Who claimed to have met a historical Jesus ?

Gday,

Originally posted by adjensen
Looking for me to call you out for lying?

What lie?
You showed none.
Hypocrite.

Originally posted by adjensen
The fallacy of your claim is that it relies on Matthew being written by someone other than the Apostle,

Which is the consensus of modern NT scholars.

Originally posted by adjensen
which means you rely on the denial of the two-Gospel hypothesis.

The authorship has NOTHING to do with the 2 Gospel hypothesis at all.
Modern NT scholars agree (it's a consensus, not 100%) that it was not written by any apostle "Matthew".

Originally posted by adjensen
You rely on this, not because you've studied, or have an intelligent opinion, but because you have a pre-existing bias, which means that you must choose to reject it.

I studied the facts, and the consensus of modern NT scholars.
Which is that not one of the NT books was written by anyone who ever met a historical Jesus.

Originally posted by adjensen
Ergo, your claim is based on dishonesty, just as your claim that 100% of modern NT scholars

I didn't say 100%.
I said the consensus, which is not 100%
You lied.
Do you belong to a sect that allows you to lie?

Originally posted by adjensen
In short, you are a liar, and your obvious bias makes any opinion that you render on this subject to be of little value.

You ran bawling for the mods, to get rid of me!
You falsely accused me of breaking the rules for posting facts that showed you were wrong!
Lieing hypocrite.


Kap

Gday,

Originally posted by GunzCoty
Hmm thats funny in your book its John 13: um 25 i think but in yours it does not say "I asked" however in my other (older) bible it does so we must ask what the original language of the bible says.

Well, why didn't you check?
The original does NOT say "I asked" at all.

Originally posted by GunzCoty
But truth be told it does say it in some translations and it does answer your post "Who claimed to have met a historical Jesus?" Well in some translations this is the claim.

A faulty translation is hardly good evidence is it?

Originally posted by GunzCoty
So if you feel you must research it and all the translations then have at it but please

I do feel the need to research the facts.
I enjoy finding out.
What a pity you don't.


Kap

Gday,

Originally posted by eight bits
The witness-claim status of John depends on how the reader interprets 21:24

It is this disciple who testifies to these things and has written them, and we know that his testimony is true.

A passage added to the Gospel, in which some unknown 3rd party makes claims about the author.

I discussed this is the OP.
It is not a claim to have personally met Jesus at all.

It's a later claim by someone ELSE.

So, like I said :

we do not have a single claim to have personally met a historical Jesus (not counting the forged 2nd century 2 Peter.)


Just BELIEFS and CLAIMS by OTHER people, long afterwards.



Kap

Gday,

Originally posted by adjensen
The difficulty in establishing such a late date as this, and it's one of the reasons that OP's claim of 100% agreement from scholars is false,

That is an outrageous LIE.

I said "consensus".
I never said "100%".
As anyone who bothers to read my posts can check.
You bald-faced liar.

You lost the argument based on facts, so you had to resort to lies.
Pathetic.


Kap

Gday,

Originally posted by GunzCoty
reply to post by eight bits

 

No No No ya see, it is as i said. In one bible it is 14 in the other (because of translation) it is 13 in the bible at John 14 it says "I asked Jesus" In the other it says "He" So one is in the 3erd person and the other is in the 1st. Its all about translations and i made my point and i did technically answer the post.

The original Greek does NOT say "I asked".
There are NO 1st person claims in that Gospel, or ANY Gospel.


Kap

Gday,

Originally posted by thegoodearth
I find it very ironic that there is such a long, passionate, and heated debate over the possible existence of a poor carpenter who lived 2000 years ago... why so much disdain and dismissal in the mere possibility? Why are we still talking about this man after 2000 years if he were a nobody?

I don't argue he was a "nobody".
I argue he was a myth.

There are many many myths we still talk about today :

* Adam and Eve
* Moses
* Krishna
* Buddha
* Lao Tzu
* Confucious
* Hercules
* Odysseus
* Zeus
* Aphrodite
etc.

Originally posted by thegoodearth
That in and of itself says something, don't you think?

Yes, it says people like to make myths, and like to tell and repeat and embelish them.


Kap

Gday,

Originally posted by DaMod
The Bible mentions several several times the apostles along with Mary Magdalene where in the same location and the same time. If they where there with Jesus how would they not have met him?
You guys are reaching.

Aragorn and Legolas etc. were with Gandalf.
They must have met him.

Hermione and Ron were with Harry Potter,
and must have met him.

The apostles and Mary etc. are all characters in a STORY.

But the people IN the stories - didn't write ANYTHING.
And the people who wrote the stories - never met anyone IN the stories.


Mary, Joseph, Lazarus, Nicodemus, Martha etc.
Completely unknown to Christians

No Christian ever claimed to have met anyone IN the stories.
The people IN the stories are myths.


Kap

Gday,

Originally posted by theonlyrusty
Kap,

What a great thread.
It has made me send snippets to all of my brainwashed family of bible beating believers to just get them to look at the "possibility" that they may be incorrect with their outlook on history.

Thanks :-)

Yes,
it's amazing how vast the gulf is between what Christians BELIEVE,
and what the evidence actually shows.


Kap

Gday,

Originally posted by texastig
Gary Habermas called me a few days ago.

No he didn't.

Originally posted by texastig
He's the world's leading authority on the resurrection of Jesus Christ.

No he isn't.
He's one of the world's leading apologists, and preacher of Christian b;eiefs.

Originally posted by texastig
He stated that all New Testament Scholars, even critical scholars and current scholars allow Paul the Apostle meeting Jesus.

If he did say that, he is completely wrong.
Which would be clear to anyone who actually checked the facts.


Kap

Originally posted by Kapyong

Originally posted by adjensen
Ergo, your claim is based on dishonesty, just as your claim that 100% of modern NT scholars

I didn't say 100%.
I said the consensus, which is not 100%
You lied.
Do you belong to a sect that allows you to lie?

Oh, just for fun, let's let you hang yourself...

Originally posted by adjensen
As a text completely apart from the Synoptic Gospels, John is believed to have been written within about 20 years of Christ's death, and by the Apostle himself (or dictated.)

Yes, that is what faithful believers faithfully believe.

Modern NT scholars do not agree.
But faithful believers seem to be the last to know this.

Originally posted by adjensen
Similarly, the letters of John are attribute to the Apostle. The authorship of the Revelation of John is less concrete.

Similarly, you are wrong here too.

Modern NT scholars agree that NOT ONE of the NT books was actually written by anyone who met Jesus.

But sadly, many believers seem completely unware of modern NT scholarship. Instead they just repeat faithful beliefs they picked up in church.

Don't see the word "consensus" up there. Do you?

Please try to READ what I write, OK?

Here is the summary :

Modern NT scholars (such as Brown, Crossan, Fitzmeyer, Schnelle, Aland) agree that NOT ONE of the NT books was written by anyone who ever met a historical Jesus.

Faithful BELIEVERS faithfully believe otherwise of course, because they never bother to read scholars, they just repeat faithful beliefs learned in church.

Originally posted by adjensen
Thank you very much for your opinion. As you dismiss the entire thing, further input by you is longer necessary. Have a great day!


So, you plan to simply ignore the facts which prove you wrong?
And just keep right on preaching, right?

Bu will you EVER bother to check the views of modern NT scholars?
So far it appears you he done everyting to AVOID that.

Hmm... not there, either.

But still, so far, you cannot quote a SINGLE ONE who agrees with you.
Not one modern NT scholar who agrees with you.
Not one.
Why can't you cite one?

At which point, I did, indeed cite one. One of a number of them. And you dropped out of the thread.

You lied. You got caught. You left.

Big deal, I don't really care. As you should be able to see, I enjoy good discussions that challenge my beliefs and require me to think. I do not, however, enjoy this sort of behaviour that bullies people into not disputing your claims, and will continue to point out your dishonesty when it comes up.

Originally posted by Yissachar1
As a godless, murdering zionist jew I have met Him...

I was a career soldier in the british army and I.D.F... I have done many questionable things in service of my country(s)...

My family have suffered greatly as a result of my choices.. I was a government sponsored psycho... I hope you get the picture...

Then one day i was struck with a vision.. I was in cave., There was clothes strewn all across the floor,. They was shiny white... Glowing... On the wall of the cave was a great wooden cross... As i looked at my surroundings i noticed a soldier laying on the floor barely breathing, I looked around and there was Yeshua.. He looked like a king, I instinctivy knew who he was.. I was overcome as a jew... I knelt before Him and kissed His feet, which were scarred with holes..
He looked at me the soldier laying virtually lifeless on the floor of the cave., I sked Him if He would heal him., He said nothing except to rech down and lift the soldier (me.)
on His shoulder then carried me out of the cave...
Outside the cave was a fast flowing river of which He proceeded to carry me on His shoulder up stream against the current... Then I woke feeling full of the Holy Spirit.

It was wonderfull.... God was showing me that He would carry me..

That is when i became a christian. A jewish believer in Yeshua,

You may think me nuts but that is my subjective experience and it changed me forever...

[edit on 11-8-2010 by Yissachar1]

[edit on 11-8-2010 by Yissachar1]

[edit on 11-8-2010 by Yissachar1]

A passage added to the Gospel, in which some unknown 3rd party makes claims about the author.

Hey, that's great, Kappy!

So, like, you've got the before and after pics?

Kewl. Ya gonna post 'em?

Can't wait, dude.

On another matter:

Oh yeah, the OP. Well, let's see what you wrote:

G.John
According to tradition this Gospel was written by the apostle John, and the last chapter says :
" This is the disciple who is testifying to these things and has written them, and we know that his testimony is true."
This is part of a chapter that was added to the Gospels, and it is clearly someone else making a claim for the book. It most certainly does not even come close to specific claim that anyone personally met Jesus.

That has nothing to do with anything I ever posted here.

I explained why I think that the Beloved Disciple wasn't the Gospel author. And I also explained that in my opinion, John was written too late for any Apostle to be alive, much less to be the author.

So, you said nothing in your OP about anything I've written here.

Just BELIEFS and CLAIMS...

Who claimed to have met a historical Jesus ?

What? You think putting it in CAPS changes the answer to your question?

Here, then, let me help you:

Who CLAIMED to have met a historical Jesus ?

The BELOVED DISCIPLE, according to the recieved text of the Gospel of John.

G'day to you, too.

Yissachar1, that is totally awesome!!! I don't think your nuts. Jesus is showing up to alot of people.

Originally posted by Kapyong
Gday,
No he didn't.

I called him about your original post and he called me back.
I have his two messages in my voice mail if you want to hear them.

Originally posted by Kapyong
No he isn't.
He's one of the world's leading apologists, and preacher of Christian b;eiefs.

For over 25 years he has researched the resurrection of Christ.
Kap, how many years have you researched Christ?
Kap, are you a historian or scholar?

For over a quarter of a century, Gary R. Habermas has focused his research on the resurrection of Jesus of Nazareth. And for some time now, Gary has been recognized by myself and others as the top expert on the topic.
J.P. Moreland
Distinguished Professor of Philosophy, Talbot School of Theology, Biola University

Gary Habermas, who is arguably the world's leading expert on the historicity of the Resurrection of Jesus.
David Baggett

Gary R. Habermas-leading scholar and foremost expert in world on the resurrection of Jesus.
Troy Brooks

Originally posted by Kapyong
If he did say that, he is completely wrong.
Which would be clear to anyone who actually checked the facts.

He does check the facts. He reads critical scholars works and catalogs what they believe.

He's not wrong. Here's what he said in my voice mail.
"If a guy told me we don't have any record or anybody who had seen Jesus, I would tell him that virtually every New Testament critical scholar who is writing today, virtually everyone, I mean their are almost no people who would disagree, would at least allow that the Apostle Paul believed, at least believed or at least thought.
They allow that. All critical scholars virtually allow that Paul at least thinks he saw the risen Jesus. But almost every single contemporary defense of the resurrection will talk about 1Cor 15:3 and following. Critics, critics now think we can take that all the way back to 30's AD."

Originally posted by Kapyong
Hahahahaha!
Wow, you actually believed that silly TV show?

I don't watch the show.

Originally posted by Kapyong
But you completely ignored the fact that REAL archeologists think it's a joke :

Good. Now you are starting to deny ignorance.

Originally posted by Kapyong
"Early Christianity scholar R. Joseph Hoffmann, chair of the Committee for the Scientific Examination of Religion, says the film alerts the public to the fact that there are no secure conclusions when it comes to the foundational history of a religious tradition. But he charges that the film "is all about bad assumptions," beginning with the assumption that the boxes contain Jesus of Nazareth and his family. From his view as a historian specializing in the social history of earliest Christianity, he found it "amazing how evidence falls into place when you begin with the conclusion—and a hammer."[39]

This is the same man that says:

I have come to the following conclusion: Scholarship devoted to the question of the historicity of Jesus, while not a total waste of time, could be better spent gardening.

R. Joseph Hoffmann
rjosephhoffmann.wordpress.com...

I'll deal with this one and the rest of the opinions later.

Originally posted by Kapyong
From -
en.wikipedia.org...


Kap


[edit on 11-8-2010 by Kapyong]

Good counter.Unfortunately,Kap, you forget to highlight this in your source.

The neutrality of this article is disputed. Please see the discussion on the talk page. Please do not remove this message until the dispute is resolved. (December 2007)

Your source of criticism is currently being disputed for Non NPOV.

Now the reason why I highlighted words in your quote. Your REAL archeologists' opinions are bias. Sorry about that Kap but you should read the Talk Section.


en.wikipedia.org...:The_Lost_Tomb_of_Jesus

EDIT : To add R. Joseph Hoffmann's comment on what he thinks about the study of historical Jesus.



[edit on 12-8-2010 by EasternShadow]

[edit on 12-8-2010 by EasternShadow]

Originally posted by adjensen

Originally posted by d60944
CI think I quoted this pages ago. Clement of Rome speaks of Paul's death by martyrdom (generally assumed to be c. 95-96AD, though 70AD is increasingly being accepted too, with second-century claims countering this)

Where are you coming up with those dates? It's generally NOT assumed to be that late, as it would make Paul about 100 years old!

Sorry, c.95-96AD is the date of Clement's letter (with some scholars suggesting earlier or later). Not the date of Paul's death! Sorry that my post was confusing....

Rob.

[edit on 12-8-2010 by d60944]

Gday,

Originally posted by eight bits
Who CLAIMED to have met a historical Jesus ?
The BELOVED DISCIPLE, according to the recieved text of the Gospel of John.

In fact, someone ELSE made a claim.
But the author HIMSELF made NO such claim.
It appears you are having difficulty grasping this simple concept.


Like I said -
We do NOT have one single authentic 1st hand claim to have personally met Jesus.
Just CLAIMS and BELIEFS from unknown others.


Kap

Like I said -

Dude, you asked a question. I did you the courtesy of answering your question.

If you don't like the answer, then that's tough.

What you said instead of "thank you" stopped being interesting five posts ago.

As I said, G'day to you, too.

Kap, Gary emailed me and I emailed him back about your original post (and other posts) and what you said about him and his views being crap.
I really think what you said about him is rude because he has spent alot of education and time on the subject of Jesus.
He is a busy man so don't expect him to email me back in a flash.
I will post what he says when he gets it to me.
We'll see what he says about you saying his views are crap.