GakuseiDon

I don't understand what you mean by "confusion". Who was confused, and why? The question is, why use the "Nazarite"/"Nazareth" connection at all? Is it a messianic prophecy? If not, why think that the passage had a connection to Christ (either spiritual or physical)?

Juststeve

Spam:

You don't even quote your own sources honestly. Here is what Meier said in the very article you linked to on the subject of the resurrection:

Q: "Can historians address the Resurrection, then"?

A: "We can verify as historians that Jesus existed and that certain events reported in the Gospels happened in history, yet historians can never prove the Resurrection in the same way. Why not?

Perhaps some fundamentalists would claim you can. Apart from fundamentalists, perhaps even some more conservative Catholic theologians would claim you could. I myself along with most questers for the historical Jesus—and I think a fair number of Catholic theologians as well—would say the Resurrection stands outside of the sort of questing by way of historical, critical research that is done for the life of the historical Jesus, because of the nature of the Resurrection.

The resurrection of Jesus is certainly supremely real. However, not everything that is real either exists in time and space or is empirically verifiable by historical means."

Did you leave this out because it didn't help your argument?

Steve

spamandham

I'm afraid we're going to go in circles about the word "recognized". Can you be more specific as to what is required to be "recognized"? Do you consider Eisenman to be "recognized"?

Because if so, Eisenman proposes that James really was the brother of Jesus, and that James was also the Essene Teacher of Righteousness - who lived around 150 BCE.

Ellegård has proposed that the Essene ToR is the historical Jesus (rather than the historical James). Do you consider him "recognized"?

Peter Kirby, whom I nominate to be the messiah, has put together an excellent resource of the varying Historical Jesus scholarly ideas floating around out there.

Juststeve

Mercy:

Perhaps your just misinformed. From my own reading I know that Crossan and Borg make expentive use of Christian apocrypha as well as non Christian sources as well. In a number of cases Crossan has expressed the view that elements of the apocrypha are more reliable than documents that are part of the canon.

Steve

show_no_mercy

Why use Isaiah 7:14? Is it a messianic prophecy? If not, why think that the passage had a connection to Christ (either spiritual or physical)?

Why use Jeremiah 31:15? Is it a messianic prophecy? If not, why think that the passage had a connection to Christ (either spiritual or physical)?

Why use Hosea 11:1? Is it a messianic prophecy? If not, why think that the passage had a connection to Christ (either spiritual or physical)?

Why use Micah 5:2? Is it a messianic prophecy? If not, why think that the passage had a connection to Christ (either spiritual or physical)?

Matt chose Judges 13:5 because of its language about salvation. It's no less of a stretch than any of his other supposed "prophecies".

show_no_mercy

Do I have to repeat myself?

http://www.freeratio.org/showthread....72#post6525172

Juststeve

Repeating yourself will not do anything to better inform you. Read some of Crossan and Borg and then tell me they do not take into account the Christian apocrypha.

Steve

aa5874

If there was GOOD evidence available for HUNDREDS of years that Jesus was just a man from Nazareth then the GOOD evidence would have been PLASTERED all over on EVERY site AVAILABLE.

But, we have the COMPLETE opposite. There is NOTHING but rhetoric.

HJers, like Fundamentalists, are arguing Plausibilty instead of history, credibilty and veracity.

Well, It is PLAUSIBLE that there was NO city called Nazareth and it is PLAUSIBLE that there was no actual man called Jesus.

There are people on this thread who believe that HJ was raised from the dead and is a "one time BIZARRE historical event".

You MUST know that there are scholars who are Christians that BELIEVE that HJ was raised from the dead as it is stated in the Pauline writings and have asked Jesus to REMIT their sins.

Some Christians believe that the entire Jesus story is PLAUSIBLE since he did ACTUALLY exist as a God.

And I think that is what MJ is all about. Jesus was believed to be a God.

Jesus was MYTHOLOGY.

Even if by some miracle you find the CITY you wont find any history of the myth.

Toto

Juststeve: can you find one of your recognized brand name experts who has written a detailed justification for believing in the historicity of Jesus? I spent some time a few years ago trying to find the justification for this belief, and it seems to be missing. The consensus is that somebody solved this problem and everybody feels free to work from the assumption that there was a historical Jesus. When pressed, historicists refer to Shirley Case, whose treatment is quite dated. He seems to just assume that there is some historical basis for the gospel stories, but you yourself will not defend that.

spamandham

What the fuck does any of that have to do with Meier's assessment of other scholarship in this field. Of course not *all* scholars are apologists. So instead of addressing the actual point I made and then backed up, you accuse me of dishonesty () and quote something completey irrelevant from the same interview.

I had almost written you off as a hopeless apologist prior to this. Now I think you're just trying to win debate points. Don't spend them all at once.