rlogan

Heh. But there were scribes and we have plenty of records, some many centuries before this period.

Baseless assertion.



Falsified easily.

Josephus writes of numerous things not affecting the empire at large in History of the Jews.

Q.E.D.

Haw!

Can't contend with the argument, so you just make up a straw man.

Come on back when you can read the OP correctly. It really is tedious to spoon feed this.

rlogan

Hi GDon

I can't make any sense out of what you are trying to say. Sorry.


Then you are a mythicist. Welcome to the party.

OK, you need to explain to me what "looking at" means. Is there some description of him you are reading?

By all means, show me some other actual account of a Jesus. For example, Josephus mentions more than twenty. Is it one of those?

Is it Marcion's version? What version attested to at the time are you talking about?


See above. Please present a Jesus attested to. Not one from the imagination.

You mean like in a tract describing current Indian religions or sects? You want to put some money on this?

Then I don't know how you contend with a "witness" who has been so thoroughly impeached.

What exactly are you using to arrive at your version of a "historical" Jesus then?

GakuseiDon

That's ok. You wrote "no record exists of any scribe actually recording any of these deeds". You assume that this is significant, but you don't show why. Given that so much material from that time is not extant, I think you would need to show:
1. Why scribes would have written about Jesus. Did they write about similar figures?
2. Why you expect that records from scribes at that time would still exist. Do such writings still exist?

Thanks!

Yes. Probably born in Galilee, crucified under Pilate, and the person who inspired Christianity.

Yes, he's under there, somewhere.

Yes, he's under there somewhere, too.

I don't know about "tracts", but yes, I'd be interested to see how Sai Baba is represented in articles or books describing current Indian religions. Josephus mentioned the various sects of his time without spending any time on Christianity. I doubt that much is spent on Sai Baba, despite his divine origin and his miracles.

Paul, Josephus, Tacitus and the NT itself -- the usual suspects.

aa5874

Another probability theory.

.
Another probabilty theory.


You have a serious credibilty problem.

Malachi151

This is all the more ridiculous since the crucifixion is prefigured in the "Old Testament". How can it be embarrassing when Jews themselves expected a savior who would be killed in such a manner.

aa5874

Any so-called prophecies, in the OT, about the character Jesus Christ were all taken out of context. There is in effect no link or any other ties with that character and the supernatural being, commonly reffered to as the God of Abraham.

Doug Shaver

Can you cite a Jewish source for that claim?

jjramsey

If someone sees pigs flying, let me know, because for once, I actually agree with aa5874.

More to the point, the problem with saying that crucifixion was prefigured in the Old Testament is that the supposed reference to crucifixion--which is in Psalm 22:16, "My hands and feet have shriveled [or pierced]"--is too vague to indicate crucifixion on its own. There isn't even an implication of an execution or nails, etc. It is only trivial to see crucifixion in the psalm if one already has crucifixion in mind in the first place; it's not something you get from the psalm by reading it cold. Saying, then, that Jews themselves expected a savior who would be killed by crucifixion is a stretch.

Malachi151

This is true, I was just thinking of all the "pierced" phrases in the OT and the passages such as Isaiah 53:

http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/...053&version=31

These don't specifically address crucifixion, but the Hebrew scriptures go on and on about saviors who are treated poorly, shamed, suffer, etc. I don't see why any specific form of causing this would be more "embarrassing", than others.

The claim, as I understand it, is that they would ave been embarrassed that their leader was executed, or is the claim that it would have been okay if he was executed by any other means than crucifixion?

Of course, we know that this doesn't really make any sense since the crafter of the Jesus story choose crucifixion as the means by which he is made a sacrifice.

Also, we have the many passages that "require" the "offering of the savior" to be a blood sacrifice, which is also why I think a crucifixion was used, so the shedding of blood is once again something that was prefigured in the Hebrew texts, at least in the minds of the followers of this cult, so I would see no reason why they would be embarrassed by this since this is indeed what they were expecting.

aa5874

You actually don't agree with me, because pigs don't fly and they never will.