Problems with Belief when it comes to a Christian and Islamic God...

[Robert.Evans]

No, its not. Can you point to a book or passage Jesus wrote himself? No, you cannot. There is a school of thought that because of his career; carpentry, he would have not been able to read or write as those were abilities that were only for the more educated fields.

Scripture is hidden. Theiring would disagree with you. You no doubt do not hold to her writings, nor understand them.

 

[Robert.Evans]

So your answer to Eliab is no then. Just as I just stated. And this 'he is hidden' is a child's excuse.

God reveals to whom he chooses, that is what the Text says. Do you believe?
If we are accepting the Text sufficiently to argue from it, we cannot ignore passages that do not suit, sir.

 

[Robert.Evans]

Sort of like how it is just my opinion that that Aliens didn't write the bible. Everything can be reduced to opinion. The question is whether or not there is reason to believe that said opinions are true, and the reasons involve evidence. We have good reason to think Jesus didn't write anything, no evidence that he did, and no reason so suppose he did.

B. Theiring

 

[Robert.Evans]

Perhaps it does, but if you keep getting hung up on the literal meaning you're never going to see what it is.

That would be a problem IF I was.

 

[LegionOnomaMoi]

B. Theiring

Scholarship.

 

[Rick O'Shez]

That would be a problem IF I was.

I think you do. For example assuming that God is literally male, rather than representing the male principle, or reflecting the patriarchal culture of the Bible authors, whatever. Religious texts can be read literally, metaphorically, or somewhere in between, but you really do need to understand the cultural context to make sense of them.

 

[Rick O'Shez]

If we are accepting the Text sufficiently to argue from it, we cannot ignore passages that do not suit, sir.

But we can interpret them in a more imaginative way.

 

[Robert.Evans]

I think you do. For example assuming that God is literally male, rather than representing the male principle, or reflecting the patriarchal culture of the Bible authors, whatever. Religious texts can be read literally, metaphorically, or somewhere in between, but you really do need to understand the cultural context to make sense of them.

I would not have said "IF" if I did, now would I, sir, hmmm.

There are many levels that one must read scripture. It is not always possible to go to a deeper level.

 

[Unification]

I don't bury my head in the sand either. I have never studied a subject so much in my life before.
People often don't understand, and I don't think you did either.
But I disagree with your idea of fact. You seem to be saying that there is no such "fact" as gravity until as such time as someone works it out and then proves it. Really? I think you will find it was always fact. It depends on how you define the word perhaps.

Indeed, and truthfully ...Gravity is theoretical and not fact.

 

[JoStories]

1) It's Aramaic.
2) He did have something to do with Judaism (and I don't just mean the likely mention in the Talmud).
3) What makes it insulting? Personally, I find it rather irritating and obnoxious when Christians insist upon calling Jesus "Yeshua" or some other transliteration. However, I don't understand how it is insulting.

There is no mention of Jesus in the Talmud or any other sacred Jewish text. And the insulting part was my opinion. I don't have to justify that. And yes, it was Aramaic, but you do realize that was the Jewish language that Jesus spoke, non?

 

[JoStories]

I have no idea why you would think he had nothing to do with Judaism considering he was a Jew and kept the law, and that is why I call him Yahshuah, because that WAS his name.
That has nothing to do with opinion.

You have a PhD in theology? Congratulations. However, scripture tells us plainly that amounts to tiddly-squat.

He may or may not have lived so his being Jewish, which may have been culturally if he lived but his alleged start of a new faith makes him an apostate. Furthermore, he is not the man that is mentioned as the Messiah in Jewish texts. He does not fit the criteria. Furthermore again, were he Jewish and he kept the law, as you state above, he would have married as that is a part of the Jewish law. And since you all claim he was not, that means again he was apostate. And lastly, IMO, if you live your views of God entirely by some antiquated man made book, you will have no clue about God and the wonders that are God.

 

[JoStories]

Scripture is hidden. Theiring would disagree with you. You no doubt do not hold to her writings, nor understand them.

Assuming you mean Barbara here, to this point I have not insulted you at all and merely responded with my own opinions on this matter. That you resort to insults is a clear sign you have lost any hope of winning a debate and show how immature a debater you are. I am done with you. And for the record, Ms. Theiring is a Christian apologist and that, in my book, discredits her as being biased. Furthermore, no theologian I know gives her work any credence whatsoever. The use of the Pesher technique does not prove that Jesus was not only married but married twice with 4 children.

 

[LegionOnomaMoi]

There is no mention of Jesus in the Talmud or any other sacred Jewish text. And the insulting part was my opinion. I don't have to justify that. And yes, it was Aramaic, but you do realize that was the Jewish language that Jesus spoke, non?

"And a teacher has said, "Jesus the Nazarene practiced magic and led Israel astray." . . . Our rabbis taught: Let the left hand push away, but the right hand always invite back, not like Elisha who pushed Gehazi away with both hands, and not like Joshua ben Perahiah who pushed Jesus away with both hands. (b. Sanhédrin 107b; cf. b. Sotah 47a)"
Van Voorst, R. (2000). Jesus outside the New Testament: An introduction to the ancient evidence. Wm. B. Eerdmans.

There is more.

See also:

Casey, M. (2010). Jesus of Nazareth: An independent historian's account of his life and teaching. Continuum.
Dunn, J. D. (1985). The Evidence for Jesus. Westminster Press.
Theißen, G., & Merz, A. (2011). Der historische Jesus: Ein Lehrbuch. Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht.

for elementary introductions to the extant evidence for Jesus in Christian and non-Christian sources.

 

[LegionOnomaMoi]

Furthermore again, were he Jewish and he kept the law, as you state above, he would have married as that is a part of the Jewish law.

Except we know of an entire contemporary Jewish movement that was characterized (even if overly-generally) for not marrying. Nor is this the only relationship Jesus and the Jesus movement had with them, being eschatological in nature too.

 

[Robert.Evans]

Assuming you mean Barbara here, to this point I have not insulted you at all and merely responded with my own opinions on this matter. That you resort to insults is a clear sign you have lost any hope of winning a debate and show how immature a debater you are. I am done with you. And for the record, Ms. Theiring is a Christian apologist and that, in my book, discredits her as being biased. Furthermore, no theologian I know gives her work any credence whatsoever. The use of the Pesher technique does not prove that Jesus was not only married but married twice with 4 children.

That's funny. A theologian who doesn't want to speak.

 

[Robert.Evans]

He may or may not have lived

WHAT!?!

so his being Jewish, which may have been culturally if he lived but his alleged start of a new faith makes him an apostate.

There were two Messiahs.

Furthermore, he is not the man that is mentioned as the Messiah in Jewish texts. He does not fit the criteria.

One was.

Furthermore again, were he Jewish and he kept the law, as you state above, he would have married as that is a part of the Jewish law.

I see nowhere in the Torah where a man MUST be married BY LAW. Would you care to share the verse?

And since you all claim he was not, that means again he was apostate. And lastly, IMO, if you live your views of God entirely by some antiquated man made book, you will have no clue about God and the wonders that are God.

Explain, whilst you ignore sacred text, the same text you same you have a PhD on.

 

[Shad]

"And a teacher has said, "Jesus the Nazarene practiced magic and led Israel astray." . . . Our rabbis taught: Let the left hand push away, but the right hand always invite back, not like Elisha who pushed Gehazi away with both hands, and not like Joshua ben Perahiah who pushed Jesus away with both hands. (b. Sanhédrin 107b; cf. b. Sotah 47a)"
Van Voorst, R. (2000). Jesus outside the New Testament: An introduction to the ancient evidence. Wm. B. Eerdmans.

Which is a text that is not contemporary thus not evidence of Jesus. It is older than the earliest manuscript of the Bible found.

 

[LegionOnomaMoi]

Sanhédrin 107b is not about Jesus at all. Neither is Sotah 47a. Voorse interpreted this Christian view of Elisha when the folio is about Elisha in Kings. You can read both for yourself.

I have.

Did you fact check these sources as well as you did with the two above?

I started research on the historical Jesus for my classical languages major as an undergrad: A Quest for the Historical Socrates: The Applicability of Historical Jesus Research in Historiographical Approaches to Socrates. I've been keeping up with it since. I also have the advantage of being able to check the original sources because I can read the original languages.

Your little denial without consideration of over a century of scholarship amounts to little, but is interesting given your willingness to dismiss someone far more informed than you along with skepticism of sources you haven't even read.

 

[LegionOnomaMoi]

Which is a text that is not contemporary thus not evidence of Jesus.

I completely agree. However, I never said otherwise. I responded to a claim about Jesus in the Jewish tradition.

It is older than the earliest manuscript of the Bible found.

Yes, although we don't know by how much. Currently, the oldest extant NT text is a scrap of John from the first half of the 2nd century, but there is currently an investigation of an extract from Mark used as mummy wrapping believed to date to the first century.

 

[Shad]

I have.




I started research on the historical Jesus for my classical languages major as an undergrad: A Quest for the Historical Socrates: The Applicability of Historical Jesus Research in Historiographical Approaches to Socrates. I've been keeping up with it since. I also have the advantage of being able to check the original sources because I can read the original languages.

Your little denial without consideration of over a century of scholarship amounts to little, but is interesting given your willingness to dismiss someone far more informed than you along with skepticism of sources you haven't even read.

I changed my comment as I was wrong. I double check a different source with proper footnotes. Hence why my edited comment focused on the credibility and date of the source. Which is 3-5 centuries after the event in question. If this is credible evidence of Jesus likewise it is for many mythical tales. Do you know the difference between a primary source and secondary source? A primary source is contemporary as in made during the life or time span of the subject. The Talmud is a secondary source not primary. This does not mean Jesus is a myth but it is not strong evidence as the authors, and you, present. It is much like later Roman source which just reference Christian views rather than being a Roman source for Jesus. This happens often in antiquity. A good example is the Rome and Troy link which creates a story based on external references and links between the two rather than any source. Yet this was treated as a source by many. Alexander is another primary example from which people draw upon external references rather from internal sources.

You are assuming your are more qualified than I. You assumption is not a fact.