Could Jesus Have Been Simply a Fraud?

[AmbiguousGuy]

I think we are supposed to believe the story is true, as if it virtuous to believe.

A recent theory I heard put forth is that anyone who doubts the historicity of Jesus is trying to destroy God, thereby destroying hell, thereby saving themselves from eternal damnation.

I can't remember if it was Jesus Doherty or some other biblical scholar who proposed it, but it's the sort of thing one hears from historical Jesusers.

 

[outhouse]

A recent theory I heard put forth is that anyone who doubts the historicity of Jesus is trying to destroy God, thereby destroying hell, thereby saving themselves from eternal damnation.

I can't remember if it was Jesus Doherty or some other biblical scholar who proposed it, but it's the sort of thing one hears from historical Jesusers.

To me that is not just simply laughable, but sad as well.

To claim unbiased scholarships use similar methodology as apologist, simply is not using reason to provide a overview of the current state of scholarships.


Remember, your the vast minority, and so for a reason. And education and knowledge does not appear to be a reason.

 

[oldbadger]

Yes. Complete freedom to go where needed.

I'm not at all sure about how deeply into the Temple gentiles (incuding Romans) go penetrate. I have read that the priesthood was allowed to execute, without warrant from Pilate, any gentile who entered the Tempole's inner sanctums, but how 'inner' I have not discovered.

He would not have.
That would be the authors mistakes.

I do not believe for one moment that any authors made mistake over the name 'Jesus'. This name is contrived from Greek + another language (?) and was wholly (excuse the pun) intentional. The reason why G-Mark would have used it is not understood. Either the evangelists altered the name (along with additions etc) or the compiler (Mark!! ) needed to use it so that all would know that he was referring to the same man-prophet-God.

There is a horrible undercurrent to this name. I suspect Paul (you know what I think about Paul) ......... these people were prepared not only to separate themselves from the Jewish culture, religion, way-of-life, but they were determined to take their chosen 'donor', Yeshua, with them. By changing his name they even removed him from his Jewish loyalty, devotion and people. OK, Yeshua was a wonderful healer and no doubt well known around the northern shoreline of the lake, but no more..... but he was still theirs. It's just taking a few thousand years for anybody to dare to approach these subjects.

Would a roman face the death penalty because a peasant tried to bribe him.
Not a chance.

I don't know....... did any Roman ever dare to accept a bribe? They could have made it look very good. A spear thrust. A report of death. If found out, it could have been a 'mistake'. I'm not chucking it out, because too many folks claim he escaped, and G-Mark's report of his short visit in Galilee might not necessarily be untrue.

Which in comparison, is nothing more then a straw man in the context your using it.

A impossibility.

Titus? You and your straw men! How many times have you used examples outside of a subject to show a possibility or a point? You need to revise on what 'straw-man' positions are.

 

[oldbadger]

Read this describing Passover.

I have 4 or 5 times and still need to read to try and retain more.

Jesus' Last Passover Meal

I've copied the whole piece. That'll take a while to read.....

 

[technomage]

...the name 'Jesus'. This name is contrived from Greek + another language (?) and was wholly (excuse the pun) intentional.

Nothing of the sort. The name Jesus is an English translation of Greek Iesous (Ἰησοῦ&#962, which is translation of Aramaic Yeshua (ישוע), which is in turn a contraction of the Hebrew Yehoshua (יהושע). It is the same name as Joshua in the OT, though it has followed a different translation history.

 

[AmbiguousGuy]

To me that is not just simply laughable, but sad as well.

Yes. Isn't it?

To claim unbiased scholarships use similar methodology as apologist, simply is not using reason to provide a overview of the current state of scholarships.

outhouse, you know that I love you. I hope you know that.

But have you ever considered that ungrammatical, misspelled, mispunctuated chidings about the other guy's poor scholarship... well, that such chidings might be a little hard to take seriously?

Remember, your the vast minority, and so for a reason. And education and knowledge does not appear to be a reason.

Mercy me. I am ignorant and uneducated. And that is why you are right and I am wrong.

Mercy me. You test my intellectual noblesse oblige to its very limits, my friend.

 

[oldbadger]

Here ya go oldbadger, a legion ish


The Temple Mount at Jerusalem

Fort Antonia and the Roman Legion

A Roman Legion had 5,000 infantry troops and with them 5,000 support personnel. There were 833 military personal per acre within Fort Antonia.

The Roman garrison was the dominant feature of Jerusalem, a continuous reminder to the Jews of Rome’s supremacy. Further, being four and one-half times greater in area than the Temple Mount, Fort Antonia was intimidating and therefore a successful tool of psychological warfare to secure Jewish conformity to Roman authority.

The crowds that assembled at the Temple during the Holy Days were overseen by 2,000 Roman troops. In order to prevent disorder and riots among the Jews, they were stationed on a 45-foot wide walkway built atop the four colonnades that surrounded the Temple grounds. During the Jewish festivals, there were three rotations of guards, totaling 6,000 soldiers, each day.

Who is Robert Martin?
Obviously I can't it all now, but there's a problem. Mr Martin writes that although Josephus is discounted by Jewish historians and his memoirs mistrusted, his description of Fort Antonia and the Roman garrison would be correct. But this is disproved by archaeologists. They have only found evidence of a single tower where J described four, together with other problems.

I intend to research this one aspect in depth, because everybody is at odds over it.

 

[idea]

A recent theory I heard put forth is that anyone who doubts the historicity of Jesus is trying to destroy God, thereby destroying hell, thereby saving themselves from eternal damnation.

I'd agree with that theory, frubals!

 

[oldbadger]

A recent theory I heard put forth is that anyone who doubts the historicity of Jesus is trying to destroy God, thereby destroying hell, thereby saving themselves from eternal damnation.

I can't remember if it was Jesus Doherty or some other biblical scholar who proposed it, but it's the sort of thing one hears from historical Jesusers.

I'm sure that you are a lovely bloke, but you do write some rubbish, such as rthe above. Earlier you mentioned in a post (in so many words) that you have so much more to do with your life than bother with such subjects as HJ....... is that about right? Close? You've been hanging around this thread for days now.
:biglaugh:

 

[outhouse]

Titus? You and your straw men! How many times have you used examples outside of a subject to show a possibility or a point? You need to revise on what 'straw-man' positions are.

That is when someone makes a out of context comparison, they have created a "straw man"


Having the head man in charge let someone go.

Is not the same as paying off a guard.

Obstacles you face.

1. How many guards were present.
2. How many Jewish witnesses.
3. How many sect members were present.


These are all questions with no credible answer. What is really working against you is your assuming there was just one guard that could be bribed, and your not supplying any sort of known case where that would happen.

Your attributing way to much into what is not known even what is plausible.

 

[oldbadger]

Nothing of the sort. The name Jesus is an English translation of Greek Iesous (Ἰησοῦ&#962, which is translation of Aramaic Yeshua (ישוע), which is in turn a contraction of the Hebrew Yehoshua (יהושע). It is the same name as Joshua in the OT, though it has followed a different translation history.

Hi again.....

No! Look..... What name do we give the great OT leader warrior of the Israelites? Joshua? Now why didn't we call him this version of it..... Jesus?

No! I have read, and now need to go research some more, that Jesus is a two part name 'built'...... for the Christian Christ, which I believe that Paul and others devised.

I realise that this is a very fraught suggestion....... but I think I might be correct. I need to go find some strong sources, but our member Steeltoes might know more........ ??

 

[outhouse]

Who is Robert Martin?
Obviously I can't it all now, but there's a problem. Mr Martin writes that although Josephus is discounted by Jewish historians and his memoirs mistrusted, his description of Fort Antonia and the Roman garrison would be correct. But this is disproved by archaeologists. They have only found evidence of a single tower where J described four, together with other problems.

I intend to research this one aspect in depth, because everybody is at odds over it.

Ask yourself how many troops are needed to police Passover with half a million people.


And ask yourself why these Romans who ran everything, would be kept from anywhere they wanted to go in THEIR temple they took over.

Also just do a search for the pictures of the recreation of the temple. They also based on the best archeological evidence do in fact show 4 towers.




I don't know who the man is from my link, I just provided one. I have read a legion came in with Pailte many times in different books. Please don't argue from ignorance. If you ask I will give my opinion, but unless you do the work and know different, then do not debate what you don't know.

 

[AmbiguousGuy]

I'd agree with that theory, frubals!

Oh, my. I found the theory so ludicruous that I didn't consider its author to be at all serious. A prank theory. I'm guessing that's how he saw it, too, but who knows.

On the other hand, I never turn down frubals.

 

[outhouse]

Hi again.....

No! Look..... What name do we give the great OT leader warrior of the Israelites? Joshua? Now why didn't we call him this version of it..... Jesus?

No! I have read, and now need to go research some more, that Jesus is a two part name 'built'...... for the Christian Christ, which I believe that Paul and others devised.

I realise that this is a very fraught suggestion....... but I think I might be correct. I need to go find some strong sources, but our member Steeltoes might know more........ ??

He doesn't know more.


Your asking questions that cannot be answered.

It is ok to say, we don't know.


But one thing is correct and that is what technomage stated.

Your failing to realize the multiple languages in use, and the simple translation of each.

 

[technomage]

Hi again.....

No! Look..... What name do we give the great OT leader warrior of the Israelites? Joshua? Now why didn't we call him this version of it..... Jesus?

Because we get "Joshua" from a translation from the Hebrew, not from Greek via Aramaic.

 

[oldbadger]

Please don't argue from ignorance. If you ask I will give my opinion, but unless you do the work and know different, then do not debate what you don't know.

I'm not debating this one.
I'm not arguing from ignorance.

I'm questioning and reviewing.
I think we're both ignorant on this particular point.

 

[outhouse]

But have you ever considered that ungrammatical, misspelled, mispunctuated chidings about the other guy's poor scholarship... well, that such chidings might be a little hard to take seriously?

This is a forum not a book.

Im often at work and have little time to try to be perfect.

Mercy me. I am ignorant
and uneducated

Your taking me out of context on purpose. it is transparent.


You have admitted your ignorance to scholarships and the teachings of credible professors.

I am only repeating your own statements.



So now you win because you have better grammar?

 

[outhouse]

I'm not debating this one.
I'm not arguing from ignorance.

I'm questioning and reviewing.
I think we're both ignorant on this particular point.

I understand our limits in this area. That is the only difference.

 

[AmbiguousGuy]

I'm sure that you are a lovely bloke, but you do write some rubbish, such as rthe above.

Thanks, but I can't take credit. I was only recounting what someone else proposed.

Curious that you didn't object when it was originally posted.

Earlier you mentioned in a post (in so many words) that you have so much more to do with your life than bother with such subjects as HJ....... is that about right? Close?

No, you seem to have some comprehension issues. It happens. Why would I engage this debate if I don't bother with HJ issues? For that matter, how could I so easily disprove the HJ theories if I weren't at least a bit interested?

You've been hanging around this thread for days now.

Yes. Someone has to keep you HJers in line. I feel such responsibility, you know? God demands that I defend The Truth!

Such a burden. Weep for me a little, will you.

 

[technomage]

Weep for me a little, will you.

:sad4:

Feel better now?