Secular Historians regarding Jesus

[Fenris]

Personal responsibility. Take it.

never.

But I'm not talking about the empty tomb here, I'm talking about the existence of Jesus. I don't have a problem with people denying an empty tomb, I do have a problem with the claim that Jesus never existed, only because it's so outrageous.

I don't think it's "outrageous" although I believe the guy did exist.

Nobody forces you to believe in Jesus' 'mythological' powers either. It seemed to be your contention that because we don't have a written source written during the lifetime of Jesus that means we can't know very much about him and even that his very existence is a question (i.e. your 'leaning' to him existing). My contention is this is an unreasonable requirement because it can easily be applied to other ancient figure like Alexander the Great. Why do you believe what you do about him when there is no surviving source written during his lifetime?

Because he left behind an empire. Someone did all that fighting and conquering.

I don't see that I do. Do you really think all meaning is lost when something is translated into another language?

"all meaning"? No. Is something lost? I think so, yes.

For example, I happen to be personally fond of the KJV because it captures the poetry of the Hebrew even though it's not a good translation keeping to the fidelity of the text.

There's no substitute for the original.

I never seriously made such a comment. I only said you seem to lack understanding with the particular issue we were dealing with. That's not a swipe, I lack understanding in many things.

Fine. retracted.

[BrckBrln]

Because he left behind an empire. Someone did all that fighting and conquering.

Jesus left behind a whole religion. Someone had to have been the basis for that, right?

"all meaning"? No. Is something lost? I think so, yes.

For example, I happen to be personally fond of the KJV because it captures the poetry of the Hebrew even though it's not a good translation keeping to the fidelity of the text.

There's no substitute for the original.

I understand and agree.

[Fenris]

Jesus left behind a whole religion. Someone had to have been the basis for that, right?

As I said, that could be his followers more than him. Could be.

I understand and agree

BTW I started a thread in bible chat about the age of the gospels that could use some lovin. It's generating less interest than I expected.

[rejoice44]

BTW I started a thread in bible chat about the age of the gospels that could use some lovin. It's generating less interest than I expected.

What if one was to ask you when and who wrote the Old Testament? What kind of answers would be forthcoming?

[Bandit]

Jesus left behind a whole religion. ...

I'm not exactly sure what is meant by this, or how to take it.

[BrckBrln]

I'm not exactly sure what is meant by this, or how to take it.

I mean to say he was the focal point for what became a new religion.

[Fenris]

What if one was to ask you when and who wrote the Old Testament? What kind of answers would be forthcoming?

Start a thread and we can have that discussion. I'm game.

[Bandit]

I mean to say he was the focal point for what became a new religion.

But a question could be, did Jesus (or His followers) start a new religion, or if he was who He claimed, did He rather extend or progress the one, true religion? In other words, His 'extention' of Judaism may be what Judaism was suppose to become - kind of like when a catapiller changes into a butterfly.

[BrckBrln]

But a question could be, did Jesus (or His followers) start a new religion, or if he was who He claimed, did He rather extend or progress the one, true religion? In other words, His 'extention' of Judaism may be what Judaism was suppose to become - kind of like when a catapiller changes into a butterfly.

I agree with you but it's a theological point. The fact is that Christianity is a separate religion from Judaism.

[rejoice44]

I agree with you but it's a theological point. The fact is that Christianity is a separate religion from Judaism.

I would disagree. What makes it a different religion? It is the same God, who is worshiped in the manner that God dictated.

Did Peter, John, and Paul change religions?

[Bandit]

I would disagree. What makes it a different religion? It is the same God, who is worshiped in the manner that God dictated.

Did Peter, John, and Paul change religions?

I also disagree. Doesn't the writer of the Book of Hebrews, after he has just cited a great many examples of faith from the Old Testament in chapter 11 (from both before, and then under the Old Covenant), say,

"Therefore we also, since we are surrounded by so great a cloud of witnesses..." [Heb. 12:1].

So, I do not believe it is correct to say that Christianity is a different or new religion. It is a New Covenant from the one and only true God, and those who lived before the Law, or during the Law, are just as much a part of the same 'religion' as we. (For how else can the writer of Hebrews write as he does?)

[BrckBrln]

I would disagree.

You disagree that Judaism and Christianity are different religions?

What makes it a different religion?

The fact that Jews and Christians don't agree on who Jesus was.

It is the same God, who is worshiped in the manner that God dictated.

Really? What about Islam? They claim to worship the God of Abraham.

The fact is Christians believe Jesus to be God and Jews don't. How can you then say they worship the same God?

Did Peter, John, and Paul change religions?

Not like I would if I switched from Christianity to Buddhism. They believed Jesus to be the climax of the story of Israel, her Messiah, God incarnate. Because of this I don't think they would agree with you that they worship the same God as those who reject the Messiah.

[rejoice44]

You disagree that Judaism and Christianity are different religions?

yes.

The fact that Jews and Christians don't agree on who Jesus was.

Most Jews, not all Jews. The remnant of the Old Testament is still a remnant in the New Testament.

Acts 6:7 And the word of God increased; and the number of the disciples multiplied in Jerusalem greatly; and a great company of the priests were obedient to the faith.

Really? What about Islam? They claim to worship the God of Abraham.

The God of Mohammed is not the God of Abraham.

The fact is Christians believe Jesus to be God and Jews don't. How can you then say they worship the same God?

For your premise to be correct Judaism had to change at some point, because Jesus gave them spiritual drink in the wilderness.

1Cr 10:4 And did all drink the same spiritual drink: for they drank of that spiritual Rock that followed them: and that Rock was Christ.

At one point the Jews had lost the book of the law. Did their losing the book of the law change Judaism? Many times the Jews lost touch with God, but that did not change Judaism.

Not like I would if I switched from Christianity to Buddhism. They believed Jesus to be the climax of the story of Israel, her Messiah, God incarnate. Because of this I don't think they would agree with you that they worship the same God as those who reject the Messiah.

Your statement is that Judaism and Christianity are two different religions, but yet Christ was the promised seed, a Jew who practiced Judaism. When did Jesus instruct anyone to act contrary to the law? Are not Christians followers of Christ whether they be Jews or Gentiles. And if they follow Christ are they not keeping the heart of the law?

[BrckBrln]

yes.

I don't understand. Do Christians and Jews believe the same thing about God and Jesus? If not, then how are they not two different religions?

Most Jews, not all Jews. The remnant of the Old Testament is still a remnant in the New Testament.

Okay, but the Jewish remnant are now called Christians by virtue of them believing in, you know, Christ.

The God of Mohammed is not the God of Abraham.

Why not? Is it because they reject Christ? Guess who else rejects Christ? People who are believing Jews.

For your premise to be correct Judaism had to change at some point, because Jesus gave them spiritual drink in the wilderness.

This whole thing is ridiculous. I don't think you understand I'm speaking in terms of historical fact. I've already agreed with you and Bandit on the theological point of Jesus being Israel's Messiah and thus his followers were simply people who embraced the whole story of Israel, while most did not. Because of this, there are now two different religions, Judaism and Christianity. They are not the same thing. How is what I'm saying controversial?

[Fenris]

Yeah this topic took an odd turn.

You can define your own religion, I suppose. But what gives one the right to define someone elses religion?

"I know you think you're Jewish. But you're really a Christian".