Wether Jesus existed...

An argument from invalid names

qwerty mob
You make almost no sense.

Maybe you should supply a list of "sources ignored"

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

“In Late Latin Jesus was original spelled Iesus; In Greek it was spelled Ièsous; and in ancient Hebrew spelled “yÈshÙa,” which is a contraction of yehÖshÙa (Joshua), help of Jehovah < yÀh, Jehovah + hÖshïa, to help.” (How did the name Jesus originate?, See also Yeshua.com).

So the name did not exist in its present form. The translated name did not exist in its translated form. What does that prove? That you don't recognize the validity of translated names?

Also, some names are nothing but the name of the father, like "ben(son of)-Hur" does that mean the son did not exist, or that the father did not exist, by your reasoning? What about my name? In Germany I would be called Johannes, in France Jean, in Israel Yochanan, en England and America John, in Latin Ioannem.

A rose by any other name...

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Re: An argument from invalid names

I'm forced to agree with Jenyar -- and I never agree with Jenyar.

The Greeks lacked both the 'Y' and the 'sh' sound. It is also my understanding that rules of construction mandated appending an 's' to the masculine name. The phonetic translation of Yeshu[a] became Iesous, later Latinized as Iesus.

There are very real issues of historicity, but the name 'Jesus' is not one of them (flagrant or otherwise).

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

He is also called Isa El-Maseeh the son of Mary, or Jesus the Messiah to the Arabs. Isa is really pronouced Aissa, where the Ai is this letter that doesn't exist in latin derived or germanic derived language, it's deeply pronouced from the back of the throat, like Aisha.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

And you accused me of making no sense? Your Ad Hominem is misplaced, friend, and if that is all you intend to supply you'll be cheerfully ignored.

You and the Peanut Gallery who "never" agrees with you.

It's a shame my reference to the mythological "Santa Claus" has been overlooked- seemingly deliberately; the parallels between such a character and a historical "Nicholas" are obvious, and exacting with regard to my thesis.

The Christian "Jesus Christ" was *not* a historical figure.

In the exact same manner, and with the same certainty, that "Santa Claus" was never a historical figure.

Translation of the name "Saint Nicholas" withstanding!

As regards translations, I did not say that "Yeshua" and it's various spellings weren't Hebrew names; "Jesus" is a 3rd generation translation, yes, and neither it- nor any other spelling or derivation of it is accounted for in credible first hand sources of the time period in which he supposedly lived.

If he was such a wise man, why was he illiterate? Unlike Shakespeare and Mohammed, posterity hasn't a single original manuscript authored by him. Weren't the apostles literate, except for Judas or Matthias? There are a few NT Biblical refences to the disciples mingling with the gentiles and commoners alike, and anyone can discern that "Saul" would've been fluent in at least three languages.

It would seem that such people who are described as authors of "man's most important message" would get one or two things right about their "messiah"- including his name.

Factoid- not one direct reference to a "Yeshua Ben Jospeh" has been found in any of the Qumran scrolls, of which some are source material (possibly first generation) for the Christian NT books.

Think hard about that.

As for what your name "translates" into, Jenyar- wether Swedish, Serbo-Croat, or Swahili- I couldn't give less of a flip. If you were an author of any inspired writing you wouldn't sign your works in a "translation" of your name.

Well, maybe _you_ would, Johannes, John, whoever.

Even if you refused to sign *any* name to such works, wouldn't your friends, peers and/or detractors alike refer to you by name?

The Historicity of any "Yeshua Ben Joseph, Messiah" or a "Jesus of Nazareth" or any "Jesus Christ" is laughable.

Fellow heretics and unbelievers may lend the religious a "benefit of doubt" to which they aren't entitled, but I won't.

Anyone claiming the "Jesus" of the Christian myth was a historical person properly has the burden of proof.

Ditto, Santa Claus.

I won't hold my breath.

But you might.

 

No, historicity is a legitimate issue. Your puerile temper tantrum is laughable,

You made an embarrassingly ignorant statement concerning the etymology of a name, i.e.: "Perhaps it appears pedantic, but the etymology is clear, and points away from the Greco-Roman fairy-tale of a 'Jesus'." When your pedantry is exposed as groundless, you hide behind a barrage against historicity.

Moving now to the topic of historicity, your pompous certainty seems near religious in nature. It is noteworthy that you make an absolute claim (e.g., "The Christian "Jesus Christ" was *not* a historical figure.") and then cowardly insist that "Anyone claiming the "Jesus" of the Christian myth was a historical person properly has the burden of proof."

My recommendation: grow up and get over yourself.

 

qwerty mob,
Just out of curiosity, what ancient Palestinian do you consider historical?

Your Santa Claus reference cuts both ways. If he was based on Saint Nicholas, then he was a historical person. The question then becomes, what evidence is left of the original Saint Nicholas, or people who knew and followed him, to confirm or deny beliefs about Santa Claus?

You assume he or his apostles were illiterate. This follows from the assumption that all literate people are authors, or at least all wise and literate people. In fact, you also assume all wise people are literate... but this isn't so bad. In one sinagogue, Jesus reads from the book of Isaiah. He certainly quoted from scripture quite often.

Have you ever tried to find out whether Shakespeare really existed? Is there any evidence that the plays were written by him? You won't be able to prove it unless you had a confirmed sample of the real Shakespeare's handwriting, and a certified manuscript of one of his plays in that same handwriting. So even if Jesus had written anything, you probably won't believe he did.

 

Loaded question. The only logical reply is "all of them."

Which ancient Egyptian God was imaginary?

...

William Shakespeare was a historical figure of which there are records of baptism and marriage, legal contracts from publishing his plays and issued shares held in his performance companies, a will, and a presumably undisturbed grave.

Such evidences have been vetted for authenticity, and we have no reason to suspect fraud in his case.

The only real contoversy in his case is wether or not he authored any or all of the published works which bear his name.

His signature appears in several variations, as do other signatures of his day; some are likely in absentia.

...

I'm surprised no one has raised the point that persons can be historical, yet their identities not known to posterity.

"Jack the Ripper" for instance, suspect in the gruesome White Chapel murders.

He was historical, but his "real" name is not known.

Greetz

 

No, there is a story about Jesus reading from Isaiah, a story written decades after the supposed event by people who were not witnesses. It's a story, Jenyar, not history.

 

Please reference which "Qumran scrolls ... are source material (possibly first generation) for the Christian NT books".

[ Parenthetically. it would have been closer to "Yeshu[a] ben Yosef" - if you must be pedantic, try to get it right.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

]

 

Debatable. If you only accepted history that was confirmed as history within a time limit, you wouldn't be left with much.

You claim that it's a story, based on your rejection of certain eyewitness or oral accounts. But what are your criteria for dismissing these accounts?

 

Depends highly on your criteria for accepting them.

Sorry, I couldn't resist.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

To which eyewitness account are you referring? Do you not find it curious that in the entire corpus of Christian story and fabrication, there is not one instance of 1st-person dialogue? Nowhere do you find an 'apostle' saying something like: "I asked Jesus about [whatever] and he said ..." They are all stories, Jenyar, stories and copies of stories. I dismiss them simply because there is absolutely nothing to suggest that they accurately reflect anything or anyone.

 

CA,
I'm not sure whether any apostle wrote about a personal dialogue with Jesus. May be the apostles were of the pious opinion that it was a blatant display of pride to write the 'self and I' being in conversation with Jesus in a book dedicated to their Lord and his Gospel.

 

Based on the historicity of the documents, the integrity of the people involved, their commitment to truth and the unfailing allegiance of their early believers. Why do you dismiss these?

The gospels are narratives of events that many people were talking about already. Dialogues that say 'I did this, then I did that, then I said this' are exactly what you would expect from a story or a novel. One they have claimed authority, the disciples had no reason to include themselves in the account they were giving. Their own role was negligable in it, anyway - as everneo indicated, it wasn't themselves they were testifying about.

No instances of first person dialogue... Come again?
Luke 1
3 Therefore, since I myself have carefully investigated everything from the beginning, it seemed good also to me to write an orderly account for you, most excellent Theophilus,
4 so that you may know the certainty of the things you have been taught.

They are accounts CA, "stories" is a qualifyer which in your language means "lies". As for them having "absolutely nothing to suggest that they accurately reflect anything or anyone" - that is a lie. Their historicity is well attested, it is their content that offends you. Just because you think they were deceived about what they wrote, does not mean their writings are not historically true.

Their languages, context, physical characteristics, geographic information, even peripheral data, are historically accurate; the only thing left to challenge is the existence and trustworthiness of the narrators themselves - which is being stubborn to the point of absurdety.

The Bible contain some of the world's most well attested historical documents. If you disagree, please provide some evidence of the contrary.

 

Historicity? What is historically correct about the Biblical stories? And the integrity of the people involved? Dude, what leads you to believe that they even existed? And commitment to truth? How do you know that they were committed to the truth? Where do you get that information from?

So is everything in The Dogs of Babel, the latest book I've read. Does that make the story true?

Ok, so, using your logic, based on the fact that The Dogs of Babel contained accurate language, context, physical characteristics and peripheral data, I should believe that it is true? The main character in the book is talking to the reader; he is claiming his story to be true. Why should I not believe that Paul Iverson wrote the book as an autobiography, rather than a work of fiction by Carolyne Parkhurst? (GREAT book, by the way. I highly reccomend it to atheists and theists alike)

Really? Like what?

Wrong, pal. In the American Justice system, and in the scientific community, the burden of proof lies on the proponent. That, in this case, would be you, as you are the one advocating that the Bible is true. Show us the proof that the Bible is an accurate historical document.

JD

 

It should be clear that I was speaking of first person dialogue with your purported Jesus. Your above response is silly at best, dishonest at worst.

Had I intended the term "lies" I would have used the term "lies". At the same time, calling your stories "accounts" renders them no less baseless.

 

CA,

From this Scroll Index

http://www.flash.net/~hoselton/deadsea/caves.htm

Scrolls 4Q285, 4Q416 and 4Q418 stand out. The latter scrolls describe "The Children of Salvation (Yeshac) and The Mystery of Existence"- however i do not have a translation of either handy. They seem very non-OT, though they were found with fragments of OT books.

Maybe they're just a newbie's first stab at prophecy? Maybe they're just goofy enough material for Saul to latch onto. Maybe there is another explanation altogether.

Suffice to say, there is evidence that the authors of the NT spoke Hebrew and/or Aramaic (reference the Peshitta), and probably Greek. The scrolls contain some odd, partial translations of all three.

http://www.ekkcom.com/gail08.htm

http://www.yashanet.com/studies/matstudy/mat3b.htm

Here is some junk on the esoteric, hieratical nature of Hebrew:

http://www.hope-of-israel.org/hay&vav.htm

It is important to understand why a "prophesized savior" (*favorite ploy of the dispensationalist nutjobs) might have been called "Yeshua" in the first place.

Just handing the masses a misspelling of "Ieoshua" doesn't cut it.

I digress...

From http://pws.prserv.net/cuttingedge/NTSurvey.htm#_31

I gather that the "communal life" and "twelve guys" stuff are among the tidbits from the scroll collection that the modern clergy is hoping to build a case for "Jesus~ity" on; that and the many apocryphal references to "The Teacher of Righteousness" and "suffering savior" (a popular Judean concept then).

Such outlandish harmonizations aren't going to work though- and not becasue the Qumran folks didn't break bread and dip it in their wine (which we *don't* know they didn't do- they just didn't write about it).

The Jesus of legend has flunked every single test of historicity, *including* his name.

The Dead Sea scrolls are simply the latest "period documents" NOT to mention some nice ol' "son of god" or "savior of man" named "Jesus"- or anything resembling that-

At all.

What is the etymology of "Exxon", guy?

Don't say a mistranslation of "Esso" prz.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

http://www.plim.org/JesusOrigin.htm

http://www.tjresearch.info/hisname.htm

So, was "Jesus" really named Ioeshua, Immanuel, Yeshua, Yahshu- or what?

Is it just a simple mistranslation of a "common name"- or a contraction of "Joshua" and/or "Yaweh"- or a canonical fabrication?

Christianity is a made-up religion based on Judean monotheism and Paganism.

Think hard about that, before awarding me any more of your dim wit.

Please.

Edit: "Yeshac" should read "Yesha" above; the Children of Salvation.

Hmmnnn.

 

What leads you to believe that they didn't exist?

In terms of historicity, you don't get much better than the Bible. Have a look at some other historical documents that are considered authentic with less evidence.
Manuscript evidence for New Testament historicity

While it is possible to get more accurate descriptions of historical events, the possibility is largely due to 1)the printing press 2)peer review 3)corroboration of multiple accounts 4)creditable eye-witnesses. All of these become exponentially easier depending on recency.

Dismissing something because it is too far removed from your throne to believe, is your personal preference. I hold that I have sufficient reason for believing a tradition that has remained unbroken since its establishment.

No, JD, the problem here is that you think you are arguing from a stance that is automatically true. My assertion that the New Testament is historically authentic is just as valid as your claim that it isn't. You can put that veto card back in your pocket.

It was clear, and I raised my objection that it is not self-evident that there should be any first-person dialogue beyond what there already is.

"They are all stories, Jenyar, stories and copies of stories. I dismiss them simply because there is absolutely nothing to suggest that they accurately reflect anything or anyone."
i.e., What we have are lies. The stories claim to be a faithful representation of events. If you say they are not, you imply that they are lying - and that we are believing lies by believing them.

So are they true or are they lies?


You know, permit me to rant a moment. I have had X many atheists smugly talk to me about having to carry the "burden of proof" from out of the glaring silence of any "claims" they might or might not have made themselves. My experience of this is that they only use this as a "license to insult". Some might hide behind the "I know nothing and make no claims" facade, but when an atheist says something, it is by default the truth, nothing but the truth, and the whole truth - if you did not use the word "lie" then you did not imply the word "lie". And any conclusions I make are the result of my own bias and/or stupidity. On the other hand, anything I say can and will be valid implicitly and explicitly for all eternity, and used against me in the court of scientific verifiability and ultimate truth.

Talk about dishonesty.

 

"The absence of independent evidence confirming the biblical narrative cause many scholars to question the accuracy or even the veracity of the historical account. According to many historians, the Biblical patriarchs, Moses, King David, and King Solomon are little more than legendary figures, though possibly based on historical events and persons. Today there are two loosely defined schools of thought with regard to the historicity of the Bible (biblical minimalism and biblical maximalism), in addition to the traditional religious reading of the Bible."

Source: Wikipedia

 

"...the Scriptures themselves are the proper focus of our study, not the hypothetical re-creations of the events behind these Scriptures. The events themselves were never sufficient—in any time—to communicate God's revelation fully, and today they are accessible only through the written interpretations, the Scriptures."
Source: Minimalism and Biblical history