Beck: Good for Jews that Jesus didnt come for payback

[stu]

Quote from res judicata:

Your b.s. always lack support..

I would like to see you produce this mound of non evidence you pretend exists.

However, you do not have to take my word for it.

from wikipedia...


The Historical Jesus is a reconstruction of Jesus using modern historical methods.

Paul Barnett pointed out that "scholars of ancient history have always recognized the 'subjectivity' factor in their available sources" and "have so few sources available compared to their modern counterparts that they will gladly seize whatever scraps of information that are at hand." He noted that modern history and ancient history are two separate disciplines, with differing methods of analysis and interpretation.[96]

In The Historical Figure of Jesus, E.P. Sanders used Alexander the Great as a paradigm—the available sources tell us much about Alexander’s deeds, but nothing about his thoughts. "The sources for Jesus are better, however, than those that deal with Alexander" and "the superiority of evidence for Jesus is seen when we ask what he thought."[97] Thus, Sanders considers the quest for the Historical Jesus to be much closer to a search for historical details on Alexander than to those historical figures with adequate documentation.

Consequently, scholars like Sanders, Geza Vermes, John P. Meier, David Flusser, James H. Charlesworth, Raymond E. Brown, Paula Fredriksen and John Dominic Crossan argue that, although many readers are accustomed to thinking of Jesus solely as a theological figure whose existence is a matter only of religious debate, the four canonical Gospel accounts are based on source documents written within decades after Jesus' lifetime, and therefore provide a basis for the study of the "historical" Jesus. These historians also draw on other historical sources and archaeological evidence to reconstruct the life of Jesus in his historical and cultural context.[98]

In contrast, Charles Guignebert, Professor of the History of Christianity, at the Sorbonne, maintained that the "conclusions which are justified by the documentary evidence may be summed up as follows: Jesus was born somewhere in Galilee in the time of the Emperor Augustus, of a humble family, which included half a dozen or more children besides himself."[99]. He adds elsewhere "there is no reason to suppose he was not executed".[100]

Recent research has focused upon the "Jewishness" of the historical Jesus. The re-evaluation of Jesus' family, particularly the role played after his death by his brother James,[101] has led scholars like Hans Küng to suggest that there was an early form of non-Hellenistic "Jewish Christianity" like the Ebionites, that did not accept Jesus' divinity and was persecuted by both Roman and Christian authorities. Küng suggests that these Jewish Christians settled in Arabia, and may have influenced the story of Christ as portrayed in the Qur'an[102].
[edit] Jesus as myth
Further information: Christ myth theory and Jesus Christ and comparative mythology

The existence of Jesus as an actual historical figure has been questioned by few biblical scholars and historians; among the earliest were Constantin-François Volney and Charles François Dupuis in the 18th century and Bruno Bauer in the 19th century. Each of these proposed that the Jesus character was a fusion of earlier mythologies.[103]

The views of scholars who entirely rejected Jesus' historicity were summarized in Will Durant's Caesar and Christ, published in 1944. Their rejections were based on a suggested lack of eyewitnesses, a lack of direct archaeological evidence, the failure of ancient works to mention Jesus, and similarities early Christianity shares with then-contemporary religion and mythology.[104]

More recently, arguments for non-historicity have been discussed by George Albert Wells, Earl Doherty (The Jesus Puzzle, 1999), Timothy Freke and Peter Gandy (The Jesus Mysteries) and Robert M. Price.

The scholarly mainstream not only rejects the myth thesis,[105] but identifies serious methodological deficiencies in the approach.[106] For this reason, many scholars consider engaging proponents of the myth theory a waste of time,[107] comparing it to a professional astronomer having to debate whether the moon is made of cheese.[108] As such, the New Testament scholar James Dunn describes the mythical Jesus theory as a "thoroughly dead thesis".[109]
[edit] See also

Not one single word of that provides any evidence of a historical Jesus.

 

[stu]

Quote from res judicata:

You are so full of shit. You know someone is full of shit when they say stuff like everyone knows but cite to no one.

But here wikipedia calls the jesus as a myth people crackpots.
(read the last 3 sentences.)


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historicity_of_Jesus


The existence of Jesus as an actual historical figure has been questioned by few biblical scholars and historians; among the earliest were Constantin-François Volney and Charles François Dupuis in the 18th century and Bruno Bauer in the 19th century. Each of these proposed that the Jesus character was a fusion of earlier mythologies.[103]
The views of scholars who entirely rejected Jesus' historicity were summarized in Will Durant's Caesar and Christ, published in 1944. Their rejections were based on a suggested lack of eyewitnesses, a lack of direct archaeological evidence, the failure of ancient works to mention Jesus, and similarities early Christianity shares with then-contemporary religion and mythology.[104]
More recently, arguments for non-historicity have been discussed by George Albert Wells, Earl Doherty (The Jesus Puzzle, 1999), Timothy Freke and Peter Gandy (The Jesus Mysteries) and Robert M. Price.
The scholarly mainstream not only rejects the myth thesis,[105] but identifies serious methodological deficiencies in the approach.[106] For this reason, many scholars consider engaging proponents of the myth theory a waste of time,[107] comparing it to a professional astronomer having to debate whether the moon is made of cheese.[108] As such, the New Testament scholar James Dunn describes the mythical Jesus theory as a "thoroughly dead thesis".[109]

Not one single word of that provides any evidence of a historical Jesus.

 

[stu]

Quote from res judicata:

Here scholars cited in wikipedia call the "jesus as a myth" people crackpots.
(read the last 3 sentences.)


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historicity_of_Jesus


The existence of Jesus as an actual historical figure has been questioned by few biblical scholars and historians; among the earliest were Constantin-François Volney and Charles François Dupuis in the 18th century and Bruno Bauer in the 19th century. Each of these proposed that the Jesus character was a fusion of earlier mythologies.[103]
The views of scholars who entirely rejected Jesus' historicity were summarized in Will Durant's Caesar and Christ, published in 1944. Their rejections were based on a suggested lack of eyewitnesses, a lack of direct archaeological evidence, the failure of ancient works to mention Jesus, and similarities early Christianity shares with then-contemporary religion and mythology.[104]
More recently, arguments for non-historicity have been discussed by George Albert Wells, Earl Doherty (The Jesus Puzzle, 1999), Timothy Freke and Peter Gandy (The Jesus Mysteries) and Robert M. Price.
The scholarly mainstream not only rejects the myth thesis,[105] but identifies serious methodological deficiencies in the approach.[106] For this reason, many scholars consider engaging proponents of the myth theory a waste of time,[107] comparing it to a professional astronomer having to debate whether the moon is made of cheese.[108] As such, the New Testament scholar James Dunn describes the mythical Jesus theory as a "thoroughly dead thesis".[109]

Not one single word of that provides any evidence of a historical Jesus.

So why the extra screen name Jem. Does it make you feel you've gotten some extra support

In the same way your ill-considered posts do , christians have nothing but blustered about how Jesus was historical ...

Yet there is not one scrap of actual historical evidence in support of a historical Jesus.

 

[stu]

Quote from jem:

The scholarly mainstream not only rejects the myth thesis,[105] but identifies serious methodological deficiencies in the approach.[106] For this reason, many scholars consider engaging proponents of the myth theory a waste of time,[107] comparing it to a professional astronomer having to debate whether the moon is made of cheese.[108] As such, the New Testament scholar James Dunn describes the mythical Jesus theory as a "thoroughly dead thesis""

Stu do you realize all your arguments are swiss cheese arguments.

But still, not one single word of that provides any evidence of a historical Jesus.

 

[stu]

Quote from Index piker:

Awe geez, and I was so much rooting for stu to get something right one of these days.

No problem dude, I've already noticed how something is usually right when you say it ain't.

 

[I am...]

Quote from stu:

The tiny Josephus / Jesus writing is not and most has been established as forgery anyway inserted by exuberant christians.

Even now the same sort of over excitable Christians grasp at a few lines of dubious text because there is actually no historicity for Jesus.

All history is fiction. We agree that Jesus was fictional, but for different reasons. You say Jesus was not a character in the story that you call history, and what i call fiction.

How many characters, of all the players on the world stage 2000 years ago, have the historical credentials that you require for them to be bona fide historical figures? Likely, 99% of the world's population did not exist historically, according to your requirements.

You are requiring that Jesus be included in the 1% of historical figures that have sufficient documentation to convince you that they existed historically. Why do you think Jesus should be included in the 1% of historical figures that are sufficiently documented according to your requirements? What, exactly, are your requirements again?

Admittedly, the legend of Jesus may not reflect what Jesus actually represented anymore than the legend of Santa Claus reflects the man *Nicholas of Bari* (St. Nick). Fallacious legends do not mean that the initial catalyst (the historical persona) did not appear on the world stage.

Jesus, like Socrates, did not leave many texts penned of his own hand. We know of Socrates chiefly through his students Plato and Xenophon. We may also know of Socrates through Aristophanes, whose play, "The Clouds" is said (by Plato) to have been a slander that led to the trial and execution of Socrates. Assuming Plato and Xenophon represented Socrates while Aristophanes misrepresented, we have historical precedence for literary controversy over a historical figure, who, coincidentally, was also a teacher of sorts.

Like Socrates, Jesus' teachings were controversial. Explosive is a better adjective to describe what was fundamentally theological nitro glycerine. And like Socrates, literature that both represented and misrepresented was generated to caricature what Jesus was all about.

Over time, fanatics giving allegiance to misrepresentation literature attacked what literature was more representative, or what disagreed with their theological positions. Suppose the believers of Aristophanes version of Socrates went out and burned every last text deriving from Plato and Xenophon. This is parable to what happened with the legend of Jesus.

Quote from stu:
Yet there is not one scrap of actual historical evidence in support of a historical Jesus.

Evidence of textual persecution is coming forth, for example, with the finding of the Gospel of Thomas, buried for it's own protection, somewhere in an Egyptian desert. What other reason, except textual persecution, would we find a library of books buried in a clay urn in the desert? Besides the Gospel of Thomas, scholars believe that the historically victorious versions of the legend of Jesus (the synoptic gospels) are somehow rooted in a source document ("Q") that cannot be found. Possibly, it reflected the tone of the Gospel of Thomas too much to be included in the evolving documentation which was becoming more and more hearsay as the earliest most original documents were being more and more expunged from the historical record. The net effect is that we have stories of Jesus that are so ambiguous, fictional, and far removed that we are tempted to question the very catalyst (historical persona) of those legends, whether such a person existed or not.

Do you really think that there were not any fanatical theological book burners in those days? And are you really expecting the highest standard of historical documentation to survive a hot climate of ideological warfare, a climate for which we have much evidence? Are you expecting that this warfare was fought fairly? Is it fair, for example, for literary adversaries to insert interpolations into other authors works in order to support a fanatical agenda? Certainly not. And yet, study of history suggests this was not only done, but done audaciously, extensively, and with impunity (they either got away with it or they almost got away with it).

Jesus was a teacher who did not leave much of a physical footprint. This would be typical of any teacher who did not pen his own texts. Not all teachers penned their own texts. So let's not expect his footprint to measure up with figures who physically altered the landscape either through construction, destruction, or the survival of textual authorship. What Jesus taught was ideologically explosive. As a result, much of what we would consider evidence may have been destroyed. We have evidence that religious fanatics were not above textual destruction. Book burning was not so much an exception but a recurring practice by regional (religio) authorities, and would haunt any kind of controversial authorship.

What Jesus taught was so explosive that his own existence has come into question. Ironically, what he taught questioned the existence of his own life...questioned the very foundation of the world. Perhaps those who question his existence are closer to the truth than those who insist upon his place in history. Perhaps not. Those who question his historicity stand on the same ground as those who do not...and call it "reality". Each in his own way fabricates a legend built on a lie.

 

[Hombre]

Quote from hermit:

Glenn Beck suggested that the Jews killed Jesus on his Fox News show Tuesday.

Beck's claim occurred in the midst of a long monologue about religion. In it, Beck attacked, among other things, social justice, liberation theology, Jeremiah Wright and Rev. Jim Wallis. He singled out liberation theology as a "perversion" that is connected to Marxism and presents the poor as victims of injustice.

Beck went on to say:
"This is kind of complex, because Jesus did identify with the victims. But Jesus was not a victim. He was a conqueror...Jesus conquered death. He wasn't victimized. He chose to give his life....If he was a victim, and this theology was true, then Jesus would've come back from the dead and made the Jews pay for what they did. That's an abomination."


As Time's Elizabeth Dias pointed out, it was the Romans, not the Jews, that killed Jesus.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/07/15/glenn-beck-jews-killed-je_n_648134.html

I am not sure if you agree with Elisabeth but she is clearly dyslexic. I don't see anywhere in what you posted written that Jews killed Jesus.
So i don't get her comment.

 

[stu]

Quote from I am...:

All history is fiction. We agree that Jesus was fictional, but for different reasons. You say Jesus was not a character in the story that you call history, and what i call fiction.

How many characters, of all the players on the world stage 2000 years ago, have the historical credentials that you require for them to be bona fide historical figures? Likely, 99% of the world's population did not exist historically, according to your requirements.

You are requiring that Jesus be included in the 1% of historical figures that have sufficient documentation to convince you that they existed historically. Why do you think Jesus should be included in the 1% of historical figures that are sufficiently documented according to your requirements? What, exactly, are your requirements again?

Admittedly, the legend of Jesus may not reflect what Jesus actually represented anymore than the legend of Santa Claus reflects the man *Nicholas of Bari* (St. Nick). Fallacious legends do not mean that the initial catalyst (the historical persona) did not appear on the world stage.

Jesus, like Socrates, did not leave many texts penned of his own hand. We know of Socrates chiefly through his students Plato and Xenophon. We may also know of Socrates through Aristophanes, whose play, "The Clouds" is said (by Plato) to have been a slander that led to the trial and execution of Socrates. Assuming Plato and Xenophon represented Socrates while Aristophanes misrepresented, we have historical precedence for literary controversy over a historical figure, who, coincidentally, was also a teacher of sorts.

Like Socrates, Jesus' teachings were controversial. Explosive is a better adjective to describe what was fundamentally theological nitro glycerine. And like Socrates, literature that both represented and misrepresented was generated to caricature what Jesus was all about.

Over time, fanatics giving allegiance to misrepresentation literature attacked what literature was more representative, or what disagreed with their theological positions. Suppose the believers of Aristophanes version of Socrates went out and burned every last text deriving from Plato and Xenophon. This is parable to what happened with the legend of Jesus.



Evidence of textual persecution is coming forth, for example, with the finding of the Gospel of Thomas, buried for it's own protection, somewhere in an Egyptian desert. What other reason, except textual persecution, would we find a library of books buried in a clay urn in the desert? Besides the Gospel of Thomas, scholars believe that the historically victorious versions of the legend of Jesus (the synoptic gospels) are somehow rooted in a source document ("Q") that cannot be found. Possibly, it reflected the tone of the Gospel of Thomas too much to be included in the evolving documentation which was becoming more and more hearsay as the earliest most original documents were being more and more expunged from the historical record. The net effect is that we have stories of Jesus that are so ambiguous, fictional, and far removed that we are tempted to question the very catalyst (historical persona) of those legends, whether such a person existed or not.

Do you really think that there were not any fanatical theological book burners in those days? And are you really expecting the highest standard of historical documentation to survive a hot climate of ideological warfare, a climate for which we have much evidence? Are you expecting that this warfare was fought fairly? Is it fair, for example, for literary adversaries to insert interpolations into other authors works in order to support a fanatical agenda? Certainly not. And yet, study of history suggests this was not only done, but done audaciously, extensively, and with impunity (they either got away with it or they almost got away with it).

Jesus was a teacher who did not leave much of a physical footprint. This would be typical of any teacher who did not pen his own texts. Not all teachers penned their own texts. So let's not expect his footprint to measure up with figures who physically altered the landscape either through construction, destruction, or the survival of textual authorship. What Jesus taught was ideologically explosive. As a result, much of what we would consider evidence may have been destroyed. We have evidence that religious fanatics were not above textual destruction. Book burning was not so much an exception but a recurring practice by regional (religio) authorities, and would haunt any kind of controversial authorship.

What Jesus taught was so explosive that his own existence has come into question. Ironically, what he taught questioned the existence of his own life...questioned the very foundation of the world. Perhaps those who question his existence are closer to the truth than those who insist upon his place in history. Perhaps not. Those who question his historicity stand on the same ground as those who do not...and call it "reality". Each in his own way fabricates a legend built on a lie.

All history is fiction.

You must be aware how absurd a statement that is. making it totaly hypocritical of you to then try and use pseudo reasoning based on ideas about non-fictional history. Self-contradiction always did appear to be your forte.


Although we might agree Jesus is fictional, unlike yourself, I certainly would not be anyway content with the absurd reasoning you offer for it.



Evidence of textual persecution is coming forth, for example, with the finding of the Gospel of Thomas, buried for it's own protection, somewhere in an Egyptian desert. What other reason, except textual persecution, would we find a library of books buried in a clay urn in the desert?



Evidence of "textual persecution".... lol

What other reason?

Dropped. Lost.....

Arthur Conan Doyle losing original scribbles of his famous stories and the arch bishop of Canterbury finding them some 2000 years later buried in his garden, just as with Jesus, would not make Sherlock Holmes non-fictional.




No worries dude. No Jesus. No comeback

 

[I am...]

Quote from stu:
You must be aware how absurd a statement that is.

Only the truth is true. Truth is not the memory of a series of unfortunate events. Truth is a Being that never changes. History is like a dream of this Being. Dreams are fictions.

making it totaly hypocritical of you to then try and use pseudo reasoning based on ideas about non-fictional history.

Understanding how the dream functions does not make it a fact.

Self-contradiction always did appear to be your forte.

The dream functions as a Self-contradiction. It is good at it.

Although we might agree Jesus is fictional, unlike yourself, I certainly would not be anyway content with the absurd reasoning you offer for it.

In order to dismiss Jesus from your field of so-called facts, you'd have to engage in not a little absurdity of your own. The absurdity of your assertions is like someone who saw a crater and shrapnel and dead people and dismissed the possibility that a bomb went off...while thinking himself a forensics expert.

Evidence of "textual persecution".... lol

Textual preferences are like sexual preferences. Are you hereby stating that in the records of history, authors and/or their texts have not been persecuted? Are you stating that there is no chance that any documents testifying of Jesus were expunged from the record or that an attempt was made on their life to destroy them?

What other reason?

Dropped. Lost.....

Arthur Conan Doyle losing original scribbles of his famous stories and the arch bishop of Canterbury finding them some 2000 years later buried in his garden, just as with Jesus, would not make Sherlock Holmes non-fictional.

So you are comparing a small library of books of similar orientation (contra orthodoxy) contained in a clay jar and buried in a remote place to someone who loses his notes? If so, you would not make a very good detective. If this is how you think, your comments on the non-role of Jesus in the fiction of history lack credibility.

 

[stu]

Quote from I am...:

[..blah..]

So you are comparing a small library of books of similar orientation (contra orthodoxy) contained in a clay jar and buried in a remote place to someone who loses his notes? If so, you would not make a very good detective. If this is how you think, your comments on the non-role of Jesus in the fiction of history lack credibility.

Yes sure it's a reasonable comparison. You think your reference sounds any more credible for making a fictional character real? You must be joking.

Nomad camel herders do remote. They would lose stuff remote
In my comparison Conan Doyle is said to have left an original library of his work in a chest in a cellar and forgot about it.

My example is quite pertinent to yours and makes the point that Sherlock like Jesus is obviously not made non-fictional because those writings are later discovered.

May I suggest you just stick to your nonsensical hippy talk dude. It’s stupid enough.