(February 8, 2016 at 5:58 pm)Brian37 Wrote:

(January 27, 2016 at 8:15 pm)Jehanne Wrote: Was Jesus of Nazareth an historical person?  I voted for the first option, "Yes, absolutely."

No, he did not. The Romans were apt census takers, and there had been an upstart blaspheming their polytheistic traditions you would have seen out side the bible, during the alleged period the bible claims, evidence of his existence. No contemporary evidence exists outside the bible during the claimed existence. The gospels were written after the fact and the real authors are unknown, and are also second hand hearsay. Tactus and Josephus don't count.

Now having said that, even if we found the bones of a man named Jesus and extracted DNA and proved he existed, he still would have been a mere man who managed to convince others to start a new religion. There still is no such thing as magic babies with super powers, and humans do not survive the death story as the bible would have you believe.

A movement did happen otherwise Christianity would not exist today. But so what, all that means is a group of people got tired of the old ways and took stories from old traditions and started a new religion based on that. 

There are newer attempts by "archaeologists" whom are really not objective, but apologists, who point to grave sites with family names on them. But since Joseph and Mary were common names, that is meaningless, and still even if, that would not make the claim of a baby being born without a second set of DNA true, much less a being that goes through it's entire life preforming magic tricks.

Actually the whole census narrative was shoehorned in pos hoc to get Joseph and Mary to Bethlehem for the birth (to fulfill prophesy). First of all in the period in question Iudea was a tributary state rather than a Roman province, and the Romans didn't conduct censuses in tributary states. Second, outside of the bible itself there is no record of anybody having to go to their ancestral home in order to be ennumerated in a Roman census. The whole story smacks of a late rewrite.

Of course you've also the problem of Joseph supposedly a member of the preeminent royal house in Israel being a menial worker, an extremely unlikely event. But that is another problem.

(February 9, 2016 at 7:20 am)Constable Dorfl Wrote:

(February 8, 2016 at 5:58 pm)Brian37 Wrote: No, he did not. The Romans were apt census takers, and there had been an upstart blaspheming their polytheistic traditions you would have seen out side the bible, during the alleged period the bible claims, evidence of his existence. No contemporary evidence exists outside the bible during the claimed existence. The gospels were written after the fact and the real authors are unknown, and are also second hand hearsay. Tactus and Josephus don't count.

Now having said that, even if we found the bones of a man named Jesus and extracted DNA and proved he existed, he still would have been a mere man who managed to convince others to start a new religion. There still is no such thing as magic babies with super powers, and humans do not survive the death story as the bible would have you believe.

A movement did happen otherwise Christianity would not exist today. But so what, all that means is a group of people got tired of the old ways and took stories from old traditions and started a new religion based on that. 

There are newer attempts by "archaeologists" whom are really not objective, but apologists, who point to grave sites with family names on them. But since Joseph and Mary were common names, that is meaningless, and still even if, that would not make the claim of a baby being born without a second set of DNA true, much less a being that goes through it's entire life preforming magic tricks.

Actually the whole census narrative was shoehorned in pos hoc to get Joseph and Mary to Bethlehem for the birth (to fulfill prophesy). First of all in the period in question Iudea was a tributary state rather than a Roman province, and the Romans didn't conduct censuses in tributary states. Second, outside of the bible itself there is no record of anybody having to go to their ancestral home in order to be ennumerated in a Roman census. The whole story smacks of a late rewrite.

Of course you've also the problem of Joseph supposedly a member of the preeminent royal house in Israel being a menial worker, an extremely unlikely event. But that is another problem.

Doesn't matter what that specific location had as far as real laws, the bible claims he caused a ruckus throughout Israel in the alleged characters life as the bible claims. If that had happened, the Romans would have taken notice. The fact they do in the bible, where as in real life nobody said shit during the real time frame, as you said, says to me some writers decided to create a new myth after the fact.

And again, still wouldn't matter, still no such thing as magic babies born without a second set of DNA, and nobody survives death as the myth of the death story would have you believe. Still crap, no matter which way you slice it.

Did anyone cover how Jesus was meant to be a descendant of David?

That got screwed up since Joseph wasn't the father, so I remember someone saying that in fact Mary was a descendant of David. It's just that they "didn't tend to include women" in the genealogy. Even when they're the fucking mother of god, apparently.

(February 9, 2016 at 8:40 am)Brian37 Wrote:

(February 9, 2016 at 7:20 am)Constable Dorfl Wrote: Actually the whole census narrative was shoehorned in pos hoc to get Joseph and Mary to Bethlehem for the birth (to fulfill prophesy). First of all in the period in question Iudea was a tributary state rather than a Roman province, and the Romans didn't conduct censuses in tributary states. Second, outside of the bible itself there is no record of anybody having to go to their ancestral home in order to be ennumerated in a Roman census. The whole story smacks of a late rewrite.

Of course you've also the problem of Joseph supposedly a member of the preeminent royal house in Israel being a menial worker, an extremely unlikely event. But that is another problem.

Doesn't matter what that specific location had as far as real laws, the bible claims he caused a ruckus throughout Israel in the alleged characters life as the bible claims. If that had happened, the Romans would have taken notice. The fact they do in the bible, where as in real life nobody said shit during the real time frame, as you said, says to me some writers decided to create a new myth after the fact.

Do we have a record or evidence showing Romans were known to list the names of every criminal they had arrested and crucified? No.

Jesus, if he existed, was just one of many ...

(February 9, 2016 at 8:42 am)robvalue Wrote: Did anyone cover how Jesus was meant to be a descendant of David?

That got screwed up since Joseph wasn't the father, so I remember someone saying that in fact Mary was a descendant of David. It's just that they "didn't tend to include women" in the genealogy. Even when they're the fucking mother of god, apparently.

Ah the contradictory begats.

Humans stupidly look at stories as history rather than motifs, and the concept of your good fortune being linked to the wealth and royalty was a very common motif, even in older polytheism. Even the alleged first Buddha was born of a queen and even he avoided the birth canal in that legend.

This cuts to our species false perceptions, and why you have all these independent stories that look similar. COSMOS hosted by Neil goes into all the common motifs that are independent throughout religion. Images in the stars, hero gods, ect ect ect.

(February 9, 2016 at 8:48 am)Irrational Wrote:

(February 9, 2016 at 8:40 am)Brian37 Wrote: Doesn't matter what that specific location had as far as real laws, the bible claims he caused a ruckus throughout Israel in the alleged characters life as the bible claims. If that had happened, the Romans would have taken notice. The fact they do in the bible, where as in real life nobody said shit during the real time frame, as you said, says to me some writers decided to create a new myth after the fact.

Do we have a record or evidence showing Romans were known to list the names of every criminal they had arrested and crucified? No.

Jesus, if he existed, was just one of many ...

Some one or a group of people decided to create a new hero, so yes, there was a movement, otherwise Christianity would not exist today. BUT NO, the character as depicted in the bible DID NOT exist as a magical super hero. It is a better explanation that the name was common like John is today, and the character was a result of competing with other hero myths. Jesus simply was the name they gave their mythological hero based on a real movement, not a magical movement with a real god, just a deluded person or deluded group of people. But all of the NT is written way after the fact.

(February 9, 2016 at 8:42 am)robvalue Wrote: Did anyone cover how Jesus was meant to be a descendant of David?

That got screwed up since Joseph wasn't the father, so I remember someone saying that in fact Mary was a descendant of David. It's just that they "didn't tend to include women" in the genealogy.

Generally speaking, they did not. However, there are four women mentioned in Matthew's genealogy of Jesus. However, Jesus a descendant of David on BOTH sides of his family.

Jesus was the adopted son of Joseph with all of the legal rights and privileges thereunto appertaining including being a legal heir to the Davidic throne.

Jesus was the biological son of Mary, herself a descendant of David, and therefore, a descendant of David. 

Because of the Levirate requirement for brothers to marry their deceased brothers' widows, Joseph's mother and grandmother both had two husbands. Matthan's son (Jacob) was Joseph's biological father, and Matthat's son (Heli) was Joseph's legal father. Matthew's account traces Jesus' primary (biological) lineage, and Luke's record would follow Jesus' legal lineage.

Here's a helpful diagram:

(February 9, 2016 at 8:48 am)Irrational Wrote:

(February 9, 2016 at 8:40 am)Brian37 Wrote: Doesn't matter what that specific location had as far as real laws, the bible claims he caused a ruckus throughout Israel in the alleged characters life as the bible claims. If that had happened, the Romans would have taken notice. The fact they do in the bible, where as in real life nobody said shit during the real time frame, as you said, says to me some writers decided to create a new myth after the fact.

Do we have a record or evidence showing Romans were known to list the names of every criminal they had arrested and crucified? No.

Jesus, if he existed, was just one of many ...

The Romans did not bother recording his name. Except for Josephus and Tacitus.

His followers obviously did, however, and key aspects of their accounts are corroborated in the writings of these non-Jewish authors.

(February 9, 2016 at 8:56 am)Brian37 Wrote:

(February 9, 2016 at 8:48 am)Irrational Wrote: Do we have a record or evidence showing Romans were known to list the names of every criminal they had arrested and crucified? No.

Jesus, if he existed, was just one of many ...

Some one or a group of people decided to create a new hero, so yes, there was a movement, otherwise Christianity would not exist today. BUT NO, the character as depicted in the bible DID NOT exist as a magical super hero. It is a better explanation that the name was common like John is today, and the character was a result of competing with other hero myths. Jesus simply was the name they gave their mythological hero based on a real movement, not a magical movement with a real god, just a deluded person or deluded group of people. But all of the NT is written way after the fact.

Way after the fact?

How many years after?

(February 9, 2016 at 9:54 am)athrock Wrote:

(February 9, 2016 at 8:42 am)robvalue Wrote: Did anyone cover how Jesus was meant to be a descendant of David?

That got screwed up since Joseph wasn't the father, so I remember someone saying that in fact Mary was a descendant of David. It's just that they "didn't tend to include women" in the genealogy.

Generally speaking, they did not. However, there are four women mentioned in Matthew's genealogy of Jesus. However, Jesus a descendant of David on BOTH sides of his family.

Jesus was the adopted son of Joseph with all of the legal rights and privileges thereunto appertaining including being a legal heir to the Davidic throne.

Jesus was the biological son of Mary, herself a descendant of David, and therefore, a descendant of David. 

Because of the Levirate requirement for brothers to marry their deceased brothers' widows, Joseph's mother and grandmother both had two husbands. Matthan's son (Jacob) was Joseph's biological father, and Matthat's son (Heli) was Joseph's legal father. Matthew's account traces Jesus' primary (biological) lineage, and Luke's record would follow Jesus' legal lineage.

Here's a helpful diagram:

http://skepticsannotatedbible.com/contra/gen_ml.html

But again, the idea of a hero coming from royalty, regardless of first generation, or down the line was a common motif in both polytheism and monotheism. Humans mistook their fortune as coming from a higher power.

AND AGAIN, even if I agreed with you there were no contradictions, scientific method has debunked claims of magic babies with super powers, and nobody survives the death story claimed as the bible intends you to believe.