DiscussMormonism.com

In a different thread there was a couple of claims that Jesus existed and that it's a FACT.

I don't think so. Here are my reasons:

1) Any mention of Jesus was hearsay.

2) The Gospel weren't written by the apostles.

3) Paul never met Jesus.

4) Gnosticism, which was widely practiced, differs greatly from Christianity and in its description of Christ.

5) Testimonium Flavianum is "patently fraudulent".

6) The ossuary of James the "brother of Jesus" was found to be a "patent fraud" as are other "proofs" like the shroud of Turin.

7) No contemporary accounts of Jesus.

antishock8 wrote:
5) Testimonium Flavianum is "patently fraudulent".

Only in the extant Greek. There are versions in other languages that lack the obvious Christian glosses. If you weren't such an unintelligent, unlearned pos you'd know that.

7) No contemporary accounts of Jesus.

If you weren't such an unintelligent, unlearned pos, then you'd know that ex post facto written history is the norm in antiquity. You would also know that oral tradition is conservative. (Again, if you weren't such an unintelligent, unlearned pos.)

Oh? CC did you run a statistical analysis on Josephus' word count and juxtapose that with the TF? It seems the TF contains vocabulary and grammar not otherwise used by Josephus.

I believe that a historical figure whom our concept of "Jesus" was based upon actually existed.

antishock8 wrote:Oh? CC did you run a statistical analysis on Josephus' word count and juxtapose that with the TF? It seems the TF contains vocabulary and grammar not otherwise used by Josephus.

And you know that because you've read it in the Greek? You are full of ****, and you know it. Quit while you are behind.

Dr. Shades wrote:I believe that a historical figure whom our concept of "Jesus" was based upon actually existed.

How so? Please share...

Oh brother, this again?

You're getting really sad man.

dartagnan wrote:Oh brother, this again?

You're getting really sad man.

Aren't you a deist? *cough* Why do you care if Jesus was historical or not?

antishock8 wrote:

Dr. Shades wrote:I believe that a historical figure whom our concept of "Jesus" was based upon actually existed.

How so? Please share...

I came to this conclusion thanks to the discovery of Gamla, an ancient Jewish city, in the Golan heights during the 1967 Arab-Israeli war. Archaeological finds there place it squarely into a New Testament context. Specifically:

• It is built on a pinnacle with nearly a sheer cliff face a short walk from its synagogue, which is a perfect match for the people trying to throw Jesus off the cliff after his sermon in the synagogue--Nazareth is flat and thus doesn't fit.
• Gamla is roughly five miles from the Sea of Galilee, thus fitting the description of Jesus and his disciples walking right to it following His departure from his hometown. (I don't recall Nazareth being anywhere near the Sea of Galilee).
• Olive farming was a major industry there, thus explaining Jesus' familiarity with olive horticulture and His parables related thereunto.
• Gamla was a hotbed of nationalistic fanaticism, being (I believe) the spot where the Zealots originated. This explains the far more plausible scenario of the historical Jesus being merely a local revolutionary whose goal was to overthrow the Roman authorities and install himself as king.

The specific-ness of these discoveries lead me to believe that the framework of the gospel narrative was based on some sort of fact.

How does placing the Biblical story within a historical context prove anything more than geographical features and population centers described in the Bible exist? Couldn't the same thing then be said about Zeus or Hercules? Vishnu? Buddha? Muhammed's visions? Joseph Smith's claims?