Was Jesus Christ a real historic figure ?

Originally posted by Nemesio
They should, if they read the Bible literally. The word used
in aramiac is unequivocably brother. There is no lee-way here.
Not 'cousin' not 'step-brother' and not 'close buddy.'

The notion of Perpetual Virginity is only a dogma in the Catholic
Churches, I believe. I don't think that it is an element of faith
for Lutherans, for example.

Nemesio

Precisely. I believe James was Jesus' half brother.

Originally posted by Darfius
I never said Luke was an eyewitness. In fact, I said in an earlier post that he got his testimony from Paul. I just assumed Luke was around the same age as Paul.

My other sources are as follows:

Josephus
Tacitus
The Talmud
Pliny the Younger
"The Case for Christ" by Lee Strobel

Since I don't want to flame, I'll withdraw the lying statement but I think you were confused "Everbody but Luke was dead" in conjunction with the other statement and in the context of what we were talking about sure seemed like an assertion that Luke was there. I've checked Josephus and Tacitus and they were written in 93 AD and 115 AD, a long time after Jesus existence (if any) and they rely on other sources and don't state unequivocally that Jesus existed. I'll check your other sources on the net tomorrow; I'm through for the night.

If you try to avoid smug condenscension, I'll try to avoid harsh rhetoric but I wish you would try to support general statements like "scholars agree" with cites - I honestly don't know of any estimates of the Christian population in the decades right after Jesus (maybe) and I'd be curious to see some scholarly estimates.

Originally posted by Nemesio
Originally posted by Darfius
[b]If Christian sources were lying, what would be the point of lying? To give hope to others while they themselves had none?

You will note that I have not said that 'Christian sources are lying.'
This is another straw man for you to knock down.

Look up the term 'midrash.' See how it is applied in the Old ...[text shortened]... and
sundry court-related things which were part and parcel of
Jewish social life.

Nemesio[/b]

If Matthew was merely copying Mark's, why would he seemingly contradict what Mark said at times? ( I do not believe there are contradictions, but the fact that it could be interpreted as such lends one to believe that Matthew wrote his own account and borrowed from Mark because Mark received his from Peter).

Originally posted by no1marauder
Since I don't want to flame, I'll withdraw the lying statement but I think you were confused "Everbody but Luke was dead" in conjunction with the other statement and in the context of what we were talking about sure seemed like an assertion that Luke was there. I've checked Josephus and Tacitus and they were written in 93 AD and 115 AD, a lo ...[text shortened]... the decades right after Jesus (maybe) and I'd be curious to see some scholarly estimates.

Deal.

Originally posted by Darfius
Fine, after Pentecaust, you still didn't address the question. If everyone knew where the tomb was, then you're telling me no one felt obligated to see for themselves or produce the body?

I would like this addressed by one of you gentlemen, please.

Originally posted by Darfius
It has also been suggested that when Quirinius was in charge of subduing the Homanadensians from 10 BC to 7 BC Quirinius could have assumed military governorship of the surrounding provinces including Syria.

There is no evidence for this 'suggestion' of the way things 'could have been.'
No evidence whatsoever. It's all fanciful speculation designed to
ensure that the Bible doesn't have a historical error. Unfortunately
for literalists, there is strong evidence to the contrary. Either St
Matthew or St Luke (or both) got the dating wrong for Jesus's birth.

St Luke 2:2 reads:

This was the first regirstration and was taken while Quirinius was
governor of Syria. (NRSV)

Archeology indisputably tells us when Quirnius assumed governorship.
Not temporary governorship, not military governorship, not some invented
term that doesn't exist in any literature of the time for any person that ever
existed, but when he became governor. Period.

Nemesio

Originally posted by Darfius
Precisely. I believe James was Jesus' half brother.

Nope. Different word in aramaic. Sorry.

Nemesio

Originally posted by Darfius
If Matthew was merely copying Mark's, why would he seemingly contradict what Mark said at times? ( I do not believe there are contradictions, but the fact that it could be interpreted as such lends one to believe that Matthew wrote his own account and borrowed from Mark because Mark received his from Peter).

I never said that St Matthew was merely copying St Mark.
True to his Hebraic training, he was interpretting and editing St
Mark's text whereever he opined that something was wrong or flawed
or needed editing (have you read St Mark in the original Greek?
It sounds like it was written by a 10-year old. St Mark was not
the writer that Sts Luke or Matthew were).

Nemesio

Originally posted by Darfius
I would like this addressed by one of you gentlemen, please.

I've addressed this. If the women hid the body (keeping in mind
that women were basically free from religous persecution because
they had no power), then the Disciples would have believed that
Jesus was gone.

When the Gospel texts were compiled some 40-60 years after Jesus
was Crucified, the writers could add whatever creative reinforcement
they wanted because most of the Disciples who could remember were
dead.

Nemesio

Originally posted by Nemesio
I've addressed this. If the women hid the body (keeping in mind
that women were basically free from religous persecution because
they had no power), then the Disciples would have believed that
Jesus was gone.

When the Gospel texts were compiled some 40-60 years after Jesus
was Crucified, the writers could add whatever creative reinforcement
they wanted because most of the Disciples who could remember were
dead.

Nemesio

You're implying the authors were not Disciples or best friends of Disciples. That's a bold claim. Can you support it?

Originally posted by Darfius
You're implying the authors were not Disciples or best friends of Disciples. That's a bold claim. Can you support it?

I don't have to support it. Only St John's Gospel claims to be
written by a Disciple.

Sts Mark, Matthew and Luke make no such claims; those claims
are part of Tradition, invented a hundred years or more after they
were written.

(By contrast, the Gospel of St Thomas claims to be written by
the Disciple and likely stems from as early as the Gospel of
St John. Go figure!)

Nemesio

Originally posted by ivanhoe
First questions first Cliff. If He wasn't an historic person, then how can he be the the Son of God, the image of the living God ?

Your question however is a very important one, worthy of a thread of it's own.

I see no reason to doubt that Jesus actually lived and was crucified. I doubt the supernatural claims.

Originally posted by Nemesio
I don't have to support it. Only St John's Gospel claims to be
written by a Disciple.

Sts Mark, Matthew and Luke make no such claims; those claims
are part of Tradition, invented a hundred years or more after they
were written.

(By contrast, the Gospel of St Thomas claims to be written by
the Disciple and likely stems from as early as the Gospel of
St John. Go figure!)

Nemesio

You do not know the tradition was invented. At best, it was 50-50 for invented or fact.

It makes sense you wouldn't doubt the Gospel of Thomas' veracity, since in it, Jesus makes no claims of divinity. Atheists tend to believe that which makes them most comfortable.

Originally posted by AThousandYoung
I see no reason to doubt that Jesus actually lived and was crucified. I doubt the supernatural claims.

Take a gander at this site and see if you're so sure:

http://www.truthbeknown.com/origins.htm

Originally posted by Darfius
You do not know the tradition was invented. At best, it was 50-50 for invented or fact.

It makes sense you wouldn't doubt the Gospel of Thomas' veracity, since in it, Jesus makes no claims of divinity. Atheists tend to believe that which makes them most comfortable.

Atheists tend to believe that which makes them most comfortable

As do religious fanatics. It seems highly unlikely that Nemesio is an atheist by the way he talks, so you have degenerated once again into screeching "unbeliever" and "atheist" rather than supporting your position. Pathetic and inappropriate in a debate forum.