No historical Jesus

[Indeependent]

You realize that there are over a hundred scholars that lived t the supposed time of Jesus exsistance and thy are completely silent about him further if one really reads what Paul wrote in the new testament (since he wrote so much of it) he also does not mention many of the things that were attributed to Jesus meaning he was unaware of them...If I was a betting man I would say the whole thing is a con and in a court of law much of what is taught and believed would be known as heresay which would be thrown out of court for lack of evidence... But hey I know it is stated that Jesus took a big leap between mountain peaks and all it takes is someone to takes as big a leap as he was supposed to do to believe what is claimed would it not...

Tacitus - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Tacitus wrote about Jesus crucifixion as a roman historian in the century Jesus lived.

Again... During the days of Jesus, the Christian movement was not popular with the Roman Empire. If there are any written accounts of Jesus during that time, they would have been very unflattering. In fact, Tacitus writes of Jesus in a very unflattering way.

Then you have the recorded history of all his disciples who died horrible deaths for not disavowing Jesus. Why would they give their life for someone who did not exist? I think I would fess up if faced with a den of hungry lions, don't you?

Holy shit! In THE CENTURY! Who needs Tacitus; we have Paul writing most of TNT in the century Jesus lived!
Your ability to lose dot connections between postings is telling.
You hate to lose...

I guess you missed it but the context was to present someone outside the influence of Christian religion to attest that Jesus existed. Why would Tacitus write about Jesus being crucified if Jesus didn't exist? He was no fan of Jesus, he called him some terrible names. He wasn't a Christian, he was secular.

From the Wikipedia link I see he was a Roman Senator.
He was obviously a great lover of the anti-slavery Jews as most of the Roman Senators were.
And I'm really wowed by the fact that "Jesus" is so important to the career of Tacitus that the word "Jesus" is mentioned in microscopic footnote [1].
I even went to Amazon http://www.amazon.com/Jesus-Outside-New-Testament-Introduction/dp/0802843689&tag=ff0d01-20
Author "Robert Van Voorst pursued doctoral study in religion at Union Theological Seminary in New York City while he served as a minister in the Reformed Church in America."

I need elaborate no further.

I'm telling ya...I LOVE the Internet!
Keep trying

LMAO... Jesus christ... I didn't say Tacitus seminal work was about Jesus! ...Is THAT what you now want? A non-Christian who spent his whole life writing about Jesus who he personally met? I mean... how many more obstacles do you need to construct to avoid objectively evaluating the evidence? Maybe we can find some Roman who worshiped Lucifer and he wrote about Jesus all his life?

Yeah, he did become a Roman senator later in life. He was a famous historian. People like him got to become senators. He wasn't sympathetic toward Christians in his writings of Jesus, he was very unkind.

And if you are going to pick apart the experts on the basis of ...oops, this guy's got religious beliefs... sorry! Well, you won't get very far because about 85% of humanity has some kind of religious belief. Most people who devote their lives to the research of Jesus and the Bible are PROBABLY going to be religious. Just a guess... don't know what the stats are for Atheist Theologians and Biblical Historians?

It just occurred to me that you made a remarkable statement based on TNTs making the best selling book of all time list.
If that proves historical Jesus, it also proves historical Adam & Eve and everybody else mentioned in TJS!
You may just have something there!

 

[Boss]

BTW, there were no Christians until at least 100 years after 30AD.

I don't think this is correct.

 

[Indeependent]

BTW, there were no Christians until at least 100 years after 30AD.

I don't think this is correct.

I guess it depends on how "Christian" is defined.
Peter was Kosher, kept Shabbos and spoke Hebrew his entire life, but was obviously a follower of Yeshua.
It COULD possibly be that anyone who was hoping Yeshua would be resurrected and bring the 3rd Temple down from Heaven was considered a follower of what they referred to as Moshiach (One worthy of being anointed to serve in the Temple).
A big problem was that Yeshua was not a descendant of Aharon (A Kohen...of Priestly lineage).
But almost all of his followers were illiterate and were not aware of that condition.
The Romans had placed a ban on Torah study and there was no public education for the non-elite.

I am losing my mind on this Tacitus reference insofar as reading one web site after another.
Half pro-Tacitus, Half anti-Tacitus.

 

[Boss]

Tacitus - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Tacitus wrote about Jesus crucifixion as a roman historian in the century Jesus lived.

Again... During the days of Jesus, the Christian movement was not popular with the Roman Empire. If there are any written accounts of Jesus during that time, they would have been very unflattering. In fact, Tacitus writes of Jesus in a very unflattering way.

Then you have the recorded history of all his disciples who died horrible deaths for not disavowing Jesus. Why would they give their life for someone who did not exist? I think I would fess up if faced with a den of hungry lions, don't you?

Holy shit! In THE CENTURY! Who needs Tacitus; we have Paul writing most of TNT in the century Jesus lived!
Your ability to lose dot connections between postings is telling.
You hate to lose...

I guess you missed it but the context was to present someone outside the influence of Christian religion to attest that Jesus existed. Why would Tacitus write about Jesus being crucified if Jesus didn't exist? He was no fan of Jesus, he called him some terrible names. He wasn't a Christian, he was secular.

From the Wikipedia link I see he was a Roman Senator.
He was obviously a great lover of the anti-slavery Jews as most of the Roman Senators were.
And I'm really wowed by the fact that "Jesus" is so important to the career of Tacitus that the word "Jesus" is mentioned in microscopic footnote [1].
I even went to Amazon http://www.amazon.com/Jesus-Outside-New-Testament-Introduction/dp/0802843689&tag=ff0d01-20
Author "Robert Van Voorst pursued doctoral study in religion at Union Theological Seminary in New York City while he served as a minister in the Reformed Church in America."

I need elaborate no further.

I'm telling ya...I LOVE the Internet!
Keep trying

LMAO... Jesus christ... I didn't say Tacitus seminal work was about Jesus! ...Is THAT what you now want? A non-Christian who spent his whole life writing about Jesus who he personally met? I mean... how many more obstacles do you need to construct to avoid objectively evaluating the evidence? Maybe we can find some Roman who worshiped Lucifer and he wrote about Jesus all his life?

Yeah, he did become a Roman senator later in life. He was a famous historian. People like him got to become senators. He wasn't sympathetic toward Christians in his writings of Jesus, he was very unkind.

And if you are going to pick apart the experts on the basis of ...oops, this guy's got religious beliefs... sorry! Well, you won't get very far because about 85% of humanity has some kind of religious belief. Most people who devote their lives to the research of Jesus and the Bible are PROBABLY going to be religious. Just a guess... don't know what the stats are for Atheist Theologians and Biblical Historians?

It just occurred to me that you made a remarkable statement based on TNTs making the best selling book of all time list.
If that proves historical Jesus, it also proves historical Adam & Eve and everybody else mentioned in TJS!
You may just have something there!

It proves that Christians like Jesus believed in a story of creation as told by Noah. Adam and Eve are more than likely allegorical figures in a fable that was told to recount the rebirth of humanity in God's image. But it's not a part of TNT.

Again, my comment was that the Gospels of Jesus Christ are the most influential works in history of humanity. I stand by that comment. If you want to believe the central figure was a non-existent creation or composite... that's your business. I don't share your belief and I don't think you made your case. I think the evidence is overwhelming that Jesus existed.

 

[Indeependent]

Holy shit! In THE CENTURY! Who needs Tacitus; we have Paul writing most of TNT in the century Jesus lived!
Your ability to lose dot connections between postings is telling.
You hate to lose...

I guess you missed it but the context was to present someone outside the influence of Christian religion to attest that Jesus existed. Why would Tacitus write about Jesus being crucified if Jesus didn't exist? He was no fan of Jesus, he called him some terrible names. He wasn't a Christian, he was secular.

From the Wikipedia link I see he was a Roman Senator.
He was obviously a great lover of the anti-slavery Jews as most of the Roman Senators were.
And I'm really wowed by the fact that "Jesus" is so important to the career of Tacitus that the word "Jesus" is mentioned in microscopic footnote [1].
I even went to Amazon http://www.amazon.com/Jesus-Outside-New-Testament-Introduction/dp/0802843689&tag=ff0d01-20
Author "Robert Van Voorst pursued doctoral study in religion at Union Theological Seminary in New York City while he served as a minister in the Reformed Church in America."

I need elaborate no further.

I'm telling ya...I LOVE the Internet!
Keep trying

LMAO... Jesus christ... I didn't say Tacitus seminal work was about Jesus! ...Is THAT what you now want? A non-Christian who spent his whole life writing about Jesus who he personally met? I mean... how many more obstacles do you need to construct to avoid objectively evaluating the evidence? Maybe we can find some Roman who worshiped Lucifer and he wrote about Jesus all his life?

Yeah, he did become a Roman senator later in life. He was a famous historian. People like him got to become senators. He wasn't sympathetic toward Christians in his writings of Jesus, he was very unkind.

And if you are going to pick apart the experts on the basis of ...oops, this guy's got religious beliefs... sorry! Well, you won't get very far because about 85% of humanity has some kind of religious belief. Most people who devote their lives to the research of Jesus and the Bible are PROBABLY going to be religious. Just a guess... don't know what the stats are for Atheist Theologians and Biblical Historians?

It just occurred to me that you made a remarkable statement based on TNTs making the best selling book of all time list.
If that proves historical Jesus, it also proves historical Adam & Eve and everybody else mentioned in TJS!
You may just have something there!

It proves that Christians like Jesus believed in a story of creation as told by Noah. Adam and Eve are more than likely allegorical figures in a fable that was told to recount the rebirth of humanity in God's image. But it's not a part of TNT.

Again, my comment was that the Gospels of Jesus Christ are the most influential works in history of humanity. I stand by that comment. If you want to believe the central figure was a non-existent creation or composite... that's your business. I don't share your belief and I don't think you made your case. I think the evidence is overwhelming that Jesus existed.

Excellent!
It wouldn't make a difference to me if he did exist.
It's unfortunate that he didn't have any followers that were literate enough to write anything contemporary as it would have provided a clearer picture of the Class Warfare that was occurring at the time.
The Talmudic Tractate Yoma, which discusses the day of Yom Kippur, is very critical of the goings on within the Temple at the time.

 

[irosie91]

Here are some Roman references to Jesus.

Pliny the Younger
Pliny was the governor of the Roman province of Bithynia, in present-day Turkey. In about 112 AD, he wrote (in Epistles X.96) to the emperor Trajan, asking for advice on how to deal with the Christians in his province, because he was executing so many of them. Pliny wrote:

'They were in the habit of meeting before dawn on a fixed day. They would recite in alternate verse a hymn to Christ as to a God, and would bind themselves by a solemn oath, not to do any criminal act, but rather that they would not commit any fraud, theft or adultery, nor betray any trust nor refuse to restore a deposit on demand. This done, they would disperse, and then they would meet again later to eat together (but the food was quite ordinary and harmless.)

From the annals of the Roman historian Tacitus. Annal 15:44

15.44.2. But, despite kindly influence, despite the leader's generous handouts, despite appeasing the gods, the scandal did not subside, rather the blaze came to be believed to be an official act. So, in order to quash the rumour, Nero blamed it on, and applied the cruellest punishments to, those sinners, whom ordinary people call Christians, hating them for their shameful behaviour.
15.44.3. The originator of this name, Christ, was sentenced to torture by Procurator Pontius Pilate, during the reign of Tiberius, but although checked for a moment, the deadly cult erupted again, not just in Judaea, the source of its evil, but even in Rome, where all the sins and scandals of the world gather and are glorified.

The following is the text from the works of Josephus that describes Jesus and mentions the crucifixion.
It is considered to be a falsification inserted by the early Christians. Obviously a hand written text could be fixed by scribes at any time in the approximately 1500 years the manuscript existed before printing was invented.
But that is no reason not to give it consideration.

The following text is from Flavius Josephus (c37-100AD)
The Antiquities of the Jews. Book 18.3.3

Now there was about this time, Jesus, a wise man, if it be lawful to call him a man, for he was a doer of wonderful works,- a teacher of such men as receive the truth with pleasure. He drew over to him both many of the Jews, and many of the Gentiles. He was the Christ; and when Pilate, at the suggestion of the principle men among us, had condemned him to the cross, those that loved him at the first did not forsake him, for he appeared to them alive again on the third day, as the divine prophets had foretold these and ten thousand other wonderful things concerning him; and the tribe of Christians, so named from him, are not extinct at this day.

^^^^
scholars agree that the above paragraph is an insertion -----that was placed
in the books of Jesephus after the books came under the custody of the roman pope. There is no prophecy about a messiah ---COMING BACK TO LIFE
"on the third day"

 

[BreezeWood]

.
there is no difference in believing Jesus as the physical son of God or the jews believing they are the chosen people of the Almighty, both are scripturally inaccurate and Idolatrous .

.

 

[HaShev]

You realize that there are over a hundred scholars that lived t the supposed time of Jesus exsistance and thy are completely silent about him further if one really reads what Paul wrote in the new testament (since he wrote so much of it) he also does not mention many of the things that were attributed to Jesus meaning he was unaware of them...If I was a betting man I would say the whole thing is a con and in a court of law much of what is taught and believed would be known as heresay which would be thrown out of court for lack of evidence... But hey I know it is stated that Jesus took a big leap between mountain peaks and all it takes is someone to takes as big a leap as he was supposed to do to believe what is claimed would it not...

Tacitus - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Tacitus wrote about Jesus crucifixion as a roman historian in the century Jesus lived.

Again... During the days of Jesus, the Christian movement was not popular with the Roman Empire. If there are any written accounts of Jesus during that time, they would have been very unflattering. In fact, Tacitus writes of Jesus in a very unflattering way.

Then you have the recorded history of all his disciples who died horrible deaths for not disavowing Jesus. Why would they give their life for someone who did not exist? I think I would fess up if faced with a den of hungry lions, don't you?

Holy shit! In THE CENTURY! Who needs Tacitus; we have Paul writing most of TNT in the century Jesus lived!
Your ability to lose dot connections between postings is telling.
You hate to lose...

I guess you missed it but the context was to present someone outside the influence of Christian religion to attest that Jesus existed. Why would Tacitus write about Jesus being crucified if Jesus didn't exist? He was no fan of Jesus, he called him some terrible names. He wasn't a Christian, he was secular.

Actually yeah even the persona was tampered, like many mythologies they are images created sometimes based on real people or the familiar.
When converging all cultures they took stories and personas from all their mythical figures like Baal, his father Dagon the fishman god, Mithra, Krishna called Christos, Esus the tri god, Zeus, etc,.,
To get the revolting Jews to submit they made the image as a messianic figure thus combined all the christs into one new image and name, which is why the character has:
2 types of punished deaths, 2 home towns,
2 professions, 2 ages the figure lasted to etc.
This occurs when converging and mixing stories and figures and the reason they pushed his birth year back to fit characters in it's stories and yet still goofed as Lysanias died in 35bc. and census was 7bc.

Rome was famous for this method of attack and used it to swallow up other cultures.
They would slay the people then tell them their god no longer favored them as seen by their defeat, so from inside pretending they were now the real loyalidts of that god they would erect a temple to this god in Rome to be the new authority of the subverted peoples god thus swallowing up the god and the followers.
They did this to the Veeins with godess Juno then to Israel whereby Christians say they are the new Israel and authority and Rome erected the imposter temple in Rome.
Swallow up the revolts the prople and their God and many messiah figures now under their total control and destroying all through that tactic.

 

[HaShev]

To close this discussion (final nail).
My transgendered Jesus post showed that Christians deny their own NT as a source, and they either admit Jesus was a woman through the bones claimed as him being of a woman or they have to admit the church is continually caught lying. If they admit the church lies about Mary being immaculate and virgin and they admit the founding church lies to gain followers and authority then they admit the source of their claims as being tainted by lies and liars thus not credible source especially when self testified and the character they created said you can't take self testimony as testimony.
My censored pist helped clearify this discussion and by their own standards they have NO RELIABLE SOURCES ON JESUS EXISTING. PERIOD THE END.

 

[irosie91]

.
there is no difference in believing Jesus as the physical son of God or the jews believing they are the chosen people of the Almighty, both are scripturally inaccurate and Idolatrous .

.

you know nothing about Judaism or yourself. There is no people in the world
whose ethos does not include some sort of concept of their own "special" status.
Even BUDDHISTS exhibit such an ethos. Name me even ONE that does not.
Even the INUIT of Alaska . The firm legacy of christianity places everyone in the
world not BAPTIZED in the name of "jesus" to eternal torment in hell. I grew up
in a town full of people like you-------they resented jews who did not decorate their
houses with Christmas wreaths and tinsel-------and whined about "those '''chosen
people"" " Islamo Nazi pigs (a general term I use to designate anti-Semites)
SEARCH for reasons to hate jews I am a jew----born and bred----the first time
I heard the term "chosen people" was as a child------a protestant neighbor
walked into my mom's kitchen on a sunday fresh from church-----and said
"you are so lucky to be one of the chosen people" My mom said 'chosen for
what' ?? it is a term not used in synagogue lesson -----Islamo Nazis spit it

 

[irosie91]

BTW, there were no Christians until at least 100 years after 30AD.

I don't think this is correct.

I guess it depends on how "Christian" is defined.
Peter was Kosher, kept Shabbos and spoke Hebrew his entire life, but was obviously a follower of Yeshua.
It COULD possibly be that anyone who was hoping Yeshua would be resurrected and bring the 3rd Temple down from Heaven was considered a follower of what they referred to as Moshiach (One worthy of being anointed to serve in the Temple).
A big problem was that Yeshua was not a descendant of Aharon (A Kohen...of Priestly lineage).
But almost all of his followers were illiterate and were not aware of that condition.
The Romans had placed a ban on Torah study and there was no public education for the non-elite.

I am losing my mind on this Tacitus reference insofar as reading one web site after another.
Half pro-Tacitus, Half anti-Tacitus.

For the record-----historically jews have had LOTS of "possible messiah" and each one had 'some' followers and believers They pop up even today

 

[Fishlore]

He was written about by ALL of his apostles. Before, during and after his life.

Actually none of the people the books are named after were actually the authors, even church elect have admitted this. This is why they make terrible errors in not understanding Hebrew or Judaic concept and use of words.
Remember they were killed by Rome for their revolt before they could recant to tell you their leader failed them (this was christ Theudas). Those that got to recant were squelched, like Thomas and portion of Luke. This woukd be like when the US gov't stormed Waco the followers of David Koresh never got a chance to tell you Ooops, David wasn't who they thought he was. Luke did say something to that affect about his christ, but it was removed from the text in his name.

Again... I cannot argue that the Scriptures haven't been molested. The Romans basically took over the religion for a while.. then I think the Greeks had a go... then King James of England rewrote everything... I am sure a lot of information was messed up and mixed up, altered or left out, embellished or maybe even fabricated entirely... but not the life of Jesus Christ.

The Gospels of Jesus Christ are unquestionably the most influential literary works in human history. To try and advance the ridiculous argument that the main character never existed is something I just can't take seriously. It's like trying to believe we never landed on the moon... I know people are convinced that we didn't... I have tried my best to listen to their arguments but I just don't buy the evidence and the same is true here... I don't buy your evidence.

The evidence that the central character of "the most influential literary works in human history" is limited to those documents themselves. There are a handful of references in contemporary Jewish and Roman texts to believers in the Christian religion but none to Jesus himself.

Absence of evidence is indeed not evidence of absence; however it is curious to say the least that none of the spectacular events narrated in the Gospels has any attestation in other sources. Think, for example, of Herod's murder of all those baby boys in his attempt to kill Jesus. The Herods were a much hated but well documented family of rulers, friends in fact of the Roman Emperors. Their administrations are well documented in several sources yet there is no mention of a mass slaughter of children which surely would have been noticed. Ditto for the beheading of John the Baptist. Ditto for the proclamation that all men should go to the place of their birth to register for taxation. etc. etc. There is no historical event in any of the Gospels.

There are records of several self-proclaimed Messiahs in Jewish histories of the time, yet no mention of one who supposedly performed miracles before thousands of observers. His trial and execution are similarly without attestation despite claims in the Gospels that his presence in Jerusalem alarmed the authorities because of the huge crowds surrounding him. Yet nothing is mentioned in contemporary documents of what would have been a spectacular, near revolutionary upheaval involving tens of thousands of Jews from all over Palestine. And, of course, no mention of an executed criminal reappearing after death.

The absence of evidence is bolstered by textual research (which you can check for yourself) that has shown that every event and every saying attributed to Jesus in the Gospels is a quote or paraphrase from the Old Testament or a borrowing from Egyptian or Persian mythology.

You cannot prove a negative (that there was no historical Jesus) but the Gospels don't prove the positive either. That is not surprising given that the earliest Gospel, Mark, was written after the establishment of Christian churches as recorded in Acts and Epistles. The Gospels are stories created by writers who already believed for people who already believed. The Gospels do not prove an historical Jesus, they assume it. One can, of course, still believe in an historical Jesus but it still has not been proved.

 

[Boss]

He was written about by ALL of his apostles. Before, during and after his life.

Actually none of the people the books are named after were actually the authors, even church elect have admitted this. This is why they make terrible errors in not understanding Hebrew or Judaic concept and use of words.
Remember they were killed by Rome for their revolt before they could recant to tell you their leader failed them (this was christ Theudas). Those that got to recant were squelched, like Thomas and portion of Luke. This woukd be like when the US gov't stormed Waco the followers of David Koresh never got a chance to tell you Ooops, David wasn't who they thought he was. Luke did say something to that affect about his christ, but it was removed from the text in his name.

Again... I cannot argue that the Scriptures haven't been molested. The Romans basically took over the religion for a while.. then I think the Greeks had a go... then King James of England rewrote everything... I am sure a lot of information was messed up and mixed up, altered or left out, embellished or maybe even fabricated entirely... but not the life of Jesus Christ.

The Gospels of Jesus Christ are unquestionably the most influential literary works in human history. To try and advance the ridiculous argument that the main character never existed is something I just can't take seriously. It's like trying to believe we never landed on the moon... I know people are convinced that we didn't... I have tried my best to listen to their arguments but I just don't buy the evidence and the same is true here... I don't buy your evidence.

The evidence that the central character of "the most influential literary works in human history" is limited to those documents themselves. There are a handful of references in contemporary Jewish and Roman texts to believers in the Christian religion but none to Jesus himself.

Absence of evidence is indeed not evidence of absence; however it is curious to say the least that none of the spectacular events narrated in the Gospels has any attestation in other sources. Think, for example, of Herod's murder of all those baby boys in his attempt to kill Jesus. The Herods were a much hated but well documented family of rulers, friends in fact of the Roman Emperors. Their administrations are well documented in several sources yet there is no mention of a mass slaughter of children which surely would have been noticed. Ditto for the beheading of John the Baptist. Ditto for the proclamation that all men should go to the place of their birth to register for taxation. etc. etc. There is no historical event in any of the Gospels.

There are records of several self-proclaimed Messiahs in Jewish histories of the time, yet no mention of one who supposedly performed miracles before thousands of observers. His trial and execution are similarly without attestation despite claims in the Gospels that his presence in Jerusalem alarmed the authorities because of the huge crowds surrounding him. Yet nothing is mentioned in contemporary documents of what would have been a spectacular, near revolutionary upheaval involving tens of thousands of Jews from all over Palestine. And, of course, no mention of an executed criminal reappearing after death.

The absence of evidence is bolstered by textual research (which you can check for yourself) that has shown that every event and every saying attributed to Jesus in the Gospels is a quote or paraphrase from the Old Testament or a borrowing from Egyptian or Persian mythology.

You cannot prove a negative (that there was no historical Jesus) but the Gospels don't prove the positive either. That is not surprising given that the earliest Gospel, Mark, was written after the establishment of Christian churches as recorded in Acts and Epistles. The Gospels are stories created by writers who already believed for people who already believed. The Gospels do not prove an historical Jesus, they assume it. One can, of course, still believe in an historical Jesus but it still has not been proved.

Again... PROOF is subjective and is based on what the individual perception accepts as evidence. You cannot "prove" something to someone who refuses to accept the valid evidence.

As I posted, most major scholars on the subject agree that Jesus existed. It is not in question. This is a kook theory that has no basis in fact. It is only plausible due to the long time that has passed and lack of adequate historical records.

 

[onefour1]

Evidence supporting the historicity of Jesus can be found on Wikipedia under Sources for the historicity of Jesus

 

[BreezeWood]

.
there is no difference in believing Jesus as the physical son of God or the jews believing they are the chosen people of the Almighty, both are scripturally inaccurate and Idolatrous .

.

you know nothing about Judaism or yourself. There is no people in the world
whose ethos does not include some sort of concept of their own "special" status.
Even BUDDHISTS exhibit such an ethos. Name me even ONE that does not.
Even the INUIT of Alaska . The firm legacy of christianity places everyone in the
world not BAPTIZED in the name of "jesus" to eternal torment in hell. I grew up
in a town full of people like you-------they resented jews who did not decorate their
houses with Christmas wreaths and tinsel-------and whined about "those '''chosen
people"" " Islamo Nazi pigs (a general term I use to designate anti-Semites)
SEARCH for reasons to hate jews I am a jew----born and bred----the first time
I heard the term "chosen people" was as a child------a protestant neighbor
walked into my mom's kitchen on a sunday fresh from church-----and said
"you are so lucky to be one of the chosen people" My mom said 'chosen for
what' ?? it is a term not used in synagogue lesson -----Islamo Nazis spit it

.
if not the Idolatry to worry about, how about - " Those who do not learn from history are doomed to repeat it " ... the repetition speaks volumes for the practice.

particularly in a thread - No historical Jesus

.

 

[Fishlore]

The idea that Jesus was a miracle-working god who rose from the dead has been rejected by modern biblical scholars and historians (not religious believers) for a century. The idea that Jesus was an ordinary human to whom magical powers were attributed by his followers has been around for well over a century longer.

The more radical notion, that there never existed a living human being known to his family and followers as Jesus is more recent and is based on intense study of surviving Christian works, including non-canonical ones as well as other documents from the early Christian era.

The idea that a religion could evolve around the central figure of a man who never existed is hardly "is a kook theory that has no basis in fact." It rests on two pillars: the fact that there is no attestation to any historical Jesus outside of Christian documents dating to several generations after the supposed resurrection of Jesus and the fact that there are many examples of religions contemporaneous with the era of Jesus which are based on the lives and deeds of similar god-men who never existed, e.g. Hercules.

You might consider one or more of these respected and widely popular books on the topic. Your condescending dismissal of the Jesus myth theory suggests you are unaware of this now dominant branch of hermeneutics:

Nailed: Ten Christian Myths That Show Jesus Never Existed At All by David Fitzgerald

Jesus: Neither God Nor Man - The Case for a Mythical Jesus by Earl Doherty

The Christ-Myth Theory And Its Problems by Robert M. Price

I am willing to respect your religious faith; I find it difficult to accept your sweeping and unsupported pontifications. Scholars respect belief. Believers cannot seem to respect scholars. That tells you something.

 

[Boss]

There are records of several self-proclaimed Messiahs in Jewish histories of the time...

So why aren't any of these people remembered 2,000 years later?

 

[irosie91]

There are records of several self-proclaimed Messiahs in Jewish histories of the time...

So why aren't any of these people remembered 2,000 years later?

easy-----they were real people. Most real people in the world are forgotten

 

[Boss]

The idea that Jesus was a miracle-working god who rose from the dead has been rejected by modern biblical scholars and historians (not religious believers) for a century. The idea that Jesus was an ordinary human to whom magical powers were attributed by his followers has been around for well over a century longer.

The more radical notion, that there never existed a living human being known to his family and followers as Jesus is more recent and is based on intense study of surviving Christian works, including non-canonical ones as well as other documents from the early Christian era.

The idea that a religion could evolve around the central figure of a man who never existed is hardly "is a kook theory that has no basis in fact." It rests on two pillars: the fact that there is no attestation to any historical Jesus outside of Christian documents...

First you say that the notion Jesus never existed is rooted in study of surviving Christian works, then you indicate the notion is really based on the lack of historical evidence outside of Christian documents. So you don't count the Christian accounts of Jesus, only the secular accounts are valid evidence. The FACT is, you're NOT intensely studying surviving Christian works, you're dismissing them from the start.

You pretty much summed things up in your opening paragraphs except you could have been more concise. There have been doubts and skeptics of Jesus resurrection and miracles from that time forward. There's never been a time when no one doubted Jesus. When you say "modern scholars have rejected" it sounds like you are implying that they have found and presented some concrete evidence. They haven't. But as I say, your account puts it into perfect perspective... the secular left has been actively trying to destroy Christianity for a century and this is one of the notions they've concocted out of thin air and it's relatively new.

History is not like Science where theories are proven through test and observation. With history, you piece together information and hopefully come up with some plausibility. There is no "scholars have rejected" in history. there are always different opinions on just about everything. Certainly, about Jesus. So we find that your entire argument is dishonest.

 

[Boss]

There are records of several self-proclaimed Messiahs in Jewish histories of the time...

So why aren't any of these people remembered 2,000 years later?

easy-----they were real people. Most real people in the world are forgotten

Ah... so real people who did exist are forgotten about while made up people who never existed are remembered for 2,000 years and can become, arguably, the most important person in human history?



Sounds a little nutty to me.