Quest for the historical Jesus

[Jayhawker Soule]

He traveled to the temple for passover where he caused some unknown trouble that had to do with money.

That pericope is almost certainly fictive. (It's one of the few things that Price got right.)

 

[outhouse]

That pericope is almost certainly fictive. (It's one of the few things that Price got right.)

It is stated that tensions were uneasy during these crowded Passovers. I dont think anyone would state the oppression not severe, and the governement in charge of the temple which was also the treasury were very corrupt due to the Roman influence.

Having a poor oppressed peasant get out of line over money standing up for the common hard working people would not be far fetched.

The gospels in general deal with quite a bit of money talk. I dont see him getting hung up on a cross for his theology, there would have been thousands of teachers going off.


I do understand the OT reffernce to table tipping may be fictive.


I see the passover events as the source for the oral traditions were left with. this due to the sheer number of jewish and gentile in attandance.


I know if we follow Crosson on this, he states it was a two stage demonstration, the entrance on a female donkey mocking Pilates entry, and then the main disturbace.

I find the night time arrest, all in line with what might have taken place to avoid rioting.


If you have a different version, im all ears.

 

[AmbiguousGuy]

This is most likely because you do not comprehend the intellectual poverty of your answer.

I'd like to spotlight this response for all readers of the thread.

If I doubted the historicity of Beowulf or Robin Hood, do you think I would receive insults for that doubt?

Nah. Most everyone would just shrug and go about their business, I think.

 

[Desert Snake]

I'd like to spotlight this response for all readers of the thread.

If I doubted the historicity of Beowulf or Robin Hood, do you think I would receive insults for that doubt?

Nah. Most everyone would just shrug and go about their business, I think.

What you don't seem to be getting is that you can't randomly compare historical or mythical figures like that, the cultures are different, the history is different etc.

Your response is a great example of the reasoning fallacy that the 'mythicists' are incorporating into their theories.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

It is stated that tensions were uneasy during these crowded Passovers.

outhouse, please don't pretend that you know anything about the Temple or the Period. On the one hand, the money changers played an extremely necessary role. On the other, few places would have been more heavily policed by both Roman and Jewish agents. Jesus had no more ability to 'throw out the money changers' than I would to throw out the beer vendors at Soldier Field.

 

[AmbiguousGuy]

OK, I'm curious, do you think that they lived in a different century, or not at all?

I don't think that question really makes sense when examined closely. Was there some long-haired preacher roaming around Judea before the first century? No doubt. Was one such preacher named Jesus? Probably. I understand it was a common name.

Think about Robin Hood. Was there some highwayman who gave the sheriff trouble and hid out in the forest? I'm sure there was such a guy. But does that mean that there was an 'historical Robin Hood'? I think that question is too vague to answer, really.

I think that Jesus was a creation of Mark or Q or maybe some sect of storytellers and that he was made from oral stories about ancient godmen mixed up with the idea of a Jewish messiah.

That's my best guess as of today.

 

[AmbiguousGuy]

What you don't seem to be getting is that you can't randomly compare historical or mythical figures like that, the cultures are different, the history is different etc.

Your response is a great example of the reasoning fallacy that the 'mythicists' are incorporating into their theories.

If only you had a little evidence or argumentation to offset my obvious ignorance, you might actually be able to make a case, rather than simply pointing out my obvious ignorance.

I'm guessing you are unable/unwilling to actually argue for an historical Jesus, yes?

 

[Desert Snake]

If only you had a little evidence or argumentation to offset my obvious ignorance, you might actually be able to make a case, rather than simply pointing out my obvious ignorance.

I'm guessing you are unable/unwilling to actually argue for an historical Jesus, yes?

No, but if you're saying there isn't evidence for a historical Jesus then I'm assuming that you don't believe the sources.

I could be wrong, you may simply not be aware of the references to Jesus.

 

[outhouse]

That pericope is almost certainly fictive. (It's one of the few things that Price got right.)

Almost done with this.

Messiah as Mishnah by  Robert M. Price

 

[AmbiguousGuy]

Why do you think that?

Oh, I have a fully-developed theory. A hundred reasons. But if you don't mind, I'd rather discuss with someone who seems less emotionally involved in the outcome.

 

[Desert Snake]

Anyway, we have to assume the bad intent/ignorance of so many pople to believe in the mythical Jesus that if we employ this cynicism then every historical figure from that period could be fiction.............Are you prepared to accept that reality?

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

If only you had a little evidence or argumentation to offset my obvious ignorance, ...

Obvious ignorance is a poor foundation for certainty. I can virtually guarantee (though not prove) that you are totally ignorant of the relevant literature and wholly uninformed on the issue in general, that you've never read a single text on the matter, and that what you know about historiography would hardly fill a complete sentence. Yet you arrogantly set yourself against the consensus of scholars that you've never read or even heard of and can counter only with ad hominem. It's actually rather sad.

 

[AmbiguousGuy]

No, but if you're saying there isn't evidence for a historical Jesus then I'm assuming that you don't believe the sources.

I could be wrong, you may simply not be aware of the references to Jesus.

Just for fun, assume that I am way more familiar with all these matters than you are -- that I can run circles around you regarding the evidence. Then you won't have to worry with my ignorance and we can discuss the issue itself.

If during our discussion, you discover that I am indeed ignorant of this or that matter, then you can point it out.

Wouldn't that be a productive way to move forward?

 

[AmbiguousGuy]

Anyway, we have to assume the bad intent/ignorance of so many pople to believe in the mythical Jesus that if we employ this cynicism then every historical figure from that period could be fiction.............Are you prepared to accept that reality?

If your message is directed at me, you'll need to include by backquote or at least my name. I don't want to interrupt if you're speaking to someone else.

 

[Desert Snake]

Just for fun, assume that I am way more familiar with all these matters than you are -- that I can run circles around you regarding the evidence. Then you won't have to worry with my ignorance and we can discuss the issue itself.

If during our discussion, you discover that I am indeed ignorant of this or that matter, then you can point it out.

Wouldn't that be a productive way to move forward?

Huh? I'm not that familiar with the issue of the historicity of Jesus, I've never studied it specifically, I'm not concerned as I believe Jesus existed anyway, your comments don't make sense, the references are on various threads on RF for instance, check out my thread asking this same question, people posted references there.
Why would I have to be an expert to argue my point?
There are only a few people on RF who actually know of the authors arguing for/against the historicity of Jesus.

 

[AmbiguousGuy]

Huh? I'm not that familiar with the issue of the historicity of Jesus, I've never studied it specifically, I'm not concerned as I believe Jesus existed anyway, your comments don't make sense, the references are on various threads on RF for instance, check out my thread asking this same question, people posted references there.
Why would I have to be an expert to argue my point?
There are only a few people on RF who actually know of the authors arguing for/against the historicity of Jesus.

Sorry, but I can't even follow what you are saying to me.

Do you want to discuss the historical Jesus or not?

 

[outhouse]

outhouse, please don't pretend that you know anything about the Temple or the Period. On the one hand, the money changers played an extremely necessary role. On the other, few places would have been more heavily policed by both Roman and Jewish agents. Jesus had no more ability to 'throw out the money changers' than I would to throw out the beer vendors at Soldier Field.

If you had read my reply, you might have noted I stated that I understand about the tipping being fictive due to the OT's influence.

And please while we are being civil here. Do not discount what your ignorant to regarding my knowledge. I have read many times over decent scholarships on pasovers in the first century. one could devote his whole lifes scholarship to these temple events. I have read them a few times as there is so much to grasp.


There not only would have been temple guards in general, but each table attendant probably would have had a guard and wrestled him to ground asap.

Its fairly certain this event could not have happened as written, it is why I generalized this as a disturbance, and have not once endorsed this.

 

[Desert Snake]

Sorry, but I can't even follow what you are saying to me.

Do you want to discuss the historical Jesus or not?

Sure, present your evidence, it's your thread.

 

[AmbiguousGuy]

Obvious ignorance is a poor foundation for certainty. I can virtually guarantee (though not prove) that you are totally ignorant of the relevant literature and wholly uninformed on the issue in general, that you've never read a single text on the matter, and that what you know about historiography would hardly fill a complete sentence. Yet you arrogantly set yourself against the consensus of scholars that you've never read or even heard of and can counter only with ad hominem. It's actually rather sad.

There are some decent little starter books out there on the issue of the (non)historical Jesus. Would you like me to put a little reading list together for you?

 

[steeltoes]

There is quite the bit of gray area in recreating a historical Jesus/Yehoshua. This person is completely diferent then the biblical Jesus. Right off the bat if he was here and you yelled out Jesus, he probably wouldnt know who you were talking too and probably never heard that name called to him.

There are a few things most scholars will agree upon but it is a very short list.

E.P. Sanders gives a much better overview on PDF if you can find it.

But here is my version.

Birth ...

... This trouble had him placed on a cross where he died.

OK, we can imagine the life of an itinerant preacher at the time in question although I would think that itinerant preachers with a few latchers on for a meal ticket would do quite well, especially the one we read about in the gospels since virtually every seen has him getting away from the crowds forming about him.

The baptism and the crucifixion, aren't we assuming what we are trying to prove by allowing that we know them to be historical? How have these scenes been corroborated, or have they?