The Historical Jesus.

[heretic888]

Ok. We'll see.

I might post some of my "evidence" related to the subject a little later, but don't have anything with me right now.

Laterz.

 

[arnisador]

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/ap/20031121/ap_on_re_mi_ea/simon_s_verse

Their curiosity piqued, two Jerusalem scholars uncovered six previously invisible lines of inscription: a Gospel verse — Luke 2:25.


Archaeological finds confirming biblical narrative or referring to figures from the Bible are rare, and this is believed to be the first discovery of a New Testament verse carved onto an ancient Holy Land shrine, said inscriptions expert Emile Puech, who deciphered the writing.

 

[heretic888]

Interesting discovery--early use of biblical verse.

Not all that early, arnisdor.

If you read the article, the inscriptions in question date to the 4th century. Assuming they are legit in the first place.

Laterz.

 

[Dennis_Mahon]

If you read the article, the inscriptions in question date to the 4th century. Assuming they are legit in the first place.

Actually, that not what the article says:

The passage is identical to the Gospel verse Luke 2:25, as it appears in a 4th-century version of the Bible, the Codex Sinaiticus, which was later revised extensively.

The article makes no mention as to how old the inscription is, just that it is identical to a 4th Century edition of the Bible.

 

[heretic888]

The article makes no mention as to how old the inscription is, just that it is identical to a 4th Century edition of the Bible.

*coughs* Check again, dennis:

"The Simon and Zachariah inscriptions were carved around the 4th century, at a time when Byzantine Christians were searching the Holy Land for sacred sites linked to the Bible and marked them, often relying on local lore, said Puech."

*beams triumphantly*

 

[Dennis_Mahon]

Point taken, my mistake.

 

[hardheadjarhead]

Pretty much a dead thread...but here's some input based on what people were writing about...

The arguable Christian interpolations found in Josephus:

http://www.uncc.edu/jdtabor/josephus-jesus.html

http://members.aol.com/fljosephus/question.htm

This one is interesting, at it has two translations of Josephus' work. One is taken from the Arabic.

http://ccat.sas.upenn.edu/~humm/Topics/JewishJesus/josephus.html

The topic of Josephus and his reference to Jesus has been debated elsewhere:

http://en2.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Josephus_on_Jesus





And, finally, a perspective on the historicity of Jesus:

http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/scott_oser/hojfaq.html


The old saying goes that one can not politely discuss religion and politics. I've found that people can generally discuss politics on this board...but THIS topic, it doth inflame.

Vitriol as I've seen here I've seen elsewhere.

Steve

 

[Cruentus]

Hi everyone.

What pisses me off about this particular thread and arguement is that many people who don't "believe" in a historical Jesus all too often fail to recognize that their "belief" is just that....a "belief" based off evidence. It isn't proven fact.

As a Catholic Christian, I am happy to admit the fact that historical evidence isn't "black and white." Now, there is plenty of evidence and scholarly works based on evidence supporting the idea that the Christian premise is true. It can be an educated belief to believe in the Jesus story, but it is a belief all the same. I have no problem in admiting this...there wouldn't be a need for "faith" if everything in this world was black and white.

So...how come those who CHOOSE to not believe in Jesus admit that this is simply their BELIEF based on their accepted evidence? Because too many clowns and pseudo-scholars with goofy names lurk on the internet, that's why. Too many a-holes who's entire existance revolves around trying to prove they are smarter/better then their peers. So...instead of humbly saying that they believe Jesus didn't exist in the historical sense, and here is why....then providing evidence, they say things that ellude to the idea that all the crap that comes out of their mouths is fact and everyone else who disagrees is spewing fiction.

It's stupid. Get lives.

PAUL

P.S. This post is not directed at any one particular person...I am only expressing my opinions about this thread and the many places it has gone so far.

 

[heretic888]

Point taken, my mistake.

To quote Jay: "No worries." :asian:

What pisses me off about this particular thread and arguement is that many people who don't "believe" in a historical Jesus all too often fail to recognize that their "belief" is just that....a "belief" based off evidence. It isn't proven fact.

Yes, and just as many (in fact a LOT more) treat their "belief" in a historical Jesus as "fact", too. This is pretty typical for ALL beliefs held with conviction. Period.

As a Catholic Christian, I am happy to admit the fact that historical evidence isn't "black and white." Now, there is plenty of evidence and scholarly works based on evidence supporting the idea that the Christian premise is true. It can be an educated belief to believe in the Jesus story, but it is a belief all the same. I have no problem in admiting this...there wouldn't be a need for "faith" if everything in this world was black and white.

Just because things aren't "black and white" doesn't mean they are all the same shade of grey.

So...how come those who CHOOSE to not believe in Jesus admit that this is simply their BELIEF based on their accepted evidence? Because too many clowns and pseudo-scholars with goofy names lurk on the internet, that's why. Too many a-holes who's entire existance revolves around trying to prove they are smarter/better then their peers. So...instead of humbly saying that they believe Jesus didn't exist in the historical sense, and here is why....then providing evidence, they say things that ellude to the idea that all the crap that comes out of their mouths is fact and everyone else who disagrees is spewing fiction.

Paul, everything you have said COMPLETELY holds true for the other side of the fence, as well. There are MUCH more "pseudo-scholars" and "a-holes" that DO believe there was a historical Jesus and treat it as scientific "fact". Again, this is nothing uncommon or atypical; it is, in fact, quite endemic to many beliefs held with any degree of emotional conviction (whether supported by good evidence or not).

What you are complaining about tends to be more of an aspect of human nature (or, to be more accurate, an aspect of human nature at a certain stage of personal development). NOT the exclusive quality of any kind of political/religious position or party.

Laterz.

 

[Cruentus]

Hey, Heretic888...

For once I think I agree with almost everything you've just said.

This does hold true for both sides of the fence...I absolutely agree. I will admit that I personally get less annoyed with people who do this on the Christian side because there not trying to challange my beliefs; however, it doesn't help when it is done on either side.

 

[hardheadjarhead]

Why do people who believe take such umbrage to people challenging those beliefs?

Steve

 

[Nightingale]

guys, haven't we about beat this to death?

-N-

 

[Jay Bell]

Originally posted by hardheadjarhead
Why do people who believe take such umbrage to people challenging those beliefs?

Steve

I really don't know...

“The legitimate powers of government extend to such acts only as are injurious to others. But it does me no injury for my neighbor to say there are twenty gods or no God.”

-- Thomas Jefferson

 

[heretic888]

I knew it. Jay's a communist.

CRUCIFY 'IM!!!

 

[arnisador]

Originally posted by Jay Bell
“The legitimate powers of government extend to such acts only as are injurious to others. But it does me no injury for my neighbor to say there are twenty gods or no God.”

-- Thomas Jefferson

I wasn't familiar with this quotation. It's well on-point.

I do suspect we've beaten this one to death, though.

 

[don bohrer]

guys, haven't we about beat this to death?

I agree... You hatfields just stay on yer side of the line and we Mccoys will stay on ours....... anybody crossin da line gets it!
---------------------------------------------------------------------
:biggun:


don

 

[Cruentus]

Originally posted by hardheadjarhead
Why do people who believe take such umbrage to people challenging those beliefs?

Steve

I'm probably used the wrong lingo, Steve, so let me explain. I don't mind if someone questions or challanges my beliefs, so I phrased it wrong when I said "challange."

I do mind when my beliefs are slammed or if I am inenvertantly insulted because of my beliefs. An example would be if someone makes a blatent and ignorant statement like, "Christians generally are illogical in their beliefs, and they aimlessly follow whatever their pastor or priest says." As a Catholic Christan, that would be insulting to me, and you can expect me having a problem with the statement, and you can expect me saying something about it.

It is also insulting to me when someone treats Christian beliefs, and inadvertantly "Christians" as ignorant, because "they follow evidence and conclusions that are "wholey untrue," or "unsupported by factual evidence", etc., etc., etc. It is as if they are the ones who are so much smarter, better, cooler, or whatever, then the Christian population.

I'm sorry, but I am not ignorant because of my beliefs. My beliefs are supported by evidence also. And I believe that my evidence is "factual" even if others might disagree.

I have no problem with people disagreeing with me, and I have no problem with people not believing in Christianity. I have no problem with people accepting a different set of evidence then what I am willing to accept. Fine. But I have a serious problem with people treating me like I am somehow ignorant due to my beliefs.

Hopefully that clarifies things...

PAUL

 

[Cruentus]

Originally posted by Nightingale
guys, haven't we about beat this to death?

-N-

I do suspect we've beaten this one to death, though.

I agree... You hatfields just stay on yer side of the line and we Mccoys will stay on ours....... anybody crossin da line gets it!

I agree...this one is definatily a dead horse....:deadhorse

I think that this type of a discussion would do well in a structured debate formate rather then going back and forth aimlessly, and having contests in seeing who can write the longest posts (yes, I am guilty of this more then anyone. ) I have discussed with Bob Hubbard over the phone the possability of having a "debate" forum attached to the study, which would have strict debate rules such as post length requirements, amount of posts back and forth, etc. Debators would make opening statements as conclusions at the end. Then, after the conclusions, the thread is closed, copied, and reopened as a poll where MT members can read the entire structured exchange and vote on who they think won the arguement. The vote, of course, should be on who argued the best, and not tied to peoples personal biases (of course we can't control that, but it would be at least known). Anyways, at some point when I have time, I am going to write up a the proposed idea, and the Moderators will have a chance to look at my proposal to give input, and see if the idea would work.

But in terms of this topic...I agree that this horse is dead.

 

[MA-Caver]

Originally posted by PAUL
I agree...this one is definatily a dead horse....:deadhorse
But in terms of this topic...I agree that this horse is dead.

The horse may be dead yes I'll go with that... but Jesus Lives! :asian:

 

[heretic888]