ForgotPassword?
Sign Up
Search this Topic:
Forum Jump
Posts: 970
Fri, 22-Jul-11 15:33:17
Proteus wrote: Obviously I may say some things elsewhere that I don't say here.Whether or not the Jesus figure of the GT is based on a historical figure is a wholly different question from whether or not the historical original ever saved anyone from, to or for anything. Offhand I don't recall ever saying here that Jesus is a savior.
Posts: 5945
Sat, 23-Jul-11 09:14:16
Since I'm not proposing that Jesus is any kind of savior at all, there's no point in answering that question.
Sat, 23-Jul-11 09:39:21
By comparison to the initial post, and to recent posts:Just as there apparently was a historical person around whom legends developed, and the name "Robin Hood" got attached;so also there probably was a historical person around whom legends developed, and the name "Jesus of Nazareth" either got attached or was there from the start. "Davy Crockett," for example, was the real name of a real person who became legendary.The latter legends developed further into the Christian myth.The bone of contention between Gideon and myself is that he appears to propose either (1) that there actually never was any such historical person, or (2) that if there was one, the person lived sometime other than the First Century.I propose that there was such a person, and that this individual lived ~1 C.E. - ~30 C.E.It seems to me there's abundant circumstantial evidence to support that. No, for certain, no one can prove such a person ever lived. But it seems certain that this other guy, Saul of Tarsus, did live, perhaps ~20 C.E. - ~70 C.E. And it seems unlikely that the other persons mentioned in his letters, i.e. Peter, James and the others, were mere figments of his imagination. So they had to come from somewhere, and in a corresponding time frame. Everything points to the presence or absence of a Jesus who lived in the time frame I mentioned. And presence seems more likely than absence.This individual would have been markedly different from the "xian idol." At the end of the last of his three books on the subject, Geza Vermes demonstrates that a historical Jesus would not recognize any but the first clause of the Nicene Creed. To my mind, he would most likely not have been much obviously different from anyone who participates here.
Sat, 23-Jul-11 09:42:28
Please see also Replies Nos. 1-6 on the first page.
Posts: 20703
Sat, 23-Jul-11 19:11:16
Moderator
Proteus wrote:Since I'm not proposing that Jesus is any kind of savior at all, there's no point in answering that question.
Sat, 23-Jul-11 20:28:43
Proteus wrote: Just as there apparently was a historical person around whom legends developed, and the name "Robin Hood" got attached;so also there probably was a historical person around whom legends developed, and the name "Jesus of Nazareth" either got attached or was there from the start. "Davy Crockett," for example, was the real name of a real person who became legendary.The latter legends developed further into the Christian myth.The bone of contention between Gideon and myself is that he appears to propose either (1) that there actually never was any such historical person, or (2) that if there was one, the person lived sometime other than the First Century.I propose that there was such a person, and that this individual lived ~1 C.E. - ~30 C.E.
Just as there apparently was a historical person around whom legends developed, and the name "Robin Hood" got attached;so also there probably was a historical person around whom legends developed, and the name "Jesus of Nazareth" either got attached or was there from the start. "Davy Crockett," for example, was the real name of a real person who became legendary.The latter legends developed further into the Christian myth.The bone of contention between Gideon and myself is that he appears to propose either (1) that there actually never was any such historical person, or (2) that if there was one, the person lived sometime other than the First Century.I propose that there was such a person, and that this individual lived ~1 C.E. - ~30 C.E.
It is totally immaterial to a Jew if Jesus was real or fictional -- it is not important to us at all
Sat, 23-Jul-11 20:57:41
Posts: 7963
Sun, 24-Jul-11 05:53:43
Proteus wrote:I'm not proposing that J-sus is any kind of savior at all
If that is true (and I remain to be convinced of this), you’re the only christian in history who doesn’t. But how is anyone ever supposed to discuss anything with any christian if each and every one of you makes up his own definitions all the time, and often (I suspect) changes them to fit in with the claims he happens to be making in one specific discussion?
http://mordochai.tripod.com - פרופ' מָרְדֳּכַי בֶּן-צִיּוֹן, יְרוּשָׁלַיִם, אֶרֶץ יִשְׂרָאֵל
Posts: 975
Mon, 25-Jul-11 08:12:18
Mon, 25-Jul-11 11:15:33
I'm not on this thread proposing any savior at all. I'm not discussing any form (participle, gerund, infinitive, whatever) of the verb "save" at all. I see no pertinence of any such discussion to the thread.
Mon, 25-Jul-11 11:26:10
Mon, 25-Jul-11 11:30:58
Mon, 25-Jul-11 12:13:24
Posts: 4849
Mon, 25-Jul-11 15:29:22
Administrator
Proteus wrote: "Yeshua" was probably a pretty common name in Jesus' time.
Mon, 25-Jul-11 18:50:04
Proteus wrote:"Yeshua" was probably a pretty common name in Jesus' time.
Actually, it wasn’t (Uri made exactly the same response).The point is that יֵשֽׁוּעַ Yéshua is an Aramaic diminutive/familiar form of the Hebrew name יְהוֹשֻֽׁעַ Y'hoshua and was only used duriung the Babylonian Exile period (597-539BCE); its popularity declined after the Return and it was supplanted by the shorter, Hebrew diminutive/familiar form יֵֽשׁוּ Yéshu. Only one יְהוֹשֻֽׁעַ Y'hoshua of any significance was ever known as יֵשֽׁוּעַ Yéshua, and his full name was יְהוֹשֻֽׁעַ בֶּן־יְהוֹצָדָק Y'hoshua ben Y'hotzadak—he was the grandson of שְׂרָיָה S'rayah, the last Chief Kohén who served in the First Temple. Y'hotzadak was among the exiles who were deported to Babylonia after the First Temple was destroyed (see Divrei Hayamim Alef 5:41) and his son Y'hoshua was born in Babylonia; his name appears several times in the writings of the exilic prophets (Ḥaggai, Z'charyah). Y'hoshua eventually joined Crown Prince Z'rubavel (and other Elders) in leading the returning exiles (after Koresh announced his amnesty) and assumed the rôle of first Chief Kohén of the Second Temple (see Ezra 2:2; N'ḥemyah 7:7; Ḥaggai 1:1, 1:12, 1:14, 2:2, 2:4; Z'charyah 3:1, 6:11, etc). His name also appears in the shortened form Yéshua in Ezra 3:2, 3:8, 10:18 and N'ḥemyah 12:26.Regarding the Greek transliterated form of the names Y'hoshua, Yéshua and Yéshu in the christian pseudo-septuagint, see my post #23 in Alesiah’s thread entitled “EASTER-COMMUNION/SACRAMENT” where it is deduced that the spelling of the transliteration of יְהוֹשֻֽׁעַ Y'hoshua seems to have been deliberately falsified to make it match the way that יֵֽשׁוּ Yéshu (“J-sus”) is spelt in the Greek Garbage.
Mon, 25-Jul-11 20:59:27
Mon, 25-Jul-11 21:26:58
Sophiee1 wrote:many of the concepts ascribed to J-sus along with the parables and "new ideas" (as in the Sermon on the Mount) are found in other religions.
Every single idea in the “Sermon on the Mount” can be traced back to Judaism, Sophie—and not only that, but they were all teachings of those wicked, hypocritical “Pharisees” too.
Tue, 26-Jul-11 10:23:11
Tue, 26-Jul-11 10:58:15
Well, your most recent post is a relief.I think my posts "THIS MAY BE CLEARER" and "JUMP START: WHY I WANT A HISTORICAL JESUS" were pretty clear.There's NOT necessarily much else to make of it.
Tue, 26-Jul-11 11:00:26
Share This