Did Jesus exist?

[robvalue]

"God" on a diagram. That's just funny in itself.

[GrandizerII]

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:

This diagram conveniently doesn't show the mismatch in number of generations per Matthew and Luke.

[GrandizerII]

"God" on a diagram. That's just funny in itself.

So is "Panther".

[Brian37]

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?

AGAIN, you use this as a distraction.

The NT was written after the fact. PERIOD.

And again, even if the NT had been written during the alleged time the bible claims, it still DOES NOT make magic babies real, and nobody survives death as the death myth in the book would intend you to believe. 

We can prove George Washington existed, but the "I cannot tell a lie" legend about the cherry tree is a MYTH. And most certainly nobody I would call sane would claim the real person George Washington was a prophet , or magic man who could fart a modern full sized Lamborghini out of his butt.

Jesus was a name given to a character, based on a real movement, but the name to that character was slapped on a character, after the fact. 

Seriously, this is the same flawed logic that Buddhists use to avoid the fact that Buddhism is nothing more than a spin off of Hinduism. There were Canaanites who got tired of the old polytheism, so they took Yahweh and turned him into their one monotheistic god. In turn later Hebrews decided they wanted their god to come and save them back then, so they created Jesus the Jew as their new religion's hero. 

There would be no point what so ever to keep the old book if you didn't intend on competing with the old ways. 

Religion competes like any similar products compete. Coke creates a cherry soda, Pepsi looks at that and says, "We got to get in on that", so they mimic Coke's product, take the flavor, tweak it to taste slightly different, change the color of the can, and give it a new name.

ANY religion claiming to be original is like claiming "Coke is the only real beverage because it's can is red", missing the fact that water is much older.

Religion does not start in a vacuum. Never has, and never will.

[robvalue]

"God" on a diagram. That's just funny in itself.

So is "Panther".

Lol, oh yeah! Did I miss a bible story? What the fuck is a panther doing on the family tree?

[GrandizerII]

So is "Panther".

Lol, oh yeah! Did I miss a bible story? What the fuck is a panther doing on the family tree?

Pink Panther maybe?

Perhaps athrock unknowingly copied this from a joke site ...

[Pat Mustard]

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.

Well I was writing that last post as an example of another nail in the Jesus historicity coffin. When your holy book writers don't even know wher the place your messiah was born was de iure Roman or not, that's a huge hole in any historicity claim.

[robvalue]

Lol yeah! Mary's grandfather was the Pink Panther!

It all makes sense now. Sign me up.

[The Grand Nudger]

Let me get this straight, as an example in or lesson of historicity we are treated to a geneology that can be no more specific than "many generations" in it's clear pandering to the notion of the divine right of judaic kings......? Looks, to me, like those boys tried to cover every base and exposed their "creativity" in the process. I guess that's why the "historical jesus" never includes this establishment myth, huh?

[Aegon]

32 pages later and people still don't understand what constitutes evidence in historiography...

Oh sorry, I was supposed to be done with this thread. I'll see my way back out.

*shrug*  I'm an historian by education and training (if not by profession).  

I'm concerned with the evidence present in history, not historiography.

Boru

The two go hand in hand, no? 

Also, what did you study / what are your areas of interest? (don't mean that in a challenging way, I'm genuinely curious)