Researching the historical jesus?

Originally posted by malakiem
i'm just interested in learning that a man could be able to do some of things that he did? thanks!

You're interested in learning THAT he did ... ?
Not WHETHER he did ... ?

Sounds like Fox Mulder "I WANT to believe" :-)


Most of the stories in the Gospels are myths, fiction, allegory, midrash - call it what you will.

It is certain the Gospels are not literal history (do you believe all those graves in Jerusalem opened up, that all those dead people walked around? - a GREATER feat than Jesus' mere 2 days dead)


Iasion

Originally posted by BugZyZuncle
It is obvious that you have done zero research o the life of Christ!
The Christian church is physical proof of Christ's existance. How much more physical proof do you need.

This is a nonsense argument, let's try it on other religions :

The Satanic churches are physical proof of Satan's existance. How much more physical proof do you need.

The Jedi church is physical proof of Jedi's existance. How much more physical proof do you need.

The Hindu church is physical proof of Krishna's existance. How much more physical proof do you need.

The Scientology church is physical proof of Xenu's existance. How much more physical proof do you need.


People, ancient and modern, believe all sorts of things - so what?

BugZyZuncle thinks HIS church is proof of HIS religion.
But just ignores and dismisses OTHER religions.

To a true believe, his beliefs are true by definition.
All other beliefs are false.

Never mind the facts.


Iasion

Originally posted by Clearskies
...the Eucharist is a sacramental ceremony, whereby the priest
transubstantiates the wafer into the actual embodiment of christ.

This is correct. Ask a Catholic if Protestants have a eucharist and they'll say "no". Ask a Protestant if they have a eucharist and they'll say "no". So...who says they do again? Must be the people who don't go to church . Bread and grape juice do not make a eucharist. That's like saying eating popcorn means you're watching a movie.

Originally posted by Clearskies
Unlike the protestant churches which take communion symbolically in "Remembrance" of christ until he comes.

Yep, communion. Not the same thing.

Originally posted by Clearskies
thousands of christians were killed (burned, tortured) by the roman church for not believing in transubstantiation.

And other things. Let's be fair though, some Protestants put down their Book in exchange for weapons as well. Clearly this is incorrect.

Originally posted by Clearskies
Some Presbyterian churches or other may hold to the eucharist, but it isn't biblical.

Hm...none that I know of. What are the denominations that do? The PCA and PCUSA do not.

Originally posted by Clearskies
Our church still practises communion every once in awhile, no specific holidays or anything, just whenever the preacher announces it.
You can even do it alone away from church, just you and the lord...

I agree with this, though some may not. Still unclear as to the reason why.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Ah! I see it's Iason's cut & paste monologue again. Interesting person, too bad one cannot have an interactive conversation as this forum is designed.

[edit on 30-8-2007 by saint4God]

Originally posted by BugZyZuncle
I think you need to read some of the dead sea scrolls

Why?

The Dead Sea Scrolls have NOTHING to do with Jesus.
The DSS include no NT works.
The DSS do not mention Jesus.


Iasion

Originally posted by BugZyZuncle
I think you need to read ... and Flavious Josephus

The Testamonium Flavianum is :

* at BEST tampered with, corrupted by later Christians
* at worst a total forgery.

That's the BEST historical evidence that apologists can find for Jesus -
* a CORRUPT passage
* from 60 YEARS later


This shows just how WEAK the evidence is, when a late and corrupt, possibly totally forged passage, is the BEST they have.


Iasion


[edit on 30-8-2007 by Iasion]

Originally posted by BugZyZuncle
I think you need to read some of the dead sea scrolls and Flavious Josephus and you will find that you will find that most books in the New Testament were written prior to 70 AD and the Diaspora.

Firstly,
The DSS and Josephus say NOTHING about the books of the NT at all.

Secondly,
the NT books were NOT mostly written before 70 at all - that is what the later Christian STORIES say about earlier Christian stories, and faithful believers faithfully believe them.

Modern NT scholars date the NT books like so:

50-60 1 Thessalonians
50-60 Philippians
50-60 Galatians
50-60 1 Corinthians
50-60 2 Corinthians
50-60 Romans
50-60 Philemon
50-80 Colossians
50-95 Book of Hebrews
65-80 Gospel of Mark
70-100 Epistle of James
80-100 Ephesians
80-100 Gospel of Matthew
80-110 1 Peter
80-130 Gospel of Luke
80-130 Acts of the Apostles
90-95 Apocalypse of John
90-120 Gospel of John
90-120 1 John
90-120 2 John
90-120 3 John
90-120 Epistle of Jude
100-150 1 Timothy
100-150 2 Timothy
100-150 Titus
100-160 2 Peter

From earlychristianwritings.com...


Iasion

Originally posted by BugZyZuncle
Also, Foxes Book of Martyrs chronicals the deaths of every one Christs desciples.

So?
Mere Christian stories supporting earlier Christian stories.

There is no contemporary historical evidence for any martyrdoms, just stories told by later Christians.

Originally posted by BugZyZuncle
They all chise death rather than recant their belief ...

Even if they did - so what?

Many people die and died for their beliefs :
* The cathars
* the Jews
* Muslim suicide bombers
* Heaven's gate cult

According to YOUR silly argument BugZyZuncle, these groups are all TRUE !

Do you really believe those cults and religions are true, BugZyZuncle ?

Originally posted by BugZyZuncle
in the diety of Christ.

Diety?
Was he on a diet?


Iasion

Originally posted by BugZyZuncle
Certainly he had some sort of profound effect on them all.

Neither Shakespear nor Alexander the great had as much impact on people today as Jesus had.

False.
The complete opposite is true -

Jesus did not have ANY impact or effect on anyone or any thing.

There is NO contemporary evidence for Jesus.

There is NO writing from anyone who met Jesus or saw Jesus.


But -
BELIEF in Jesus had a HUGE impact.

While Jesus himself left NO TRACE anywhere in history.


Iasion

Originally posted by BugZyZuncle
The real reason for peoples hatred of Religion and the denial of Christ ...

Please tell us the real reason why you deny Krishna ?


Iasion

Originally posted by BO XIAN
It's a bit of an absurd allegation by some ill-informed and heavily propagandized wholesale stubbornly narrowly biased etc. folks . . . to assert that He did not exist.

On the contrary -
if YOU assert Jesus existed, then it is up to you to produce the historical evidence.

As we have seen -
there is no contemporary historical or archeological evidence for Jesus or the Gospel events.

Originally posted by BO XIAN
But you can check out
JOSH MCDOWELL'S
NEW EVIDENCE THAT DEMANDS A VERDICT.

Josh is a true believer.
Jeff Lowder demolished Josh's arguments here :
www.infidels.org...


Iasion

Originally posted by BO XIAN
Actually, I find the paucity of solid accurate historical info on this thread to be appauling[sic].

So,
why didn't you provide any?

Why can't you provide any contemporary historical evidence for Jesus?

Originally posted by BO XIAN
Of course the chronic, reflexive, knee-jerk derisiveness is in full flower as usual.

Indeed.
Your post is a perfect example - all bluster, no facts.

Originally posted by BO XIAN
I doubt the solid thinking Christians will bother much with offering the tons of proof otherwise on such a stacked-deck thread

Oh, THAT's why you apologists never offer any of this "tons" of historical evidence for Jesus - because you can't be bothered?

What rot.

The real reason is because there IS no historical evidence for Jesus.

Believers really believe there is "tons" of evidence - but they "can't be bothered" to produce it !

Originally posted by BO XIAN
. . . Oh, wait, the whole site is an enormously stacked deck of chronic derision against authentic Christianity. Silly me. What a brain blip to think otherwise.

Riiight.
Poor persecuted Christian....

Typical apologist - all bluster and hype and wild claims of persecution - but no facts or evidence.


Iasion

Originally posted by saint4God


Hm...none that I know of. What are the denominations that do? The PCA and PCUSA do not.

Episcopalians and Lutherans are the protestant denominations I know of that observe the Eucharist.

Originally posted by madnessinmysoul


Josephus has been found to be a forgery

No it has not. It has had doubt cast on it be "scholars" - no one has ever proven their speculative statements.

Wow, I am really amazed at the amount of study that everyone has done on the life of Jesus. I can see that there is very little physical evidence of Jesus by all the research. What about his disciples? Are they too as mysterious as Jesus? I haven't done this kind of research, but I was hoping that someone versed in this could help me out. Where can I research the lives of the disciples of Jesus. Is there any historical proof that these people ever existed? If there is proof of their existence; did they all make up the stories?

Originally posted by Iasion
Diety?
Was he on a diet?

Congratulations on your recent nomination for the 'smart@ss comment' award. I hope you get it.

[edit on 31-8-2007 by saint4God]

Originally posted by Iasion
NOT ONE of the NT books was written by anyone who met any Jesus.

The great thing about Iasions' monologue is s/he makes such all-caps absolute statements that all I have to do is discount one of them and the credibility of the whole thing is shot. I could go through and knock down the dominoes one by one, but rather than doing so, I'll start the chain and allow the reader to dig in for the next one in the series:

"We did not follow cleverly invented stories when we told you about the power and coming of our Lord Jesus Christ, but we were eyewitnesses of his majesty. For he received honor and glory from God the Father when the voice came to him from the Majestic Glory, saying, "This is my Son, whom I love; with him I am well pleased." We ourselves heard this voice that came from heaven when we were with him on the sacred mountain. " - 2 Peter 1:16-18

Oops, try again Iasion.

[edit on 31-8-2007 by saint4God]

Originally posted by Valhall

Originally posted by saint4God


Hm...none that I know of. What are the denominations that do? The PCA and PCUSA do not.

Episcopalians and Lutherans are the protestant denominations I know of that observe the Eucharist.

Ah, okay. I can see why Episcopalian would. Didn't know about Lutheran, but neither of these are Presbyterian denominations.

[edit on 31-8-2007 by saint4God]

Originally posted by Iasion

Originally posted by BugZyZuncle
I think you need to read some of the dead sea scrolls and Flavious Josephus and you will find that you will find that most books in the New Testament were written prior to 70 AD and the Diaspora.

Firstly,
The DSS and Josephus say NOTHING about the books of the NT at all.

Secondly,
the NT books were NOT mostly written before 70 at all - that is what the later Christian STORIES say about earlier Christian stories, and faithful believers faithfully believe them.

Modern NT scholars date the NT books like so:

50-60 1 Thessalonians
50-60 Philippians
50-60 Galatians
50-60 1 Corinthians
50-60 2 Corinthians
50-60 Romans
50-60 Philemon
50-80 Colossians
50-95 Book of Hebrews
65-80 Gospel of Mark
70-100 Epistle of James
80-100 Ephesians
80-100 Gospel of Matthew
80-110 1 Peter
80-130 Gospel of Luke
80-130 Acts of the Apostles
90-95 Apocalypse of John
90-120 Gospel of John
90-120 1 John
90-120 2 John
90-120 3 John
90-120 Epistle of Jude
100-150 1 Timothy
100-150 2 Timothy
100-150 Titus
100-160 2 Peter

From earlychristianwritings.com...


Iasion

Looks like a questionable list. There seems to be a problem with dates on some of the old testament books as well. This usually occurs because the prophesies are so accurate that the blind has to dispute the truth and arrive at a date after the fulfillment of the prophecy.

[edit on 31-8-2007 by Sun Matrix]

Originally posted by Valhall
No it has not. It has had doubt cast on it be "scholars" - no one has ever proven their speculative statements.

What nonsense.

We can just as easily say -
No-one has ever proved that Josephus is authentic.

History does NOT do "proof".
Proof is for mathematics and moonshine.

The current view of modern scholarship is clear :
* the T.F. has been tampered with.
* the T.F. may even be a complete forgery

Only fundamentalists believe the T.F. is wholy authentic.


Iasion

Greetings

Originally posted by popeye0314
Wow, I am really amazed at the amount of study that everyone has done on the life of Jesus. I can see that there is very little physical evidence of Jesus by all the research. What about his disciples? Are they too as mysterious as Jesus? I haven't done this kind of research, but I was hoping that someone versed in this could help me out. Where can I research the lives of the disciples of Jesus. Is there any historical proof that these people ever existed? If there is proof of their existence; did they all make up the stories?

No.

There is no historical or archeological evidence for the disciples at all.

We have no writing or evidence from ANYONE who met any historical person Jesus.

(Paul never met Jesus, he merely had a vision of Christ - reported in several different ways.)

The NT epistles were NOT written by the people whose names they bear - Peter, James, Jude, John - all pseudo-graphs.

NOT ONE single Christian book was written by anyone who met any Jesus.

The Gospels were written by unknown persons, not from the region, who did not know much about Judea or it's people.

That is the current view of modern NT scholarship (e.g. Brown, Ehrman, Fitzmyer) which you can confirm by reading any modern commentary, or by checking here :
earlychristianwritings.com...

That site is a modern online masterpiece - it summarises current modern NT scholarship.


Iasion