Was there a human Jesus?

[Seasanctuary]

Select as many as apply. Further comments are welcome.

[John Powell]

POWELL:
Although both skeptical views are reasonably possible, the preponderance of the evidence favors the mythical view. The extraordinary Christian view is rational, but it has a considerably lower probability than either of the skeptical views.

I notice that you didn't vote, Seasanctuary.

John Powell

[Seasanctuary]

I chose the second two, since I lean toward there being an actual Jesus whose messianic movement was aborted by running afoul of Rome...and this disappointment leading to "sightings" and subsequent reinterpretation of his goals as the ushering in of a spiritual age.

On the other hand, the Gospels do show some obvious fabrications designed to fit with the authors' notions of prophecy fulfillment and mythological patterns (e.g. the birth narratives). Since there is no corroborating evidence that Jesus existed, the possibility is still very much there that he didn't have to exist.

[bandecoot]

I take the path of least resistance with this issue, based on one piece of Corroberating evidence in Tacitus.

Christus, from whom the name had its origin, suffered the extreme penalty during the reign of Tiberius at the hands of one of our procurators, Pontius Pilatus, and a most mischievous superstition, thus checked for the moment, again broke out not only in Judæa, the first source of the evil, but even in Rome, where all things hideous and shameful from every part of the world find their centre and become popular.
Tacitus Annals 15 - 44

Given that that gibes more or less with the Gospels. Why not just let it slide? Its a lot easier to admit to evidence than prove a negative.


Lazy I know, but as I have no investment in the issue either way its just not a big deal.

[Seasanctuary]

Bande, I think usually we skeptics just get skeptical about whether Tacitus got this information from an independent source or just asked some Christians who referenced the Gospel stories.

But yeah, I lean toward a real Jesus getting crucified anyway so either way works fine.

[bandecoot]

Bande, I think usually we skeptics just get skeptical about whether Tacitus got this information from an independent source or just asked some Christians who referenced the Gospel stories.

But yeah, I lean toward a real Jesus getting crucified anyway so either way works fine.


I went through all that some time ago. If you look at Tactitus' agenda and the language he uses in Latin to describe Christians and Christianity Its unlikely that he went out and asked a Christian anything. Other than "guilty or not guilty of Nefas?" .

Tacitus was trying to posthumously blacken Nero in particular and the Julio-Claudians in general. If you read what he wassaying as " Look how vile Nero was, the people supported Criminals who deserved the deathpenalty rather than support Nero. Are you not glad that The Flavians took over after that dreadful year of 4 Emperors? Look what we saved you from!"

The words he uses to describe Christianity is just short of foul language in Latin he called it Evil, A deadly supersition, and a lot worse. I dont see this guy asking a Christian for anything.

[MegaHertz]

I voted yes, this way it is only satans bruise to the head that needs to be fullfilled as the bruise to the heel is already past.

[Pilgrim]

This part of theology web is for atheists only. If you are a not an atheist please do not post here.

[Jayhawker Soule]

POWELL:
Although both skeptical views are reasonably possible, the preponderance of the evidence favors the mythical view.
How does one achieve a preponderance of evidence in an argument from silence?

[Kulindrichnus]

Select as many as apply. Further comments are welcome.

None of them apply, because whether there was or was not an historical Jesus has no bearing on whether the claims about his powers/feats are or are not absurd. Consider a similar case from antiquity; Atenism is obsurd, and it would still be absurd if Akhenaten had been fictional. We know he was a real person, of course- but so what?

In Jesus' case, Christianity's claims remain absurd independent of whatever evidence for or against his existence we can drag from antiquity. If we say Jesus is fictional, then so what? And if we say he is historical, so what? It is not purposeful to ask this question; what advances will we gain by knowing?

K

(eternal positivist)

[Jayhawker Soule]

None of them apply, because ...None of them apply to what?
... whether there was or was not an historical Jesus has no bearing on whether the claims about his powers/feats are or are not absurd.Whether there was or was not an historical Jesus has no bearing on the viscosity of peanut butter, but this thread is not about peanut butter or Diety.

I believe that the issue of historicity has value as history. If you disagree, why not just ignore the thread?

[John Powell]

Jayhawker Soule:
How does one achieve a preponderance of evidence in an argument from silence?

POWELL:
Accepting your characterization as true for the sake of argument, a clearly correct answer is by achieving it.

I feel a need to use circular arguments more so people have a more correct appreciation for how deductive reasoning works.

Let's consider a passage that isn't merely silent on a historical Jesus, but excludes a historical Jesus.

Heb 8 (KJV):
1 NOW of the things which we have spoken this is the sum: We have such an high priest, who is set on the right hand of the throne of the Majesty in the heavens;

2 A minister of the sanctuary, and of the true tabernacle, which the Lord pitched, and not man.

3 For every high priest is ordained to offer gifts and sacrifices: wherefore it is of necessity that this man have somewhat also to offer.

4 For if he were on earth, he should not be a priest, seeing that there are priests that offer gifts according to the law:

5 Who serve unto the example and shadow of heavenly things, as Moses was admonished of God when he was about to make the tabernacle: for, See, saith he, that thou make all things according to the pattern shewed to thee in the mount.

6 But now hath he obtained a more excellent ministry, by how much also he is the mediator of a better covenant, which was established upon better promises.


POWELL:
The writer is affirming that Jesus's priestly ministry was not on Earth but in heaven. If Jesus had been on Earth then He wouldn't be a priest since, I guess, the writer thinks there would be an awkward conflict between His ministry and that of the existing priests.

Perhaps you think the writer believes that if Jesus were on the Earth at the time of the writing of Hebrews then Jesus would somehow lose His priesthood. Is that what you think he thinks?

John Powell

[John Powell]

BANDECOOT:
I take the path of least resistance with this issue, based on one piece of Corroberating evidence in Tacitus.


POWELL:
The question is not what position is easier to debate, but which position is most likely true. Weak atheism is easier to defend than strong atheism so too many strong atheists falsly claim to be weak atheists.

BANDECOOT:
Christus, from whom the name had its origin, suffered the extreme penalty during the reign of Tiberius at the hands of one of our procurators, Pontius Pilatus, and a most mischievous superstition, thus checked for the moment, again broke out not only in Judæa, the first source of the evil, but even in Rome, where all things hideous and shameful from every part of the world find their centre and become popular.

Tacitus Annals 15 - 44


POWELL:
How did this information come to Tacitus if not via a Christian to him or to his source or to the source of his source or whatever?

BANDECOOT:
Given that that gibes more or less with the Gospels. Why not just let it slide?


POWELL:
Because it results in an incorrect conclusion, that Jesus was historical.

BANDECOOT:
Its a lot easier to admit to evidence than prove a negative.


POWELL:
Yea, if you're wishy washy, Charlie Brown.

BANDECOOT:
Lazy I know, but as I have no investment in the issue either way its just not a big deal.


POWELL:
So you'll agree with which ever side makes life easiest for you?

Believing in a mythical Jesus makes it much easier to deal with the horny problem the Jesus Seminar took on of determining which Biblical passages were the authentic words of Jesus.

I'm pleased to announce that the historian Richard Carrier has become a Jesus myther. He admitted this in his recent debate on the infidelguy show.

John Powell

[Jayhawker Soule]

How does one achieve a preponderance of evidence in an argument from silence?Accepting your characterization as true for the sake of argument, a clearly correct answer is by achieving it.That was less than helpful.

I feel a need to use circular arguments more so people have a more correct appreciation for how deductive reasoning works.Begging the question (circulus in demonstrando) is not at all deductive reasoning.

Let's consider a passage that isn't merely silent on a historical Jesus, but excludes a historical Jesus. ... Heb 8You offer as "a preponderance of evidence" a patchwork gospel, probably from Egypt, and written decades after the fact? It seems to me that you are providing an excellent example of eisegesis, since I see nothing in the text that "excludes a historical Jesus".

[John Powell]

Jayhawker Soule:
How does one achieve a preponderance of evidence in an argument from silence?

POWELL:
Accepting your characterization as true for the sake of argument, a clearly correct answer is by achieving it.


Jayhawker Soule:
That was less than helpful.


POWELL:
Then you should come to realize that deductive arguments tend to be that way.

POWELL:
I feel a need to use circular arguments more so people have a more correct appreciation for how deductive reasoning works.


Jayhawker Soule:
Begging the question (circulus in demonstrando) is not at all deductive reasoning.


POWELL:
Oh goodie, another person in need of a lesson in deductive reasoning. How is it possible that the premise is true but the circular conclusion is false?

What do you think a valid deductive argument is if not an argument in which the truth of the premise(s) guarantees the truth of the conclusion?

POWELL:
Let's consider a passage that isn't merely silent on a historical Jesus, but excludes a historical Jesus. ... Heb 8


Jayhawker Soule:
You offer as "a preponderance of evidence" a patchwork gospel, probably from Egypt, and written decades after the fact?


POWELL:
No. I merely offered one thing intended to respond to the challenge to produce something that wasn't merely an argument from silence. Did I do that? Do you concede that the mythical position is based on more than merely an argument from silence?

Jayhawker Soule:
It seems to me that you are providing an excellent example of eisegesis, since I see nothing in the text that "excludes a historical Jesus".


POWELL:
Then please explain what the author of Hebrews likely meant by that passage that supports the view that the author believed that Jesus had been on Earth. Or, do you concede that the author of Hebrews, at least, did not believe that Jesus had been on Earth?

John Powell

[Jayhawker Soule]

Then please explain what the author of Hebrews likely meant ...The author is summing up (verse 1). He is speaking of the post-resurrection Jesus, 'High Priest of the Better Covenant' - a Jesus who is no longer on earth.

... that supports the view that the author believed that Jesus had been on Earth.There is nothing in Heb 8:1-6 that suggests otherwise.

Or, do you concede that the author of Hebrews, at least, did not believe that Jesus had been on Earth?Get over yourself ... then read Hebrews 2:5-18.

[Seasanctuary]

Because it results in an incorrect conclusion, that Jesus was historical.

Do you have any particular threads or off-site essays on this topic? I'd be interested in taking a look if you'd kindly point me in that direction.

- Sea

[Seasanctuary]

Help, mods, Christians are voting in the poll! Could you, shoo them out or something? Thanks. :)

(This is why I make polls in this forum show the names of voters. You never know when new people to the site -- like themuzicman -- will feel the need to throw off polls in the nonTheist forum.)

- Sea

[Jayhawker Soule]

Do you have any particular threads or off-site essays on this topic? I'd be interested in taking a look if you'd kindly point me in that direction.If you have not seen it before, you might wish to look at The Jesus Puzzle (http://www.jesuspuzzle.com/), as well as Kirby's Historical Jesus Theories (http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/theories.html).

[C. D. Ward]

(This is why I make polls in this forum show the names of voters. You never know when new people to the site -- like themuzicman -- will feel the need to throw off polls in the nonTheist forum.)
The good news is that there aren't that many of them voting here, so they're not really "throwing off" the results that much... :hehe:

[rach12]

I voted for 3, but I also should have voted for 2.

I think there was likely a religious man who had a small following and perhaps made an impression on the people of the region. His name may or may not have been Jesus.

I haven't been able to determine whether he was just a friendly neighborhood preacher who managed to inspire a lot of people through his ideas and goodness or one who was a bit of a nutjob with a messianic complex - a David Koresh type person.

If all I had to go on was the Bible, I'd say he was a nutjob, but if the Bible is mostly false with respect to Jesus (which is what I believe), then I lean in the direction of him being a well-respected and much-loved unorthodox religious leader/teacher.

[John Powell]

Jayhawker Soule (to SeaSanctuary):
If you have not seen it before, you might wish to look at The Jesus Puzzle (http://www.jesuspuzzle.com/), as well as Kirby's Historical Jesus Theories (http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/theories.html).


POWELL:
:thumb:

I was persuaded by Doherty's Jesus puzzle information. I would expect Kirby's site to be especially fair.

John Powell

[John Powell]

C. D. Ward:
The good news is that there aren't that many of them voting here, so they're not really "throwing off" the results that much... :hehe:


POWELL:
:glare:

Hah! I bet you wish you had a historian on your side! Oh, I see. :eek:

John Powell

[Jayhawker Soule]

Kirby, in his Historical Jesus Theories (http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/theories.html) site, classifies G. A. Wells as a mythicist but notes:However, in his latest books, Wells allows that such a complex of tradition as we have in the synoptic gospels could not have developed so quickly (by the end of the first century) without some historical basis; and so some elements ascribed there to the life of Jesus presumably derive ultimately from the life of a first century Galilean preacher. The essential point, as Wells sees it, is that this personage is not to be identified with the dying and rising Christ of the Pauline and other early documents, and that the two have quite separate origins. The Jesus of the earliest Christians did not, on this view, preach and work miracles (or what were taken for such) in Galilee, and was not crucified by Pilate in Jerusalem.While I would take exception to the last sentence, the point seems valid to me. It becomes even more so when we include in this "complex of tradition" such things as the Gospel of Thomas and the Gospel of the Hebrews, both of which appear to be independent of the Synoptics.

I also feel that some consideration must be given to the existence of the Jerusalem sect. If the "Pillars of Jerusalem", and the tension between the Jerusalem cult and Paul are all deemed to be a fiction, it certainly seems to be an elaborate and inexplicable one. It seems far more parsimonious to grant the existence of this group. This, of course, raises the question of the group's history. Cults tend to form around cult leaders, and to posit a Galilean 'Yeshua' cult leader at the close of the 2nd Temple Period is hardly a stretch.

[John Powell]

POWELL:
Then please explain what the author of Hebrews likely meant ...


Jayhawker Soule:
The author is summing up (verse 1). He is speaking of the post-resurrection Jesus, 'High Priest of the Better Covenant' - a Jesus who is no longer on earth.


POWELL:
The writer of Hebrews implies that Jesus hadn't been on Earth. Notice that if the writer believed that Jesus had been on Earth then the problem he suggested was avoided because Jesus hadn't been on Earth wasn't avoided.

Even if you're right about the first part then let me point out that just because somebody resurrects doesn't necessarily imply they died on Earth. There were more places imagined that such events could occur than merely on Earth. There were thought to be realms between the Earth and the highest heaven where God dwelt.

POWELL:
... that supports the view that the author believed that Jesus had been on Earth.


Jayhawker Soule:
There is nothing in Heb 8:1-6 that suggests otherwise.


POWELL:
The author implies that if Jesus had been on Earth then such and such would have been the case. This implies that he didn't believe Jesus had been on Earth.

POWELL:
Or, do you concede that the author of Hebrews, at least, did not believe that Jesus had been on Earth?


Jayhawker Soule:
Get over yourself ... then read Hebrews 2:5-18.


POWELL:
You ask too much of me. Reading Hebrews 2:5-18 isn't asking too much.

After a quick reading, it appears to me that the author of those words imagines that Jesus is between being a normal man living on Earth and an angel living in some heavenly realm, but closer to being an angel than a normal man. That suggests he thinks Jesus dwelt in a realm intermediate between earth and the heaven where the angels dwelt, but closer to heaven than to earth. Apparently, he thought that Jesus had the option to take on angelic form and live in a higher realm, but he took on the form of a seed of Abraham and a brother to Christians and occupied a slightly lower realm than the angels (but still a realm above the Earth) to fulfil his ministry.

How do you interprete Hebrews 2:5-18?

John Powell

[Jayhawker Soule]

I need to leave now, but will try to address this later this evening. I'm sorry for any inconvenience.

[John Powell]

Jayhawker Soule:
I need to leave now, but will try to address this later this evening. I'm sorry for any inconvenience.


POWELL:
No problem. These issues will likely remain relevant days, weeks, months, even years into the future.

John Powell

[Jayhawker Soule]

No problem. These issues will likely remain relevant days, weeks, months, even years into the future.Mr. Powell, I chose to move a discussion of Hebrews to its own thread so as to not derail this one. I hope that works for you. I'd also appreciate feedback concerning my comments regarding the Jerusalem cult. Thanks.

[XaositectCrayon]

Third

I believe Yeshu of the Nazerene movement was "Jesus". Yeshu is an old word for heretic and they often refered to him as Yeshua and Yehoshua in the Talmud. He was hung from a tree at the eve of passover 33 BCE by the Jews (possibly even with the Roman cooperation).

HOWEVER there is obvious flaws with the bible text if this was true. I think some are more minor than others might think. For instance you'd have to accept that all of this was a combination of oral tradition and information from the resurection (if you believe in such). Secondly, though it's date is similar (33 bce instead of 33 ce, eve of passover) the method of execution and the executioners are far different. Thirdly, there was no mention of virgin births (though he supposedly did come from Gallilee, though not necessarily from which town) or miracles, they claimed he was a sorcerer though. Fourthly you'd have to accept errancy in the bible (which isnt really that hard considering that the bible was created by the Roman Catholic Church and at the end of a bloody faction war) ALOT of errancy (look at the medieval popes, not hard to see how that could have happened). Lastly, that the entire basis of Christianity is errant (and could very well be "the great deception" the the deciever had made) and in reality it was the Nazarene movement to begin with.

But the old testament is just a bunch of crap the Jews wrote to make themselves look holier than thou...

[Jayhawker Soule]

Yeshu is an old word for heretic ...
<-- snip -->
But the old testament is just a bunch of crap the Jews wrote to make themselves look holier than thou ...
It's amazing how ignorance and antisemitism so often go hand-in-hand.

There is some debate over the meaning of "Yeshu." It has been used as an acronym for the Hebrew expression yemach shemo vezichro, meaning "May his name and memory be obliterated", a term used for those guilty of enticing Jews to idolatry and used in place of the real names of individuals guilty of such sins who are deemed not worthy of being remembered in history. Some argue that this has always been its meaning. Indeed the name does not correspond to any known Hebrew root and moreover no other individuals have ever borne this name in Jewish history, while the usage of the expression yemach shemo vezichro and its acronym were widely used in Jewish writings.

- see Wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yeshu)

[bandecoot]

POWELL:
The question is not what position is easier to debate, but which position is most likely true. Weak atheism is easier to defend than strong atheism so too many strong atheists falsly claim to be weak atheists.

When one really does not care, easy is good.


How did this information come to Tacitus if not via a Christian to him or to his source or to the source of his source or whatever?

Let me see, Tacitus and Agricola (his father in law) were both Flavian Clients, were administrators in the Flavian principiate.


Could he have checked some records?



POWELL:
Because it results in an incorrect conclusion, that Jesus was historical.



POWELL:
Yea, if you're wishy washy, Charlie Brown.



POWELL:
So you'll agree with which ever side makes life easiest for you?

Believing in a mythical Jesus makes it much easier to deal with the horny problem the Jesus Seminar took on of determining which Biblical passages were the authentic words of Jesus.

I'm pleased to announce that the historian Richard Carrier has become a Jesus myther. He admitted this in his recent debate on the infidelguy show.

John Powell


Great for Carrier, let him write what he likes. It really does not matter one way or the other.


Unless you have some investment in the idea, who cares?

[Seasanctuary]

The good news is that there aren't that many of them voting here, so they're not really "throwing off" the results that much... :hehe:

Really, my main point was to make fun of themuzicman. ;)

[Kulindrichnus]

I voted for 3, but I also should have voted for 2.

I think there was likely a religious man who had a small following and perhaps made an impression on the people of the region. His name may or may not have been Jesus.

But the likelyhood of that is very high. If we start from now and go back in time we can come up with a massive number of cult leaders who have behaved in just such a way over the 2000 years since; so it is safe to assume that such people would also have been runing about at the time Christianity emerged. If we say 'I think Christianity was inspired by a religious man, whether or not his name was jesus', that approaches a truism, and there is not anything useful about saying it.

Whether there was or was not a Jesus as per the Bible's claims, somebody somewhere had to start the Christian ball rolling: and it is certain that that person was a religious man with a following, whose name may or may not have been Jesus. So in this way an historical jesus becomes a certainty.

The point I was making earlier, which Jaywalker entirely missed, is that the historicity of Jesus cannot be uncoupled from the claims made about him without boiling the question down to a truism without any real historical value. As the claims made about him are in and of themselves absurd, the historicity of Jesus is irrelevant, unless one is willing to believe something, or entertain ideas, just because one wishes to and not because they are of any rational use.

K

[Jayhawker Soule]

The point I was making earlier, which Jaywalker entirely missed, is that ... the historicity of Jesus is irrelevant, ...
OK, Kulindrichnus, votes "irrelevant". Thanks for sharing.

[XaositectCrayon]

It's amazing how ignorance and antisemitism so often go hand-in-hand.
I dont hate the Jews... it's just from what I read of the archeological evidence is they were kicked out of egypt instead of escaping.

And the way Yeshu seemed to be used usually implies heretical meaning. Unless I have misread.


Also, if you look at it ALL religion is just retold to exagerate and make such and such look better. The only think that got Christianity sort of close to historicalness was that oral tradition was going out of mainstream. So they actually placed more importance on documents (albeit, constantly being written over and over and over.... since there was no printing press).

I meen I am sorry if I offended you but I carry that opinion about everyone... most writing is used to make the writer look better than they were because people are inheritly prideful.

[Seasanctuary]

I dont hate the Jews... it's just from what I read of the archeological evidence is they were kicked out of egypt instead of escaping.

Would you mind pointing me in that direction? I wasn't aware there was archeological evidence for the Jews being slaves in Egypt at all, let alone the sort to explain why/how they left.

And the way Yeshu seemed to be used usually implies heretical meaning. Unless I have misread.

Well, I'm pretty ignorant of Hebrew but I do know that Jesus is just a Greek form of Joshua (which is an English version of Yeshua)...and I kind of doubt the original Joshua fellow was named "heretic." ;)

[Jayhawker Soule]

I dont hate the Jews...
And the way Yeshu ...
Also, if you look at it ALL religion is ...
I meen I am sorry if I offended you but ...I'm sorry, XaositectCrayon, but I find nothing here of value, and certainly nothing worthy of discussion in this particular thread. Thank you, though, for your concern.

[John Powell]

POWELL:
The question is not what position is easier to debate, but which position is most likely true. Weak atheism is easier to defend than strong atheism so too many strong atheists falsly claim to be weak atheists.


BANDECOOT:
When one really does not care, easy is good.


POWELL:
Yes.

POWELL:
How did this information come to Tacitus if not via a Christian to him or to his source or to the source of his source or whatever?


BANDECOOT:
Let me see, Tacitus and Agricola (his father in law) were both Flavian Clients, were administrators in the Flavian principiate.

Could he have checked some records?


POWELL:
So, you think there was likely a government record in Rome giving the information Tacitus gave?

POWELL:
Because it results in an incorrect conclusion, that Jesus was historical.

. . .

POWELL:
Yea, if you're wishy washy, Charlie Brown.

. . .

POWELL:
So you'll agree with which ever side makes life easiest for you?

Believing in a mythical Jesus makes it much easier to deal with the horny problem the Jesus Seminar took on of determining which Biblical passages were the authentic words of Jesus.

I'm pleased to announce that the historian Richard Carrier has become a Jesus myther. He admitted this in his recent debate on the infidelguy show.

John Powell


BANDECOOT:
Great for Carrier, let him write what he likes. It really does not matter one way or the other.


POWELL:
You appear too apathetic to be the second historian to join our side.

BANDECOOT:
Unless you have some investment in the idea, who cares?


POWELL:
Nobody. I'm unaware of anyone caring about an idea that they haven't committed any time or support to. However, you have committed at least time to the idea of a non historical Jesus, so you would seem in the position to move to a higher level, to care.

John Powell

[XaositectCrayon]

Would you mind pointing me in that direction? I wasn't aware there was archeological evidence for the Jews being slaves in Egypt at all, let alone the sort to explain why/how they left.



Well, I'm pretty ignorant of Hebrew but I do know that Jesus is just a Greek form of Joshua (which is an English version of Yeshua)...and I kind of doubt the original Joshua fellow was named "heretic." ;)

Yeshu isnt Yeshua :-P go read Jaywalkers response to my original post

and I didnt actually see the evidence I read an article that I will look up now
http://www.bidstrup.com/bible.htm

according to the article they didnt even seem to be slaves. It could be wrong but I read other sites and stuff that makes Yeshu Ha Noztri (which is sometimes referred as Yeshua Ben Pandera) the most likely candidate for a historical Jesus. And if you believe in the resurection and an errant bible it does make sense. Weirder stuff has happened but I personally dont believe he was ressurected. I believe Paul had a convincing dream and ran off to find the Nazarenes and tell of his vision. The vision reminded them of a leader of the last generation. This was changed that was changed and in the end we got the bible.

[Jayhawker Soule]

I believe Paul had a convincing dream and ran off to find the Nazarenes and tell of his vision. The vision reminded them of a leader of the last generation. This was changed that was changed and in the end we got the bible.Actually, he charged off in the opposite direction. I mention this only to suggest that you actually learn something before tying to explain it to others. It will be far less embarrassing.

[bandecoot]

Would you mind pointing me in that direction? I wasn't aware there was archeological evidence for the Jews being slaves in Egypt at all, let alone the sort to explain why/how they left.

Donald Redford " Egypt Canaan and Israel in Ancient times" Give a pretty good picture of the Hykso being Chased out of Egypt by Amose. He argues that the Hyksos hid out with The early Hebrew people who lived in the hills of the levant.

There is no evidence that Jews lived there but there is evidence that a Semetic people ruled Egypt for 100 years. Then got kicked out.



Well, I'm pretty ignorant of Hebrew but I do know that Jesus is just a Greek form of Joshua (which is an English version of Yeshua)...and I kind of doubt the original Joshua fellow was named "heretic." ;)


Give the girl a prize. :smile: Mind you the original Joshua, probably no such person either.

[wiseman]

Donald Redford " Egypt Canaan and Israel in Ancient times" Give a pretty good picture of the Hykso being Chased out of Egypt by Amose. He argues that the Hyksos hid out with The early Hebrew people who lived in the hills of the levant.

There is no evidence that Jews lived there but there is evidence that a Semetic people ruled Egypt for 100 years. Then got kicked out.






Give the girl a prize. :smile: Mind you the original Joshua, probably no such person either.

I thought the hyksos (palestinian) invasion of egypt was pretty well documented. Dont we have a record of the shepard king and isnt the hyksos invasion the time when egypt got its first horses and chariots?

[XaositectCrayon]

Actually, he charged off in the opposite direction. I mention this only to suggest that you actually learn something before tying to explain it to others. It will be far less embarrassing.
yes and in the end he ended up in the same place

in any case I dont nitpick every minute detail on a tangent I went on because a recent pm threw into question whether or not I am a non theist.

anyways I'll go back and reprint what Jay said about Yeshu (Yeshu and Yeshua are NOT THE SAME WORD (the big print doesnt meen anger just big get your attention print)).

Originally Posted by Jaywalker Soule and quoted from wikipedia

There is some debate over the meaning of "Yeshu." It has been used as an acronym for the Hebrew expression yemach shemo vezichro, meaning "May his name and memory be obliterated", a term used for those guilty of enticing Jews to idolatry and used in place of the real names of individuals guilty of such sins who are deemed not worthy of being remembered in history. Some argue that this has always been its meaning. Indeed the name does not correspond to any known Hebrew root and moreover no other individuals have ever borne this name in Jewish history, while the usage of the expression yemach shemo vezichro and its acronym were widely used in Jewish writings.

lastly... I kinda wish to withdrawl... I already said what I wish to have said (that I believe it was pretty much Yeshu Ha Notzri or Yeshua Ben Pandera that constituted as the original Jesus in model or in the flesh) and am getting sucked into an off topic debate about many things. I dont meen anyone any ill will nor do I have any anger towards anyone here. I guess if anything, I will apologise for being kinda haphazard to my approach to talking about anything. I didnt consider this any more serious than someone discussing politics over a cup of coffee to begin with.

[Jayhawker Soule]

Donald Redford " Egypt Canaan and Israel in Ancient times" Give a pretty good picture of the Hykso being Chased out of Egypt by Amose. He argues that the Hyksos hid out with The early Hebrew people who lived in the hills of the levant. That is not at all his position (see pages 408-422).

[Jayhawker Soule]

I didnt consider this any more serious than someone discussing politics over a cup of coffee to begin with.No offense taken.

If you're interested, I believe that JJ Lowder, in his Josh McDowell's "Evidence" for Jesus - Is It Reliable? (http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/jeff_lowder/jury/chap5.html), provides a good overview of the Talmidic "evidence".

[John Powell]

Jayhawker Soule (to XaositectCrayon):
No offense taken.

If you're interested, I believe that JJ Lowder, in his Josh McDowell's "Evidence" for Jesus - Is It Reliable? (http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/jeff_lowder/jury/chap5.html), provides a good overview of the Talmidic [Talmudic?] "evidence".


POWELL:
Thank you for acknowledging that the words of the Talmud can count as evidence.

John Powell

[Goose]

There is not a detailed enough definition of the identity of such a man from the 1st Century CE to ascertain such a question. There are no extant manuscripts that agree as to the full identity of such a man. It cannot be answered "yes" or "no", for the fact that it is undefined. There are no accurate historical manuscripts that explain such a person's existence to the extent that he was even a Jew in good standing, let alone the Messiah. His life is undefined to that extent and therefore cannot be ascertained. It's like dividing a number by zero.

The parts of manuscripts that do agree, also sometimes show this man as not even being a good Jew, let alone Messiah. For instance, telling a man to leave his dead or dying father(Matt 8:21-22). Yet, Torah teaches us to love and honor our parents.

[bandecoot]

That is not at all his position (see pages 408-422).


I just reread the 4 great Origin traditions, whilst he makes no mention of that there, the evidence for a rout army moving into the area is fairly clear if you look at the footnotes and check the journals for yourself. See Chapter 10 "these are the Bene Yisra'el" with particular attention to the references footnoted.

[Jayhawker Soule]

Donald Redford " Egypt Canaan and Israel in Ancient times" Give a pretty good picture of the Hykso being Chased out of Egypt by Amose. He argues that the Hyksos hid out with The early Hebrew people who lived in the hills of the levant.
That is not at all his position (see pages 408-422).I just reread the 4 great Origin traditions, whilst he makes no mention of that there, the evidence for a rout army moving into the area is fairly clear if you look at the footnotes and check the journals for yourself. See Chapter 10 "these are the Bene Yisra'el" with particular attention to the references footnoted. It is not Redford's position that "the Hyksos hid out with The early Hebrew people who lived in the hills of the levant." Redford's speculations on Israelite ethnogenesis, the inversion of the Hyksos saga, and the possible role of the Shasu have zero relevancy to this thread.

[Jayhawker Soule]

There is not a detailed enough definition of the identity of such a man from the 1st Century CE to ascertain such a question. There are no extant manuscripts that agree as to the full identity of such a man. It cannot be answered "yes" or "no", for the fact that it is undefined. There are no accurate historical manuscripts that explain such a person's existence to the extent that he was even a Jew in good standing, let alone the Messiah. His life is undefined to that extent and therefore cannot be ascertained. It's like dividing a number by zero.Therefore?

Goose, what is your response to Wells (post #24)? How do you imagine the evolution of the sayings tradition occurred? What about the Jerusalem sect?

The parts of manuscripts that do agree, also sometimes show this man as not even being a good Jew, ...OK

[bandecoot]

It is not Redford's position that "the Hyksos hid out with The early Hebrew people who lived in the hills of the levant." Redford's speculations on Israelite ethnogenesis, the inversion of the Hyksos saga, and the possible role of the Shasu have zero relevancy to this thread.


I disagree. They have have great relevance to this thread.


Redford has his bias, we know that. but his ideas a re based on evidence not apologetics.


Unlike your position.

[Goose]

Therefore?

Goose, what is your response to Wells (post #24)? How do you imagine the evolution of the sayings tradition occurred? What about the Jerusalem sect?

OK
Can I have permission to post(being a theist)? I'll try to reply as soon as I can, I have a lot of homework right now.

[Jayhawker Soule]

I disagree. They have have great relevance to this thread.Very well, please explain the relevance of the 16th century BCE expulsion of the Hyksos to a thread titled "Was there a human Jesus".

Redford has his bias, we know that. but his ideas a re based on evidence not apologetics. Please pay attention: at issue is not the foundation of Redford's ideas but, rather, the accuracy of your characterization of those ideas. You are simply wrong, and anyone who wishes to invistigate that fact need only read the pages noted by me above.

Unlike your position.I'm sorry that you feel the need to engage in personal attacks.

[John Powell]

Goose:
Can I have permission to post(being a theist)? I'll try to reply as soon as I can, I have a lot of homework right now.


POWELL:
:no:

You're welcome to start a thread elsewhere such as in Apologetics 301.

John Powell

[Jayhawker Soule]

Can I have permission to post(being a theist)? I'll try to reply as soon as I can, I have a lot of homework right now.I certainly have no problem with you contribuing, but I'm not the one to ask. Actually, one would think that the topic would be more appropriate to one of the history forums.

Shalom

Jay

[John Powell]

BANDECOOT:
I disagree. They have have great relevance to this thread.


Jayhawker Soule:
Very well, please explain the relevance of the 16th century BCE expulsion of the Hyksos to a thread titled "Was there a human Jesus".


POWELL:
:hehe: Good point.

You're a more formidable poster than I originally gave you credit for, Jayhawker.

BANDECOOT:
Redford has his bias, we know that. [,] but his ideas a re [are] based on evidence not apologetics.


POWELL:
Rational persons rely on evidence as the basis of their ideas. "Apologetics" counts as evidence if it's helpful to the person to come to their view. The controversial question should be something else.

Jayhawker Soule:
Please pay attention: at issue is not the foundation of Redford's ideas but, rather, the accuracy of your characterization of those ideas. You are simply wrong, and anyone who wishes to invistigate that fact need only read the pages noted by me above.


POWELL:
It looks to me, Bandecoot, that you need to explain those pages Jayhawker Soule posted in light of your opposing characterizations of Redford's position.

BANDECOOT:
Unlike your position.


Jayhawker Soule:
I'm sorry that you feel the need to engage in personal attacks.


POWELL:
If Bandecoot's criticism of your position counts as a personal attack then surely your criticism "You are simply wrong" would count as a personal attack.

John Powell

[cavegirl]

Select as many as apply. Further comments are welcome.I voted c. Though I do not believe he said everything the bible says he said, I believe he was crucified, laid in a tomb (or grave?), and even think it's well possible that the body went missing. It is not an extraordinary claim - bodies have disappeared before and since - and it would explain the origin of the resurrection tales. But appearences before his disciples, now that's an extraordinary claim that does require more evidence. An eyewitness account would be a good start, but I think it's very telling that there's no direct (i.e. first person) account by any of the supposed witnesses (apart from Paul, but his report is about as credible as a post 1977 Elvis sighting).

[bandecoot]

Very well, please explain the relevance of the 16th century BCE expulsion of the Hyksos to a thread titled "Was there a human Jesus".

The OP asked for some pointers to OT inaccuracies.

Please pay attention: at issue is not the foundation of Redford's ideas but, rather, the accuracy of your characterization of those ideas. You are simply wrong, and anyone who wishes to invistigate that fact need only read the pages noted by me above.

I agree, anyone who wants to determine which of us are wrong need only read the Book, which is what I initially suggested to the OP. If Sea has any questions Sea can ask the questions.

I'm sorry that you feel the need to engage in personal attacks.

If you are that thin-skinned you perhaps have the wrong hobby. You are arguing this point via apologetics not evidence. You suggest the 4 Great Origins Traditions as his thesis on the accuracy of the Exodus account. I suggest Chapter 10 "These are the Bene Y'israel" which referes exclusively to Israel as the central thesis. Perhaps Sea should just read the whole thing.

In any case My suggestion was for Seasanct. Not you, as you obviously have the book as well.