Why were people offended when Christ came?

[Elioenai26]

That very little can be taken at face value.

I am not understanding you here...

Very little of what?

Was the Buddah a real person?

Of course he was a real person! LOL

You didn't know?

I don't know if Jesus of Nazereth is a real person, not that I lack research on the matter.

You say very little can be taken at face value. That this is what you have concluded from your research.

Ok......

You do understand that modern scholars and historians maintain that Jesus of Nazareth existed and that this is not an issue of debate or controversy. I mean.....you say you researched the matter....so I assume you know this....

My question is why are you so reluctant to acknowledge what is so clearly undeniable????

 

[Scott4Him]

I got fed up reading the attempts to hijack this thread, so forgive me if this has already been covered.

Back to the OP. There were multiple reasons the Pharisees hated Jesus. One early one is mentioned in Luke- Jesus' teaching on the Sabbath.

And the scribes and the Pharisees watched him, to see whether he would heal on the Sabbath, so that they might find a reason to accuse him. And Jesus said to them, "I ask you, is it lawful on the Sabbath to do good or to do harm, to save life or to destroy it?" And after looking around at them all he said to him, "Stretch out your hand." And he did so, and his hand was restored. But they were filled with fury and discussed with one another what they might do to Jesus. (Luke 6:7, 9-11 ESV)

Jesus spoke against their traditions which they had exalted over God's Word. This showed that they were far from God, the real reason for their hatred.

He answered them, "And why do you break the commandment of God for the sake of your tradition? he need not honor his father." So for the sake of your tradition you have made void the word of God. You hypocrites! Well did Isaiah prophesy of you, when he said: "This people honors me with their lips, but their heart is far from me; in vain do they worship me, teaching as doctrines the commandments of men." (Matthew 15:3, 6-9 ESV)

Ultimately, Jesus made Himself out to be God. Not only would this be blasphemous (if it weren't true, good thing it was true) but it set Him as a higher authority than the Pharisees.

Jesus said to them, "Truly, truly, I say to you, before Abraham was, I am." So they picked up stones to throw at him, but Jesus hid himself and went out of the temple. (John 8:58, 59 ESV)

 

[variant]

Of course he was a real person! LOL

You didn't know?

How do we know?

Our biographies of the Buddha date to centuries after his supposed life, which many can't even reliably say when it happened. Many traditions have him living and dieing centuries apart. Many of these texts are quite fanciful, and it is somewhat difficult to separate the myth from the man.

So, did the Buddah live? I don't really know.

You do understand that modern scholars and historians maintain that Jesus of Nazareth existed and that this is not an issue of debate or controversy. I mean.....you say you researched the matter....so I assume you know this....

My question is why are you so reluctant to acknowledge what is so clearly undeniable????

We get our history of Jesus after the fact from believers or a scant few tidbits that aren't really conclusive.

Josephus 94 AD, Tacitus 20 years later a few others.

So yes, it is possible to think that the entire idea of Jesus is a construct, or loosely based upon someone that was real, or something like that.

The person of Jesus as you understand him is utterly difficult to show to have existed outside of simple reliance on the Gospels.

Undeniable? Hardly.

 

[Sectio Aurea]

The reason I ask is because I find it odd that you, a 32 year old man who has access to the internet does not know if Jesus of Nazareth actually existed.

This is quite fascinating....

This IS quite fascinating!

No amount of internet access, or maturity will ever provide a person with the sufficient evidence necessary to conclude existence of Jesus of Nazereth.

 

[essentialsaltes]

Claimed to be the son of God in a trinitarian relationship with God the Father and the Holy spirit.

I doubt that.

 

[variant]

I doubt that.

You doubt that this is claimed?

 

[Elioenai26]

We get our history of Jesus after the fact from believers or a scant few tidbits that aren't really conclusive.

Josephus 94 AD, Tacitus 20 years later a few others.

Josephus nor Tacitus, neither of which were Christian and were both well known historians, had no doubt that Jesus was actually a man who lived and was crucified under Pontius Pilate.

So yes, it is possible to think that the entire idea of Jesus is a construct, or loosely based upon someone that was real, or something like that.

It is also possible you are dreaming right now, but why think that if all of the evidence points to the conclusion you are awake?

The person of Jesus as you understand him is utterly difficult to show to have existed outside of simple reliance on the Gospels.

Undeniable? Hardly.

Jesus as I understand Him is described below:

Jesus (/ˈdʒiːzəs/; Greek: Ἰησοῦς Iesous; 7–2 BC to 30–36 AD), also referred to as Jesus of Nazareth, is the central figure of Christianity.

Virtually all modern scholars of antiquity agree that a historical Jesus existed.

In a 2011 review of the state of modern scholarship, Bart Ehrman (who is a secular agnostic) wrote:

"He certainly existed, as virtually every competent scholar of antiquity, Christian or non-Christian, agrees".[15]

Richard A. Burridge states:

"There are those who argue that Jesus is a figment of the Church's imagination, that there never was a Jesus at all. I have to say that I do not know any respectable critical scholar who says that any more".[16]

Robert M. Price (an atheist who denies existence) agrees that this perspective runs against the views of the majority of scholars.[17]

James D. G. Dunn states that the theories of non-existence of Jesus are "a thoroughly dead thesis".[18]

Michael Grant (a classicist) states that "In recent years, 'no serious scholar has ventured to postulate the non historicity of Jesus' or at any rate very few, and they have not succeeded in disposing of the much stronger, indeed very abundant, evidence to the contrary".[19]

Robert E. Van Voorst states that biblical scholars and classical historians regard theories of non-existence of Jesus as effectively refuted.

 

[Elioenai26]

This IS quite fascinating!

No amount of internet access, or maturity will ever provide a person with the sufficient evidence necessary to conclude existence of Jesus of Nazereth.

Wow!

You too!

This is indeed amazing!

The presence of people who do not even acknowledge Jesus actually lived!!!!

This is literally incredible!

 

[variant]

Josephus nor Tacitus, neither of which were Christian and were both well known historians, had no doubt that Jesus was actually a man who lived and was crucified under Pontius Pilate.

Both of which fail to cite any source material on the subject and are free to have taken it from the Christian tradition. Neither of which are sufficiantly independent or clear.

Josephus as a source is unlikely to be authentic and the nature and extent of later Christian redaction is entirely unclear.

I mean does this paragraph:

Now, there was about this time, Jesus, a wise man, if it be lawful to call him a man, for he was a doer of wonderful works — a teacher of such men as receive the truth with pleasure. He drew over him both many of the Jews, and many of the Gentiles. He was [the] Christ; and when Pilate, at the suggestion of the principal man amongst us, had condemned him to the cross, those that loved him at the first did not forsake him, for he appeared to them alive again the third day, as the divine prophets had foretold these and ten thousand other wonderful things concerning him; and the tribe of Christians, so named from him, are not extinct to this day.

Sound like it was written by a Jewish historian?

You are pretty gullible and not particularly skepical as the Buddah example shows.

It is also possible you are dreaming right now, but why think that if all of the evidence points to the conclusion you are awake?

Is that how you would characterize the body of evidence here? No wonder we disagree.

My position though is that I don't know, not that I support the claim that Jesus never existed.

 

[bhsmte]

Would you like to debate me regarding the Jesus Seminar and whether or not its findings were actually in accordance with what historians know to be true regarding the New Testament?

What do historians claim to be true regarding the new testament?

 

[bhsmte]

The central figure of Christianity.

Claimed Messiah of messianic Judaism relating to various parts of the old testament.

Claimed to be the son of God in a trinitarian relationship with God the Father and the Holy spirit.

Central figure of the Gospels, as per Christian Bible.

There is dispute as to whether he claimed to be God.

 

[bhsmte]

Is it your view that Jesus of Nazareth was a real person?

I am trying to be as simple as I can be here....

Most historians acknowledge Jesus was a real person.

Where the problems arise are with; virgin birth, miracles, whether he claimed to be God and rising from the dead. On these issues, credible evidence is lacking.

 

[variant]

There is dispute as to whether he claimed to be God.

Sorry for the confusion, I meant he IS claimed to be those things.

 

[variant]

Most historians acknowledge Jesus was a real person.

Where the problems arise are with; virgin birth, miracles, whether he claimed to be God and rising from the dead. On these issues, credible evidence is lacking.

Were we even to affirm that he definitely was a person we would have sincere difficulty separating the man and myth.

And of course, on the beginnings of this conversation, we would have real trouble ascribing motivations and reasons to people reacting to him.

 

[bhsmte]

Were we even to affirm that he definitely was a person we would have sincere difficulty separating the man and myth.

And of course, on the beginnings of this conversation, we would have real trouble ascribing motivations and reasons to people reacting to him.

Well, there were other messiahs before Jesus and they also, were born of a virgin, performed miracles, claimed to be God and was crucified and risen from the dead.

There was not much mention of Jesus in other writings during his time, in fact, the Apostle Paul (very revered figure), barely mentions Jesus in his writings.

Little doubt he was a real person, but no evidence he performed miracles, rose from the dead etc., besides the fact it says so in the bible. And we all know, man can write anything he wants to write.

 

[essentialsaltes]

You doubt that this is claimed?

Ah! I guess I read it as "[Jesus] claimed blah blah blah."

No, you're right. Many claim this (despite Jesus never saying anything of the sort (so far as we know)).

 

[variant]

Ah! I guess I read it as "[Jesus] claimed blah blah blah."

No, you're right. Many claim this (despite Jesus never saying anything of the sort (so far as we know)).

Well you weren't the only one to read it that way so I guess I was being vague.

 

[quatona]

Would you like to debate the historicity of Jesus of Nazareth with me?

I would be delighted to demonstrate why you are wrong.

You could just demonstrate how you are right. You wouldn´t need a debate for that.
We all know the reasons why you prefer to debate.

 

[Scott4Him]

And we all know, man can write anything he wants to write.

*cough* :irony:

 

[Sectio Aurea]

Wow!

You too!

This is indeed amazing!

The presence of people who do not even acknowledge Jesus actually lived!!!!

This is literally incredible!

Miracles apparently happen.