Loomis

Sorry. What is your point? Do you even have one?

My point was that the author of Luke 7:22 was probably familiar with at least some of the DSS because he talked about material in the Messianic Apocalypse (4Q521).

If you want to argue that these are all based on some common oral tradition (and do not depend on a written tradition) then go ahead. But don’t forget to support your claims with facts and compelling arguments.

arnoldo

Other than paleographic evidence concerning the person of a HJ such as the one below;


It is not likely that any direct archaeological evidence exists for a person who didn't build monuments to himself or lead armies. Chances are if someone rejects the archaeological evidence for King David or King Solomon there would be no amount of archaeological evidence which would convince a biblical minimalist for a HJ.

MarkA

Is the HJ an individual who experienced similar events attributed to Jesus in the Bible?

If so then my previous observation that such an outstanding individual would attract the attention of the ruling elite to such an extent that there would be copious references to him in ancient writers is valid. The existing evidence would indicate that no such individual existed as there appears to be no verifiable independant proof in existence of such an individual.

If the argument is that the HJ need not have experienced any of the events, or all of the events, attributed to him in the Bible but the stories somehow attached to an individual as the religion developed, then what is the point of trying to discover such an individual? He would bear no relationship to the character in the stories at all.

Loomis

So you are saying that Iesoun - the high priest in Hebrews, replaced Iesoun - the high priest in Zechariah.

Right?

How come Hebrews described its Iesoun (Jesus) as a ‘high priest after the order of Melchizedek?’

Shouldn’t it have described its Iesoun (Jesus) as a ‘high priest after the order of Iesoun (Joshua)?’

The expression “after the order of” should serve to identify the incumbent high priest - the priest who is being replaced.

Right?

thentian

What is left if we strip away the myth from the man? Not much, I guess, but maybe the man who makes speeches like the Sermon on the Mount and the various "sayings" and parables of "Jesus"? And while such a speechmaker/preacher is not nearly as awesome as the Son of God, he still would be of some interest to scholars and amateurs interested in this sort of thing, no?

Cheers!

David B

I tend to the view that there was a historical Jesus.

Rather than restate why, I link.

http://www.secularcafe.org/showthread.php?t=5528

David B

angelo

The N/T, and Paul's writings never mention Jesus the man. Nothing about his life, he's dis-likes, nothing at all about a historical Jesus, only the mystical if you like, Jesus.

He was as writer R. G. Price states. A Very Jewish Myth

www.jesusneverexisted.com

ApostateAbe

Paul certainly thought of Jesus as spiritual, but there is actually a small handful of passages from authentic Pauline letters that indicate an Earthly human Jesus. I am compiling a list of such passages. You can explain those passages as interpolation or whatever, but interpolated passages typically have evidence.

• "born of a woman" Galatians 4:4
• "who as to his human nature was a descendant of David" Romans 1:3
• "I saw none of the other apostles--save James, the Lord's brother" Galatians 1:19
• "The Lord Jesus, on the night he was betrayed, took bread, and when he had given thanks, he broke it... In the same way, after supper he took the cup..." 1 Corinthians 11:23-25
• "None of the rulers of this age understood it, for if they had, they would not have crucified the Lord of glory." 1 Corinthians 2:8
• "You suffered from your own countrymen the same things those churches suffered from the Jews, who killed the Lord Jesus and the prophets and also drove us out." 1 Thessalonians 2:14-16
• "that Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures, that he was buried" 1 Corinthians 15:4

Anyone is free to add to that list as they please.

aa5874

Your claim is bogus.

What has come down to us via the Bible is that Jesus was not a charismatic cult leader but was the offspring of the Holy Ghost and a Virgin, the Son of God, the Creator who was God before he was made flesh.

What I say is in the Bible.

Look in a KJV Bible for Matthew 1.18-20, Luke 1.34-35, John 1, Acts 1.9, Mark 9.2, Mark 16.6 and Galatians 1.


Now, we have a source of antiquity that shows how people like Jesus of the NT would have been regarded in Judea if he was a real Jew.

There is Josephus who described some Jesus the son of Ananus in "Wars of the Jews" 6 where he made certain precarious predictions about Jerusalem and was beaten to a pulp and declared a madman.


Jesus of the NT was deliberately teaching the Jews in incoherent parables so that they would remain in sin, cursing the Pharisees calling them vipers and of the Devil, while telling his disciples that he would be raised from the dead in three days.

This is not consistent with a charismatic leader but of a loner and a lunatic like Jesus son of Ananus.

In the story that have come down to us from Josephus, no one worshiped Jesus son of Ananus as a God. The story of Jesus is consistent with fiction or mythology.

The story in the Bible that has been handed down to us is consistent with Greek mythology, since the 2nd century Trypho and even Justin himself noticed the similarity.

This is Trypho since the 2nd century in "Dialogue with Trypho"LXVII And this is Justin Martyr himself a Christian claiming Jesus is nothing new, just another ascended born of a Virgin son of God.

"First Apology" XXI See http://www.earlychristianwritings.com

It is not true at all that the Bible handed down to us a charismatic cult leader, the Bible handed down to us a God, the Word, born without sexual union.

aa5874

There is nothing on your list to show Jesus of the NT was a Son of a God.

The Pauline Jesus was a God/man. Your have only cherry-picked half of the description of Jesus. You may have amnesia. Your list is not good.

Jesus Christ of the NT, as you very well know, has been consistently described as an entity with TWO NATURES, fully Divine yet fully human.

At one time the Pauline writers will refer to him as man and then describe him as God which is consistent with the God/man attributes.

These are examples where the Pauline show that Jesus was considered Divine.

Galatians 1.1 Galatians 1.11-12 Romans 1.1-41Co 15:17 - ITh 4:16 - In the NT Canon, of which the Pauline writings are part, Jesus was a God who later became man.

You keep forgetting or don't want to remember.