FRDB Archives

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.


Go Back   FRDB Archives > Archives > Religion (Closed) > Biblical Criticism & History
Welcome, Peter Kirby.
You last visited: Yesterday at 03:12 PM

View Poll Results: Was Jesus ever an actual human being?
Yes 45 20.93%
No 78 36.28%
Maybe 84 39.07%
Other 8 3.72%
Voters: 215. You may not vote on this poll

 
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old 02-12-2008, 09:10 AM   #301
Regular Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Germany
Posts: 267
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Solitary Man View Post
The Dead Sea Scrolls predated Jesus.
No, they don't as Jesus, the Logos, is without beginning or end in human history.

Klaus Schilling
schilling.klaus is offline  
Old 02-12-2008, 09:13 AM   #302
Contributor
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: the fringe of the caribbean
Posts: 18,988
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by mens_sana View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by aa5874 View Post
I find it reasonable to assume Jesus the Christ was not an actual human being, since the only information we have are magical or supernatural and full of errors.
That appears to be a reasonable conclusion. So why muddy it by conflating "Jesus the Christ," a divine being, with "Jesus of Nazareth," a 1st century itinerant preacher of the apocalypse?
I don't where you found this itinerant preacher of the apocalypse, are you referring to Jesus the son Ananus?

I have not found the words "Jesus of Nazareth" in Philo, Josephus, Tacitus, Suetonius, or Pliny the Younger?

Who is this preacher? I have never ever heard of him in any writings of antiquity at all. This preacher must have been recently fabricated.
aa5874 is offline  
Old 02-12-2008, 01:31 PM   #303
Contributor
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Falls Creek, Oz.
Posts: 11,192
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by schilling.klaus View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by Solitary Man View Post
The Dead Sea Scrolls predated Jesus.
No, they don't as Jesus, the Logos, is without beginning or end in human history.
Ancient history is able to specify a time
before which Jesus (of the NT) was not.

The association between this Jesus, and
the Aeonic Logos had a definite beginning
on this planet's archaeological record, in
the field of ancient history.

If you are talking philosophy or psychology
then you may have a point. These fields do
not necessarily require integrity with respect
to chronology, as does ancient history.

Can you clarify your position Klaus?

Best wishes,


Pete Brown
mountainman is offline  
Old 02-12-2008, 09:53 PM   #304
Regular Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: 1/2 mile west of the Rio sin Grande
Posts: 397
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by schilling.klaus View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by Solitary Man View Post
The Dead Sea Scrolls predated Jesus.
No, they don't as Jesus, the Logos, is without beginning or end in human history.

Klaus Schilling
That qualified Jesus, usually known as JC, is defined that way — but I don't think we were speaking of the divine Christ.
mens_sana is offline  
Old 02-12-2008, 09:55 PM   #305
Regular Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: 1/2 mile west of the Rio sin Grande
Posts: 397
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by aa5874 View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by mens_sana View Post

That appears to be a reasonable conclusion. So why muddy it by conflating "Jesus the Christ," a divine being, with "Jesus of Nazareth," a 1st century itinerant preacher of the apocalypse?
I don't where you found this itinerant preacher of the apocalypse, are you referring to Jesus the son Ananus?

I have not found the words "Jesus of Nazareth" in Philo, Josephus, Tacitus, Suetonius, or Pliny the Younger?

Who is this preacher? I have never ever heard of him in any writings of antiquity at all. This preacher must have been recently fabricated.
Do you think being obtuse wins an argument?
mens_sana is offline  
Old 02-12-2008, 10:00 PM   #306
Regular Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: 1/2 mile west of the Rio sin Grande
Posts: 397
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by aa5874 View Post
Well, do you think Jesus existed because others think he existed, or do you just go with numbers regardless of the evidence?
Neither.

Quote:
With respect to my investigation of the evidence of the history of Jesus, I am not obliged to agree with the "experts" from either side.
No one is.
mens_sana is offline  
Old 02-13-2008, 02:43 AM   #307
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Australia
Posts: 5,706
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by mens_sana View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by angelo atheist View Post
I keep repeating myself, I think. The evidence for an historical Jesus outside of the N/T, is practically non existent. Even the Dead Sea Scrolls which were written at roughly the time Jesus was supposed to have lived don't mention him. So, why should we have any doubt that the man never had any existence?
The evidence of a village named Nazareth is also nearly nonexistent outside the NT. People have made much of that, as they used to capitalize on no historical mention of Belshazzar. We found out differently about Belshazzar and Nazareth has a nice entry in the Oxford Encyclopedia of Archaeology in the Near East (V.4,p.113). Please tell me why the Essene sect library should have mentioned a little-known itinerant Galilean preacher who was neither a friend nor an enemy, nor a member.
Because Nazareth has been proved to have existed, does not mean the story wound around it is fact. Many works of fiction are wound around known factual places of historical significance. It does not make the stories any more factual.
angelo is offline  
Old 02-13-2008, 03:59 AM   #308
Regular Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Germany
Posts: 267
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by mens_sana View Post
That qualified Jesus, usually known as JC, is defined that way but I don't think we were speaking of the divine Christ.
There's no other Jesus than the divine.

Klaus Schilling
schilling.klaus is offline  
Old 02-13-2008, 04:27 AM   #309
Regular Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Germany
Posts: 267
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by angelo atheist View Post
Because Nazareth has been proved to have existed
This is <false>, as already known by Ken Humphreys.


Klaus Schilling
schilling.klaus is offline  
Old 02-13-2008, 04:57 AM   #310
Contributor
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: the fringe of the caribbean
Posts: 18,988
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by mens_sana View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by aa5874 View Post

I don't where you found this itinerant preacher of the apocalypse, are you referring to Jesus the son Ananus?

I have not found the words "Jesus of Nazareth" in Philo, Josephus, Tacitus, Suetonius, or Pliny the Younger?

Who is this preacher? I have never ever heard of him in any writings of antiquity at all. This preacher must have been recently fabricated.
Do you think being obtuse wins an argument?
You know that Jesus of Nazareth was never described as an itinerant preacher in the NT or by the Church fathers, and that there are no other extant writings of Jesus of Nazareth that described him as such a preacher.

Mark 1.28
Quote:
And immediately his fame spread abroad throughout all the region round about Galilee.
Matthew 9.26
Quote:
And the fame hereof went abroad into all that land.
Luke 4.14
Quote:
.......and there went out a fame of him through all the region round about.
Church History 1.13.1
Quote:
The divinity of our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ being noised abroad among all men on account of his wondrous working power, he attracted countless numbers from foreign countries lying far away from Judaea....
I cannot locate your itinerant preacher, Jesus of Nazareth, anywhere, you must have fabricated your Jesus, recently, from your imagination.
aa5874 is offline  
 

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -8. The time now is 09:09 AM.

Top

This custom BB emulates vBulletin® Version 3.8.2
Copyright ©2000 - 2015, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.