You are viewing an obsolete version of the DU website which is no longer supported by the Administrators. Visit The New DU.
Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

Reply #44: Quite the Contrary [View All]

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Topic Forums » Religion/Theology Donate to DU
On the Road Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Apr-03-08 01:39 PM
Response to Reply #43
44. Quite the Contrary
For at least 300 years, people would be more likely roasted alive for confessing a belief in Jesus.

There was much public criticism and mockery of the Christian religion in the 1st-3rd centuries, both from the Jews and Romans. Some of them, like the Tolodoth Ieschu, place Jesus in the previous century and disagree about details like the number of disciples. Some people took the view that Jesus appeared to those around him to be human but was in actuality a spirit. But to my knowledge, no source ever denied that a person named Jesus existed on earth. That is what is difficult to explain.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
  -If this is the best theological reasoning proponents of Jesus's historicity have to offer... BurtWorm  Mar-27-08 11:16 PM   #0 
  - ?  patrice   Mar-27-08 11:29 PM   #1 
  - I'm opposed to people arguing he was based on a historic figure  BurtWorm   Mar-27-08 11:32 PM   #2 
     - Everything I've ever read about the Jesus Seminar says they  patrice   Mar-27-08 11:51 PM   #4 
     - I believe that there is some  drmeow   Mar-27-08 11:53 PM   #5 
     - Yep. Those are some of the probable facts the Jesus Seminar identified. nt  patrice   Mar-28-08 12:05 AM   #6 
     - Where is that evidence you're talking about?  BurtWorm   Mar-28-08 12:12 AM   #8 
        - I'm not a historical scholar  drmeow   Mar-28-08 12:18 AM   #9 
        - Here's a conservative Christian scholar, if you will, on the census  BurtWorm   Mar-28-08 12:42 AM   #11 
        - 70 AD for the earliest of Paul's writings?  Heaven and Earth   Mar-28-08 04:11 AM   #13 
        - I may be confusing Paul's dates with the dates for the earliest gospel  BurtWorm   Mar-28-08 08:46 AM   #15 
        - Re that question, and with my personal caveat against deification/blasphemy:  patrice   Mar-28-08 08:15 AM   #14 
           - I don't understand your post.  BurtWorm   Mar-28-08 10:47 AM   #16 
              - I'm constructing an analogy for asking questions about things like the Bible.  patrice   Mar-28-08 12:49 PM   #20 
                 - S(S(S(S(S(Z)))))  cyborg_jim   Mar-29-08 07:50 AM   #31 
     - Christianity must have been founded, therefore "Jesus" existed, for some value of "Jesus".  Donald Ian Rankin   Apr-03-08 05:27 PM   #47 
        - Couldn't Paul be said to have founded Christianity?  trotsky   Apr-06-08 10:20 AM   #57 
  - Some things I can address (former Catholic)  drmeow   Mar-27-08 11:45 PM   #3 
  - The method has an ancient pedigree as a legal argument in favor of certain testimony:  struggle4progress   Mar-28-08 12:09 AM   #7 
  - How does John's Baptism of Jesus serve the text?  BurtWorm   Mar-28-08 11:06 AM   #17 
     - There are multiple embarrassments, many of a similar nature, some of which cannot possibly  struggle4progress   Mar-28-08 05:41 PM   #24 
        - Yes, but if it serves some other purpose,  John Gauger   Mar-28-08 09:13 PM   #27 
           - We'll just go around in pointless circle because we're not even really discussing the same subject:  struggle4progress   Mar-28-08 10:58 PM   #29 
              - Wow.  John Gauger   Mar-29-08 10:48 AM   #33 
  - The Criterion of Embarrassment is Extremely Powerful  ribofunk   Mar-28-08 12:21 AM   #10 
  - You state with certainty that those were Jesus's grandnephews  BurtWorm   Mar-28-08 02:46 PM   #23 
  - ...  trotsky   Mar-31-08 06:51 AM   #43 
     - Quite the Contrary  ribofunk   Apr-03-08 01:39 PM   #44 
        - Toledoth Yeshu was written somewhere between the 9th and 10th century.  MrWiggles   Apr-03-08 03:01 PM   #45 
           - The Talmud and Other Early Jewish Sources May Not be Accurate  ribofunk   Apr-03-08 04:28 PM   #46 
           - The Talmud may not even be discussing Jesus in the first place  MrWiggles   Apr-03-08 09:08 PM   #48 
              - Well If You Don't Accept a Contemporary  ribofunk   Apr-05-08 12:15 AM   #53 
                 - The authenticity of any mention of Jesus by Josephus is likely is questionable  MrWiggles   Apr-05-08 07:27 AM   #54 
                    - If You Are Going to Make a Compelling Argument Like This  ribofunk   Apr-06-08 12:54 AM   #55 
                       - I am not making a compelling argument for anything  MrWiggles   Apr-06-08 08:31 AM   #56 
           - talmud and Jesus  jjray7   Apr-06-08 03:59 PM   #58 
  - If you want to know what happened with Jesus...  aquart   Mar-28-08 12:59 AM   #12 
  - Compare Jesus fact fuzziness with Elvis and Diana  BurtWorm   Mar-28-08 11:35 AM   #18 
     - Could it be that given the amount of empirical evidence of Elvis and Diana,  patrice   Mar-28-08 01:02 PM   #21 
  - I spent several years visiting villages in rural South Africa gathering oral history  HamdenRice   Mar-28-08 12:15 PM   #19 
  - Your line of inquiry is very interesting, but I don't think that the OP is saying  patrice   Mar-28-08 01:09 PM   #22 
  - That's all anecdotal.  John Gauger   Mar-28-08 10:21 PM   #28 
     - Not it isn't. It's called historical methodology.  HamdenRice   Mar-29-08 07:19 AM   #30 
  - There are a number of heuristics to help navigate the  igil   Mar-28-08 08:09 PM   #25 
  - You are quite right.  John Gauger   Mar-28-08 08:48 PM   #26 
  - Jesus' baptism...  crawfish   Mar-30-08 01:37 PM   #38 
  - The criteria is there to help with the "belief" that there was a historical Jesus  MrWiggles   Mar-29-08 08:30 AM   #32 
  - Except that the overwhelming majority of historians of that era  HamdenRice   Mar-29-08 10:50 AM   #34 
     - I am not arguing that Jesus is a figment of imagination. I am arguing that he is myth.  BurtWorm   Mar-29-08 03:15 PM   #35 
        - One can only argue "no evidence" if one dismisses the gospels  HamdenRice   Mar-30-08 06:44 AM   #36 
           - One can also say that  MrWiggles   Mar-30-08 08:17 AM   #37 
           - I'll agree with you on one thing  HamdenRice   Mar-30-08 02:35 PM   #40 
           - I do dismiss the Gospels as works of history.  BurtWorm   Mar-30-08 05:43 PM   #41 
              - I certainly agree that the Gospels are not "works of history"  HamdenRice   Mar-31-08 06:40 AM   #42 
  - That's actually a fairly good method  crawfish   Mar-30-08 01:44 PM   #39 
  - Oh my God. It's a story, it's a tradition, it's a faith.  hunter   Apr-04-08 02:03 AM   #49 
  - It can only be taken on faith...  and-justice-for-all   Apr-04-08 03:52 AM   #50 
     - It can only "be taken on faith" that our lives have any meaning at all.  hunter   Apr-04-08 10:19 AM   #51 
        - Correct...  and-justice-for-all   Apr-04-08 07:03 PM   #52 
 

Home » Discuss » Topic Forums » Religion/Theology Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC