Is the Muslim Jesus cited in the Qur'an possibly historical?

[lukethethird]

You believe Jesus himself is a fantasy or mythology or is there another view you possess?

There is no way of knowing if Jesus was this or was that or was not at all. We can acknowledge the many theories but there is no way of knowing which of them has it correct with any certainty. All we have are religious texts.

 

[firedragon]

There is no way of knowing if Jesus was this or was that or was not at all. We can acknowledge the many theories but there is no way of knowing which of them has it correct with any certainty. All we have are religious texts.

With all due respect brother, you are creating a false dichotomy. You are stating that there are "only religious documents" so there is no way to know "anything" which is in one side false, and on another a false dichotomy.

Your premise is false too. Because there are other documents which are "not religious" and also "against the religion of Christianity and Jesus" which means your assessment that "all we have are religious texts" is false.

Also you saying that having "Only" religious documents means there is no way to know anything which is a false dichotomy.

Cheers.

 

[lukethethird]

With all due respect brother, you are creating a false dichotomy. You are stating that there are "only religious documents" so there is no way to know "anything" which is in one side false, and on another a false dichotomy.

Your premise is false too. Because there are other documents which are "not religious" and also "against the religion of Christianity and Jesus" which means your assessment that "all we have are religious texts" is false.

Also you saying that having "Only" religious documents means there is no way to know anything which is a false dichotomy.

Cheers.

Religious texts are written for religious purposes, theology as it were, not for historical purposes. If one wants to read about history, read a history book. There are no non-Christian/Jewish writings available to us from the first century that comment on anything Jesus.

 

[firedragon]

Religious texts are written for religious purposes, theology as it were, not for historical purposes. If one wants to read about history, read a history book. There are no non-Christian/Jewish writings available to us from the first century that comment on anything Jesus.

Again, your statement "Religious texts are written for religious purposes, theology as it were, not for historical purposes. If one wants to read about history, read a history book." is creating a false dichotomy. Yes, they are of course theological viewpoints of people so you don't have to completely trust every single word they say as historically true, but you cannot throw away the central person of all those documents didn't exist simply due to your false dichotomy which is a logical fallacy.

You said "There are no non-Christian/Jewish writings available to us from the first century that comment on anything Jesus.", thus you dismiss Josephus and Tacitus completely right? Do you have reasons for dismissing them completely?

 

[lukethethird]

Again, your statement "Religious texts are written for religious purposes, theology as it were, not for historical purposes. If one wants to read about history, read a history book." is creating a false dichotomy. Yes, they are of course theological viewpoints of people so you don't have to completely trust every single word they say as historically true, but you cannot throw away the central person of all those documents didn't exist simply due to your false dichotomy which is a logical fallacy.

You said "There are no non-Christian/Jewish writings available to us from the first century that comment on anything Jesus.", thus you dismiss Josephus and Tacitus completely right? Do you have reasons for dismissing them completely?

The gospels are pure fantasy about a godman miracle worker that heals the sick, allows the blind to see and rises from the dead among other things. There is no logical fallacy here for viewing religious texts for what they are. Josephus and Tacitus were late and provided no sources, there were no witnesses. What is it you want to believe?

 

[oldbadger]

Who said the fluid emptied from His lung? Let’s consider the narrative from the Gospel of John:

John did!

John {19:34} But one of the soldiers with a spear pierced his side, and forthwith came there out blood and water.

And then Josephus got permission to get Jesus away.

John{19:38} And after this Joseph of Arimathaea, being a disciple of Jesus, but secretly for fear of the Jews, besought Pilate that he might take away the body of Jesus: and Pilate gave [him] leave. He came therefore, and took the body of
Jesus.


............. and this person was alive.
............ and so was Jesus Son of the Father..... extremely well indeed, and much loved by the people. It's all there.... you just need to value the clues.

We know that John had a bundle of accurate anecdotes, very valuable, which he included in his gospel, but he was not there, this gospel was written later than 110BCE and he on Patmos, Irenneus (spelling?) write that he was proud to have met him.

And he that saw it bare record, and his record is true: and he knoweth that he saith true, that ye might believe.
For these things were done, that the scripture should be fulfilled,

That's the problem with John....... if only he would have just told the truth, rather than manipulate stories to fit with prophecies.

You don't really believe that Mother Mary and John were there, do you?

It seems clear enough the Jesus died of traumatic hypovolaemic shock due to injuries sustained from the beating He had sustained in the lead up to the crucifixion.

Thirst is a classic sign and the fluid and blood most likely arose from his abdominal cavity.......

That's the trouble with expert witnesses. They get battered so easily in trials.
The spear pierced his side, his lung.

And don't forget......... Jesus Son of the Father was free, and gone, with Pilate's pardon and blessing. Just read about it. 50%/50%.... see?

Maybe Pilate needed to get this convict away. He was bloody all over, the mob kept far off, but there was a possibility that somebody might discover any ruse..

John's collection of reports is valuable, but he was not the disciple. I must run a thread on this because the evidence that Apostle John was not Disciple John is just bulging over.

 

[firedragon]

The gospels are pure fantasy about a godman miracle worker that heals the sick, allows the blind to see and rises from the dead among other things. There is no logical fallacy here for viewing religious texts for what they are. Josephus and Tacitus were late and provided no sources, there were no witnesses. What is it you want to believe?

Mate. You are not answering the question properly. I know that you wish to dismiss everything but you are not doing it with valid responses but just a dismissal based on your wish to do just that. Try and respond with a bit of productivity this time.

Anyway, you just dismiss Josephus and Tacitus completely because they were late and provided no sources right? You want Josephus and Tacitus to "Provide Sources". Can you specifically name and quote the exact reference in their work specifically the antiquities and the annals and tell me what kind sources they could have provided for that?

Try and be a bit sophisticated, patient and give specific information. I hope you understand the question. If you did not, you can ask to rephrase or something.

 

[oldbadger]

The stories of the Baptist and Jesus are pure fantasy, yet some still believe.

Nah!
The Baptist and Jesus were real people.
But the additions and frills were not real.

And, 'yes', some believe. I can acknowledge folk's faiths, but I'll stick to what evidence there is, thankyou.

 

[lukethethird]

Nah!
The Baptist and Jesus were real people.
But the additions and frills were not real.

And, 'yes', some believe. I can acknowledge folk's faiths, but I'll stick to what evidence there is, thankyou.

Removing the so called additions and frills to make it believable is special pleading.

 

[Dawnofhope]

John did!

John {19:34} But one of the soldiers with a spear pierced his side, and forthwith came there out blood and water.

His side is not necessarily his lung. If the spear was thrust into his lung it may have broken his rib cage. According to scriptures no bones were broken (see below).

And then Josephus got permission to get Jesus away.

John{19:38} And after this Joseph of Arimathaea, being a disciple of Jesus, but secretly for fear of the Jews, besought Pilate that he might take away the body of Jesus: and Pilate gave [him] leave. He came therefore, and took the body of
Jesus.

Yeah, but according to the previous text, Jesus was dead.

Then came the soldiers, and brake the legs of the first, and of the other which was crucified with him.
But when they came to Jesus, and saw that he was dead already, they brake not his legs:

............ and this person was alive.
............ and so was Jesus Son of the Father..... extremely well indeed, and much loved by the people. It's all there.... you just need to value the clues.

All four Gospel accounts are clear He died from crucifixion and none of the Apostolic letters contradicts this account. Josephus and Tacitus are reasonably clear he died. There are no contemporary documents within 100 years of Christ’s crucifixion that indicate he survived. Do you have the names of any reputable biblical scholars who assert He survived?

We know that John had a bundle of accurate anecdotes, very valuable, which he included in his gospel, but he was not there, this gospel was written later than 110BCE and he on Patmos, Irenneus (spelling?) write that he was proud to have met him.

The dating may have been earlier. Authorship of John is controversial as with all the Gospels.

That's the problem with John....... if only he would have just told the truth, rather than manipulate stories to fit with prophecies.

Alternatively he may well have been relaying the facts and simply pointing out how those facts relate to Prophecy.

You don't really believe that Mother Mary and John were there, do you?

According to Matthew:

many women ... who had followed Jesus from Galilee, ministering to him, among whom were Mary Magdaleneand Mary the mother of James and Joseph and the mother of the sons of Zebedee Matthew 27:55–56

Who do you think the apostle Jesus loved refers to?

And don't forget......... Jesus Son of the Father was free, and gone, with Pilate's pardon and blessing. Just read about it. 50%/50%.... see?

Maybe Pilate needed to get this convict away. He was bloody all over, the mob kept far off, but there was a possibility that somebody might discover any ruse..

Maybe he was just doing his job and the Gospel accounts along with corroborated historical documents are correct.

John's collection of reports is valuable, but he was not the disciple. I must run a thread on this because the evidence that Apostle John was not Disciple John is just bulging over.

I was circumspect about the authorship of the Gospel of John. Its an interesting though somewhat off topic discussion. Do start another thread on it.

 

[oldbadger]

Removing the so called additions and frills to make it believable is special pleading.

No. Wrong.
A Christian added four words to the fist verse of G-Mark. We know that.
If you think that rubbishes the other words in the first verse then you are no investigator.

Just following an agenda.......... easy.

 

[oldbadger]

His side is not necessarily his lung. If the spear was thrust into his lung it may have broken his rib cage. According to scriptures no bones were broken (see below).

.... may have.
Might have cleared out his lung.

Yeah, but according to the previous text, Jesus was dead.

Where I live doctors issue death certs.
Maybe they never discussed what they, the soldiers, saw? I'll bet they never gave interviews to any apostles!
WE see what we want to see.

All four Gospel accounts are clear He died from crucifixion and none of the Apostolic letters contradicts this account. Josephus and Tacitus are reasonably clear he died.

The gospel accounts are clear that only Magdalene, Salome and another Mary were looking..... from afar.
Josephus wasn't there....... what he heard is unhelpful.

There are no contemporary documents within 100 years of Christ’s crucifixion that indicate he survived.

Yes..... the gospel accounts of Jesus coming up to Genesarret and seeing his mates. OK? Yes?
So Pilate's and Joseph's ruse actually worked.

Do you have the names of any reputable biblical scholars who assert He survived?

I've already told you that it is written that Jesus got reprieved by Pilate, in the gospels, and now his first name is removed and his title popped in to Eastern Aramaic to confuse Latin readers, I expect. The guy on the cross? They needed to get him away, and he may have lived.
Please name a reputable bible scholar whose work you trust totally. I can only think of one, myself, and you've not named him. (Geza Vermes)

The dating may have been earlier. Authorship of John is controversial as with all the Gospels.

2nd century!
And John had no clue about the timeline of Jesus's mission. He couldn't even get the last week right.
Valuable bundle of anecdotes. Useless as a witness, though.

According to Matthew:
among whom were Mary Magdalene and Mary the mother of James and Joseph and the mother of the sons of Zebedee Matthew 27:55–56
Who do you think the apostle Jesus loved refers to?

I have no problem with the above.
Magdalene. I think Jesus loved Magdalene, and she surely loved him.

I was circumspect about the authorship of the Gospel of John. Its an interesting though somewhat off topic discussion. Do start another thread on it.

I will need to gather my virtual case file together. It will be one hell of a debate battle.
Apostle Jon was not Disciple John. Imagine the row.

 

[lukethethird]

No. Wrong.
A Christian added four words to the fist verse of G-Mark. We know that.
If you think that rubbishes the other words in the first verse then you are no investigator.

Just following an agenda.......... easy.

The entire gospels are pure fantasy about a godman that performs miracles. Believe all you want.

 

[oldbadger]

The entire gospels are pure fantasy about a godman that performs miracles. Believe all you want.

Nah!
The miracles in G-Mark are mostly explainable.
Those in John not so.........
The gospels just need competent research.
The mythers are nowhere with the truth of the matter.

 

[lukethethird]

Nah!
The miracles in G-Mark are mostly explainable.
Those in John not so.........
The gospels just need competent research.
The mythers are nowhere with the truth of the matter.

So anyone that questions the status quo is a myther, right.

 

[oldbadger]

So anyone that questions the status quo is a myther, right.

No.

Questioning the ideas of other folks about bible book matter does not make a myther.

There is no status quo, by the way...... there are many many hundreds of Creeds and Churches..... you must have known that if you spent a little time with the subject.

No, back to mythers. You can tell a myther because they shout ignorant stuff such as 'The entire gospels are pure fantasy......................' ......... that was you of course.

Easy to break in debate, mythers.

 

[lukethethird]

No.

Questioning the ideas of other folks about bible book matter does not make a myther.

There is no status quo, by the way...... there are many many hundreds of Creeds and Churches..... you must have known that if you spent a little time with the subject.

No, back to mythers. You can tell a myther because they shout ignorant stuff such as 'The entire gospels are pure fantasy......................' ......... that was you of course.

Easy to break in debate, mythers.

The gospels being pure fantasy does not rule out an historical Jesus, it just rules out the gospels as being a reliable source for history. The author of Mark could very well have had an itinerant preacher in mind when he put pen to paper, but we have no way of knowing that with any certainty. The fact that the gospels were written for theological purposes, which appears to be self evident, is apparently lost on you. Religious texts completely concerned with theology, imagine my shock.

 

[oldbadger]

The gospels being pure fantasy does not rule out an historical Jesus, it just rules out the gospels as being a reliable source for history.

What an amazing sentence!
You tell me that a fantasy book can establish an historical person.
The best way of coping with nonsense like the above is to leave it lying in full view for everybody to wonder at.

The author of Mark could very well have had an itinerant preacher in mind when he put pen to paper, but we have no way of knowing that with any certainty.

There is evidence that can show that the author was right there at the arrest of Jesus, so he was probably the one author who was actually there or around the group during that 11-12 months.

Sadly Matthew and Luke copied Mark so they couldn't write an account from their own experiences.

The fact that the gospels were written for theological purposes, which appears to be self evident, is apparently lost on you. Religious texts completely concerned with theology, imagine my shock.

You just don't get it, do you? The stories about the Baptist and Jesus are based upon real people. The fact that these were spun in to a huge religion cannot smash up that fact.

Paul didn't give a hoot about the life or mission of Jesus..... never mentioned a single anecdote about Jesus (other than the last supper). Never bothered to learn a single fact nor needed to.

You need to separate out the facts from the waffle........ but that does leave you with masses of facts.
Mythers can't do that....... they just call it all myth...... need to destroy it all, I suppose.

 

[lukethethird]

What an amazing sentence!
You tell me that a fantasy book can establish an historical person.
The best way of coping with nonsense like the above is to leave it lying in full view for everybody to wonder at.


There is evidence that can show that the author was right there at the arrest of Jesus, so he was probably the one author who was actually there or around the group during that 11-12 months.

Sadly Matthew and Luke copied Mark so they couldn't write an account from their own experiences.


You just don't get it, do you? The stories about the Baptist and Jesus are based upon real people. The fact that these were spun in to a huge religion cannot smash up that fact.

Paul didn't give a hoot about the life or mission of Jesus..... never mentioned a single anecdote about Jesus (other than the last supper). Never bothered to learn a single fact nor needed to.

You need to separate out the facts from the waffle........ but that does leave you with masses of facts.
Mythers can't do that....... they just call it all myth...... need to destroy it all, I suppose.

I think thou protest too much. You obviously can't prove that the gospels are of historical merit so you lash out at what you call "mythers" as if trashing "mythers" in some way supports your notions of history. Good luck with that.

 

[firedragon]

You tell me that a fantasy book can establish an historical person.

With all due respect, the answer is "yes of course". Happens all the time. I said "all the time", not "every time" so don't ask me where to find Harry Potter which is a very bad argument.