopulmonary resuscitation) performed and less need for the use of mechanical ventilators. They had a diminished necessity for diuretics and antibiotics, less occurrences of pulmonary edema, and fewer deaths. Taking all factors into consideration, these results can only be attributed to the power of prayer.”

-emphasis mine, jt3

Against:

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/03/31/health/31pray.html

"The problem with studying religion scientifically is that you do violence to the phenomenon by reducing it to basic elements that can be quantified, and that makes for bad science and bad religion," said Dr. Richard Sloan, a professor of behavioral medicine at Columbia and author of a forthcoming book, "Blind Faith: The Unholy Alliance of Religion and Medicine."

-emphasis mine, jt3

http://users.ox.ac.uk/~orie0087/pdf...roversies/Response to a Statistical Study.pdf

“Those praying belonged to one of three Christian groups. Compications occurred to 52 per cent of the first patient group, to 51 per cent of the second group, and to 59 per cent of the third group. The virtually identical figures for the first and second group, both of whom were uncertain whether they would receive prayer, was regarded as a ‘negative result’ showing that intercessory prayer has no effect. (The figure for the third group was regarded as a statistical freak.)”

-emphasis mine, jt3


Conclusion

Studies can be found to support either side of the argument. It still ignores the fundamental precept that since metaphysical attributes cannot readily be addressed by scientific means, using scientific means to attempt to prove or refute metaphysical attributes is really a misguided notion. One might as well fix an automotive carburetor with a sledge hammer, or drill for oil with a toothpick, the practice would be effectively the same.

Leaving aside the notion that prayer has been disproven, there is still a psychological comfort that aids in the healing process when the patient is actively involved in some metaphysical exercise, be it prayer, meditation or whatever means they are comfortable with and actively prefer to engage in. In the West, traditionally Christian, pastoral care is made available on request at every hospital I know of. For some patients, pastoral care is crucial to their emotional and psychological well being, even if not their physical well being. Were this not so, pastoral care would not be available, no? Perhaps not all patients need this pastoral care, and in my experience it is relatively few that request it. But it is made available for those who do wish to have it.

I can carry this further. Pastoral care is an essential component made available under stressful circumstances, everything from boot camp and frontlines of wars, to assistance with natural disasters to coping methods for victims of crimes to dealing with *everyday* crises that may occur. Again, not all people are receptive nor require this type of intervention, but there are those to whom such intervention holds a significant place in maintaining their own psychological well being.

Perhaps prayer and other metaphysical exercises are no more than a placebo effect, no more than a trick on the mind. For some people, that is enough in itself to aid greatly in comforting a troubled mind.

All candidates for the position god have been created by people. Anthropomorphic ideas of what 'god' might be.

I disagree. All *anthropomorphic* ideas of what G-d may be I can agree are most probably inventions of people somewhere along the line. But like so many before you, I think you fail to consider pre-historic evidences of the metaphysical reach of people even at a time when they lived in caves and hunted mammoth and other game and froze their butts in the middle of an ice age. There are excavations all across Europe into the Middle East as well as Australia and South Africa, not counting what is being found in China and other parts of Asia, *all* of which are yielding tantalizing clues about pre-historic spiritualism. And none of them exhibit an anthropomorphic deity in the sense you suggest when you say "all candidates." Peoples who were very talented in painting animals deliberately depicted humans in the most simple, childlike manner as stick figures, almost as if taboo to paint another human...let alone illustrate G-d as a human. So I think your statement is made without full appreciation of the human reality. It's a common mistake.

 

[Operacast]

OK, I think I understand now. I missed that earlier thread for a variety of reasons, not least lack of interest on my part.

And I would have to agree that those of that particular bent do seem to be institutionally atheist and determined to undermine the Christian faith at all cost-rather than the purported neutrality of scholarship. Selective application of evidence, don'cha just love 'em no matter which side they're on?

They put the "mental" in fundamental.

Exactly!

If we want to see something of the lengths to which mythicists will go with their nutty ideas, I found this astonishingly loooooooong thread on the Web, revolving around the question of mythicist Jesus versus historical Jesus. Its length is positively epic!

What Can We Reasonably Infer About The Historical Jesus? : Christianity • Rational Skepticism Forum

Enjoy (I guess......),

Operacast

 

[Joedjr]

Exactly!

If we want to see something of the lengths to which mythicists will go with their nutty ideas, I found this astonishingly loooooooong thread on the Web, revolving around the question of mythicist Jesus versus historical Jesus. Its length is positively epic!

What Can We Reasonably Infer About The Historical Jesus? : Christianity • Rational Skepticism Forum

Enjoy (I guess......),

Operacast

Thanks for the link. I'll take next week to study the replies! LOL

 

[Operacast]

Thanks for the link. I'll take next week to study the replies! LOL

Only a week? ;-)

Cheers,

Operacast

 

[Raven]

Originally Posted by Operacast
Exactly!

If we want to see something of the lengths to which mythicists will go with their nutty ideas, I found this astonishingly loooooooong thread on the Web, revolving around the question of mythicist Jesus versus historical Jesus. Its length is positively epic!

What Can We Reasonably Infer About The Historical Jesus? : Christianity • Rational Skepticism Forum

Enjoy (I guess......),

Operacast

There was no historical god man. Nutty is believing this character ever lived since you have no physical evidence of his existence and only a book that is questionable at best.No the MP has a solid claim if it did not there would not be so many jesus freaks out to disprove it.....

 

[mens_sana]

There was no historical god man. Nutty is believing this character ever lived since you have no physical evidence of his existence and only a book that is questionable at best.No the MP has a solid claim if it did not there would not be so many jesus freaks out to disprove it.....

Is there any physical evidence that Gautama or Apollonius of Tyana lived, other than questionable books about them?

 

[Operacast]

There was no historical god man. Nutty is believing this character ever lived since you have no physical evidence of his existence and only a book that is questionable at best.No the MP has a solid claim if it did not there would not be so many jesus freaks out to disprove it.....

I would make these points myself, save that a certain Tim O'Neill at "Secular Cafe" makes them more pithily and clearly

--

"[Josephus] was a 25-26 year old aristocratic Jew [quite unsympathetic toward Christians, BTW -- ed.] and a member of the dominant priestly elite. In 63 AD he ha[d] just returned from a successful diplomatic mission to Rome and was taking his first steps in political life when the most significant political event of his young life took place - the High Priest was deposed. And he tells us [in his Antiquities, chapter XX] that the thing that triggered this momentous upheaval in the small world of his caste was the execution of an older contemporary of his: James "brother of that Jesus who was called Messiah".

"So [Josephus is] not talking about some vague rumour of someone that he's merely heard about. He's describing a set of events which would have been momentous and which he witnessed when he was a young man. And the person [James] whose execution triggered them was not some vague figure that [Josephus] merely "thought" existed. [James] was a contemporary of the young Josephus who lived in the same fairly small city of 50-80,000 people. And [Josephus] matter of factly informs us that this James had a brother called Jesus who was "called Messiah". [Josephus] mentions this in a way that indicates this Jesus was more famous than his brother [James] (Josephus identifies others by reference to more famous brothers elsewhere).....

"So [Josephus] didn't just "think" James and Jesus were historical people - he was in a position to know this. In fact, as ancient sources go, this is about as close to first hand testimony as it gets.

"Thus the desperate and wildly varied efforts by amateur Mythers, running in all directions like headless chickens trying to find some way, any way, to distance Josephus from this pesky piece of clear testimony.

"It's kind of funny to watch." (Earliest secular references to Christ(?) - Page 8 - Secular Café)

--

"The THREE references and quotes of [Josephus's] phrase in Origen also shows it is not an interpolation. That's why scholars (as opposed to bumbling amateur bloggers and self-published hobbyists) all accept that it's genuine.

And it refers to Jesus. Game, set and match. " (Earliest secular references to Christ(?) - Page 7 - Secular Café)

--

"The three references to this passage, with direct word-for-word quotation of the key phrase, are in Origen Contra Celsum I.4, Contra Celsum II:13 and in Commentarium in evangelium Matthaei X.17. In each case he directly quotes the phrase used in Josephus: "αδελφος Ιησου του λεγομενου Χριστου" ("the brother of that Jesus who was called Messiah"). It takes some seriously contrived hoop-jump to explain [away] these three clear references to the passage, with the phrase in question directly quoted, in writings which are more than half a century before Christians were in any position to be interpolating anything at all." (Earliest secular references to Christ(?) - Page 6 - Secular Café)

--

Now personally, after having done a fair amount of reading up on the latest professional scholarship myself, although maybe not as systematically as Tim O'Neill appears to have done, I don't credit the notion that Jesus was somehow God herself, nor that Jesus restored the stone dead to life, nor that he changed water to wine, etc., etc. But we do have a distinctly consistent body of texts among the non-Biblicals, like Josephus's Antiquities XX, like Tacitus, like Pliny, like Suetonius, etc., none of which come from believers, and each of which gives us a consistent picture of a strictly normal human being only, a relatively obscure genuinely historic figure who did nothing supernatural at all and who was nailed by the Romans for stirring up trouble.

That is the Jesus whom the documentary evidence points to as the most plausible. And that is the Jesus -- the strictly human Jesus -- whom the widely atheist/skeptic sector of the secular professional academic scholarly community of today takes to be the most likely individual, entirely historical, to have stirred up trouble and been executed during the reign of Tiberius.

Anyone here who carelessly-on-purpose conflates this consensus among academic largely skeptic professional scholars for

A) a strictly human Jesus, based on a consistent body of secular evidence of a strictly human Jesus in the pagan chronicles and letters,

with

B) the hybrid magic man believed in by fundies reading Scripture only

is being totally dishonest.

Got that?

Operacast

 

[Raven]

Well this junky ass forum won't let me paste anything so what the hell. Oh and before I forget come up with something besides a sarcastic attititude or your going to see how sarcastic I can be.

 

[Raven]

Is there any physical evidence that Gautama or Apollonius of Tyana lived, other than questionable books about them?

True your right there. You will not find any physical evidence for cloud boy either. And Josephus is certainly not evidence...and neither are any of the other historians that Sarcastic Boy posted either.

 

[Raven]

Oh Sarcastic Boy, out of professional courtesy I checked your links. Give me a break man! Your going to link to another forum and expect me to buy that?And a secular forum at that! What the hell! Origen admitted Josephus never acknowledged a cloud boy spiritual in the flesh or otherwise. When you have something credible post it but right now all I see is the same old fundamentalist junk I have read for years.

 

[wil]

It appears the air is rare....

let's all take a breath anyway....

The thought is discussion should ensue...

If anyone would like the next exit is the high road...

 

[Raven]

It appears the air is rare....

let's all take a breath anyway....

The thought is discussion should ensue...

If anyone would like the next exit is the high road...

I see your point....

 

[Operacast]

Oh Sarcastic Boy, out of professional courtesy I checked your links. Give me a break man! Your going to link to another forum and expect me to buy that?And a secular forum at that! What the hell! Origen admitted Josephus never acknowledged a cloud boy spiritual in the flesh or otherwise. When you have something credible post it but right now all I see is the same old fundamentalist junk I have read for years.

Excuse me: We're not talking about Josephus acknowledging some kind of cloud boy. We're talking about Origen's triple confirmation of Josephus's citing an entirely human individual instead: a human brother of a man who was executed exactly where/when Josephus himself was living as a young man. Try and concentrate.

And as for sarcastic, I'd like to know what this is --

"so many jesus freaks"?

Evidently, for you, someone who is skeptical of all religions and who views Jesus as strictly a human being is already a Jesus freak!

Operacast

 

[A Cup Of Tea]

Ok, I admit I haven't read the whole thread yet.
I would just like to ask Raven (is that an eagle as an avatar?) why there couldn't have been man called Jesus who was crucified by Romans? This stuff must have happened all the time, people who speak against the current order and gets nailed to a cross for it. A man with holy powers are one thing to accept, but just a nice guy that people were really upset over, not that strange?

 

[Raven]

Ok, I admit I haven't read the whole thread yet.
I would just like to ask Raven (is that an eagle as an avatar?) why there couldn't have been man called Jesus who was crucified by Romans? This stuff must have happened all the time, people who speak against the current order and gets nailed to a cross for it. A man with holy powers are one thing to accept, but just a nice guy that people were really upset over, not that strange?

Oh there were Jesus at the time it was a pretty common name then. But the whole christian tale don't hold water. The New Testament for instance which was suppose to be about his life speaks very little of it. Born in a manger, disappears at 2 years old, seen agian at 12 then disappears agian until age 30 something.

No church writer or contemporary of this man ever speaks of seeing a physical being man named Jesus they all write from second hand hearsay and not from first hand accounts.

Sarcastic Boy wants to use Josephus as proof of Jesus which is fine if the passage in question had been written by him but it was not. Tacticus which is another historian christians love to sucker into the myth is writing from second hand hearsay. Tacitus was no doubt referring to a sect of christianity called christians which were claiming a jesus christ as a saviour. Tacitus did not have first hand knowledge if this christ.

Back to the Josephus passage. The great church father Euseibus clearly admitted forgery:

Adovcated fraud in the interest of faith.
Had been known to tamper with Josephus works and many other writers works as well.
He uses this passage in Evangelical Demonstration Book (3) page 124:
"Certainly the attestions I have already produced concerning our saviour may be sufficent. However, it may not be amiss, if, over and above, we make use of Josephus the Jew for a further witness."

Whats wrong with this? At first glance nothing. But if you remove the forged passage and re-read the text it makes more sense. So whats the problem with it?

Passage interrupts the narrative.
Has nothing to do with what precedes or follows it.
Position of the text clearly shows that the text has been separated by a later hand to make room for it.

Had the forged passage been in the works of Josephus which they knew people such as Justin Martyr, Tertullian, Origen and Clement of Alexandria would have thrown it at their Jewish opponents.
Forged passage did not exist.

Now for 200 years the church was familiar with his works and knew nothing of the passage! Why? They felt he should recognize this jesus. No where in Tacitus or Josephus does either historian claim first hand eyewitness accounts. Josephus was a JEW and was working under the Romans at the time now do you honestly think that he would have written "He was the Messiah" I doubt it because this would have opened him up to treason!

 

[Raven]

Excuse me: We're not talking about Josephus acknowledging some kind of cloud boy. We're talking about Origen's triple confirmation of Josephus's citing an entirely human individual instead: a human brother of a man who was executed exactly where/when Josephus himself was living as a young man. Try and concentrate.

And as for sarcastic, I'd like to know what this is --

"so many jesus freaks"?

Evidently, for you, someone who is skeptical of all religions and who views Jesus as strictly a human being is already a Jesus freak!

Operacast

I do not view him as human he never was. He was an invention of the church drawn from other mythical figures throughout history.

We're talking about Origen's triple confirmation of Josephus's citing an entirely human individual instead:

Really? Well Origen needs to get his story straight.

a human brother of a man who was executed exactly where/when Josephus himself was living as a young man

And where would he have gotten this information? Wheres the proof that a man called jesus was actually crucified by the Romans?

Nothing more improable.
Romans were the greatest lawyers ever known.
Courts a model of fairness and order.
Man was not condemned without a trial.
Was not handed to the executioner being being found guilty.

Theory:
How do you explain the fact that for the first (8) Centuries during the time and evolution of Christianity that Christian art was depicted by a lamb and not a man suffering on a cross for salvation?
No paintings in the Catacombs or Christian sculptures depict a human figure on a cross. Some figures show the lamb with a human head.
Close of the (8) Century:
Pope Hadrian (1) confirming a decree of the (6th) Synod of Constatinople ordered that here after the figure of a man should take the place of the lamb on the cross.
Took (800) years for Christianity to design the suffering saviour on the cross.
For (800) years the Christ on the cross was a lamb.
But if Christ was crucified why was his place on the cross so long viewed as a lamb?

I lost the link to this sorry.


There are no archaeological, forensic or documentary evidence that shows Jesus was ever alive!


Oh there is all kinds of reports that he was supposedly killed but the story ends there.

 

[Operacast]

Really? Well Origen needs to get his story straight.

You're talking in circles. "Getting his story straight" when Origen cites Josephus's entirely autobiographical Antiquities XX reference to James no fewer than three times? Origen refers to Josephus's autobiographical account of James in Origen's Contra Celsum I.4, Contra Celsum II:13 and in Commentarium in evangelium Matthaei X.17. These pre-Constantine references of Origen's to Josephus's Antiquities XX put Josephus's autobiographical Antiquities XX account of James in a totally different class from the questionable Antiquities XVIII, with Josephus's thirdhand account of Jesus only, with its textual variants from "He was the Messiah" in an 11th-century ms. to no such claim and a strikingly noncommittal tone in a 10th-century Syriac version of the same Antiq. XVIII passage. Not to mention the fact that the earliest outside reference to Antiq. XVIII is found in Eusebius from a time after Christianity was no longer underground.

Contrast that with the straightforward textual history for the autobiographical account of James in Josephus's Antiquities XX: no textual variants for any version of that passage at all, and the earliest outside reference -- three of them -- from Origen, when Christianity was still underground. Don't confound these two Josephus passages. It only wastes our time. I've already brought to everyone's attention here the fact that Josephus moved in the same circles that witnessed Ananus's execution of James in the early 60s c.e. It was a big part of Jos's young adulthood in Palestine. He was a witness to James's execution, and he knew who James was. Jos's early eyewitness description of James is duly confirmed in three separate places in Origen well before Christianity was anything but a powerless minority sect.

Operacast