Well, the global flood has nothing to do with this thread, but nice try attempting to introduce it.
If you believe that Earl was so brilliant, then you may put your faith in his beliefs, that's your prerogative.
Last edited:
-
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!
The Historical Jesus
- Thread starter S-word
- Start date
- Status
Well, the global flood has nothing to do with this thread, but nice try attempting to introduce it.
If you believe that Earl was so brilliant, then you may put your faith in his beliefs, that's your prerogative.
andersbranderud
New Member
"Historical J...."?!?
Using that contra-historical oxymoron (demonstrated by the eminent late Oxford historian, James Parkes, The Conflict of the Church and the Synagogue) exposes dependancy upon 4th-century, gentile, Hellenist sources.
While scholars debate the provenance of the original accounts upon which the earliest extant (4th century, even fragments are post-135 C.E.), Roman gentile, Hellenist-redacted versions were based, there is not one fragment, not even one letter of the NT that derives DIRECTLY from the 1st-century Pharisee Jews who followed the Pharisee Ribi Yehoshua.
Historians like Parkes, et al., have demonstrated incontestably that 4th-century Roman Christianity was the 180° polar antithesis of 1st-century Judaism of ALL Pharisee Ribis. The earliest (post-135 C.E.) true Christians were viciously antinomian (ANTI-Torah), claiming to supersede and displace Torah, Judaism and ("spiritual) Israel and Jews. In soberest terms, ORIGINAL Christianity was anti-Torah from the start while DSS (viz., 4Q MMT) and ALL other Judaic documentation PROVE that ALL 1st-century Pharisees were PRO-Torah.
There is a mountain of historical Judaic information Christians have refused to deal with, at: netzarim.co.il (see, especially, their History Museum pages beginning with "30-99 C.E.").
Original Christianity = ANTI-Torah. Ribi Yehoshua and his Netzarim, like all other Pharisees, were PRO-Torah. Intractable contradiction.
Building a Roman image from Hellenist hearsay accounts, decades after the death of the 1st-century Pharisee Ribi, and after a forcible ouster, by Hellenist Roman gentiles, of his original Jewish followers (135 C.E., documented by Eusebius), based on writings of a Hellenist Jew excised as an apostate by the original Jewish followers (documented by Eusebius) is circular reasoning through gentile-Roman Hellenist lenses.
What the historical Pharisee Ribi taught is found not in the hearsay accounts of post-135 C.E. Hellenist Romans but, rather, in the Judaic descriptions of Pharisees and Pharisee Ribis of the period... in Dead Sea Scroll 4Q MMT (see Prof. Elisha Qimron), inter alia.
To all Christians: The question is, now that you've been informed, will you follow the authentic historical Pharisee Ribi? Or continue following the post-135 C.E. Roman-redacted antithesis—an idol?
Anders Branderud
Using that contra-historical oxymoron (demonstrated by the eminent late Oxford historian, James Parkes, The Conflict of the Church and the Synagogue) exposes dependancy upon 4th-century, gentile, Hellenist sources.
While scholars debate the provenance of the original accounts upon which the earliest extant (4th century, even fragments are post-135 C.E.), Roman gentile, Hellenist-redacted versions were based, there is not one fragment, not even one letter of the NT that derives DIRECTLY from the 1st-century Pharisee Jews who followed the Pharisee Ribi Yehoshua.
Historians like Parkes, et al., have demonstrated incontestably that 4th-century Roman Christianity was the 180° polar antithesis of 1st-century Judaism of ALL Pharisee Ribis. The earliest (post-135 C.E.) true Christians were viciously antinomian (ANTI-Torah), claiming to supersede and displace Torah, Judaism and ("spiritual) Israel and Jews. In soberest terms, ORIGINAL Christianity was anti-Torah from the start while DSS (viz., 4Q MMT) and ALL other Judaic documentation PROVE that ALL 1st-century Pharisees were PRO-Torah.
There is a mountain of historical Judaic information Christians have refused to deal with, at: netzarim.co.il (see, especially, their History Museum pages beginning with "30-99 C.E.").
Original Christianity = ANTI-Torah. Ribi Yehoshua and his Netzarim, like all other Pharisees, were PRO-Torah. Intractable contradiction.
Building a Roman image from Hellenist hearsay accounts, decades after the death of the 1st-century Pharisee Ribi, and after a forcible ouster, by Hellenist Roman gentiles, of his original Jewish followers (135 C.E., documented by Eusebius), based on writings of a Hellenist Jew excised as an apostate by the original Jewish followers (documented by Eusebius) is circular reasoning through gentile-Roman Hellenist lenses.
What the historical Pharisee Ribi taught is found not in the hearsay accounts of post-135 C.E. Hellenist Romans but, rather, in the Judaic descriptions of Pharisees and Pharisee Ribis of the period... in Dead Sea Scroll 4Q MMT (see Prof. Elisha Qimron), inter alia.
To all Christians: The question is, now that you've been informed, will you follow the authentic historical Pharisee Ribi? Or continue following the post-135 C.E. Roman-redacted antithesis—an idol?
Anders Branderud
fallingblood
Agnostic Theist
That is a ridiculous question. Religion evolves. Jesus was not teaching a new religion. Christianity itself was not fully formed until well after Jesus died. Christians will continue to practice Christianity. It doesn't matter what you claim it started out as (which I'm not arguing, as I know modern day Christianity is not the same as it was in the beginning of the religion or the formation of the religion), what it is today is what matters.
All religions evolve. If they do not change, they die. So to ask people to revert to a time, a belief that is fully outdated in all aspects, is ridiculous.
Earl Doherty has a bachelor's in classics. Who cares what his theory is?
As one who spent years in graduate school studying precisely this issue, I cant assure you he is.
Dr. Richard Carrier and Dr. Robert Price are among the only two experts out of thousands who lend credence to the mythicist hypothesis. Dr. Carrier is a classicist, who is an expert in a related field, not and expert in the fields directly relevant to this area (Price is). Neither one has published any contribution to historical Jesus studies in any scholarly journal or book. Dr. Carrier is currently working on a book on the subject, but I can't evaluate it until I read it. I have read (and am disappointed by) his writings online, and I have read Dr. Price, including his submission to the recent The Historical Jesus: Five Views where all the other authors pointed out the numerous flaws in his approach.
There are many, many debates among experts concerning the historical Jesus. My time in graduate studies was devoted to developing the best oral model for explaining transmission of the Jesus tradition, because I believe that the oral model is the best methodological tool for reconstruction of the historical Jesus. However, even those like Crossan, Bultmann, Mack, etc, who are quite skeptical of the reliability of transmission nonetheless acknowledge that it is beyond "historical" doubt that Jesus existed. There is simply other way to explain the historical evidence that is plausible.
Last edited:
quote=fallingblood; All religions evolve. If they do not change, they die.
Correct! And unless those religious denominations who attempt to cling to the great lie that Jesus did not come as a human being, refuse to abondon that lie, like ever emptying shells, they will whither up and die.
Those daughters of she who sits on the seven hills of that Great City, who deny the Holy scripture, which states that Jesus was born of human parents, and not some supposed virgin, which invention can be found nowhere in the Hebrew of Greek bibles, but only in the erroneous Latin vulgate translation, which was compteted in 405 A D, by Jerome, who was a servant to the universal church that was established by the non-christian Constantine in 325 A D, which church is the bride of the AntiChrist, whose disciples refused to acknowledge that Jesus came as a human being, and who spread their lie throughout the entire earth.
Last edited:
Agnostic75
Well-Known Member
Oberon said:
Oh, I am not saying that a historical Jesus did or did not exist because I am not reasonably certain one way or the other. I am only saying that I believe that mythical Jesus theories deserve some additional research. The main issue for me is that even if a historical Jesus did exist, he was just an ordinary man.
You are correct in asuming that Jesus was an ordinary man born of human parents as verified in the holy Scriptures, but after leaning through his sufferings to be obedient to who he was, (His indwelling ancestral spirit) the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, could then use him as the one through whom he could reveal himself to the world and the great sacrifice that he makes for the salvation of Man, knowing that his obedient servant would do, nor say anything other than that which he was commanded.
Acts 3: 13; "The God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, the God of our ancestors, has given divine glory to his servant Jesus."
Jesus was the first of many brothers to be raised from the dead past of the spirit that is developing within the body of mankind, and who is born into the spiritual realm with the death of the body in which he was formed, and to whom all the sins of the physical body in which he developed have been ascribed. It is he, whose immortal spiritual body of light was torn asunder and poured out as fire on the heads of all those who believed his words as spoken through the mouth of the Israelite who was chosen to speak in the name of the Lord.
And Jesus who we once knew as an ordinary man, and who has been given divine glory, is now incontestably divine.
Acts 17: 31; "For he (The God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob.) has fixed a day in which he will judge the whole world with Justice by means of a man he has chosen. He has given proof of this to everyone by raising that man from death."
Many will try to convince others, that the words of our Lord and saviour, as spoken through the mouth of his servant Jesus, who spoke not one word on his own authority, but only that which he was commanded to say by the Lord, as proof that Jesus was the Lord our saviour, but they were not the words of the man Jesus who was chosen and sent to speak in the name of the Lord.
Deuteronomy 18: 18; "I will send them a prophet just like you from among their own people; I will tell him what to say, and he will tell the people everything I command. He will speak in my Name. The people of his day knew that the man Jesus was the promised one, as they spread the palm leaves before him in his triumphant entry into Jerusalem, while crying out, "Praise he who comes in the name of the Lord, blessed be God."
Last edited:
Agnostic75
Well-Known Member
Message to S-word: Do you believe that God inspired and preserved all of the originals free of errors except for obvious scribal and copyist errors?
Here goes, lets see if we can get the cheese without tripping the spring loaded trap.
Not only has the bible been corrupted by innocently introduced copyists errors, and misinterpretations of what was being conveyed originally, but also the yeast that was deliberately added to the bread that came down from heaven by the priestly authorities, in their attempt to justify their lies, such as the virgin birth. by changing the Hebrew word “Almah” which means “Unmarried Woman,” to “Virgin,” and "parthenos," which carries the basic meaning of girl, but only denotes virgin by implication, and Matthew who was translating Isaiah’s prophecy that an “Almah’ would be with child, was in no way implying that the unmarried woman was a virgin.
But if one is willing to be guided by the spirit, who is the author of the Bible, the truth can still be found. For instance when we look to 1st Chronicles 2: 16; in the Good News Bible, it is said that Jesse had two daughters who are Zeruiah and Abigail. But in the King James translation it is said the David had two sisters, who were Zeruiah and Abigail. Now most people would see no contradiction here, for if Zeruaih and Abigail are the daughters of Jesse, then they must be the sisters of David, the youngest of Jesses seven sons.
But what if the mother of Jesses previous six sons had died, and the mother of David had already birth the two elder sisters of David to another man? And so we must look to the original hebrew to find if the Hebrew word for daughter or Sister was used and there we find that the true translation is that they are the sisters of David. Indeed, we find in 2nd Samuel 17: 25; that Zeruaih and Abigail are the daughters of King Nahash.
But while reading from 1st Chronicles, we were told that Jesse had sired only seven sons, and they were, in order of age, Eliab, Amminadab, and Shammah etc. But having been fed on a steady diet of the bread that came down from heaven for at least 58 years, one remembers having read in 1st Samuel 17: 12; that Jesse had eight sons, which appears to be in direct conflict with 1st Chronicles 2: 12: which names only seven biological sons of Jesse. Perhaps this other brother of David may have been the son of his mother also.
Now we turn to 1st Samuel 16: 6 to 11; this is where Samuel is sent by the Lord to the house of Jesse, to choose one of his sons to replace King Saul, and seven of the eight sons of Jesse are presented in order of their ages, first Eliab, then Amminadab, and then Shammah etc, etc, but the Lord rejected all of David’s seven older brothers, and Samuel asked Jesse if he had any other sons, and Jesse answered, “There is still the youngest (David) but he is out taking care of the sheep.” David is then called in and chosen by the Lord, then anointed by Samuel, who then departed.
So we know that this mysterious eighth son of Jesse, who is not recorded among his biological sons, is older than David, the last of the eight to be presented to Samuel. But where can we find him? Lets return to 2nd Samuel 17: 25; where it is said that Zeruaih and Abigail are the daughters of Nahash, and in the very next verse we are told that when David arrived at Mahanaim, he was met by Shobi the son of Nahash, who is the father of Zeruaih and Abigail, and there you have it, the spirit has guided you to the truth as revealed in God’s Holy word.
Last edited:
Dirty Penguin
Master Of Ceremony
According to some on this forum Carrier is not good enough. They're still waiting the release of his new book on the subject...
I personally think that it's all in how you interpret the available evidence. Yeshua could have existed as well as interpreting the data to suggest that he didn't or that it is inconclusive.
Whats' the harm in acknowledging the existence of Yeshua? Not a darn thing. The gospels are the only overwhelming testimony of his god like powers and they in themselves can not be verified. Additionally, over the years, we have come to witness the various interpolations being stricken from the inspired book of "God".
If Yeshua existed he was a nobody. He was a nobody in the eyes of the Romans. He seemed to be nothing more than a thorn in the side of the Jews of his day. He achieved cult status when word of his ministry was embellished and spread by followers. The record (bible) as we have it has been pumped up and most of the claims made about Yeshua or even as to what he might have said are untrue or highly suspect.
So, a man named Yeshua with, at the time he was alive, appeared to have a small cult following and after his death claims of his achievements and abilities were hyped up to gain followers (converts).
There are several thousands of other Ph.D's with degrees in ancient history. The fact that only two or three buy this argument suggests that they are either too biased to admit the obvious, or too blinded by bias, or haven't read enough of the scholarship (possible for those in related fields like Carrier), or are simply wrong.
dogsgod
Well-Known Member
Are you substituting the name Jesus with Yeshua, or are you referring to a Yeshua written of in Hebrew texts?According to some on this forum Carrier is not good enough. They're still waiting the release of his new book on the subject...
I personally think that it's all in how you interpret the available evidence. Yeshua could have existed as well as interpreting the data to suggest that he didn't or that it is inconclusive.
Whats' the harm in acknowledging the existence of Yeshua? Not a darn thing. The gospels are the only overwhelming testimony of his god like powers and they in themselves can not be verified. Additionally, over the years, we have come to witness the various interpolations being stricken from the inspired book of "God".
If Yeshua existed he was a nobody. He was a nobody in the eyes of the Romans. He seemed to be nothing more than a thorn in the side of the Jews of his day. He achieved cult status when word of his ministry was embellished and spread by followers. The record (bible) as we have it has been pumped up and most of the claims made about Yeshua or even as to what he might have said are untrue or highly suspect.
So, a man named Yeshua with, at the time he was alive, appeared to have a small cult following and after his death claims of his achievements and abilities were hyped up to gain followers (converts).
logician
Well-Known Member
"Whats' the harm in acknowledging the existence of Yeshua?"
What's the harm in believing in he existence of unicorn's? It's always dangerous to deny reality. The harm is you are not accepting the reality of the non-evidence of the existence of Jesus, and playing into the hands of the Jesus apologists.
What's the harm in believing in he existence of unicorn's? It's always dangerous to deny reality. The harm is you are not accepting the reality of the non-evidence of the existence of Jesus, and playing into the hands of the Jesus apologists.
A
angellous_evangellous
Guest
Well, we know that humans exist, and we know that a certain amount of historical evidence can be used to reconstruct the history of ancient humans.
We can't do that with unicorns.
It's funny, because by blindly limiting yourself to particular (almost exclusively amateur) sources (e.g. Freke & Gandy), ingoring the actual evidence, and clinging to your mythicist mantra with all the faith of a religious fanatic, you are doing exactly what you condemn above: not accepting the reality
dogsgod
Well-Known Member
Nor gospels.
A
angellous_evangellous
Guest
Gospels can be shown to exist.
Just because something is shown doesn't guarantee it'll be seen.
Or is that redundant at this point.
A
angellous_evangellous
Guest
Just because something is shown doesn't guarantee it'll be seen.
Or is that redundant at this point.
haha
I suppose it doesn't matter.
- Status