|
Post by matt on Dec 13, 2012 12:58:41 GMT 10
Link?
|
|
|
Post by matt on Dec 13, 2012 15:42:53 GMT 10
We all had Jesus put to death.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 13, 2012 17:32:49 GMT 10
It's only become fashionable in the last 100 years or so to claim he never existed, for hundreds of years before that no Church hater denied he existed. Further - en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historicity_of_JesusVirtually all modern scholars of antiquity agree that Jesus existed,[1][2][3][4] and biblical scholars and classical historians regard theories of his non-existence as effectively refuted.[5][6][7] Further from same article - Although a very small number of modern scholars argue that Jesus never existed, that view is a distinct minority and most scholars consider theories that Jesus' existence was a Christian invention as implausible.[30][11] Christopher Tuckett states that the existence of Jesus and his crucifixion by Pontius Pilate seem to be part of the bedrock of historical tradition, based on the availability of non-Christian evidence.[30] Graham Stanton states that "Today nearly all historians, whether Christians or not, accept that Jesus existed".[7] You saying he never existed is only a vociferous minority opinion on the fringes of scholarship. Virtually all scholars accept the existence of Jesus, but differ on the accuracy of the details of his life within the biblical narratives.[1][120] The Christ myth theory is still being debated in the 21st century, with Graham Stanton stating in 2002 that the most thorough analysis of the theory had been by G. A. Wells.[121] But Wells' book Did Jesus Exist? was criticized by James D.G. Dunn in his book The Evidence for Jesus.[122] And the debates continue, e.g. Wells changed his views over time and while he used to argue that there was no historical evidence supporting the existence of Jesus, he later modified his position, and in his later book The Jesus Myth accepted the possible existence of Jesus based on historical sources, although still disputing the gospel portrayals of his life.[123][124][125][126] Robert Van Voorst states that among "New Testament scholars and historians the theory of the non-existence of Jesus remains effectively dead as a scholarly question".[123][124]
So as you can see Buzz you are way outwith the scholarly views on this issue and very much on the fringes with scholars and historians saying his non-existance 'remains effectively dead as a scholarly question'. Only by clutching at straws and fringe viewpoints can you maintain Jesus never existed.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 13, 2012 17:54:39 GMT 10
We all had Jesus put to death. Not me....I wasn't even around when/if it happened.
|
|
|
Post by jody on Dec 13, 2012 18:37:55 GMT 10
even Mensans say Jesus did exist
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 13, 2012 19:05:36 GMT 10
again no historian even mentions him or any part of that story. Philo Judeaus and Justus of Tiberius were there the whole time and neither mention one single word of the story. Not 1 first century historian mentions him or any part of that story - not one so if nobody alive mentions him or the story how can you say he lived? Might doesnt make something right my friend by you are clutching at straws on the obscure fringe end of scholarship to posit such a position. Sorry Buzzo but as stated before "Robert Van Voorst states that among "New Testament scholars and historians the theory of the non-existence of Jesus remains effectively dead as a scholarly question".[123][124]
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 13, 2012 20:39:52 GMT 10
Skip not one person mentions him even 2 who were there the whole time so where is the evidence? "New Testament scholars and historians the theory of the non-existence of Jesus remains effectively dead as a scholarly question".
of course - what else are they going to say? what about real historians and scholars? show me the evidence that he lived and the story is true - because all I see is an unsubstatiated claim. Why should mainstream historians of the time mention him ( apart from the Talmud and Josephus). Jesus was just , in their eyes, an itinerant preacher who never raised a military force, never addressed the Roman senate etc. Again your 'never existed' viewpoint is totally rejected by mainstream scholarship, you say about evidence, if no evidence why is his existance never questioned by mainstream scholarship ? Josephus mentions him and he is considered a great scholar and historian.
|
|
|
Post by jody on Dec 13, 2012 21:39:08 GMT 10
Buzz just coz you say something is true...doesn't mean it is...and yes, that goes for us all.
|
|
|
Post by fat on Dec 13, 2012 23:05:27 GMT 10
Buzz - no historian has mentioned you either.
|
|
|
Post by pim on Dec 14, 2012 10:32:15 GMT 10
This thread is about Jewish children being bullied and hurt because they are "Christ Killers" by Christians. You turn it into a personal attack on me. No he didn't ..... <sigh> why does one even bother ..
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 14, 2012 12:13:34 GMT 10
Buzz - no historian has mentioned you either. This is a personal attack on me. I am recorded actually. Unlike Jesus. But this thread is about a sweet little jewish girl bullied and beaten for being a "Christ Killer" by goodie goodie Christians. Awwwwwwww.....poor liddle-widdle Buzzy-boy is getting picked on!
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 14, 2012 14:51:35 GMT 10
What is in his words is an interoplation that was put there by Eusebius.
The interpolation is questionable, the jury is out on that one and even if you grant Eusebius interpolated the passage it was only on the interpretation of Jesus' works and divine status not his existence.
|
|
|
Post by Occam's Spork on Dec 14, 2012 15:51:32 GMT 10
Buzz you are demonstrating your ignorance of textual criticism and how the process works. Historians are just that--Historians. They write about the past. To continue using the absence documents written within the life of Christ, as evidence that he didn't exist is nothing more than a blatant categorical error.
Additionally, there are plenty of historical documents within 200 years of Christ when the faith was already a prospering movement. Which would be more than sufficient to satisfy any modern historian. Explain for us why you'd require earlier documents, when any accredited historian with degrees and credentials behind his name, would require less?
Technically, we don't really have a solid record of anyone living in that time. Ought we then follow a similar process as you, and conclude that no one did?
Why don't we erase every historical figure we don't have a contemporary record of, and ignorantly assume they never existed.
You say "ignore Christ", I say "Why stop there?"
(P.S. That would also include all your research on the Zoroastrians, since there is no contemporary evidence for them, either.)
|
|
|
Post by Occam's Spork on Dec 14, 2012 16:09:03 GMT 10
Someone really should tell you people how sick you really are. 'We people', Buzz? There is only one people. And we already know we are sick, that's why Christ needed to be the cure. Don't curse the sickness, while you continue to reject the medicine.
|
|
|
Post by pim on Dec 14, 2012 16:19:14 GMT 10
Buzz you are demonstrating your ignorance of textual criticism and how the process works. Historians are just that--Historians. They write about the past. Stud Manly I would hope that you don't just see historians as chroniclers. A historian studies the past in order better to understand the present. Read Hobsbawm. Gibbon wrote his Decline and Fall not just to chronicle the fall of the Roman Empire but to study what he considered to be its moral decay and its role in that decline. These days historians view the decline and fall of the Roman Empire from the point of view of economic history, more or less the Roman "business model" of Empire in which the economy had slavery at its core (in the same way that the economy of your country and mine have access to affordable fossil fuel at their core). Slavery was to the ancient world what oil is to the modern world. But this is an economic historian's perspective and it's one I tend to agree with even though I greatly admire Gibbon's Decline and Fall as a fine work of scholarship and of English prose. But my point here is that Gibbon and the more recent late 20th century historians arrived at very different and contrasting conclusions basically by using similar methods of historiography: study the past and interpret it in light of the present in order to answer the eternal historian's question: "How did we get to where we are today? And what does yesterday have to teach us that we would do well to learn?" I agree with the rest of what you posted.
|
|
|
Post by Occam's Spork on Dec 14, 2012 23:02:39 GMT 10
'We people', Buzz? There is only one people. And we already know we are sick, that's why Christ needed to be the cure. Don't curse the sickness, while you continue to reject the medicine. yes you people who picked on a little girl and bullied her because she is Jewish and call her a Christ Killer and beat her up. I don't live in Sudbury, and I never met this girl. But somehow I am associated, simply because I ascribe to the same creed as her attackers? She was Canadian too, maybe all Canadians are evil. Or maybe it's just people who live in Sudbury who are bigots. It's 80% likely that she was right-handed; maybe we ought to shun right-handed people, also. Why stop segregating on religious grounds? OR.... Oh hey, here's a thought: Maybe these other kids weren't living consistently under the christian ideology.
|
|
|
Post by Occam's Spork on Dec 17, 2012 12:22:46 GMT 10
The only thing that tells me, is these people were a poor reflection of Christ.
You might want to redirect that accusatory finger, while you continue to use sweeping generalizations and hate venom toward all people of faith.
You are no better than they.
|
|
|
Post by pim on Dec 17, 2012 15:22:11 GMT 10
Well, I suppose Buzz is recorded. In Births; Marriages; electoral roll and Census data. Not exactly recorded by an historian though. But these are valuabe primary sources for historians
|
|
|
Post by fat on Dec 18, 2012 6:23:14 GMT 10
If only people who are reported by historians ever existed then the population of the world back then was far less than we can possibly comprehend.
|
|
|
Post by pim on Dec 18, 2012 13:38:59 GMT 10
On "Robin Hood", Buzz you might consider this:
The Robin Hood as we've heard of him is a Hollywood confection. You're right, there was no such historical character. But it's a bit like these boring non-debates about the historicity of the Bible, to spend time "debating" these questions makes you miss a deeper richness.
In the case of Robin Hood it's a case of a much older folk religion among the English peasantry that harks back to the days of their pre-Christian heathen ancestors.
You have to recall just how heavily forested ancient Britain was, and indeed medieval England. Wasn't there some ancient folk rhyme about how from some point on the Channel coast " ... to Anglesea/ a squirrel can leap from tree to tree". The ancient heathen deities of both the Celts in Roman (and pre-Roman) Britain, and the pagan Anglo/Saxons that followed, were forest deities. The forest has always been a place of magic and enchantment in Germanic folklore. Just look at Grimm's Fairy Tales! But I also include ancient English folklore. The ancient forests of Britain were thought of as dangerous places full of spirits and "faeries" (forget Walt Disney and Tinkerbell). An important forest spirit was called "Robin" and also "Puck". This is the "Puck" in Shakespeare's A Midsummer Night's Dream. If you study Puck's speeches in the play, you'll notice how he also frequently refers to himself as "Robin". So for the English in the days of the early Plantagenet monarchs of Henry II, Ellenore of Aquitaine, Richard the Lion-Heart and John Lackland, a mythical forest-dwelling creature called "Robin" could only have meant a well-known spirit. Robin Hood is in fact a pagan throwback.
|
|
|
Post by Occam's Spork on Dec 20, 2012 10:47:56 GMT 10
Buzz,
You are angry at these people for stereotyping Jews based on their own historical interpretation... (Wait for it)
...While you yourself do the same thing by stereotyping all christians, based on precisely the same premise. (Your own historical interpretation)
Tell me exactly how you are NOT a hypocrite, right now?
|
|
|
Post by fat on Dec 21, 2012 11:55:45 GMT 10
Buzz - Do you think Jesus would condone their actions - after all his last words from the cross were "Father, forgive them for they know not what they do"
If these people are not doing as Christ commanded, how can they then be Christians (followers of Christ?
As for the Nazi belt buckle - you need to do some study on the relationship of Hitler and the church.
|
|
|
Post by pim on Dec 22, 2012 7:17:35 GMT 10
Speaking of thinking ...
|
|
|
Post by Occam's Spork on Dec 22, 2012 23:25:05 GMT 10
because it happened frequently and I even saw it with my own eyes and I know of several people it happened to. ..So it's the frequency, and not the act itself that makes it evil, Buzz? Nice justification. And what would you say of your frequent prejudice and provocation of christians on this board? I suppose in your mind it must be alright as long as the individual doing the attacking, isn't religious. And now, here's a picture of some kittens:
|
|
|
Post by Occam's Spork on Dec 22, 2012 23:34:35 GMT 10
Buzz - Do you think Jesus would condone their actions - after all his last words from the cross were "Father, forgive them for they know not what they do" If these people are not doing as Christ commanded, how can they then be Christians (followers of Christ? As for the Nazi belt buckle - you need to do some study on the relationship of Hitler and the church. I don't believe Jesus ever existed or exists now so your question is the same as if I asked you what Frodo would think. You are free to think that, but the majority of scholars (religious and secular alike) would disagree with you.
|
|