They have been explained in these HJ threads hundreds if not thousands of times ... there is no description there of a real Jesus ever known to anyone.
Historical Jesus
- Thread starter Ricardo
- Start date
-
- Tags
- historical jesus jesus
- Status
They have been explained in these HJ threads hundreds if not thousands of times ... there is no description there of a real Jesus ever known to anyone.
Tassman
Graduate Poster
- Joined
- Aug 11, 2012
- Messages
- 1,248
If by a “real Jesus” you mean a virgin-born, miracle-working, messianic figure then the answer is highly unlikely. My argument throughout has been that the relatively sudden beginning of the X’tian religion, in that the Jesus story arose within mere decades around the time he was claimed to have lived, I’m suggesting that the evolution of the Jesus story probably began via a specific "real" person at its core. And that the story grew with the telling over subsequent decades
How many times does this need to be explained? Look - there is no coincidence of Christianity suddenly starting by strange coincidence at the same time as quote "the Jesus story arose within mere decades" ...
... the belief in Jesus, who was at that time not called "Jesus" (that's an 11th century English variation), but called Yeshua or Yehoshua (or Iesous in Greek), came with the gospel stories as they were preached ... and that was possibly in the later part of the first century, or perhaps in the 2nd or 3rd century (nobody knows the date very accurately) ...
... so belief in
... BUT (and it's a very BIG "but") - belief in just such a messiah had been rife all across that region for at least 600 years before
Also, in the OT you can easily find predictions that the messiah will be called Emmanuel ... but Emmanuel is a theophoric name with a meaning almost identical the theophoric name Yehoshua ... Emmanuel means YHWH is With Us ... and Yehoshua means YHWH Will Save Us ... see the wiki link below for an explanation of those theophoric names (i.e. names that incorporate a vocal appeal or cry to God/Yahweh/YHWH) -
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theophoric_name
And ... iirc, in his book On The Historicity of Jesus, Richard Carrier says that the name
And by the way – I have explained all of that many times before in these HJ threads (and even explained it here just a page or two back!).
Jerrymander
Muse
- Joined
- Oct 28, 2012
- Messages
- 625
No they've been danced around hundreds of times.
No ... if you disagree then post the quotes where Paul says he or anyone he names had ever met a human Jesus ...
... do not say you have posted it before ; just post here the quotes of whatever you are claiming from those letters.
Delvo
Дэлво Δε&#
You know perfectly well that it's never been about a lack of magical claims in the Gospels, or even much about the specific contents within the Gospels in general.
Edited by Agatha:
Edited to remove breach of MA
The books' modern names are not mentioned anywhere in the books, the books aren't even written first-person, and nobody else refers to them by those names for the first few hundred years. The names got added hundreds of year later, and, since no note of a reason why was made at the time, if we're going to suppose a made-up motivation, we might as well suppose convenience for commentary writers referring to them, as deception. (Or straightforward honest inference.)
You know perfectly well that nobody here has claimed that Paul ever claimed to have met Jesus.
Edited by Agatha:
Edited to remove breach of rule 0 and rule 12
Last edited by a moderator:
The sudden start of a religious cult does not determine that the deity worshiped by them is human.
You have no historical evidence of the character called Jesus of Nazareth and anyone associated with him, including supposed family and early followers.
Christians writers have already explained how the Jesus cult originated.
The Jesus cult of Christians began when people believed a story that God came down from heaven impregnated a Virgin and produced his only begotten Son, Jesus.
According to Wikipedia (the link is below) - quote "All four were anonymous (the modern names were added in the 2nd century), almost certainly none were by eyewitnesses, ... "
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gospel
- we do not have any more-or-less complete and fully legible/readable gospels until the 4th to 6th century. So the detail that everyone knows and discusses from those gospels comes from those 4th century copies ... and that (according to Wiki) is 200 years after the names were added!
What I am saying is that for most of the last 2000 years, almost everyone believed (wrongly!) that those 4 gospels were written by actual named disciples Mark, Matthew, Luke and John, who would have been eye-witnesses to Jesus ... but we now know that is not true - they were not the writers of any of those gospels, and the writers were not eye witnesses to Jesus.
I have no idea what you mean by writing "it's never been about a lack of magical claims in the Gospels, or even much about the specific contents within the Gospels in general". ... that does not seem to make any sense in English to me. But what I had said is that as far as actual "evidence" is concerned, those 4 gospels are actually evidence against the reality of Jesus, because they describe a figure who, whilst universally believed for most of the last 2000 years, is now known to be impossible ... and that is unarguably evidence against Jesus as described in any gospels ... That is - the writing in any of those gospels is very clearly, and quite unarguably, evidence against a real Jesus.
As far as eye-witnesses are concerned – John and Matthew are supposed to be 2 of the original 12 apostles. And in the gospel of Luke, “Luke” claims there were in the end 70 or 72 apostles (also called disciples) which also included Mark. All of them were described as being known to Jesus. See the Wiki links below -
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Seventy_disciples
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Four_...iple of Jesus,youngest of his Twelve Apostles.
As far as Paul and his letters are concerned - if (as you agree) Paul never witnessed any real Jesus, then where he writes of his own experiences (which is pretty much 100% of all that he writes about), he cannot possibly be giving evidence of Jesus! And that's really not arguable. So again, his letters are actually evidence against a real Jesus ... because the only Jesus he ever describes is an impossible figure drawn from his own religious belief in divine supernatural revelation.
Jerrymander
Muse
- Joined
- Oct 28, 2012
- Messages
- 625
He clearly believed Jesus was human or had a human life and quotes pre-literary traditions which state so, so that's proof that the early communities thought Jesus was human. Oh, and he also claimed to have meet Jesus' brother so there's that.
Jerrymander
Muse
- Joined
- Oct 28, 2012
- Messages
- 625
I never claimed that Paul claimed to have met the human Jesus.
Edited by Agatha:
Edited to remove breach of rules
Romans 1:3-4 - regarding his Son, who according to the flesh was a descendant of David, and who through the Spirit of holiness was appointed the Son of God in power by his resurrection from the dead: Jesus Christ our Lord.
Romans 9:4-5 -They are Israelites, and to them belong the adoption, the glory, the covenants, the giving of the law, the worship, and the promises. To them belong the patriarchs, and from their race, according to the flesh, is the Christ, who is God over all, blessed forever. Amen
Galatians 4:4 - But when the set time had fully come, God sent his Son, born of a woman, born under the law,
Galatians 1:19 - But I did not see any other of the apostles except James, the Lord's brother.
Last edited by a moderator:
We know none of you ever claimed anyone met a human Jesus. That’s what we’re saying bugs us about the whole thing. We want to see someone actually claiming to have met a human Jesus. The closest I’ve seen so far is the claim that it’s a traditional belief that the Preaching of Peter was written down by a guy taking dictation from a guy who met a human Jesus (or something like that).
Jerrymander
Muse
- Joined
- Oct 28, 2012
- Messages
- 625
No the closest is Paul claiming to have met Jesus' brother James.
It is documented that Jesus Christians believed their Lord and Savior Jesus was God in the flesh without a human father so it is simply illogical to assume their Jesus was a known human being.
Tertullian's "On the Flesh of Christ"
Jesus cult Christianity originated with the belief that their Lord and Savior Jesus was God in the flesh without a human father.
No Bible writer stated anywhere that their Lord Jesus had a human father.
In the Bible, the son of the Ghost had a human mother so if she had a boy child by a man then it would obvious that son of the Ghost would have a human brother in the fables called the NT.
The HJ argument is probably the worst argument known to mankind.
Jerrymander
Muse
- Joined
- Oct 28, 2012
- Messages
- 625
Lord IS the lord according to Paul. You are stretching.
James is not Jesus.
If James was the son of a woman and Lord Jesus was the son of a God and the same woman they are still brothers in the NT fables.
Jerrymander
Muse
- Joined
- Oct 28, 2012
- Messages
- 625
And Julius and Augustus Caesar were called divine and worshiped. Guess they didn't exist. And there were Christian sects that thought Jesus was only human.
Ugh no I mean, James “the lords brother” is not Jesus.
And Christians worship the God of the Jews -Guess that Gods exist!!!
And Christians claimed Jesus of Nazareth and the Devil were talking to one another at the Jewish Temple in Jerusalem - Guess the Devil was human!!!
And Christians claimed the angel Gabriel was talking to the mother of Jesus in Galilee - Guess the angel was human!!!
How many times must you be told that Jesus cult Christians do not worship men as Gods?
Please get familiar with the beliefs and teachings of the Jesus cult Christians.
Romans 1
Jesus cult Christians vehemently preached against the worship of men as Gods.
The HJ argument is the most ridiculous argument known to mankind.
Last edited:
Well I asked you before (perhaps twice before) - can you please just quote the passages that you are referring to as proof that Paul believed Jesus had been an ordinary human preacher?
As for what whole “communities” thought about Jesus, that is a different matter altogether … but what they merely believed from hearing any preachers such as Paul, is not any kind of evidence that what Paul preached was true.
- Status