The case for the Historical Jesus

Public-Choice : And all this time I thought you weren't actually Catholic.

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 Shila has achieved its objective.

#19

And I am not religious in the slightest.

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.

You even affirm Josephus researched the temple scrolls to search for the historical Jesus.

shila wrote: Remember Flavius Josephus was an Historian and not a theologian.

Stephen wrote: 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. #14

Have you actually read the works of Josephus? Because I have.#14

stephen wrote: And I am not religious in the slightest.

My thread was not started for only the religious. It was started to build a case for the HistoricalJesus.

You have contributed 198 threads. But not a single case for  the Historical Jesus. Well you have one now!!

You have contributed 198 threads.

#33 CEASE AND DESIST NOW!!!

YES, minus the miracles, !!FFS how many times?  But I have also said that I cannot prove the biblical Jesus existed.  And I have disputed your offering as any type of evidence for his existence too, which has gone completely unchallenged by YOU!.

If you want to derail your own thread by continuously repeating what you offer as evidence, then knock yourself out. But your thread will die a death before much longer.

 Stop telling lies you deceitful fkr.

I have said nor suggested any such thing. What I said was that Josephus was in a better position than both you and I to understand the theology of the times because he was given the temple scrolls after the fall of the city.  AND THAT HE WAS A PRIEST. I mention nothing about it being to do with Josephus "researching or search for the historical Jesus".  If this is how you mean to go on you may as well throw in the towel now, you clown because you won't win a argument by being deceitful and blatantly lying.

here is my full quote and what caused me to say it:

shila wrote: Remember Flavius Josephus was an Historian and not a theologian.

Stephen wrote: 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. #14

Have you actually read the works of Josephus? Because I have.#14

Stephen wrote: If you are going to tell blatant lies such as this, you can fk right off.

 Wrong again you clown.  In many of those threads of mine I have clearly stated that I believe that a man called Jesus existed but that I can never prove my belief...... and neither can YOU! and my position hasn't changed or waivered since the day I joined here.

To your one.

Off you go now you deceitful little fkr

Your main struggle is with miracles.

 Wrong again you clown.  In many of those threads of mine I have clearly stated that I believe that a man called Jesus existed but that I can never prove my belief...... and neither can YOU! and my position hasn't changed or waivered since the day I joined here.

So you could not build a case for Jesus.

But Shila did in this thread.

You even affirm Josephus researched the temple scrolls to search for the historical Jesus.

"In this way they can train the young women to love their husbands and children, to be self-controlled and pure, to be busy at home, to be kind, and to be subject to their husbands, so that no one will malign the word of God." (Titus 2:4-5)

--> @Shila

.

Shila,

CEASE AND DESIST NOW!!!

How dare you go against Jesus' inspired words by being a woman and preaching to men?!  Just who in the hell do you think you are?!  Remember, you are nothing but a 2nd class pseudo-christian citizen in being a mere woman, where the man rules over you at all times!  

You have RAN AWAY from the following Jesus inspired passages THREE TIMES NOW in embarrassment not only to you, but to this Religion Forum and Jesus the Christ!  ENOUGH OF YOUR BLASPHEME!

You are in complete violation to Jesus' words shown below in what He thinks about your unsatisfactory gender of being a woman, by not following His doctrine regarding you being a defective women!  Therefore, where do you get the authority to slap Jesus in the face with you creating a thread about Him as a 2nd class woman that is not to "try" and teach men in any way whatsoever and other demeaning biblical facts of your female gender?!

1.  "Let a woman learn quietly with all submissiveness. I do not permit a woman to teach or to exercise authority over a man; rather, she is to remain quiet. For Adam was formed first, then Eve; and Adam was not deceived, but the woman was deceived and became a transgressor." (1 Timothy 2:11-14)

2.  “ But I would have you know, that the head of every man is Christ and the head of the woman in man. For the man is not of the women; but the woman of the man.” (1Corinthians 11: 3,8 ) 

3.  “I find more bitter than death the woman who is a snare, whose heart is a trap and whose hands are chains. The man who pleases God will escape her, but the sinner she will ensnare.” (Ecclesiastes 7:26)

4.  "The women should keep silent in the churches. For they are not permitted to speak, but should be in submission, as the Law also says. If there is anything they desire to learn, let them ask their husbands at home. For it is shameful for a woman to speak in church." (1 Corinthians 14:34-35)

5.  "Likewise, husbands, live with your wives in an understanding way, showing honor to the woman as the weaker vessel, since they are heirs with you of the grace of life, so that your prayers may not be hindered." (1 Peter 3:7)

6.  "It is better to live in a corner of the housetop than in a house shared with a quarrelsome wife." (Proverbs 21:9)

7.  "It is better to live in a desert land than with a quarrelsome and fretful woman." (Proverbs 21:19)

8.  “ It is better to dwell in a corner of the housetop, than with a brawling woman in a wide house.” (Proverbs 21:9)

9.  "A quarrelsome wife is as annoying as constant dripping on a rainy day. Stopping her complaints is like trying to stop the wind or trying to hold something with greased hands." (Proverbs 27:15-16) 

10.  " Likewise also that women should adorn themselves in respectable apparel, with modesty and self-control, not with braided hair and gold or pearls or costly attire." (1 Timothy 2:9)

11.  "For the husband is the head of the wife even as Christ is the head of the church, his body, and is himself its Savior." (Ephesians 5:23)

12.  "For man was not made from woman, but woman from man. Neither was man created for woman, but woman for man." (1 Corinthians 11:8-9)

Shila dear, do you want to call Jesus' inspired words above towards demeaning women as LIES?  Then you dig yourself deeper into the hole you have provided for yourself because of the following JESUS INSPIRED passages: 

“EVERY word of God is flawless; he is a shield to those who take refuge in him.“ (Proverbs 30:5). 

“And Jesus answered him, saying, It is written, That man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word of God.” (Luke 4:4) 

“Do not merely listen to the word, and so deceive yourselves. Do what it says.” (James 1:22)

Therefore, every word of Jesus is to be followed, and a TRUE Christian does what it says to do relative to the two-bit woman, period! Understood Bible fool SHILA?!

Shila, Close this thread of yours to save you from further embarrassment in front of Jesus as He watches you discard His words relative to what He thinks of the lower class woman!   "And no creature is hidden from his sight, but all are naked and exposed to the eyes of him to whom we must give account." (Hebrews 4:13)

NEXT STUPID AND IGNORANT PSEUDO-CHRISTIAN WOMAN LIKE SHILA THAT GOES AGAINST JESUS' TRUE WORDS REGARDING THE INFERIOR WOMAN WILL BE ...?

My claims are simply the case for the historical Jesus.

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.

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.

--> @Shila

Your main struggle is with miracles.

YES, minus the miracles,

I don't have any struggles at all. I have many problems with much of the NT and not just the so-called miracles.

 Wrong again you clown.  In many of those threads of mine I have clearly stated that I believe that a man called Jesus existed but that I can never prove my belief...... and neither can YOU! and my position hasn't changed or waivered since the day I joined here.

Correct, and neither can you. 

I simply believe a man named Jesus existed. He believed himself to be- or was led to believe himself to be rightful heir to the throne of David as king of the Jews and Jerusalem. And that it was this belief that got him executed. He performed no miracles and failed miserably to fulfil the requirements of an expected messiah as many messiahs had before him and since.

Speaking in the second person again!?

 I have just covered this blatant lie told by you. And I have shown that I said no such thing. HERE>>

Stephen wrote: 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. #14

Have you actually read the works of Josephus? Because I have.#14

Do you see that clown?  No mention at all concerning Josephus' reasons for having the scrolls at all is there? I mention nothing at all of researching Jesus or research at all.

 It appears to me that you have run out of steam and can only repeat what you have already said and are now reduced to simply repeating your lies and no doubt you will invent new lies. I honestly believed I was going to have a decent conversation on this thread.  You simply couldn't stand the pace you fkn amateur.

I have made my position more than clear and more than once.

I will only respond if I feel it is necessary.

So you could not build a case for Jesus.[ever actually existing]

Correct, and neither can you. 

I simply believe a man named Jesus existed. He believed himself to be- or was led to believe himself to be rightful heir to the throne of David as king of the Jews and Jerusalem. And that it was this belief that got him executed. He performed no miracles and failed miserably to fulfil the requirements of an expected messiah as many messiahs had before him and since.

But Shila did in this thread.

shila wrote: 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.

Stephen wrote:  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.

-->@Shila

Great post!

why are you screenshooting my profile you weirdo wtf. 

@shila Great, so you found a webpage which addresses the problems you made and you copy/paste from it even though it disproves your claim.

@shila If you wish to keep this thread focused

--> @Shila

Great post!

--> @BrotherD.Thomas

Did you get your theology diploma from a cracker jack box?

If you go to the Greek and Hebrew you'll find that your analysis is completely uncalled for and taken entirely out of context from its original purpose.

Shila isn't preaching a sermon or leading a church right now. This is a public forum where a discussion is being had. There is nothing in the Bible that says sharing the gospel is a sin.

--> @Shila

Yep, as I stated Jesus/Joshua/Yeshua is/was a character recorded in historical narratives and we know roughly where he was said to have lived, there's no denying that.

And that's about all one can say for certain.

And yep 1632, that's the point I try to get across. All is made up after the event

And therein lies your problem. It has not ever been established that these few inserted lines were written by Josephus as I wrote in my very first post here> #3

Stephen wrote:  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.

I also wrote :  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 a little more than a handful of lines, don't you? #14

And I have also written -  It appears to me that you have run out of steam and can only repeat what you have already said and are now reduced to simply repeating your blatant lies and no doubt you will invent new lies. I honestly believed I was going to have a decent conversation on this thread.  

I will only respond if I feel it is necessary.

You simply couldn't stand the pace you deceitful fkn amateur.

need a decoder ring, or addendums to be able to read them in their alleged true form?