teamonger

[QUOTE=spin;5635482]So, scholars like Sanders who are willing to say that gospel writers "made stuff up", and that Jesus was a mistaken about an imminent kingdom, are somehow unwilling to consider a possible Josephus interpolation? Please.

But okay... I'll take your word for it that you've heard it all before. I was getting weary anyway.
t

spin

I don't venerate E.P. Sanders. I try to deal with texts and what can be derived from them. It's text, not commentators, which is the center of our focus.

I see no reason to take the TF back out of the trashcan as has been done over the last several decades. Can you see any reason for its resurrection?

Mine was a request for new information in the debate. You make claims that you don't appear to be able to support and you get weary when asked to give some support.


spin

spamandham

"There can not have been an historical core" can also not be show to be true.

Either are possible.

spamandham

I have to wonder if you've read any of Paul's writings. How often does he use the term 'brother' to refer to blood relationships, and how often is it used to refer to brothers in faith?

Even today the tradition continues, and monastic orders within the Catholic church are given official title 'brother'.

This is not an ad hoc argument. It's not 100%, but there's good evidence to support it.

You're welcome to your preferences, but that's hardly the basis of good historical analysis.

I don't understand how "when the time had fully come" in any way indicates a recent event.

Let's try again. Read the following, and explain in your own words the source of Paul's gospel, and how the idea that Paul knew witnesses fits:

Gal. 1:11-12
I want you to know, brothers, that the gospel I preached is not something that man made up. I did not receive it from any man, nor was I taught it; rather, I received it by revelation from Jesus Christ.


*sigh* Did you even read the passages I quoted? Paul was not refering to Jesus' crucifixion in those passages. He's simply using the word 'crucify' with a different meaning. The word obvioulsy had multiple meanings.

I guess it's ok to ignore the prima facie evidence when it undermines your position.

Mark says the elect would be gathered. Does he say who the elect are, or what would happen to them? I think you're interjecting the ridiculous modern rapture concept into what you're reading.

Mark could easily have believed those things had already happened. Mark does not say the world would end. You're inserting that for the sole reason of trying to argue an early date for Mark.

That's possible, but it really doesn't help the historical Jesus argument, as you have the same basic problem - having Jesus show up exactly 1 generation earlier is too much of a concidence to simply be hand waved away.

There're interesting theological implications of 1 generation that your view will never reveal, because you've assumed Mark is writing a history report.

...and if Mark were writing even as much as 100 years after 70CE, he might still have reason to place Jesus exactly 1 generation earlier than the cataclysm that changed Judaism forever.

...if Mark were writing in 140CE, would we still expect people from 30CE to be alive?

aa5874

This is basic stuff.


Nothing is the evidence for nothing.

Achilles does not have an historical core is always true until evidence is provided to show otherwise. I do not have to read every single writings of antiquity to claim Achilles does not have an historical core, those who claim he has an historical core must have the evidence. Failure to provide the evidence and I will continue to say Achilles does not have an historical core.

The possibility that Achilles has an historical core does not contradict or provide evidence to counter the claim that he has NO historical core

People can believe anything. Anything is possible. Just get the evidence.

The angel Gabriel does not have an historical core is true until there is evidence. Those who have evidence can contradict me. The possibility that the angel Gabriel has an historical core is not evidence, it cannot alter or minimised the claim that the angel Gabriel has no historical core.

Unicorns do not exist is true until evidence surfaces to contradict even though I do not have the time to search every single square inch of the entire earth. Those who say unicorns exist must have the evidence.

Any verdict in a court is true until further evidence is found to overturn the verdict. It is possible that a guilty verdict may be wrong and vice-versa, but the verdict stands based on the evidence.

Jesus has no historical core is true, it is based on the fact there are no accounts of an historical Jesus anywhere, only evidence can overturn the verdict.

Whatever you think is possible is irrelvant, just get the evidence.

Jesus did not exist is true.

Merlin27

Not only did Jesus exist he is mankind savior from sin.

If Jesus never existed there would be no such thing as Christianity. Christianity would have never started nor would it exist today. Christianity exist today therefor Jesus Christ existed.

[Jesus also cannot just be a prophet. Jesus was either a lunatic that was possessed by Satan or Jesus was who he claimed he was. Jesus cannot just be a prophet if he claimed himself to be the Son of God its one or the other there is no middle ground. But if Jesus was a lunatic that was possessed by Satan then he wouldn't have been preaching love and forgiveness and doing many miracles. He would have made up lies gathered followers and proclaimed war with anyone who didn't believe him or worshiped him.

Using common sense. If Jesus was a normal prophet or a false prophet or even a normal human being. After he was hit with the first whip, he would have denounced himself quickly especially if he was fake. If Jesus was a normal human being or a false prophet he would have hated the people for not accepting him and putting him through the crucifixion instead he was heard saying "forgive them lord for they not know what they do".

Using common sense if Jesus was a false then Christianity would have ended at his Crucifixion. Yet today Christianity is one of the strongest beliefs today 2000yrs later. His followers were sad beaten Idealist directly after Christ death. Jesus told them he was going to rise after the crucifixion. If Jesus didn't rise and present himself to them then they would have lost there faith and went back to Judaism. So how did they go from being sad and depressed beaten idealist to preaching the Gospel as boldly as they did. Face the persecution that they did and choose death rather then change there beliefs during the Roman persecution of Christians?

Using common sense. Christians wouldn't have took the persecution they did from the Roman Empire. They wouldn't have choosen death rather then change there beliefs if Christianity was false and Jesus didn't provide them the undisputed proof that he was who he claimed he was. Yet the Roman Empire fell and Christianity is one of the strongest beliefs in the world today. A guy like Saul does not go from killing the millions of Christians to being one the greatest Apostles changing his name to Paul without Jesus himself telling him "Saul why do you persecute me".

You think about the combination of prophecies that Jesus did fulfill, along with his preachings of love & forgiveness, along with the miracles, along with his crucifixion, along with the impact he still has on people 2000 yrs later. There was nobody else like him or have done the combination of things he has in the history of mankind.

The sad thing is that he died on the cross taking OUR punishment for OUR sins, since he loves us so much as we have failed god over and over and over again since the beginning of time and yet people don't even believe he existed let alone accept his gift which is a nobrainer. "For God so loved the world that he sent his only begotten son. That who soever believe in him should not parish but have ever lasting life".

spin

Thanks for your witnessing Merlin27, but the real crunch comes with the following proposition:

As already seen on this forum, Paul didn't need a Jesus who existed to convert people to christianity. He says he received his Jesus through revelation (Gal 1:12). A real Jesus was not, and is not, necessary for christianity to exist.


spin

aa5874

So far your post is illogical. Constantine worshipped Apollo so Apollo exist. Marcion worshipped the Jesus the phantom so Jesus the phantom exist.

There are American Indians and they worship their Gods, so the American Indian Gods exist.

All the Gods of all the religions exist, the religions would not exist without their Gods.

You are logically lean.


It is so SAD that you think people can kill a real God.

You feel you can kill the God of the Jews or Allah?

The Jesus story must be FALSE. People cannot kill a real God.

It is true Jesus did not exist.

Toto

Hi newcomer - preaching is not welcome here.

I think this is in fact the reason that people assume that Jesus must have existed. But it is not a very good reason.

There are many more possibilities. Lord, liar, lunatic, misunderstood, mistaken. . .

But I think you do not give Satan enough credit. (Or I would if I thought that Satan existed, which I don't, but I'll play along with your game.) Satan could have had Jesus preach such an obscure doctrine that his followers would spend the next 2000 years arguing over what he meant.

Not being normal is not the same as being divine.

If Jesus was truly divine, surely he would have provided better proof of that, and everyone would be convinced and would be a Christian. But Christianity was a small sect for its first few hundred years and never even convinced most of the residents of Jerusalem.

Besides, there is no historical proof that the early Christians chose death over renouncing their beliefs. That's a longer discussion, which you can find at various places in the archives.

You use common sense. The Roman Empire fell, and most Christian empires have fallen. Islam is on the rise. Would those suicide bombers die for a lie? Yes, they would.

Saul did not kill "millions" of Christians - we don't even know that he killed any. But if he did, he might well have changed his mind without a supernatural intervention.

The prophecies were not fulfilled - the Jesus story was written around them. The miracles probably didn't happen. Any any impact he still has on people 2000 years later cannot be used to show that he was a real human and not just a well-crafted fiction.

The really sad thing is that people who do believe that he existed, and was the son of God, have done so much evil in the world.

Merlin27

How many of these religions are based off any of those *gods* living in this world as a fleshly one of us? That's what the bible and Christianity proclaims. To make up that Jesus lived as one of us as a human giving detail description of his life on earth. Then for that *made up belief out of nothing*. To have over 2 billion believers of different races and ethnicity all over the world. So tell me then, *who* created Jesus if he was made up? *when* did he create him? *Why* did he make him up?

They didn't kill Jesus, they killed his flesh for our sins. Jesus proved its not about the flesh but about the spirit. Jesus proved this with his resurrection.

John Ch21

16 Jesus said to her: “Mary!” Upon turning around, she said to him, in Hebrew: “Rab·bo´ni!” (which means “Teacher!”) 17 Jesus said to her: “Stop clinging to me. For I have not yet ascended to the Father.19 Therefore, when it was late on that day, the first of the week, and, although the doors were locked where the disciples were for fear of the Jews, Jesus came and stood in their midst and said to them: “May YOU have peace.” 20 And after he said this he showed them both his hands and his side. Then the disciples rejoiced at seeing the Lord. 21 Jesus, therefore, said to them again: “May YOU have peace. Just as the Father has sent me forth, I also am sending YOU.” 22 And after he said this he blew upon them and said to them: “Receive holy spirit. 23 If YOU forgive the sins of any persons, they stand forgiven to them; if YOU retain those of any persons, they stand retained.”

Also John 19:11
11 Jesus answered him: “You would have no authority at all against me unless it had been granted to you from above. This is why the man that handed me over to you has greater sin.”

The good news that I taught you did not come from any human person. I want you to know this, my friends. v12 No human person gave it to me or taught it to me. No, it was Jesus Christ himself who showed it to me.

Acts ch9

3As he journeyed he came near Damascus, and suddenly a light shone around him from heaven. 4Then he fell to the ground, and heard a voice saying to him, "Saul, Saul, why are you persecuting Me?"5And he said, "Who are You, Lord?"Then the Lord said, "I am Jesus, whom you are persecuting. It is hard for you to kick against the goads."6So he, trembling and astonished, said, "Lord, what do You want me to do?"Then the Lord said to him, "Arise and go into the city, and you will be told what you must do."7And the men who journeyed with him stood speechless, hearing a voice but seeing no one.8Then Saul arose from the ground, and when his eyes were opened he saw no one. But they led him by the hand and brought him into Damascus.9And he was three days without sight, and neither ate nor drank.