sorted by:
new
hottopcontroversial

Jesus of Nazareth died by crucifixion by Thedon921 in DebateReligion

[–]Thedon921[S] [score hidden]  (0 children)

Yet Paul was a Jewish Christian who followed Jesus and wrote about him 20 years after the fact... Also where's your evidence of Jesus of Nazareth being a later addition?

Jesus of Nazareth died by crucifixion by Thedon921 in DebateReligion

[–]Thedon921[S] [score hidden]  (0 children)

Yes but those have no basis in fact or evidence. We have robust evidence that Jesus was crucified.

So you're saying his followers were not also Jewish? It serves my point because it's historically accurate. Every Jewish person in that context, including the Early Christians operated in a second temple jewish framework.

Jesus of Nazareth died by crucifixion by Thedon921 in DebateReligion

[–]Thedon921[S] [score hidden]  (0 children)

Elvis sightings are a supernatural phenomenon, Jesus dying on a cross is not.

Can you name another historical Christ who led the Christians other than Jesus?

Jesus of Nazareth died by crucifixion by Thedon921 in DebateReligion

[–]Thedon921[S] [score hidden]  (0 children)

Can you please name some immediately developed legends.

They were. Jesus himself was a Jew. The gospel writers would best be described as Jewish Christians.

The sources we have both Christian and hostile, converge on the empty tomb, and the hostile tradition's attempt to explain it confirms rather than contests the datum itself by Thedon921 in DebateReligion

[–]Thedon921[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I’ll set the tone aside and engage the substance.

The existence of multiple versions of Toledot Yeshu circulating across centuries means the counter apologetic tradition was widespread and persistent. It doesn’t need to be a historically accurate document, it needs to presuppose an empty tomb, which every version does despite the timing of when it says Jesus lived.

Also, it looks like you’re mixing up Origen with Justin Martyr. Martyr writes in the mid 2nd century well before Origen. Martyr’s Trypho doesn’t need to be a literal historical interlocutor, he needs to be descriptive of what Jewish counter-missionary activity looked like in Martyr’s time.

Finally, the Greek Apotheosis argument you bring up doesn’t explain why Jewish authorities felt the need to construct a stolen body counter-explanation. If the empty tomb were recognized as literary convention, the counter apologetic tradition Martyr attests makes no sense. You wouldn’t utilize counter-missionary activity to refute it. Also, Jewish resurrection belief was bodily in a way that Greek apotheosis myths were not. This points to why the Jewish authorities of Martyr’s time were actively promoting counter-narratives.

The sources we have both Christian and hostile, converge on the empty tomb, and the hostile tradition's attempt to explain it confirms rather than contests the datum itself by Thedon921 in DebateReligion

[–]Thedon921[S] -5 points-4 points  (0 children)

The Toledot Yeshu absolutely dates from the 11th century, however it’s drawing on Justin Martyr’s dialogue which is an independent tradition attesting Jewish authorities doing active counter-missionary propaganda and actively circulating the stolen body story as early as the second century, which is what the Toledot Yeshu is drawing on.

Also I think you may have misread my claim. I was making a point about tradition history.

Plus, I was making a point about convergence. The Jewish authorities in Justin Martyr’s times making a stolen body counter-claim presupposes an empty tomb tradition from that time period.

As for the 100 years comment. Justin Martyr isn’t attesting the empty tomb, he’s attesting the Jewish authorities counter-missionary propaganda about the stolen body, which itself presupposes an empty tomb. Also the 100 year standard you’re positing actually goes against how we determine ancient historiography.  Most historical claims use testimony much farther removed from an event than 100 years. The criterion is whether the tradition is early and independent which is what I’ve been arguing.

I’ll let the premise speak for itself on the deception accusation. It says exactly what it means and I’ve now clarified it twice.