- Reaction score
- in hell, Liverpool, UK
yay! another guru!
yay! another guru!
The cross has been misused. The name cannnot be JEHOVAH.Fact is
Julius Caesar - First Deified MAN
Julius Caesar - They Created a [WAX_EFFIGY] for his Funeral, which was placed upon a Cruciform, as the Coins show
WAX = OIL - CHRISM/CERUS [Christ] [where we get Kerosene] - the Word has close proximation to the term [Crux/Cross]
A Christ is a Wax Effigy - Unless you believe that Jesus was a Man, that was made of Oil, or Wax
No doubt, above Cruci-Figure was made from Wax[Cerus]
Caesar funeral occurred around the Bacchus Festival[Βάκχος]
Had a look. I do like this kind of stuff ... critical scholarly thinking as opposed to playing to the gallery.-- and I'm hoping many will get to read it and comment on it here. I wish I had half the level of scholarship shown by this blogger!
Among the believing christians.Today the consensus is that someone called Jesus Christ walked and talked, seemed to perform wonders, ..
Some are apathetic christians, some are agnostics or atheists (though born as christians)....and other
Teacher/rabble rouser/proto-communist/schizophrenic/otherwise mentally stressed/made up by others. With due respect to christians, it is very difficult to ascertain so far down in history with hardly any historical evidence. Actually we discussed in another forum, the historical evidence for Buddha... a teacher, ..
Same model. You're assuming a contradiction.We are confusing the Christian model here with the historical model.
Whether He is just an ordinary person, or the Incarnate Son of God, is a matter of faith and not scholarship, as how could scholarship alone prove the point either way?The fact is that the general consensus among secular, unaffiliated, and frequently agnostic or atheist scholars today is that one Jesus of Nazareth did in fact exist as a normal human being...
I would say that the assumption that the above is the only rational conclusion based on available evidence is, frankly, very far from certain, and to claim the latter statement to be 'certain' demonstrates a somewhat dogmatic and fundamentalist reading of a far more nuanced scholarly position.-- for instance, a teacher, Jesus of Nazareth, in the 1st century c.e. _probably_, but not definitely, accomplished a few healings that were then blown up out of proportion -- versus certain -- for instance, a teacher, Jesus of Nazareth, in the 1st century c.e. was _certainly_, and most definitely, crucified by the Roman authorities in Palestine.
Some are apathetic christians, some are agnostics or atheists (though born as christians).
I would say that the assumption that the above is the only rational conclusion based on available evidence is, frankly, very far from certain, and to claim the latter statement to be 'certain' demonstrates a somewhat dogmatic and fundamentalist reading of a far more nuanced scholarly position.
You can, of course, pick your scholars as suits your conception, as do I, but at least I am honest enough to admit that my position is not 'certain', whereas I would have to say anyone who asserts Jesus Christ is certainly not the Christ of faith is showing an unreasonable degree of blind faith in their favoured argument.
Of course, not. I am not a christian, but I do believe in existence of a historical Jesus, if not anything more than that... there are plenty of people with different backgrounds who believe there was a Jesus. Are you arguing that only Christians (or ex-Christians) believe that? ..
Of course, not. I am not a christian, but I do believe in existence of a historical Jesus, if not anything more than that.
FYI, Buddha (and his predecessor, Mahavira of the Jains) never accepted the existence of any God and Socrates was accused of impiety (unbelief the in the Gods of the State) and was administered poison.I believe there are certain special individuals who introduced new ways of looking at humans as all one family -- Enmetena, Buddha, Socrates, Christ, etc. --
I also believe it is no coincidence that these pioneers also appear to be the same ones who also recount the most direct encounters with deity.
FYI, Buddha (and his predecessor, Mahavira of the Jains) never accepted the existence of any God and Socrates was accused of impiety (unbelief the in the Gods of the State) and was administered poison.
OK.Actually, I was addressing those aspects of which we can be certain without at all meaning to say that other aspects are therefore ipso facto not true. I wasn't really saying anything one way or the other about the latter.
Indeed.The problem I'm addressing instead is that there is an unwritten -- and ignorant -- assumption on the part of certain ill-educated posters throughout the Internet (who don't know how to read ancient texts) that all atheists, like them, just "know" that even Jesus the human teacher never existed, never mind the Christ of faith! Now that is manifestly absurd.
So have I, in many guises.You see, the problem with dealing with ignorant atheists who don't know how to read history is that they just assume that any scholarship that comes from anything but a strictly oppositional perspective to Christianity is automatically bogus. I base that statement on personal experience. I have encountered on line these ignorant types of atheist all too often myself.
Oh, agreed. A case in point is the Gospel of Luke, and Acts. I think it's now generally agred, on the basis of material archaeological evidence, that where many assumed Luke was wrong in his details (eg places, titles), it was the received opinion that was wrong, and that Luke was actually right. Places have been discovered in the location Luke puts them, where before scholarship assumed he was in error. A coin with a title under the image of a Roman dignitary bears an titular inscription that in Scripture, Luke was long assumed to have been wrong.Even if some solid modern professional much-published professor who is an atheist from an Ivy League university were to publish a rigorously peer-vetted study in this field of ancient Palestinian history, and even if that study would show that -- at a minimum -- a human Jesus of Nazareth most definitely taught around that area and was certainly crucified by the Romans, such a study would not be accepted by this peculiar toxic brand of Internet atheist even if the scholar in question be an atheist her/himself.
The converse is also true. The Jesus Seminar was the third attempt to isolate the 'Jesus of history' from 'Jesus of Scripture'. The JS's methodology of deciding what is historical, what is probable, possible and impossible has been thoroughly trashed by their peers.Once an atheist scholar is seen, however rigorously, sifting ancient texts, whether Christian or pagan, for what can be viewed as definitely historic and what is probably historic and what is possibly historic and what more unlikely than not, and so on down the line, s/he is viewed by these ignorant atheists as automatically tainted because s/he has not instead rejected the entire Jesus of Nazareth episode as entirely unhistoric.
OK.Jesus is one of those pioneers. But he is not the only one. I believe he is one of a very select few. He is not himself divine, in my view, but he does call himself a Son of God for a reason: he knew God and God knew him, and they communicated with each other, frequently.
And noble they are to. You have my respect.Those are my beliefs.
My contention, of course, is that we simply cannot separate the historicity of Jesus from the testimony. There's too much water under the bridge; too much sand blown across the face of time.Now, can we get back to history?
And you're certain about this?Aupmanyav said:FYI, Buddha ... never accepted the existence of any God
My contention, of course, is that we simply cannot separate the historicity of Jesus from the testimony. There's too much water under the bridge; too much sand blown across the face of time.
And testimony is all we have. There is no other shred of material evidence to tell us who He is. Whilst at the superficial level we have the canonical Scriptures on the one hand, and various heterodox and heresiarch documents on the other, on another level they all point to the same thing: the witness of the man called Jesus. Indeed, even Pliny's letter in which he recounts his dealings with the Christians on a point of public order tells us a great deal. The pagan temples were empty, and as centres of commerce, trade was suffering. Christians met together and prayed; they took part in a Eucharistic rite.
In the absence of material evidence, all history can only be testimony. It then becomes a matter of reason and choice, and we make a decision about what to believe accordingly.
But you are absolutely right to assert that to deny the existance of Jesus altogether is patently absurd.
That someone happened, I think we can agree. The rest is a matter of detail.
(Apologies for not referencing Luke and Pliny. If you want me to dig them out, I can.)