Desert Snake
Veteran Member
You need more than that for an argument. No matter what the argument is.
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Was Jesus Only Human?
- Thread starter JJ50
- Start date
TagliatelliMonster
Veteran Member
And you believe it's the word of god, because it says so in the bible, right?
And you believe the bible because it is the word of god, right?
And you believe that because the bible says so and the bible is correct because it is what it says and that is write because it says so.
Circular argument is circular.
Desert Snake
Veteran Member
'Jesus cult', jesus religion, based on writings, like [[Josephus, , most likely means there was one or more Jesus, hence historical Jesus.
Mythicist would be something else. In other words, if you accept the general idea, a rabbi named jesus , crucifixion, that isn't mythicism.
Mythicist would be something else. In other words, if you accept the general idea, a rabbi named jesus , crucifixion, that isn't mythicism.
TagliatelliMonster
Veteran Member
More then what?
I disagree. First, the problem with the term mythicist.
There is not question here that most historians believe Jesus was a real person in history, and yes in later writings like Josephus Jesus is referred to, but in third person referring to believers, and other later references referring to the believers of Jesus. In fact some of these references like in the writings of Josephus they are considered later additions to the writings by Christians.
The question is not whether Jesus existed. The matter of fact is that is absolutely no reference from any source during the life time of Jesus specifically no outside sources, and NT compiled later is the only reference for the divinity of Jesus.
You should not tell people to look things up, but provide the specific references yourself that are relevant.
Excellent. And Paul's relationship with the cult? And the cult leader? And the adelphoi? Are these pure fabrications? Or is it not more likely that there was, indeed, a Yeshua around whom the Jerusalem church was built?
firedragon
Veteran Member
Sure sure. Cheers.
Yes, there is no physical evidence for Q, but the problem is there is absolutely no manuscripts known written before ~50 CE. The basis for something existing early called Q is based on the common content in the gospels.
firedragon
Veteran Member
Okay. Let me say "people who dont believe Jesus ever existed". And also many many others.
firedragon
Veteran Member
Thats wrong to say that brother. Just because manuscripts seized to exist doesn't mean they never existed.
sojourner
Annoyingly Progressive Since 2006
It's not an "original," but it is a manuscript! Q is the corpus of material that is common to both Matt and Luke. That's what's compiled here: the material that's common to both Matt and Luke. That's Q, by definition. I know what's in it, because I've read it. You have not.
Spartan
Well-Known Member
Q is baloney. Always has been. Until you show me an ancient manuscript of it you have zero.
Spartan
Well-Known Member
John 14:26 is the source.
OK, this is what you believe, but not evidence that would convince anyone who does not believe as you do.
Quoting scripture as internal evidence is intensely circular reasoning, and all compiled after 50 CE.
I did not say Q never existed. I consider the concept of Q and the Gospel of Thomas on equal footing as the rest of the NT, because nothing existed as far as manuscripts before 50 CE.
sojourner
Annoyingly Progressive Since 2006
Where's the ancient text of Genesis? We don't have that either. The earliest we have is very fragmentary and dates to the 2nd century BCE. We know that the Genesis sources are much, much older (and likely oral). Yet you believe Genesis exists. What's baloney is demanding ancient texts, when none exist. Q was very likely an oral source. But it is a source, nonetheless, and was later written into Mt and Lk.
Spartan
Well-Known Member
Nope. But keep reading the New Testament and you'll be light years ahead of where you are today.
Spartan
Well-Known Member
Baloney. John 14:26 is the early source.
Not a coherent response that addresses the issues at hand.
. . . but compiled after 50 CE.