You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
Beck: Good for Jews that Jesus didnt come for payback
- Thread starter hermit
- Start date
Quote from stu:
Lol. While you two are trying to convince each other that fictional means non-fictional, it still remains that bible Jesus has non of the qualities of being historically authentic.
De-facto fictional Jesus, until you can find historical evidence to the contrary.
I do not see anyone arguing for the historicity of the bible Jesus if by bible Jesus you mean Jesus as God.
Quote from res judicata:
I do not see anyone arguing for the historicity of the bible Jesus if by bible Jesus you mean Jesus as God.
Jem, did you realize you've gone all schizo again with your new alter ego alias?
So just what do you think bible Jesus means if not the Jesus mentioned in the bible?
Quote from jem:
Is Jesus a historical figure?
-People with credibility - yes because he is mentioned in historical acounts.
You can't see anyone arguing for the historicity of bible Jesus.?
Which side of your split personality are you trying to kid??
"..he is mentioned in historical acounts". Who he? Just some any ol Jesus?
So what suddenly happened to those "People with credibility"
You're contradicting yourself by proxy (nasty) . But don't worry, Ricter may soon be describing that as being "flexible" for you.
Both Ricter and yourself now seem to want to try and argue for some kind of third rate - authenticity by likelihood. That some dude named Jesus MAY conceivably have been killed as a radical jew.
Or just any one called Jesus who got into trouble and was put to death might do it.
Suddenly to hell with bible Jesus, as that is really a hopeless claim.
Religious Faith eh... so very skittish.
Stop playing games like a demented zealout.
You threw in the term bible Jesus -- I a qualified bible Jesus as meaning Jesus as God.
If you do not understand why that distinction is important, I understand why you make such foolish arguments.
1. What is your definition of bible Jesus?
2. "The scholarly mainstream not only rejects the myth thesis,[106] but identifies serious methodological deficiencies in the approach.[107] For this reason, many scholars consider engaging proponents of the myth theory a waste of time,[108] comparing it to a professional astronomer having to debate whether the moon is made of cheese.[109] As such, the New Testament scholar James Dunn describes the mythical Jesus theory as a "thoroughly dead thesis".[110]"
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historicity_of_Jesus
You threw in the term bible Jesus -- I a qualified bible Jesus as meaning Jesus as God.
If you do not understand why that distinction is important, I understand why you make such foolish arguments.
1. What is your definition of bible Jesus?
2. "The scholarly mainstream not only rejects the myth thesis,[106] but identifies serious methodological deficiencies in the approach.[107] For this reason, many scholars consider engaging proponents of the myth theory a waste of time,[108] comparing it to a professional astronomer having to debate whether the moon is made of cheese.[109] As such, the New Testament scholar James Dunn describes the mythical Jesus theory as a "thoroughly dead thesis".[110]"
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historicity_of_Jesus
Quote from stu:
Lol. While you two are trying to convince each other that fictional means non-fictional, it still remains that bible Jesus has non of the qualities of being historically authentic.
De-facto fictional Jesus, until you can find historical evidence to the contrary.
Lol, you are just griefing, I knew it.
Quote from res judicata:
Stop playing games like a demented zealout.
You threw in the term bible Jesus -- I a qualified bible Jesus as meaning Jesus as God.
If you do not understand why that distinction is important, I understand why you make such foolish arguments.
1. What is your definition of bible Jesus?
You've developed a schizophrenic personality in the form of two screen names and you're accusing me of playing games like a demented zealout.
lol you get more wierd by the day.
Context and meaning for the terms - Jesus, Bible Jesus or Jesus of the Bible - is perfectly clear .
For what reason other than trying to add some usual religious complications by confusion do you now all of a sudden want to qualify bible Jesus as "Jesus as God" ?
Here's a reason.
There is no history of a bible Jesus whatsoever. So apparently you think it's time to throw a little "Jesus as God" religious smoke around, as if some misdirection might help. It won't.
Quote from res judicata:
2. "The scholarly mainstream not only rejects the myth thesis,[106] but identifies serious methodological deficiencies in the approach.[107] For this reason, many scholars consider engaging proponents of the myth theory a waste of time,[108] comparing it to a professional astronomer having to debate whether the moon is made of cheese.[109] As such, the New Testament scholar James Dunn describes the mythical Jesus theory as a "thoroughly dead thesis".[110]"
Re quoting over and over the same old dead phrase from religious apologists writing in Wiki will not change the facts.
Rejecting argument against claims made for a historical Jesus requires argument..not opinionated comments out of a Wiki page.
The scholarly mainstream has no authenticated real evidence for the history of Jesus. You know, like there should be.
Like there is for Ceaser down to everyday ordinary people of the time.
Scholars know that - and say as much.
But just some ordinary common sense demonstrates there is a complete absence of any real corroborating historical evidence that Jesus ever existed.
Your link contains these warnings :
- "The neutrality of this article is disputed.
This article is supported by Jesus work group.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Christianity, "
...."The scholarly mainstream".... don't be ridiculous. Theological backwaters more like.
There is NO historicity for Jesus.
Clue: That is a BIG problem for anyone trying to say Jesus actually existed.
Trying to shift the argument of that reality against the messenger , is what both your schizo alias's and Ricter have now resorted to.
Your religious mental block has of course kicked in , along with some stone walling and .... hey presto.... you just won't and don't get it.
But then, reality never was a strong point of the religious.
..as indeed is manifested by the fictional Bible Jesus .
Quote from phenomena:
Well, let's face it. The first gospel (supposed "eye witness accounts") was written over a century after christ supposedly died. However, I still feel as though there is evidence that suggests a "jesus like figure" did exist once upon a time.
I think it fair to say there have been "jesus like figures" throughout time.