The case for the Historical Jesus

Author: Shila

Posts

Total: 619
#151
Stephen
Stephen's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 8,595
3
2
2
Stephen's avatar
Stephen
3
2
2
-->
@Elliott
That is a good example  of the case for the Historical Jesus which is based on truth and does not require faith. It offers Simple answers without getting into the philosophical nature of "truth."

Thank you. 
Shila, you seem have misinterpretation down to a fine art.

 He does, doesn't he. I'm not sure if he actually knows he's doing it, or he does it on purpose.

Topic's author
#152
Shila
Shila's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 3,006
3
3
5
Shila's avatar
Shila
3
3
5
-->
@Stephen

You wrote: 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.

 Yes I wrote that.  And stand by it. I mean exactly what I wrote. I could write it slightly different if you like but I would still mean the same thing. Here you go. I believe that there was once a man that believed himself to be king of the Jews that other men shrouded in myth.
Is it possible they wanted Jesus to be the King of the Jews.

Who are the "they"?
The Jews who shouted Hosanna.

Matthew 21:9 The crowds that went ahead of him and those that followed shouted, “Hosanna to the Son of David!” “Blessed is he who comes in the name of the Lord!” “Hosanna in the highest heaven!”

They are also the same Jews who shouted crucify him when Jesus did not meet their expectation.

Luke 23:21 But they kept shouting, “Crucify him! Crucify him!”
Topic's author
#153
Shila
Shila's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 3,006
3
3
5
Shila's avatar
Shila
3
3
5
-->
@Stephen
-> @Elliott
That is a good example  of the case for the Historical Jesus which is based on truth and does not require faith. It offers Simple answers without getting into the philosophical nature of "truth."

Thank you. 
Shila, you seem have misinterpretation down to a fine art.

 He does, doesn't he. I'm not sure if he actually knows he's doing it, or he does it on purpose
The only one who is uncertain about gender is you Stephen. Your profile says gender unknown. In fact everything about you in unknown. You could be a bigger freak than Reverend Tradesecret.
#154
Stephen
Stephen's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 8,595
3
2
2
Stephen's avatar
Stephen
3
2
2
-->
@Shila
You could be a bigger freak than Reverend Tradesecret.
But haven't you also said that I was>

Shila wrote: But you are different and very grounded. #131

😂
Topic's author
#155
Shila
Shila's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 3,006
3
3
5
Shila's avatar
Shila
3
3
5
-->
@Stephen
You could be a bigger freak than Reverend Tradesecret.
But haven't you also said that I was>

Shila wrote: But you are different and very grounded. #131

😂
Yes a different grounded freak. So I was right!!
#156
Stephen
Stephen's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 8,595
3
2
2
Stephen's avatar
Stephen
3
2
2
-->
@Shila

Who are the "they"?
The Jews who shouted Hosanna.

You are absolutely shite at following a thread created by yourself, so I suppose it's asking a little too much of you to follow what is going on in the bible.


They are also the same Jews who shouted crucify him when Jesus did not meet their expectation.

How do you know that they were the same Jews?  Did you miss the part where on Jesus and his entourage entering Jerusalem the people were asking who tf is this clown?
 No one in Jerusalem even knew who he was Matthew 21:10

 That is why his followers had to shout out and wave palm trees to attract attention to him. This alone was an affront to the hierarchy of the temple authorities. It is known in scripture as Jesus' "triumphant entry". Some triumph that was. It was only a matter of days after this "triumph" when he was nailed up, speared and pleading to his "father why tf have you forsaken me".  Sound like a loss of faith to me, to be honest.

 Learn your bible. 


Topic's author
#157
Shila
Shila's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 3,006
3
3
5
Shila's avatar
Shila
3
3
5
-->
@Stephen
Who are the "they"?
The Jews who shouted Hosanna.

You are absolutely shite at following a thread created by yourself, so I suppose it's asking a little too much of you to follow what is going on in the bible.
They are also the same Jews who shouted crucify him when Jesus did not meet their expectation.

How do you know that they were the same Jews?  Did you miss the part where on Jesus and his entourage entering Jerusalem the people were asking who tf is this clown?
 No one in Jerusalem even knew who he was Matthew 21:10
The crowds that followed Jesus knew Jesus and answered.
Matthew 21:11 The crowds answered, “This is Jesus, the prophet from Nazareth in Galilee.”
 That is why his followers had to shout out and wave palm trees to attract attention to him. This alone was an affront to the hierarchy of the temple authorities. It is known in scripture as Jesus' "triumphant entry". Some triumph that was. It was only a matter of days after this "triumph" when he was nailed up, speared and pleading to his "father why tf have you forsaken me".  Sound like a loss of faith to me, to be honest.

 Learn your bible. 

They were saying in celebration .

Matthew 21:A very large crowd spread their cloaks on  the road, while others cut branches from the trees and spread them on the road. 9 The crowds that went ahead of him and those that followed shouted,
“Hosannato the Son of David!”
“Blessed is he who comes in the name of the Lord!”
“Hosanna in the highest heaven!”


There are two completely different uses for “hosanna." One use is pleading for help, while the other is just showing gratitude for what was done. 

Passover was a day for celebration.
#158
Stephen
Stephen's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 8,595
3
2
2
Stephen's avatar
Stephen
3
2
2
-->
@Shila
How do you know that they were the same Jews?  Did you miss the part where on Jesus and his entourage entering Jerusalem the people were asking who tf is this clown?
 No one in Jerusalem even knew who he was Matthew 21:10
The crowds that followed Jesus knew Jesus and answered.

Indeed, some of his followers from Galilee led the procession and some were behind. Nothing spectacular or novel about it. 


Matthew 21:11 The crowds answered, “This is Jesus, the prophet from Nazareth in Galilee.”

 Yes the Jews of the city (nearly half a million) didn't know who he even was, they had to be told. So your pinup boy wasn't as famous to all Jews as you are desperate to believe he was.



 That is why his followers had to shout out and wave palm trees to attract attention to him. This alone was an affront to the hierarchy of the temple authorities. It is known in scripture as Jesus' "triumphant entry". Some triumph that was. It was only a matter of days after this "triumph" when he was nailed up, speared and pleading to his "father why tf have you forsaken me".  Sound like a loss of faith to me, to be honest.

 Learn your bible. 

They were saying in celebration .

Matthew 21:A very large crowd spread their cloaks on  the road, while others cut branches from the trees and spread them on the road. 9 The crowds that went ahead of him and those that followed shouted,“Hosannato the Son of David!”“Blessed is he who comes in the name of the Lord!”“Hosanna in the highest heaven!”


 Yes they had to attract attention to the stranger that the people of the city didn't even know. One could liken it to banner and flag waving today by supporter of the candidate up for election and what better way than massive palm leaves and shouting at the top of the voice.  I wouldn't be surprised if Jesus kissed a few babies on the way.  FFS man use some of that brain. I do appreciate you have one and pretty good one too. 

Learn your bible.



Topic's author
#159
Shila
Shila's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 3,006
3
3
5
Shila's avatar
Shila
3
3
5
-->
@rosends
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.

Great, so you found a webpage which addresses the problems you made and you copy/paste from it even though it disproves your claim. Finally, jewishvoice.org is useful for something.
I don’t  have a problem with what Jews have to say about Jesus or their reasons for demanding he be crucified.
But at some point in time it has to occur to them they are up against 2 billion Christians who side with Jesus. And there are less than 14 million Jews who still reject Jesus.
Stealing Palestinian lands isn’t improving Jewish security in a world dominated by Christians and Muslims, Rabbi Rosends.
#160
rosends
rosends's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 806
3
2
6
rosends's avatar
rosends
3
2
6
-->
@Shila
But at some point in time it has to occur to them they are up against 2 billion Christians who side with Jesus. And there are less than 14 million Jews who still reject Jesus.
Stealing Palestinian lands isn’t improving Jewish security in a world dominated by Christians and Muslims, Rabbi Rosends.
How do these statements advance your thread in the direction you chose when you started it? You stated in post 57 "The thread is about the case for the Historical Jesus." In post 68 you wrote, "This thread is about the case for the Historical Jesus." Post 10 has "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 said something similar in post 24.

Do those statements contribute to that?
Topic's author
#161
Shila
Shila's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 3,006
3
3
5
Shila's avatar
Shila
3
3
5
-->
@rosends
--> @Shila
But at some point in time it has to occur to them they are up against 2 billion Christians who side with Jesus. And there are less than 14 million Jews who still reject Jesus.
Stealing Palestinian lands isn’t improving Jewish security in a world dominated by Christians and Muslims, Rabbi Rosends.
How do these statements advance your thread in the direction you chose when you started it? You stated in post 57 "The thread is about the case for the Historical Jesus." In post 68 you wrote, "This thread is about the case for the Historical Jesus." Post 10 has "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 said something similar in post 24.

Do those statements contribute to that?
This was done to give a background of the people the Jews that Jesus had to convince before the gentiles accepted him as God.
This explains the transitioning of Jesus from the historical Jesus to becoming a God. It also help us understand why he was portrayed differently in the Hebrew Bible (Old Testament) and received differently in the New Testament culminating in his crucifixion, resurrection and finally the celebrated God in Christianity.

Some would call my approach as different strokes for different folks. But in fact it is a case for the Historical Jesus and his ascension into modernity.
#162
rosends
rosends's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 806
3
2
6
rosends's avatar
rosends
3
2
6
-->
@Shila
This was done to give a background of the people the Jews that Jesus had to convince before the gentiles accepted him as God.
This explains the transitioning of Jesus from the historical Jesus to becoming a God. It also help us understand why he was portrayed differently in the Hebrew Bible (Old Testament) and received differently in the New Testament culminating in his crucifixion, resurrection and finally the celebrated God in Christianity.
So you are giving background about the claimed divinity when the thread is explicitly about the historical Jesus. Got it.
Topic's author
#163
Shila
Shila's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 3,006
3
3
5
Shila's avatar
Shila
3
3
5
-->
@rosends
--> @Shila
This was done to give a background of the people the Jews that Jesus had to convince before the gentiles accepted him as God.
This explains the transitioning of Jesus from the historical Jesus to becoming a God. It also help us understand why he was portrayed differently in the Hebrew Bible (Old Testament) and received differently in the New Testament culminating in his crucifixion, resurrection and finally the celebrated God in Christianity.

Some would call my approach as different strokes for different folks. But in fact it is a case for the Historical Jesus and his ascension into modernity.
So you are giving background about the claimed divinity when the thread is explicitly about the historical Jesus. Got it.
Sorry you missed my addendum.

Some would call my approach as different strokes for different folks. But in fact it is a case for the Historical Jesus and his ascension into modernity.

#164
rosends
rosends's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 806
3
2
6
rosends's avatar
rosends
3
2
6
-->
@Shila
Great, maybe you could start by explaining the phrase "ascension into modernity" as it, as a phrase, does not lend itself to any clear meaning, and then you can shift the entire thread into a discussion of faith and religion and not about any historical claims. Then you can point out that there are people today who believe in Jesus' divinity and those who don't, and you can draw whatever conclusions you want about those people (though it, too, will have nothing to do with the claim of divinity). Have fun with that. Shmini Atzeret is starting in a few minutes so I am signing off, still without having commented on the stated focus of the thread, intentionally.
Topic's author
#165
Shila
Shila's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 3,006
3
3
5
Shila's avatar
Shila
3
3
5
-->
@rosends
--> @Shila
Great, maybe you could start by explaining the phrase "ascension into modernity" as it, as a phrase, does not lend itself to any clear meaning, and then you can shift the entire thread into a discussion of faith and religion and not about any historical claims. Then you can point out that there are people today who believe in Jesus' divinity and those who don't, and you can draw whatever conclusions you want about those people (though it, too, will have nothing to do with the claim of divinity). Have fun with that. Shmini Atzeret is starting in a few minutes so I am signing off, still without having commented on the stated focus of the thread, intentionally.
The Bible concludes with Jesus having ascended into Heaven. But the fact that we still see Jesus as very relevant and still the central figure in Churches/Christianity demands we rephrase his ascendency,  and to remain true to the case for the Historical Jesus we also have to acknowledge his ascension into modernity.

Once the case for the historical Jesus is settled I intend to deal with his ascension into modernity. 
Your input is always appreciated.

#166
Stephen
Stephen's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 8,595
3
2
2
Stephen's avatar
Stephen
3
2
2
-->
@rosends

maybe you could start by,,,,

 and then ....

Then...

....you can get back onto your favourite subject... Tradsecret, that seems to have dominated a sizable chunk of your thread concerning The Case For 
The Historical Jesus.


Topic's author
#167
Shila
Shila's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 3,006
3
3
5
Shila's avatar
Shila
3
3
5
-->
@Stephen
--> @rosends

maybe you could start by,,,,

 and then ....

Then...

....you can get back onto your favourite subject... Tradsecret, that seems to have dominated a sizable chunk of your thread concerning The Case For 
The Historical Jesus.
You and BrotherD have more exchanges with Tradesecret than Shila. But I cannot dismiss the Reverend as I am sure he will comment favourably on Jesus’s ascension into modernity.
#168
Stephen
Stephen's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 8,595
3
2
2
Stephen's avatar
Stephen
3
2
2
-->
@Shila
You and BrotherD have more exchanges with Tradesecret than Shila. 

Not on this thread. Your thread. You brought him into the thread as part of the subject matter and haven't shut up about him. thank the Lord rosends turned up.


But I cannot dismiss the Reverend as I am sure he will comment favourably on Jesus’s ascension into modernity.

 It may be better to start a separate thread on the matter. You have managed to fracture this one to the point of being unreadable.
Topic's author
#169
Shila
Shila's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 3,006
3
3
5
Shila's avatar
Shila
3
3
5
-->
@Stephen
--> @Shila
You and BrotherD have more exchanges with Tradesecret than Shila. 

Not on this thread. Your thread. You brought him into the thread as part of the subject matter and haven't shut up about him. thank the Lord rosends turned up.
Stephen you are a pathological liar.
Reverend Tradesecret has 2 posts in this thread and both are addressed to BrotherD.Thomas. 
Don’t drag Shila into your threesome.

But I cannot dismiss the Reverend as I am sure he will comment favourably on Jesus’s ascension into modernity.

 It may be better to start a separate thread on the matter. You have managed to fracture this one to the point of being unreadable.
The thread has to deal with members who were never presented logical or evidentiary material on religion and developed uncivil tactics to deal with their boredom. But that is going to change as Jesus once again dominates  the active discussion topics.
#170
Stephen
Stephen's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 8,595
3
2
2
Stephen's avatar
Stephen
3
2
2
-->
@Shila
Stephen you are a pathological liar.



Nope .  You offered him an invitation.   The brother only mentioned him as part of a related post.

Topic's author
#171
Shila
Shila's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 3,006
3
3
5
Shila's avatar
Shila
3
3
5
-->
@Stephen
--> @Shila
Stephen you are a pathological liar.



Nope .  You offered him an invitation.   The brother only mentioned him as part of a related post
My thread is open to all and everyone who wishes to participate in recognizing the Historical Jesus. I am aware there are special attributes and qualities that Jesus possessed that might be of special interest to Christians and other religious groups. But in time the discussion will widen to include those special interests.

#172
Tradesecret
Tradesecret's avatar
Debates: 2
Posts: 3,427
3
2
6
Tradesecret's avatar
Tradesecret
3
2
6
-->
@Stephen
@BrotherD.Thomas
@Shila
Brother

Oh yes I remember that well. 

You showed me didn't you.  Brother D Thomas - superior in all that he purports.  

And yet for whatever reason, I continue to return. 

One might think that whatever blows you feel you have given me were not sufficient enough to send me running for the hills.  
Of course, and indeed - EVERY TIME I return and respond is sadly for you - EVIDENCE of your failure. 

Wait, what. Did I say your failure? Hmmm - affirmative. that means yes if you didn't know. 

the number one fake on this site is Brother Thomas.  He can't even fake his religiosity. Or his atheism.  

Me on the other hand - just do what I do and all the lies and dogmatic assertions that you make well - as I continue to be quoted so lovingly by your only friend in the world - is like "water of a duck's back". 

Oh that I can disappear and be quoted by all of my friends.  It's amazing really.  Yet, you know what? I don't recall too many people quoting or referring to Stephen or Brother or even Harikrish when they disappear.  There are occasional exceptions to the rule. Even our friend - you know the permanently banned friend - Ethan gets more mentions than the rest of you together - when you are not around.  

Hence - it is clear who are the ones who are missed because of their substance. but hey, you keep on dragging me back here. 




#173
zedvictor4
zedvictor4's avatar
Debates: 22
Posts: 12,006
3
3
6
zedvictor4's avatar
zedvictor4
3
3
6
-->
@Shila
#87.

You asked the question.

I responded.

All current and relevant worth was contained within that exchange of data.


#174
Stephen
Stephen's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 8,595
3
2
2
Stephen's avatar
Stephen
3
2
2
-->
@Shila
--> @Shila
Stephen you are a pathological liar.



Nope .  You offered him an invitation.   The brother only mentioned him as part of a related post
My thread is open to all and everyone

 And so it should be. 
Until they are politely asked to leave.
#175
Stephen
Stephen's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 8,595
3
2
2
Stephen's avatar
Stephen
3
2
2
-->
@Tradesecret
 Ethan gets more mentions than the rest of you together -
  

Yes,
for all the wrong reasons.  Public Moderation Log (debateart.com)
#176
Sidewalker
Sidewalker's avatar
Debates: 8
Posts: 2,628
3
2
5
Sidewalker's avatar
Sidewalker
3
2
5
-->
@Stephen
Someone as disturbingly radical as Christ

Will you define for us -radical - in this context.

Jesus was a revolutionary change agent; and in fact he was a radical in every sense of the word.

And what is it that you believe Jesus changed during the short time of his ministry?
He came out of relative obscurity, but the way he lived and died profoundly changed the world.

Ancient history is necessarily a record of those who witnessed historical events, and almost everything we know about Jesus comes from the Gospels, which were put into their current form slowly, over a period of about three hundred years, a history that was shaped by the Christian experience. The historical Jesus had a movement following after him, after his death this movement grew exponentially and it was that movement that produced the Gospels. The Gospels are a history of the manner in which Jesus was experienced, both during his life, and after His death, so there are two voices speaking to us from the past, that of Jesus, and that of His followers. The Gospels are not simply about what happened to Jesus, they are also about what happened to Jesus’ followers, who experienced His continuing presence as a living reality long after his death.  The historical Jesus didn’t found the Christian church by his ministry, the church came into being after His death, it is the resurrection that is the starting point of Christian religion. 

Consequently, you cannot look to the historical for Jesus answers about what followed his death, Jesus was a Jew, he had no opinion about Christianity because Christianity did not exist during his lifetime. Consequently, understanding the social and political context of the historical Jesus in conjunction with an honest reading of the Gospels does appear to challenge many of the cherished and comforting beliefs held by Christians today. 

An honest reading of what he actually said and did indicates that he was a Jewish rabbi who walked in the tradition of the prophets, was a teacher, a healer and wonderworker, a man that challenged prevailing systems of purity while associating with the marginal elements of society.  There is no historical evidence that he ever intended to establish a new set of religious dogmas or found a new religion. The Jesus of the New Testament is not always omnipotent, or omniscient, and He does not appear to think of himself as divine, He rarely spoke of himself and His message was not about believing in Him. 

His teaching "astonished" those who heard him. The things he did and said caused his contemporaries to think of him in completely new dimensions.  There was something in this life that caused those who knew it best to reach the conclusion that it was divine in nature.  Historically speaking, there is a boatload of contention about whether or not he actually rose from the grave but no one can reasonably doubt that his spirit jumped dramatically to life after his death. 

It is certainly not my intent to contend that what was implicit in His life and was made explicit through theological discourse four hundred years later is not an image of truth; It is not to say that He was not God and Savior. It is only to say that these divisive things do not matter to me and I do not believe they are more important than his message.

Jesus almost never spoke about the detached metaphysical constructs so many focus on; apparently those kinds of intellectual disputes just weren't important to him and I choose to believe this was because He understood how these matters could digress into divisive contrasts and disunity. His words, his actions, and his life had nothing whatsoever to do with divisiveness and disunity.

Many have rejected the life and teachings of this man primarily because of the disputes over dogma and because of the unlikely historical accuracy of many of the doctrines held by the various Christian churches today. To many, the prevalence of sometimes vehement disputation and boastful contrasts in His name directly conflict with their understanding of what the Man and His teachings represented: consequently many have understandably turned away, throwing the baby out with the bathwater so to speak.

An argument can certainly be made that the historical vision that is emerging provides a great advantage for those who have turned away as well as for those of completely different faiths. By allowing those who cannot embrace his tremendous impact because of disputations regarding his human or divine status, this historical vision can allow many people to concentrate on what he actually said and did. Maybe the emerging historical vision of Christ could eliminate the petty pursuits and trifling quarrels and through fellowship with the internal life, cut across political and ecclesiastical boundaries by penetrating beneath the external surface of all of mankind’s divisive religious doctrines.
 
Seeing how the historical Jesus reacted to the violence, corruption, and political and religious oppression he faced may help us all to see how the "Christ force" might act in us today and with what passion and unambiguous focus we may challenge the rather similar circumstances we face. Paying attention not to disputes about his divine status but to what he actually said and did could allow us to get past our intellectual detachment and take his actions and words more seriously while applying them more practically and with greater urgency. His word and his actions indicate he was proselytizing unity through the power of love and concerted action for justice and compassion. Jesus was inviting us to seek the Kingdom within, a house with many mansions, because he directly experienced the glory of God and he believed that all humans had at their core the spark of divine consciousness. He sacrificed his life to ignite it in us and that is what made him our Savior.

What if all you had to do for everybody to agree that you were a Christian was to follow the teachings and life of Jesus Christ and live in harmony with the same universal laws that he lived in harmony with. What if Christianity had no problem with others believing that the central fact of His life was the complete realization of a conscious union of this man with the God of his understanding, and that it was his realization of his oneness with God that made Jesus the Christ?  The Bible gives no indication that he ever claimed for himself anything that he did not claim for all mankind and He spoke of his remarkable achievements as the normal outcome of a state to which all of us could attain. By completely realizing this, first for himself, and then by pointing out the great laws which are the same for us as they were for him, he has given the whole world an ideal of life, an ideal we can attain to here and now, one that we could not have without him living and dying the way he did.





#177
Stephen
Stephen's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 8,595
3
2
2
Stephen's avatar
Stephen
3
2
2
-->
@Sidewalker

Stephen wrote: And what is it that you believe Jesus changed during the short time of his ministry?

almost everything we know about Jesus comes from the Gospels,
Which is very little. When we boil it down is all we are left with is a collection of sayings and are probably not necessarily original to Jesus- for instance, the Golden Rule "do unto others", is believed by some to have originated with Confucius. This not to reduce the import in any way.
And besides these sayings, there is an old, rehashed story about a dying and rising god of which there had been many. For example, Dionysius was said to be a “Son of God”, was born of a woman that had no sexual relationship with a man, came on a donkey, said to have performed miracles, and was killed and resurrected, and became immortal.
Asklepios healed the sick, raised the dead, known as the saviour.
Buddas' mother was told by an angel that she’d give birth to a blessed child destined to be a saviour.   Horus, Apollonius, Hercules etc etc. The list is long. So again, nothing new or original.


The historical Jesus had a movement following after him,

 So had all the others until their time was up and along came a new 'god' on the block when the skies moved into a new age.  <<< you should seriously consider that.

The Gospels are not simply about what happened to Jesus, they are also about what happened to Jesus’ followers, who experienced His continuing presence as a living reality long after his death.
Well, if one wanted to continue a movement after it lost its leader, that is the "vision" and image I would be promoting.


  The historical Jesus didn’t found the Christian church by his ministry, the church came into being after His death, it is the resurrection that is the starting point of Christian religion. 
(A) And I believe that the Jew Jesus would have been absolutely appalled that a whole new religion had sprang up in his name.



An honest reading of what he actually said and did indicates that he was a Jewish rabbi who walked in the tradition of the prophets, was a teacher, a healer and wonderworker, a man that challenged prevailing systems of purity while associating with the marginal elements of society. 

 I can agree with some of that. But it is not unusual for say a politician to come out on the side of the poor and disenfranchised and that claims to " feel you pain" is it?  Seriously what better and more fertile place to gather new recruits?  And why? because this is where one will find the numbers. There are more of "us" than there are "them", that is why?

There is no historical evidence that he ever intended to establish a new set of religious dogmas or found a new religion.

 I agree see (A) above. It was those that came after and maybe the few remaining members of the original movement. and we have to consider that which Jesus himself is alleged to have said " I have not come to change the law". 



His teaching "astonished" those who heard him.

Maybe it did. But again, this is nothing new. He was speaking to a new generation of a nation that had been under one foreign rule) or another for hundreds of years and heir gods by the time Jesus made his appearance there had been many "messiahs" come and go.




Seeing how the historical Jesus reacted to the violence, corruption, and political and religious oppression he faced may help us all to see how the "Christ force" might act in us today and with what passion and unambiguous focus we may challenge the rather similar circumstances we face.

  Again, nothing new. All new commers preach "a different way". Some come to build on the back of others or discard what is no longer applicable to the age of the time. 

So back to my question, what did Jesus' change during his short ministry?   The answer is- nothing.  There could be an entirely different answer to this if ,Jesus survived the cross, which is what I believe.


#178
Sidewalker
Sidewalker's avatar
Debates: 8
Posts: 2,628
3
2
5
Sidewalker's avatar
Sidewalker
3
2
5
-->
@Stephen
Stephen wrote: And what is it that you believe Jesus changed during the short time of his ministry?

almost everything we know about Jesus comes from the Gospels,
Which is very little. When we boil it down is all we are left with is a collection of sayings and are probably not necessarily original to Jesus-
Are you saying Jesus didn’t say these things, or just that he wasn’t the first person in history to ever say these kinds of things?  Why is that important to you?

for instance, the Golden Rule "do unto others", is believed by some to have originated with Confucius. This not to reduce the import in any way.
Various expressions of this rule can be found in the tenets of most religions and creeds through the ages, why is it significant to you that Jesus didn’t invent the concept?

And besides these sayings, there is an old, rehashed story about a dying and rising god of which there had been many. For example, Dionysius was said to be a “Son of God”, was born of a woman that had no sexual relationship with a man, came on a donkey, said to have performed miracles, and was killed and resurrected, and became immortal.
Asklepios healed the sick, raised the dead, known as the saviour.
Buddas' mother was told by an angel that she’d give birth to a blessed child destined to be a saviour.   Horus, Apollonius, Hercules etc etc. The list is long. So again, nothing new or original.
The experience of the sacred, the experiential reality of human beings we refer to as Spiritual, is common to all peoples in all times, in every place and in every time we have found evidence that man existed, we have found evidence that man was a spiritual being.  It is a universal characteristic among peoples and cultures that did not have contact with one another; it arose spontaneously in all places and all times. Man is always found relating to the whole of reality with his whole being.  This leads to no other conclusion but that a Spiritual orientation is the natural state of human beings.

Were you of the opinion that people think Jesus invented religion?
 
I’m struggling to discern a point to all this, can you be a little more explicit about what point you are trying to make?

The historical Jesus had a movement following after him,

 So had all the others until their time was up and along came a new 'god' on the block when the skies moved into a new age.  <<< you should seriously consider that.
Well Captain Obvious, I actually had already seriously considered that there were other people with followers both before and after Jesus, what is the significance of that, how does pointing that out serve your agenda?

The Gospels are not simply about what happened to Jesus, they are also about what happened to Jesus’ followers, who experienced His continuing presence as a living reality long after his death.
Well, if one wanted to continue a movement after it lost its leader, that is the "vision" and image I would be promoting.
And you think being a catalyst for a movement that two thousand years later is two billion strong, amounts to “no change”, OK, and how does that serve your agenda?  It’s unclear what you are trying to sell here.

  The historical Jesus didn’t found the Christian church by his ministry, the church came into being after His death, it is the resurrection that is the starting point of Christian religion. 
(A) And I believe that the Jew Jesus would have been absolutely appalled that a whole new religion had sprang up in his name.
I would agree with that speculation, I think early Christianity was a movement within Judaism that was tolerated until the destruction of the second temple, afterward it was seen as a threat to traditional Judaism and rejected as having moved far enough away from traditional Judaism to no be a separate religion.

An honest reading of what he actually said and did indicates that he was a Jewish rabbi who walked in the tradition of the prophets, was a teacher, a healer and wonderworker, a man that challenged prevailing systems of purity while associating with the marginal elements of society. 

 I can agree with some of that. But it is not unusual for say a politician to come out on the side of the poor and disenfranchised and that claims to " feel you pain" is it?  Seriously what better and more fertile place to gather new recruits?  And why? because this is where one will find the numbers. There are more of "us" than there are "them", that is why?
Is this conspiracy scholarship, do you think Jesus was trying to get elected?  What office do you think he was campaigning for? 

There is no historical evidence that he ever intended to establish a new set of religious dogmas or found a new religion.

 I agree see (A) above. It was those that came after and maybe the few remaining members of the original movement. and we have to consider that which Jesus himself is alleged to have said " I have not come to change the law". 
Yep, I’ve considered that, and the point you are making again?
 
It appears that you are trying to make an argument of some kind, it’s just not clear what it is you are arguing.  If you were to have made you point, what would be the conclusion?

His teaching "astonished" those who heard him.
Maybe it did. But again, this is nothing new. He was speaking to a new generation of a nation that had been under one foreign rule) or another for hundreds of years and heir gods by the time Jesus made his appearance there had been many "messiahs" come and go.
OK, and you were thinking that there are people who think that Jesus was the first person in history to “astonish” those who heard him?  How doesn’t pointing out that he wasn’t serve you agenda, what is the point?

Seeing how the historical Jesus reacted to the violence, corruption, and political and religious oppression he faced may help us all to see how the "Christ force" might act in us today and with what passion and unambiguous focus we may challenge the rather similar circumstances we face.
  Again, nothing new. All new commers preach "a different way". Some come to build on the back of others or discard what is no longer applicable to the age of the time. 

So back to my question, what did Jesus' change during his short ministry?   The answer is- nothing. 
LOL, if you think there is no evidence that Jesus had an impact, that two billion followers two thousand years later count as nothing, then OK, whatever floats your boat.  Still don’t quite understand the point you are trying to make, please complete the following sentence.  Jesus changed nothing and therefore _____________ (fill in the blank)

There could be an entirely different answer to this if ,Jesus survived the cross,
OK, do tell, what changed only if Jesus survived the cross? 

which is what I believe.

Do you think that you are the first person in history to believe that?  I ask because this concept seems to be so important to you.

Also, how does your assertion relate to your BOP game, is there a burden of proof that Jesus survived the cross, or do you have a “get out of BOP free” card, or maybe you are wearing your cloak of BOP invisibility?

I'm not a gamer, so you need to explain these things to me.
Topic's author
#179
Shila
Shila's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 3,006
3
3
5
Shila's avatar
Shila
3
3
5
-->
@Tradesecret
--> @BrotherD.Thomas @Shila @Stephen
Brother

Oh yes I remember that well. 

You showed me didn't you.  Brother D Thomas - superior in all that he purports.  

And yet for whatever reason, I continue to return. 

One might think that whatever blows you feel you have given me were not sufficient enough to send me running for the hills.  
Of course, and indeed - EVERY TIME I return and respond is sadly for you - EVIDENCE of your failure. 

Wait, what. Did I say your failure? Hmmm - affirmative. that means yes if you didn't know. 

the number one fake on this site is Brother Thomas.  He can't even fake his religiosity. Or his atheism.  

Me on the other hand - just do what I do and all the lies and dogmatic assertions that you make well - as I continue to be quoted so lovingly by your only friend in the world - is like "water of a duck's back". 

Oh that I can disappear and be quoted by all of my friends.  It's amazing really.  Yet, you know what? I don't recall too many people quoting or referring to Stephen or Brother or even Harikrish when they disappear.  There are occasional exceptions to the rule. Even our friend - you know the permanently banned friend - Ethan gets more mentions than the rest of you together - when you are not around.  

Hence - it is clear who are the ones who are missed because of their substance. but hey, you keep on dragging me back here. 
Maybe if you followed the topic in each thread  instead of making it all about your depravity and gender dysphoria you  might get your views across as a Reverend  and not what you are perceived as to the members.

Topic's author
#180
Shila
Shila's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 3,006
3
3
5
Shila's avatar
Shila
3
3
5
-->
@zedvictor4

-->
@Shila
#87.

You asked the question.

I responded.

All current and relevant worth was contained within that exchange of data
You were not addressed in post #87. 

Post#87 
-->
@Stephen

-->
@Sidewalker
Someone as disturbingly radical as Christ

Stephen: Will you define for us -radical - in this context.

Shila: Those are after the fact responses. The Jews of his time found Jesus very unconventional. Jesus was a religious reformer who challenged the religious establishment.

What is even more convincing is the prophesies that foretold his coming.

All this builds the case for the Historical Jesus.

Try to stay connected zedvictor4