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.
For what it's worth, I think that Paul was aware of a real Jesus (executed by Pilate, as Tacitus says) but because this Jesus didn't suit him (which is why-as he says - he opposed the followers of Jesus originally) he began the process of overlaying the historical Jesus with a mythical Jesus right away. It's why i see the quarrel between 'Real Jesus' artists and 'Mythicists' as pointless. Yes, I think there was a real Jesus and yes, the Jesus in the Gospels is very much mythical.
There are some puzzling and problematical aspects The crucifixion cannot be doubted (or that's my story, and I'm sticking to it) as 'the cross' is a stumbling-block to him as well as others. Why create problems for yourself?(1) But the 'betrayal', the 'last supper' and the David according to the Flesh seem to be confirmation of the gospel story, but they may not be. rather the Gospel -story has built on those remarks. The 'betrayal' is 'handing Over' by God to the 'lords of the world (Romans) for God's own purpose.
I can't be sure but i suspect that the Eucharist -words are Paul's own words to have Jesus explaining the sacrifice he was about to make- the centrepiece of Paul's 'Gospel'.
And, while Jesus may have been able to prove davidic descent, I rather doubt it and his Davidic line was rather 'Through the order of Melchizedek' which is to say, because god said so, not through lineage or even through adoption. oddly the gospels seem to know this as they often use the act of healing as a validation of the 'son of David' claim.
I won't go into the aspect of having to validate the messianic lineage right before it was put to the test in the Temple as it is a whole Other scenario, but if that whole healing of Blind bar-Timaeus hadn't been set up to validate the 'Son of David' title, it couldn't look more like it, if it had been.
(1) I've generally found the arguments of the opponents of the 'Principle of embarrassment' dismissive and special -pleading, because they do not want any kind of historical Jesus. It ALL has to be invented. For me, I don't mind a real Jesus.
Of course I did not answer a question about something not in Hebrews. What the later fictional accounts say have nothing to do with what the earlier writers of Hebrews wrote.
So the once only sacrifice means more than once.
Once again mis stating what was said. The Hebrews author gave a spiritual interpretation and comparison of a physical event.
Once again you simply ignore any part of your citations that indicate that the author considered Jesus to have been a real person and favor your enthusiasm, but have in no way shown that your enthusiasm is AS reasonable as a historical Jesus, let alone MORE reasonable.
I have to wonder if anyone else really cares about your fantasies. Maybe someone will let me know.
I will take your word for it. I'm only 61, so I wasn't there when they were around.
But I was there, and I can assure you that Eve was a body, and Adam was a spirit, and is a part of that body, he is in the left eye, and he doesn't think anyone can replace him cause nobody knows he's there.
Once again mis stating what was said. The Hebrews author gave a spiritual interpretation and comparison of a physical event.
No, I am using what the author said. One thing they do not say is they are giving a spiritual interpretation and comparison of a physical event. That is you reading the gospels back into Hebrews.
Quote:
Originally Posted by nateswift
Once again you simply ignore any part of your citations that indicate that the author considered Jesus to have been a real person ...
Only in two places that I can think of, one where Jesus comes to earth, the universe or in to the realm of human influence (so not really a great help); and somewhere else where they do not tell us where they found their information. I forget the passage, but if it is again scripture, then it is not historical.
Where as it is you who ignores the many places where Jesus is only defined through OT passages, and where he is sacrificed once in heaven.
Quote:
Originally Posted by nateswift
... and favor your enthusiasm, but have in no way shown that your enthusiasm is AS reasonable as a historical Jesus, let alone MORE reasonable.
To you, no.
Quote:
Originally Posted by nateswift
I have to wonder if anyone else really cares about your fantasies. Maybe someone will let me know.
I have to wonder if anyone else really cares about your fantasies about a man walking on water. Where as they can always read Hebrews for themselves.
No, I am using what the author said. One thing they do not say is they are giving a spiritual interpretation and comparison of a physical event. That is you reading the gospels back into Hebrews.
Only in two places that I can think of, one where Jesus comes to earth, the universe or in to the realm of human influence (so not really a great help); and somewhere else where they do not tell us where they found their information. I forget the passage, but if it is again scripture, then it is not historical.
Where as it is you who ignores the many places where Jesus is only defined through OT passages, and where he is sacrificed once in heaven.
To you, no.
I have to wonder if anyone else really cares about your fantasies about a man walking on water. Where as they can always read Hebrews for themselves.
Yet another misrepresentation: I don’t endorse legendary elements accrued in the narrative, but I also don’t make up fantasy about historical processes
Most historians don't consider the Gospels to be fiction per se.
'Most' historians do consider all the magic and miracles as fiction.
Quote:
Academic historians of the ancient world do not work from dogmatic religious presuppositions, yet most do not believe Jesus was a fictional character.
They don't believe that gospeljesus existed.
Quote:
Originally Posted by hd4me
So Jesus "supposedly" was a real person?
Yes, but not the Jesus you want to believe existed. Historians are talking about a different 'Jesus'.
Quote:
Yet here we are 2000 years later talking about a supposedly real person
So? We talk about Brahma today too. Does that make Brahma real?
Quote:
Do you think people would risk horrible deaths for a myth?
We know they would. We see it many times these days with Muslim martyrs. We saw it in the past too. Do you think that members of the Heaven's Gate sect would have died horrible deaths (including killing their own children) for a myth? Do you think that the followers of Jim Jones would have died for a myth (including killing their own children)?
It's absolutely astounding how many time that you personally have brought up this 'They wouldn't have died for a myth' tripe and no matter how many times we point out to you that people have, do and will die for what isn't true, you still drag it up and present it again as if you have us stumped with something that we can't debunk.
So please tell us. If people wouldn't die for myths, do you accept that Jim Jones was the messiah returned? Do you accept that Jesus really was waiting for the members of the Heaven's gate sect in a spaceship? Do you accept that the Japanese Emperor really was a god? After all, many thousands of Japanese people dies horrible deaths for just that belief.
If you don't think Christians would die for a myth, why the hell do you think others would?
Quote:
"Mockery of every sort was added to their deaths. Covered with the skins of beasts, they were torn by dogs and perished, or were nailed to crosses, or were doomed to the flames and burnt, to serve as a nightly illumination, when daylight had expired."-Tacitus
...but it's nothing to do with 'dying for myth' is it. Of course they wouldn't die for a myth, nobody would die for something that they KNEW was not true but that wasn't the case was it. They died BELIEVING it was all true, just like Muslim martyrs do.
Quote:
From the writings of Tacitus we learn three things:
By the first century a sizable Christian population could be found in Rome
No. Until the 4th century when Constantine (from the constant nagging of his mother) made Christianity legal and later Theodosius I made it the state religion, Christianity was an obscure blood sect.
Quote:
A movement that grew from a handful of followers under varying levels of persecution to the point that eventually Romans figured if you can't beat them (literally to death), join them
Numbers don't make something is true, it makes it popular.
Quote:
What archaeological evidence are you expecting to find?
The same as we find for other characters of history. Perhaps more so for someone that allegedly brought dead people back to life, walked on water and performed miracles the like of which had not been seen before or since.
Quote:
Jesus was a Jew and would be found in the various temples and using the various scrolls that Jews would use. There's archaeological evidence for that.
Really? Care to produce it?
Quote:
Originally Posted by phetaroi
What I think would be interesting to witness would be if tomorrow we found out conclusively that Jesus was an African. My oh my.
It's sort of like the old joke about the cardinal who runs into the Pope's office and says to the Pope, "I have good news and bad news". The Pope asks, "What's the good news?" The cardinal says, "It's been confirmed. Jesus is back!" The Pope says, "That's glorious news. What's the bad news?" The cardinal responds, "He's in Salt Lake City".
It's interesting how Jesus was supposedly a real person in the Galilee are who had 1,000s of eye witnesses and yet there is practically no archeological evidence of the religion existing in that region of eminating from it. The Gospels were written in Greek and the early Christian church blomossomed out of Rome.
Christian claims were never widely accepted among the Jews. They still aren't. That's because many of the concepts common to Christianity are not of Jewish origin. The concept of an afterlife and heaven and hell are examples. These are concepts that were commonly held by non Jewish people, however. Christian concepts found much more fertile ground among the non Jews in places like Rome.
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.
