The Mystery of Nazareth

[Diogenes]

( Anyone else having major issues with this site? I can't even count how many times this has timed out on me tonight )

That was basically my point. Compare him to Martin Luther, then.

That works.

...............................

To finish my above post...

man loves to idolize people, put them on a pedestal...whether it be a rebel, royalty, or movie stars, sports figures, musicians, people will stand in line for hours just to get an autograph or sit in the nose-bleed bleachers just to say they were there.

I'm surprised there aren't a lot more Jesus'.

[RickSp]

Only, again, there is no evidence outside of Christian writings to suggest he was a Nazareen.

Outside of Christian writings there is zero evidence that Jesus existed as a historical figure. Some argue that the character of Jesus was an amalgam of several messianic rabbis of the period.

[Diogenes]

Outside of Christian writings there is zero evidence that Jesus existed as a historical figure. Some argue that the character of Jesus was an amalgam of several messianic rabbis of the period.

True. But there's no record of most of the people who lived during that, and the preceding, period. So it's not so much an issue as a missing hamlet that wasn't even mentioned in the listings of places in Galilee.

True. He might not have existed. But again that's just an assumption. Based on as much evidence as saying he did exist. We could claim that everyone in our history who wasn't mentioned was just a figment of someone's imagination because there's no proof of their existence either.

I tend to believe he did exist...was a rebel...and was martyred...then was legendized to gain converts...then was immortalized into a god...

clearly the apologetic's didn't, at that time, see him as a god, in the sense he is seen today. In most of their letters defending Christianity Jesus is barely mentioned.

[Dodds]

True. But there's no record of most of the people who lived during that, and the preceding, period. So it's not so much an issue as a missing hamlet that wasn't even mentioned in the listings of places in Galilee.

True. He might not have existed. But again that's just an assumption. Based on as much evidence as saying he did exist. We could claim that everyone in our history who wasn't mentioned was just a figment of someone's imagination because there's no proof of their existence either.

I tend to believe he did exist...was a rebel...and was martyred...then was legendized to gain converts...then was immortalized into a god.

I think the difference with Jesus is the things he was meant to have performed. Logic would dictate that someone who walked on water, fed 5000 people with 2 loafs and 5 fish, turned water into wine, chased money lenders out of a church and the other stories would have been documented by at least one governing body. Even if it was a church to say he was dangerous. This way of thinking leads me to believe that he never existed.

[Diogenes]

I think the difference with Jesus is the things he was meant to have performed. Logic would dictate that someone who walked on water, fed 5000 people with 2 loafs and 5 fish, turned water into wine, chased money lenders out of a church and the other stories would have been documented by at least one governing body. Even if it was a church to say he was dangerous. This way of thinking leads me to believe that he never existed.

I agree, and have said many times that any man that was able to do those things would have caught the attention of the Romans, the Greeks, and more especially the playwrights of the time. For instance Socrates was routinely mocked in the comedies of his day.
There wasn't a lot of entertainment back then, so a miracle man would have caught their attention.

But...this doesn't mean he didn't exist...it only means the stories told about him to attract converts were greatly embellished.

[ZNFYRH]

To the earlier posts, the problem is that we speak English.

The evolution of languages has contributed to the enhancement of inaccuracies.

[wordryder]

Best reference I've found: "James, the Brother of Jesus," by Robert Eisenman, biblical scholar, historian and anthropologist, who has participated in translating the Dead Sea Scrolls and tells us about Hebrew Tradition and Law in a way that has us living with them.

Then you come to the conclusion that the gospels are highly suspect, along with the writings of someone named Paul and the whole story falls apart.

BTW, Nazarene is a transliteration out of Zaddock and the Sons of Zaddock were the Hebrew sect responsible for maintaining the books of the Old Testament. Do you recall how upset the Catholic hierarchy became when the Dead Sea Scrolls' contents started trickling out that dealt with the time that Jesus supposedly lived? James was head of the church (for about 30 years) trying to hold Hebrew tradition to the Law and it was from there that the schism occurred and became two churches with the (Roman) Catholic church becoming dominant and, subsequently, doing a lot of transliteration to develop the story of Jesus, even to claiming Mary's virginity in order to support Jesus' divinity--when it was actually James who was the virgin priest, "perfect in the sight of God" and called "the Just One," in the DSS.

You'll have people citing Josephus, but Eisenman disabuses us of that notion by saying that the few references were actually about someone named Joses, a brother of James. Yup, it really gets interesting, doesn't it?

[grandpa]

Best reference I've found: "James, the Brother of Jesus," by
Robert Eisenman, biblical scholar, historian and anthropologist, who has participated
in translating the Dead Sea Scrolls and tells us about
Hebrew Tradition and Law in a way that has us
living with them.
Then you come to the conclusion that the gospels are
highly suspect, along with the writings of someone named Paul
and the whole story falls apart.

The black and white has grayed over the past years, for the general reader in any
language. A religion open to interpretation has us questioning its claims.

For example, if the dead will resurrect themselves and head off to heaven, what are the gospels necessary for? How do they work? How does doubt -- a phenomenon of the human brain, which people do not have total control over -- prevent one from entering the New Covenant? These are all questions which remain curiously unanswered. Any impartial observer can begin to doubt these claims, simply by applying elementary logic.

Grandpa h.