steve_bnk

To the OP JC of the NT gospels as we have them was a Jewish rabbi preaching to Jews. If you want to debate the translations of the original words you will find people here who will do so, I am not one of them.

HJ vs MJ has been the source for beaucoup threads and posts.

My view is given the known political, religious, and ethnic conditions at the time, there were likely a number of people similar to the gospel character.

There is evidence or corroborating accounts. That is a given, so what is your point?

I doubt you could open up a general dialogue or argument that has not been talked to death on the forum already. Feel free to start yet another thread on whether JC was a real person...:Cheeky:

Some on te forum think there was an historical JC on which the story was based or perhaps a composite of a movement. Some think JC was a complete fiction from scratch. It is conjecture either way.

As to Anatolia that would probably be linked to Paul. According to interviews on a PBS show that traced Paul's alleged travels, in the region he is said to be from today he is considered a native son.

http://travelbiblical.com/?p=paul

Minimalist

Pausanias, a Greek geographer of the Second century, traveled through Greece, and specifically Corinth, without reporting any hint of xtians.


Doesn't mention bumping into any Jews either.

spin

Calling Jesus a rabbi seems to be an anachronism. That was the point of my first paragraph above. Your simple repetition of the idea shows a lack of engagement in your response.

Reducing the problem of supporting your assertions to HJ vs MJ just illustrates a lack of scholarly procedure. One needs to be able to support their assertions, not fob them off.

How one ascertains such a likelihood, I don't know, but having a number of people like d'Artagnan doesn't establish anything. Neither does a bunch for Jesus.

Reliable sources do not include infotainment.

spin

The following seems to have been added to the post I last responded to in this thread...
What you take as given is assertion.

So why do you feel free to assert a position that you cannot argue?

steve_bnk

I have debated my views on HJ vs MJ enough times that it is no longer interesting or engaging.

I look at what is known of the times and compare it to more documented periods. You only have to look at Palestine under the British Mandate to get a feel. A boiling pot of political, ethnic, and religious conflict.

If there were no HJ or movement, then you have to ask why someone would invent the gospels from scratch against a Jewish backdrop for the plot. To me that makes less sense than an HJ of some sorts.

Human nature and history would say there would have been wandering doom and gloomers. In Jewish biblical history JC would have been one in along line of Jewish prophets, who were not always well received.

As to scholarly, to your question on early Christian centers all's you had to do was google to find the answer.. An early Christian center where eone of the alleged early evangelizers lived, I see how that can be hard to correlate.

If you think you are being provocative or clever by asking for 'evidence' in response to opinions, we all know there is no factual proof either way. So for that from me you get a big yawn.

Pragmatically if all debate on the forum was limited to absolute facts, there would be no forum and nothing to say.

Do you think there was an HJ, and if not why not? What is your position and why? You need to start a new tread, HJ vs MJ is a derail from the op.

Correction...there is no corroborating evidence for any of the characters and stories.

mountainman

Enter the Jedi Jesus.





εὐδαιμονία | eudaimonia

mountainman

AGBAR TO JESUS, COME IN JESUS, OVER:


The Doctrina then continues, with a letter from Jesus:

JESUS TO AGBAR, COME IN AGBAR, OVER:


According to Eusebius, Jesus himself wrote the letter; nothing is mentioned of his having dictated it to Hannan.


Eusebius claims to have found the letter exchange in the archives, written in Syriac.

Eusebius does a translation from the Syriac to the Greek for his "history thesis" about the early church.



εὐδαιμονία | eudaimonia

mountainman

Good point.

Pausanias mentions no shrines and no churches, not even a figurine.




εὐδαιμονία | eudaimonia

spin

Listen up, charlie. Stop crapping on about HJ vs MJ. It's just a smokescreen.

You can like historicists assume that Jesus existed, or you can like mythicists assume that he didn't. I really don't care, but if you assert one or the other as though it were fact you are just talking through your hat.

Uh-huh.

This is basic contentless conjecture, creating some straw man to knock down with a specious generalization. It makes more sense to you. Well, congratulations. Some horizons aren't very broad.

"...would say...would have...would have..." Convincing, isn't it?

I'm glad you've discovered google. I wish you'd get on to evidence f or the things you say.

And that for me just confirms that you are talking nonsense from start to finish.

Heh, that wouldn't be another specious generalization?

When I have already answered the question, why do you repropose it other than to show that the machinery may not be functioning correctly?

Well, why do you act as though at least one of those characters is real, when you know yourself, there isn't any corroborating evidence? Can't you leave it on the shelf and stop making senseless noise about it?

aa5874

The Jesus story was NOT invented from scratch. The fundamental source for the Jesus story is BOLTED to the Scriptures of the Jesus cult.

The Jesus story was lifted from the Septuagint and was quoted by the Jesus character word for word.

When Jesus needed a donkey ride the author first made sure that there was a prophecy in the Septuagint.