How would an Historical JC be Defined?

[fallingblood]

Those would be mythicist maybe can answer this.

Why would Hellenist, Romans and Gentiles. Create a deity out of a poor oppressed peasant Galilean Jew from a poor hovel like Nazareth. Who learned under a homeless man eating bugs to survive.

Answer that with credibility, and I'm all ears.

You are creating a strawman. You are making a case that many mythers do not accept.

First, John the Baptist was not just some homeless man eating bugs to survive. Such a portrayal is dishonest, and simply is meant to make their case look more ridiculous than it is. That is not a fair characteristic.

And Jews also wrote about Jesus, and labeling all of them Hellenists, Romans, and Gentiles is nothing more than a distraction. It is a way to insult a group and dismiss them.

Even your description of Jesus is set up in such as way as to create another strawman. Not all scholars accept that Jesus was poor. James Charlesworth thinks that Jesus actually wasn't a peasant, and lived somewhat of a comfortable life during his ministry.

 

[outhouse]

You are creating a strawman. You are making a case that many mythers do not accept.

First, John the Baptist was not just some homeless man eating bugs to survive. Such a portrayal is dishonest, and simply is meant to make their case look more ridiculous than it is. That is not a fair characteristic.

And Jews also wrote about Jesus, and labeling all of them Hellenists, Romans, and Gentiles is nothing more than a distraction. It is a way to insult a group and dismiss them.

Even your description of Jesus is set up in such as way as to create another strawman. Not all scholars accept that Jesus was poor. James Charlesworth thinks that Jesus actually wasn't a peasant, and lived somewhat of a comfortable life during his ministry.

It was a question that needs to be answered, not a statement. So a strawman doesn't apply.

JtB is portrayed as homeless, and eating bugs in the NT.


Its a challenge for mythicist I personally don't think they can answer. Its also along the lines you and Angellous used to help me understand why mythicist fail.



On a side note Ben Witherington also promotes a man not a peasant and of some wealth. Which goes in the face of recent archeology that shows Capernaum was factually poor.

 

[Jonathan Hoffman]

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

Yes, and we do not know if earlier versions existed. . . and whether their content was the same or quite different. In any case there is not much evidence for a large Christian movement in the first century after the alleged timeline of the days of JC.

I think the Xian movement only gained recognition and traction after the Romans supported it as a means of unifying a diverse multicultural empire.

 

[fallingblood]

It was a question that needs to be answered, not a statement. So a strawman doesn't apply.

JtB is portrayed as homeless, and eating bugs in the NT.


Its a challenge for mythicist I personally don't think they can answer. Its also along the lines you and Angellous used to help me understand why mythicist fail.



On a side note Ben Witherington also promotes a man not a peasant and of some wealth. Which goes in the face of recent archeology that shows Capernaum was factually poor.

The wealth of Capernaum has nothing to do with whether or not a traveling preacher had some wealth. The economic status of any city as a whole has little to do with the wealth of a traveling preacher.

And I agree, no mythicist can answer the question you pose as it is a strawman. And yes, a question can be a strawman. You have created a view that mythicist don't agree on, and then try to force them to answer a position they don't accept. That is a strawman.

 

[outhouse]

.

And Jews also wrote about Jesus,

yes I can see how oppressed traditional Israelite Jews would write theology for their oppressors who butchered them after severe taxation, and the Romans Destroying their temple, the house of god himself.

Paul's movement was a Hellenistic movement. Paul himself a Hellenist

Gmark written probably in Syria was for a Roman audience clearly explained for non
Jews. With obvious Hellenistic influences ALL written in Greek.

Gluke is definitely a Hellensitic creation copying Gmarks Hellenistic work.

Gmatthew a unknown Hellenistic Jew, who copied the Hellenistic writings of Gmark.

Gjohn may have been originally from a traditional Jewish community, but I doubt it. It evolved Hellenistically so much it trashes Jews. We also know nothing about the compilation or unknown multiple authors from this Johannine community to even begin to state they were Hebrews.

and labeling all of them Hellenists, Romans, and Gentiles is nothing more than a distraction

Distraction? nope the truth.


The movement formed after people like Paul took his message to the Disapora and to Proselytes of Judaism. the movement grew from these types of Hellenist.

The movement is completely unknown in tradition Israelite Judaism or Hebrews.




You need to explain why not a single book was written in Hebrew if traditional Hebrews wrote a single book.

 

[outhouse]

The wealth of Capernaum has nothing to do with whether or not a traveling preacher had some wealth. The economic status of any city as a whole has little to do with the wealth of a traveling preacher.

And I agree, no mythicist can answer the question you pose as it is a strawman. And yes, a question can be a strawman. You have created a view that mythicist don't agree on, and then try to force them to answer a position they don't accept. That is a strawman.

If you have not noticed :cover:

Mythicist don't even agree with themselves

[facepalm not directed at you but at mythicist]

 

[Jonathan Hoffman]

I honestly wouldn't know. Were there more revolts around the time of Passover? You shouldn't jump to a conclusion merely because you think it sounds plausible to you.

Simon of Peraea, according to Josephus, was a would-be "king of the Jews", who was slain in 4 BC, the date some scholars think Jesus was born. He was allegedly a former slave of Herod and some of his followers may have been crucified, a common Roman punishment for slaves that rebelled. Messianic scholar Israel Knohl has claimed that this event might have served as an early basis for the Jesus legend, but I don't know whether he still holds to that belief. In any case, it all comes down to whose historical speculation sounds the most convincing. The earliest Jesus tradition, according to Bart Ehrman, was the "Son of Man" version in which the Christ figure was resurrected and became divine (adopted by God) only at the point of resurrection. Maybe Jesus was thought to be a reincarnated version of Simon. Anyone can make up plausible-sounding stories.

And that would still have been true if Jesus never existed, would it not?

Is that what you think happened? Had there been that many witnesses, I would expect the historical record to have produced more evidence than we currently have.

You mean that you do not find rags-to-riches stories inspiring? People wouldn't be interested in someone from humble beginnings to be resurrected as the salvation of all mankind? I don't know. It sounds like it would make a great movie script. The Greatest Story Ever Told, in fact. But you think they would have been embarrassed. I do agree with you that nobody wants to have their winky clipped.

No, you are not. You are just speculating on the basis of your very limited understanding of those times and the historical record. The earliest manuscripts that we use to reconstruct these stories were copies created about 1,000 years after the alleged event, and we know that they contain some errors and distortions. Moreover, the people in charge of copying and preserving the record were utterly convinced of a historical Jesus, and that bias was often reflected in the known scribal errors and interpolations. So it is hardly surprising that the best story we can construct from those records is that Jesus existed as a historical figure. And maybe he did, but the record that preserves the historical events is still severely compromised.

Simon of Peraea, according to Josephus, was a would-be "king of the Jews", who was slain in 4 BC, the date some scholars think Jesus was born. He was allegedly a former slave of Herod and some of his followers may have been crucified, a common Roman punishment for slaves that rebelled. Messianic scholar Israel Knohl has claimed that this event might have served as an early basis for the Jesus legend, but I don't know whether he still holds to that belief.

Excellent point that I hope to address in detail after I finish killing the spring weeds.

 

[outhouse]

Yes, and we do not know if earlier versions existed. . . and whether their content was the same or quite different. In any case there is not much evidence for a large Christian movement in the first century after the alleged timeline of the days of JC.

I think the Xian movement only gained recognition and traction after the Romans supported it as a means of unifying a diverse multicultural empire.

Romans were masters of multicultural subjects


The dating of scripture really isn't up for debates, less your talking about a few years. we have a very good idea of their creation.


We know earlier versions existed. We know Gmark is a compilation. And we know we are only left with a fraction of scripture that once existed.

 

[fallingblood]

yes I can see how oppressed traditional Israelite Jews would write theology for their oppressors who butchered them after severe taxation, and the Romans Destroying their temple, the house of god himself.

I will stop right here. What is a traditional Israelite Jew? And which scholars use that term?

 

[roger1440]

Those would be mythicist maybe can answer this.

Why would Hellenist, Romans and Gentiles. Create a deity out of a poor oppressed peasant Galilean Jew from a poor hovel like Nazareth. Who learned under a homeless man eating bugs to survive.

Answer that with credibility, and I'm all ears.

Here is picture of a homeless chick who won the Nobel Peace Prize in 1979. She did not have the financial means to rent or own her own home, therefore she meets the definition of homeless.
http://www.dw.de/image/0,,6066306_303,00.jpg

The canonical gospels do not specifically say, but in all likelihood John the Baptist was a Nazarite.

"Nazarites appear in New Testament times, and reference is made to them for that period not only in the Gospel and Acts, but also in the works of Josephus (cf. "Ant. Jud.", XX, vi, 1, and "Bell. Jud.", II, . xv, 1) and in the Talmud (cf. "Mishna", Nazir, iii, 6). Foremost among them is generally reckoned John the Baptist, of whom the angel announced that he should "drink no wine nor strong drink". He is not explicitly called a Nazarite, nor is there any mention of the unshaven hair, but the severe austerity of his life agrees with the supposed asceticism of the Nazarites." CATHOLIC ENCYCLOPEDIA: Nazarite

 

[oldbadger]

First, John the Baptist was not just some homeless man eating bugs to survive.

Questions:-
1. Did JtB have a home?
2. Did JtB eat locusts?

The deeper we dive into complicated academic complexity, so the more lost we may become?

 

[LegionOnomaMoi]

Fallingblood, do you have any thoughts on Gallatians 1:20, where Paul, after describing his 15-day visit with Peter and James, makes the assertion that he swears before God that he is not lying? Why would he feel necessary to deny he was lying? To me, that was a bit jarring, because (me being the skeptic that I am) it came off to me as "protesting too much" in the Shakespearean sense.

The lady might, but Paul is not continuing the previous thought. I would have thought that the use of the particle de indicated that, but perhaps here too your knowledge far surpasses mine, and you can explain why Denniston's classic text, or even Greek particles in the New Testament such that your analysis would be clear, and make Macbeth a better guide to the Greek here. And while you explain it to those people, like myself, who are incapable of your ability to understand academia and these texts, perhaps you might explain why the kinship construction used by Paul is here. Also, it would be nice to know why your comparison to Lady Macbeth here is relevant given both the kinship construction Paul used, and the completely obvious (except, that is, for Greek experts such as yourself) transition in Gal. 1:20 that give you this "jarring" impression.

So if you would explain history and Greek to an ignorant classicist who can't tell the difference between classical studies and real ancient historical studies, I'd love to hear your analysis of these Greek lines.

Given that classicists and biblical scholars are biased morons who can't match those with degrees in "ancient history", and your thorough understanding of the fields relevant here, I'd value such and explanation. So please explain to such an stupid biased moron like myself why your reading of the Greek of galations in the context both of the Greek language and of letter writing of the period would help those of us who lack your expertise to understand this text.

 

[steeltoes]

Doherty suggests that it's not likely that Paul's Lord Jesus Christ had an earthly brother and there is nothing in any of the epistles that support the idea that Paul's Christ had an actual brother.

• [SIZE=+1]"James, a servant of God and of the Lord Jesus Christ. . ."[/SIZE]

[SIZE=+1]Few believe that James the Just actually wrote this letter, but if a later Christian is writing it in his name, or even if only adding this ascription, common sense dictates that he would have identified James as the brother of the Lord Jesus if he had in fact been so, not simply as his servant. A similar void has been left by the writer of the epistle of Jude. (Few likewise ascribe this letter to the actual Jude, whoever he was.) It opens:[/SIZE]

• [SIZE=+1]"Jude, a servant of Jesus Christ, and a brother of James. . ."[/SIZE]

[SIZE=+1]Now if James is Jesus' sibling, and Jude is James' brother, then this makes Jude the brother of Jesus, and so he appears in Mark 6. So now we have two Christian authors who write letters in the name of supposed blood brothers of Jesus, neither one of whom makes such an identification. How likely is this?[/SIZE]

 

[steeltoes]

Besides, "brother of the Lord" is constantly pulled out of context.

11 For I would have you know, brothers, that the gospel that was preached by me is not man's gospel.[c] 12 For I did not receive it from any man, nor was I taught it, but I received it through a revelation of Jesus Christ. 13 For you have heard of my former life in Judaism, how I persecuted the church of God violently and tried to destroy it. 14 And I was advancing in Judaism beyond many of my own age among my people, so extremely zealous was I for the traditions of my fathers. 15 But when he who had set me apart before I was born,[d] and who called me by his grace, 16 was pleased to reveal his Son to[e] me, in order that I might preach him among the Gentiles, I did not immediately consult with anyone;[f] 17 nor did I go up to Jerusalem to those who were apostles before me, but I went away into Arabia, and returned again to Damascus.
18 Then after three years I went up to Jerusalem to visit Cephas and remained with him fifteen days. 19 But I saw none of the other apostles except James the Lord's brother. 20 (In what I am writing to you, before God, I do not lie!)

 

[fallingblood]

Questions:-
1. Did JtB have a home?
2. Did JtB eat locusts?

The deeper we dive into complicated academic complexity, so the more lost we may become?

We don't know if John had a home. It could be, as Tabor and some other scholars have suggested, that John lived in a cave (or made a home in a cave). That wouldn't be homeless.

Did he eat locusts? Maybe; however he would not have been the only one. In fact, it would have been quite common for the additional protein. And the idea that he only ate locust is unfounded.

The problem with John is that we do have very little information to go on (just the Gospels and Josephus). What needs to be done is to compare John to other ascetics. There were a number of them. It is also much more honest in a description.

To call John just a homeless guy who eats locust is only a way to discredit him and make him look insane. There is much more to John than that, and such a brief description, as Outhouse made, is dishonest.

 

[fallingblood]

Besides, "brother of the Lord" is constantly pulled out of context.

18 Then after three years I went up to Jerusalem to visit Cephas and remained with him fifteen days. 19 But I saw none of the other apostles except James the Lord's brother. 20 (In what I am writing to you, before God, I do not lie!)

It isn't pulled out of context. This is the actual context here. Paul goes to Jerusalem (an actual place here in the world), met with Cephas (Peter, who, according to verse 19 was an apostle of Jesus. Again, an earthly figure). And then met with James, the brother of Jesus. Lord referred to Jesus. Paul makes that very clear. And the term brother, in Greek here, refers to a blood brother. As in, James is the blood brother of Jesus.

This means that Paul must have put Jesus on this Earth, as he had a very real brother (which Josephus also confirms is the brother of Jesus).

 

[outhouse]

Here is picture of a homeless chick who won the Nobel Peace Prize in 1979. She did not have the financial means to rent or own her own home, therefore she meets the definition of homeless.
http://www.dw.de/image/0,,6066306_303,00.jpg

The canonical gospels do not specifically say, but in all likelihood John the Baptist was a Nazarite.

"Nazarites appear in New Testament times, and reference is made to them for that period not only in the Gospel and Acts, but also in the works of Josephus (cf. "Ant. Jud.", XX, vi, 1, and "Bell. Jud.", II, . xv, 1) and in the Talmud (cf. "Mishna", Nazir, iii, 6). Foremost among them is generally reckoned John the Baptist, of whom the angel announced that he should "drink no wine nor strong drink". He is not explicitly called a Nazarite, nor is there any mention of the unshaven hair, but the severe austerity of his life agrees with the supposed asceticism of the Nazarites." CATHOLIC ENCYCLOPEDIA: Nazarite

Understood.

But even the true definition of a nazarite is up for debate, let alone trying to define JtB

 

[outhouse]

I will stop right here. What is a traditional Israelite Jew? And which scholars use that term?

Excellent, we need to address this.

A Hebrew, a born and raised Israelite.

Not some Hellenist who worships Judaism and claims to be Jewish.


Was Judaism at this time multicultural?

 

[Copernicus]

It isn't pulled out of context. This is the actual context here. Paul goes to Jerusalem (an actual place here in the world), met with Cephas (Peter, who, according to verse 19 was an apostle of Jesus. Again, an earthly figure). And then met with James, the brother of Jesus. Lord referred to Jesus. Paul makes that very clear. And the term brother, in Greek here, refers to a blood brother. As in, James is the blood brother of Jesus.

This means that Paul must have put Jesus on this Earth, as he had a very real brother (which Josephus also confirms is the brother of Jesus).

From all that I've read, this reference to James as the brother of Jesus is one of the strongest pieces of evidence that people use to prove historicity. That is why mythicists try so hard to undermine it, and it is why historicists try so hard to defend it as a solid factual depiction. What interested me was Paul's denial that he was lying about it. Clearly, his veracity had been called into question. He does mention that someone was trying to attack his credibility to the Galatians, and this letter was his defense of his bona fides.

It was common to use the word "brother" to refer to a close associate in a "brotherhood" of men. Ehrman gives a number of reasons why he dismisses this interpretation of "brother", but I did not find them very compelling. He knows a lot more about the history and literature than I do, and I could choose to believe him on that basis. For one thing, he says that Paul never referred to Cephas as a "brother of Christ". But didn't Paul have something of a grudge against Peter? He considered James to be the true head of the religion. So maybe he had an ulterior motive for not giving Peter that label. Or maybe not.

Anyway, there are too many ways that this statement could be taken less significantly than historicists take it. Perhaps Paul really was lying, despite his denial. People who lie sometimes do deny that they are lying. Perhaps he never visited James and Peter, but he was completely deluded. Maybe the Galatians had good reason to suspect he wasn't telling the truth about his relationship with Peter and James. He certainly did have his differences with them. Finally, it could actually be an interpolation in the record that showed up in the intervening centuries between the original document and the copies that we now work from. Does that mean that we can conclude that the record was not a literal record of the truth? Not at all. The point of dragging out alternative speculations is only to highlight the weakness of the overall case, which is built on textual evidence alone. I do not believe that mythicism can be dismissed with the certainty that it has been merely on the grounds of a few passages in text that may or may not have been compromised.

 

[outhouse]

We don't know if John had a home. It could be, as Tabor and some other scholars have suggested, that John lived in a cave (or made a home in a cave). That wouldn't be homeless.

Did he eat locusts? Maybe; however he would not have been the only one. In fact, it would have been quite common for the additional protein. And the idea that he only ate locust is unfounded.

The problem with John is that we do have very little information to go on (just the Gospels and Josephus). What needs to be done is to compare John to other ascetics. There were a number of them. It is also much more honest in a description.

To call John just a homeless guy who eats locust is only a way to discredit him and make him look insane. There is much more to John than that, and such a brief description, as Outhouse made, is dishonest.

These are the details the NT paints about John for us. It has nothing to do with me trying to paint another picture.

There were very desperate times and very primitive people. It has nothing to do with discrediting him, and not my intent.


Eating bugs was normal and better then starvation, cultures all around the world not even hungry eat bugs to this day. Sorry living in a cave is still homeless.

It goes to show why would Romans make their poor enemies a deity

If you haven't noticed, not a single myther would dare to answer the question, because they cannot.