Posted on 12/21/2016 5:23:10 PM PST by brucedickinson
Today more and more, historians and bloggers alike are questioning whether the actual man called Jesus existed. What we do have are lots of sources completed several decades after the fact, by authors of the gospels who wanted to promote the faith. The gospels themselves are contradictory. For instance, they tell competing Easter stories. Another problem, there aren’t any real names attached to many of them, but rather an apostle’s who “signing off” on the manuscript. There is also evidence that the gospels were heavily edited over the years.
(Excerpt) Read more at bigthink.com ...
Bible verse please?
Do you think the average Hebrew of the time saw a difference? Or do you think sick folks back then just thought it was some feel good but otherwise meaningless ceremonial mumbo jumbo?
I think they believed the laws they were given actually meant something.
Leviticus 14, more or less
You mean the part that follows AFTER the leper is healed? You might want to reread that
Cleansing From Defiling Skin Diseases
14 The Lord said to Moses, 2 “These are the regulations for any diseased person at the time of their ceremonial cleansing, when they are brought to the priest: 3 The priest is to go outside the camp and examine them. If they have been healed of their defiling skin disease,[a] 4 the priest shall order that two live clean birds and some cedar wood, scarlet yarn and hyssop be brought for the person to be cleansed. 5 Then the priest shall order that one of the birds be killed over fresh water in a clay pot. 6 He is then to take the live bird and dip it, together with the cedar wood, the scarlet yarn and the hyssop, into the blood of the bird that was killed over the fresh water. 7 Seven times he shall sprinkle the one to be cleansed of the defiling disease, and then pronounce them clean. After that, he is to release the live bird in the open fields.
I mean that the bird blood recipe given doesn't cure leprosy
The closest modern parallel is with novels and movies of historical fiction. Such works mix truth and invention, with the established facts about historical figures added to using the writer's imagination. Yet, despite such works being fiction, they nevertheless incorporate real historical figures and events. The problem of course is that general readers tend to have trouble recognizing where the facts give out and have been added to by the writer for the sake of making a good story.
On the whole, it is not credibly open to question that Jesus was a real person who taught the principles of what became a new religion. With a proper understanding of history and biography in the time of Christ, the author's criticisms and conclusions against the Gospels and the existence of Jesus are more or less like insisting today that Abraham Lincoln was obviously not a real person because of the departures and additions to historical fact in novels about him.
The Bible didn’t say it cures. you are not reading what is written. It says the concotion is applied AFTER the priest determinez the person is healed. It is used to make someone who is healed cermmonial clean. It is not how the person is cured.
These a-holes should watch Frontline on Public TV now. “Jesus to Christ. There are many historians in the show talking factually about Jesus. On Tuesday. Excellent.
These a-holes should watch Frontline on Public TV now. “Jesus to Christ. There are many historians in the show talking factually about Jesus. On Tuesday. Excellent.
Of course scholars of the day didn’t write about Jesus - they were the ones actively trying to suppress Him. In that regard, Jesus was kind of like today’s climate realists.
Also “claims and texts fair no better,” the correct word is “fare,” not fair.
It’s not crap. It’s the truth. Now, before your head blows off, this is exactly what you’d expect people of the first century to record of an obscure Jewish rabbi. There was no reason why the rich and powerful and influential would pay any attention whatsoever to Jesus. The correct conclusion is that these “scholars” aren’t exhibiting much scholarship. In other words, they are full of crap.
“In the entire first Christian Century, Jesus is not mentioned by a single Greek or Roman historian, religion scholar, politician, philosopher or poet.”
I guess the emperor was a fool making it the official religion of the Roman Empire.
“In the entire first Christian Century, Jesus is not mentioned by a single Greek or Roman historian, religion scholar, politician, philosopher or poet.”
I guess the emperor was a fool making it the official religion of the Roman Empire.
You're off by a couple of centuries. Emperor Constantine did reign until 306 AD — 337 AD. These guys are talking about 1 AD to 100 AD. . . Except they'd say 1 CE to 100 CE most likely, pretending the initiating event that established the zero year did not occur, being Atheists.
Same thing
All of the scholarly work that leads away from the truth ain’t nothing but lies
And it is not new that “the academics” want to find ways to discount our Lord
There is also evidence that the gospels were heavily edited over the years.
That is a flat out lie.
Do you understand the idea of ‘foreshadowing’> the person in question is ALREADY HEALED, the ceremony is not to get healed.
Not the only lie spewed by the writer, but one of the biggest ones.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.