spin

This question ignores what I wrote after the "No!" which was

And why you would think that the "followers" would necessarily think that Jesus would have been resurrected, I cannot fathom, as it seems not supportable by any data whatsoever. I've already indicated it's not in the Jewish tradition of the time (be it related to "a" messiah or not).

One shouldn't encourage baseless assumptions.


spin

TedM

What is the baseless assumption--that Jesus was historical? Plenty of people would disagree with that. You've already said that it isn't ridiculous to assume there was something in his life that would inspire that belief, so I assume you aren't saying that is baseless.

. Who said "followers" thought he was resurrected. Obviously some people thought he was resurrected, and that is the term I used:

So what? We have a man considered resurrected, and the Messiah, so what can we conclude? It is a new concept. It's reality whether we have a reason from 'tradition' to accept it or not. To refuse to consider whether a belief in resurrection would inspire thoughts of relating such a person to the anticipated Messiah seems very restrictive to me, but do what you will, of course. However, if you don't like the topic--Imagining a historical Jesus--I'm not sure why you continue to come back to it.

ted

spin

Baseless assumption: "SOMETHING about his life to inspire people to think he had been resurrected."

Doh, let's have another jelly donut.


spin

TedM

I just don't think this is baseless because it is a comment on human nature which IMO is based on common sense. People don't just go around assuming someone was resurrected unless that person touched their lives personally or was seen as extraordinary in some way--ESPECIALLY in a society in which that kind of thing is not done.

Let me ask you this: If Jesus was historical and people believed he had been resurrected--even people who never knew him personally, what do you think that implies about Jesus' life? Anything at all?

ted

spin

"[E]ven people who never knew him personally" -- "People don't just go around assuming someone was resurrected unless that person touched their lives personally..." They didn't know him personally, but he touched their lives personally.

1) You didn't need to know him personally to be touched by him personally.

2) It was not necessary for one to have known him personally to be touched by him personally.

3) If no-one knew him, it's possible he didn't exist.

4) People could be touched by him personally, whether he existed or not.

5) You didn't need Jesus to exist in order to be touched by him.


spin

Chris Weimer

And modern Christianity is a perfect example of this. As well as modern polytheists, er, really, any modern religion founded before adherents were born.

TedM

#s 1 and 2 don't address my comment "or was seen as extraordinary in some way". #s 3,4,5 reject the "If Jesus existed" part of the question. In other words you aren't really interacting with what I'm saying. And, you didn't even come close to answering my question at the end of the post. Your answers continue to reflect a disregard for the topic of the thread. IF that is how you really feel, please let Amaleq and I continue without these off-topic distractions. thanks,

ted

Amaleq13

I think the explanation is found in the reputation of the claimants rather than anything about the historical Jesus. If we trust Paul's list, I think Cephas' shared experience was influencial to several and that included James but James was influencial to a much broader base. I tend to identify James (the Just?) as the real turning point in the growth of this movement because he had a prior established reputation among his fellow Jews. The "cult of personality" is not a modern invention and I think sufficiently influencial apostles would obtain numerous converts without anything being known about this Jesus they said was the Risen Christ.

No, and the evidence seems to argue against a widely known historical Jesus.

If we rely on the evidence for our answer, it is "you have to wait several decades at least and possibly only until after a major disruptive event like the Jewish War".

Frankly, I don't see that as any more likely than a bunch of people desperately trying to reconcile traditional messianic expectations with the apparent failure suggested by the seemingly eternal reality of Roman dominance and, as a result, feeling compelled to search Scripture for a new (ie hidden) understanding of what was promised.

spin

I wish you'd read what you write. And then cite what other people say in context. I opened my post with two citations from your previous post:

What I then wrote followed from there, ie from your waffling. It was not in vacuo, so please be fair... and think a bit more.


spin

spin

Second bite of the cherry:

That comment is irrelevant in the context. I was looking at the question based on two of your statements and the one you want me to have considered doesn't impact on my analysis of your comments.

Yet are a valid implication of what you actually said.

Oh, but sadly I was.

It plainly was not my intention. You continue to multiply assumptions with gay abandon.

I cannot help it if you write things that lead to such analysis as mine.

Why don't you try to be more conscious of your waffle factor? You cannot hope to accomplish anything when you are so far off solid ground, jumping from one assumption to another as though you have generated meaningful conclusions.


spin