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.
PLEASE someone show me anywhere in this whole debate I have brought up the FAITH ISSUE.
You bring it up every time you you claim that historical Jesus is the Jesus of the gospels.
Please try and answer honestly. Chose one.
1. Historical Jesus was nothing more than an itinerant, rebel rabbi preacher that overstepped the mark and was executed by the Romans and the description of this man in the gospels is false.
2. Historical Jesus was the very same man depicted in the gospels. He was the divine son of Yahweh and when he was executed he resurrected.
Yes I do have to (pending Raffs corrcting me) assume that James and Jesus had to be named and if it had been anything but the Historical Jesus, Orige would nave said so. I believe I also said that it could also have been something other than what we now have (though I think it less likely to do in Origen's time) that was less Christian in tone than what we now have. It is a bit less likely buy a pre Origen editing cannot be ruled out, but I have to go with authentic here.
Raffs and I may get into a wurzelfight over a living vs. a mythical Jesus.
Now I must break off and bake -off.
No, Raf won't pick a fight with you over a historical Jesus, even though you have been saying the same things I have. the only reason he has picked one with me is because I am a christian.
That should tell you something about the person we are dealing with.
He is really not fighting against a historical Jesus, he is fighting against what the Christian faith holds concerning a historical Jesus (remember Raf is the one who keeps bring FAITH into the debate). In other words Raf is fighting against the christian faith, historical records be damned.
So the issue with Raf is what will the Christian do with the evidence of a historical Jesus( hence his faith issues), not with whether there was a historical Jesus or not. Thus his bias is not allowing him to see clearly.
No o'foolish sausage. There is no 'base' there at all...other than they were both men. When we say that a film is based on a true story it means that the story portrayed is basically true but with a bit of tweaking to spice the story up a bit for entertainment purposes. The divine, miracle working, resurrecting man-god of the gospels bears absolutely no resemblance to the itinerant rebel preacher that is referred to as 'historical Jesus'. Get over it man. You just aren't going to be able to piggy-back you man-god in on the back of any historical Jesus that may have existed.
OK. So let me get this right. You are saying that Christianity is based on a wandering Jewish preacher that had no supernatural powers, was not divine and did not resurrect from the dead after being executed and that, as such, Christianity is a lie. Is that correct?
Quote:
Originally Posted by MysticPhD
Give it a rest, Rafe. The historical facts have nothing to do with the BELIEFS ABOUT the historical figure. You seem unable to separate them and want to eliminate even the historical basis by wedding it to what you consider the myths ABOUT Him. The probability of the beliefs being true or not is moot. But they should not automatically be called lies.
You may be tight in distinguishing Beliefs from the historical figre. But then, many Christians appear to have considerable trouble doing the same and that's really what the thread is about.
if Christianity admitted that the Chjristian beliefs about Jesus are not a lot to do with a historical Jesus,the matter could be left to historians rather than Christian apologists getting involved and we'd likely have no more posting than we get on the paganism forum.
HUH. come on Trans, who is it that cannot distinguish belief from the historical figure? I will give you one guess.
Hint: he cannot separate saint Nickolas from Santa clause
That you make so much out of so little is a sign of desperation. I edit my posts; always have done; always will. Live with it.
Well no I didn't actually. I asked a question not made a statement. ..
"So why doesn't he cite his sources? That's what competent historians such as Josephus do isn't it?"
That you read such a thing into it doesn't surprise me at all. Look. Give it up. Transponder thinks there was an historical Jesus. I do not - although I have no problem if there was (I even told you that I would accept an historical Jesus in order to move the discussion on). Where Trans and I agree 100% is that he was not the Jesus of the gospels. Your argument is that he was. Now if you want to try to piggy-back gospel Jesus into the debate on the back of any historical Jesus then have at it. Let's hear what you have to say ...but MOVE ON!
...but before you do. I'd love to hear what you have to say regarding post 496
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rafius
OK. So let me get this right. You are saying that Christianity is based on a wandering Jewish preacher that had no supernatural powers, was not divine and did not resurrect from the dead after being executed and that, as such, Christianity is a lie. Is that correct?
Quote:
Originally Posted by MysticPhD
Give it a rest, Rafe. The historical facts have nothing to do with the BELIEFS ABOUT the historical figure. You seem unable to separate them and want to eliminate even the historical basis by wedding it to what you consider the myths ABOUT Him. The probability of the beliefs being true or not is moot. But they should not automatically be called lies.
LOL, go back and read it, you went on a 3 post rant about it. who made it an issue.
And now Caesar, upon hearing the death of Festus, sent Albinus into Judea, as procurator. But the king deprived Joseph of the high priesthood, and bestowed the succession to that dignity on the son of Ananus, who was also himself called Ananus. Now the report goes that this eldest Ananus proved a most fortunate man; for he had five sons who had all performed the office of a high priest to God, and who had himself enjoyed that dignity a long time formerly, which had never happened to any other of our high priests. But this younger Ananus, who, as we have told you already, took the high priesthood, was a bold man in his temper, and very insolent; he was also of the sect of the Sadducees, who are very rigid in judging offenders, above all the rest of the Jews, as we have already observed; when, therefore, Ananus was of this disposition, he thought he had now a proper opportunity. Festus was now dead, and Albinus was but upon the road; so he assembled the sanhedrin of judges, and brought before them the brother of Jesus, who was called Christ, whose name was James, and some others; and when he had formed an accusation against them as breakers of the law, he delivered them to be stoned: but as for those who seemed the most equitable of the citizens, and such as were the most uneasy at the breach of the laws, they disliked what was done; they also sent to the king, desiring him to send to Ananus that he should act so no more, for that what he had already done was not to be justified; nay, some of them went also to meet Albinus, as he was upon his journey from Alexandria, and informed him that it was not lawful for Ananus to assemble a sanhedrin without his consent. Whereupon Albinus complied with what they said, and wrote in anger to Ananus, and threatened that he would bring him to punishment for what he had done; on which king Agrippa took the high priesthood from him, when he had ruled but three months, and made Jesus, the son of Damneus, high priest.
Caesar is mentioned yet no mention of him being a roman.
Festus is mentioned yet no mention of him being a roman
etc.
So why no description of them being roman and their place in the roman hierarchy? Could it be because everyone knew it?
But there is mention of "Caesar" being a general, or consul or Emperors where the "Caesars" were. Jesus is not called a Jew very often, if at all...just Pilate's remark to him 'Your own people'. And if everyone knew Jesus was the Christ (or messiah) then, according to your reasoning, Josephus wouldn't have needed to put that title in, just the identification of James and Jesus by patronym (say, Damneus) and so, according to your argument, it has to have been edited by a Christian (not Eusebius) before Origen saw it.
So despite my inclination to accept it as authentic Josephus, you argument persuades me that it can't be. Nice going You want to think that one through again?
That's because THAT is what you are arguing for. You keep repeating it over and over again. You are insisting that there was a historical Jesus and that THAT historical Jesus is the one that is portrayed in the gospels. Well he isn't. The historical Jesus doesn't resemble the gospel Jesus in any way, shape, or form. They are polar opposites. One is a ragged-arsed rebel preacher and the other is the divine son of a god. Why can't you see that there is no comparison whatsoever? If you really are arguing that the historical Jesus really was just an itinerant rebel preacher then you will have to concede that if THAT person is the Jesus depicted in the gospels then the gospels are lying.
No, all I am arguing for is a historical Jesus who was called the Christ and who was crucified.
What you or the Christian do with that historical evidence is UP TO THEM. Your the one insisting what the Christian does with the historical evidence is UP TO YOU.
You bring it up every time you you claim that historical Jesus is the Jesus of the gospels.
Please try and answer honestly. Chose one.
1. Historical Jesus was nothing more than an itinerant, rebel rabbi preacher that overstepped the mark and was executed by the Romans and the description of this man in the gospels is false.
2. Historical Jesus was the very same man depicted in the gospels. He was the divine son of Yahweh and when he was executed he resurrected.
But there is mention of "Caesar" being a general, or consul or Emperors where the "Caesars" were. Jesus is not called a Jew very often, if at all...just Pilate's remark to him 'Your own people'. And if everyone knew Jesus was the Christ (or messiah) then, according to your reasoning, Josephus wouldn't have needed to put that title in, just the identification of James and Jesus by patronym (say, Damneus) and so, according to your argument, it has to have been edited by a Christian (not Eusebius) before Origen saw it.
So despite my inclination to accept it as authentic Josephus, you argument persuades me that it can't be. Nice going You want to think that one through again?
Well if I am speaking of 2 or 3 different people with the same name, I would point out who I was speaking about.
That is all Josephus does here. Everyone knew James brother was Jesus and that some called Jesus, Christ.
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.
. the only reason he has picked one with me is because I am a christian.
No, all I am arguing for is a historical Jesus who was called the Christ and who was crucified. 
