Quest for the historical Jesus

[Jayhawker Soule]

page #10 now. I will have to read it more then once, definately quite the bit to digest.

So far I like how she is using a in depth study of John in relation to the synoptics.

Her point on the oddity of a public execution juxtaposed to the apparently unencumbered functioning of the remainder of the sect is a powerful one. The subtext, buy the way, is the anti-Judaic quality of the Marcan narrative wherein Jesus was killed to appease the Jews rather than caution them.

 

[Desert Snake]

What steeltoes said.

Most of Christianity views the Bible as truth, not "allegorical fiction", wouldn't it cease to be a religion if read as fiction? I read various texts from different religions, it doesn't make me a follower of those religions, especially if they are Theistic.


"Cultural Christian", sure, but you're ascribing "mysticicm" to the Scripture...Why?

 

[outhouse]

It's a story. Stories are not considered lies, they are considered to be fiction and in the case of the gospels allegorical fiction.

It could very well be that the non-historical implications are that those that believe they are reading non-fiction are in fact reading fiction, in other words, they are simply mistaken.

Can it be known what this Jesus consisted of? Poor historical methods do not automatically mean Jesus is a complete myth, it just means that we may have no good leads and so are grasping at straws.

Scholars are not grasping at straws in many areas, his existance being one of them.

There are details missing about his life that historians study debate as they try and fill in missing pieces.

More is known about him then you give them credit for.

 

[Ouroboros]

When did one scholar become "most scholars"?

I think it was Gary Habermas who claimed that most scholars consider the 12 "historical facts" to be true. I think it even was his dissertation, but not sure.

 

[steeltoes]

Scholars are not grasping at straws in many areas, his existance being one of them.

There are details missing about his life that historians study debate as they try and fill in missing pieces.

More is known about him then you give them credit for.

No evidence has been presented yet, just rhetoric.

 

[outhouse]

Her point on the oddity of a public execution juxtaposed to the apparently unencumbered functioning of the remainder of the sect is a powerful one. The subtext, buy the way, is the anti-Judaic quality of the Marcan narrative wherein Jesus was killed to appease the Jews rather than caution them.

I think one point she didnt address is the possibility that Jesus followers so few in numbers, that the followers were not seen as a real threat, but the trouble maker had to go, just to ensure the money stayed flowing through the event.

With a small group and large crowds, "maybe" he was the only one visible while causing whatever disturbance he had caused. Sometimes people just crack.

The thing that bothers me, is in a sea of people at passovers, a small time village teacher/healer would be invisible in multitudes of other teachers and healer in attendance. These repeating trips she states would have given the authorities a backdrop of what he was about. I find it improbable due the crowds size during this period.


My personal view, is that he makes trouble and is dispatched, and set a example of what not to do by the authorities. If one tried messing up this payday for the temple due to the Roman infection, by starting trouble, one would find himself on a cross due to the high tensions, and the money at stake. We would also have exactly the same written material showing up we have in place.

 

[outhouse]

No evidence has been presented yet, just rhetoric.

No, the evidence is there, and plenty of it. Just certain people discount said evidence

 

[steeltoes]

No, the evidence is there, and plenty of it. Just certain people discount said evidence

This is what I mean, no one presents the evidence even though there is said to be so much of it.

 

[LegionOnomaMoi]

Amazing how many spontaneous "experts" there are when it comes to this topic.

And how little actual experts can be trusted to know anything about their fields

 

[outhouse]

Her point on the oddity of a public execution juxtaposed to the apparently unencumbered functioning of the remainder of the sect is a powerful one. The subtext, buy the way, is the anti-Judaic quality of the Marcan narrative wherein Jesus was killed to appease the Jews rather than caution them.

Here is one of Sanders view's. You know it but others that wish to learn can find value.

http://www.lastseminary.com/general-2nd-temple-judaism/Jesus in Historical Context.pdf

 

[Repox]

Bart Ehrman, a biblical historian, does an excellent job in his many books in showing gospel errors, therefore leaving doubts about the real Jesus. However, I believe Jesus was God. The truth may have been too difficult to understand. What if Jesus was God, and God is two entities? So, Jesus may have said something like, "you see me and you see both of us." After that, nothing Jesus would say would make sense. Humans cannot fathom a two headed God. lol

So, church leaders came up with the son of God idea. I believe Revelation 11 about the "two witnesses" is the true story of Jesus (God). However, it's to incredible to be believed.

As for the Old Testament, I don't believe there's any mention of God as a duality. Jews had a hard enough time comprehending the Lord, two Gods in one would have caused a huge problem.

 

[LegionOnomaMoi]

Bart Ehrman, a biblical historian, does an excellent job in his many books in showing gospel errors

Not really. He does a decent enough job of introducing some integrity into otherwise sensationalist junk of the type produced by Doherty, Freke & Gandy, Murdock, etc.

His scholarship is a different matter, but other scholars have managed to produce readable works for the public without his sensationalism and misleading statements.

 

[Desert Snake]

As for the Old Testament, I don't believe there's any mention of God as a duality. Jews had a hard enough time comprehending the Lord, two Gods in one would have caused a huge problem.

This seems sort of contradictory, if you think that Jesus is God then we aren't dealing with two Gods.
As to the OT, it is monotheistic.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

If one tried messing up this payday for the temple due to the Roman infection, by starting trouble, one would find himself on a cross due to the high tensions, and the money at stake.

You do not understand the function of the money-changers. It had zero to do with payday.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

Jews had a hard enough time comprehending the Lord, two Gods in one would have caused a huge problem.

Such dismissive contempt is more than a little upsetting.

 

[Brickjectivity]

Most of Christianity views the Bible as truth, not "allegorical fiction", wouldn't it cease to be a religion if read as fiction? I read various texts from different religions, it doesn't make me a follower of those religions, especially if they are Theistic.


"Cultural Christian", sure, but you're ascribing "mysticicm" to the Scripture...Why?

They are ancient writings. There was no 'Fiction' or 'Nonfiction' category in ancient times. An educated person was expected to extract the non-fiction from any fiction. Look at the hieroglyphs in Egypt and read an article about how reading them is more of an art than a science, yet they are non-fiction. You opened the book and determined whether it was fiction for yourself.

Lewis Carol's Alice in Wonderland was mostly fiction, but it wasn't all fiction was it? He deftly used fiction to make some good points. Genesis is mostly non-fiction and very well written, quite suitable as a scripture. By fundamentalist reasoning however, its not worth reading if you can't fit it into one of two categories. Its not a modern work but an ancient work, and it has to be read using ancient rules. You extract non-fiction from fiction.

 

[Quagmire]

I think it was Gary Habermas who claimed that most scholars consider the 12 "historical facts" to be true. I think it even was his dissertation, but not sure.

When I asked "When did one scholar become most scholars" I wasn't questioning the fact that most scholars believe in an historical Jesus (already knew that), I was questioning the other posters assertion that "scholars believe it because other scholars believe it" based on his accessment of a single author's work.

 

[AmbiguousGuy]

James: Either completely delusional or flat out lying/fiction

Yes, I think he wrote his book as fiction.

Matthew: Basically completely fictional // lying

No, I think he took Mark and revised it. He made it into a better tale. That's why there's language tracking. Such tracking appears nowhere else except in revisions, at least to my knowledge.

 

[AmbiguousGuy]

Why is that?

Bias and self-interest.

 

[AmbiguousGuy]

And how little actual experts can be trusted to know anything about their fields

What I find curious is that so many on the historical-Jesus side prefer to talk about the 'mythicists' rather than to actually debate the issue with them -- usually by appealing to the authority of some offstage scholars.

To my mind it is further evidence that the historical-Jesus side must not have solid foundations.

That's how I see it, anyway.