Son of God is an old ancient terminology that is used for things of the same nature. “Son of” is translated as flesh of, image of, or manifestation… it is not a term related to being an offspring. It means God manifested in the flesh.
Questioning of his historicity is an academic fail. All those
"latest scholarly" attesting against it is bogus.
That’s because all God did was say “you’re pregnant” and BOOM, she was. Zeus, on the other hand, went to Earth and hit that. Many times. You don’t see Hercules turning the other cheek.
Wait, Elton John’s middle name is Hercules, and he does.
Way to ruin Kevin Sorbo, Elton.
Hmm… for some reason… after reading your post, i kinda recall the first time i looked at Ann frank’s picture and had a huge dis-attraction for Jewish women for some reason… not being racist or anything. I think i want to check out some hot female jew porn…after what you said. if there is.
The Jesus not existing thing is unanimously rejected by scholarship. As in you’re a joke if you take the same criteria applied to other people in history and apply it to Jesus and say he didn’t exist. This isn’t something taken seriously. You’re not reading any scholarly work if that’s your conclusion. Unless of course pop-atheism is suddenly contemporary scholarship.
I always thought the Jesus-myth was the most horrible anti-christian controversy ever. I don’t understand why atheist gobbled up Zeitgeist, acharya s, and whatever random Jesus myth source when their are better and much more valuable controversies such as Di Vinci code or something.
I remember watching Zeitgeist and reading Acharaya’s book and they where going on about Pagan/Jesus parallels, and you have got to be uneducated to actually believe that nonsense.
Zeitgeist (the first release)said that Horizon means Horus is risen, when Horizon is actually a latin word. Then there were other bullshit in Acharaya’s book such as Horus and Jesus being both born on Dec 25 when i don’t see any egyptian nor biblical source showing that both where “born” on dec 25.
Negro, stop trying to sound educated when you know damn well you only learned this yesterday due to black history month.
I agree with this. I want equality. Im one of those guys who believe they definitely SHOULD be able to marry. But I dont like it when they take advantage of the system. I especially dislike the super divas who always believe they were the victim so they start trouble knowing that women and people around them are going to back them up. Try that in less tolerant areas, its not healthy. My friends dad who is gay (manly gay if I ever saw it) hates that theatrical diva over the top behavior.
fuck you dude, can’t help that I’m taking african american studies for diversity reqs
:wow::wow::wow::wow::wow::wow::wow::wow:
4 page religion thread and nothing over the top, AND ON SRK!!! :amazed::amazed::amazed::amazed::amazed::amazed::amazed:
This won’t do at all. :nono:
Did you know that Christ was a jew?!
How does it feel to write a full paragraph of complete bullshit? There is no contemporary evidence of jesus’s existence, period.
Rejected by what scholarship exactly? And what criteria are we using? For all other people, historians check for, among other things:
On count 1, there is no contemporary record of Jesus. The gospels were written decades after jesus existed. The only real reference is Josephus, on his Antiquity of the Jews, specifically the Testimonium Flavianum passage. That’s the ONLY contemporary reference. And there is much debate about its authenticity. Consensus is not that its entirely authentic, but only partially. Wikipedia summarizes the arguments against and for:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Josephus_on_Jesus
On count 2, there are no Roman or Jewish references to Jesus. Well actually, correction, no reference to the NT Jesus described in the gospels (Yeshua, the Hebrew/Aramaic for Jesus, was a common name). For someone who caused that much ruckus and disruption, there is little record of it. What’s damning is that there are plenty of records about other religious figures during this time.
Count 3, other than the shroud of turin (LMAO), there’s really no hard physical evidence.
So to recap, little to no contemporary record of jesus, by friends or foes. Only records that exist are decades later, and the records contained there in have many factual and chronological inconsistencies (that’s not even looking at the supernatural miracles). Example being Luke’s dating of the birth of Jesus:
If Jesus didn’t exist, why does he have a talk show in a small Colorado town?
Exactly.
Just because their is no 1st hand evidence (lets say his own writings) does mean he or any one else during early AD Palestine deserves to have doubts of his existence. Christianity was a Messianic cult, and in Sociology, Cults start from a central figure/prophet/teacher. Probably the disciples made it up (Paul?)… Plausible but severely baseless.
There is no contemporary evidence of Confucius or any Rabbi with in early AD Palestine and that is due to the fact of Oral tradition. If there where 1st hand writings of Jesus, then it would more likely be false.
Way to split hairs.
When I said “son of God” I wasn’t suggesting that God had banged Jesus’ mother (and what a big bang that would have been huh? Do you see?!) because I can’t quite envisage God having a wang.
All I’m saying is that the more important question than whether or not Jesus was black is whether Jesus had some special link with the Lord Almighty. And by “special”, I mean that we don’t have. Because if you walk around saying “Yes, I am the son of God! I mean, uh, the image of, the flesh of, the manifestation of God! AND SO ARE ALL OF YOU MY BRETHREN!” then who gives a fuck, that’s just hippy talk.
You need to re-check your information. “Contemporary” Accounts isn’t part of the list of what Historians and Scholars require… If you do use this as an argument, then you are required to defend that by showing me 3 Rabbi’s who lived during Ancient/early AD Palestine, with there own contemporary writings. If you can’t find any contemporary evidence of any Rabbi or “Cult” leader, then you are forced to say there where no Rabbi’s during early AD.
Next, there are over 42 writings (Gospels, the Gnostics, and secular sources) about Jesus that date with in the 150 years of his lifetime-period. In Scholaraly, any source that dates with in 150 years of the person’s lifetime is solidly academically credible. Now what is odd is that, Tiberius Caesar, Confucius, have only about 10 or even less than 10 documentations with in their 150 year time line. Yet they are not questioned? Confucius suffers allot more in what you guys demand for from the historicity of Jesus, yet there has been no interest in debating about him. Confucius factually existed, regardless.
First, don’t get your information from Wiki. Secondly, Josephus isn’t the only contemporary evidence. IMO, the best secular testimony comes from Lucian. Third, in regards to the authenticity of Josephus’ writings, the writings have been only interpolated with Christian terminology (“he was the christ…”). The non-interpolated text can still be googled, so google the interpolated one, and then Google the original one. The original one still is a historical testimony.
What i don’t get is that there are plenty of Early AD Anti-Christian writers such as Lucian and Celsus writing about Jesus, and what they only do is plainly attack the whole divinity portrayal of him yet never gave any question against him historically? Celsus himself, made all sorts of writings trying to debunk and attack the Christian belief/theology of Jesus’, yet never did he go into “the man never existed”. Why didn’t he? Wouldn’t it be more effective if so the evidence was that questionable? He did live closer to Jesus’ time in comparison to the Academians of today, so why didn’t he attack Jesus historically instead?
And to repeat, show me any religious figure/teacher that has 42 documentations that date with in their 150 time line period to have some credibility for your “count 2”.
“Decades later”. I just want to know how much you know here, Fishjiz. First of all, if the fact that these records exists decades later is a reason, then does this mean Alexander’s records should be scholarly rejected/questioned to? By your logic, Jesus’ records are not as academically valuable due to it being decades later, if so, then Alexander the great is now to be questioned because, he only has about 5 sources and his most reliable source dates 400 years after he (Alexander) died. Should i take Alex’s coins as the only solid proof of his existence? How can i know if that image on the coin is the REAL alexander and not just some made up douche if so the writings exist 400 years after?
Historical Impact, along with documentations are the prime and solid requirements that historians look for, and Jesus checks both of them better than many of the historical figures out there. Just read greco roman historians such as Michael Grant, or Will Durant instead of Wiki.
Finally, since you raise the complaint on the gospels dates. Lets see if the dates of the Gospels - about a man who’s career was only 3 years is something to complain and question.
Jesus is scholarly believed to have died at 32 or 33 AD… In the end of the book of Acts, we see Paul being placed under house arrest so logically, the Book of Acts dates before mid 40 AD because Paul was killed by Nero around 45 or 48 AD. That is about how many years after 32/33 AD? But Acts is a part 2 book - it is also written by Luke. So the Gospel of Luke dates earlier than acts. But Luke used Matt as a source guide for his first gospel, so Matt is closer to 32/33 ad than Luke’s gospels; but Matt used Mark as a source guide for his gospels, so Mark dates closer to 32/33 ad. Then we have the epistles, which date before those books. So how are these books decades after? The only Jesus documentations that are decades after are the writings of the christian opponents and secular writers such as Jospehus, Lucian, Plinny and they still date no later than 150 years after Jesus’ timeline. If we are to argue against Jesus’ recordings due to their time line, then we are forced to reject allot of historical figures as well because Jesus’ recordings beat theirs in both time line and in quantity. Get your facts straight, Fishjiz.
Yahweh couldn’t get laid unless he surprised sexed teenage Jewish girls. That’s lower than Roman Polanski.
P. Gorath: You can probably count the amount of historians that say that Jesus never existed with your fingers (I dont know, - maybe even on one hand or without your thumb. Or worse.) Just because the gospels are biased does not mean that there isnt a lot history in them. It was only in the 60’s that there was an archeological discovery for Pilate and then you have the discovery of the actual tomb of the high priest, Caiaphus that was over Jesus’s trial. Should we have thought of them as having not existed if we only saw them in the gospels? If any historical document has religious flavor to its writing then the document isn’t really historical, right?
Historians are able to reconstruct history confidently from documents that are written a generation or two later that are biased. This is done for Greek and Roman history. Many scholars argue (and I think its really obvious when you look at history) that that simply doesnt allow enough time for the core facts to be wiped out by myth. Keep in mind that this actually does allow for myths to actually be there. So that means that just because a myth might be there or added the core historical fact doesnt go away.
Consider an example from A. N. Sherwin-White; the biographies of Alexander the Great (It looks like I was beat to it!). They were written like 400 years later, but are considered authentic. Legends were really added even after this point in regard to Alexander the Great. It just really seems implausible that core facts could be wiped out so quickly, especially in regard to something coming out of the Jewish culture. (If you know how highly developed transmission was in Jewish culture, youll know why.) If you look at the apocryphal gospels youll see how much of a difference there is between them and the normal gospels. Theyre just completely fantastic.
I dont think the time thing or the not being recorded part holds much weight, fishjie. Mark is the earliest gospel and it was written from an even earlier source. In Das Markusevangelium, Rudolf Pesch, an expert on Mark, thinks that the source at least goes back to 37 CE. Then youve got Pauls letters which go back even earlier and make major points that remain in the gospels which were written slightly later (Rediscovering the Historical Jesus W. L. Craig). I think that there are even manuscript documents for parts of Pauls letters that date within months of the crucifixion. The time problem kind of seems to not really be there, unless you increasingly limit the amount of years historical truths can be carried over accurately in a culture that excels at transmission.
Id further like to point out W. L. Craigs argument for the resurrection. He uses the historically accepted facts by scholars. Ill include some stuff he says about the points as to why theyre accepted.
(1) Jesus’ burial by Joseph of Arimathea
This fact is highly significant because it means that the location of Jesuss tomb was known to Jew and Christian alike. In that case it becomes inexplicable how belief in his resurrection could arise and flourish in the face of a tomb containing his corpse. According to the late John A. T. Robinson of Cambridge University, the honorable burial of Jesus is one of "the earliest and best-attested facts about Jesus.
Joseph is unlikely to be a made up Christian character. He was a member of the Sanhedrin, which was the group that condemned Jesus. This puts a member of the Sanhedrin in an honorable position by feeling that Jesus deserved a correct burial.
(2) the discovery of Jesus’ empty tomb by some of his female followers,
According to Jakob Kremer, an Austrian specialist on the resurrection, “By far most exegetes hold firmly to the reliability of the biblical statements concerning the empty tomb.” As D. H. van Daalen points out, “It is extremely difficult to object to the empty tomb on historical grounds; those who deny it do so on the basis of theological or philosophical assumptions.”
Women discovering the tomb is a bad idea for a legendary account. You would not put something like this in a society where womens testimony wasnt worth shit.
(3) the post-mortem appearances of Jesus to various individuals and groups,
This is a fact that is almost universally acknowledged among New Testament scholars today. Even Gert Ldemann, perhaps the most prominent current critic of the resurrection, admits, “It may be taken as historically certain that Peter and the disciples had experiences after Jesuss death in which Jesus appeared to them as the risen Christ.”
If you thought you saw a dead relative, what would you think immediately? If you saw the relative in the casket? Youd think you were seeing a ghost. It would probably confirm that the relative was dead in your mind. There is a hallucination hypothesis which just doesnt make sense of the whole thing. Even the hallucination wouldnt leave you to believe he rose from the dead. As I said, youd think you saw a ghost.
(4) the original disciples’ coming sincerely to believe that God had raised Jesus from the dead despite their strong predisposition to the contrary are historical.
Despite having every predisposition to the contrary, it is an undeniable fact of history that the original disciples believed in, proclaimed, and were willing to go to their deaths for the fact of Jesuss resurrection. C. F. D. Moule of Cambridge University concludes that we have here a belief which nothing in terms of prior historical influences can account forapart from the resurrection itself.
So basically think about your leader being put to death for heresy (portrayed as treason to the Romans). Youd probably think that he was wrong after all. He didnt even fulfill the expectations for the messiah most had. Then also the Pharisees only believed in resurrection at the end of the world, so it would have been completely odd to think Jesus suddenly resurrected.
So that’s an argument for the resurrection off of historical facts. A non-existent man cannot be put on trial, crucified, burried, etc.
Heres a little bit more from W. L. Craig.
Perhaps the most objective evidence for the current lay of the land in New Testament scholarship concerning these four facts would be a bibliographical survey of the relevant literature. Such a survey has, in fact, been conducted by Gary Habermas (“Experience of the Risen Jesus: The Foundational Historical Issue in the Early Proclamation of the Resurrection,” Dialog 45 (2006): 28897). In a survey of over 2,200 publications on the resurrection in English, French, and German since 1975, Habermas found that 75% of the scholars surveyed accepted the historicity of the discovery of Jesus’ empty tomb. Belief in the disciples’ experiencing post-mortem appearances of Jesus is virtually universal.
Now, fishjie, P. Gorath, this is secular scholarship. Why is scholarship accepting the historicity of someone that doesnt exist, historically? I think the answer is obvious.
Now, as for your saying that there should be a lot more than there is, well, consider this. First of all, maybe the ridiculous explosion and spread of Christianity might be the mark on history youre looking for. The scholarly community doesnt have some massive bias against the gospels as historical documents. They use the EXACT same criteria. That doesnt mean there is going to be 100% agreement on everything. You do, however, get that with Jesus existing and various aspects surrounding the crucifixion.
As for Josephus’s account, most of it is CLEARLY authentic. The parts that were edited are very obviously not from Josephus, but the account still talks about Jesus as a historical person outside of the ridiculous, obvious edit. So then, if we can tell what was edited and what wasn’t, why do we throw out the part that clearly hasn’t been edited? Even so this is ignoring all other possible references to Jesus in history. This alone can establish historicity.
As for Quirinius, Im aware of that, but theres some semi-new information that actually solves that. Ill have to confirm what exactly has been found out about his rule. Also, as Ive said, for the sake of argument you can grant myths or even mistakes and still salvage a historical picture of things, so this doesnt really mean much for historicity.
shorter kix: the account of the empty tomb in the bible is true because it said so in the bible.
