Nada
#
Yes it was
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
How certain are we that Jesus was historical?
- Thread starter Bunyip
- Start date
- Status
Jordan Kurecki
Servant of Jesus Christ
he is mentioned in historical writings outside of the bible: Josephus a Jewish historian writes of Christ in AD 93, the Babylonian Talmud mentions him (sometimes after AD 70) the ironic thing is that the Talmud talks negatively of Jesus and accuses him of using sorcery to do his miracles.. yet it does not deny his existence. Pliny the Youngers letters to the emperor Trajan mentions Jesus, The Annals of Tacitus mentions Jesus (AD 115-117), Mara Bar Seraphion (Ad 73), and Seutonias life of Claudius and Life of Nero (AD 120)
Sapiens
Polymathematician
You need to catch up with the thread. The issue is that there are neither contemporaneous nor eye-witness reports of Jesus, something everyone stipulates to, with some choking and croaking concerning the proper definition of "contemporaneous."
Shuttlecraft
.Navigator
Guys, guys, I've repeatedly asked you who the ancient prophecies about Jesus referred to if you don't think they refer to him, yet you just faff around like shell-shocked goalkeepers under my onslaught without coming up with an answer..
To give just one example, who on earth do you think the prophecy about a 'King riding into Jerusalem on a donkey' refers to if not to Jesus?
Shuttlecraft, he shoots, he scores again!
To give just one example, who on earth do you think the prophecy about a 'King riding into Jerusalem on a donkey' refers to if not to Jesus?
Shuttlecraft, he shoots, he scores again!
There are none.
Shuttlecraft
.Navigator
If that's true, I ask you yet again WHO exactly do you think this verse refers to?-
"Rejoice greatly, O Daughter of Zion! Shout, Daughter of Jerusalem! See, your king comes to you, righteous and having salvation, gentle and riding on a donkey.." (Zechariah 9:9, 500 BC)
Let me help you out with a clue..
Last edited:
Bunyip
pro scapegoat
If that's true, I ask you yet again WHO exactly do you think this verse refers to?-
"Rejoice greatly, O Daughter of Zion! Shout, Daughter of Jerusalem! See, your king comes to you, righteous and having salvation, gentle and riding on a donkey.." (Zechariah 9:9, 500 BC)
Let me help you out with a clue..
So what buddy? You obviously want to pretend that it is about Jesus no matter what - why would anyone here care?
Shuttlecraft
.Navigator
Guys, guys, I'm simply giving you a chance to state your case here, the score is about 9-0 to me at the moment and about to go into double figures unless you can up your game..
Come on, who exactly was the king who Zecharia foretold would be riding into Jerusalem on a donkey?
Surely such a newsworthy scoop would be recorded in manuscripts?
Just give us a NAME, if you can..
Last edited:
Bunyip
pro scapegoat
Guys, guys, I'm simply giving you a chance to state your case here, the score is about 9-0 to me at the moment and about to go into double figures unless you can up your game..
Come on, who exactly was the king who Zecharia foretold would be riding into Jerusalem in a donkey?
Surely such a newsworthy scoop would be recorded in manuscripts?
Just give us a NAME, if you can..
What I don't understand is how you could possibly believe that your infantile trolling and mindlessly repetetive and uninformed assertions are actually doing anything other than making you and other Christians look bad.
What do you imagine you are acheiving? Are you an atheist trying to make believers look like fools?
Surely such a newsworthy scoop would be recorded in manuscriots you say? Well then why doesn't it buddy? Why doesn't it say Jesus?
Last edited:
Shuttlecraft
.Navigator
My "repetitive" posts simply demonstrate my astounding sense of Christian fair play by repeatedly giving you and your chums the chance to defend yourselves instead of letting my shots continually fly past you into the back of the net!
For examp you still can't come up with a NAME for who you think rode into Jerusalem on a donkey if it wasn't Jesus..
10-0!
Last edited:
Bunyip
pro scapegoat
My "repetitive" posts simply demonstrate my astounding sense of Christian fair play by repeatedly giving you and your chums the chance to defend yourselves instead of letting my shots continually fly by you into the back of the net!
For examp you still can't come up with a NAME for who you think rode into Jerusalem on a donkey if it wasn't Jesus..
10-0!
Well who stole my sandwich if it wasn't batman?
What comments have you made concerning the historical Jesus comparable to this:
As with Jesus, you can't cite anything to support your views on Wallace, you can't even indicate what such sources are. However, you insultingly dismiss another's "ignorance" (which is at best as complete as your own) for questioning your "critical" view of Wallace in which you state that he is undeniably an "historical figure". No "the evidence suggests", no "so far as we can tell", nor any other of the bunk qualifiers you depend upon on an ad hoc basis to support your what you pretend and have demonstrated is anything but an informed and would-be unbiased view.
Just a clear statement that Wallace is an "historical figure" and an equally clear insult (reliance on authority) that "[a]ny history book" will confirm Wallace as an historical person.
The difference isn't just your expressed (and quoted) certainty regarding Wallace. After all, you are no more able to demonstrate you have any idea what you are talking about or what "any history book" would really say here any more than you do with the historical Jesus. It's how willing you are to accept scholarship you haven't read (and for the most part are unable to read) in both cases, yet your willingness to accept authority on the slightest of evidence (so slight you aren't even aware of what it is) when it comes to Wallace, compared you to your approach to historical Jesus studies: fake neutrality and appeals to various authorities including your own lies as an expert.
There's no surety period. So either you are so utterly incapable of understanding basic logic that "no surety" for you means that there might be such that you should start an entire thread about our (un)certainty regarding Jesus while expressing your certainty for Wallace's historicity, or...actually that's all I have.
You simply do not know of which you speak, are incapable of demonstrating otherwise, and unable to keep up with your various lies and contradictions.
You stated unequivocally that Wallace was an historical figure.
Unless one picks up "any history book".
Which you can't demonstrate you are even faintly aware of. Again.
Bunyip
pro scapegoat
Legion
Legion. Sober up, grow up and try to find wherever it is that you lost your mind.
I did not at any point argue that Wallace's historicity is in any way certain or soundly established. I have corrected your misconception at least five times now specifically.
If you are so drunk that you can not grasp that simple fact - come back another time.
I have no certainty that Wallace was historical - AND HAVE SPECIFICALLY STATED THAT TO YOU.
Legion. Sober up, grow up and try to find wherever it is that you lost your mind.
I did not at any point argue that Wallace's historicity is in any way certain or soundly established. I have corrected your misconception at least five times now specifically.
If you are so drunk that you can not grasp that simple fact - come back another time.
I have no certainty that Wallace was historical - AND HAVE SPECIFICALLY STATED THAT TO YOU.
Bunyip
pro scapegoat
Legion
Your last 8 posts or so focus on the same misconception, I point out your misconception and you just repeat it anyway.
Think harder.
No Legion, I do not believe that the historicity of Wallace is certain - perhaps you could find a nearby friend who is sober and get them to read the following sentence to you;
NO Legion. I do not have certainty over the historicity of Wallace.
And perhaps this one also;
NO Legion. I have never expressed certainty over the historicity of Wallace.
Buddy, you are even quoting me correcting you and then repeat your ridiculous accusations anyway. For god's sake man - read your posts, you are quoting me making a statement that you then ignore.
Your last 8 posts or so focus on the same misconception, I point out your misconception and you just repeat it anyway.
Think harder.
No Legion, I do not believe that the historicity of Wallace is certain - perhaps you could find a nearby friend who is sober and get them to read the following sentence to you;
NO Legion. I do not have certainty over the historicity of Wallace.
And perhaps this one also;
NO Legion. I have never expressed certainty over the historicity of Wallace.
Buddy, you are even quoting me correcting you and then repeat your ridiculous accusations anyway. For god's sake man - read your posts, you are quoting me making a statement that you then ignore.
Last edited:
Ingledsva
HEATHEN ALASKAN
If that's true, I ask you yet again WHO exactly do you think this verse refers to?-
"Rejoice greatly, O Daughter of Zion! Shout, Daughter of Jerusalem! See, your king comes to you, righteous and having salvation, gentle and riding on a donkey.." (Zechariah 9:9, 500 BC)
Let me help you out with a clue..
Zec 6:9 And the word of the LORD came unto me, saying,
Zec 6:10 Take of them of the captivity, even of Heldai, of Tobijah, and of Jedaiah, which are come from Babylon, and come thou the same day, and go into the house of Josiah the son of Zephaniah;
Zec 6:11 Then take silver and gold, and make crowns, and set them upon the head of Joshua the son of Josedech, the high priest;
Zec 6:12 And speak unto him, saying, Thus speaketh the LORD of hosts, saying, Behold the man whose name is The BRANCH; and he shall grow up out of his place, and he shall build the temple of the LORD: (in Jerusalem)
Zec 6:13 Even he shall build the temple of the LORD; and he shall bear the glory, and shall sit and rule upon his throne; and he shall be a priest upon his throne: and the counsel of peace shall be between them both.
*
Last edited:
oldbadger
Skanky Old Mongrel!
Hi mud!
All true, but Scuttlebut's pics are nice!
I particularly like his spaceship pics......
He makes me laugh.... :biglaugh:
oldbadger
Skanky Old Mongrel!
Ummmmm...... Errrr....... Jesus? Could it be..... Jesus?
I like the Bethlehem story.... It's nice.
But Matthew's version is different to Lukes.
Which is right, do you think?
I love how often you rely on insults in your thread in which you began:
You depend upon insults, you've lied about your background, you've lied about your sources. True, here you can be excused because you are so utterly inept you can't distinguish between a translator's commentary and a volume of Tacitus you sought to reference that doesn't exist; here, you weren't lying, but were so uninformed you weren't even aware you were pathetically trying to insult my knowledge of Tacitus by citing a 19th century author you quote-mined thanks to some online search.
Any other lies you'd care to dish out today? Or was your commentary on my drinking habits of which you no less than you do on...well...anything, enough?
You are truly an incredible example of one so determined to both pretend unbias while dismissing logic in order to support their bias it is astounding.
You've continued you disingenuous, dishonest, illogical, and uninformed habit of responding via insults and ignorance. To the extent the above criticism is accurate, it is so only that you have consistently applied it without basis and without knowledge but from ignorance.
Oh look! Another ad hominem from a liar who began this thread with a promise not to use such arguments.
No I am pretty clear here.
You first claimed to be an historian.
That was a lie.
Later you claimed to be an expert in espionage.
That was a lie.
You claimed that you could back up your claims.
You didn't just lie, you repeatedly showed you couldn't.
You made claims about historical methods that were wrong.
I can't really say they were lies, given that I don't know whether you were lying again or just so bereft of anything remotely resembling research methods, historiography, historical research, etc., that you actually believed your degree in history...I mean politics...I mean espionage...oh screw it you've so maligned yourself by disingenuous presentations of your expertise who cares what your various lies were here.
However, you do cite authority:
This is the extent of you knowledge:
You didn't even realize you weren't referring to any work ever written by Tacitus. You actually thought this was some translation of Tacitus rather than the translator you quote-mined.
You can't be trusted to distinguish between a 19th century author and a 1st-2nd century author.
oldbadger
Skanky Old Mongrel!
If that's true, I ask you yet again WHO exactly do you think this verse refers to?-
"Rejoice greatly, O Daughter of Zion! Shout, Daughter of Jerusalem! See, your king comes to you, righteous and having salvation, gentle and riding on a donkey.." (Zechariah 9:9, 500 BC)
Let me help you out with a clue..
You got a picture? Where did you get that pic! Contemporary? Well, danged if I ain't gotta believe it all...... and he looks Eurasian!`
So...... basically speaking.... it looks as if you believe that everything that was written in the gospels ... IS TRUE??? Yes?
Just give us a 'yes' or a 'no' to that, so that we can move forward...... basically.
- Status