kcdad

You seem to be upset with the church... and maybe understandably so... but what does the church have to do with Jesus? Specifically, what does anything the church teach or do have to do with the teachings and doings of Jesus of Nazareth?

Larkin31

I did not write this quotation. I am not angry about God or Chrisitans. I am fairly certain that Loomis wrote this.

steve_bnk

If you take away the divinty and the miracles the person of the New Testament makes perfect sense in the light of Jewish culture and the poititical situation of the times.

He was a Jewish rabai in the tradition of the Jewish prophets predicting destruction of the Jewish state unless the Jews changed their ways.

aa5874

I have not used one piece of information.

I have used a multiplicity of historical information from antiquity.

You constantly ignore the fact that I have presented numerous historical sources for my theory that the HJ is a most SENSELESS proposition.

To build a case, as one builds a brick house brick by brick, I must present or build my case, piece by piece, brick by brick. And further, I do not expect that any one single piece of information, or one single brick, to be able to build an entire case or house.

Once Jesus was fictional I am not going to find his DNA, no historical written records or no artifacts of his existence only information from antiquity to show that the Jesus as described in the NT was never on earth or a most improbable character.

And, each brick in my case will help to establish the following:

1.There are no credible external corroborative historical sources for Jesus.

2. The description of Jesus matches those of other Mythological entities.

3. There are no historical records of a Jewish Messiah called Jesus of Nazareth.

4. Jesus as described did not do anything to be called a Jewish Messiah.

5. The deification of Jesus in Jerusalem is based directly on implausible, fictitious or non-historical events.

6. The deification of Jesus in Jerusalem is historically and theologically implausible.

7. The words and actions of Jesus can be found in Hebrew Scripture, the Septuagint or other similar sources.

8. No author of the Gospels or Pauline writers wrote that they personally spoke to Jesus, none wrote that they personally accompanied Jesus anywhere and none gave a personal physical description of Jesus while he lived on earth.

So, how do you know that his story may have been embellished?

Once you claim his story may have been embellished you need to tell me what part of the Jesus story may be true or not embellished and what source of antiquity was used to corroborate such a theory.

It was not the supposed embellishments about George Washington that made him a figure of history.

The historicity of George Washington is not directly based on assumed embellishments.

The biography of George Washington is not fundamentally MYTHOLOGY from conception to ascension.

There are historical records of George Washington's birth, his parents, his friends, his school, his presidency, and his death.

Well, if you are going to argue that the stories about Jesus were embellished then you MUST BE ABLE to show the parts that are NOT EMBELLISHED and provide the sources of antiquity that will confirm or corroborate your claim.

Please name ONE SINGLE EVENT, just ONE, about Jesus in the NT that is true using an external credible historical source of antiquity.

You need "bricks" to build your case but you have come with an "embellished" sledge hammer, one without handle or hammer. So you can neither demolish or build.

Larkin31

JD Crossan responds to Price by stating that, although he accepts wholesale Price's connections to the OT, he sees no "reason" why in writing a fiction with NO historical figure at the heart of it that the writers of the Gospels would create first a more peaceful Jesus but then over time make him an increasingly violent speaker (more specific threats). Crossan explains that he feels that the more likely answer for this is that the first real figure was more likely a non-violet radical and that the later writers are changing this over time for various political and religious reasons.

Your response?

mountainman

Eusebius of Caesarea, writing between the years of 312 and 324 CE wrote the very first theory of the history of his Jesus character almost three centuries after his alleged life. Washington lived between 1742 and 1799. Thus we seek in this analogy a presidential historian who writes his theoretical account sometime between the years of 2069 and 2081. In fact our analogous presidential historian is not due to be born until 2031 - more than two decades in our future.

Do people understand this? Our authority on George Washington has not yet been born!

Histories written by people are just theories of history. They were not there three hundred years before they wrote. There were no eyewitnesses alive three hundred years after the death of the subject --- hence the history must be deemed as a theoretical account.

That the Eusebian history represents a true history of antiquity is a most senseless proposition.

Larkin31

This is an overstated conclusion. NO history should be deemed accurate or not simply because of its proximity in time to the events described. Analysis of historical accounts is more complicated than this.

aa5874

I am not here to discuss people's feelings. You are telling me about Crossan feelings. I NEED historical sources of antiquity. Tell me how Crossan will feel tomorrow. Your feelings about Jesus may be directly associated with Crossan's feelings.

I am here to examine historical sources of antiquity that can show Jesus was a figure of history and I cannot find any.

These are what I have been able to find out so far.

1.There are no credible external corroborative historical sources for Jesus.

2. The description of Jesus matches those of other Mythological entities.

3. There are no historical records of a Jewish Messiah called Jesus of Nazareth.

4. Jesus as described did not do anything to be called a Jewish Messiah.

5. The deification of Jesus in Jerusalem is based directly on implausible, fictitious or non-historical events.

6. The deification of Jesus in Jerusalem is historically and theologically implausible.

7. The words and actions of Jesus can be found in Hebrew Scripture, the Septuagint or other similar sources.

8. No author of the Gospels or Pauline writers wrote that they personally spoke to Jesus, none wrote that they personally accompanied Jesus anywhere and none gave a personal physical description of Jesus while he lived on earth.

The information that I have provide is SOLIDLY supported by historical sources of antiquity not by feelings.

Now, why do you feel that not one single Gospel or Pauline writer ever wrote that they personally spoke to Jesus?

Why do you feel that not one single Gospel or Pauline writer ever wrote that they personally saw Jesus alive before he supposedly died?

Because the HJ was a most SENSELESS proposition in antiquity.

The Pauline writer confirmed he saw Jesus for the first time after he was raised from the dead and declared, "If Christ be not raised, your faith is vain; ye are yet in your sins."

This is not my feelings but my findings. See the entire NT and you will find the same things regardless of Crossan's feelings.

Larkin31

Some of the boldings (of feel and feelings) are mine.

Not only do you contradict yourself (state that you are not interested in "feelings" and then directly ask me what I "feel"], but then you answer for me.

I will ask again: In a published article in response to Price, Crossan states that he accepts Price but draws a different conclusion. And the primary "reason" (not feeling) is that Crossan sees in the gospels (he quotes the exact passages) a progress from one type of Jesus saying to another: from the passivist radical to the threatening punisher. He states that he does not understand how this change is reasonable given NO historical "Jesus" to begin with.

To dismiss this simply as Crossan's "feelings" is to dodge the issue. Do you have any other response?

This is all, by the way, in the collection of essays in The Historical Jesus: Five Views. Price's essay opens the book and is very interesting.

aa5874

You seem to deal with feelings?

You are the one who brought up Crossan's feelings.. Please, I do not know anything about Crossans feelings or reason for his conclusion.

I am dealing with sources of antiquity that clearly show Jesus was a myth.

What did I dismiss about Crossan's feelings? I have made my position absolutely clear.

I need sources of antiquity that can show Jesus was a figure of history and I can't find any that can contradict my position that the HJ is a most SENSELESS proposition.

Can you NOW name one historical source of antiquity that mentioned Jesus of Nazareth after reading your collection of assays. I await your eager response with the source of your HJ of Nazareth.