Belz...
Fiend God
That's fine, as long as you don't claim certainty. My conclusion is "I don't know".
What counts as a historical Jesus?
- Thread starter Humes fork
- Start date
-
- Tags
- historical jesus
- Status
That's fine, as long as you don't claim certainty. My conclusion is "I don't know".
I think the mythicists are at least as guilty of that, if not more so.
kmortis
Biomechanoid, Director of IDIOCY (Region 13)
Keep it civil, keep it on topic. The topic is not the other posters.
Replying to this modbox in thread will be off topic Posted By: kmortis
I don't see how unless you are talking about an extremist like Joseph Wheless you come to that conclusion.
Let's be honest here, the evidence for HJ is insanely weak.
Paul is telling us what the Jesus in his head is telling him and as a result give us no real details of the actual man's life.
The Gospels are written so late that we have no idea if they contain any of Jesus actual teachings. Irenaeus c180 CE Against Heresies gives the impression of a very fragmented religion.
Then comes the oral pagan stuff being added and things rapidly go pear shape.
This is the tiredest urban legend in the myther handbook. Totally wrong, and plenty of mythers and their fellow travelers know it. Paul gives plenty of references to a HUMAN bio. But of course, the deck is stacked on this board against any real facts. Sure, I can give all the cites here from the 7 authentic Paulines showing clear reference to a HUMAN bio, but they'll just disappear in 24 hours. WHAT ARE HISTORICISTS SUPPOSED TO DO? These cites come from my own blood, sweat and tears, not from someone else, but once they're effectively disappeared by censors on this board, that leaves posters free to come out with this old tired crap about Paul with impunity -- EVEN THOUGH THERE WERE CITES ON THIS THREAD 24 HOURS AGO THAT WOULD HAVE PUT THE LIE TO IT. How convenient they are no longer here now.
Well, here are the Paul cites again. What kind of "discussion" is this if we're not allowed to peruse PLAIN TEXTUAL FACTS?
Acc. Paul, Jesus was born into a family with at least two brothers, one of them named James.
Galatians 1:18 Then after three years, I went up to Jerusalem to get acquainted with Peter and stayed with him fifteen days.
19 I saw none of the other apostles—only James, the Lord's brother.
1 Corinthians 9:5 Don't we have the right to take a believing wife along with us, as do the other apostles and the Lord's brothers and Cephas?
Born into a Jewish family of a Jewish mother.
Galatians 4:4 But when the time had fully come, God sent his Son, born of a woman, born under law
The family may have been partly related to the David line, or "descent from David" may have simply been an emblematic way of saying he was of David's people -- i.e., a Jew.
Romans 1:3 regarding his Son, who as to his human nature was a descendant of David
He was crucified.
1 Corinthians 2:8 None of the rulers of this age understood it, for if they had, they would not have crucified the Lord of glory.
1 Thessalonians 2:14 You suffered from your own people the same things those churches suffered from the Jews
15 who killed the Lord Jesus and the prophets and also drove us out.
He preached that a wife could not leave her husband.
1 Corinthians 7:10 To the married I give this command (not I, but the Lord): A wife must not separate from her husband.
He preached that those who taught the gospel should earn their living from it.
1 Corinthians 9:13 Don't you know that those who work in the temple get their food from the temple, and those who serve at the altar share in what is offered on the altar?
14 In the same way, the Lord has commanded that those who preach the gospel should receive their living from the gospel.
On the last night of his freedom, he and his followers instituted a custom of memorializing his time with them through bread and drink.
1 Corinthians 11:23 The Lord Jesus, on the night he was betrayed, took bread,
24 and when he had given thanks, he broke it and said, "This is my body, which is for you; do this in remembrance of me."
25 In the same way, after supper he took the cup, saying, "This cup is the new covenant in my blood; do this, whenever you drink it, in remembrance of me."
To the day of his crucifixion, he maintained a humble station in life.
Phillipians 2:7 but made himself nothing, taking the very nature of a servant, being made in human likeness.
8 And being found in appearance as a man, he humbled himself and became obedient to death — even death on a cross!
Now, are these Paul references to a HUMAN bio going to be properly discussed here, or must they always be removed and we only be free to discuss the repeated LIES purveyed by ignoramuses instead?
Stone
I insist that the record show that I DID submit this data, and that I submitted this data ON REQUEST. Evidently, that's not allowed around here. If it's not allowed, how come Pakeha's request hasn't been removed as well?
I submitted two posts of cites -- ONLY THE BACK END OF THE SECOND USING MATERIAL ASSEMBLED BY SOMEONE ELSE -- and openly specified as such. The rest were entirely my own sequences, cobbled out of my own blood, sweat and tears.
If people like Pakeha and Maximara continue to spout the Kool-Aid mantra that historicists "haven't ponied up any data" -- whine, whine, whine -- let the record show that data WAS ponied up -- even though I was reluctant to do it an umpteenth time because I know the creationist-style evasions such data has received on other boards like this in the past -- only to be summarily yanked from this thread EVEN THOUGH THERE WERE NO SUCH SEQUENCES AVAILABLE FROM ANYONE ELSE.
Either restore my cites now, which were wholly germane to an exchange that Pakeha initiated -- OR REMOVE THIS REQUEST OF PAKEHA'S ENTIRELY AS WELL.
I will NOT submit to having this request of Pakeha's continue to stick out here like a sore thumb. It gives the WHOLLY FALSE impression that historicists evade requests like this. They *************** don't.
Stone
calebprime
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- Jul 5, 2006
- Messages
- 13,001
The right place to bring this up is in Forum Management.
This last post of yours, as well as the one I'm typing, will be removed to AAH, because they're both off-topic.
However, you can copy the relevant, toned-down parts.
Keep your cool, Stone, if I may.
eta: and, perhaps you can copy and paste your work, if it was extensive, so that it will appear in the thread.
This last post of yours, as well as the one I'm typing, will be removed to AAH, because they're both off-topic.
However, you can copy the relevant, toned-down parts.
Keep your cool, Stone, if I may.
eta: and, perhaps you can copy and paste your work, if it was extensive, so that it will appear in the thread.
Last edited:
Belz...
Fiend God
What are you talking about ?
ON PAGE 97, I HAD SUBMITTED TEXTUAL CITES A-PLENTY IN RESPONSE TO PAKEHA'S REQUEST, INDICATING A GREATER LIKELIHOOD THAN NOT THAT JESUS IS A TOTALLY HISTORICAL AND ENTIRELY HUMAN FIGURE FROM ANCIENT PALESTINE. THEN, THAT DATA WAS SUMMARILY YANKED, AFTER WHICH MAXIMARA MAKES AN INFURIATINGLY BREEZY --
A N D
W R O N G --
STATEMENT ABOUT PAUL THAT WOULD HAVE BEEN SOUNDLY INVALIDATED HAD THAT DATA STILL BEEN UP.
T H A T ' S
WHAT THE HELL I'M TALKING ABOUT, IN RESPONSE TO YOUR PROBABLY DELIBERATELY PROVOCATIVE QUESTION.
Stone
Last edited:
The right place to bring this up is in Forum Management.
This last post of yours, as well as the one I'm typing, will be removed to AAH, because they're both off-topic.
However, you can copy the relevant, toned-down parts.
Keep your cool, Stone, if I may.
eta: and, perhaps you can copy and paste your work, if it was extensive, so that it will appear in the thread.
It was summarily yanked last time. What assurance do I have that the same thing won't happen again? And arbitrarily "allowing" this data to stay this one time still does not dispose adequately of what happens in future to other historicists who might submit similarly pertinent data in good faith but have their handiwork suddenly removed again, leaving the field again free to ignoramuses to spout their snopes-worthy nonsense without challenge, once data to the contrary is conveniently "disappeared".
Stone
Slowvehicle
Membership Drive , Co-Ordinator,, Russell's Antin
So Paul is a source of firsthand information about a human he never met or interacted with except in an hallucination or a vision?
And this human Paul provided eviedence for was the "son of a 'god' "?
And this human worked miracles becasue he was, in fact, also a 'god'?
And that constitutes evidence of the existence of a human HJ?
The references are to a 'god' Paul never met, except in a vision or a hallucination; a 'god' that was made to appear human, a 'god' who did miracles...
Paul never met a human Jesus, by his own boast.
Paul is not a source of evidence about a human Jesus...
Throughout, I have added the highlighting for focus.
Hi Stone,
I haven't been posting, but reading this thread with interest for a long time. Firstly, please please please tone it down. There is no need for all of this drama (blood sweat and tears, it's a forum discussion FFS), and especially the ALLCAPS (I thought that a forum filter prevented this?)
Second, calebprime speaks the truth. Whining about moderation in this thread is off-topic. Have a peek at the Forum Management sub-forum, and post something there if you must.
Lastly, if you click the "User CP" link at the top-ish left-ish of this page, you'll have a notepad where you can copy/paste your entire post so that it's not lost if it is later edited. Then you can excise the drama-free, non-spammy parts and try to post them again.
Good luck.
(on edit) - also, this forum and presumably most fora don't enjoy "wall o'text" posts, even if it's original work. If you have several pages of text, put them on a website, link to them, and post the concise, relevant portions here. Inability to be concise is the downfall of many an unorthodox poster here at the JREF, in my humble observation. Keep it short and to the point.
Last edited:
Did you know that supplying the "whole assemblage of data" would get me in trouble? Is that why you asked for it? I would never have wasted time supplying it at all had you not asked me to.
Stone
Last edited:
The Norseman
Meandering fecklessly
- Joined
- Dec 10, 2008
- Messages
- 8,449
Your continued personalizing of this issue is amusing and only points to the fact that you Yeshua histies all think there's more evidence than there really is.
Your beliefs are, at this point, unfounded.
Belz...
Fiend God
Why do you take everything personally ? I had no idea what you were refering to.
Show me how your "single most attested figure in history", which I never said, and "THE FACTS ON ANCIENT FIGURES ARE ALWAYS SPARSE", which I did say, are the same.
Stone
Last edited:
The Norseman
Meandering fecklessly
- Joined
- Dec 10, 2008
- Messages
- 8,449
For the second time, I never said you said that; it was said by your side -- the Yehsua histies. I think annnnoid said it, but I'm not arsed to go specifically hunt it up.
You have given the appearance of strongly siding with that strict, black-and-white thinking but as you have corrected that impression, I will offer my apologies for my mis-perception.
Perhaps you can help Piggy post those links to the wonderful information that he stated is sadly behind many paywalls.
pakeha
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- Jul 11, 2009
- Messages
- 12,331
I'm grateful you took the time and trouble to post up what you consider to be the whole assemblage of data.
How did this get you into trouble?
I WAS surprised to find you posted up material with has been gone over repeatedly in this and other threads.
How can the NT writings be considered data that confirms the reality of Jesus' historicity, Stone?
I ask that seriously
For me, that's easily the most interesting evidence ofthe entire lot.
I'll be researching this particular data.
Thanks for bringing it up, Stone.
As had I.
However, I am very grateful to Stone for such a comprehensive list of the available evidence.
I appreciate their effort very much and feel I have a much clearer picture of the academic consensus on the subject.
I'm just dropping in here to say I got my Eisenman books: "Maccabees, Zadokites, Christians and Qumran" and "James The Brother Of Jesus And The Dead Sea Scrolls 1".
It will take me a while to digest it all, but the basic gist is that if you can find the Historical James the "Brother of the Lord", you've found the Historical Jesus.
I'll probably start a new thread for this and attempt a summary of these ideas for anyone interested.
It will take me a while to digest it all, but the basic gist is that if you can find the Historical James the "Brother of the Lord", you've found the Historical Jesus.
I'll probably start a new thread for this and attempt a summary of these ideas for anyone interested.
- Status