More secular proof of Jesus' existence?

[Hypatia_Alexandria]

The rabbinic writings come too late to be good commentaries on scriptures. Anything post-Messianic is liable to be altered to make the fulfilled Messianic prophecies less apparent. There is plenty of incentive to cover-up the message of the Messiah, after the fact.

On what textual source evidence? Given that the Jewish Messiah has, as yet not arrived, how can Jewish literature contain anything "post Messianic"?

[Hypatia_Alexandria]

Riiight. That explains why you spend so much time hanging out on religious forums arguing with lay Christians about what you believe are mere fairy tales.

I detect a distinct animus. If the presence of those who challenge Christian preconceptions and beliefs causes you such irritation, and given that you are one of the owners, perhaps you should put a suggestion to the Board that this site be closed to anyone who does not profess a Christian belief.

[One Bad Pig]

I detect a distinct animus. If the presence of those who challenge Christian preconceptions and beliefs causes you such irritation, and given that you are one of the owners, perhaps you should put a suggestion to the Board that this site be closed to anyone who does not profess a Christian belief.

That would be sarcasm you're detecting, cherie. Looks like Sparko's comment hit uncomfortably close to the mark, given your reaction.

[Hypatia_Alexandria]

That would be sarcasm you're detecting, cherie. Looks like Sparko's comment hit uncomfortably close to the mark, given your reaction.

If you consider that the comments of pseudonymous contributors to a minor internet site are of any serious concern to me, you are sadly mistaken.

However, Sparko has made personal comments to me elsewhere on this site.

And from those remarks it appears that he does not care to have his preconceived theological ideas challenged in any way.

[Seeker]

If you consider that the comments of pseudonymous contributors to a minor internet site are of any serious concern to me, you are sadly mistaken.

Well said.

[One Bad Pig]

If you consider that the comments of pseudonymous contributors to a minor internet site are of any serious concern to me, you are sadly mistaken.

However, Sparko has made personal comments to me elsewhere on this site.

And from those remarks it appears that he does not care to have his preconceived theological ideas challenged in any way.

Oh, you're whinging about remarks made elsewhere. Seems like his remarks are more of a concern to you than you're willing to admit.

[Hypatia_Alexandria]

Oh, you're whinging about remarks made elsewhere. Seems like his remarks are more of a concern to you than you're willing to admit.

I am not "whinging" about anything. I merely did you the courtesy of replying to your remark and provided you with a little more information for clarification.

[DesertBerean]

On what textual source evidence? Given that the Jewish Messiah has, as yet not arrived, how can Jewish literature contain anything "post Messianic"?

Perhaps we should define what we mean by Rabbinic writings. Hilell? Gamaliel? Or the Masoretic texts?

[Hypatia_Alexandria]

Perhaps we should define what we mean by Rabbinic writings. Hilell? Gamaliel? Or the Masoretic texts?

You can select any Jewish writings you wish to. The Messiah has yet to arrive therefore there are no Jewish writings that contain any references to periods that are "post messianic".

[DesertBerean]

You can select any Jewish writings you wish to. The Messiah has yet to arrive therefore there are no Jewish writings that contain any references to periods that are "post messianic".

Naturally not.

[Sparko]

If you consider that the comments of pseudonymous contributors to a minor internet site are of any serious concern to me, you are sadly mistaken.

However, Sparko has made personal comments to me elsewhere on this site.

And from those remarks it appears that he does not care to have his preconceived theological ideas challenged in any way.

[Hypatia_Alexandria]

Yet you have ignored answering the question I to put you on the Stolen Land thread that is to be found on the Civics 101 board re the canonical gospels' accounts of the blasphemy charge.

Which of those do you accept as being the authentic and accurate account? Is it one of the versions found in the Synoptics? If so which one?

Or is John's version correct which mentions no such Sanhedrin trial?

[Sparko]

Yet you have ignored answering the question I to put you on the Stolen Land thread that is to be found on the Civics 101 board re the canonical gospels' accounts of the blasphemy charge.

Which of those do you accept as being the authentic and accurate account? Is it one of the versions found in the Synoptics? If so which one?

Or is John's version correct which mentions no such Sanhedrin trial?

[Hypatia_Alexandria]

I didn't answer because CP said to drop the discussion in that thread.

Here is what I see happening in discussions with you.
You pronounce some off the wall claim about the bible as if you were an expert. i.e. Paul never claimed to be a Jew, Jesus didn't claim to be divine, and was charged with blasphemy.

may

Your fringe claims

fringe claimsyouhillbilly

seem based on obscure sources in defiance to 2000 years of Christian scholarship.

2000 yearsDas Leben Jesu, kritisch bearbeitet in 1835.

When we show you actual scripture that proves your claims wrong, you hand wave it away as either not authentic (i.e. Paul didn't really write it).

Several of the epistles attributed to Paul are considered pseudepigrapic [aka Deutero-Pauline]. That is not a defamatory accusation that implies some unknown author was fraudulently passing off their work as that of Paul. Pseudepigraphy was common in the ancient world and often done as a mark of respect towards the person whose name was being employed.

or even claiming the scriptures are just a fiction.

and they led him away into their council chamberOn The Trial of Jesus of Nazarethdecurio and not a tribunus militarisχιλίαρχος took part in the arrest and most likely no Annas in the investigation, thereby suggesting that both are the invention of the writer of John; it remains a possibility that Jesus was arrested by a detachment of Roman soldiers who then took him to the residence of the high priest for interrogation by some Jewish official and that he was then handed back to the Roman soldiers to be taken to stand trial before the governor. After all he could hardly have been brought to Pilate in the early morning if Pilate had not had prior knowledge of his arrest. It also needs to be remembered that, like all Imperial powers, Rome had a well organised military intelligence service.

So we are once again back to the question, which you persistently refuse to address, as to which of these different versions is the accurate and authentic account?

You use the scripture when you feel it helps your case and handwave them away when they don't.

These texts are all we have on this topic and necessitate being assessed in a dispassionate and objectively critical manner. They sometimes mention known historical personages and real places, however, so does much narrative fiction. It is therefore required to analyse these texts and extract from them the known historical evidence and distinguish it from the surrounding literary embellishments.

You have created a bubble of invincible ignorance around yourself that is basically a waste of my and other's time trying to pop.

ignorance

Even IF the scripture is just "fiction," if you are going to debate them, you have to accept what they say in their own paradigm.

I suspect that what you really mean by that remark is that these texts must be unquestioningly accepted as inerrant. This is nothing more than your own tendentious theological standpoint.

Even if they are fiction, that doesn't mean that Jesus didn't claim to be divine, or that others claimed he was divine, or that Paul didn't claim he was Jewish within that "fiction"

That is a contradictory and nonsensical remark.

If these texts are indeed fictions, [as you have remarked], then it follows that their content is likewise fiction.

As long as you handwave away anything others say, there is no discussion to be had with you.

Once again this suggests that you appear unable to view these works except through the lens of your own preconceived beliefs in their inerrancy.

As far as the gospels go, they don't all mention the same events.

That is manifestly self-evident.

Also the Gospel of John's core message is that Jesus is divine. Heck it starts out with equating him with God! And in John 10, the Pharisees accuse him of blasphemy and equating himself with God:

The term Logos or Wordson of Godthe only Son in the bosom of the father And that is yet another dramatic fiction created by the writer of John.

You appear completely unable to comprehend that claiming to be the Jewish Messiah was not blasphemy in contemporary Judaism of the first century CE.

[Sparko]

may fringe claimsyouhillbilly2000 yearsDas Leben Jesu, kritisch bearbeitetand they led him away into their council chamberOn The Trial of Jesus of Nazarethdecurio and not a tribunus militarisχιλίαρχος took part in the arrest and most likely no Annas in the investigation, thereby suggesting that both are the invention of the writer of John; it remains a possibility that Jesus was arrested by a detachment of Roman soldiers who then took him to the residence of the high priest for interrogation by some Jewish official and that he was then handed back to the Roman soldiers to be taken to stand trial before the governor. After all he could hardly have been brought to Pilate in the early morning if Pilate had not had prior knowledge of his arrest. It also needs to be remembered that, like all Imperial powers, Rome had a well organised military intelligence service.

So we are once again back to the question, which you persistently refuse to address, as to which of these different versions is the accurate and authentic account? ignoranceLogos or Wordson of Godthe only Son in the bosom of the fatheranother dramatic fiction created by the writer of John.

You appear completely unable to comprehend that claiming to be the Jewish Messiah was not blasphemy in contemporary Judaism of the first century CE.

I don't care enough to answer your bloviating wall of text, other than to point out you responded with the exact tactics I said you use, proving me right, handwaving away scripture as fiction or some other excuse not to accept it. And then had the gall to accuse me of having preconceived beliefs. I can see why JP Holding kicked you out of his area so quickly.

Oh, and yes Christian scholarship goes back 2000 years to the writings of the Early Church Fathers.