How certain are we that Jesus was historical?

[Ingledsva]

Nah you need to explain how they were 'lifted', in a religious context, who lifted them, from what writings etc. This isn't cutting it.

It has already been explained to you multiple times.


They try to turn a text about Isaiah's son Emmanuel, by the Temple Virgin, - into a prophecy of Jesus' birth through a virgin.


They try to turn a text about LIONS tearing at hands and feet - into a prophecy of the nail holes in Jesus's hands and feet.


They try to turn a story about war with Babylon and her King - into a story about a fallen Lucifer.


It is ridiculous, as they have access to the Jewish commentary on these texts.



*

 

[Desert Snake]

It has already been explained to you multiple times.


They try to turn a text about Isaiah's son Emmanuel, by the Temple Virgin, - into a prophecy of Jesus' birth through a virgin.


They try to turn a text about LIONS tearing at hands and feet - into a prophecy of the nail holes in Jesus's hands and feet.


They try to turn a story about war with Babylon and her King - into a story about a fallen Lucifer.


It is ridiculous, as they have access to the Jewish commentary on these texts.



*

Some of that prophecy ('commentary'?)(really?), is not even used by Judaism.
Yeshua is the Jewish Messiah, but salvation is for all who follow Him, the reason OT sources are used is because that is part of the Messiah narrative, you don't have to believe any of it however it is not 'plaegerism'.

 

[Ingledsva]

We get it, you're not a Xian. But you have to understand, unless the early Xians were unfamiliar with THEIR OWN RELIGION, they were relating Jeshua to the Messiah. They didn't 'lift' the references because IT WAS THEIR OWN TEXTS.

Of course they are trying to relate Jesus to texts in Tanakh.


Unfortunately they chose texts having nothing to do with the awaited Jewish Messiah prophecy, and made up crap about them.


We end up with a Jesus virgin birth story, - because they misunderstood, and lifted the Isaiah verses talking about Isaiah being sent to the Temple Virgin, and their resulting son Emmanuel. They try to turn this into a prophecy of Jesus' virgin birth. Which is just strange because he is named Jesus, not Emmanuel.



*

 

[LegionOnomaMoi]

Both words mean anointed - as you well know.

They don't. The basic meaning of the χρίω is "to touch or rub on the skin/surface of the body". ἀλείφω was the Greek for "anoint". Both words are verbs, while χριστός is a noun. χριστός isn't found in any of the quotes you referred to. All of the words (in Hebrew or the Greek translations) are verbs. NONE OF THEM MEAN "anointed" but at best "to anoint". NONE OF THE WORDS are forms of the noun χριστός.

Jesus is claiming to be the Jewish Messiah, - The Anointed.

Jesus never made such a claim, the titular identification we find in both early Christian and non-Christian sources is incompatible with the Greek meaning of the (almost completely unattested) χριστός, and "the anointed" is vastly different than "to anoint". You referenced texts with verbs, then refer not only to a noun but a definite NP: "the anointed".

 

[oldbadger]

Look for your real HJ if you like but I am not referring to OT prophesy, I am referring to scenes in the gospels taken from the OT such as the crucifixion scene that is lifted from Psalm 22 line for line. This rules out oral tradition.

You are better than this........
We know that evangelical momentum, prophetic provision (I see Psalm 22 as that), etc have filled out the story. In G-Mark I tend to ignore most of the last chapter, for instance.

But if you try to burn up the whole story by waving Psalm 22 in the air, or the many other 'fiddlings', then you're going to lose credibility, surely?

Take one example out of scores (No! .... I'm not working on the whole list!)...... Jesus meeting with John the Baptist. Where's your OT 'lift' on that one?

By the way, I have often challenged the crucifixion in discussions with Nash. I am most interested in Jesus son of the Father pardoned, Jesus son of man executed, the two brigands executed, Ingledsva's take on some of the disciples as bringand/insurgent types.... blah blah. The possibility of two or more stories/histories mixed up. But..... if you hold that the lot was made up then you cannot reasonably take part in such speculations.... which are most interesting.

 

[Ingledsva]

It has already been explained to you multiple times.


They try to turn a text about Isaiah's son Emmanuel, by the Temple Virgin, - into a prophecy of Jesus' birth through a virgin.


They try to turn a text about LIONS tearing at hands and feet - into a prophecy of the nail holes in Jesus's hands and feet.


They try to turn a story about war with Babylon and her King - into a story about a fallen Lucifer.


It is ridiculous, as they have access to the Jewish commentary on these texts.

Some of that prophecy ('commentary'?)(really?), is not even used by Judaism.
Yeshua is the Jewish Messiah, but salvation is for all who follow Him, the reason OT sources are used is because that is part of the Messiah narrative, you don't have to believe any of it however it is not 'plaegerism'.

Don't put prophecy and commentary in the same sentence.

There is "Jewish," commentary, on all Jewish texts.

The Jesus folks misunderstood these texts and TRIED to turn them into Prophecy about Jesus.

They lifted and CHANGED the meaning of these texts.


The Isaiah text is not about any future Jesus Messiah.



*

 

[Bunyip]

They don't. The basic meaning of the χρίω is "to touch or rub on the skin/surface of the body". ἀλείφω was the Greek for "anoint". Both words are verbs, while χριστός is a noun. χριστός isn't found in any of the quotes you referred to. All of the words (in Hebrew or the Greek translations) are verbs. NONE OF THEM MEAN "anointed" but at best "to anoint". NONE OF THE WORDS are forms of the noun χριστός.

Legion, you are denying that the two words have the same meaning, and then demonstrating that they have the same meaning. Rebuttals need to make sense Legion.

Jesus never made such a claim, the titular identification we find in both early Christian and non-Christian sources is incompatible with the Greek meaning of the (almost completely unattested) χριστός, and "the anointed" is vastly different than "to anoint". You referenced texts with verbs, then refer not only to a noun but a definite NP: "the anointed".

 

[LegionOnomaMoi]

Legion, you are denying that the two words have the same meaning

Actually no. First, we are dealing actually with Hebrew words, utterly absent from the NT. The question is whether or not the lexemes in the Hebrew scriptures referenced that are translated as "anointed" are equivalent with the Greek χριστός. Luckily, these texts were translated into Greek millennia ago. So we have what Jews of antiquity considered to mean "anointed". First, we don't find that they thought the verb underlying χριστός to mean "anointed". Second, they didn't equate derivatives of χρίω and ἀλείφω.

and then demonstrating that they have the same meaning.

It is a given by linguists (especially those who translate) that no lexemes are equivalent and the basic unit of language is not the "word" but constructions. More easily digested is the fact that I didn't argue any such thing. Let us imagine that χρίω and ἀλείφω mean the same thing (they don't). This is irrelevant, as both are verbs. χριστός is not a verb. It isn't used in any of the quoted passages. It doesn't mean anything that can be related to the Christian "Christ" until the emergence of Christianity, even when we consider Jewish texts. That's why Josephus uses it to identify a Jesus from others with the same name.

Rebuttals need to make sense Legion.

Perhaps I should have aimed lower. You claim I deny that "the two words have the same meaning". Which two words did I say do not? [Hint: even in the post you quoted, I listed three in Greek alone]

 

[Bunyip]

Actually no. First, we are dealing actually with Hebrew words, utterly absent from the NT. The question is whether or not the lexemes in the Hebrew scriptures referenced that are translated as "anointed" are equivalent with the Greek χριστός. Luckily, these texts were translated into Greek millennia ago. So we have what Jews of antiquity considered to mean "anointed". First, we don't find that they thought the verb underlying χριστός to mean "anointed". Second, they didn't equate derivatives of χρίω and ἀλείφω.



It is a given by linguists (especially those who translate) that no lexemes are equivalent and the basic unit of language is not the "word" but constructions. More easily digested is the fact that I didn't argue any such thing. Let us imagine that χρίω and ἀλείφω mean the same thing (they don't). This is irrelevant, as both are verbs. χριστός is not a verb. It isn't used in any of the quoted passages. It doesn't mean wanything that can be related to the Christian "Christ" until the emergence of Christianity, even when we consider Jewish texts. That's why Josephus uses it to identify a Jesus from others with the same name.



Perhaps I should have aimed lower. You claim I deny that "the two words have the same meaning". Which two words did I say do not? [Hint: even in the post you quoted, I listed three in Greek alone]

Wow. You can't even follow your own rebuttals.

Don't aim lower mate, think harder. Or at least resolve to come here only when you are not in your cups.

 

[LegionOnomaMoi]

Wow. Your not even followong your own rebuttals.
Don't aim lower mate, think harder.

So answer this:

Legion, you are denying that the two words have the same meaning

Which "two words" did I deny have the same meaning?

 

[Bunyip]

So answer this:


Which "two words" did I deny have the same meaning?

As I said, maybe just come here when you are sober.

 

[LegionOnomaMoi]

As I said, maybe just come here when you are sober.

I am, and haven't consumed any alcohol, but better yet why can't you answer a simple question? You asserted very clearly something that I supposedly said:

Legion, you are denying that the two words have the same meaning.

Which two words did I deny "have the same meaning"? Are you not even capable of defending the claims you make about my posts made today? You asserted I denied something about two words and you can't even say which two words despite the quote function and that you stated I did this in posts you could quote?

 

[Bunyip]

I am, and haven't consumed any alcohol, but better yet why can't you answer a simple question? You asserted very clear something that I supposedly said:


Which two words did I deny "have the same meaning"? Are you not even capable of defending the claims you make about my posts made today? You asserted I denied something about two words and you can't even say which two words despite the quote function and that you stated I did this in posts you can quote?

What would be the point? Your last allegation I addressed specifically at least four times, and you just kept repeating it anyway. In fact you repeated the exact same allegation I had addressed in almost every response. That your allegations have been addressed is of no interest to you.

Have another beer or four and just start repeating this new drama ad naseum - it seems your forte.

Isn't there a student or two of yours nearby to go and talk at? Perhaps you could talk at them about Josephus? If you talk continuously at them they might be so bored that they don't notice how you appear tp be ignorant of the entire interpolation argument that has been proceeding for decades?
I suppose that at least you don't need to pay any attention to whatever they say anyway - as you don't seem to believe that a rebuttal should be relevant tp the topic.

 

[LegionOnomaMoi]

What would be the point?

It would supply an indication that there could, even in theory, be any relevance to this:

Legion, you are denying that the two words have the same meaning

When you can't even substantiate that there were any two words I made any such claims about, it demonstrates that your post is indefensible and your continued failure to produce any evidence for a very simple claim you made (as well as your insults and ad hominem attacks) are smokescreens

 

[mahasn ebn sawresho]

to-Ingledsva
He or she is
I think your words are not scientifically and is just utter nonsense
Write you what
A powerful book on Greek grammar
For the new testament
There are thousands of his tenth manuscript Latin llvolgata
And at least a manuscript of the old translations, and some 5,300 New Testament Greek manuscript in full as we have today 24,000 manuscript of parts of the New Testament as we collect many parts of the new testament of the Christian Bible quotes the first two
This is Bible studies scholars
Are you more of these
Sir Frederick Kenyon, Director of the library of the British Museum and the greatest confidence in examining manuscripts
Mkhtotatat new feature in that period of time between writing the original manuscript and the manuscript of altiosaltna
As the world of John Warwick Montgomery says
If we made the New Testament manuscripts in question it we must reject all ancient writings for that book statically bilogharavia like the new testament

 

[Bunyip]

It would supply an indication that there could, even in theory, be any relevance to this:


When you can't even substantiate that there were any two words I made any such claims about, it demonstrates that your post is indefensible and your continued failure to produce any evidence for a very simple claim you made (as well as your insults and ad hominem attacks) are smokescreens

For god's sake man, the claim is in YOUR POST #224.

You have forgotten a comment you made only an hour or so ago.

 

[oldbadger]

How certain are we that Jesus was historical?

24 pages in...... and, so far, no post has presented a single piece of evidence to show that HJ existed for certain! Ergo..... it's not looking as if we can be 'certain' about HJ.

A possible HJ....? Yes :yes:
A plausible HJ....? I think, yes :yes:
A probable HJ....? I believe, yes :yes:

A certain HJ.....? :no:

 

[Bunyip]

24 pages in...... and, so far, no post has presented a single piece of evidence to show that HJ existed for certain! Ergo..... it's not looking as if we can be 'certain' about HJ.

A possible HJ....? Yes :yes:
A plausible HJ....? I think, yes :yes:
A probable HJ....? I believe, yes :yes:

A certain HJ.....? :no:

You must have missed all of the evidence presented so far, let me sum it up for you:

1. Shut up, you don't know what you are talking about!
2. Everone who doubts is a moron! So there! (see 1.)
3. Historians all agree! (except for all of those who do not)! (see 1.)
4. Your biased! (see 1.)
5. See 1.

So far that is about it.

 

[mahasn ebn sawresho]

These are some of the names of the manuscripts on which it depends
John reiland 130 CE manuscript in the library of Manchester banlgtra, one of the oldest manuscripts found in Egypt by the Gospel of John with the known this Gospel work in Asia minor and confirms that the Gospel message in the end of the first century
2. manuscript Chester Beatty
200 a.d.
In the Home Museum in Dublin
And part of the University of mchihan and Papyrus, with three of them on most of the new testament
The closest to the original manuscripts of historical
And the world says Sir Frederick Kenyon, and this discovery is the greatest discovery since the discovery of the Sinaiticus version

43-plane Papyrus
4. vogue
5-Vatican version
6. version Sinaiticus
7. the Alexandrian version
6. copy alafraimih
9. version albizet
10 copy Washington
11. copy klaromant
And mark hurt, who spent 28 years vidrash texts of the new testament
Make the text of the Covenant the new stands unique among the old classic writings
As for the New Testament translations
The Syriac translation
Translations aionanih
Latin translation

Syriac alb****a
Palestinian Syriac version
Version alkorbianet
Version alfrsilianih
The Platinum version
Coptic translation
Copy system
Version albhairet
Egypt central copy subtitles alaromnet
Friends this is a field of study Bible New Testament only
Therefore, what the topic is a storm in a teacup cannot withstand scientific evidence
I wish him to revise his flawless
This doesn't affect the faith
That faith in Christ is on four areas
Virgin birth of Christ
The resurrection of Christ from the dead
The deity of Christ
Say the actions of Christ
Challenge question doesn't affect much on faith
If the excerpts from the Gospel, welcome

 

[Desert Snake]

You must have missed all of the evidence presented so far, let me sum it up for you:

1. Shut up, you don't know what you are talking about!
2. Everone who doubts is a moron! So there! (see 1.)
3. Historians all agree! (except for all of those who do not)! (see 1.)
4. Your biased! (see 1.)
5. See 1.

So far that is about it.

I think one simply has to make the choice, a conspiracy, a made up character, or references are legit from Josephus and others. I really think people are getting sidetracked with the religious aspect of Jesus.