RE: What if the Romans hadn't killed Jesus?
April 23, 2014 at 9:40 pm
(This post was last modified: April 23, 2014 at 9:48 pm by Lek.)
(April 23, 2014 at 3:00 am)Minimalist Wrote: Ok - I did not check them all but perhaps 8-10. There are many references to "christ" which, in jewish terms, only meant "The Anointed One" and would have referred to any king or high priest. ( Among the Romans it would have meant, "the oily guy.")
The one reference to "jesus" was translated "Joshua" in another version and since Yeshua/Yehosuah was basically the same shit it does not mean what you want it to mean. Josephus named over 20 Y'shuas in Antiquities of the Jews. None of them were THAT fucking Yeshua, either.
I can't believe I'm actually agreeing with Miminalist on something. Yeah, most of the references are to "christ", the word referring to the messiah or savior. Jesus was the "christ". The references mentioning Jesus, were not referring to Jesus Christ but rather an individual whose name is translated Joshua in most english translations. The names Jesus and Joshua come from the same roots, and either would fit the translation in these instances.
(April 23, 2014 at 9:26 am)Stimbo Wrote:(April 22, 2014 at 11:28 pm)Lek Wrote: According to the research I've done, an overwhelming majority of historians and related scholars, christian and non-christian, contend that Jesus is a historical person who did exist during the time frame indicated in the bible.
So the existence of something is directly proportional to the number of people who believe in and contend its existence? The eminence of the authority scoring double, I suppose?
Related note: what exactly is "the time frame indicated in the bible"?
You can believe it or not, but I thought that was interesting. The time frame indicated in the bible was around 1 - 30 AD during the reign of Herod the Great over Israel.
