(March 23, 2014 at 11:11 am)DeistPaladin Wrote: Let Ehrman and other divinity scholars sit in their ivory towers and chase after The Historical Jesus through their dusty scrolls. I shall not disturb their devotion or book writing tickets any more.

But I would like to ask them just one question.

"What, if anything, can we actually know about this man?"

I've never heard any definition of The Historical Jesus which is any more detailed than "um, you know, he was named Yeshua and well, you know, he was a religious leader of some kind and stuff." Oh, well, then! Since Yeshua was a common name and apocalyptic doom crier messiah wannabe a fairly common pastime, you'd likely find several over the course of the first century in Judea

This is why I'm puzzled by Christians who are disturbed because some atheists don't believe there was an historical Jesus. This vagueness doesn't prove that the Christian religion is true any more than -

The Jewish View Of Jesus

Quote:Stated simply, the Jewish view of Jesus of Nazareth is that he was an ordinary Jewish man and preacher living during the Roman occupation of the Holy Land in the first century C.E. The Romans executed him - and also executed many other nationalistic and religious Jews - for speaking out against Roman authority and abuses.

Jews do not believe that Jesus was divine, the Son of God, or the Messiah prophesied in Jewish scriptures. He is seen as a "false messiah," meaning someone who claimed (or whose followers claimed for him) the mantle of the Messiah but who ultimately did not meet the requirements laid out in Jewish beliefs.

Jesus of Nazareth was one of many Jews throughout history who attempted to directly or indirectly lay claim to being the Messiah. Given the difficult social climate under Roman occupation and persecution during the era in which Jesus lived, it is not hard to understand why so many Jews longed for a time of peace and freedom. The most famous of Jewish false messiahs in ancient times was Simon bar Kochba, who led the initially successful but ultimately disastrous revolt against the Romans in 132 C.E., which led to the near annihilation of Judaism in the Holy Land at the hands of the Romans. Bar Kochba claimed to be the Messiah and was even anointed by the prominent Rabbi Akiva, but after bar Kochba died in the revolt the Jews of his time rejected him as another false messiah since he did not fulfill the requirements of the true Messiah.

This still doesn't prove that Jesus actually lived, of course, but I find it plausible enough to be possible. From the Roman point of view he'd have been just one more public nuisance. He didn't lead a revolt against their rule so he wasn't noteworthy enough to record.

(March 23, 2014 at 11:09 am)Pickup_shonuff Wrote: IS IT JUST ME OR DID ANYONE ELSE CATCH THAT?

Did the author of Matthew's Gospel just reveal an early Christian belief about Jesus' resurrection? Is it an indication that Christians believed the resurrection of the dead had begun at Calvary? Matthew’s Gospel explicitly states that the holy ones "came out of the tombs after Jesus’ resurrection" yet Matthew places this event at the moment Jesus dies, while his body is still hanging on the cross!

Was the "resurrection" originally thought to have occurred when Jesus "gave up his spirit"?

Interesting question.

Of course, these stories are not in the bible because they actually happened but rather because they make a theological point.

Both Matthew and Mark include the story of the curtain in the temple splitting apart to indicate that there is now free access to God, unlike the OT where only the high priest goes into the holy of holies where God dwells.

In Christian thinking it is only the death of Jesus and his subsequent resurrection which makes possible resurrection for believers. Matthew is the only gospel which includes this story of long-dead zombies arising. I suspect it occurs here at the moment of death, simply because to put it with the resurrection would destroy the focus on Jesus as the risen son of God.

(October 24, 2013 at 7:51 am)Zen Badger Wrote: But isn't it the strangest thing that all the time that Jesus was wandering around performing miracles not one person thought to write any of it down.

And that Herods command to have all the newborns slaughtered is recorded in the bible and nowhere else.

Strange that.

Lack of primary sources is a poor argument on it's own for Jesus not existing. We are talking about a time when there was mass illiteracy and most stuff was word of mouth. There in fact is no primary sources for Genghis Khan either.

Of course the claims made about Genghis and Jesus are spectacular in spectacularly different ways.

One of them seems to have conquered much of eurarasia .. something a human being could conceivably do given a large enough army.

The other is said to have been born of a virgin, walked on water, performed alchemy by turning water to wine, cured leprosy, risen from the dead and lived a life of outstanding empathy. Only the last of these is something a human could conceivably do. The rest are the sorts of claims for which exceptional evidence would be required. If the only surviving evidence are some recorded stories then they should be located at the library in the same section where the exploits of Hercules and Thor are shelved.

It does not appear that most anyone atheizes nor is theistical merely because of some fact or of none (desired, needed, wanted reviewed, unwanted) or other, etc... after reading through 1/4 of this.... ? thread of ?

ecclesia, called out one's and of those believing as one's who opposing are merely "unspiritual can not discern the things of the spirit" both will not from any point of KNOWLEDGE, nor scientia prove more so about if any of some witty basis for belief nor unbelief..., I have reason to consider.

Or we would all be attending
the city-named gathering hall or temple
(as to not named of a denomination OR atheistic labeled believing-of-non's) meeting place for the ecclesia in each of a same regard to those facts/non-facts...


Here among conjectured "sources" and "sciences" again seem to not argue with a "church of a city-named" nor labeled-believers-of-non/un-
now, today, because the science and knowledge of WHO Yeshua, Jesus seems to ask over and over of those relating belief is:
(as recorded asked Peter "WHO DO YOU SAY THAT I AM?"

(Grk: is transliterated JESUS- in response to a poster above, and with and "hhh" in the sound of the "J", then , I have reason to state)

(March 23, 2014 at 11:48 am)Confused Ape Wrote: This is why I'm puzzled by Christians who are disturbed because some atheists don't believe there was an historical Jesus. This vagueness doesn't prove that the Christian religion is true any more than -

The Jewish View Of Jesus

Quote:...

Jews do not believe that Jesus was divine, the Son of God, or the Messiah prophesied in Jewish scriptures. He is seen as a "false messiah," meaning someone who claimed (or whose followers claimed for him) the mantle of the Messiah but who ultimately did not meet the requirements laid out in Jewish beliefs.

....

This still doesn't prove that Jesus actually lived, of course, but I find it plausible enough to be possible. From the Roman point of view he'd have been just one more public nuisance. He didn't lead a revolt against their rule so he wasn't noteworthy enough to record.

I'm pretty sure the bolded words apply. I don't think Jesus himself ever claimed to be the messiah or the apocalyptic judge known as the Son of Man. These claims were written into the gospels decades after his death.

As I pointed out in an earlier post, the gospels do record quite a bit of his authentic moral teaching, some of which is good stuff, and, alas, his apocalyptic prophecies.

Jesus has had a tremendous influence of history for these reasons:

1. his ethical teachings for good or ill
   
2. his followers' delusion that he was a risen savior
   
3. the conviction of many of his modern believers that his failed apocalyptic prophecies apply to their own times
   

(March 23, 2014 at 12:50 pm)whateverist Wrote: Of course the claims made about Genghis and Jesus are spectacular in spectacularly different ways.

One of them seems to have conquered much of eurarasia .. something a human being could conceivably do given a large enough army.

The other is said to have been born of a virgin, walked on water, performed alchemy by turning water to wine, cured leprosy, risen from the dead and lived a life of outstanding empathy. Only the last of these is something a human could conceivably do. The rest are the sorts of claims for which exceptional evidence would be required. If the only surviving evidence are some recorded stories then they should be located at the library in the same section where the exploits of Hercules and Thor are shelved.

I don't think for a moment that Bart Ehrman is endorsing anything supernatural when he says that Jesus is based on a historical person. Christians who use his book to back up those claims are being dishonest nor do I think that's his implication. I find it likely that Jesus is based on a historical person, however since I don't believe he had any supernatural powers, it's rather irrelevant. Jesus did nothing supernatural because the supernatural doesn't exist. Ghenghis Khan was said to have supernatural powers as well and many believe that he is still to be resurrected. This doesn't discount him as a historical person.

My point is more that the argument that Jesus didn't exist because of a lack of primary sources is an extremely poor one. Non-historians would be amazed at the historically established people who don't have primary sources. Genghis Khan conquered most of the world and didn't have any primary sources about him. If people are to argue that Jesus didn't exist as a historic person they are going to have to expand beyond that argument.

<< and no I do not see the RCC "church of Rome" as the universal=catholic church of what is built on a 'revelation' as Jesus calls out "flesh has not revealed this to you (Peter) but my Father-parent in heaven" >>

About that: petra is the greek word used for the rock referring to the 'revelation' that of which is built of those 'called out' .
---, not Peter=Petros, in those writings.

again : "source denied" by some belief, or "believed as is" , if not revealed, then any KNOWLEDGE SCIENTIFICALLY other than a revelation will always be for a non-recipient to argue... and on many many blogs since the beginning of ? 70 Billion who have walked the Earth...

all the "telegrams" Paul had lead to a first believing to know, or receiving empirical KNOWLEDGE by what a still-growing core ecclesia is built upon, and continues

no Doherty, Dawkins, Hawkins, nor whoever is Pope or Evangelist can quench or pass-on that knowledge revealed

One can always ask if it exists, and then choose to not- or believe, that simply put.

---

XP:
I do not think there was any other claim in a temple meeting as recorded Jesus reading the book of Isaiah "these words are fulfilled" would have to be accurately recorded, as the motivation for his death as a rebel was completely satisfied in killing him then on a stake of impalement, hung on a tree/cross whatever: his death record is what it is.

(March 23, 2014 at 1:07 pm)CapnAwesome Wrote: My point is more that the argument that Jesus didn't exist because of a lack of primary sources is an extremely poor one. Non-historians would be amazed at the historically established people who don't have primary sources.

When I advocated the Jesus Myth, I held Jesus to a higher standard on the grounds of extraordinary claims required extraordinary evidence. A philosopher like Socrates or a conqueror like Alexander are ordinary enough. A miracle working godman who brought back the dead on three occasions and performed public miracles should have gotten a write up at some point.

Ehrman advocates for a moral, non-supernatural Jesus. The problem is that the story of Jesus IS the miracles. Strip all that away and you have an empty shell barely recognizable to the Gospel tale.

I think I posted earlier about the hypothetical TV series called "Clark Kent". It's about a guy discovered as a foundling by a childless rural couple. He grew up in a small town and later moved to a big city to become a reporter. In his capacity as a reporter, he becomes a crime-fighter, exposing city corruption and corporate malfeasance. No super powers. No costume. No alien ancestry.

For the most part, this TV series would have little or no resemblance to the DC comic story. You'd be creating a completely new character and a completely new story.

Can you write the story of Dr. Who without the TARDIS or the time travel? How about the story of Merlin but without the magic? Spiderman but without the mutant powers?

Without the superpowers or divinity, Jesus wouldn't have been Jesus.

Doesn't look like anybody ever provided this link:

http://www.jesusneverexisted.com/

It goes over in extenstive detail the evidence.

I cannot say I am certain or not that a man claiming to be a prophet of the the Jewish diety wandered the galilee during the early Roman empirial period. However, the idea that there is TONS of archeological evidence and it lines up on the side of the of a Jesus existing as a historical personage is false.

Most of the accounts (such as Josephus) that are non-biblical are a reference to the fact that christians exist, not to the historocity of their belief set. I will say that I am 100% certain that the religion of chrisitianity exists....