Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
If the Hebrew names are given their English equivalents when the Jewish Bible is translated from Hebrew into English, then why wouldn't the Greek names also be given their English equivalents when the Christian Bible is translated from Greek into English?
The Hebrew names are rarely given their proper English equivalents, ever since the Seuptuagint translation - which was in Greek. The writers of the New Testament used the Septuagint as their primary Bible, their Scripture. So they were already accustomed to Greek equivalents of Hebrew names. Not many people in the Greco-Roman period were fluent in Hebrew, which had slowly given way to Aramaic.
This is why most people (English speakers, anyways) know of Moses (and not of Moshe), Cain (and not Kayin), Rebecca (and not Rivka), Balaam (and not Bil'am), Canaan (and not Kenaan), Israel (and not Yisrael).....
{I prefer the Hebrew equivalents, personally, when reading the Hebrew Bible in translation - but this is a rare find. Everett Fox's translation does an excellent job of transliterating most of the names in the Torah (except for some of a few examples which he kept in their English form, since people are too used to them by now - these include Israel, Canaan, Pharoah and Sinai) and he mentions their importance for understanding the names meaning and function in the narrative. I agree with him on this importance.}
So, this Septuagintal practice has become pretty commonplace. If it were charted easily, the two (Hebrew Bible and New Testament) would look like this - notice I start with the document, not the original names before the document:
HB: Hebrew Manuscript 'Source' Name > Greek Name > English Name
NT: Greek Manuscript 'Source' Name > English Name
I'm not saying the above procedure with the Hebrew Bible is correct - it's just been what has been down for a long time, ever since the LXX, and it answers your question by affirming the exact opposite of what you assume has been happening.
Why start from the document? Because we are trying to translate a document, not rewrite the document and change the original document writer's words.
where did you get the idea that jesus was merely an idea that we created???
i dont know of any bible research articles that support that.
That's because you can't prove a negative. I can't prove Santa Claus doesn't exist, either. You know that already, Huck. I'm surprised at you. I'm serious about that.
On the flip side, there still is not historical proof that Jesus did exist. Yes, Jesuses are named here and there. Yes, he comes up in some writings, such as Josephus', but let me just head you off at the pass there as that has been proven a forgery by the religious and non-religious academia alike.
No. There is no proof that there was a Jesus, stepson of Joseph, son of Mary as Christians think of him.
Since there's no proof, he's a theory. Yes, before you say it, just like many scientific leanings are "theory." No qualms with that second part, myself. No. Jesus is not proven to have existed at all.
That's because you can't prove a negative. I can't prove Santa Claus doesn't exist, either. You know that already, Huck. I'm surprised at you. I'm serious about that.
On the flip side, there still is not historical proof that Jesus did exist. Yes, Jesuses are named here and there. Yes, he comes up in some writings, such as Josephus', but let me just head you off at the pass there as that has been proven a forgery by the religious and non-religious academia alike.
No. There is no proof that there was a Jesus, stepson of Joseph, son of Mary as Christians think of him.
Since there's no proof, he's a theory. Yes, before you say it, just like many scientific leanings are "theory." No qualms with that second part, myself. No. Jesus is not proven to have existed at all.
Scratch Socrates and any other number of people we tentatively accept as historical off of the list as "unproven". I see what you're saying perfectly, but historians must sometimes take leaps of faith (no pun intended ha ha!) with the materials available to them, while always qualifying the conjecture.
That's because you can't prove a negative. I can't prove Santa Claus doesn't exist, either. You know that already, Huck. I'm surprised at you. I'm serious about that.
On the flip side, there still is not historical proof that Jesus did exist. Yes, Jesuses are named here and there. Yes, he comes up in some writings, such as Josephus', but let me just head you off at the pass there as that has been proven a forgery by the religious and non-religious academia alike.
No. There is no proof that there was a Jesus, stepson of Joseph, son of Mary as Christians think of him.
Since there's no proof, he's a theory. Yes, before you say it, just like many scientific leanings are "theory." No qualms with that second part, myself. No. Jesus is not proven to have existed at all.
You dismiss the evidence you don't like. Very good. Very honest.
Scratch Socrates and any other number of people we tentatively accept as historical off of the list as "unproven". I see what you're saying perfectly, but historians must sometimes take leaps of faith (no pun intended ha ha!) with the materials available to them, while always qualifying the conjecture.
Whoppers, we can verify that Socrates lived there are a number of writings about him from other sources. Unlike Jesus the Christ there are no writings about him outside of the bible, or other religious text. Even Philo doesn't mention Jesus in any of his writings. Philo was great at documenting everything the Romans did to the Jews, however, there is no mention of the trial of Jesus, no mention of his crusifixion and I bet you that if the skys darkend and the earth trimbled he would have written about it. Philo lived at the same time as Jesus and in the same area.
Whoppers, we can verify that Socrates lived there are a number of writings about him from other sources. Unlike Jesus the Christ there are no writings about him outside of the bible, or other religious text. Even Philo doesn't mention Jesus in any of his writings. Philo was great at documenting everything the Romans did to the Jews, however, there is no mention of the trial of Jesus, no mention of his crusifixion and I bet you that if the skys darkend and the earth trimbled he would have written about it. Philo lived at the same time as Jesus and in the same area.
"Verify", in relation to his proven existence, is a word that I don't think you'll find being used by a historian who studies Socrates very often. They are even tentative about attaching any ideas attributed to him TO him - after all, we don't have anything he ever wrote. Just second hand accounts, one of them extremely biased for him (Plato), another extremely biased against him (Aristophanes), and another one ....ugh (Xeonophon). So we start seeing some of the same issues at work with the historicity of Jesus.
About the only main difference is the time period of the writings mentioning either: 3 sources for Socrates during his lifetime, while none during Jesus' short lifetime. Not really a fair toss - since Jesus' importance to the Jesus Movement (and history) only became marked after his death, due to various letters of Paul, and then various Gospel accounts, early church fathers, roman administrative letter concerning "christians", etc.
The New Testament - as strange as this sounds - can be counted as more than one source: it is, after all, a library - a collection of letters, gospels, sermons, etc. No matter if they all shared the same goal in writing about Jesus (which they did not, in many ways), this doesn't remove the fact that historically the various writers of the NT works can be treated as separate witnesses - dependent on their connection. Obviously, Matthew and Luke are not independent witnesses in one regard, since they clearly copy Mark - but they are independent witnesses in another regard, in that they each share separate traditions that are not shared among them. Then Q gets brought into the mix beyond these.
I agree with you that there is very little extra-biblical evidence for Jesus in the 1st Century, or during his lifetime (it's a fact)- but the "during his lifetime" part is, as I think I showed, not even an issue. In the end - I don't think you'll find many historians who will deny that a Jesus existed. The honest answer cocerning both is still, however, "we don't know for 100% sure". But to deny his/their existence, knowing the fragility of historical personages when based on the number of witnesses to them (and Socrates, perhaps, was not the only example - or even the best), given the number of biased accounts that accrue to any historical recording of events, and the myriad other problems historians have to wrestle with when determining what is the most probable chain of events - is probably not the best way to go if one wishes to remain objective about it historically. The most probable answer is, given the influence felt by later generations, that Jesus probably existed. It would be improbable if he didn't exist.
I don't think you'll find many historians who will deny that a Jesus existed.
Where you are going wrong old chap is in the wording of your claim. Assuming that we are talking about the itinerant rebel Rabbi Yeshua ben Yosef, it would be fair to say that there are very few historians that are prepared to say that he DID exist - but you may well find many that will accept the possibility that such a person could have existed.
Where you are going wrong old chap is in the wording of your claim. Assuming that we are talking about the itinerant rebel Rabbi Yeshua ben Yosef, it would be fair to say that there are very few historians that are prepared to say that he DID exist - but you may well find many that will accept the possibility that such a person could have existed.
Well - practically anything is possible. That leaves open a pretty wide door for anything, so that doesn't get us too far.
The question is how probable is a claim?
Two ways of lookin' at Jesus' possibile existence. One is fantasy, one is realistic.
Seriously shortened, but a classic of concise, thoughtful insight:
Quote:
Originally Posted by JerZ
I don't think any bunch of people sat around and came up with a Jesus, conspiracy-style. The way I've always seen it is: there was a man who went around preaching a concept that felt new to the people he was teaching it to (we know from history that there were typically a handful of these in Roman-occupied lands at any given time), and just like the game of "telephone," when the story got passed from one person to the next to the next to the next, it kept changing. That happens easily when stories are passed orally, especially if people are excited about their subject matter.
Yep: very well said. Unable to rep you the obviously earned +10 points.... Sorry!
Quote:
Originally Posted by TheoGeek
He is God. No one created him. He took on human flesh to die on the cross as a propitiation for us so that we don't have to face God's wrath.
You, me, everyone has sinned and stored up wrath for us on the day of judgment. You disagree? Read the 10 commandments and tell me you've been perfect your entire life. I haven't.
Ahhhh yes; letting the strictures and limitations set by someone else be my absolute guide, huh?
Well sorry; I'm not being arrogant; I just don't tow someone else's line on what is or is not sin, or better yet; how I atone for it if I feel so inclined. What's more, by my own high ethical standards (yes, we atheists typically have very high ethical standards!), I allow for normal human psychology and failings, including our penchant for lying, greed, mischievous behavior at times, etc.
But I don't then glom onto those as "useful sins", to be traded on when I die, by presenting them to a walking, talking allegory (e.g.: a mythical Jesus).
Sorry, my slate is clean. A ME deity plays no role in my life as I am not a Jew.
Bingo!!. Else, the entire thing is just like a Jewish mother's guilt tripping!
Quote:
Originally Posted by FurbyThug
I don't think he was made up. Maybe some of his actions were, and the philosophy of who he was, but the man himself I beleive did not only exist, and at the very least was a waterfall of wisdom, knowlege and charisma.
Perhaps, but then, so was L. Ron Hubbard, and Adolf Hitler. Stalin? Castro? John F. Kennedy? Yup: all God-like in their day. And "founts" of information and charisma. But none of them, excepting possibly Hitler (), were "the son of a God"...
Quote:
Originally Posted by Huckleberry3911948
where did you get the idea that jesus was merely an idea that we created???
i dont know of any bible research articles that support that.
There have been innumerable research processes and historical searches that support that idea. Why? Well, for one thing, there's just far too many inconsistencies. After all, three wise men came, bearing gifts, to His birth, a supposedly recognized & glorious event. Even had it's own glory star! But then, oddly, no-one bothers to track the infant, the boy, the teen, or even the young man up to his, what was it, about 28th or 30th birthday? What has been said are all later-day add-ons, convenient fictitious novela stuff in response to teh growing commentary about the lack of a story line for literally decades of Jesus' life. Well...sworry: no dedicated prophets, no follow-through, and no credible documentation. This, on The Son of God? You kidding me?
Or was it just too much of a storyline to concoct, absent any real person or miraculous events? That'd be what I'm going with, as a stubborn skeptic.
Of course, if you choose to believe in his Holy Solidness, then that is always your choice. If you choose to accept all the what-if contradictions by just brushing over them, then I'm curious why you don't grant our far more vigorous and peer-reviewed scientific inquiries into the various improbable events of the bible, when we have, in fact, excellent proofs that they were urban myths, and/or hyper-exaggerations of the illiterate goatherd mentality and their enjoyment of a good fireside oral story tale, exaggerated over several decades at minimum.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Theophane
You dismiss the evidence you don't like. Very good. Very honest.
And you, Theo? This from you?? When scientists have provided very convincing and repeatable proofs of, for instance, Evolution or of the age of ancient earth rocks and the Solar System's orbiting bodies, you have come up with some whopper alternative denialist, dismissive and deflective explanations, explanations that simply defy natural common-sense logic and that "plausibility" component so prevalent in most current scientific explanations.
There's nothing quite like denying common sense, huh? "Lead on, McDuff!" (or, more correctly, "Lay On, Macduff!" as they go to their inevitable deaths...)
Nope, I dismiss the purported "evidence" that is clearly fictitious or, in this case, plagiarism.
There are definitely aspects of life -- many, many of them -- that I don't like but that I don't "dismiss" because they obviously exist, whether I "like" that fact or not.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Two ways of lookin' at Jesus' possibile existence. One is fantasy, one is realistic.
), were "the son of a God"...
