Okay, convince me Jesus existed.

[Brainache]

I thought this thread was about the Historical Jesus, not the New Testament of Christ.

I'm sorry to keep harping on about them, but the Dead Sea Scrolls are actual first hand accounts of first century Palestine, why is it that everyone is ignoring them?

The original dating of around 100BCE has been shown to be nonsense.

These scrolls, according to Robert Eisenmann, are the records of the early community that baptised Paul and converted him. The same community that sent him out to the Gentiles. The same community that called him back and ticked him off for preaching the wrong stuff. The same community that tried to kill him when he continued to preach his "lies"(ie: Pauline Theology).

So, Shirley if any historical evidence for Jesus exists it would be in these scrolls, wouldn't it?

 

[Kapyong]

Gday,

Knowledge of Judaism. Its a very rare occurance for a Jew to proclaim himself the Messiah. And even those that have have never claimed to also have been the Son of God.

What about the many metaphorical uses ?

Psalm 2:7 refers to the Messiah as God's "son".

Some Jews call themselves the "children of God".
As well as leaders being called "sons of God".

The Jewish name "Ahijah" (brother of God).

In Exodus, Israel is called "God's son".



It hardly has to be taken as literal.


K.

 

[Brainache]

Gday,



What about the many metaphorical uses ?

Psalm 2:7 refers to the Messiah as God's "son".

Some Jews call themselves the "children of God".
As well as leaders being called "sons of God".

The Jewish name "Ahijah" (brother of God).

In Exodus, Israel is called "God's son".



It hardly has to be taken as literal.


K.

And isn't this whole business of "Annointed" a little bit over-stated? Weren't all Priests annointed?

[off topic]
Pointy birds,
oh, pointy pointy.
Annoint my head,
...
[/off topic]

 

[Brainache]

The question should not be "Did Jesus exist?" but rather "In what way did Jesus exist?"

Did he exist as a person in the minds of followers? Yes, undoubtedly
Did he exist in any contemporary record? No, only transcriptions at best.
Did he exist as flesh and blood? There's no evidence for or against that.

These questions and answers are all independent. As usual, I recommend comparison to the Nation of Islam. Its founder undoubtedly existed as flesh and blood, but he did not exist as the person he claimed to be, or his followers later claimed him to be. This one example is enough to debunk the troubled thesis of Acharya S, that because Jesus didn't exist as a supernatural person, he must have been invented in a Roman COINTELPRO office.

e: Lest I be accused of misrepresenting Acharya's conclusion:

I'd rather go with Eisenmann.:
http://www.roberteisenman.com/

About Robert H. Eisenman...
He is Professor of Middle East Religions and Archaeology and Islamic Law and the Director of the Institute for the Study of Judeo-Christian Origins at California State University Long Beach and Visiting Senior Member of Linacre College, Oxford. He holds a B.A. from Cornell University in Philosophy and Engineering Physics (1958), an M.A. from New York University in Near Eastern Studies (1966), and a Ph.D from Columbia University in Middle East Languages and Cultures and Islamic Law (1971). He was a Senior Fellow at the Oxford Centre for Postgraduate Hebrew Studies and an American Endowment for the Humanities Fellow-in-Residence at the Albright Institute of Archaeological Research in Jerusalem, where the Dead Sea Scrolls were first examined.

In 1991-92, he was the Consultant to the Huntington Library in San Marino, California on its decision to open its archives and allow free access for all scholars to the previously unpublished Scrolls. In 2002, he was the first to publicly announce that the so-called 'James Ossuary', which so suddenly and 'miraculously' appeared, was fraudulent; and he did this on the very same day it was made public on the basis of the actual inscription itself and what it said without any 'scientific' or 'pseudo-scientific' aids.

Is it an argument from authority to give this guy more credit than Archyria whatever?

I've only read summaries of his ideas, but it all seems pretty convincing so far.
Where are Greediguts, Ichneumannwasp, Hans Musterman and Piggy when you need them?

 

[Gazpacho]

Is it an argument from authority to give this guy more credit than Archyria whatever?

Acharya S is an ultimate authority on her own thesis which has been widely publicized and consistently described as a "Christ myth" thesis. Prof. Eisenman is not, and I'm not sure what his thesis is, but a quick review suggests that he does not share Acharya's hardline view.

People are welcome to deconstruct Christian theology as much as they like, but such deconstruction can never prove that there was no flesh and blood Jesus.

 

[Kapyong]

Gday,

Acharya S is an ultimate authority on her own thesis which has been widely publicized and consistently described as a "Christ myth" thesis. Prof. Eisenman is not, and I'm not sure what his thesis is, but a quick review suggests that he does not share Acharya's hardline view.

Hardline view?
A better term would be crazy crackpottery.

She believes the PYGMIES have been running a world-ruling conspiracy for millenia.

People are welcome to deconstruct Christian theology as much as they like, but such deconstruction can never prove that there was no flesh and blood Jesus.

People are welcome to deconstruct Greek mythology as much as they like, but such deconstruction can never prove that there was no flesh and blood Hercules.


K.

 

[DOC]

Knowledge of Judaism. Its a very rare occurance for a Jew to proclaim himself the Messiah. And even those that have have never claimed to also have been the Son of God.

You see, we Jews do not believe that God can have children. Not even Muslims accept that Jesus was the God's son, for the exact same reason. Had Jesus not been proclaimed God's son, Jews may have been much more likely to accept him.

Son of God is a figurative term (except to Mormons), as is the lamb of God, and the Good Shepard.

Jesus came out of God or another way of saying it is He was God in the flesh. St. Patrick used the 3 leaf clover to describe the Trinity. Three leaves, one clove. Jesus came out of God but was not the totality of God while on earth.

 

[Gazpacho]

People are welcome to deconstruct Greek mythology as much as they like, but such deconstruction can never prove that there was no flesh and blood Hercules.

I don't disagree with this.

 

[RandFan]

Jesus came out of God but was not the totality of God while on earth.

Was Jesus kind of a clone? Like a shoot from a plant, the shoot has the same genetics so is in essence the same plant but is in fact a different object?

Are Jesus and God separate still in some metaphoric or metaphysical way?
Why aren't we all the same person? What makes us separate individuals?
Did Jesus and God have the exact same thoughts?
Why did Jesus ask God to "let this cup pass"? Didn't he know the answer?
Why even distinguish between God and the Holy Ghost? If they are the same and god is everywhere then why bother?

 

[Brainache]

Acharya S is an ultimate authority on her own thesis which has been widely publicized and consistently described as a "Christ myth" thesis. Prof. Eisenman is not, and I'm not sure what his thesis is, but a quick review suggests that he does not share Acharya's hardline view.

People are welcome to deconstruct Christian theology as much as they like, but such deconstruction can never prove that there was no flesh and blood Jesus.

I don't want to deconstruct Acharya S's "Thesis" nor Christian Theology, I'm interested in the history of first century Palestine.

The only criticisms of Eiesenmann's stuff I ever see is that he spends too much time explaining in explicit detail the techniques and sources he used to reach his conclusions.

I also think it is in his favour that he worked so hard to gain free access to the original material for all Scholars, rather than just a priveledged few. For nearly 50 years almost all Scholars had been denied acces to these things, so a lot of this stuff is still fairly new to Academia. I think the whole field of Biblical Scholarship will be impacted by this stuff eventually.

I don't think any of it will make a bit of difference to the Xtian Joe Public, one way or another.

 

[Kapyong]

A few minutes ago you indicated that you hadn't even heard of her and now you're making some rather bold allegations.

No I didn't.
Please withdraw that false claim.

In fact - I have read her books, and I have debated her online.

People are welcome to deconstruct Christian theology as much as they like, but such deconstruction can never prove that there was no flesh and blood Jesus.

I don't agree with this.



K.

 

[Brainache]

No I didn't.
Please withdraw that false claim.

In fact - I have read her books, and I have debated her online.



K.

I think he got us confused. I am unfamiliar with Archyriania...

 

[Gazpacho]

I don't agree with this.

All right, tell me how that works. How would you prove that Jesus never existed as flesh and blood by documenting false claims made about him as a personality?

 

[epix]

You don't have to convince me he was the Son of God, or that he could perform miracles. Even atheists can believe Jesus existed; I'm sure many do.

So, convince me. I am John Doe, and I have seen NO evidence that Jesus ever even existed. Being a rational man, I don't believe Jesus existed due to lack of any evidence , though I admit it is possible... many men have existed, this is not an extraordinary claim.

However, I, John Doe, see no reason to believe he existed at all.

So, give me reason to believe Jesus existed. Simple, right?

Just convince me first that you are a rational person as you claim to be, coz your post strongly indicates otherwise.

 

[Kapyong]

All right, tell me how that works. How would you prove that Jesus never existed as flesh and blood by documenting false claims made about him as a personality?

You have it 180 degrees backwards.

If YOU claim Jesus existed, it is up to YOU to produce evidence that he did.


K.

 

[Gazpacho]

No Kap, you have claimed that Jesus's nonexistence can be proven by debunking myths. That's a positive claim on your part.

 

[Kapyong]

No Kap, you have claimed that Jesus's nonexistence can be proven by debunking myths. That's a positive claim on your part.

I made no such claim.
Please stop saying false things about me.
I'm getting very tired of it.


K.

 

[Minoosh]

So, convince me. I am John Doe, and I have seen NO evidence that Jesus ever even existed.

How do you prove anyone ever existed? All we can do is look at records, and where there are enough of them, perhaps we accept that as proof.

You can Google "historical Jesus" in less time than it took you to compose your question, but you already know that.

 

[Gazpacho]

I made no such claim.
Please stop saying false things about me.
I'm getting very tired of it.

I'm not backing away this time. That was your position.

 

[RandFan]

How do you prove anyone ever existed? All we can do is look at records, and where there are enough of them, perhaps we accept that as proof.

Great answer. I like that.

You can Google "historical Jesus" in less time than it took you to compose your question, but you already know that.

There you lost me, Google 9/11 conspiracy or JFK conspiracy or alien abductions.

I think the "historical Jesus" crap is silly and pointless. It's as valid as "historical Zeus", "historical King Arthur", "Historical Beowulf" or "Historical Jason and the Argonauts".

Someday there will be "historical Harry Potter" and "historical Luke Skywalker".

Remember, prostitutes and politicians are not the only things that gain credibility with age.