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.
I don't know whether it helps at all, but what I suggest (and am willing to argue) is that there really has to be an historical Jesus, though it is very odd that Josephus overlooks him, while writing about Pilate and even Bannus and even the baptist it seems.
The consensus opinion of Josephan scholars is that he didn't overlook him. He mentioned him - twice. The majority of of scholars accept the partial authenticity of the reference in Ant. XVIII on stylistic and textual grounds. Then there is the one in Ant. XX, which is almost universally accepted as genuine. That's precisely as much as we'd expect Josephus to say about someone like Jesus.
The consensus opinion of Josephan scholars is that he didn't overlook him. He mentioned him - twice. The majority of of scholars accept the partial authenticity of the reference in Ant. XVIII on stylistic and textual grounds. Then there is the one in Ant. XX, which is almost universally accepted as genuine. That's precisely as much as we'd expect Josephus to say about someone like Jesus.
You said:"an ordinary man whos small band of followers, after he was executed, invented stories about him which eventually evolved into the Gospel stories that we have today."
Many claim this with absolutely no proof. Where is the proof it was invented? What proof does anyone have the events were not real? Opinion is meaningless.
The only people that believe they are real are Bible believing Christians. Those of us that have thought about it and who are not prepared to accept the word of modern-day witch-doctors realise the supernatural parts of the story just don't fit on the grounds of logic, reason and good sense.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pleroo
As I said, I don't think some, or even most of the Jesus narrative is factual.
Fine. So which parts do you think are factual
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pleroo
Why do you think that?
...because I know that he doesn't believe that any historical Jesus was a two-bit, wandering rebel rabbi who shouted his mouth off about the establishment and was executed for it. Dead! That's it. Never to be seen again. He believes that historical Jesus is the exact same character that we have in the Bible, miracles, crucifixion, resurrection included. That's why I say he is disingenuous in giving the impression that he is arguing for the former and not the latter.
Quote:
Originally Posted by pneuma
That is exactly right sis, I have not said one word about miracles, raising the dead, feeding thousands with nothing, bringing dead people back to life and got crucified but resurrected three days later.
No, I agree, you haven't 'said' it but it is what you believe isn't it? If you don't think that then fine but what the hell is your point in telling us that historians believe that there was a historical Jesus but that they don't believe the Gospel BS attached to him? We all know that!
Quote:
I am talking about a historical person named Jesus who some called the Christ who was crucified, that is all.
Then you believe that historical Jesus was a two bit nobody preacher that upset the authorities, was executed for it and was seen no more. Is that correct: or do you believe that historical Jesus was the divine son of Yahweh the Hebrew war god?
Quote:
But what I noticed is that Raff and others cannot accept that, that is all I am talking about. When I read comments like this I understand they are scared to admit there was a historical Jesus because they think I or maybe other Christians would somehow use that against them.
There are many threads on this forum regarding the existence of an historical Jesus in which I have participated and my position has been the same on each of them, it hasn't changed. Let me recap on it for you because you appear to be having some problem grasping what my stance actually is:
I do not personally believe that there was an historical Jesus but if there was, he was nothing more than an itinerant, rebel rabbi preacher with some unacceptable (for the time) ideas. He shouted his mouth off about his ideas and brought down the wrath of the authorities on his head. He was executed as a common criminal and seen no more. I can also accept that he may have attracted a small band of like-minded people who, after his death, told increasingly elaborate and supernatural stories about him. That's it! Do you have it now?
Quote:
However I have pointed out a number of times many scholars believe in a historical Jesus who was called by some the Christ and they do so without believing in all the other stuff.
WE know that. It is a pointless statement... but is that what YOU believe about him.
Quote:
The thing is nothing I have presented should have lead them to believe I was doing something so low as the above quote would suggest.
Do you believe that historical Jesus was a nobody or do you believe he was the son of a god?
Quote:
So once again
I am only concerned with is a historical Jesus and what history states about him. which is these 3 points.
1.there was a historical person named Jesus
2.who some called the Christ
3. who was crucified.
Then we have no argument....but that both thrillo and I pulled you up on it indicated that THAT is not the impression you were giving.
Quote:
Raf what I believe about Jesus (which I have never brought into this topic) and what you believe about Jesus is NOT the issue. It never has been.
OK. I will accept that you are making a point that everyone knew about anyway.
Quote:
The only thing I have done in this thread is to present historical evidence that a man named Jesus who some called the Christ actually lived and was crucified.
Well I wouldn't say that you have done that actually. You have simply put forward some disputed evidence. We know that the TF has been tampered with and as far as I'm concerned, there is every reason to suspect that the James passage was also tampered with: there is consensus that 'He was the Christ' is an interpolation in the TF and I suspect that 'who was called Christ' in the James passage is also an interpolation. It's suspiciously similar. Take those words out of the James passage and the sentence still make perfect sense. Couple that with the fact that the early Church fathers made no mention of either Christ reference, which is highly suspicious as they would no doubt jump on it like a pack of starving wolves as 'evidence' for their Jesus - and consider that Eusebius specifically stated that Josephus did not believe that Jesus was 'Christ' and it all gives food for suspicion.
Quote:
Originally Posted by pneuma
The thing is Trans, Raf does not believe anything written in the gospels, he does not consider them as historical evidence.
I believe that many people and places in the Bible existed and that some events occurred. What I don't believe are the parts about a miracle-doing, divine son of a god who gave his life so that humanity could be 'saved', who came back to life after he was executed and who now resides in a place called heaven.
He'll be back. His ego won't let him rest, it didn't the last time I met him. I think this sums him up perfectly as you'll see if he crosses swords with you....
O’Neill hasn’t impressed me to date; I typically have run across him in the comment threads of atheist blogs, usually snarking around and defending himself against charges of being an abrasive douchebag. He often acts as if he’s spearheading a one-man quest for rationality and can’t understand why everyone else doesn’t listen to him. He also gets frequently carried away with his need to: A) be right all the time, even when he’s wrong; and B) castigate the errors of lesser beings with unusually high levels of bitchiness.
I used to think that Robert Turkel aka J. P. Holding took the biscuit but this guy comes pretty close.
Not very attentive are you? Check the top of this page.
Quote:
His ego won't let him rest, it didn't the last time I met him. I think this sums him up perfectly as you'll see if he crosses swords with you....
You talk a big game for a guy who has admitted he can't actually take on my arguments and so has been forced to resort to trawling the web for quotes other butthurt victims who trash talk me after the fact. The "Carrier caught you lying" thing blowing up in your face was funny enough, but when you were reduced to quoting from fundamentalist Christians about what a poopyhead I am you went beyond comedy.
Try tackling my arguments for a change, little yappy guy.
Not very attentive are you? Check the top of this page.
You talk a big game for a guy who has admitted he can't actually take on my arguments and so has been forced to resort to trawling the web for quotes other butthurt victims who trash talk me after the fact. The "Carrier caught you lying" thing blowing up in your face was funny enough, but when you were reduced to quoting from fundamentalist Christians about what a poopyhead I am you went beyond comedy.
Try tackling my arguments for a change, little yappy guy.
O’Neill hasn’t impressed me to date; I typically have run across him in the comment threads of atheist blogs, usually snarking around and defending himself against charges of being an abrasive douchebag. He often acts as if he’s spearheading a one-man quest for rationality and can’t understand why everyone else doesn’t listen to him. He also gets frequently carried away with his need to: A) be right all the time, even when he’s wrong; and B) castigate the errors of lesser beings with unusually high levels of bitchiness.
Yep! Spot on!
Quote:
You talk a big game for a guy who has admitted he can't actually take on my arguments...
The argument I would give you are the same as I have given others. They are here for all to read. Repeating them would serve no purpose. They have not changed. I am not persuaded by your argument. Live with it.
How could I know? I said that I don't think some or most is factual, and that I don't think it's important for me to believe that it is or else it would be indisputable. Why would I spend time trying to figure out what bits here or there might be historically accurate when I don't think that's important?
How could I know? I said that I don't think some or most is factual, and that I don't think it's important for me to believe that it is or else it would be indisputable. Why would I spend time trying to figure out what bits here or there might be historically accurate when I don't think that's important?
Don't you think that the resurrection is important? I mean...if it isn't true, Christianity falls.
No...but I'm atheist. If you don't want to answer just say so.
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.
