Why do we know so little about Jesus?

[Charity]

Paul refers to apostles named James, Peter, and John. The gospels name a brother of Jesus as James as well as two disciples named James. They are mentioned once along with their sisters by Mark and Matthew when Jesus disowns his own family, and then never heard from again. Acts mentions Mary with children but neither Luke/Acts provides the names of the brothers and sisters of Jesus.

Now, after Jesus' crucifixion how is it that James became a believer? Where does this notion come from? In Acts the brother of Jesus emerges as the leader of the church in Jerusalem? How so? Acts never provides the names of Jesus' brothers. His brothers were also involved? How so? People see first names that are the same and make assumptions, is that how this works?

Try Mark 6:3......Names the brothers....James, Joseph, Judas, and Simon.....

 

[Charity]

Paul refers to apostles named James, Peter, and John. The gospels name a brother of Jesus as James as well as two disciples named James. They are mentioned once along with their sisters by Mark and Matthew when Jesus disowns his own family, and then never heard from again. Acts mentions Mary with children but neither Luke/Acts provides the names of the brothers and sisters of Jesus.

Now, after Jesus' crucifixion how is it that James became a believer? Where does this notion come from? In Acts the brother of Jesus emerges as the leader of the church in Jerusalem? How so? Acts never provides the names of Jesus' brothers. His brothers were also involved? How so? People see first names that are the same and make assumptions, is that how this works?

Also try 1Cor 15:7, 1Cor 9:5, Gal 2:9, Acts 18:21-25, Gal 2:1-10

 

[dogsgod]

Also try 1Cor 15:7, 1Cor 9:5, Gal 2:9, Acts 18:21-25, Gal 2:1-10

Why? What's your point?

 

[Oberon]

Paul refers to apostles named James, Peter, and John.

And to James, Jesus' brother.

They are mentioned once along with their sisters by Mark and Matthew when Jesus disowns his own family

Not really. He says something disparaging about his home town, but neither Mark nor Matthew have him disown his family here.

Acts mentions Mary with children but neither Luke/Acts provides the names of the brothers and sisters of Jesus.

Yet Luke used Mark, and so must have known.

Now, after Jesus' crucifixion how is it that James became a believer?

There is no indication in the synoptics that James WASN'T a believer, but I happen to think that, like most of Jesus' family, he was at best neutral. However, the sect grew after Jesus died. How is it so hard to believe that one of the converts was Jesus' brother?

Where does this notion come from?

From Paul, for starters.

In Acts the brother of Jesus emerges as the leader of the church in Jerusalem? How so?

Talk about red herrings. I never said that the "leader" James in Acts is Jesus' brother. In fact, Acts clearly has at least two seperate people named James. Just like Paul, who only once identifies Jesus' brother, but mentions the "pillar" James alongside Peter as being a leader, Acts makes Jesus' disciple James a much bigger player than Jesus' brother, if we assume that the "other" James in acts is Jesus' brother. We don't have to, and Acts is never explicit. But Josephus, Paul, and Mark/Matthew are.

 

[dogsgod]

Talk about red herrings. I never said that the "leader" James in Acts is Jesus' brother.

Talk about sloppy. That was in direct response to this:

"In Acts, James emerges as the leader of the church in Jerusalem. His brothers also became believers and undertook missionary travels."

At least try to follow the discussion.

 

[dogsgod]

In fact, Acts clearly has at least two seperate people named James. Just like Paul, who only once identifies Jesus' brother, but mentions the "pillar" James alongside Peter as being a leader, Acts makes Jesus' disciple James a much bigger player than Jesus' brother, if we assume that the "other" James in acts is Jesus' brother. We don't have to, and Acts is never explicit. But Josephus, Paul, and Mark/Matthew are.

I see how all your scholarship know how works. We see the same first names and then make all sorts of assumptions.

 

[dogsgod]

First of all, I was disappointed to find that it was no easy task to flesh out the historical Jesus from the mythological god man that everyone knows of. I assumed a Jesus behind the mythology that was real and assumed it would be a simple matter of reading about what we know of him. I assumed some would have written about him when he was alive, a contemporary. Now I'm doubly disappointed, and not so much because my assumptions have turned out to be baseless, but because of the intellectual dishonesty that so called historians display. I want to believe there was a Jesus but I'm not about to settle for the special pleading, and the acceptance of a word here and a word there pulled out of the religious texts which either contradict everything else that we read or that could just as easily be interpolations, however unintentional they may be, simply for the sake of believing Jesus was historical. I'm sorry, but I can't buy into any of this. Because there is no historical record I'm not about to accept the mythology itself as an historical account, at least not unless there is something to collaborate some of these stories, or even one of them. I can live with my disappointment and I will always keep an open eye as I did when the James ossuary was discovered, and which again turned out to be yet another disappointment. Maybe someone will discover something one day, but until then, I guess the mythology alone will have to do.

 

[Dunemeister]

First of all, I was disappointed to find that it was no easy task to flesh out the historical Jesus from the mythological god man that everyone knows of. I assumed a Jesus behind the mythology that was real and assumed it would be a simple matter of reading about what we know of him. I assumed some would have written about him when he was alive, a contemporary. Now I'm doubly disappointed, and not so much because my assumptions have turned out to be baseless, but because of the intellectual dishonesty that so called historians display. I want to believe there was a Jesus but I'm not about to settle for the special pleading, and the acceptance of a word here and a word there pulled out of the religious texts which either contradict everything else that we read or that could just as easily be interpolations, however unintentional they may be, simply for the sake of believing Jesus was historical. I'm sorry, but I can't buy into any of this. Because there is no historical record I'm not about to accept the mythology itself as an historical account, at least not unless there is something to collaborate some of these stories, or even one of them. I can live with my disappointment and I will always keep an open eye as I did when the James ossuary was discovered, and which again turned out to be yet another disappointment. Maybe someone will discover something one day, but until then, I guess the mythology alone will have to do.

Indeed, you have very great faith.

 

[sojourner]

Indeed, you have very great faith.

Can't frubal you again, yet, but that was a very good call!

 

[sojourner]

First of all, I was disappointed to find that it was no easy task to flesh out the historical Jesus from the mythological god man that everyone knows of. I assumed a Jesus behind the mythology that was real and assumed it would be a simple matter of reading about what we know of him. I assumed some would have written about him when he was alive, a contemporary. Now I'm doubly disappointed, and not so much because my assumptions have turned out to be baseless, but because of the intellectual dishonesty that so called historians display. I want to believe there was a Jesus but I'm not about to settle for the special pleading, and the acceptance of a word here and a word there pulled out of the religious texts which either contradict everything else that we read or that could just as easily be interpolations, however unintentional they may be, simply for the sake of believing Jesus was historical. I'm sorry, but I can't buy into any of this. Because there is no historical record I'm not about to accept the mythology itself as an historical account, at least not unless there is something to collaborate some of these stories, or even one of them. I can live with my disappointment and I will always keep an open eye as I did when the James ossuary was discovered, and which again turned out to be yet another disappointment. Maybe someone will discover something one day, but until then, I guess the mythology alone will have to do.

A very eloquent apology for faith, indeed!

 

[Oberon]

I see how all your scholarship know how works. We see the same first names and then make all sorts of assumptions.

There isn't a need to consider Acts at all, in order to support this point. What Acts says about any James is irrelevant to Jesus' having a brother James, unless it provides direct evidence that he doesn't have any such brother. Unfortunately for you, Acts does no such thing. Which leaves us with Paul, who knew Jesus' brother, and Josephus as well as Mark/Matthew to attest. Which again nails the historical Jesus down to Paul's day, apart from any other arguments.

First of all, I was disappointed to find that it was no easy task to flesh out the historical Jesus from the mythological god man that everyone knows of.

That explains it. Too much work to actually READ the scholarship. Blogs are so much easier to comprehend.

 

[Charity]

Why? What's your point?

I was merely pointing out scripture that refers to the brother of Jesus....

 

[lockyfan]

Osiris, Baal, Adonis, Hercules, Tammuz, Attis, and Asclepius. These figures were believed to have once existed on earth, they were believed to have been killed, and believed to have risen shortly thereafter. Not at all unlike Jesus. And no, a real Jesus is not necessary for Christianity to have spread, Jesus Christ was not responsible for the spread of Christianity.

He actually said he was not going to be as great as others in that regard.

He was only on earth to minister to the Jews, his disciples were to minster to the entire inhabited earth (Matthew 24:14) and are suppoosed to teach andbaptise new people every year. That is the commands from Christ (Matthew 28: 19-20)

 

[Lucian Hodoboc]

Just on the logical thought process of God dying and then being raised after Three days does it make sense? no! its preposterous that God would allow even part of himself to die and then be ressrected, imagine the mayhem satan coukdh ave caused in that time had God not been fully compteant or even not been there at all.

That's because you're interpreting physical death as seizing to exist. Psychical death is not spiritual death. Jesus in spirit form never died. After His physical death he descended into the place of the souls and preached the Gospel to them before releasing the innocent souls and taking them to a place where they await the final judgement (we don't know whether that place is Paradise or some other intermediary place created for righteous souls).

 

[12jtartar]

Why do we know so little about Jesus?

Jesus chose his disciples from working men with no background as writers, or of education in the law or religion.

Working from the premises that Jesus was the Son of God, It would seem that this choice was no accident.

It would also seem self evident that this choice would have ramifications in how his teachings were to be spread after his death.

It might be asked who were aware of his teachings during his life time?

Obviously there were his chosen disciples; added to this were his retinue which included women folk, especially Mary Magdalene.

There was also the multitude that he spoke to; though individually they probably each remembered only one or two parables or instances of minor miracles.

There were also a number of his detractors, mostly religious leaders sent from the Temple to discredit him.


Apart from words that might have been recorded as evidence by his detractors very little, if anything he said, would have been written down.

Had he chosen his Disciples differently it might have been very different; a written record of his doings, sayings and teachings could have been recorded for posterity.

The Parable was his prime method of teaching; it is the easiest to remember and to retell, so that the meaning, though not necessarily the words, remains unaltered.

This way at a time with out books, these thoughts and teachings can be spread rapidly through out a population, educated or otherwise.

Had the words been written down at this time they would have been vulnerable to destruction and loss.

Undoubtedly many of his words were lost before it became safe to commit the remembered teachings to a written form.

It was at this stage that problems of authenticity arose, and also undoubtedly some wrong choices were made. It was a very difficult task to collate everything that had survived into a coherent form.

Gathering the words of Paul, which were conveniently recorded in his epistles was a comparative easy task.

Jesus teachings seem to be of two general types; those that followed and promoted traditional Jewish thought, and those that brought something new, or readdressed traditional teachings to give them a new understanding.
I surmise it would be safer to attribute to Jesus the “new and changed teachings” as true records of his thoughts, than it would be the traditional ones which every one knew anyway.

By the time they were collated, they had undergone some alteration and selection to be more acceptable to both Greek and Roman society and expectations.
For instance to be acceptable to the Roman Emperor, Jesus had changed from being portrayed as a poor man who has come to serve and save man, into a Prince in Majesty. This change process can be seen recorded in both the catacombs and surviving building decoration in Rome.


What then are new and reinforced messages that Jesus brought to us?
That God is love
That God will always forgive those that repent.
That Jesus referred to God as his Father.
That we should be baptised
That we should remember him in “Bread and wine” as at the last supper.
The Lords Prayer.
The Beatitudes.
That he was Crucified, as God ordained.
That we should do as he taught us.
That we should learn from his parables how to live our lives and behave towards others.

All these new things changed our perceptions of God, from one full of vengeance and wrath to one of love and caring and mercy.

Continued........


The Church, which eventually became formalised through the power of Rome; expanded and rationalised the new Christian Religion with its forerunner the Jewish Faith, by intertwining the old prophecies with the events of Jesus life. In the process the Bible was formed and selected from all the known religious writings.

Writings from many sources were discarded and many destroyed, including those from the ancient Gnostic sects who undoubtedly saw their own beliefs reflected in the teachings of Jesus.


What has come down to us undoubtedly includes much of what Jesus wanted us to understand about God.

It also includes a great deal that has been written by men trying to justify what they already believed, or could rationalise as true from earlier beliefs and writings.

Most of these added beliefs and rationalisations are not primary to be a Christian.

They pose some important but open questions…
Was Mary a virgin?
Was Jesus literally the son of God?
Is the Trinity a fact or a rationalisation?
Did Jesus Die and Rise again?
Is the Bible the literal word of God?

Some questions are even more vague…
Is the commandment to take the bread and wine in the communion any more than a remembrance?
What is Sin?
Will there be a tribulation?
Will we all rise from the dead at the last trumpet?
What is Hell?

All these questions and more were never addressed by Jesus…
Nor were they concepts likely to have been, or capable of being considered by his disciples.

They are all thoughts, beliefs and constructs that have been added to Christianity over time, in answer to genuine questions.

If it was sufficient for Jesus disciples, neither to know of, nor question these ideas, they can not be fundamental to Christianity, nor to the concept of Jesus son of God.


If Christianity is true, what does that say of other beliefs?
There is probably some truth in all religions…
However some have problems that are hard to rationalise.
This is particularly the case where a religion claims to have the whole, complete and written truth for all time.

I started by saying that Jesus chose Disciples who would not write down his words, and he chose to do much of his teachings in parables.
Parables have some distinct advantages over other forms of communication.
They do not lose their meaning on translation or being passed through different civilisations, they are easily remembered, they do not rely on an exact reproduction to carry the original message. They are not changed by time or advancement in civilisation.

The teachings and instructions Jesus left us are not a list of do’s and don’ts. As such they would be very incomplete. They are far more an ethos and a way to live our lives by following his example. They give a pattern to follow not a set of rules.

The exact opposite would be to rely on the written word, which like all language changes its meaning over time. Nor are words easily applicable to new situations or changes in civilisations. Such a message not only becomes fixed in time, but ossifies any civilisation that accepts it as a permanent truth… It is not a likely choice for God to communicate down the ages.

Jesus left us with all we need to know to be a Christian.
Discuss.....

Terrywoodenpic,
It is very evident why you do not know much about Jesus!!!
Do you know that more has been written about Jesus than Abraham Lincoln. Historians say there is more proof that Jesus lived and walked the earth, than there is tha Napoleon lived.
It is very clear that you have spent a great deal of time trying to disprove what the Bible says, instead of genuflection to the Only True God, praying for His Holy Spirit, that could help you toward Salvation.
Everything you have written shows that you consider yourself smarter than most, an aristophren, or at least a bel-esprit. Think about what the Bible says about the wise and intellectual ones, in their own estimation, Matthew 11:25, Luke 10:21. You see, God had His word written so that people like you cannot understand His word, only humble people can understand. Also no wicked can understand, Daniel 12:10. Consider what God thinks of worldly knowledge, 1Corinthians 3:18-20, 8:1-3. Have you prayed for God’s Holy Spirit to help you understand? 1Corinthians 2:1-14.
When a person considers himself wise, when he tries to reason from his own mind, he is really Doping Out what he thinks, because of Egocentric Predicament, for no matter how smart a person is in this world, he knows Nothing, when compared with The Omniscient God, Jehovah, Isaiah 55:8,9.
Jesus said that the only way to understand God’s word, is to become like a little child, Matthew 18:2-4.
It is very easy to see that you have been looking in the wrong place for truth, John 17:17, Romans 1:16-23, 1Corinthians 1:18-31. It is not the ones you would expect to be the ones blessed by God, it is the one that are the least expected that are God’s Peculiar People, Titus 2:11-14, Luke 6:20-26. Agape!!!

 

[djhwoodwerks]

When a person considers himself wise, when he tries to reason from his own mind, he is really Doping Out what he thinks,

You mean like this?

*** w07 1/1 p. 27 par. 9 “The First Resurrection”—Now Under Way! ***
9 When does the first resurrection occur? There is strong evidence that it is now under way.

*** w07 1/1 p. 27 par. 9 “The First Resurrection”—Now Under Way! ***
“Called and chosen and faithful” ones must already have been resurrected if they are to be with Jesus for the final defeat of Satan’s world. Reasonably, then, anointed ones who die before Armageddon are resurrected sometime between 1914 and Armageddon.


*** w13 7/15 p. 3 par. 3 “Tell Us, When Will These Things Be?” ***
3 For a number of years, we thought that the great tribulation began in 1914 with World War I

*** w13 7/15 p. 4 par. 4 “Tell Us, When Will These Things Be?” ***
4 Upon further examination of Jesus’ prophecy, however, we perceived that a part of Jesus’ prophecy about the last days has two fulfillments.

*** w13 7/15 p. 4 par. 5 “Tell Us, When Will These Things Be?” ***
5 We also discerned that the first part of the great tribulation did not begin in 1914.

Just a few among many, "reasoning's from their own minds"!

 

[Terrywoodenpic]

Terrywoodenpic,
It is very evident why you do not know much about Jesus!!!
Do you know that more has been written about Jesus than Abraham Lincoln. Historians say there is more proof that Jesus lived and walked the earth, than there is tha Napoleon lived.
It is very clear that you have spent a great deal of time trying to disprove what the Bible says, instead of genuflection to the Only True God, praying for His Holy Spirit, that could help you toward Salvation.
Everything you have written shows that you consider yourself smarter than most, an aristophren, or at least a bel-esprit. Think about what the Bible says about the wise and intellectual ones, in their own estimation, Matthew 11:25, Luke 10:21. You see, God had His word written so that people like you cannot understand His word, only humble people can understand. Also no wicked can understand, Daniel 12:10. Consider what God thinks of worldly knowledge, 1Corinthians 3:18-20, 8:1-3. Have you prayed for God’s Holy Spirit to help you understand? 1Corinthians 2:1-14.
When a person considers himself wise, when he tries to reason from his own mind, he is really Doping Out what he thinks, because of Egocentric Predicament, for no matter how smart a person is in this world, he knows Nothing, when compared with The Omniscient God, Jehovah, Isaiah 55:8,9.
Jesus said that the only way to understand God’s word, is to become like a little child, Matthew 18:2-4.
It is very easy to see that you have been looking in the wrong place for truth, John 17:17, Romans 1:16-23, 1Corinthians 1:18-31. It is not the ones you would expect to be the ones blessed by God, it is the one that are the least expected that are God’s Peculiar People, Titus 2:11-14, Luke 6:20-26. Agape!!!

What are you a Christian or a Jehovah witness?

It is clear that you have not read my post with any attempt at understanding what was written
As you suggest millions of words have been written about God and about the life of Jesus.
However very little has come down to us directly from the time when he was teaching.

Though I am a Christian, I do not recognise the Bible as Gods direct word. It is certainly the best record we have about the early Jewish beliefs about God. And it contains a large majority of what we know about Jesus teachings... It is, never the less, only the inspired but fragile work of man.

This in no way devalues its worth... It is all that we have... apart from the direct inspiration we all may find through Holy Spirit. and through prayer.

Doubts and questions are natural, they are spiritually healthy. With prayer they may lead us to greater understanding, and closer to God.

 

[Faithofchristian]

The reason why do we know so little about Jesus.

Because people do not understand what the Bible, Scriptures, are really about, Thereby people have no clue that the bible, scriptures are all about Jesus and why he came here and who Jesus really is.

God can not die, As people seem to think that God died.
The body of flesh of Jesus is what died, God being inside of the body of Jesus did not die. For God can not die.

God made himself a human body, then encased Himself inside the body, To come down here himself, to show people how to get it right.
Therefore you have Jesus is God in the flesh.

 

[proudpagan]

Therefore you have Jesus is God in the flesh.

Dude
The Bible says that Jesus denied he is God
Jesus spoke to a man who had called him ‘good,’ asking him, ‘Why do you call me good? No one is good except God alone.’ (Luke 18:19)

And he said to him, ‘Why are you asking me about what is good? There is only One who is good; but if you wish to enter into life, keep the commandments.’ (Matthew 19:17)

In the Hebrew scriptures, the ‘son of man’ is also used many times speaking of people (Job 25:6; Psalm 80:17; 144:3; Ezekiel 2:1; 2:3; 2:6-8; 3:1-3).

 

[proudpagan]

It was fortold in the bible at Isiah 7:14 that Jesus would be born of a Virgin.

(From my answer to one of threads in here )

The verse thought to be a prophecy appears at Isaiah 7:14 - "Therefore the Lord himself will give you a sign. Behold, a young woman shall conceive and bear a son, and shall call his name Imman'u-el."

Before you accuse me of fudging the verse by replacing virgin with "young woman" I assure you that I pulled this out of the most accurate translation of the Bible that there is, the Revised Standard Version. That this is the correct word used here can be seen from comparing how the word translated as "young woman" is translated in other places.

The Hebrew word is ALMAH (al-mah) and it is used 7 times in the Bible. Strictly speaking, it means young woman but depending on the Bible that you are using, it is translated as virgin, maiden and damsel, as well. There is another Hebrew word which is specifically translated as virgin. It is BETHULAH (be-too-lah) and it appears in the Bible 50 times. 38 times it is translated as virgin while the other 12 are spread out over the words maid and maiden. As you can see, there is some question if this word is properly translated.

Beyond the issue of translation is the problem of how the alleged prophecy sits within the verses and chapters around it. Here is some background behind the verse at Isaiah 7:14:

In the first verse of the chapter, we are given the historical context. It is the time of King Ahaz of Judah. It is not a good time for the kingdom as the two nations of Israel and Assyria are marching towards Judah to do battle. At verse three, we are told that the Lord says to Isaiah that he should go to meet King Ahaz and tell him to go and meet the other two kings. Isaiah is told to tell Ahaz that there is nothing to fear from the two kings as they will be defeated and destroyed.

In verse 11, the Lord tells Ahaz to ask him for a sign that these things would come to pass. Ahaz refuses, stating that he will not put the Lord to the test. In response to this, the Lord says that the sign would be given anyway, and that a young woman would bear a child and it would be named Immanuel.

If this were the end of the prophecy and a new subject was started, we might suppose that this is a prophecy of the coming of Jesus, even though Jesus' name is not used. Immanuel does mean "god is with us" but that does not constitute that this would be Jesus. There is more to the prophecy, however, as we see in the two verses directly following 7:14:

15 He shall eat curds and honey when he knows how to refuse the evil and choose the good.
16 For before the child knows how to refuse the evil and choose the good, the land before whose two kings you are in dread will be deserted.

We can see from these two subsequent verses that the whole purpose of the prophecy is that a child would be born in Ahaz's time that would be a sign that the two attacking countries would be deserted. Would a birth some 700 years later (when Jesus was born) have been any kind of sign to King Ahaz? No, of course not. He was long dead before Jesus was born.

Finally, we see that in the very next chapter of Isaiah there is a birth. We know that this is the prophesied child to be born simply based on the following two verses from Isaiah 8:

3 And I went to the prophetess, and she conceived and bore a son. Then the LORD said to me, "Call his name Ma'her-shal'al-hash-baz
4 for before the child knows how to cry 'My father' or 'My mother,' the wealth of Damascus and the spoil of Sama'ria will be carried away before the king of Assyria."

While we do not know the significance of the name Ma'her-shal'al-hash-baz, we do know that it can not be linked up with Jesus' name or Immanuel. We do see, however, know that this is the child prophesied in Isaiah 7:14 as verse 4 here makes the same claim as the verses following 7:14.


We see above that there are numerous problems with this being a prophecy of Jesus. The first and foremost is the translation problem. We see that Isaiah was familiar with the term BETHULAH and used it when he wanted to convey a woman's virginity. That he did not employ it at 7:14 seems to indicate that this is not what he meant for this prophecy.

In addition to this is the problem that the prophecy was framed in such a way that for it to be true, it would need to occur in the time of King Ahaz. Lastly, we see that the child is indeed born during Ahaz's time as chapter 8 shows us.