Freethought & Rationalism Archive

aa5874 · 02-20-2010, 06:23 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by arnoldo

Quote:

Originally Posted by Loomis

Here is the best case for a historical Jesus:

Or, why would millions of skeptics bother wasting their time on someone who didn't exist.:Cheeky:

Well, once this is your best case, then admittedly, you have no case.

And, your logics are falling apart.

steve_bnk · 02-20-2010, 06:36 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by arnoldo

Quote:

Originally Posted by Loomis

Here is the best case for a historical Jesus:

Or, why would millions of skeptics bother wasting their time on someone who didn't exist.:Cheeky:

Because regadless if an HJ existed, Christianity has been intertwnined with western civilization up through today where it is only recently in historical time that skepticism and criticism has taken a deep open root.

It is no differnt than the search for who King Tut was and why he died, or a deeper undertsnding of Cleopatra. While we have a good ceratinity that both Tut and Cleopatra existed, the story of JC has had a far deeper impact on us culturaly than any oither historical figures.

If nothing else, it is a big part of human history.

arnoldo · 02-20-2010, 07:12 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by aa5874

Quote:

Originally Posted by arnoldo

Or, why would millions of skeptics bother wasting their time on someone who didn't exist?:Cheeky:

Well, once this is your best case, then admittedly, you have no case.

Not if the skepticism towards a HJ began as early as the second century. Justin Martyr writes;

Quote:

CHAPTER II.--OBJECTIONS TO THE RESURRECTION OF THE FLESH.

They who maintain the wrong opinion say that there is no resurrection of the flesh; giving as their reason that it is impossible that what is corrupted and dissolved should be restored to the same as it had been. And besides the impossibility, they say that the salvation of the flesh is disadvantageous; and they abuse the flesh, adducing its infirmities, and declare that it only is the cause of our sins, so that if the flesh, say they, rise again, our infirmities also rise with it. And such sophistical reasons as the following they elaborate: If the flesh rise again, it must rise either entire and possessed of all its parts, or imperfect. But its rising imperfect argues a want of power on God's part, if some parts could be saved, and others not; but if all the parts are saved, then the body will manifestly have all its members. But is it not absurd to say that these members will exist after the resurrection from the dead, since the Saviour said, "They neither marry, nor are given in marriage, but shall be as the angels in heaven?" And the angels, say they, have neither flesh, nor do they eat, nor have sexual intercourse; therefore there shall be no resurrection of the flesh. By these and such like arguments, they attempt to distract men from the faith. And there are some who maintain that even Jesus Himself appeared only as spiritual, and not in flesh, but presented merely the appearance of flesh: these persons seek to rob the flesh of the promise. First, then, let us solve those things which seem to them to be insoluble; then we will introduce in an orderly manner the demonstration concerning the flesh, proving that it partakes of salvation.

http://www.earlychristianwritings.co...urrection.html

There is an incredible amount of extrabibilical early christian writings concerning a HJ.

Quote:

Originally Posted by aa5874

And, your logics are falling apart.

Considering you define a HJ as someone who was fully (had a normal birth and death) and a MJ as someone who had supernatural attributes your logic is?

DCHindley · 02-20-2010, 07:39 PM

Loomis,

I think you've read too much into Zech 3:1.

Zechariah says the LORD showed him, in a vision, Joshua the HP before the "angel of the LORD," presumably to explain his (Joshua's) intentions. Where does it say this was in heaven? The phrase means, literally, "messenger of the LORD," and could even refer to the prophet Zechariah himself.

Verse 3 says "Now Joshua was standing before the angel, clothed with filthy garments," that is, like a penitent who is unsure of his worthiness to the task of rebuilding the temple and reinstating regular worship there, in conjunction with Zerubbabel the prince.

So Satan, who stands to Joshua's right hand as Joshua stands before the LORD's messenger in vs 2, seeks to denounce him as unworthy. In vss 4-5, the messenger of the LORD makes it clear that Joshua is indeed worthy, by ordering those who stood with Joshua change his clothes and put a turban on his head.

Next, in vs 6, the LORD speaks through his messenger (probably Zechariah), an admonition for Joshua (vs 7): "Thus says the LORD of hosts: If you will walk in my ways and keep my charge, then you shall rule my house and have charge of my courts, and I will give you the right of access among those who are standing here."

How is the Lord encouraging the Aaronic High Priest Joshua's mission, which he will be undertaking in conjunction with the Persian designated royal prince Zerubbabel, the same as 1st century CE Jesus being a heavenly High Priest after the order of Melchizedek? In Hebrews, Jesus becomes the HP who replaces the old Aaronic HP, and is no longer thought of as a royal messiah.

What significant event occurred around that time to necessitate a replacement? The Jewish revolt and subsequent destruction of the temple. We're dealing with an evolution of the place Jesus was to assume in God's big plan, from Royal messiah to heavenly High Priest. Talk about a promotion at work!

DCH

Quote:

Originally Posted by Loomis

Look at this:

Zechariah 3:1 LXX
And the Lord showed me Jesus the high priest standing before the angel of the Lord, and the Devil stood on his right hand to resist him.

It describes Jesus as a high priest in heaven who was made sinless by God.

Compare …

Hebrews 4:14
Therefore, since we have a great high priest who has gone through the heavens, Jesus the Son of God, let us hold firmly to the faith we profess. For we do not have a high priest who is unable to sympathize with our weaknesses, but we have one who has been tempted in every way, just as we are—yet was without sin.

See? It’s the same Jesus.

arnoldo · 02-20-2010, 08:47 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by aa5874

And, your logics are falling apart.

Considering you define a HJ as someone who was fully mortal (had a normal birth and death) and a MJ as someone who had supernatural attributes your logic is?

<reposted due to omission of word in post>

Loomis · 02-20-2010, 10:24 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by DCHindley

Loomis,

I think you've read too much into Zech 3:1.

Of course you do.

Quote:

Originally Posted by DCHindley

The phrase means, literally, "messenger of the LORD,"
…
in vs 6, the LORD speaks through his messenger (probably Zechariah)

Probably not. The concept of a messenger of the LORD only exists in Hebrew – not in Greek. The Greeks had angels. Angels were spirit creatures - and that’s what’s in Zechariah LXX. If you want to know the Greek word for messenger look at 2 Corinthians 8:23 or Philippians 2:25. If the Greek translator of Zechariah LXX wanted to convey the idea that the messenger was Zechariah he would have probably used apostolos.

Quote:

Originally Posted by DCHindley

Where does it say this was in heaven?

Zechariah doesn’t explicitly say that the episode takes place in heaven. But where are the "seven eyes that look upon all the earth" in verse 4:9 supposed to be?

The Ravenna Ammunition Plant?

And where are the "two anointed ones that stand by the Lord of the whole earth" in verse 4:14 supposed to be?

Fwiw we also have Jesus/Joshua coming from heaven in Sibylline Oracle 5:345.

And one shall come again from heaven, a man
Preeminent, whose hands on fruitful tree
By far the noblest of the Hebrews stretched,
Who at one time did make the sun stand still.

Loomis · 02-20-2010, 10:32 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by DCHindley

In Hebrews, Jesus becomes the HP who replaces the old Aaronic HP, and is no longer thought of as a royal messiah.

You are claiming that Jesus the High Priest replaces Jesus the High Priest.

Okay.

Where does it say that?

spamandham · 02-20-2010, 10:51 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Loomis

Quote:

Originally Posted by spamandham

...that doesn't necessitate that there was no historical Jesus.

Are you sure you meant necessitate?

That seems like a really poor word choice. :frown:

I don't know what point you're trying to make. If you're an English major and you think I've used the word improperly and wish to spank me for it, that's fine. You nonetheless understood me.

aa5874 · 02-20-2010, 11:25 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by arnoldo

CHAPTER II.--OBJECTIONS TO THE RESURRECTION OF THE FLESH.

They who maintain the wrong opinion say that there is no resurrection of the flesh; giving as their reason that it is impossible that what is corrupted and dissolved should be restored to the same as it had been. And besides the impossibility, they say that the salvation of the flesh is disadvantageous; and they abuse the flesh, adducing its infirmities, and declare that it only is the cause of our sins, so that if the flesh, say they, rise again, our infirmities also rise with it. And such sophistical reasons as the following they elaborate: If the flesh rise again, it must rise either entire and possessed of all its parts, or imperfect. But its rising imperfect argues a want of power on God's part, if some parts could be saved, and others not; but if all the parts are saved, then the body will manifestly have all its members. But is it not absurd to say that these members will exist after the resurrection from the dead, since the Saviour said, "They neither marry, nor are given in marriage, but shall be as the angels in heaven?" And the angels, say they, have neither flesh, nor do they eat, nor have sexual intercourse; therefore there shall be no resurrection of the flesh. By these and such like arguments, they attempt to distract men from the faith. And there are some who maintain that even Jesus Himself appeared only as spiritual, and not in flesh, but presented merely the appearance of flesh: these persons seek to rob the flesh of the promise. First, then, let us solve those things which seem to them to be insoluble; then we will introduce in an orderly manner the demonstration concerning the flesh, proving that it partakes of salvation.

http://www.earlychristianwritings.co...urrection.html
There is an incredible amount of extrabibilical early christian writings concerning a HJ.

You seem not to understand what is an HJ. As far as I understand HJ refers to a human only Jesus.

MJ refers to the non-human Jesus believed to have existed.

Now, there is no abundance of evidence for an human only Jesus Christ.

Virtually all the Church writers claimed Jesus Christ was a God or the Son of a God, the Creator, born of a Virgin and the Holy Ghost of God.

Justin Martyr's Jesus was non-human or a combination of the Holy Ghost of God and a Virgin, a MYTHOLOGICAL entity.

Justin Martyr's Jesus was not a man, since he would not have asked people to worship Jesus as a God.

angelo · 02-20-2010, 11:58 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Loomis

Quote:

Originally Posted by angelo atheist

The DSS are silent on the figure of Jesus.

Not if you ask Luke.

Luke 7:22
Go and tell John the things you have seen and heard: that the blind see, the lame walk, the lepers are cleansed, the deaf hear, the dead are raised, the poor have the gospel preached to them.

“Jesus” is talking about the Messianic Apocalypse (4Q521).

The heavens and the earth will listen to His Messiah, and none therein will stray from the commandments of the holy ones. Seekers of the Lord, strengthen yourselves in His service! All you hopeful in your heart, will you not find the Lord in this? For the Lord will consider the pious and call the righteous by name. Over the poor His spirit will hover and will renew the faithful with His power. And He will glorify the pious on the throne of the eternal Kingdom. He who liberates the captives, restores sight to the blind, straightens the bent. And forever I will cleave to the hopeful and in His mercy...And the fruit... will not be delayed for anyone. And the Lord will accomplish glorious things which have never been as...For He will heal the wounded, and revive the dead and bring good news to the poor.

Note that it incorporates Psalm 146:6-8 and Isaiah 61:1. But the stuff about reviving the dead can only be found in the Dead Sea Scrolls.

Tabor discusses it here:

Parallels Between A New Dead Sea Scroll Fragment (4Q521) and the Early New Testament Gospel Tradition

Quote:

(W)hat is most noteworthy is that Isaiah 61:1 says nothing about this Anointed One raising the dead. Indeed, in the entire Hebrew Bible there is nothing about a messiah figure raising the dead. Yet, when we turn to the Q Source, which Luke and Matthew quote, regarding the "signs of the Messiah," we find the two phrases linked: "the dead are raised up, the poor have the glad tidings preached to them," precisely as we have in our Qumran text.

The author called Luke was familiar with 4Q521 and used it as a proof text for Jesus’ divinity.

Who wrote first, and it only means both are writing what was expected of the messiah.

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.