How would an Historical JC be Defined?

[Jonathan Hoffman]

The teaching of Jesus was focused on the kingdom of God, which is an invitation to grow into a higher relationship with God. On two occasions he says sin no more: to the woman who was caught in an act of adultery Jn.8.11 and after healing a sick man at the pool Bethesda.
Another two occasions he says your sins are forgiven: to the woman who anointed him with perfume and after healing a paralyzed person. These two occasions it was connected with the question of authority of forgiving sins.
These statements reflect more the mind set of his disciples to prove that that they had the power from Jesus to forgive sins and that those who have been forgiven should not go back into their former lives. I do not think they represent the mind set of Jesus. Jesus performed many miracles but never he said your sins are forgiven or sin no more. Many times he said, your faith has made you well.
Hence basing on these rare statements of Jesus and conclude that Jesus came to ask people to repent from sin is building one's house on a sand.

Luke 17:3 Take heed to yourselves. If your brother sins against you,* rebuke him; and if he repents, forgive him.

Sorry, but without repentance there can be no forgiveness of sin. Jesus said not one jot or tittle of the Law would be abolished and that his commandments were easy to keep. When the unknown gospel authors show Jesus forgiving sin merely because they have faith, IMO that is a sign of Pauline meddling.

Whether or not you think Jesus saved people merely because of their faith, he commanded them not to sin again

John 5:14 Afterward Jesus findeth him in the temple, and said unto him, Behold, thou art made whole: sin no more, lest a worse thing come unto thee.

1 john 5:18 We know that anyone born of God does not continue to sin; the One who was born of God keeps them safe, and the evil one cannot harm them.

Even the unknown author of Hebrews writes:

Heb 10:26 For if we sin wilfully after that we have received the knowledge of the truth, there remaineth no more sacrifice for sins,

 

[outhouse]

Fair enough. So a Roman citizen converts to pseudo-Jewish, is contracted by either the Romans or (better) Senior Jewish officials to put down christian groups (Ha! The Jewish officials may have asked him to undertake initiation prior to the operation) sets about his work (Stephen) but has a life-changing epiphany later on. But Christianity is all Paul's.

I think that historic Jesus and Christianity separate here, for me. I am interested in historic Jesus, and so Paul, once his letters have been reviewed, can go his own way!

I agree.

Pauls Jewishness has always been up for debate. I wish we knew enough to define it properly.

I dont know if he was a proselyte or a generation or two from it. I have my opinion, but that is the context it stays for now

 

[oldbadger]

As part of the Edomite Herodian family (and a kinsman [Romans 16:11] to Herodion, meaning little Herod according to Eisenman) he would be a Roman citizen).

Thanks for this....

As to Saul/Paul hunting down early Christians, IMO there were no normative Christians in the first century. He would be hunting down messianic Jews. Note also Nero threw messianic Jews to the lions not Xians.

Very good! Of course. They were just followers of Jesus! Christ and Christianity has not arrived yet! Thanks for that angle.
But in Nero's time they had arrived, so I reckon Nero was nobbling Xians.

'Paul' (or the author of the Pauline epistles) worked to create a Xian religion that was compatible with the Pax Romana. Isn't it amazing he said the earthly authorities were appointed by God, the very authorities who had so recently crucified Jesus?

Ha ha! Paul was no follower of Jesus, he was forming his own religion.

 

[oldbadger]

I may have said this before, but the book How Jesus Became Christian by Barrie Wilson shows how the Jesus cult and the Pauline cult were merged together when the Church Fathers wrote the book of Acts as a means of harmonizing the two separate and antagonistic religions. Btw, this means James and the Jerusalem Church never interacted in any way as Acts falsely alleged. Acts was written to create the impression they did interact.

Indeed. I underlined separate and antagonistic simply because they remained so. James and Cephas, with others, remained as thorns in Paul's side.

I don't trust Acts, although some small snippets of interest emerge.... in the same way as Paul's letters.

Strip away the evangelism etc and a beautiful person emerges in Jesus, imo, but a Jesus who lived for his own folks. Jews could be very proud of Jesus, if they are ordinary working folks. Geza Vermes definitely wants him back! But Vermes upsets me over his complete total dismissal of the nativity, which, if stripped down could produce some truths.

 

[oldbadger]

I agree.

Pauls Jewishness has always been up for debate. I wish we knew enough to define it properly.

I dont know if he was a proselyte or a generation or two from it. I have my opinion, but that is the context it stays for now

I learned a few things this evening...... most pleased.

This definition of HJ. I've been looking at Flax farming, harvesting and products etc, and noticed how many wooden trestle-tools and such were needed. That got me thinking about net-needles, boat repairs, net-frames .... oh... it goes on.

I think of all kinds of stuff..... for instance, since flax-farming was important, how many people had girdles made from flax? Since papyrus is a salt/brackish water reed (?) Galilean folks probably didn't have papyrus sandals, so how about flax woven sandals? I don't think many Galileans had leather, whereas John t B did. Linen for tunics presumably were woven from flax. Why? Well, if Jesus was a handyman, he could have been involved in all kinds of work. I think he worked around the Galilean shoreline for years before his ministry. He knew all these people already. Bust a net needle? See Jesus. Boat repair? Scrubbing trestle? etc.

The Gang-leader fishermen were licensed from Tiberius, but he might have been allowed to work in a gang sometimes, or took lifts across the lake as needed. I reckon his home was Capernaum before the 11 months.

 

[Jonathan Hoffman]

Thanks for this....


Very good! Of course. They were just followers of Jesus! Christ and Christianity has not arrived yet! Thanks for that angle.
But in Nero's time they had arrived, so I reckon Nero was nobbling Xians.

I don't think Xians existed in the first century, and if they did, why would any Roman persecute these pacifists who had no problem with Roman authority?

 

[John Martin]

Luke 17:3 Take heed to yourselves. If your brother sins against you,* rebuke him; and if he repents, forgive him.

Sorry, but without repentance there can be no forgiveness of sin. Jesus said not one jot or tittle of the Law would be abolished and that his commandments were easy to keep. When the unknown gospel authors show Jesus forgiving sin merely because they have faith, IMO that is a sign of Pauline meddling.

Whether or not you think Jesus saved people merely because of their faith, he commanded them not to sin again

John 5:14 Afterward Jesus findeth him in the temple, and said unto him, Behold, thou art made whole: sin no more, lest a worse thing come unto thee.

1 john 5:18 We know that anyone born of God does not continue to sin; the One who was born of God keeps them safe, and the evil one cannot harm them.

Even the unknown author of Hebrews writes:

Heb 10:26 For if we sin wilfully after that we have received the knowledge of the truth, there remaineth no more sacrifice for sins,

Dear Jonathan,
Before I answer your post. I wish you read the post below. This was posted another thread called Expanding our Ego. I thought it will give you what I am aiming at. I will reply to your post soon. JM.

Even though Jesus Christ said,'I am the way,the truth and the life', he also proposed a way through which people can enter into the kingdom of heaven or God:
1. the way of repentance- the kingdom of God is at hand, repent
2. The way of rebirth: unless you are born again you cannot enter into the kingdom of heaven, Jesus told Nicodemus
3. The way of becoming little children:unless you become like little children you cannot enter into the kingdom of heaven.
4. The way of losing: If you lose your life(self) you will gain it and if you gain your self you will lose it.
5. The way of growth: the kingdom of God is like a mustard seed. it is the smallest of all seeds but when it grows it becomes so big that the birds of the air will come and make their nests in it.
6. The way of dying:unless a grain of wheat falls into the ground and dies it remains alone if it dies it gives a mighty harvest.

Even though Jesus used many images and symbols I feel he is proposing only one way.It is the way of expanding our ego- from the individual ego to the divine ego.
There are four important levels of ego: individual, collective, universal and divine.
The way we understand repent depends on which level we: if we are in the individual level, repentance is to enter into the collective level, if we are in the collective level repentance is to move into the universal level and if we are in the universal level repentance is to move into the divine level.
The same thing applies to rebirth also: If we are in the individual level rebirth is to enter into the collective level, if we are in the collective level, rebirth is to enter into the universal level and if we are in the universal level rebirth is to enter into the divine level.

If we are in the physical level our age is identified with our physical body. We cannot become children at that level.If we identify with our collective belief systems our age is identical with our religion. Suppose if I say I am Christian, I am 2013 years old. I cannot become a child in that level. If I enter into the universal level, my age just born as I live in the eternal present.If I enter into the divine then I am as eternal as God but also as young as just born child.

If we are willing to lose our individual self then we will gain our collective self, if we are willing to lose our collective self then we will gain our universal self, if we are willing to lose our universal self then we will gain our divine self. It is by losing we gain. If we cling to the lower selves we will lose the higher self.
The kingdom of God growing from the seed to the tree. In the seed the tree there but it has to be actualized. We need to grow from the individual to the divine consciousness,the tree so that there is a place for everyone in our heart. The nests can be seen symbols of belief systems or collective consciousnesses.
It is by dying our life becomes fruitful. If we live only for our self, we die only for our self. If we live for our collective consciousness or belief system then we die we die only for our belief system. if we live for all then we die we die for all.If we live for God then we live for all eternity.Our death is for the whole of creation. It is by dying our life becomes fruitful. We say Jesus died for all it is because he lived for all.
Hence I like to propose that the way Jesus proposed to enter into the kingdom of God is only one. It is the way of expanding our ego, from the individual to the divine. I prefer to use 'expanding our ego' because the words life renouncing the ego or killing the ego,destroying the ego,have negative connotations and imply some violence. Jesus' emphasis was from the collective to the universal and from there to the divine, because his listeners were already in the second level, the collective consciousness.
I am interested to know if anyone has any comments to make or propose a different way of interpretation-

 

[steeltoes]

I don't think Xians existed in the first century, and if they did, why would any Roman persecute these pacifists who had no problem with Roman authority?

I don't think Xians existed in the first century either. When did the gospels become known, late second century?

 

[outhouse]

I learned a few things this evening...... most pleased.

This definition of HJ. I've been looking at Flax farming, harvesting and products etc, and noticed how many wooden trestle-tools and such were needed. That got me thinking about net-needles, boat repairs, net-frames .... oh... it goes on.

I think of all kinds of stuff..... for instance, since flax-farming was important, how many people had girdles made from flax? Since papyrus is a salt/brackish water reed (?) Galilean folks probably didn't have papyrus sandals, so how about flax woven sandals? I don't think many Galileans had leather, whereas John t B did. Linen for tunics presumably were woven from flax. Why? Well, if Jesus was a handyman, he could have been involved in all kinds of work. I think he worked around the Galilean shoreline for years before his ministry. He knew all these people already. Bust a net needle? See Jesus. Boat repair? Scrubbing trestle? etc.

The Gang-leader fishermen were licensed from Tiberius, but he might have been allowed to work in a gang sometimes, or took lifts across the lake as needed. I reckon his home was Capernaum before the 11 months.

Yes id go for both Nazareth and Capernaum as their socioeconomic levels were simular.

Flax, your on the right trail. It is what the nets were made of, thus it would have been the thead of choice.

Dont be so sure about JtB clothes, there is no evidence of a camel hair tunic, nor would there be.

They didnt eat a lot of meat in Galilee less the Passover holiday, but Camel wasnt on the menu lol

I think it could be stated though, that he was and the emphasis, "he was poorly dressed"

 

[steeltoes]

Yes id go for both Nazareth and Capernaum as their socioeconomic levels were simular.

Flax, your on the right trail. It is what the nets were made of, thus it would have been the thead of choice.

Dont be so sure about JtB clothes, there is no evidence of a camel hair tunic, nor would there be.

They didnt eat a lot of meat in Galilee less the Passover holiday, but Camel wasnt on the menu lol

I think it could be stated though, that he was and the emphasis, "he was poorly dressed"

NO evidence of a camel hair tunic, nosiree, we're a skeptical lot, except when it comes to a Jesus Christ that really and truly o got crucified, for that the evidence is just too much to deny.

 

[outhouse]

NO evidence of a camel hair tunic, nosiree, we're a skeptical lot, except when it comes to a Jesus Christ that really and truly o got crucified, for that the evidence is just too much to deny.

Details are just that. Foundations are another story.

A martyred man at passover was more then typical for the time period.

 

[Copernicus]

I don't think Xians existed in the first century either. When did the gospels become known, late second century?

I see the argument for historicity as being that HJ is true, because that is the best interpretation of the available evidence. Much of the argument necessarily depends on chains of reasonable assumptions in which very clever scholars, with a good knowledge of the biblical literature and the times, tried hard to reconstruct the facts from copies of original documents. The copies were produced and filtered through a chain of human copyists who very strongly believed in the existence of a historical Jesus. Errors were made and some parts of the record were obviously tampered with to reflect the biases of the copying machine that preserved them. There is nothing we can do about the nature of the evidence, because we have no good archeological evidence or other corroborating materials.

If Paul existed in the first century, then there existed competing versions of the Jesus story shortly after the alleged crucifixion took place. I do not think there is any good reason to think of him as a purely fictional being, and he was the very first to mention Jesus worship in the historical record. Moreover, Pliny's and Tacitus's mention of Christians so soon after the second century started pretty much establishes that Christians had been preaching their beliefs in at least the late first century, but the few contemporary details in Paul's letters suggest he converted to Christianity shortly after the event of the crucifixion, although Paul never actually said that directly. There is one mention of Pontius Pilate in Romans, but that could have been inserted in the copying process, as could a number of other meager details that help us to establish dates.

It isn't too hard to imagine other scenarios that led to the reification of a fictional Jesus in the Gospels. Suppose that (Simon-)Peter and James really did exist, but the version of Christianity they taught was of an earlier crucifixion--maybe Simon of Peraea (he was claimed to make himself King of the Jews and was killed by the Romans and their established local leader, Herod. See also 'In three days, you shall live') James and Peter were Jews and still wanted Gentiles to follow Jewish law, but they preached a messianic version of Judaism in which Simon had been raised from the dead and deified after his martyrdom. Along comes Paul, who joins this long-established movement and starts preaching a distorted version of the cult in which Gentiles didn't have to be circumcised or follow other Jewish laws in order to be redeemed in God's eyes. Peter writes the Galatians, who have been misled by Paul, and sets them straight. Paul writes them to complain bitterly, not knowing that Peter had stabbed him in the back. Later on, he finds out and takes a more public stance against Peter. The cults continue to spread and the Gospel stories get tacked on from other legends so that Jesus ends up being a fully-developed different person than Simon of Peraea, who gets treated as a completely different historical messiah claimant by the time Josephus records his historical narrative.

Now I just made all of that up, and it probably wouldn't be hard for a competent HJ advocate to debunk it with the overwhelming mass of copied text that we possess as the historical record. My speculation doesn't fit the facts as well, but I could probably tweak it to meet some criticisms. That is how the mythicist case develops as a counterpoint to historicism. The debate comes down to a question of who has the best interpretation of a woefully-flawed historical record, and there is a lot more emotional commitment and tradition on the side of historicism. I concede that there may have been a historical HJ, although probably not the one described in the Gospels. Most of those tales could easily have been tacked on to help establish Jesus's bona fides as a Jewish messiah. I am not quite sure that the basis for the Jesus legend can be said to be historical, although it probably has some true roots in actual history. We may never know what the truth was.

 

[steeltoes]

Details are just that. Foundations are another story.

A martyred man at passover was more then typical for the time period.

So, therefore?

 

[steeltoes]

I see the argument for historicity as being that HJ is true, because that is the best interpretation of the available evidence. Much of the argument necessarily depends on chains of reasonable assumptions in which very clever scholars, with a good knowledge of the biblical literature and the times, tried hard to reconstruct the facts from copies of original documents. The copies were produced and filtered through a chain of human copyists who very strongly believed in the existence of a historical Jesus. Errors were made and some parts of the record were obviously tampered with to reflect the biases of the copying machine that preserved them. There is nothing we can do about the nature of the evidence, because we have no good archeological evidence or other corroborating materials.

If Paul existed in the first century, then there existed competing versions of the Jesus story shortly after the alleged crucifixion took place. I do not think there is any good reason to think of him as a purely fictional being, and he was the very first to mention Jesus worship in the historical record. Moreover, Pliny's and Tacitus's mention of Christians so soon after the second century started pretty much establishes that Christians had been preaching their beliefs in at least the late first century, but the few contemporary details in Paul's letters suggest he converted to Christianity shortly after the event of the crucifixion, although Paul never actually said that directly. There is one mention of Pontius Pilate in Romans, but that could have been inserted in the copying process, as could a number of other meager details that help us to establish dates.

It isn't too hard to imagine other scenarios that led to the reification of a fictional Jesus in the Gospels. Suppose that (Simon-)Peter and James really did exist, but the version of Christianity they taught was of an earlier crucifixion--maybe Simon of Peraea (he was claimed to make himself King of the Jews and was killed by the Romans and their established local leader, Herod.) James and Peter were Jews and still wanted Gentiles to follow Jewish law, but they preached a messianic version of Judaism in which Simon had been raised from the dead and deified after his martyrdom. Along comes Paul, who joins this long-established movement and starts preaching a distorted version of the cult in which Gentiles didn't have to be circumcised or follow other Jewish laws in order to be redeemed in God's eyes. Peter writes the Galatians, who have been misled by Paul, and sets them straight. Paul writes them to complain bitterly, not knowing that Peter had stabbed him in the back. Later on, he finds out and takes a more public stance against Peter. The cults continue to spread and the Gospel stories get tacked on from other legends so that Jesus ends up being a fully-developed different person than Simon of Peraea, who gets treated as a completely different historical messiah claimant by the time Josephus records his historical narrative.

Now I just made all of that up, and it probably wouldn't be hard for a competent HJ advocate to debunk it with the overwhelming mass of copied text that we possess as the historical record. My speculation doesn't fit the facts as well, but I could probably tweak it to meet some criticisms. That is how the mythicist case develops as a counterpoint to historicism. The debate comes down to a question of who has the best interpretation of a woefully-flawed historical record, and there is a lot more emotional commitment and tradition on the side of historicism. I concede that there may have been a historical HJ, although probably not the one described in the Gospels. Most of those tales could easily have been established to help establish Jesus's bona fides as a Jewish messiah. I am not quite sure that the basis for the Jesus legend can be said to be historical, although it probably has some true roots in actual history. We may never know what the truth was.

I don't think we have any way of knowing what the truth was either.

 

[outhouse]

So, therefore?

These people wrote in allegory and mythology when creating theology.

Not always but generally they did.

Thus, its more then probable a man was factually martyred at Passover and placed on a cross after fighting the corruption in the temple. Mythology developed in cross culturtal oral traditions and were later recorded as the mythology gained importance to their lives.

 

[oldbadger]

Yes id go for both Nazareth and Capernaum as their socioeconomic levels were simular.

Flax, your on the right trail. It is what the nets were made of, thus it would have been the thead of choice.

Dont be so sure about JtB clothes, there is no evidence of a camel hair tunic, nor would there be.

They didnt eat a lot of meat in Galilee less the Passover holiday, but Camel wasnt on the menu lol

I think it could be stated though, that he was and the emphasis, "he was poorly dressed"

Thanks for all this. You put me onto flax nets.... some time ago.

Great stuff about 'poorly dressed', so I like flax sandals, girdle, tunic etc.

I like the possibility of Jesus providing handyman services to the netters and (flax) toolmakers etc.,

Ok.... so JtB might not have had leather girdle etc.... sounds like you have put that description into the improbable box. No probs.

This is better stuff than arguing about the academics...... this works, because it moves forward.

 

[oldbadger]

I don't think Xians existed in the first century, and if they did, why would any Roman persecute these pacifists who had no problem with Roman authority?

Hi....

So..... was Paul writing to Messianic Jews? I don't think so, because he hammers on so about 'Christ'. See my point?

I still think (most of) the churches were (mostly) christians by 68CE......

 

[oldbadger]

I don't think Xians existed in the first century either. When did the gospels become known, late second century?

I think Paul was writing to Xians, and writing 'Christ' on every other page?
What d'you think?

 

[steeltoes]

These people wrote in allegory and mythology when creating theology.

Not always but generally they did.

Thus, its more then probable a man was factually martyred at Passover and placed on a cross after fighting the corruption in the temple. Mythology developed in cross culturtal oral traditions and were later recorded as the mythology gained importance to their lives.

Not to mention the literary traditions that the gospel writers drew from.

 

[steeltoes]

I think Paul was writing to Xians, and writing 'Christ' on every other page?
What d'you think?

Paul was writing to Xians?