If Jesus is to Make Appearance

Nov 2016
587
Germany
There were Jewish Christians who kept Mosaic laws and circumcised, and there were gentile Christians who did not. And the divide between them occurred at some point in 1st century. This much is agreed upon historical facts. It could be concluded even without the account of NT, that something like circumcision controversy did happen to create the divide
Surely there was a circumcision controversy but we don´t exactly know at which time. You can´t call a dating in the 1st century a "historical fact" because there is not the least concrete (i.e. contemporary) evidence for the existence of Christianity in that century.

You should differentiate between inference and fact. All we have are texts from the 2nd century that allow - but not necessarily - the inference that Christianity emerged in the 1st century. However there is no concrete proof (= no contemporary evidence) for such a thing. Without such a proof you can´t talk of "facts".
 
Last edited:

M.S. Islam

Ad Honorem
Jul 2012
3,111
Dhaka
Surely there was a circumcision controversy but we don´t exactly know at which time. You can´t call a dating in the 1st century a "historical fact" because there is not the least concrete (i.e. contemporary) evidence for the existence of Christianity in that century.
I lost you there. What do you mean by 'Christianity'?

You should differentiate between inference and fact. All we have are texts from the 2nd century that allow - but not necessarily - the inference that Christianity emerged in the 1st century. However there is no concrete proof (= no contemporary evidence) for such a thing. Without such a proof you can´t talk of "facts".
I agree that it was an inference rather than a fact, but then much of history in general is based on inference.
 
Nov 2016
587
Germany
I lost you there. What do you mean by 'Christianity'?
I mean that there is no evidence (a text or archeological detail, whatever) to be found that can be directly dated in the 1st century and has in a way to do with Christianity (= Christian religion and its followers). From an archaeological point of view it looks as if there had been no Christianity in the 1st century.

I agree that it was an inference rather than a fact, but then much of history in general is based on inference.
True, but the realization that there is no direct proof of the existence of Christianity in the 1st century is of particular importance, since the two most important figures of this religion, Jesus and Paul, are said to have lived in this century. For Buddhist teaching it doesn't matter whether Buddha really lived, but for Christian teaching it is highly crucial that Jesus existed.
 
Last edited:
Likes: Edratman

M.S. Islam

Ad Honorem
Jul 2012
3,111
Dhaka
I mean that there is no evidence (a text or archeological detail, whatever) to be found that can be directly dated in the 1st century and has in a way to do with Christianity (= Christian religion and its followers). From an archaeological point of view it looks as if there had been no Christianity in the 1st century.



True, but the realization that there is no direct proof of the existence of Christianity in the 1st century is of particular importance, since the two most important figures of this religion, Jesus and Paul, are said to have lived in this century. For Buddhist teaching it doesn't matter whether Buddha really lived, but for Christian teaching it is highly crucial that Jesus existed.
You could have said this earlier, that would have saved me a lot of typing.
 
Aug 2014
1,126
pakistan
A lot of?



Can anyone reproduce in English what this Rajesh Koothrappali mutation essentially tells?

In the above video he is saying that any one who opposes him, is opposing Allah, and same can happen to his opponents as happened to ancient nations who got obliterated when they opposed their prophets.

Desi-Punjabi Jesus is very Pakistani-centric and his messages and warnings are for Pakistanis. He is giving references from Quran and it appears he is clueless about Bible.
 
Jan 2015
874
England
A lot of posters here have made comments to the affect of 'How would we know it really is Jesus?' or 'How would this' Jesus' prove his credentials?' I just want to point out that the description Jesus himself gave of his return was this:

"Immediately after the tribulation of those days, the sun will be darkened, and the moon will not give its light, and the stars will fall from heaven, and the powers of the heavens will be shaken. Then the sign of the Son of man will appear in heaven, and all the tribes of the earth will beat themselves in grief, and they will see the Son of man coming on the clouds of heaven with power and great glory."

So when Jesus does return (talking from a Christian perspective here), there is not going to be any ambiguity about it. I'd be interested to hear how the people in that thread would react under this scenario, as opposed to the scenario that he will just come back as a man on earth.
 
Likes: sailorsam

Similar History Discussions