How much of the Biblical story of Jesus of Nazareth do you believe?

[BurtWorm]

Poll question: How much of the Biblical story of Jesus of Nazareth do you believe?

[demnan]

1. I'm going to hell

but heck, maybe they'll have a blog there.

[Tace]

2. The Story Of Jesus Is Allegorical

However, I believe that there are many profound truths contained in the story.

[BurtWorm]

4. Name one.

:popcorn:


(Sorry for being flip. I'm just playin'. To put it more politely: Would you care to elaborate?)

[montanto]

3. well, except his name wasn't really "jesus." nt

[Meshuga]

13. Yeshua

His name was supposed to be Yeshua (the late form for the name Yehoshua, or in English, Joshua). It was common at the time of Jesus to short the name to Yeshu and there are many accounts of different Yeshus in the Talmud for example (Yeshu Ben Stada and Yeshu HaNotrize). Yeshu was a very common "nickname" in Judea and Samaria as Bill is a common nickname for William (a popular name) in present day America.

I guess the name Jesus is an anglicanized version of Yeshu or version of whatever way the name was pronounced in Greek.

As far as the OP, I don't believe in the Gospels and it is my opinion that most of it is fiction. There is a possibility that there was a historical figure they used as a base for a mystical Jesus but, if you use the Talmud, for example, you can make an argument for the mystical Jesus being based on 2 different Yeshus.

Since there is no proof there was a historical figure then some can believe there was no Jesus at all.

[BurtWorm]

19. Jesus is the late Latin derivation of Iesous, as the Greek is transcribed in English.

Iesous is akin to the Aramaic Yeshua. Originally it was transcribed Iesus in Latin, but sometime in the Middle Ages, the Latin alphabet developed the letter J to replace I's in front of vowels at the beginning of some words.

[Meshuga]

21. Thanks,

I couldn't remember the Greek or Latin versions of the name. :-)

[ToolTex]

5. So looking at this poll, why should DUers play obsequiously with ChristoFascists,

as several here usually call for?

[patrice]

22. No need to be obsequious. No false dichotomies.

It IS possible to respect their truths for what they are - limited - severely so in many cases, but still relatively true in their contexts. The tasks are to make the limitations clear; one doesn't have to surrender one's own grasp of reality to do that.

What is "our" objective? To beat people up for being in error? Or to unite on the things that we *can* share?

[bryant69]

28. Good point - I think you should really take up a crusade

against the ChristoFaschists as you term people like me - frankly I'm tired of all the pretense that goes on around here - if you guys don't want Christians participating on this board, why shouldn't you be able to say so? Let's get our differences out in the open instead of tiptoeing around them.

Bryant

[RaleighNCDUer]

6. Jesus of Nazareth is a fiction.

There may or may not have been a historical character named Joshua, but the Nazareth was tagged on in later years to make his life match up with biblical prophecy - messiahs were a dime a dozen during the Roman occupation, and his followers wanted to distinguish him from the other wannabees like that baptist guy who was pissing Herod off so much. Likewise for the Bethlehem story, the "line of David" story, and his various miracles.

Ever notice how similar the Jesus and John the Baptist stories are? Either could be picked as a messiah, but I reckon JC had the better PR.

[ToolTex]

8. JC's PR probably provided by an ancestress of Mary Matalin.

[saltpoint]

7. It's a plausible tale but we're trusting centuries of interpolation

to try and get the bird's-eye view of this caper, in the parlance of Dick Tracy.

Clinical evidence is hard to come by. I haven't seen any, in fact.

The historical context suggests a more convincing case, not "proof," but an understandable take on how the Roman Empire ran the shop.

I have no problem believing that an intelligent, incredibly perceptive, and spiritually motivated person was born and raised in Palestine at that approximate date and rose to challenge the brutality of the local authorities.

It's a compelling story, whether or not clinically true. If it were summarily dismissed, no matter the merits of the case, we'd be without La Pieta of Michelangelo.

Not a fair trade.

[BurtWorm]

10. I disagree with you about the effect of dismissing the historical fact of Jesus on art.

Just consider all of the ancient art depicting gods who even Christians acknowledged did not exist. Mythology is fertile ground for the arts. Michelangelo never laid eyes on Jesus or Mary, but he created a work of art depicting them through the filter of his imagination.

Indeed, I believe virtually all Christian culture springs from the myth of Jesus. Hard for me to imagine the fact of a historical Jesus having an ounce more effect on Western art than the mythologized (or I would say, the purely mythological) Jesus has had.

[saltpoint]

11. Hi, BurtWorm. I meant that the imagery of Christianity, in all forms,

is artistically moving, not that it constitutes historical proof.

Just the opposite, in face, from my angle.

The play EQUUS requires a Biblical education to appreciate. Without the Old and New Testaments, and without the Greek pantheon, etc., it isn't intelligble.

LORD OF THE FLIES is a Christian allegory. I love Golding's writing, even if I flatly disagree with his conclusion in that novel. I can splice his considerable talent from my own personal view of the ending.

Sorry I didn't do a better job setting that down.

You've asked a great question, as usual.

[BurtWorm]

15. Thank you, OC.

I hope I wasn't implying that I thought you were taking Pieta as evidence that Jesus lived, because if I did imply that, it was totally accidental. I was merely arguing that that rich vein of Christian themes in Western art owes entirely to the mythological nature of Jesus. A historical Jesus, without the clearly mythological elements, would be much less interesting to artists, I'm suggesting.

The interesting thing about the Pieta is that it represents a very human instant in the story, when the mother holds the corpse of her grown child. The viewer is first moved to empathy on that account, but a little reflection brings one back to the knowledge that this subject is not really human, that when the story procedes beyond the point where the statue has frozen it, the dead child will be up and "alive," and the mother's grief will be expunged. This is not just a statue of a grieving mother and her child's corpse. It's an image of a god.

[saltpoint]

18. Agreed. A god in context of the history of the faith, but also a

personal (and ancient-therefor-nearly-pagan) individual moment of pain. I'm dividing God from god here, and Divine from divine. The image has power because it's a universal narrative. I'm not a resurrectionist so I do not see the risen Son in the Mother's lap.

I like Jesus in the NT when he defends the woman "taken in adultery." Who knows if it actually happened, but it could happen a lot more often in human history if you ask me. We need more defenders of vulnerable people and not fewer, so the tale is useful, whether or not temporally true.

I honor Hansel's resourcefulness with the white stones when his scumbag parents decide to dump him and Gretel in the deep woods, leaving them to the wolves. That's a scenario right out of Jerry Springer's playbook. But as grim as the story is, it is those white stones that shine over everything. You and I can find white stones anyplace, but Hansel and Gretel are made vulnerable by others' meanness and cruelty, so they shine all the brighter for that.

I think that's the appeal of Jesus in the New Testament. My hunch is he was of ordinary circumstances, but perhaps more perceptive and more brave, and inspired others to action. He was a white stone figure more than THE SON OF THE LIVING GOD figure a more traditional reading would suggest.

One of these days, BurtWorm, I want to meet you, shake you hand, and buy you the coldest beer you ever saw.

[BurtWorm]

25. My mouth is watering.

:toast:

[patrice]

9. Would 2 + 2 still = 4 if there had never been anyone who had ever

said so?

It doesn't matter whether Jesus existed or not.

People who make Christianity all about Jesus are looking for some kind of quid pro quo with "God" to save them from Death. If you actually get the story of Jesus, you know that let's-make-a-deal for "Salvation" is the opposite of what Jesus was about.

[BurtWorm]

12. What does this mean, then?

If a man abide not in me, he is cast forth as a branch, and is withered; and men gather them, and cast them into the fire, and they are burned. (John 15:6)

[patrice]

17. I think people are incorrect in their assumptions about the definition of "me".

The definition of "me" can be anything from absolutely exclusive (one, so-called unique, person) to absolutely inclusive (humanity and/or all of creation). Everything I know about the life of Jesus points to a universal person. Certainly his commandment to Love precludes boundaries of any kind.

Aside from the fact that we make many false assumptions about the definitions of words in the Bible, We also should not place the Bible above everything else. It shouldn't stand between you and what it is pointing to. It's like mistaking a tree for the entire forest. The person who said that, whoever that was, was saying unless you live your life (like "me") open to the truth and freely choose to obey what the truth reveals to you, you will be lost.

Why should I worship an ego-maniac?

[BurtWorm]

24. It's the "men gather them, and cast them into the fire" that might lead one to think

there's a threat behind it. Just "wither and die" would convey being lost, but the image of being plucked up and thrown into the fire conveys that destructive force is the consequence of failure to abide.

[patrice]

26. Actually I'm not certain whether anything is ever actually "lost".

Bad choice of words. Maybe confused would have been better, as in losing track of the truth, through one's own agency or that of others.

Agreed, regarding the threat "destructive force is the consequence of failure to abide" in truth/reality. Though I don't see that destructive force as having anything to do with whatever hell (or heaven) is. To me it is more a loss of cohesion with larger, more true, truths.

[BurtWorm]

27. That's a very pleasant but very modern reading.

I think early Christians, believing the end was nigh, must have read more threat into it. Especially considering other parts of the Gospels that refer to swords and gnashing of teeth and what not.

[patrice]

29. So you're saying they would have read it "look to me and only me

or you won't be among the chosen" **because** they thought time was short. And since that's what they thought it meant when they wrote it down, that IS what it means?

Aside from questions about whether intent (artistic or otherwise) is the semantic "essence" of any product, I'll have to agree that saying "Only 2 + 2 = 4" means "4 is the sum only of 2 + 2" whether it is true or not.

[BurtWorm]

30. No, a threat is not the same as an urging.

I'm saying that to early Christians, those words seem to have been meant to provoke as instantaneous a reaction as possible in the hearer (or reader) to cease believing in any other system and immediately begin to believe in Christianity as the one and only path to salvation from imminent doom in which all but Christians would perish. I doubt that they would read it as a friendly warning away from error and toward wonderful, larger truths. Although I do have to say that if you're being warned away from "error," a judgment is implied that there is, at least, a wrong answer you need to be warned away from (so it must not be obvious that it's wrong).

Here's another quote from Jesus along the same line as the one I gave earlier, this one from Matthew:

Then if any man shall say unto you, Lo, here is Christ, or there; believe it not. For there shall arise false Christs, and false prophets, and shall shew great signs and wonders; insomuch that, if it were possible, they shall deceive the very elect. (24:23-24)

The clear implication here seems to be that it's not *what* you know, it's *who* you know that will count in the end. Be sure you choose the right Jesus, folks. What greater truth does Jesus ever offer for salvation than that?

[kwassa]

31. Where exactly were you granted access to the minds of early Christians?

Many of your arguments seem to depend on a mysterious insight into the minds of early Christians that apparently only you have.

Can you show us your source of such knowledge? Do you a have a special early Christian crystal ball, perchance?

Enquiring minds would like to know.

[BurtWorm]

32. Read the church Fathers.

You can find them online. They give a good insight into what Christians were expected to think.

[Meshuga]

33. Here are some resources

Very good bathroom reading.

http://www.islamic-awareness.org/Bible/Text/Bibaccuracy.html
http://jbrooks2.tripod.com/ra1fic0a.htm
http://pages.ca.inter.net/~oblio/partone.htm
http://www.ccel.org/fathers2/

[kwassa]

35. Sources for what?

Find me some reputable historians, peer-reviewed.

[Meshuga]

36. I said resources

You can read them and check the bibliography, sources, etc. for the sites, articles, books, and so on if you are interested.

[kwassa]

37. Why waste time?

You cite them, you defend them.

[Meshuga]

38. It's an ocean of information

Sorry but there are a lot of references and bibliography on the sites posted. One site is by Earl Doherty who has a degree in Ancient History and Classical Languages, another is a book by Joseph Wheless (who inpired Acharya S to write her books), and they all provide a wealth of citations and sources for you to confirm whether you accept them or not.

You are itching to debunk the sites but it is up to you to do the investigation. Make the specific critique and we can start from there.

[kwassa]

39. No, it isn't.

If you have an argument, you present it, with documentation to back it up.

It is not for me to do your homework for you. Do your own.

Copying a link to a massive website is meaningless. Completely meaningless. I do my own reading on the subject. I have no obligation to repeat yours. Present your argument, and back it up.

[Meshuga]

40. You want a reason why I posted these links?

You asked where Burtworm found his information about the early Christians (and how he might know what early Chritians thought back then) and he mentioned "the church Fathers".

I added resources of my own that I find interesting where I drew my information about early Christianity (besides the books that I have that touch on the subject). There is a wealth of information in those links that scholars, scientists, archelogists, historians and church leaders all know. If you are interested in reading and studying that information then be my guest. I cannot do that for you.

In these sites you will find information about the early church fathers, arguments against the historicity of Jesus, information about possible authorship of the Gospels, politics, you name it! Lots of topics covered.

So far I've been answering your questions in regards to you questioning "sources" when I posted "resources", since you were demanding for me to find "reputable historians, peer-reviewed". The answer for those demands were in these links. So if you can't see the reason behind my posting these links then I apologize. I thought it was obvious and that it would be well understood if I added other resources besides what Burtworm presented. However there is no need for you to get so touchy and demanding about it. I'm not the only contributer or cause to this "apples and oranges" exchange we are having.

I have already presented arguments in various threads that you desputed and these links back them up. You should be happy to see them! But like I said, there are a lot of topics covered in these links and we have to go case by case here. Reading them and deciding whether the sources are credible or not is your responsibility.

[BurtWorm]

41. I was just reading Earl Doherty this afternoon on the question of James "brother of the Lord."

Apologists must hate doing battle with Doherty, because not only is he expert in classical languages and totally on top of the material, he's a logician by training and is devastating with his arguments.

:toast:

PS: http://home.ca.inter.net/~oblio/siljampe.htm

[Meshuga]

43. The entire Earl Doherty website is excellent

http://home.ca.inter.net/~oblio/

[kwassa]

34. You have just ducked, burtworm.

I can't say that I am surprised.

[BurtWorm]

42. How is that ducking?

:wtf:

You asked how I knew what the early Christians thought and I said I've read the Church fathers. How better to know their minds than to read what they've said? And much of what they say is against one so-called heresy or another. It's almost funny to look through the titles of their writings because in many cases (such as that lunatic Cyril), virtually every writing is "Against" this one or that one. Being a Christian, you must know what I'm talking about.

[cyborg_jim]

45. No

Because 2+2=4 is a human construct. Unless you give meaning to '2', '4', '+' and '=' there is no inherent truth to the statement. It can be said to be observationally consistent with the reality we experience but I can certainly imagine a reality where 2+2 does not equal 4 in the sense we would understand it to be self-evident - which for most people would seem ludicrous but then so does quantum mechanics to most people.

If you actually get the story of Jesus, you know that let's-make-a-deal for "Salvation" is the opposite of what Jesus was about.

It is disingenuous to pretend there is not such an element to the myth just because there are conflicting messages. As seems to be the case with most such ancient philosophies there is often not a great deal of care taken to be consistent - and such things do exist but the collective narrative of the Gospels ain't it.

[On the Road]

14. The Quotes are the Least Likely

and some of the major elements of his life. However, who he was and the whole thrust of his mission have been changed quite a bit. Think about the relationship of Acts to whatever really happened. Then realize that the same author wrote Luke.

Jesus was a real person because he had a real brother. The core letters of Paul, the most inarguably genuine documents in the Bible, describe Paul's feud with James. Josephus mentioned James as well.

If you want to know what Jesus really sounded like, the closest we may get is the Epistle of James. It's unlike anything else in the New Testament.

[TRYPHO]

44. Josephus mentioned A person called James. Not necessarily that one!!

Jesus was a real person because he had a real brother. The core letters of Paul, the most inarguably genuine documents in the Bible, describe Paul's feud with James. Josephus mentioned James as well.

Firstly, James is Jesus' brother, therefore Jesus was a real person? OK. I'll ignore that. Spiderman is real therefore Batman is? The core letters of Paul are "inarguably" the most genuine? Wow. Err. Ok. But have a look here...http://jbrooks2.tripod.com/ra1fic3.htm#5

The Church says that Joseph had James within a previous marriage, and had other older half-siblings too. That Joseph married Miriam, after his first wife had died. Paul (who don't forget NEVER met Jesus - but as you say his is the most genuine story of Jesus!!!) would of course have argued with James: James would have expected the RELIGION of Jesus to remain, whereas Paul wanted the rules relaxed and for everyone to hear the word. You know who won.

Then you mention Josephus. Oh dear. Josephus didn't mention James any more than he mentioned Jesus. He happened to mention someone called Jesus, the son of Damneus, whoever that might be, but happens to be the brother of James of Damneus! How many people today are called Simon and have a brother called Paul, or Peter or James? These common names cannot be "fitted" for your purpose of historical proof to suit your needs just because Josephus puts them together. Explain to me who the family of Damneus are for starters. You buffoon, you know not of what you speak.

You need to to some learning before you do some talking.

TRYPHO
www.youdontneedjesus.com

[okasha]

46. Clarifications are in order.

1. The Catholic Church maintains that the brothers and sisters of Jesus were Joseph's children by a previous marriage. This assumption preserves the doctrine of the perpetual virginity of Mary. Other Christian bodies, however, take them to the younger siblings of Jesus, children of both Joesph and Mary.

2. The letters firmly attributed to Paul are among the earliest Christian writings to have been preserved in their entirety, dating within 15-25 years of Jesus' crucifixion. They record Paul's visits to Jerusalem for two purposes: to consult with the elders of the mother church there, the most prominent of whom was James, and to transfer funds he had collected for the support of that church. Paul says that he did in fact have substantial differences of opinion with James. If James is an historical character, and it would seem that he is, how did he acquire a fictional brother?

3. Please explain how you arrive at your identification of "Jesus, called the Christ" and "Jesus, son of Damneus." It would also be helpful if you could produce a quotation in which Josephus refers to James as "son of Damneus."

[TRYPHO]

47. Wiki says otherwise, as a starting point for discussion.

1. Agree entirely.

2. The letters firmly attributed to Paul are among the earliest Christian writings to have been preserved in their entirety, dating within 15-25 years of Jesus' crucifixion.

From http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timeline_of_Christianity

# 65? Q document, a hypothetical Greek text thought by many critical scholars to have been used in writing of Matthew and Luke
# 66-73 Great Jewish Revolt: destruction of Herod's Temple, Qumran community destroyed, site of Dead Sea Scrolls found in 1947
# 68-107? Ignatius, third Bishop of Antioch, fed to the lions in the Roman Colosseum, advocated the Bishop (Eph 6:1, Mag 2:1,6:1,7:1,13:2, Tr 3:1, Smy 8:1,9:1), rejected Jewish Sabbath on Saturday in favor of The Lord's Day (Sunday). (Mag 9.1), rejected Judaizing (Mag 10.3), first use of term Christianity (Mag 10).
# 70(+/-10)? Gospel of Mark, written in Rome, by Peter's interpreter (1 Peter 5:13), original ending apparently lost, endings added c.400, see Mark 16
# 70? Signs Gospel written, hypothetical Greek text used in Gospel of John to prove Jesus is the Messiah
# 70-100? additional Pauline Epistles
# 70-200? Didache; Other Gospels: Unknown Berlin Gospel, Gospel of Peter, Gospel of Thomas, Oxyrhynchus Gospels, Egerton Gospel, Fayyum Fragment, Dialogue of the Saviour; Jewish Christian Gospels: Gospel of the Ebionites, Gospel of the Hebrews, Gospel of the Nazarenes
# 80(+/-20)? Gospel of Matthew, based on Mark and Q, most popular in Early Christianity
# 80(+/-20)? Gospel of Luke, based on Mark and Q, also Acts of the Apostles by same author
# 88-101? Clement, fourth Bishop of Rome, wrote Letter of the Romans to the Corinthians (Apostolic Fathers)
# 90? Council of Jamnia of Judaism (disputed)
# 90(+/-10)? 1 Peter
# 94 Testimonium Flavianum, disputed section of Jewish Antiquities by Josephus in Aramaic, translated to Koine Greek
# 95(+/-30)? Gospel of John and Epistles of John
# 95(+/-10)? Book of Revelation written, by John (son of Zebedee) and/or a disciple of his
# 100(+/-30)? Epistle of Barnabas (Apostolic Fathers)
# 100(+/-25)? Epistle of James
# 100(+/-10)? Epistle of Jude written, probably by doubting relative of Jesus (Mark 6,3), rejected by some early Christians due to its reference to apocryphal Book of Enoch (v14), Epistle to the Hebrews written
# 100-150? Apocryphon of James, Gospel of Mary Magdalene, Gospel of James, Infancy Gospel of Thomas, Secret Gospel of Mark (Complete Gospels, published by Jesus Seminar)

And please define the specifics of "firmly attributed". Is that "firmly" like the attributions of the four canonised Gospels?

3. Please explain how you arrive at your identification of "Jesus, called the Christ" and "Jesus, son of Damneus." It would also be helpful if you could produce a quotation in which Josephus refers to James as "son of Damneus."

From http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Josephus_on_Jesus

The heart of the debate is over whether the "Jesus" in question is the same person as the main character of the Christian Bible or, as the passage states at the end, merely "the son of Damneus" (which would make the James whom Ananus had executed the son of Damneus, as well.) Some assert that the paragraph discusses two different people named "Jesus." Others assert that Jesus the brother of James and Jesus the son of Damneus are the same person, and see King Agrippa's action as a particularly pointed snub of Ananus (by making the new high priest be the brother of the man Ananus had wrongfully executed). Those who hold to the latter view note that, if one assumes that "who was called Christ" is a later interpolation by a Christian scribe, the reference to Christ may well have replaced "the son of Damneus" at that location in the original text.

If one makes such an assumption, additional problems with the text as it stands are resolved. First, it would have been quite unusual, bordering upon unheard-of, to identify a man as somebody's brother rather than as his father's son. On the other hand, introducing men as brothers and identifying their father at the same time would have been pro forma. Dating is also a problem. Festus died in approximately 62 AD, making this passage a reference to an event roughly 30 years after Jesus is said to have died.

[okasha]

48. Further clarifications needed.

2. Letters firmly attributed to Paul (conservative list):
I Thessalonians, c. 50 CE
Galatians, c. 52-53 CE
I Corinthians, c. 53-54
Romans, c. 55-56 CE
Less conservative lists include II Corinthians and Philemon. Others attributed to him (Hebrews, Colossians, Titus, Tmothy, Ephesians, etc.) are certainly or almost certainly pseudepigraphal.

I note that you omit from your "timeline" the section where Paul can be found. As a bit of special pleading, that's both obvious and awkward. For the rest, do you suppose you could find an actual scholarly timeline? Do you expect anyone to take seriously a list that attributes the "founding of Glastonbury Abbey" to 63 CE (no doubt by Joseph of Arimathea, bearing his legendary thorn staff) and cites The DaVinci Code and a Mel Gibson film as being in any way significant? You're insulting your own intelligence here, let alone your readers'.

3. I repeat: please produce a quotation from Josephus--not a speculation from wikipedia--which identifies the James in question as "son of Damneus." All you've offered here is "assumes," "may well have," and again, "assumption." Why, that's almost as firm as "the attribution of the four canonized gospels."

As for describing persons as someone's brother, rather than someone's son, Josephus himself does so in regard to the rebel leader Athronges. He uses no patronymic at all for Judah of Galilee. That's not exactly "unheard-of" when it occurs in the author under discussion.

[TRYPHO]

49. Pauls timeline And the Son of Damneus

Strange wiki doesn't mention the letter isn't it? I included the list because it didn't state a date for the letters, but I accept your critisism of the weakness of the reference so, for perhaps a more mature debate on the subject compare 3.4 with 3.5 here http://www.abu.nb.ca/courses/NTIntro/1Thess.htm

I shan't copy/paste the sections, and I feel the site is somewhat biased in its interpretation, but it does atleast list all the known facts. The thrust of the debate is whether or not the phrase "the wrath that came upon them finally" relates to the destruction of the second temple or not. If it does it would date the letters as post A.D. 70. Otherwise they believe the letters must date around A.D.53. I shant argue with you over three years, but the potential difference of over 20 might be a realistic alternate.

On the "son of Damneus" matter take a look at the last sentence in the second section here:

http://www.gutenberg.org/catalog/world/readfile?fk_files=2359&pageno=648

This is what I am talking about.

Regards,

TRYPHO

[okasha]

56. Hmm. Not really sure how we got to debating the date of Thessalonians,

but the phrase you've cited is also translated--by the editors of the Jerusalem Bible, for example--with a progressive verb, so that the "wrath" is currently "overtaking them at last." This verse is set pretty firmly in the context of high-ranking church officials who have hindered Paul in what he considers his proper ministry. If I Thessalonians dates closer to 50 than to 53, Paul might be referring to the confrontation over keeping kosher at Antioch during his second visit to Judea in 49 or so. He's having, in short, a bit of a snit.

Jesus, son of Damneus, isn't the problem. There's no reason not to believe that such a person was made High Priest when Ananus was deposed by the governor. The problem is the attempt to get the Damneii to adopt the James mentioned earlier. This passage does not read at all like the Testemonium Falvinium, where the interpolation betrays itself by its overenthusiasm. "James, the brother of Jesus called the Christ" is a perfectly neutral designation that allows the reader to identify which James Josephus is talking about and what was significant about him. "James, son of Joseph" could be any one of likely hundreds of first century gentlemen. (It's interesting, incidentally, that Jesus himself is almost never referred to by the patronymic. Add to the list of things that make you go hmmmm.)

[keith the dem]

16. check out the work of the "Jesus Seminar"

http://www.westarinstitute.org/Jesus_Seminar/jesus_seminar.html

As with science, I don't really care what people believe, don't believe, or want to believe. I find great interest in what the actual historical evidence indicates.

The Jesus seminar looked closely at the actual evidence. Interestingly, they found that the real Jesus was somewhat of a radical liberal. Naturally the RW psuedochristians attacked the findings of these scholars.

[More Than A Feeling]

20. If there is a historical person at the base of the myth, he was no more divine than I am,

and no more divine than any other prophet or religious founder.

[Meshuga]

23. You are just jealous

since your prophets are unable to perform miracles. :+

[TRYPHO]

50. One exception please...

and no more divine than any other prophet or religious founder.

That Moses chap must have been something special. Whatever really happened of course we will never know, and I accept it isn't* like it says in the Old Testament, but whatever did happen, and I am of the belief that something did happen, it must have been HUGE. The reason being, in my humble opinion, I don't think you can simultaneously dupe 600,000 people, or even 60 people, at the same time.

I would also say something must have seriously impressed Abram to not only snip his own son but then snip every male slave and manservant in his ownership. That must have taken some convincing.

</rant off>

TRYPHO :-)
* - apparently when the reed sea (yes, reed) sea parted in two, all the waters in the world, even those in cups and vases also split in two. Hmmm...perhaps there's some South American text about to be uncovered that will verify the odd day when all the waters split - that would be cool :-)

[muriel_volestrangler]

52. But that assumes the Torah can be read as a history

and with most scholars thinking that the books were written down and edited over five hundred years after the last of the events they describe, and with no archaeology backing them up at all, the stories of Abram, Moses, the Exodus and so on have to be taken purely on faith. I know you say you don't accept it all as fact, but from a historical point of view, there's no more evidence for Moses than for Aeneas, who provided a founding myth for ancient Rome at about the same remove from its first written sources as Moses did.

[NAO]

51. The Spiritual Christ was worshiped BEFORE the historical human Jesus was made up

The first form of early Christianity was the worship of a heavenly god called "Christ Jesus"; a supernatural being who was promoted by Paul of Tarsus.

Paul, in his own authentic writings, which predate the Gospels, never talks about Jesus as a man, or as someone who was ever on earth. Paul never mentions any miracles, or any sayings of Jesus, or any of the places he was. All he knows is that he was crucified - by evil angels (gk. archons) - not Jews or Romans - and that God raised him from the dead.

Earl Doherty has put together phenomenal resources on this topic

The Jesus Puzzle
http://www.jesuspuzzle.com

[BushOut06]

53. No proof whatsoever that Jesus ever existed

The Romans were meticulous record keepers. Therefore, shouldn't there have been some record of his execution? Wouldn't this have been made public long ago to prove that he actually existed?

IMHO, Christianity has been built upon a sham. That's fine and dandy, believe what you want to believe, and I have no problem with some of Christianity's teachings. But please, don't anyone try to pretend that "love your neighbor as yourself" is a uniquely Christian teaching.

[okasha]

55. During the siege of Jerusalem, Titus crucified several thousand Jewish

resistance fighters outside the city. Come back when you have the records of those executions, "meticulously" kept, and we'll talk.

[BurtWorm]

57. How do you know Titus crucified several thousand Jewish resistance fighters

in the first place? And now you're asking for proof of your own assertion? Where did you get this fact? I'll go look there for the records.

:wtf:

[Zhade]

54. The self-interest, contradictory, biblical account, some of which has been proven wrong?

None.

Contemporary sources - if they existed (Josephus does not count; it's a forgery), I'd accept whatever facts they could corroborate independently. Since they don't, I conclude that there is no reason to believe any account of Jesus.