Reconstructing the Historical Jesus

Well before that time rolls where used, or clay or something else, then the book as we know it arrived pages..... (though not print).The book form was better than the role form, or clay. Because more scribes could work on one book every one would get a page to copy, and then those pages would go in to a book, where to copy a role one scribe had to do it or they had to stand very close to one another. More place to write things down where in a book then a role you can only make a piece of paper so long.That is the grate technological advance.

quote:

---

That is the grate technological advance.

---

oh darn I was hoping for something more dramatic, but thanks frako

Gday folks,Speaking of the famous Sinaiticus -
Have a look at this little beauty !A high-fidelity facsimile copy of the Vaticanus MSS (similar to Sinaiticus.)http://www.linguistsoftware.com/codexvat.htm
A steal at less than $7000.High on my list for when I win the lottery.K.Edited by Kapyong, : Minor fix.

A few other things that most belive and its probably wrong.The notion of a long haired, blond, white, blue eyed Jesus IS wrong.Jesus was a jew from middle east so he was probably dark haired, dark skinned, whit dark colur eyes (from brown to green), i forgot exastly why but it is also probable that his hair was short.It is somewhat probable that he was married, though it is not dfinitive, a non married Jew of 30 years would be very very strange for that time.The notion that Poncipilat thought that he did nothing to deem crucifitcion is wrong. Distrupting passover whit violence was often phunished by death, and the only god walking the Erth in man form at that time was alowed to be the Emperor saying otherwise was also a death sentence.

Sophia777,Please use Practice Makes Perfect for discovering how this board works and how to make your posts pop.Also remember to read the forum guidelines and understand the rules.This is a debate board, not a chat forum. Please take a position and make each post count towards moving the discussion forward.Since this thread has been dormant for a bit, old participants might not respond to your questions. Please direct any comments concerning this Administrative msg to the Report Discussion Problems Here 3.0 thread.

​

Any response in this thread will receive a 24 hour suspension.Thank you
AdminPD

This appears to be a thread about what people believe about Jesus.I'd like to return to the putative topic: what available evidence is there to confirm the Biblical account of the historicity and ministry of Jesus? With the proviso that proving that some guy named Josh once existed, but didn't minister to Jews, wasn't a religious leader, and wasn't killed by the Romans for fomenting Jewish rebellion doesn't prove that there was a historical Jesus any more than you can say "Santa Claus exists, but he's a guy in Jersey named 'Kris' who doesn't build toys, has no reindeer, and can't fly."Maybe somebody could give a list?

The best evidence, but not by far the only, is that Jesus was a failure. Not only is the reconstructed historical Jesus a failure, but even the gospel character himself.As the messiah, which his followers claimed him to be, he was supposed to: Build an army.
Be a king.
Drive out the Romans.
Reestablish Jewish rule in Palestine.Instead he: Had a following of twelve peasant fishermen.
Was a pauper.
Was executed by the Romans without raising so much as a fist.
Sat in his grave and rotted as the Romans destroyed Jerusalem in 70 a.d.His failure was such an embarrassment to anyone who knew anything about the Messianic hopes, expectations, and prophecies that the majority of the new converts came in not as Jews, like Jesus himself, but as Gentiles who knew nothing about Judaism or the actual beliefs regarding the Messiahpeople who could be duped and never know it.Now, when we study history, we cannot go back in time to figure out what happened for sure. So far, no reasonable scholar proposes that Jesus existed with 100% certainty. Instead, we must look at the explanations available us and judge them in terms of probability and in terms of explanatory power.When we judge the Jesus Myth theory against the Historical Jesus theory, we can only reasonably conclude that the Historical Jesus scenario is far more probable than the Jesus Myth scenario. This is for the reasons that I gave above that no Jew (the earliest followers of the Jesus movement) would come up with a 'messiah' that looked like Jesus. Instead, all the messianic beliefs regarding Jesus appear as ad hoc, face-saving excuses consistent with the existence of an actual man whose little posse though him to be the Messiah and then scrambled like eggs in a skillet to explain away the fact that he was actually a failuremajorly.But, it's my expectation that this has been explained in this thread somewhere else already; it's pretty common objection to the Jesus Myth myth. You might even find some more stuff if you look through this thread. I know that's what I'm going to do next!JonEdited by Jon, : clarity

---

Love your enemies!

As there is no evidence of Christ pre 70 A.D. none of this is evidence of anything. Most Christians of 100 A.D. were not Jews or ex-jews. They were followers of other mystery cults. Exactly. so how does this help your argument? And none did. Paul doesn't even talk about a historical Jew. He does not address anything in the Gospels. He speaks of a mythical Christ that existed on a a spiritual plane.Why is there no contemporary account of this Jesus Christ?Edited by Theodoric, : No reason given.

---

Facts don't lie or have an agenda. Facts are just facts

Sorry, but have you ever read Paul? Your artificial limitation that our evidence be in the form of an 'account' has no place in a serious discussion.Jon

---

Love your enemies!

What evidence is there that Jesus was a failure, as opposed to not existing at all? Well, ok. Batman is supposed to fight crime but there's still crime. Is that because Batman sucks, or is it because Batman doesn't exist? What is the actual evidence that any of this actually happened? Please be specific. Indeed. So therefore we should be very cautious about proposing what events occurred, and not actually state that something happened unless there's evidence that it did.So what is the evidence for the historical existence of Jesus as according to the Bible? Would a Jew come up with a Superman that looked like Superman? Well, no, of course not - but regardless, two Jews came up with Superman.Isn't it easy to demonstrate that Jews did not invent Jesus to be the messiah of Jews based on the simple fact that Jews don't recognize Jesus as ever having been their Messiah?How does the fact that Jews did not invent Jesus to be their Messiah prove that nobody invented Jesus for any purpose?Again - what is the actual evidence for the historicity of Jesus? So, your evidence that the Jesus of the Bible existed is that what the Bible says about Jesus is obviously false?Can you explain how that's a compelling argument? I mean I wouldn't want to think that you're some kind of unreasonable fundamentalist.

I NEVER CLAIMED THAT THE 'JESUS OF THE BIBLE' EXISTED.Learn to read.

---

Love your enemies!

It's hardly artificial - it would be a necessary consequence of the Roman state execution of the historical Jesus.If there's no contemporary account, then there was no Roman state execution. If there was no execution, what is the evidence that there was a historical Jesus?

A number of times. Have you? LOL
So what should we be accepting as evidence? Some feeling of woo people have? Your claim that people would be to embarrassed to create a Jesus figure?Tell you what. Research the mystery religions of the same time period. There are a lot of features of them that the Jesus Cult borrowed. Many were probably not a conscious borrowing, they were simple what happened. Now why is the Jesus thing too embarrassing but the same things in other mystery religions not too embarrassing?Instead of just accepting the Jesus story blindly, why don't you actually read something about the Jesus myth.

---

Facts don't lie or have an agenda. Facts are just facts

No, but you did.

quote:

---

we can only reasonably conclude that the Historical Jesus scenario is far more probable than the Jesus Myth scenario.

---

And with all due respect, your shouting doesn't answer any of my questions. What is the evidence for the "Historical Jesus" scenario? You told me a bunch of stuff that would have to be true about Jesus if he existed, but you didn't give me any evidence about his existence, which is what I asked for.I don't think this is all too terribly hard to follow, Jon, Maybe you could be a little less unreasonable?

Then why are people that don't accept the historical existence of Jesus extremist anti-theists? That is your premise in the other thread. Or do you change your stance depending on what thread you are in?Or is this back to the whole idea of "the "historical Jesus" wasn't named Jesus, didn't do miracles, wasn't the king of the Jews, wasn't crucified by the Romans, and didn't rise from the dead"?

---

Facts don't lie or have an agenda. Facts are just facts