Any Evidence For A Historical Jesus?

[Cyberman]

A question to the skeptics: Why do you believe Jesus of Nazareth was not a real person?

What Min said, plus there was no such place as Nazareth in the first century CE - or AD if you insist.

---

People say Elvis came back from the dead. Does that mean he wasn't a real person?

People say all sorts of shit. Does that mean you have to believe everything they say is true until they prove it isn't?

[Minimalist]

Because real people do not come back from the fucking dead.

People say Elvis came back from the dead. Does that mean he wasn't a real person?

Yeah - the asylums are full of such lunatics....same as the churches.

[Cyberman]

Because real people do not come back from the fucking dead.

People say Elvis came back from the dead. Does that mean he wasn't a real person?

Okay, granted that people say Elvis came back from the dead. Do you believe them?

[Undeceived]

What Min said, plus there was no such place as Nazareth in the first century CE - or AD if you insist.

Your information is out of date. 1st century ruins such as a winepress and stone walled terraces have been discovered. See p.12-15
http://books.google.com/books?id=UNIelnu...gy&f=false
p.38-
http://books.google.com/books?id=QoIS7VA...&q&f=false
You don't think 1st century NT writers would be so stupid as to collaborate on a city name which didn't exist, do you?

People say Elvis came back from the dead. Does that mean he wasn't a real person?

People say all sorts of shit. Does that mean you have to believe everything they say is true until they prove it isn't?

The point is that what people say about so-and-so's activities has nothing to do with whether the individual existed.

[Cyberman]

You don't think 1st century NT writers would be so stupid as to collaborate on a city name which didn't exist, do you?

You don't think the word Nazareth refers to a place name, do you?

People say Elvis came back from the dead. Does that mean he wasn't a real person?

People say all sorts of shit. Does that mean you have to believe everything they say is true until they prove it isn't?

The point is that what people say about so-and-so's activities has nothing to do with whether the individual existed.

The point is not whether Elvis was a real person; the point is do you automatically and unquestionably believe people who tell you that he rose from the dead? And if not, why not?

[Oldandeasilyconfused]

A question to the skeptics: Why do you believe Jesus of Nazareth was not a real person?

Well I'm a skeptic .(one who questions and demands proof) I try to avoid truth claims,insisting all questions remain open,most especially one's strongest beliefs.

A have never asserted a man called something liked Yeshua/Yoshua bar Yusuf did not exist. ('Jesus' is a Romanised version of the Greek name Iesous.The New Testament was written in Greek.) That he did not live in a town called Nazareth. That he was not a wondering teacher with a small band of followers. Or that he was not crucified in Jerusalem by the Romans for sedition, a not uncommon fate for a Jew under Roman occupation. These things are all plausible and may well be true,or not. I do not claim to know; I neither believe nor disbelieve.

However,there is not only no credible evidence for the existence of an historical Jesus, is there no credible evidence that the town of Nazareth existed in the first century ce.*

I make a distinction between a putative Yeshua bar Yusuf,who may have founded a small, insignificant Jewish sect,and the Jesus of the New Testament. The former may have existed. It's possible the latter existed. However,so far I've seen no credible evidence that he was/is anything more than derivative myth and wishful thinking.


*There are no contemporary records of Nazareth and the first non Christian record dates from the third century,as far as I'm aware.

[YahwehIsTheWay]

HAHAHAHA

So - you live on a flat earth that is stationary in the sky -built on pilars - and and has a moon that emits light - and you can safely eat every seed bearing plant on earth - I suggest you try some Olenader - and get back to me after to raise again from the dead

Right.

1Chron 16:30 The World also shall be stable, that is be not moved.

So obviously the earth doesn't move.

1Sam 2:8 ...for the pillars of the earth are the Lord's, and he hath set the world upon them.

And shining over the pillar-supported earth is the light producing moon:

Gen 1:16 ...lesser light to rule the night

But fortunately I'm immune to poison as a True Christian ™ (see Mark 16:17-18).

As a True Christian ™ I believe the Bible instead of that godless science that tells us the world is round, the sky isn't a dome and the sun doesn't "rule the day" but rather defines the whole concept.

---

Would it spoil the fun if I were to point out that one of the correspondents on this page is being satirical? Hint - it's not me this time.

[out of character] I think it speaks volumes for just how bugfucked Christianity is that I'm still taken seriously even after I deliberately go out of my way to write the craziest stuff I possibly can. I mean, how far can I push the envelope here?

[Cyberman]

Min and DP will be able to set all this out in much more detail than I'm able to; however, there are contemporary first century historians, travellers and accounts of battles etc across that entire area in the period that JC is meant to have lived. Yet while remote and obscure villages that never made it into the NT accounts get mentioned by these people, not a single one of them makes reference to a Nazareth, which is all the more interesting since it's supposed to be a city.

The only archaeological finds at what has since become the Nazareth site - named after the place in the story as opposed to vice versa - are in the main funerary. As those more familiar with Jewish customs and laws regarding disposition of the dead* will attest, there are strict stipulations about how far from a population centre a burial site has to be located.

The whole Nazareth thing is to do with a deliberate translational sleight-of-hand by the author of (iirc) "Matthew", made with the idea of presenting another so-called fulfilled prophecy. In this case the author took the word "nazirite", referring to a specific type of ascetic monk-type who wore his hair long (as in "no razor shall touch his head; for he shall be a nazirite") and mistranslated it as "Nazarene", with all the locative associations of a place name. There is a little more to the story than this, regarding an offshoot of (I think) the Essenes who termed themselves the Netzorim, meaning offshoot or branch, and this is somehow tied into the whole mess. I'll leave it to our resident biblical history scholars to untangle it as though I'm pretty sure I'm on the right lines, I'm bound to have got things rather confused, or have made it all sound more confusing than it actually is.

---

However, regarding U/D's "question to the skeptics (sic)", if I was being cynical i would suspect he wasn't asking that question in order to obtain information.

---

Would it spoil the fun if I were to point out that one of the correspondents on this page is being satirical? Hint - it's not me this time.

[out of character] I think it speaks volumes for just how bugfucked Christianity is that I'm still taken seriously even after I deliberately go out of my way to write the craziest stuff I possibly can. I mean, how far can I push the envelope here?

Not only that, but I tried to be subtle with my hints so as not to give too much away and still the bugfuckery shone through. No wonder it's lasted so long; makes me wonder how many of the 'real' preachers are just cashing in on the satire?

---

* Incidentally, "Disposition of the Dead" has got to be George A. Romero's next film. If not, we should make it ourselves.

[Undeceived]

The only archaeological finds at what has since become the Nazareth site - named after the place in the story as opposed to vice versa - are in the main funerary. As those more familiar with Jewish customs and laws regarding disposition of the dead* will attest, there are strict stipulations about how far from a population centre a burial site has to be located.

The whole Nazareth thing is to do with a deliberate translational sleight-of-hand by the author of (iirc) "Matthew", made with the idea of presenting another so-called fulfilled prophecy. In this case the author took the word "nazirite", referring to a specific type of ascetic monk-type who wore his hair long (as in "no razor shall touch his head; for he shall be a nazirite") and mistranslated it as "Nazarene", with all the locative associations of a place name. There is a little more to the story than this, regarding an offshoot of (I think) the Essenes who termed themselves the Netzorim, meaning offshoot or branch, and this is somehow tied into the whole mess. I'll leave it to our resident biblical history scholars to untangle it as though I'm pretty sure I'm on the right lines, I'm bound to have got things rather confused, or have made it all sound more confusing than it actually is.

Nazareth was a city long before Matthew came along--since soon after the Hebrews came to Canaan. And it's there today. The only question is if it was leveled by the Assyrians sometime between, and if so, when it was rebuilt.

In actuality, the Hebrew words for 'Nazarene' and "Nazirite' are very different. The town identification is "Nats-raht" while the vow is "nah-zear". ( http://www.seedofabraham.net/naz.html ) Do you have references for your conspiracy story?

[Cyberman]

As I said, I'm leaving it up to our resident biblical historical scholars - principally Min and/or DP, but anyone aprt from you who might fit that description - to piece it all together. Apart from which it's ten past four in the morning here, I'm overtired, I'm slipping into what feels like a major depressive state and I'm afraid that if pushed I might say something you'll regret.

Do you have any reason to dismiss it as "my" conspiracy story or are you being a dick again?

In fact, going back to something I mentioned in my previous post, was your original "question to the skeptics (sic)" intended as a genuine request for information or was it your attempt at a piss-take?