How large was Jesus following while alive?

[CynthiaCypher]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jesus

Most contemporary scholars of the historical Jesus consider him to have been an independent, charismatic founder of a Jewish restoration movement,

why would he want to restore the jewish religion then?? if he thought the end was coming soon???


and why restore the jewish religion? he viewed them as corrupt.

why? because pilate put the high priest in charge. judaism was in fact infected by roman control, and roman control ment one thing with certainty. TAXES

:areyoucra

There is nothing in the sources that even hint that he wanted to restore or reform Judaism! Why would he? He thought the world was ending

 

[outhouse]

He heals a Roman's servant and also when asked about paying taxes to Caesar said "Render unto Caesar that which is Caesars"

Does a person says and does such look like a tea-party tax rebel to you?

first of all in the caesar is caesars thing, jesus is questioned and has to play the middle of the road as they were looking to trip him up right there, so they could kill or arrest him then.

"They couldn't make him say anything wrong in front of the people. His answer surprised them, so they said no more." - Luke 20:26

 

[outhouse]

:areyoucra

There is nothing in the sources that even hint that he wanted to restore or reform Judaism! Why would he? He thought the world was ending

then why do most scholars say he was a leader of a restoration movement??



he didnt think the world was ending.

Other prominent scholars, however, contend that Jesus' "Kingdom of God" meant radical personal and social transformation instead of a future apocalypse.[24]

 

[CynthiaCypher]

first of all in the caesar is caesars thing, jesus is questioned and has to play the middle of the road as they were looking to trip him up right there, so they could kill or arrest him then.

"They couldn't make him say anything wrong in front of the people. His answer surprised them, so they said no more." - Luke 20:26

He was debating the Pharisees. They had no power to arrest or kill anyone. He believe that you should just pay taxes because well the world was ending, so it's meaningless not too

 

[CynthiaCypher]

then why do most scholars say he was a leader of a restoration movement??



he didnt think the world was ending.

Other prominent scholars, however, contend that Jesus' "Kingdom of God" meant radical personal and social transformation instead of a future apocalypse.[24]

Which scholars? Most scholar believe he was an apocalyptic preacher

 

[outhouse]

He was debating the Pharisees. They had no power to arrest or kill anyone. He believe that you should just pay taxes because well the world was ending, so it's meaningless not too

you havnt been able to prove that he thought the world was coming to a end

and ive showed you scholars that say he didnt think that.


he didnt believe you should pay taxes and you havnt showed that either.

in fact, biblically he was asked later after the caesar question, why he didnt pay taxes and send peter fishing instead of paying the bill

 

[outhouse]

Which scholars? Most scholar believe he was an apocalyptic preacher

yes they do.

all im saying is its up for debate. its not a certainty that he was preaching the world was coming to a end.


it doesnt make any sense he wants to reform a religion thinking the worlds is about to end. that whole notion doesnt make sense

 

[fallingblood]

the problem here, is that you give more historcity to jesus life in gospels then I do. So yes I will appear that way.

ALL scholars and historians give or take away historicity surrounding his life. at will.

you pick and choose scholars the same way I do, so dont act like im the one way out there with my view.

we have opinions and I have respected yours in the past.

Supply some scholars then. Because I don't just pick and choose. I have books by scholars from being very conservative to very liberal. The only ones I don't accept are those on the fringe. And even then, I have read the work of various fringe scholars as well (I'm talking about those like Price and Carrier on the one hand, and Williams Lane Craig on the other). The only ones that I have seen who go to the point that you do basically are those on the fringe, closer to Price and Carrier. So please, if you have some scholars that deny most of the historicity surrounding Jesus, put some down here. I'm always willing to pick up some new work.

Also, few scholars or historians give or take away historicity surrounding his life at will. They make arguments as to why something is more probable than not. If they did it at will, they would scoffed at. A great example of just that can be seen in Five Views of Jesus, in which the other four scholars scoff at what Price has to say. And then they show why he is wrong.

You can also look at John P. Meier's work or John Dominic Crossan's work and see the extensive arguments that they make for their position, and why items are more historical than others. And they are hardly the only ones who do so, but are the ones that jump to mind.


And again, why not simply lay out what you believe has historicity in the Gospels, and we can work from there. It is better than you simply coming back and stating that it has no historicity, or we're simply guessing (or just dismissing scholars). As a note, I do find it funny still that you used Spong, even though you have dismissed him numerous times before. Do you not see that you only use sources when they agree with you? That's not what scholars or historians do.

 

[fallingblood]

he is thought of as a real charactor by many.

but paul and Q dont say a word about him

the only reason many say he existed is by criterion of embarrassement.

still alot of debate in this boy

We don't have Q, so you can't say that Q doesn't mention it. We don't know what Q didn't contain, we can only assume what it did say. However, it is very possible it contained other ideas as well. So again, you can't say Q didn't say anything about him, as we simply don't know.

And Paul does say something about a traitor, who was partially responsible for the death of Jesus.

 

[CynthiaCypher]

yes they do.

all im saying is its up for debate. its not a certainty that he was preaching the world was coming to a end.


it doesnt make any sense he wants to reform a religion thinking the worlds is about to end. that whole notion doesnt make sense

No. That's one thing most scholars are certain on. According to the earliest sources Jesus was an apocalyptic preacher

 

[outhouse]

No. That's one thing most scholars are certain on. According to the earliest sources Jesus was an apocalyptic preacher

then explain this

Other prominent scholars, however, contend that Jesus' "Kingdom of God" meant radical personal and social transformation instead of a future apocalypse

and this

Historical Jesus - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Some scholars credit the apocalyptic declarations of the Gospels to him, while others portray his Kingdom of God as a moral one, and not apocalyptic in nature


and this

Jesus preached mainly about the Kingdom of God. Scholars are divided over whether he was referring to an imminent apocalyptic event or the transformation of everyday life.


Evidence for the Kingdom of God as already present derives from these verses.[107]

• In Luke 17:20-21, Jesus says that one will not be able to observe God's Kingdom arriving, and that it "is right there in your presence."

• In Thomas 113, Jesus says that God's Kingdom "is spread out upon the earth, and people don't see it."

• In Luke 11:20, Jesus says that if he drives out demons by God's finger then "for you" the Kingdom of God has arrived.

• Furthermore, the major parables of Jesus do not reflect an apocalyptic view of history.

 

[outhouse]

We don't have Q, so you can't say that Q doesn't mention it. We don't know what Q didn't contain, we can only assume what it did say. However, it is very possible it contained other ideas as well. So again, you can't say Q didn't say anything about him, as we simply don't know.

And Paul does say something about a traitor, who was partially responsible for the death of Jesus.

take it up with wiki if you can.


Judas Iscariot - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Theologian Aaron Saari contends in his work The Many Deaths of Judas Iscariot that Judas Iscariot was the literary invention of the Markan community. As Judas does not appear in the Epistles of Paul, nor in the Q Gospel,

 

[CynthiaCypher]

then explain this

Other prominent scholars, however, contend that Jesus' "Kingdom of God" meant radical personal and social transformation instead of a future apocalypse

and this

Historical Jesus - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Some scholars credit the apocalyptic declarations of the Gospels to him, while others portray his Kingdom of God as a moral one, and not apocalyptic in nature


and this

Jesus preached mainly about the Kingdom of God. Scholars are divided over whether he was referring to an imminent apocalyptic event or the transformation of everyday life.


Evidence for the Kingdom of God as already present derives from these verses.[107]

• In Luke 17:20-21, Jesus says that one will not be able to observe God's Kingdom arriving, and that it "is right there in your presence."

• In Thomas 113, Jesus says that God's Kingdom "is spread out upon the earth, and people don't see it."

• In Luke 11:20, Jesus says that if he drives out demons by God's finger then "for you" the Kingdom of God has arrived.

• Furthermore, the major parables of Jesus do not reflect an apocalyptic view of history.

I said earliest sources, not Wikipedia

 

[outhouse]

I said earliest sources, not Wikipedia

his parables are the earliest sources

 

[fallingblood]

take it up with wiki if you can.


Judas Iscariot - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Theologian Aaron Saari contends in his work The Many Deaths of Judas Iscariot that Judas Iscariot was the literary invention of the Markan community. As Judas does not appear in the Epistles of Paul, nor in the Q Gospel,

Oh no wiki. I guess there is no need for books or even reading the Bible anymore as wiki holds all of the answers. And just think, what you quoted is only one mans opinion, but I guess since it is on wiki it is far better than all other scholars.

Not to mention that it allows you to just ignore everything anyone else says. Because why deal with that when you can find a wiki entry.

Seriously though, how are we to know what isn't in a hypothetical document? We don't have it. We can only know what is possibly in it. And again, Paul mentions a traitor who acted like Judas. But hey, what does it matter if it wasn't in your wiki link.

 

[outhouse]

Oh no wiki. I guess there is no need for books or even reading the Bible anymore as wiki holds all of the answers. And just think, what you quoted is only one mans opinion, but I guess since it is on wiki it is far better than all other scholars.

Not to mention that it allows you to just ignore everything anyone else says. Because why deal with that when you can find a wiki entry.

Seriously though, how are we to know what isn't in a hypothetical document? We don't have it. We can only know what is possibly in it. And again, Paul mentions a traitor who acted like Judas. But hey, what does it matter if it wasn't in your wiki link.

why do you have a problem with Q?

 

[outhouse]

And Paul does say something about a traitor, who was partially responsible for the death of Jesus.

sources please

 

[outhouse]

Supply some scholars then. Because I don't just pick and choose. I have books by scholars from being very conservative to very liberal. The only ones I don't accept are those on the fringe. And even then, I have read the work of various fringe scholars as well (I'm talking about those like Price and Carrier on the one hand, and Williams Lane Craig on the other). The only ones that I have seen who go to the point that you do basically are those on the fringe, closer to Price and Carrier. So please, if you have some scholars that deny most of the historicity surrounding Jesus, put some down here. I'm always willing to pick up some new work.

Also, few scholars or historians give or take away historicity surrounding his life at will. They make arguments as to why something is more probable than not. If they did it at will, they would scoffed at. A great example of just that can be seen in Five Views of Jesus, in which the other four scholars scoff at what Price has to say. And then they show why he is wrong.

You can also look at John P. Meier's work or John Dominic Crossan's work and see the extensive arguments that they make for their position, and why items are more historical than others. And they are hardly the only ones who do so, but are the ones that jump to mind.


And again, why not simply lay out what you believe has historicity in the Gospels, and we can work from there. It is better than you simply coming back and stating that it has no historicity, or we're simply guessing (or just dismissing scholars). As a note, I do find it funny still that you used Spong, even though you have dismissed him numerous times before. Do you not see that you only use sources when they agree with you? That's not what scholars or historians do.

again I refer you to this statement below.

I also would ask that you do not ignore that there are many debates regarding different areas of jesus historicity by mainstream scholar's not just fringe positions.

Critics variously characterize the historical reconstruction of Jesus as either an unwarranted a priori rejection of all supernatural elements in Jesus' true identity, or as ascribing historical status to a fictional character. John P. Meier wrote that in the past the quest for the historical Jesus has often been motivated more by a desire to produce an alternate christology than a true historical search; as an example, he points out that the stated motivation of one of the Jesus Seminar members was to overthrow the "mistake called Christianity."[15] The quest is also said to be too western, too white, too bourgeois, and too male.[169][170]
The linguist Alvar Ellegård argued that theologians have failed to question Jesus' existence because of a lack of communication between them and other scholars, causing some of the basic assumptions of Christianity to remain insulated from general scholarly debate.[162][171] According to the historian of religion Joseph Hoffman, there has never been "a methodologically agnostic approach to the question of Jesus' historical existence."[172] Donald Akenson, Professor of Irish Studies, in the department of history at Queen's University, has argued that, with very few exceptions, the historians of Yeshua have not followed sound historical practices. He has stated that there is an unhealthy reliance on consensus, for propositions, which should otherwise be based on primary sources, or rigorous interpretation. He also identifies a peculiar downward dating creep, and holds that some of the criteria being used are faulty. He says that, the overwhelming majority of biblical scholars are employed in institutions whose roots are in religious beliefs. Because of this, more than any other group in present day academia, biblical historians are under immense pressure to theologize their historical work. It is only through considerable individual heroism, that many biblical historians have managed to maintain the scholarly integrity of their work.[173][174][175] John Meier, Professor of theology at University of Notre Dame, has also said "...I think a lot of the confusion comes from the fact that people claim they are doing a quest for the historical Jesus when de facto they’re doing theology, albeit a theology that is indeed historically informed..."[176] Dale Allison, Professor of New Testament Exegesis and Early Christianity at Pittsburgh Theological Seminary, too says, "...We wield our criteria to get what we want..."[177] Biblical scholars have also been accused of having a strong disinclination towards communicating to the lay public things they know, but which would be unsettling to mainstream Christians.[178] However, the Old Testament scholar Albrektson, while identifying some possible problems, says that a great many biblical scholars do practise their profession as an ordinary philological and historical subject, avoiding dogmatic assumptions and beliefs.[179]
The New Testament scholar Nicholas Perrin has argued that since most biblical scholars are Christians, a certain bias is inevitable, but he does not see this as a major problem.[180][181]
Albert Schweitzer accused early scholars of religious bias. Rudolf Bultmann argued that historical research could reveal very little about the historical Jesus. Some have argued that modern biblical scholarship is insufficiently critical and sometimes amounts to covert apologetics.

 

[arcanum]

Oh no wiki. I guess there is no need for books or even reading the Bible anymore as wiki holds all of the answers. And just think, what you quoted is only one mans opinion, but I guess since it is on wiki it is far better than all other scholars.

Not to mention that it allows you to just ignore everything anyone else says. Because why deal with that when you can find a wiki entry.

Seriously though, how are we to know what isn't in a hypothetical document? We don't have it. We can only know what is possibly in it. And again, Paul mentions a traitor who acted like Judas. But hey, what does it matter if it wasn't in your wiki link.

Which is why I think outhouse should just change his screen name to mr. wiki he loves to link his wiki articles like it's the final authority.

 

[outhouse]

Which is why I think outhouse should just change his screen name to mr. wiki he loves to link his wiki articles like it's the final authority.

wiki gives a decent overview of all the work done, AND if one has he knowledge, one can edit the info if you can make a case thats backed.