Historical Jesus

[dejudge]

Again, the HJ argument is dead in the water.

The Lord [KY] is God in the Christian Bible.

The Lord [KY] is God in Galatians 1.19.

The Lord is a figure of mythology.


Exodus 6.2----And God spake unto Moses, and said unto him,I am the Lord[KY].

Mark 1.3--- The voice of one crying in the wilderness, Prepare ye the way of the Lord[KY], make his paths straight.

The Lord [KY] never ever existed.

 

[Jerrymander]

After wasting time on every conceivable meaning of "brother" GDon completely forgot to tell us who the" Lord" was .

It is the character called the Lord in Galatians 1.19 whose nature must be confirmed.

Galatians 1:19----But other of the apostles saw I none, save James the Lord's brother.

Who is the Lord in the Christian Bible??

There are thousands upon thousands of references to the Lord in the Christian Bible.

Exodus 6.2----And God spake unto Moses, and said unto him, I am the Lord:

Now Examine gMark 1.3 The author of gMark claimed John the Baptist was preaching about the coming of the Lord and made reference to passages in the book of Isaiah.

Mark 1.3--- The voice of one crying in the wilderness, Prepare ye the way of the Lord, make his paths straight.

Examine Isaiah 40.3 In the book of Isaiah the Lord is God.

Isaiah 40.3---- The voice of him that crieth in the wilderness, Prepare ye the way of the Lord, make straight in the desert a highway for our God.

Anyone who knows Greek will immediately see that the Greek Nomina Sacra for the "Lord" in the NT is the very same Greek Nomina Sacra for the "Lord" [the God of the Jews] in the OT.

The Greek Nomina Sacra for the Lord [KY] in Galatians 1.19 is the very same Greek Nomina Sacra the Lord[KY] in Isaiah 40.3.

The "Lord" [KY] in Galatians 1.19 is God.

The "Lord" [KY] in Galatians 1.19 and the Christian Bible is a figure of mythology.

It's clear in this context the lord is Jesus. Paul certainly isn't saying James is God's brother.

 

[Kapyong]

It's clear in this context the lord is Jesus. Paul certainly isn't saying James is God's brother.

In that case Jerrymander, Paul tells us Jesus had several brothers :

1 Cor. 5 "Do we not have the right to be accompanied by a wife, as the other apostles and the brothers of the Lord and Cephas?"

Please tell us the names of Jesus' other brothers ...

 

[Brainache]

It's clear in this context the lord is Jesus. Paul certainly isn't saying James is God's brother.

Good luck with that.

 

[Delvo]

We've just really, actually gotten an argument that if something is clear in one context, and based on that context, then the same thing must also apply in another context.

Seriously, folks, what are you doing?

 

[Brainache]

In that case Jerrymander, Paul tells us Jesus had several brothers :



Please tell us the names of Jesus' other brothers ...

This is not hard to find, so I expect some kind of lame "gotcha", but here goes:

The Gospel of Mark (6:3) and the Gospel of Matthew (13:55-56) mention James, Joseph/Joses, Judas/Jude and Simon as brothers of Jesus, the son of Mary. The same verses also mention unnamed sisters of Jesus. Mark (3:31-32) tells about Jesus' mother and brothers looking for Jesus...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Broth...pel of Mark (6,and brothers looking for Jesus.

Go on then, dazzle me...

 

[dejudge]

It's clear in this context the lord is Jesus. Paul certainly isn't saying James is God's brother.

Please, you are wasting your time.

Galatians 1.19 specifically mentions the brother of the Lord [KY].

We have thousands of references to the Lord [KY] in the NT and OT of Greek Septuagint and multiple Greek Codices and the Lord [KY] is God.

We have existing Greek manuscripts of Galatians 1.19 and they also specifically state the brother of the Lord [KY]

http://earlybible.com/manuscripts/p46-Gal-2.html

The Lord [KY] is God in Galatians 1.19.

The Lord [KY] never ever existed.

 

[dejudge]

This is not hard to find, so I expect some kind of lame "gotcha", but here goes:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Broth...pel of Mark (6,and brothers looking for Jesus.

Go on then, dazzle me...

How brilliant!!?? You have me dazzled

Please, but you forgot to tell us that in the very same Bible which states Jesus had brothers also states he was born of a Holy Ghost and a Virgin.

 

[Brainache]

How brilliant!!?? You have me dazzled

Please, but you forgot to tell us that in the very same Bible which states Jesus had brothers also states he was born of a Holy Ghost and a Virgin.

Irrelevant

 

[dejudge]

....Please, but you forgot to tell us that in the very same Bible which states Jesus had brothers also states he was born of a Holy Ghost and a Virgin.

Irrelevant

Dazzled!!!

 

[Brainache]

Dazzled!!!

Bovvered

 

[dejudge]

....Please, but you forgot to tell us that in the very same Bible which states Jesus had brothers also states he was born of a Holy Ghost and a Virgin.

Bovvered

Still dazzled.

 

[dejudge]

The HJ argument is dead in the water.

Every argument put forward has been found to be baseless.

1. HJers claim their Jesus of Nazareth was likely a figure of history because the Bible says he walked and talked on earth but they forgot that the Devil walked and talked with their Jesus at the Jewish Temple in Jerusalem.

2. HJers claim their Jesus was likely a figure of history because a Bible writer claimed he met an apostle James the Lord's brother but forgot a Bible writer claimed Jesus was born of a Ghost and a Virgin.

3. HJers claim their Jesus was not a Messianic ruler but was called the Messiah decades after he was dead but they did not realise that the Jews did not expect a dead Jewish Messianic ruler. A Jewish Messianic must be a actual living ruler who have defeated the Romans and liberated the Jews.

4. HJers claim their Jesus was a known wandering preacher who was deified by Jews and Christians after his death but they did not realise that Jews and Christians do not worship men as Gods. In fact, in the writings of Philo and Josephus it is corroborated that the Jews would rather die than worship men as Gods.

5. HJers claim their Jesus was a "suffering servant" but they forgot that the Jews expected a living Jewish Ruler of the habitable earth which is corroborated in the writings of Josephus, Tacitus and Suetonius.

6. HJers have destroyed their HJ argument by discrediting the Christian Bible and then use it primarily as their source of history for their assumed Jesus.


The HJ argument is baseless and without historical evidence.

 

[Tassman]

The HJ argument is dead in the water.

Every argument put forward has been found to be baseless.

1. HJers claim their Jesus of Nazareth was likely a figure of history because the Bible says he walked and talked on earth but they forgot that the Devil walked and talked with their Jesus at the Jewish Temple in Jerusalem.

2. HJers claim their Jesus was likely a figure of history because a Bible writer claimed he met an apostle James the Lord's brother but forgot a Bible writer claimed Jesus was born of a Ghost and a Virgin.

3. HJers claim their Jesus was not a Messianic ruler but was called the Messiah decades after he was dead but they did not realise that the Jews did not expect a dead Jewish Messianic ruler. A Jewish Messianic must be a actual living ruler who have defeated the Romans and liberated the Jews.

4. HJers claim their Jesus was a known wandering preacher who was deified by Jews and Christians after his death but they did not realise that Jews and Christians do not worship men as Gods. In fact, in the writings of Philo and Josephus it is corroborated that the Jews would rather die than worship men as Gods.

5. HJers claim their Jesus was a "suffering servant" but they forgot that the Jews expected a living Jewish Ruler of the habitable earth which is corroborated in the writings of Josephus, Tacitus and Suetonius.

6. HJers have destroyed their HJ argument by discrediting the Christian Bible and then use it primarily as their source of history for their assumed Jesus.


The HJ argument is baseless and without historical evidence.

All these "claims" which you are attributing to the various HJers, without acknowledging any of the arguments or nuances, have been dealt with many, many times. You are merely playing the same broken record over and over again. . .

 

[dejudge]

1. HJers claim their Jesus of Nazareth was likely a figure of history because the Bible says he walked and talked on earth but they forgot that the Devil walked and talked with their Jesus at the Jewish Temple in Jerusalem.

2. HJers claim their Jesus was likely a figure of history because a Bible writer claimed he met an apostle James the Lord's brother but forgot a Bible writer claimed Jesus was born of a Ghost and a Virgin.

3. HJers claim their Jesus was not a Messianic ruler but was called the Messiah decades after he was dead but they did not realise that the Jews did not expect a dead Jewish Messianic ruler. A Jewish Messianic must be a actual living ruler who have defeated the Romans and liberated the Jews.

4. HJers claim their Jesus was a known wandering preacher who was deified by Jews and Christians after his death but they did not realise that Jews and Christians do not worship men as Gods. In fact, in the writings of Philo and Josephus it is corroborated that the Jews would rather die than worship men as Gods.

5. HJers claim their Jesus was a "suffering servant" but they forgot that the Jews expected a living Jewish Ruler of the habitable earth which is corroborated in the writings of Josephus, Tacitus and Suetonius.

6. HJers have destroyed their HJ argument by discrediting the Christian Bible and then use it primarily as their source of history for their assumed Jesus.

All these "claims" which you are attributing to the various HJers, without acknowledging any of the arguments or nuances, have been dealt with many, many times. You are merely playing the same broken record over and over again. . .

You are one who have recently been repeating some of those very baseless arguments which have been regurgitated perhaps hundreds of times for years.

According to GDon the HJ argument is based on assumptions that have not been backed up.

It must always be pointed out that the HJ argument just does not make sense and without historical corroboration.

 

[Skeptical Greg]

It must always be pointed out....

Why?

 

[abaddon]

The HJ argument is dead in the water.

Every argument put forward has been found to be baseless.[has it? Let's see.

1. HJers claim their Jesus of Nazareth was likely a figure of history because the Bible says he walked and talked on earth but they forgot that the Devil walked and talked with their Jesus at the Jewish Temple in Jerusalem.

Well you must be correct because it is clear that there were no apocalyptic preachers in the Levant of two odd thousand years ago, right?

2. HJers claim their Jesus was likely a figure of history because a Bible writer claimed he met an apostle James the Lord's brother but forgot a Bible writer claimed Jesus was born of a Ghost and a Virgin.

Nope. The Levant at the time was chock full of religious zealots. YOU are claiming it was not. That is a huge claim.

3. HJers claim their Jesus was not a Messianic ruler but was called the Messiah decades after he was dead but they did not realise that the Jews did not expect a dead Jewish Messianic ruler. A Jewish Messianic must be a actual living ruler who have defeated the Romans and liberated the Jews.

No they don't. That is your strawman. Live with it.

4. HJers claim their Jesus was a known wandering preacher who was deified by Jews and Christians after his death but they did not realise that Jews and Christians do not worship men as Gods. In fact, in the writings of Philo and Josephus it is corroborated that the Jews would rather die than worship men as Gods.

False. The largest denomination of christians is the catholics and they claim exactly that jebus was both god and man at the same time. Christians absolutely do worship one man as a god. So did a ton of jews. Strawman again.

5. HJers claim their Jesus was a "suffering servant" but they forgot that the Jews expected a living Jewish Ruler of the habitable earth which is corroborated in the writings of Josephus, Tacitus and Suetonius.

False. Christians claim that. HJers do not. HJers claim that there was a bloke one time who was rather religiously nutty. Strawman again.

6. HJers have destroyed their HJ argument by discrediting the Christian Bible and then use it primarily as their source of history for their assumed Jesus.

Another strawman. That is not what HJ even is.

The HJ argument is baseless and without historical evidence.

Well that puts you on the evidential hook. We KNOW there were hatloads of crazy preachers in that time and in that place.

You are claiming there were not a single one. Prove it. Because I can demonstrate tons of such nutters wandering around the place.

 

[dejudge]

The HJ argument is dead in the water.

Every argument put forward has been found to be baseless.

has it? Let's see.

Well you must be correct because it is clear that there were no apocalyptic preachers in the Levant of two odd thousand years ago, right?

Your statement does not show any historical evidence that Jesus of Nazareth existed.

Nope. The Levant at the time was chock full of religious zealots. YOU are claiming it was not. That is a huge claim.

I made no such claim.

No they don't. That is your strawman. Live with it.

You obviously don't know what HJers argue.

False. The largest denomination of christians is the catholics and they claim exactly that jebus was both god and man at the same time. Christians absolutely do worship one man as a god. So did a ton of jews. Strawman again.

The HJ argument is still dead in the water because they use the Bible to argue their Jesus was a man when the Bible teaches that Jesus of Nazareth was born of a Ghost and a Virgin, the firstborn of the dead, God Creator, the son of God, the Lord God, without a human father who transfigured, walked on water, resurrected and ascended to heaven in a cloud.

False. Christians claim that. HJers do not. HJers claim that there was a bloke one time who was rather religiously nutty. Strawman again.

Some who believe their Jesus existed argue that he was a suffering servant.

Another strawman. That is not what HJ even is.

HJers use the Christian Bible as an historical source for their Jesus after admitting that many of the events about their Jesus in the Bible did not and could not have happened.

HJers have discredited the Bible -their primary source for the HJ argument.

Well that puts you on the evidential hook. We KNOW there were hatloads of crazy preachers in that time and in that place.

HJers argue that their Jesus was a crazyman??

You are claiming there were not a single one. Prove it. Because I can demonstrate tons of such nutters wandering around the place.

You can demonstrate that there were tons of such nutters??

Please do!!

The HJ argument is still dead in the water since they can never demonstrate or provide historical evidence that there was an actual nutter named Jesus of Nazareth in the time of Pilate.

 

[Lupus]

Do you think Christianity just sprang up out of nowhere then?
I can't link them but what makes Roman sources not legitimate?
Why would the apostles who were with Jesus of Nazareth martyr themselves for someone that doesn't exist?

 

[Delvo]

Do you think Christianity just sprang up out of nowhere then?

Some MJ folks have said so in this thread. It appears to be a premise of theirs that that's just how religion always works: it's all always false, so of course you can just make anything up at any time in any place in any culture and people will buy it and start a movement around you. They have yet to produce any evidence for it, or a single example of it, or an answer to the numerous counterexamples against it.

I can't link them but what makes Roman sources not legitimate?

They were all written a bit late, a couple of them really only talk about Christians not Christ himself, and the one paragraph of one Roman book that supposedly describes Jesus himself is fake. (The author whose book that fakery got inserted into does write some other stuff that I see as evidence of a real historical Jesus, but it is noteworthy that those parts do not use that name.)

Why would the apostles who were with Jesus of Nazareth martyr themselves for someone that doesn't exist?

Short answer: they didn't.

The Bible is the only thing that claims that even a couple of them were killed, and even that isn't specific about their Christianity being the reason why, or that they ever had the choice of getting out of it by recanting. For the rest, there's nothing in the Bible or anywhere else indicating anything in particular about their deaths, and nothing non-Biblical to indicate that they ever even existed. Stories you might have heard about their deaths are simply "church tradition", which means somebody in the church came up with them later on. And really, Roman persecution of Christians was just not a thing in general anytime near the lifetimes of anybody who could have been one of Jesus's original followers.