Jeffrey Gibson

[/quote]

I'm not sure that "what every one knows", even if they do, is a reliable marker of truth, but what about Bar Kosibah? Shabatti Zevi?

If you know what is to be known about these fellows, you know that the title was applied to them. That they eneded up not "being" the Christ -- i.e. the deliverer the were proclaimed (or proclaimed themselves) to be -- does not mean that the title was not applied to them.

Could you please provide some primary evidence that "a man of the highest possible standing" is a meaning that the wordΧριστός actually bore and denoted in the first century, let alone that it was considered to be synonymous with such laudatory designations as ὁ μέγας or ὁ πρῶτος or προτιμήσις and especially καλὸς καὶ ἀγαθὸς that did signify "of highest possible standing"?

Note, texts which indicate that this might be something that a writer implied about the one he/she speaks of as Χριστός is not evidence that that "man of highest possible standing" 's was a, let alone the primary, denotation of Χριστός, as you seem to claim that it was.So please don't do the dance that you usually do when I ask you to provide actual evidence for your claims. Can you or can you not point me to primary evidence that backs up your linguistic claim? If you can, what is it?

Jeffrey

patcleaver

Finally someone is going to supply us with the secure evidence. I thought Jesus was just a myth and everyone in the HJ crowd were just believing wild theist fantasies based on wishful thinking bordering on the delusional. Thank goodness that No Robots is going to make a cogent case by presenting the reasonable secure evidence for the existence of historical Jesus. So please continue No Robots - lay out your case.

After you finish, could you also prove the historical Thor - I would really like to know that Thor existed.

Lugubert

I'm not so sure about Thor, but the late Thor Heyerdahl claimed that Odin was a king who lived in southern Russia and in ca. 65 bce emigrated to Scandinavia, where he was appointed a god.

aa5874

That is all there is to No Robots' historical Jesus, "Some of us maintain that there is such evidence."

That's it.

The game is over.

The historical Jesus is stupidity, as written by the letter writer called Paul, and a monstrous lie, as declared by Julian.

arnoldo

Julian also thought it was stupid for christians to follow a "religion" which was only 300 years old. . .

No Robots

I am only saying that when virtually anyone hears the title Christ, they think of Jesus of Nazareth. If you hear the title The Great One, whom do you think of? Chances are it is either Jackie Gleason or Wayne Gretzky.

Of course, not everyone accepts that Jesus of Nazareth deserves the title Christ, just as there are those who do not think that either Gleason or Gretzky deserve the title The Great One.

What does Christ mean when he applies the title to himself? It means that he is the master, the man who stands above all other men. At least that's how I see it.

No Robots

I disagree. The Last Supper is clearly his appropriation of the title of Messiah.

No Robots

The evidence has always been here. Your inability to accept it is your own.

spin

Assorted gems by No Robots:
Where exactly do you find "him" redefining the title to mean himself?? Can you cite your biblical references please?

You tell the first claim to the Jews.

The second part is based on the Jewish origin of the word M$YX. When the term was shanghaied by christianity to mean something else, how can you argue your claim based on a changed (non-Jewish) usage?

It seems that you are working with tradition materials and uncritically using them as though they directly reflect a past reality. I thought you were going to examine the processes of history more clearly, but in fact all you did was try to use your selected textbites from comments on historiography on the internet to make yourself feel stimulated and now you are back peddling the same sorts of thoughts that you evinced before you dallied in the potted net expositions of historiography and have apparently learnt almost nothing about historiography at all.

Pat Cleaver will be sorely knotted with this coquettish approach to the dialog. You bring a person to a certain level of anticipation only to throw cold water on them with this "I'm not going through with it" teasing.


spin

aa5874

That is the response I expected. Let us catalogue your recent information of the historical Jesus.

That's it.

If Jesus was just a man, actually living during the days of Tiberius, then he really had no good news for the Jews, he was a fraud and a blasphemer.

If Jesus was just a man, he lied or was extremely stupid when he claimed that he would rise from the dead after three days, and it is most likely that one of the disciples discarded his body to fake the resurrection, if it is supposed he died.

And, if Jesus was a man, Peter and Paul would have known that his father was just a man and not the God of the Jews, and that Jesus had no power to forgive sin, yet for some unknown reason, Peter and Paul were executed for their stupidity, for worshipping a man as a God knowning in advance that it was a lie.


The historical Jesus is untenable, it was a stupid monstrous lie.

Jesus was just a story.

The game is over.