The case for the Historical Jesus

Author: Shila

Posts

Total: 619
Topic's author
#1
Shila
Shila's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 3,006
3
3
5
Shila's avatar
Shila
3
3
5
1. What evidence do we have that Jesus was in fact a Historical person?

The four canonical gospels, Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John, are the main sources for the biography of Jesus' life, the teachings and actions attributed to him.

The Roman historian and senator Tacitus referred to Jesus, his execution by Pontius Pilate, and the existence of early Christians in Rome in his final work, Annals (written ca. AD 116), 

The first non-Christian writer to talk about Jesus was the Jewish historian Flavius Josephus (born Yosef ben Matityahu),who lived around AD 47-100. He referred to Christ in his history of Judaism “Jewish Antiquities” from AD 93. In the book, Jesus comes up twice – once in a curious passage about Jesus’s supposed brother Jamesand in another paragraph that has since been questioned in its authenticity.

2. Were the 12 disciples who followed Jesus historical as well?

There  is plenty of evidence that the twelve disciples were real people.  In fact, no one who knows the evidence can seriously entertain the thought that these men were not real people.  We have evidence from both Christian and non-Christian sources that the apostles were real people (I am assuming that by the 12 disciples you mean the 12 apostles).  I was watching a video one time by Bart Ehrman, who is an atheist, but also one of the top scholars about things related to the Bible.  A fellow atheist who was not well informed tried to tell Ehrman that he did not believe that Paul existed. Ehrman rebuked the man for making atheism look foolish.  No serious person could claim that Paul did not exist. It would be like claiming that Cicero did not exist. This is crazy thinking.

We have the evidence from Josephus who tells us about the martyrdom of James, the brother of Jesus, who was the leader of the Jerusalem church. Josephus also relates the execution of the apostle James. We also have the evidence of the early church writers. The first important church historian, Eusebius, wrote in the early fourth century. He tells about all twelve of the apostles, plus Paul, relating where each ministered and how they died. Eusebius quotes his sources, such as second century historian Papias and Irenaeus and other Christian writers. The reliability of Eusebius varies somewhat, but he was a careful scholar and he quoted his sources. Some of the things he tells us about what happened to the twelve may be inaccurate, but what cannot be wrong is that there were twelve apostles.  There is no way someone like Eusebius could have gotten the number of apostles wrong. Irenaeus, writing in the second century, tells us that he learned under Polycarp who knew the apostle John personally.  Is it possible that Irenaeus got this wrong? I do not think so.  If we go back to such books as the Didache and the Letter of Clement to the Romans, both written around the turn of the first century, that there were twelve apostles was assumed. This had been the tradition of the Christian church from the beginning of its existence.  Is there any possible motivation for the church to make up the existence of twelve apostles?  I cannot think of any.

The Didache, a very early Christian catechism dates from the very late first century. When it was written, some who had known the apostles were still alive, although they would have been quite old.  The Didache is also known as “The Lord’s Teaching Through the Twelve Apostles.” The unknown writer of the Didache assumes that there were twelve apostles because it was common knowledge that there were twelve apostles.  The people who knew Jesus personally would have known how many apostles there were.  It is irrational to believe that there were not twelve apostles of Jesus because every account of Christianity is unanimous on this account, including even Josephus who was not a friend of Christianity.

Did Jesus claim he was God?

Many contemporary New Testament scholars do not believe that Jesus of Nazareth ever actually claimed to be God.
According to C.S.Lewis’s we have three choices.
1. Liar: Jesus knew he wasn’t God, but he said he was;
2. Lunatic: Jesus thought he was God, but he actually wasn’t;
3. Lord: Jesus was who he said he was—God come in the flesh.

Bart Ehrman. This is how he responds to C. S. Lewis’s argument:
Jesus probably never called himself God…. This means that he doesn’t have to be either a liar, a lunatic, or the Lord. He could be a first-century Palestinian Jew who had a message to proclaim other than his own divinity.

There are two occasions on which Jesus is almost stoned to death because of who he claims to be:
The Jews said to him, “…Are you greater than our father Abraham, who died?…Who do you claim to be?”…Jesus said to them, “Truly, truly, I say to you, before Abraham was, I am.” So they took up stones to throw at him. (John 8:52, 53, 58-59)
[Jesus said:] “I and the Father are one.” The Jews took up stones again to stone him. Jesus answered them, “I have shown you many good works from the Father; for which of these do you stone me?” The Jews answered him, “We stone you for no good work but for blasphemy; because you, being a man, make yourself God.” (John 10:30-33)

#2
zedvictor4
zedvictor4's avatar
Debates: 22
Posts: 12,060
3
3
6
zedvictor4's avatar
zedvictor4
3
3
6
-->
@Shila
Jesus, fictional, mythical or otherwise is undeniably a historically recorded character.

Whether the accounts of his life and activities are vaguely true or not, is impossible to know.

Though I would suggest that most interpretations are embellished and exaggerated, such that we can only regard the biblical tales as myth or fantasy. 

For instance, would Jesus have been his given name?
#3
Stephen
Stephen's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 8,608
3
2
2
Stephen's avatar
Stephen
3
2
2
-->
@Shila
1. What evidence do we have that Jesus was in fact a Historical person?

The four canonical gospels, Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John, are the main sources for the biography of Jesus' life, the teachings and actions attributed to him.
None of which are eyewitness accounts. Although I have no actual reason to deny a man, believing himself to be rightful heir to the throne of Jerusalem existed.


The first non-Christian writer to talk about Jesus was the Jewish historian Flavius Josephus (born Yosef ben Matityahu),who lived around AD 47-100.

 This will be the very much debated The Testimonium Flavianum, which other scholars believed was added by the Christian apologist Eusebius. Indeed many modern scholars reject it altogether. And further, Josephus doesn't refer to him as a god.

 And as it is you that mentions historian Flavius Josephus, he relates to us a very interesting story that causes me to doubt the whole of the crucifixion story and its timing in particular. It may sound very familiar to many readers of the New Testament:


 And when I was sent by Titus Caesar with Cerealins, and a thousand horsemen, to a certain village called Thecoa, in order to know whether it were a place fit for a camp, as I came back, I saw many captives crucified, and remembered three of them as my former acquaintance. I was very sorry at this in my mind, and went with tears in my eyes to Titus, and told him of them; so he immediately commanded them to be taken down, and to have the greatest care taken of them, in order to their recovery; yet two of them died under the physician's hands, while the third recovered...'The Life' of Flavius Josephus.
 Two died where one recovered! An interesting coincidence when we read the account  of and Joseph of Arimathea from the gospels:


“And after this Joseph of Arimathea, being a disciple of Jesus, but secretly for fear of the Jews, besought Pilate that he might take away the body of Jesus: and Pilate gave him leave. He came therefore, and took the body of Jesus”. John 19:38-42.KJV
The similarities cannot be denied. Isn’t Josephus’ crucifixion story identical to what happened in the case of Jesus’ crucifixion where we are told that there was only one survivor of three and that survivor’s body was asked for by a man we know as a “secret” disciple of Jesus, Joseph of Arimathea?
Is it at all possible that historian Flavius Josephus and Joseph of Arimathea are one and the same person regardless of what we are supposed to know of these apparently two different people?? I suggest that you study and research the origins of the names of both historian Flavius Josephus' and Joseph of Arimathea, you may be surprised what you discover.




 Were the 12 disciples who followed Jesus historical as well?

All cult leaders of the time recruited followers and an inner circle.
But I have always found this particular recruitment story  more than suspicious. Have you actually read the sequence of events. Well no you haven't because there is no sequence. We are simply asked to believe this in itself was a miracle of sorts. Tell me would you just drop everything leaving your home, employment or business, wife and children simply because a complete stranger, that you know nothing at all about, simply walked up to  you and said " follow me" without a by you leave? It makes no sense at all on the face of it does it? But we are asked to suspend simple common sense and believe this is exactly what happened.



We have the evidence from Josephus who tells us about the martyrdom of James, the brother of Jesus, who was the leader of the Jerusalem church. Josephus also relates the execution of the apostle James. We also have the evidence of the early church writers. The first important church historian, Eusebius, wrote in the early fourth century.
Ah yes, Eusebius again, putting words into the mouth of someone that lived hundreds of years before himself.



Did Jesus claim he was God?

No. In fact it appears while everyone around him was speculating who he might be, Jesus seems at pains to avoid the subject and repeatedly refers to himself as
"the son of man" i.e very human. He didn't even say that he was the son of god, although,  IF he was the rightful heir to the throne of David then he would have also inherited the title -son of god- as other Hebrew kings did before him.


[Jesus said:] “I and the Father are one.”

This more than likely means that he and his god are in agreement. Jesus understood the scriptures by all accounts and hadn't come to change them, if the bible is to be believed.

If this is not the case then it is a baffling statement that Jesus made here. Because he also says many things that contradict his own statement. Such as here> 

“No one knows about that day or hour, not even the Son, but the Father only. “ (Matthew 24:36) , clearly showing the two to be separate entities and clearly talking about what he knows and what only his god knows.

 



 

#4
Elliott
Elliott's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 407
2
2
6
Elliott's avatar
Elliott
2
2
6
Did Jesus actually exist or is he a mythological figure. Outside of the gospels there is no contemporary evidence and even the gospels were written after the events portrayed and were probably derived from oral tradition.
 
The thing is, it doesn’t matter. Jesus is a god or a god incarnate, he is not totally human because he has powers that make him superhuman and like all gods he exits through belief and belief is all that is necessary for him to exist, and the actual human Jesus or Joshua to give him his real name is unnecessary.
 
Even if some ancient scrolls were discovered that proved Jesus and his life was simply a work of fiction, I don’t think that would influence Christian beliefs one iota.
#5
Stephen
Stephen's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 8,608
3
2
2
Stephen's avatar
Stephen
3
2
2
-->
@Elliott
Did Jesus actually exist or is he a mythological figure.

 I believe that Jesus was a man that believed himself to be or was led to be believe that he was the rightful heir to the throne of David and king of the Jews and Jerusalem minus the miracles. While I also believe he was a man wrapped in a myth by the early church.
#6
Elliott
Elliott's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 407
2
2
6
Elliott's avatar
Elliott
2
2
6
-->
@Stephen
 I believe that Jesus was a man that believed himself to be or was led to be believe that he was the rightful heir to the throne of David and king of the Jews and Jerusalem minus the miracles. While I also believe he was a man wrapped in a myth by the early church.
I agree, that’s certainly possible. I personally think there is a real person behind the story but ignoring the miracles I wonder how much of the end result was distorted through oral tradition and the imagination of the gospel writers.
 
There is one thing that makes me think Jesus was a real person and that is his name. A lot of work in the creation of the New Testament involved the fulfilling of Old Testament messianic prophecies. This is one of them and I would think an important one.
 
Isaiah 7:14 “Therefore the Lord himself will give you a sign: The virgin will conceive and give birth to a son, and will call him Immanuel.”
 
This to me this suggests Jesus existed as a real person and was reasonably well known by the name Jesus, so they were not able to change it to Immanuel.
Topic's author
#7
Shila
Shila's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 3,006
3
3
5
Shila's avatar
Shila
3
3
5
-->
@zedvictor4
-> @Shila
Jesus, fictional, mythical or otherwise is undeniably a historically recorded character.

Whether the accounts of his life and activities are vaguely true or not, is impossible to know.

Though I would suggest that most interpretations are embellished and exaggerated, such that we can only regard the biblical tales as myth or fantasy. 

For instance, would Jesus have been his given name?
Jesus' name in Hebrew was “Yeshua” which translates to English as Joshua.

When did Yeshua change to Jesus?
The first time that name was ever used was in June of 1632. Jesus, which is the name used by most English-speaking people today, is an English transliteration of a Germanic adaptation, of a Latin transliteration, of a Greek transliteration of an originally Hebrew name, that is simply Yeshua.

Ehrman, a former fundamentalist Christian turned agnostic atheist, has written numerous books challenging traditional views of the Bible himself. Did Jesus Exist?, however, contains scathing criticism of the "writers, bloggers and Internet junkies who call themselves mythicists". Ehrman says that they do not define what they mean by "myth" and maintains they are really motivated by a desire to denounce religion rather than examine historical evidence.He discusses leading contemporary mythicists by name and dismisses their arguments as "amateurish", "wrong-headed", and "outlandish".

The four canonical gospels, Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John, are the main sources for the biography of Jesus' life, the teachings and actions attributed to him.

The Roman historian and senator Tacitus referred to Jesus, his execution by Pontius Pilate, and the existence of early Christians in Rome in his final work, Annals (written ca. AD 116),

The first non-Christian writer to talk about Jesus was the Jewish historian Flavius Josephus (born Yosef ben Matityahu),who lived around AD 47-100. He referred to Christ in his history of Judaism “Jewish Antiquities” from AD 93. In the book, Jesus comes up twice – once in a curious passage about Jesus’s supposed brother Jamesand in another paragraph that has since been questioned in its authenticity.

There is plenty of evidence Jesus was a historical figure. Even the 2 major religions Islam and Christianity accept Jesus as a historical person. That is 4 billion followers of Islam and Christianity combined accept Jesus as a historical person that existed.


Topic's author
#8
Shila
Shila's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 3,006
3
3
5
Shila's avatar
Shila
3
3
5
-->
@Stephen
--> @Shila
1. What evidence do we have that Jesus was in fact a Historical person?

The four canonical gospels, Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John, are the main sources for the biography of Jesus' life, the teachings and actions attributed to him.
None of which are eyewitness accounts. Although I have no actual reason to deny a man, believing himself to be rightful heir to the throne of Jerusalem existed.

The Gospel authors recorded the accounts of eyewitnesses who followed Jesus everywhere in their Gospels and even referenced these eyewitnesses in their titles. Eg. Gospel of Matthew according to Matthew.
The first non-Christian writer to talk about Jesus was the Jewish historian Flavius Josephus (born Yosef ben Matityahu),who lived around AD 47-100.

 This will be the very much debated The Testimonium Flavianum, which other scholars believed was added by the Christian apologist Eusebius. Indeed many modern scholars reject it altogether. And further, Josephus doesn't refer to him as a god.

 And as it is you that mentions historian Flavius Josephus, he relates to us a very interesting story that causes me to doubt the whole of the crucifixion story and its timing in particular. It may sound very familiar to many readers of the New Testament:


 And when I was sent by Titus Caesar with Cerealins, and a thousand horsemen, to a certain village called Thecoa, in order to know whether it were a place fit for a camp, as I came back, I saw many captives crucified, and remembered three of them as my former acquaintance. I was very sorry at this in my mind, and went with tears in my eyes to Titus, and told him of them; so he immediately commanded them to be taken down, and to have the greatest care taken of them, in order to their recovery; yet two of them died under the physician's hands, while the third recovered...'The Life' of Flavius Josephus.
 Two died where one recovered! An interesting coincidence when we read the account  of and Joseph of Arimathea from the gospels:


“And after this Joseph of Arimathea, being a disciple of Jesus, but secretly for fear of the Jews, besought Pilate that he might take away the body of Jesus: and Pilate gave him leave. He came therefore, and took the body of Jesus”. John 19:38-42.KJV
The similarities cannot be denied. Isn’t Josephus’ crucifixion story identical to what happened in the case of Jesus’ crucifixion where we are told that there was only one survivor of three and that survivor’s body was asked for by a man we know as a “secret” disciple of Jesus, Joseph of Arimathea?
Is it at all possible that historian Flavius Josephus and Joseph of Arimathea are one and the same person regardless of what we are supposed to know of these apparently two different people?? I suggest that you study and research the origins of the names of both historian Flavius Josephus' and Joseph of Arimathea, you may be surprised what you discover.
We are talking about the Historical Jesus. Historian Flavius Josephus wrote about Jesus and the events surrounding his life. Remember Flavius Josephus was an Historian and not a theologian. His accounts covered the historical Jesus.


 Were the 12 disciples who followed Jesus historical as well?

All cult leaders of the time recruited followers and an inner circle.
But I have always found this particular recruitment story  more than suspicious. Have you actually read the sequence of events. Well no you haven't because there is no sequence. We are simply asked to believe this in itself was a miracle of sorts. Tell me would you just drop everything leaving your home, employment or business, wife and children simply because a complete stranger, that you know nothing at all about, simply walked up to  you and said " follow me" without a by you leave? It makes no sense at all on the face of it does it? But we are asked to suspend simple common sense and believe this is exactly what happened.
Did Paul and Peter start the church in Rome?
Consequently, churches composed of both Jews and Gentiles were formed at Rome. According to Irenaeus, a 2nd-century Church Father, the church at Rome was founded directly by the apostles Peter and Paul.


We have the evidence from Josephus who tells us about the martyrdom of James, the brother of Jesus, who was the leader of the Jerusalem church. Josephus also relates the execution of the apostle James. We also have the evidence of the early church writers. The first important church historian, Eusebius, wrote in the early fourth century.
Ah yes, Eusebius again, putting words into the mouth of someone that lived hundreds of years before himself.

We are talking about history which is a study of past events. Past events place Jesus as a historical figure.

Did Jesus claim he was God?

No. In fact it appears while everyone around him was speculating who he might be, Jesus seems at pains to avoid the subject and repeatedly refers to himself as 
"the son of man" i.e very human. He didn't even say that he was the son of god, although,  IF he was the rightful heir to the throne of David then he would have also inherited the title -son of god- as other Hebrew kings did before him.

The thread was to first establish the fact Jesus was a historical person , that he existed and left am impression behind.
Today 2 billion Christians believe Jesus is God. All the  modern science and research has not diminished the Christian position.
[Jesus said:] “I and the Father are one.” 

This more than likely means that he and his god are in agreement. Jesus understood the scriptures by all accounts and hadn't come to change them, if the bible is to be believed.

If this is not the case then it is a baffling statement that Jesus made here. Because he also says many things that contradict his own statement. Such as here> 

“No one knows about that day or hour, not even the Son, but the Father only. “ (Matthew 24:36) , clearly showing the two to be separate entities and clearly talking about what he knows and what only his god knows.
Jesus did not want his disciples to get ahead of themselves and for  good reasons. More was to come before that dreadful day. We saw the destruction of the Holy Temple and city Jerusalem in 70AD.
It was also time to spread his teachings to the world and not just the Jews to save the Gentiles.
Topic's author
#9
Shila
Shila's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 3,006
3
3
5
Shila's avatar
Shila
3
3
5
-->
@Elliott
Did Jesus actually exist or is he a mythological figure. Outside of the gospels there is no contemporary evidence and even the gospels were written after the events portrayed and were probably derived from oral tradition.
 
The thing is, it doesn’t matter. Jesus is a god or a god incarnate, he is not totally human because he has powers that make him superhuman and like all gods he exits through belief and belief is all that is necessary for him to exist, and the actual human Jesus or Joshua to give him his real name is unnecessary.
 
Even if some ancient scrolls were discovered that proved Jesus and his life was simply a work of fiction, I don’t think that would influence Christian beliefs one iota.
Jesus' name in Hebrew was “Yeshua” which translates to English as Joshua.

When did Yeshua change to Jesus?
The first time that name was ever used was in June of 1632. Jesus, which is the name used by most English-speaking people today, is an English transliteration of a Germanic adaptation, of a Latin transliteration, of a Greek transliteration of an originally Hebrew name, that is simply Yeshua.

Ehrman, a former fundamentalist Christian turned agnostic atheist, has written numerous books challenging traditional views of the Bible himself. Did Jesus Exist?, however, contains scathing criticism of the "writers, bloggers and Internet junkies who call themselves mythicists". Ehrman says that they do not define what they mean by "myth" and maintains they are really motivated by a desire to denounce religion rather than examine historical evidence.He discusses leading contemporary mythicists by name and dismisses their arguments as "amateurish", "wrong-headed", and "outlandish".

The four canonical gospels, Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John, are the main sources for the biography of Jesus' life, the teachings and actions attributed to him.

The Roman historian and senator Tacitus referred to Jesus, his execution by Pontius Pilate, and the existence of early Christians in Rome in his final work, Annals (written ca. AD 116),

The first non-Christian writer to talk about Jesus was the Jewish historian Flavius Josephus (born Yosef ben Matityahu),who lived around AD 47-100. He referred to Christ in his history of Judaism “Jewish Antiquities” from AD 93. In the book, Jesus comes up twice – once in a curious passage about Jesus’s supposed brother Jamesand in another paragraph that has since been questioned in its authenticity.

There is plenty of evidence Jesus was a historical figure. Even the 2 major religions Islam and Christianity accept Jesus as a historical person. That is 4 billion followers of Islam and Christianity combined accept Jesus as a historical person that existed.

Topic's author
#10
Shila
Shila's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 3,006
3
3
5
Shila's avatar
Shila
3
3
5
-->
@Elliott
--> @Stephen
 I believe that Jesus was a man that believed himself to be or was led to be believe that he was the rightful heir to the throne of David and king of the Jews and Jerusalem minus the miracles. While I also believe he was a man wrapped in a myth by the early church.
I agree, that’s certainly possible. I personally think there is a real person behind the story but ignoring the miracles I wonder how much of the end result was distorted through oral tradition and the imagination of the gospel writers.
 
There is one thing that makes me think Jesus was a real person and that is his name. A lot of work in the creation of the New Testament involved the fulfilling of Old Testament messianic prophecies. This is one of them and I would think an important one.
 
Isaiah 7:14 “Therefore the Lord himself will give you a sign: The virgin will conceive and give birth to a son, and will call him Immanuel.”
 
This to me this suggests Jesus existed as a real person and was reasonably well known by the name Jesus, so they were not able to change it to Immanuel.
The objective of this thread was to build a case for the Historical Jesus and to get as many people to accept this simple historical  fact.
You have made such an admission here, “ that makes me think Jesus was a real person”. The case for the Historical Jesus  has made you think and you went further, you now “think Jesus was a real person” .

Thank you.

Topic's author
#11
Shila
Shila's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 3,006
3
3
5
Shila's avatar
Shila
3
3
5
-->
@Stephen
--> @Elliott
Did Jesus actually exist or is he a mythological figure.

 I believe that Jesus was a man that believed himself to be or was led to be believe that he was the rightful heir to the throne of David and king of the Jews and Jerusalem minus the miracles. While I also believe he was a man wrapped in a myth by the early church
You have given your 2 beliefs of Jesus. Since I am new here I am assuming these are your first admissions after reading the case for the Historical Jesus that you now believe.

According to your post #5:
1. I believe that Jesus was a man that believed himself to be or was led to be believe that he was the rightful heir to the throne of David and king of the Jews and Jerusalem minus the miracles.

2. I also believe he was a man wrapped in a myth by the early church.

The objective of this thread was to build a case for the Historical Jesus and to get as many people to accept this simple historical  fact.
You have made such an admission here, “ I believe that Jesus was a man that believed himself to be or was led to be believe that he was the rightful heir to the throne of David and king of the Jews and Jerusalem minus the miracles. I also believe he was a man wrapped in a myth by the early church.”

Thank you.


#12
Elliott
Elliott's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 407
2
2
6
Elliott's avatar
Elliott
2
2
6
-->
@Shila
Jesus' name in Hebrew was “Yeshua” which translates to English as Joshua.
Yes, you are right, I used the English translation.
Topic's author
#13
Shila
Shila's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 3,006
3
3
5
Shila's avatar
Shila
3
3
5
-->
@Elliott
--> @Shila
Jesus' name in Hebrew was “Yeshua” which translates to English as Joshua.
Yes, you are right, I used the English translation.
I was right about the translation too!

#14
Stephen
Stephen's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 8,608
3
2
2
Stephen's avatar
Stephen
3
2
2
-->
@Shila
--> @Shila
1. What evidence do we have that Jesus was in fact a Historical person?

The four canonical gospels, Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John, are the main sources for the biography of Jesus' life, the teachings and actions attributed to him.
None of which are eyewitness accounts. Although I have no actual reason to deny a man, believing himself to be rightful heir to the throne of Jerusalem existed.

The Gospel authors recorded the accounts of eyewitnesses who followed Jesus everywhere in their Gospels and even referenced these eyewitnesses in their titles. Eg. Gospel of Matthew according to Matthew.
Ok I can see this going circular, so, show us all the evidence.


The first non-Christian writer to talk about Jesus was the Jewish historian Flavius Josephus (born Yosef ben Matityahu),who lived around AD 47-100.

 This will be the very much debated The Testimonium Flavianum, which other scholars believed was added by the Christian apologist Eusebius. Indeed, many modern scholars reject it altogether. And further, Josephus doesn't refer to him as a god.

 And as it is you that mentions historian Flavius Josephus, he relates to us a very interesting story that causes me to doubt the whole of the crucifixion story and its timing in particular. It may sound very familiar to many readers of the New Testament:


 And when I was sent by Titus Caesar with Cerealins, and a thousand horsemen, to a certain village called Thecoa, in order to know whether it were a place fit for a camp, as I came back, I saw many captives crucified, and remembered three of them as my former acquaintance. I was very sorry at this in my mind, and went with tears in my eyes to Titus, and told him of them; so he immediately commanded them to be taken down, and to have the greatest care taken of them, in order to their recovery; yet two of them died under the physician's hands, while the third recovered...'The Life' of Flavius Josephus.
 Two died where one recovered! An interesting coincidence when we read the account  of and Joseph of Arimathea from the gospels:


“And after this Joseph of Arimathea, being a disciple of Jesus, but secretly for fear of the Jews, besought Pilate that he might take away the body of Jesus: and Pilate gave him leave. He came therefore, and took the body of Jesus”. John 19:38-42.KJV
The similarities cannot be denied. Isn’t Josephus’ crucifixion story identical to what happened in the case of Jesus’ crucifixion where we are told that there was only one survivor of three and that survivor’s body was asked for by a man we know as a “secret” disciple of Jesus, Joseph of Arimathea?
Is it at all possible that historian Flavius Josephus and Joseph of Arimathea are one and the same person regardless of what we are supposed to know of these apparently two different people?? I suggest that you study and research the origins of the names of both historian Flavius Josephus' and Joseph of Arimathea, you may be surprised what you discover.
We are talking about the Historical Jesus. Historian Flavius Josephus wrote about Jesus and the events surrounding his life.

No, what Josephus appears to say is extremely very little concerning the biblical Jesus which amounts to just a handful of questionable lines, and these are rejected by many scholars. I am sure Josephus - a priest himself- would have afforded the son of god more than a handful of lines, don't you?

Please read my replies to your comments. It will save me having to continuously repeat myself.


Remember Flavius Josephus was an Historian and not a theologian.

Josephus was a high-ranking warrior priest;    of some royal decent, so I am sure he understood the "theology" of the day much better than either you or me. And if you have read all the works of Josephus, you will know that it was he that got his hands on the collection of the sacred temple scrolls after the fall of the city.

Have you actually read the works of Josephus? Because I have.





 Were the 12 disciples who followed Jesus historical as well?

All cult leaders of the time recruited followers and an inner circle.
But I have always found this particular recruitment story  more than suspicious. Have you actually read the sequence of events. Well no you haven't because there is no sequence. We are simply asked to believe this in itself was a miracle of sorts. Tell me would you just drop everything leaving your home, employment or business, wife and children simply because a complete stranger, that you know nothing at all about, simply walked up to  you and said " follow me" without a by you leave? It makes no sense at all on the face of it does it? But we are asked to suspend simple common sense and believe this is exactly what happened.
Did Paul and Peter start the church in Rome?
Irrelevant, it neither addresses my point and neither does it prove yours.
 



We have the evidence from Josephus who tells us about the martyrdom of James, the brother of Jesus, who was the leader of the Jerusalem church. Josephus also relates the execution of the apostle James. We also have the evidence of the early church writers. The first important church historian, Eusebius, wrote in the early fourth century.
Ah yes, Eusebius again, putting words into the mouth of someone that lived hundreds of years before himself.

We are talking about history which is a study of past events.

Stop being so patronising.  And we don't even know who wrote these unreliable ambiguous half stories that make up the scripture. Many theological scholars agree that they are the work of "unknown authors".


Did Jesus claim he was God?

No. In fact it appears while everyone around him was speculating who he might be, Jesus seems at pains to avoid the subject and repeatedly refers to himself as 
"the son of man" i.e very human. He didn't even say that he was the son of god, although,  IF he was the rightful heir to the throne of David then he would have also inherited the title -son of god- as other Hebrew kings did before him.

The thread was to first establish the fact Jesus was a historical person , that he existed and left am impression behind.
I know why you created the thread. And it was YOU that brought the question of if or not Jesus made the claim that he was god.
And let's be perfectly honest, with what you have offered in the way of proof thus far concerning a HISTORICAL Jesus amount to nothing.


Today 2 billion Christians believe Jesus is God. All the  modern science and research has not diminished the Christian position.

And billions of Muslims believe Jesus was only a prophet and not a god or even a son of god. Appealing to numbers is not evidence.



[Jesus said:] “I and the Father are one.” 

This more than likely means that he and his god are in agreement. Jesus understood the scriptures by all accounts and hadn't come to change them, if the bible is to be believed.

If this is not the case then it is a baffling statement that Jesus made here. Because he also says many things that contradict his own statement. Such as here> 

“No one knows about that day or hour, not even the Son, but the Father only. “ (Matthew 24:36) , clearly showing the two to be separate entities and clearly talking about what he knows and what only his god knows.
Jesus did not want his disciples to get ahead of themselves and for good reasons.

This hasn't explained this particular clear contradiction of which there are others. . If Jesus didn't want " his disciples to get ahead of themselves", wouldn't it have been better to stop offering to them ambiguous statements and to keep things on a need-to-know basis?  So your reasoning behind this particular contradiction makes no sense whatsoever.  

Please do not repeat yourself unless it is necessary. Is all this does is stifle the conversation. 


#15
Stephen
Stephen's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 8,608
3
2
2
Stephen's avatar
Stephen
3
2
2
-->
@Shila
The objective of this thread was to build a case for the Historical Jesus and to get as many people to accept this simple historical  fact.

 And I accept there was such a man that lived in 1st century Palestine - minus the miracles. But I cannot prove it on the bases of there is so little evidence. It's called being honest with myself.

You on the other hand have offered nothing more than extremely flimsy so-called "evidence".  


#16
rosends
rosends's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 806
3
2
6
rosends's avatar
rosends
3
2
6
Just a side note, the following statement was made:
"Jesus' name in Hebrew was “Yeshua” which translates to English as Joshua"
that statement is wrong on at least 3 different levels.

The biblical nickname Yay-shOO-ah is a shortened form of Yehoshua. That name, Yehoshua, is generally rendered into English as Joshua.

So the name "Jesus" would not have been written in Hebrew as "Yeshua" because it was not a formal name, just a nickname.  The sound of the Hebrew nickname is the same as for the word Y'shu'ah, which means "being saved" and it figures that someone would conflate them over time and through the lens/agenda of theology.
Topic's author
#17
Shila
Shila's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 3,006
3
3
5
Shila's avatar
Shila
3
3
5
-->
@rosends
Just a side note, the following statement was made:
"Jesus' name in Hebrew was “Yeshua” which translates to English as Joshua"
that statement is wrong on at least 3 different levels.

The biblical nickname Yay-shOO-ah is a shortened form of Yehoshua. That name, Yehoshua, is generally rendered into English as Joshua.

So the name "Jesus" would not have been written in Hebrew as "Yeshua" because it was not a formal name, just a nickname.  The sound of the Hebrew nickname is the same as for the word Y'shu'ah, which means "being saved" and it figures that someone would conflate them over time and through the lens/agenda of theology.
So you are disputing the spelling of  Yeshua, Yehoshua, Jesus. But you are not disputing the person is a historical person behind the name/names.

You must be pleased the name Jesus further separates the man from his Jewish roots more than yehoshua would.

Topic's author
#18
Shila
Shila's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 3,006
3
3
5
Shila's avatar
Shila
3
3
5
-->
@Stephen
-> @Shila
The objective of this thread was to build a case for the Historical Jesus and to get as many people to accept this simple historical  fact.

 And I accept there was such a man that lived in 1st century Palestine - minus the miracles. But I cannot prove it on the bases of there is so little evidence. It's called being honest with myself.

You on the other hand have offered nothing more than extremely flimsy so-called "evidence".  
You were not asked to prove anything. The evidence was a collection of accounts written by those who lived  during Jesus’s time and followed him. There were also accounts by historians who reported these events.
All you had to do was accept the case for the Historical Jesus built by Shila in this thread which you did.

You said: “And I accept there was such a man that lived in 1st century Palestine.”

That is good enough for now. We can deal with other specifics later

Topic's author
#19
Shila
Shila's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 3,006
3
3
5
Shila's avatar
Shila
3
3
5
-->
@Stephen
1. What evidence do we have that Jesus was in fact a Historical person?
The four canonical gospels, Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John, are the main sources for the biography of Jesus' life, the teachings and actions attributed to him.

None of which are eyewitness accounts. Although I have no actual reason to deny a man, believing himself to be rightful heir to the throne of Jerusalem existed.
The Gospel authors recorded the accounts of eyewitnesses who followed Jesus everywhere in their Gospels and even referenced these eyewitnesses in their titles. Eg. Gospel of Matthew according to Matthew.

Ok I can see this going circular, so, show us all the evidence.
You accepted Jesus as a historical person. The case built by Shilahas achieved its objective.

The first non-Christian writer to talk about Jesus was the Jewish historian Flavius Josephus (born Yosef ben Matityahu),who lived around AD 47-100.

 This will be the very much debated The Testimonium Flavianum, which other scholars believed was added by the Christian apologist Eusebius. Indeed, many modern scholars reject it altogether. And further, Josephus doesn't refer to him as a god.
 And as it is you that mentions historian Flavius Josephus, he relates to us a very interesting story that causes me to doubt the whole of the crucifixion story and its timing in particular. It may sound very familiar to many readers of the New Testament:
 And when I was sent by Titus Caesar with Cerealins, and a thousand horsemen, to a certain village called Thecoa, in order to know whether it were a place fit for a camp, as I came back, I saw many captives crucified, and remembered three of them as my former acquaintance. I was very sorry at this in my mind, and went with tears in my eyes to Titus, and told him of them; so he immediately commanded them to be taken down, and to have the greatest care taken of them, in order to their recovery; yet two of them died under the physician's hands, while the third recovered...'The Life' of Flavius Josephus.

Two died where one recovered! An interesting coincidence when we read the account  of and Joseph of Arimathea from the gospels:

“And after this Joseph of Arimathea, being a disciple of Jesus, but secretly for fear of the Jews, besought Pilate that he might take away the body of Jesus: and Pilate gave him leave. He came therefore, and took the body of Jesus”. John 19:38-42.KJV

The similarities cannot be denied. Isn’t Josephus’ crucifixion story identical to what happened in the case of Jesus’ crucifixion where we are told that there was only one survivor of three and that survivor’s body was asked for by a man we know as a “secret” disciple of Jesus, Joseph of Arimathea?

Is it at all possible that historian Flavius Josephus and Joseph of Arimathea are one and the same person regardless of what we are supposed to know of these apparently two different people?? I suggest that you study and research the origins of the names of both historian Flavius Josephus' and Joseph of Arimathea, you may be surprised what you discover.
We are talking about the Historical Jesus. Historian Flavius Josephus wrote about Jesus and the events surrounding his life.

No, what Josephus appears to say is extremely very little concerning the biblical Jesus which amounts to just a handful of questionable lines, and these are rejected by many scholars. I am sure Josephus - a priest himself- would have afforded the son of god more than a handful of lines, don't you?

Please read my replies to your comments. It will save me having to continuously repeat myself.

Being a Historian,  Flavius Josephus wrote about Jesus and the events surrounding his life. 
This is why he remained objective in his record.

Remember Flavius Josephus was an Historian and not a theologian.

Josephus was a high-ranking warrior priest;    of some royal decent, so I am sure he understood the "theology" of the day much better than either you or me. And if you have read all the works of Josephus, you will know that it was he that got his hands on the collection of the sacred temple scrolls after the fall of the city.

Have you actually read the works of Josephus? Because I have.


Flavius Josephus is recognized for his historical records and not for his theology.

Were the 12 disciples who followed Jesus historical as well?

All cult leaders of the time recruited followers and an inner circle.
But I have always found this particular recruitment story  more than suspicious. Have you actually read the sequence of events. Well no you haven't because there is no sequence. We are simply asked to believe this in itself was a miracle of sorts. Tell me would you just drop everything leaving your home, employment or business, wife and children simply because a complete stranger, that you know nothing at all about, simply walked up to  you and said " follow me" without a by you leave? It makes no sense at all on the face of it does it? But we are asked to suspend simple common sense and believe this is exactly what happened.
Did Paul and Peter start the church in Rome?

Irrelevant, it neither addresses my point and neither does it prove yours.
 
We have the evidence from Josephus who tells us about the martyrdom of James, the brother of Jesus, who was the leader of the Jerusalem church. Josephus also relates the execution of the apostle James. We also have the evidence of the early church writers. The first important church historian, Eusebius, wrote in the early fourth century.

Ah yes, Eusebius again, putting words into the mouth of someone that lived hundreds of years before himself.
We are talking about history which is a study of past events.

Stop being so patronising.  And we don't even know who wrote these unreliable ambiguous half stories that make up the scripture. Many theological scholars agree that they are the work of "unknown authors".

Did Jesus claim he was God?

No. In fact it appears while everyone around him was speculating who he might be, Jesus seems at pains to avoid the subject and repeatedly refers to himself as"the son of man" i.e very human. He didn't even say that he was the son of god, although,  IF he was the rightful heir to the throne of David then he would have also inherited the title -son of god- as other Hebrew kings did before him.

The thread was to first establish the fact Jesus was a historical person , that he existed and left am impression behind.

I know why you created the thread. And it was YOU that brought the question of if or not Jesus made the claim that he was god.
And let's be perfectly honest, with what you have offered in the way of proof thus far concerning a HISTORICAL Jesus amount to nothing.

Today 2 billion Christians believe Jesus is God. All the  modern science and research has not diminished the Christian position.

And billions of Muslims believe Jesus was only a prophet and not a god or even a son of god. Appealing to numbers is not evidence.

[Jesus said:] “I and the Father are one.” 

This more than likely means that he and his god are in agreement. Jesus understood the scriptures by all accounts and hadn't come to change them, if the bible is to be believed.
If this is not the case then it is a baffling statement that Jesus made here. Because he also says many things that contradict his own statement. Such as here> 

“No one knows about that day or hour, not even the Son, but the Father only. “ (Matthew 24:36) , clearly showing the two to be separate entities and clearly talking about what he knows and what only his god knows.

Jesus did not want his disciples to get ahead of themselves and for  good reasons. More was to come before that dreadful day. We saw the destruction of the Holy Temple and city Jerusalem in 70AD.
It was also time to spread his teachings to the world and not just the Jews to save the Gentiles.

This hasn't explained this particular clear contradiction of which there are others. . If Jesus didn't want " his disciples to get ahead of themselves", wouldn't it have been better to stop offering to them ambiguous statements and to keep things on a need-to-know basis?  So your reasoning behind this particular contradiction makes no sense whatsoever.  

Please do not repeat yourself unless it is necessary. Is all this does is stifle the conversation. 
Jesus wanted his disciples to show faith and let the Holy Spirit guide them after he was gone.

John 14:26 But the Advocate, the Holy Spirit, whom the Father will send in my name, will teach you all things and will remind you of everything I have said to you.
#20
Stephen
Stephen's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 8,608
3
2
2
Stephen's avatar
Stephen
3
2
2
-->
@Shila
-> @Shila
The objective of this thread was to build a case for the Historical Jesus and to get as many people to accept this simple historical  fact.

 And I accept there was such a man that lived in 1st century Palestine - minus the miracles. But I cannot prove it on the bases of there is so little evidence. It's called being honest with myself.

You on the other hand have offered nothing more than extremely flimsy so-called "evidence".  
You were not asked to prove anything.

So what is the whole point of your thread if not to prove an "historical biblical Jesus" existed?



The evidence was a collection of accounts written by those who lived  during Jesus’s time and followed him.

 But there is absolutely no evidence that any of them were alive at the time as the Christ. We only have stories passed down to us that have gone through many translations.


There were also accounts by historians who reported these events.

 What events? And what historians? The same historians that didn't live at the time of Christ in 1st century Palestine.


All you had to do was accept the case for the Historical Jesus built by Shila in this thread which you did.

But we have to face facts at the same time. And I do not accept the New Testament as it has been passed down to us. AND I don't accept your ( or as you put it, shila's ) case as "evidence" enough for the existence of a biblical Jesus either.


built by Shila in this thread

Why are you speaking in the second person? Am I conversing with someone other than shila herself?


You said: “And I accept there was such a man that lived in 1st century Palestine.”

I do. But you omitted from my quote "minus the miracles". Here> #15 So please, if you are going to use a quote of mine, use the whole quote.


That is good enough for now. We can deal with other specifics later.

 I don't agree. These flaws have to be ironed out as the conversation moves forward.

You should be prepared to be challenged on your comments, theories, ideas and most of all your "evidence".

If it is of any consolation to you, I don't believe that you will find many here that do not dispute the possibility that the biblical Jesus existed. So, the quicker we do get to the specifics the better for your thread and the conversation. imo

#21
Public-Choice
Public-Choice's avatar
Debates: 19
Posts: 1,065
3
4
8
Public-Choice's avatar
Public-Choice
3
4
8
-->
@Stephen
@Shila
And all this time I thought you weren't actually Catholic.
#22
rosends
rosends's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 806
3
2
6
rosends's avatar
rosends
3
2
6
-->
@Shila
So you are disputing the spelling of  Yeshua, Yehoshua, Jesus. But you are not disputing the person is a historical person behind the name/names.

I am not commenting at all about the historical existence of anyone, nor am I disputing the spelling of anything -- just the claims made in your statement.


You must be pleased the name Jesus further separates the man from his Jewish roots more than yehoshua would.

Must I be? Because I don't really care.

I did, notice, though, that you couldn't counter the statements I made so you are changing course. Did that website not have anything for you to copy and paste in response?

#23
Stephen
Stephen's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 8,608
3
2
2
Stephen's avatar
Stephen
3
2
2
-->
@rosends
. Did that website not have anything [else] for you to copy and paste in response?

I corrected that for you rosi.

Topic's author
#24
Shila
Shila's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 3,006
3
3
5
Shila's avatar
Shila
3
3
5
-->
@Stephen
The objective of this thread was to build a case for the Historical Jesus and to get as many people to accept this simple historical  fact.

And I accept there was such a man that lived in 1st century Palestine - minus the miracles. But I cannot prove it on the bases of there is so little evidence. It's called being honest with myself.
You on the other hand have offered nothing more than extremely flimsy so-called "evidence".  
You were not asked to prove anything.

So what is the whole point of your thread if not to prove an "historical biblical Jesus" existed?
Shila has already built a case for the historical Jesus. You were not asked to prove anything.

The evidence was a collection of accounts written by those who lived  during Jesus’s time and followed him.

 But there is absolutely no evidence that any of them were alive at the time as the Christ. We only have stories passed down to us that have gone through many translations.
There were also accounts by historians who reported these events.

 What events? And what historians? The same historians that didn't live at the time of Christ in 1st century Palestine.
We are talking about the Historical Jesus. Historian Flavius Josephus wrote about Jesus and the events surrounding his life.

All you had to do was accept the case for the Historical Jesus built by Shila in this thread which you did.
But we have to face facts at the same time. And I do not accept the New Testament as it has been passed down to us. AND I don't accept your ( or as you put it, shila's ) case as "evidence" enough for the existence of a biblical Jesus either.
We are discussing  the case for the Historical Jesu.
The gospels are  another source of evidence for the historical Jesus.

The case for the Historical Jesus was built by Shila in this thread 

Why are you speaking in the second person? Am I conversing with someone other than shila herself?
You are talking to the author of. The case for the Historical Jesus.

You said: “And I accept there was such a man that lived in 1st century Palestine.”

I do. But you omitted from my quote "minus the miracles". Here> #15 So please, if you are going to use a quote of mine, use the whole quote.

That is good enough for now. We can deal with other specifics later.

 I don't agree. These flaws have to be ironed out as the conversation moves forward.

You should be prepared to be challenged on your comments, theories, ideas and most of all your "evidence".

If it is of any consolation to you, I don't believe that you will find many here that do not dispute the possibility that the biblical Jesus existed. So, the quicker we do get to the specifics the better for your thread and the conversation. imo
The objective of this thread was to build a case for the Historical Jesus and to get as many people to accept this simple historical  fact.
The fewer members who  dispute my case for the historical Jesus the more successful by case will be viewed.

More specifics on other aspects of Jesus which are of interest mostly to Christians will be revealed as the thread gains momentum.
Topic's author
#25
Shila
Shila's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 3,006
3
3
5
Shila's avatar
Shila
3
3
5
-->
@Public-Choice
--> @Shila @Stephen
And all this time I thought you weren't actually Catholic.
I was accused of being a bot. But all this time you thought I was actually Catholic. I guess the mods had to make a choice. They banned the bot.

#26
Stephen
Stephen's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 8,608
3
2
2
Stephen's avatar
Stephen
3
2
2
-->
@Shila
The objective of this thread was to build a case for the Historical Jesus and to get as many people to accept this simple historical  fact.

I know that you clown!!!

The fewer members who dispute my case for the historical Jesus the more successful by case will be viewed.

And I have disputed the evidence that you put forward that was supposed to support your case for the existence of a biblical and historical Jesus. So simply stop repeating your flimsy evidence and either challenge my disputations or admit they are valid and accept them for what they are, and we can all move on.
Simply repeating and presenting the same argument that I have already challenged won't get us anywhere.

Topic's author
#27
Shila
Shila's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 3,006
3
3
5
Shila's avatar
Shila
3
3
5
-->
@rosends
--> @Shila
So you are disputing the spelling of  Yeshua, Yehoshua, Jesus. But you are not disputing the person is a historical person behind the name/names.

I am not commenting at all about the historical existence of anyone, nor am I disputing the spelling of anything -- just the claims made in your statement.

My claims are simply the case for the historical Jesus.

You must be pleased the name Jesus further separates the man from his Jewish roots more than yehoshua would.

Must I be? Because I don't really care.
Another uncaring Jew. It’s 2000 years since Jesus was crucified. Jesus’s crucifixion was demanded by the Jews of his time. Yet to continue to harbour the same strong Jewish resentment whenever Yehoshua is mentioned.

I did, notice, though, that you couldn't counter the statements I made so you are changing course. Did that website not have anything for you to copy and paste in response?
Your post was addressed.
So you are disputing the spelling of  Yeshua, Yehoshua, Jesus. But you are not disputing the person is a historical person behind the name/names.


Just a side note, the following statement was made:
"Jesus' name in Hebrew was “Yeshua” which translates to English as Joshua"
that statement is wrong on at least 3 different levels.

The biblical nickname Yay-shOO-ah is a shortened form of Yehoshua. That name, Yehoshua, is generally rendered into English as Joshua.

So the name "Jesus" would not have been written in Hebrew as "Yeshua" because it was not a formal name, just a nickname.  The sound of the Hebrew nickname is the same as for the word Y'shu'ah, which means "being saved" and it figures that someone would conflate them over time and through the lens/agenda of theology.
We read “Jesus” in our English Bibles, but what is Jesus’ name in Hebrew?

Jesus’ name in Hebrew is Yehoshua (Yeh-HO-shoo-ah), which, over time, became contracted to the shorter Yeshua (Yeh-SHOO-ah). Yehoshua, and therefore Yeshua as well, means “the Lord is salvation.”

In the Greek New Covenant, the word used for Jesus is Iesous (ee-ay-SOOS). Iesous is not a translation of Jesus’ name in Hebrew, but rather it is a transliteration.

A translation takes the meaning of a word in one language and assigns it the equivalent word with the same meaning in a different language. For instance, translated into Spanish, the English word “red” is “roja.”

A transliteration takes the letters of a word from one language and finds like-sounding letters of the second language to create a new word in that language. For example, the English word “baptize” is a transliteration of the Greek word baptizo (bap-TID-zo), meaning to immerse.

In the late 4th century, Jerome translated the Bible into Latin, a manuscript known as the Vulgate. In it, the Greek Iesous became the Latin Iesus. The English Bible eventually changed the Y sound of the Latin I to the letter J, which we now have in Jesus.

So, from Yehoshua/Yeshua – Jesus’ name in Hebrew – we get the Greek transliteration Iesous, which was transliterated into Latin as Iesus and later became the English name, Jesus.



#28
Stephen
Stephen's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 8,608
3
2
2
Stephen's avatar
Stephen
3
2
2
-->
@Public-Choice
@Shila
--> @Shila @Stephen
And all this time I thought you weren't actually Catholic.
I was accused of being a bot. But all this time you thought I was actually Catholic. I guess the mods had to make a choice. They banned the bot.

And I am not sure they got that correct. You keep referring to yourself in the second person..>>>

Shila wrote: You accepted Jesus as a historical person. The case built by Shilah as achieved its objective.

And I am not religious in the slightest.
#29
Public-Choice
Public-Choice's avatar
Debates: 19
Posts: 1,065
3
4
8
Public-Choice's avatar
Public-Choice
3
4
8
-->
@Stephen
None of which are eyewitness accounts.
John 1:14 "And the Word became flesh, and dwelt among us, and we saw His glory, glory as of the only begotten from the Father, full of grace and truth."

Luke 1:1-4: "Inasmuch as many have undertaken to compile an account of the things accomplished among us, just as they were handed down to us by those who from the beginning were eyewitnesses and servants of the word, it seemed fitting for me as well, having investigated everything carefully from the beginning, to write it out for you in consecutive order, most excellent Theophilus; so that you may know the exact truth about the things you have been taught."

If the gospels weren't eyewitness accounts or recordings of eyewitness accounts then how do you explain these passages?

Luke, in particular, claims he interviewed people and studied the issue thoroughly. Clearly there were many MANY people to talk to for Luke to compile his gospel account.

The similarities cannot be denied
Except you forgot a few things:

"So the soldiers came, and broke the legs of the first man and of the other who was crucified with Him; but coming to Jesus, when they saw that He was already dead, they did not break His legs. But one of the soldiers pierced His side with a spear, and immediately blood and water came out."

Jesus was already dead before Joseph of Arimathea took his body. The Romans gave him the pierced side test and he passed the test so they knew he was dead. This is an entirely different story than what you paint. In fact, Joseph and Nicodemus, in the immediate passages following what you cite, perform the Jewish burial customs:

"Nicodemus, who had first come to Him by night, also came, bringing a mixture of myrrh and aloes, about a hundred pounds weight. So they took the body of Jesus and bound it in linen wrappings with the spices, as is the burial custom of the Jews. Now in the place where He was crucified there was a garden, and in the garden a new tomb in which no one had yet been laid. Therefore because of the Jewish day of preparation, since the tomb was nearby, they laid Jesus there."

So it is apparent that Jesus was dead to everyone in the story. Furthermore, your cherry picked account in Josephus's work does not mention Jesus nor Joseph of Arimathea, so I have no idea how you came to your conclusions there.

All cult leaders of the time recruited followers and an inner circle.

Yes but did cult leaders specifically tell their followers not to lavish them with gifts? Did the cult leaders of Rome give up material belongings altogether and never stay in the same home, instead moving from house to house, facing death, imprisonment, and starvation? What kind of cult leader is that? Who starts a cult and then tells people not to give them any money, nor sleep with the women, nor treat them any differently than anyone else? And then tells the followers that their words should be checked against Scripture to make sure it is true? What kind of cult is that?

Jesus seems at pains to avoid the subject
Except in Mark 2:5, John 8:58, and John 7:5. And that is just SOME of the times. Plus all the times He raised the dead, made the blind see, and forgave people's sins. I mean... Nobody except Mormons and Jehovah's Witnesses (and both because of outside sources) comes away reading the gospel accounts thinking Jesus didn't claim to be God.
Topic's author
#30
Shila
Shila's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 3,006
3
3
5
Shila's avatar
Shila
3
3
5
-->
@Stephen
The objective of this thread was to build a case for the Historical Jesus and to get as many people to accept this simple historical  fact.

I know that you clown!!!
The fewer members who dispute my case for the historical Jesus the more successful by case will be viewed.

And I have disputed the evidence that you put forward that was supposed to support your case for the existence of a biblical and historical Jesus. So simply stop repeating your flimsy evidence and either challenge my disputations or admit they are valid and accept them for what they are, and we can all move on.
Simply repeating and presenting the same argument that I have already challenged won't get us anywhere.And I have disputed the evidence that you put forward that was supposed to support your case for the existence of a biblical and historical Jesus. So simply stop repeating your flimsy evidence and either challenge my disputations or admit they are valid and accept them for what they are, and we can all move on.
You have accepted the historical Jesus.
Read your post, 
Stephen wrote: “And I accept there was such a man that lived in 1st century Palestine - minus the miracles. “

Simply repeating and presenting the same argument that I have already challenged won't get us anywhere.
You even affirm Josephus researched the temple scrolls to search for the historical Jesus.
So using Josephus as one of my evidence for the case of the Historical Jesus was well founded.

Josephus was a high-ranking warrior priest;    of some royal decent, so I am sure he understood the "theology" of the day much better than either you or me. And if you have read all the works of Josephus, you will know that it was he that got his hands on the collection of the sacred temple scrolls after the fall of the city.

Have you actually read the works of Josephus? Because I have.
You have contributed 198 threads. But not a single case for  the Historical Jesus. Well you have one now!!