No problem.fantôme profane;3945898 said:My mistake.
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:We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
No problem.fantôme profane;3945898 said:My mistake.
The story about the Son of God that came to earth is based on an historical figure, no I am not kidding, I am not making this up, some believe there are facts to be garnered from the gospel narratives.Would any Jew crucified by the Romans round about 2000 years ago during Passover constitute as a “historical Jesus”? In other words, define “historical Jesus”.
After all this time someone asked for a definition. Thank you.Would any Jew crucified by the Romans round about 2000 years ago during Passover constitute as a “historical Jesus”? In other words, define “historical Jesus”.
If only six are met, would that be enough? If you say yes, you know where I'm going with this, LOL.fantôme profane;3946389 said:After all this time someone asked for a definition. Thank you.
For me when I talk about the historical Jesus, I am talking about a guy with the name Jesus (with proper language translation), living around 2000 years ago, born in Nazareth, met with a guy known as John the Baptist, started a somewhat small movement of his own, created some kind of fuss at the temple, and got crucified by the Romans. Seven little details there, enough I think to refer to a specific historical person.
I suppose it depends on which six. But yes I get the point, and it is open to negotiation.If only six are met, would that be enough? If you say yes, you know where I'm going with this, LOL.
Unless there is an agreement on what to search for, how would we know if we found the right guy?fantôme profane;3946394 said:I suppose it depends on which six. But yes I get the point, and it is open to negotiation.
This is where that funny thing called "evidence" comes in. Is there any evidence that his name was Clyde the Plunger?Unless there is an agreement on what to search for, how would we know if we found the right guy?
Suppose John the Baptist's name was really Clyde the Plunger, does that count?
Actually when you come down to it, there isnt any evidence concerning Jesus.fantôme profane;3946400 said:This is where that funny thing called "evidence" comes in. Is there any evidence that his name was Clyde the Plunger?
Actually when you come down to it, there isnt any evidence concerning Jesus.
What do you think the word "evidence" means?Actually when you come down to it, there isnt any evidence concerning Jesus.
There are two accounts of Jesus and one of John. John's passage is seen as authentic. Book 18, chapter 5, is seen has Christian interpolation and is partially authentic. Book 20, chapter 9, is seen as authentic but a number of people dispute this. There are a number of points which do not line up given the rest of the accounts within the whole text. So the only source which is agreed upon does nothing to support Jesus. The other two sources are contested. There is also the issue of sources used by Josephus which is simple put we do not know if his sources are heresay, common knowledge or reports from believers themselves. Roman sources make it clear that the sources are Christians themselves. Josephus makes no claims and we only rely upon the accuracy of verified events as an indictation his work on Jesus is the same. This is lazy scholarship in my opinion. The external sources for Jesus are very weak to put it nicely. However since fence sitting frowned upon people choose yay or nay.If Josephus' two accounts are true about Jesus, at the very best what is true is that the accounts were believed at the time Josephus wrote them. Josephus was not an eyewitness to what he wrote about concerning Jesus.
has nothing to do with what we are talking about when we are talking about the historical Jesus.the story about the Son of God that came to earth to redeem mankind...
Evidence yes but, I'd like to have more than evidence, that is not yet solid proof .