And people are still checking their horoscopes.Circe said:The interesting thing is that 2000 years later we're still talking about him..
*************Circe said:Whether Jesus existed or not doesn't really matter.
The interesting thing is that 2000 years later we're still talking about him..
tomasito said:Dear Ebony,
You generally come across as someone with good human intellect. don't let 'MEDICINE WOMAN"(She has no medicine!), mislead you into the emptiness,arrogance and hattred of Jesus she suffers from.
Isaiah first of all never had a son mentioned anywhere in the bible. Some of these earlier prophets lived celibate lives completely.
Medicine Woman is wrong to tell you that the prophet is talking about his own biological son. The prophet Isaiah calls male Child the everlasting father and the Mighty God. It is ignorant to say that Isaiah's son is the Mighty God and Everlasting father. We would have been told about him(Isaiah's son) numerous times in the bible if the Mighty God of the bible was Isaiah's son.
Isaiah was prophesying(seeing into the future through the spirit of God.)
Jesus was born 700 years after the death of prophet Isaiah.
When Jesus began his earthly ministry at the age of 30years(in jewish culture its the age of full maturity for a man) , he went to the synagogue/like a church. He sat at the front and asked for the book of prophet Isaiah. He found the place where it is written " The Spirit of the Lord God is upon me.For he has anointed me to pronounce recovery of sight to the blind, deliverance to the captives,to preach the good news to the poor, and proclaim the year of the Lord's favour".
Jesus read these words among others and said that that prophecy had then been fulfilled before their eyes.
Isaiah chapters 53 from verse 1 continues to talk about the crucifixion of jesus in detail.Just read the book, don't say you have nothing to do with the bible coz you don't believe it. As police investigators/detectives there is training that says don't throw away all leads before you have evaluated them. Analyzing even what could otherwise seem illogical always sheds some light to mysteries.iin this case God is the mystery.
So my buddy get the book of isaiah in the old testament and read chapter 53; it will tell you about the sufferings of christ,thats 700 years before it actually happened.
(as for Medicine Woman, you are 1000 times more logical than that bitter, hostile,Jesus-bashing 60yrs old woman!!)
ConsequentAtheist said:True, but I still have difficulty with the following: I can see little reason to view the Jerusalem sect and its tension with Paul as fictive, nor a reason to presume that this cult congealed in the absence of a charismatic cult leader. In this sense, the historicity of Yeshua does not seem much of a stretch (particularly given the tumultuous/messianic times).
ConsequentAtheist said:While you are struck by the "total SILENCE" of the Christians, I am struck by the comparable silence of their detractors with respect to the issue of historicity. Where, for example, is 'Celsus the mythicist' or the equivalent?
ConsequentAtheist said:Why is not Jesus of Vermes or the Jesus of Crossan/Mack at least equally reasonable postulates?
That's perhaps clever, Iasion, but I thought we were speaking of the presumed origins and evolution of the Jerusalem cult. Why the diversion?Iasion said:Yes, the conflict between Paul and the pillars seems real enough, but that has nothing to do with a HJ. It seems highly likely that Paul and James existed, but the same can not be said of the apostles. The cult DID congeal around a charismatic leader - Paul.
Again clever, but far less compelling. In fact, to reframe the internal disputes concerning the nature of Jesus as debates concerning historicity seems a bit disingenuous. Where are the pagans insisting that Jesus never existed?Iasion said:Well,
nowadays the argument is expressed in terms of -
* historical Jesus
vs
* mythical/spiritual Jesus
Back then, the argument was more in terms of
* physical Jesus
vs
* non-physical Jesus.
Paula said:The first twenty eight books of the Bible are not prophetic books. All one has to do is look at the table of contents to see that.
Paula said:The Gospels were taken from extant writings from the time of Jesus. There was an abundance of material, not a deficiency and as such the fledgling Church decided to organize the information by what could be determined to be most authentic which books.
Paula said:The Law of Apostolic Origin meant that the Gospels could only contain accounts that were eyewitness or dictated by an eyewitness.
Paula said:They could be no more than one person removed.
Paula said:The Law of Liturgical Use meant that the material had to have been in use from the very beginning of the Curch's foundation, immediately after the Resurrection.
Paula said:Since many people were involved in the selection of the material that was to be incorporated into the Gospels, someone would have known if material did not meet this criteria or of the whole thing was a sham.
Paula said:The Gospels were not actually called the Gospels until this process of organization but the texts containing the works and words of Jesus existed.
ConsequentAtheist said:That's perhaps clever, Iasion, but I thought we were speaking of the presumed origins and evolution of the Jerusalem cult. Why the diversion?
Iasion said:Greetings,
Pardon?
The thread is about whether Jesus existed, I have written at length about the existence (or not) of Jesus. You then brought up the subject of the Jerusalem cult, and now you accuse me of a "diversion"?
Does naming them suddenly make them more real than they were before? Anyway, the consensus of scholars on earlychristianwritings.com seems to disagree with you.The Gospel stories were totally UNKNOWN until a CENTURY after the alleged events - the Gospels were not finally named until late 2nd century - thats 150 YEARS after the alleged events before the four Gospels were named.
Papias does in fact say that Mark was authored by a disciple of Peter from speeches made by Peter and Matthew was created by the apostle Matthew. As for Clement of Rome, I have not read any mention of where the books came from in his writings and I'm uncertain about Tertullian.Even some early Christian fathers (e.g. Papias, Clement, Tertullian) noted that the Gospels were NOT by eye-witnesses.
Paul's writings certainly do have knowledge of gospel events.I noted that the 20 or so CHRONOLOGICALLY FIRST Christian documents show NO knowledge of the Gospel events - you ignored this point.
Rather than whine, why not simply respond to his dating of the Epistles, Gospels, and Pastorals, and his characterizaton of their authors. Perhaps you could then tell us why 2 Timothy is deemed Canonical?Paula said:If everything someone tells you that disagrees with your position is met with "Rubbish!" without your even bothering to do the simplest web search, then of course it will appear to you that your logic is impenetrable.
Apostolic authorship of Matthew is handled more than adequately here.okinrus said:Papias does in fact say that Mark was authored by a disciple of Peter from speeches made by Peter and Matthew was created by the apostle Matthew.
Apostolic authorship of Matthew is handled more than adequately here.okinrus said:Papias does in fact say that Mark was authored by a disciple of Peter from speeches made by Peter and Matthew was created by the apostle Matthew.
ConsequentAtheist said:Please, Iasion, don't play games. I'm attempting an honest discussion.
ConsequentAtheist said:I was clearly suggesting the evolution of a Jerusalem sect as circumstantial evidence of an early cult leader, and no, Iasion, the Jerusalem sect did not congeal around Paul.
Jenyar said:Does naming them suddenly make them more real than they were before?
Jenyar said:Anyway, the consensus of scholars on earlychristianwritings.com seems to disagree with you.
okinrus said:Papias does in fact say that Mark was authored by a disciple of Peter from speeches made by Peter
okinrus said:and Matthew was created by the apostle Matthew.
okinrus said:As for Clement of Rome, I have not read any mention of where the books came from in his writings and I'm uncertain about Tertullian.
okinrus said:Paul's writings certainly do have knowledge of gospel events.
Paula said:Right, I made up the Laws of Canonicity which anyone can look up for themselves. If everything someone tells you that disagrees with your position is met with "Rubbish!" without your even bothering to do the simplest web search, then of course it will appear to you that your logic is impenetrable.